Revision as of 23:08, 13 December 2020 by Renamed user 678947867(talk | contribs)(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bijdenhandje&oldid=994036618)
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.
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.
02:24, 8 December 2020 "Reverted 1 edit by 5.43.72.55 (talk) to last revision by Vif12vf"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user reported makes arbitrary and non-selective reverts of my contribution, giving no rationale. Probably one more sockpuppet or false-purpose generated account. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not needed for every statement. General true statements that are supported by logic only and that are useful contribution fitting in an article flow are welcome. --5.43.72.55 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Filing IP blocked 24 hours. They have been warring to add an unsourced statement about the meaning of 'independent bloc'. WP:V provides that 'Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.' The statement was
If considering the meaning of its name (Independent Bloc), this organized group of politicians can be regarded also or instead of 'real' political party – a political alliance or bloc (or coalition).
00:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC) "Please, read the summary. You have reverted by edit for no valid reason. It has not been removed, it was moved to the "People's Republic of China" section and added an obsolete source template for being 18 years old. Removed non-WP:NPOV phrase and added hyperlink to Capital punishment in China to the first phrase of the article. If you have any objections, use the talk page."
00:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC) "The phrase removed is repeated on the "People's Republic of China" section, better tagged as an obsolete source due to its old [18 years old] age."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
The colleague reverted my edit because he thought I had removed the sentence, when in reality I did not, so I reverted the edit and included his suggestion. Since it's 18 years old, a phrase consisting of "predict that the execution rate in China will increase" should not be on the lead, so I moved it to the PRC section and added an obsolete template. As for "China has one of the highest execution rates in the world" I thought that was not related directly to the article, so I added a "is a method of capital punishment in China" to the first phrase of the lead, since it's much better than simply stating a random facts about it. All of this was reverted for ""So then we are in agreement stop removing sections detailing Chinese genocides [sic!]" [1] even the [citation needed] template was removed from "first used in 1997". My colleague stated the "removal" of a "section" when in reality there was no removal (I only moved it and added a obsolete template due to it being 18 years old), hence the revert, he could have simply not seen that part. BunnyyHop (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I am the editor who is involved in the current dispute. I do agree BunnyyHop is making disruptive edits, and is not here to build an encyclopedia. BunnyyHop consistently removes sections of Marxist-Leninist atrocities, is a stated Marxist-Leninist, and has already had issues with biased editing both on Portuguese Wikipedia and on English Wikipeida. Although this at first sight might look minor with only 2 diffs over a period of less then 24 hours I think the content that was removed speaks volumes. BunnyyHop is a member of the PCP, or at least lives in Portugal, edits the article Portuguese Communist Party and stated that he himself was a member: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio(a):BunnyyHop. I don't think this user is here to build an encyclopedia. He seems here to only give a microphone and try to further the political cause Marxist-Leninism, trying to propagandize Wikipedia articles to be positive towards Marxist-Leninism or removing other sections on atrocities. Vallee01 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an extensive dicussion in the talk page of Marxism-Leninism which I don't recommend anyone to dive into, but [here] is a good diff to contextualize what's written above. Also, there was no removal of content in Execution van, there was an extremely old phrase which includes "predict". The text "Human-rights groups predict that the execution rate in China will increase because of mobile capital punishment" has been changed to "Amnesty International predicts that the execution rate in China will increase because of mobile capital punishment" and an obsolete tag has been added with the text "This is a report from 18 years ago. Did the execution rate increase?". --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, does this page have any 1RR sanctions? It appears as there have been only 2 reverts which do not constitute a report here under normal circumstances. Please move to the talk page if this indeed does not violate the 3RR rule. Thank you. Heart(talk)02:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[8]
Comments:
This user is disruptive and edit wars on multiple pages, the user doesnt seem to understand how wikipedia works. Looking at this page history, the user broke the 3rr against an ip user but is now editwarring with me.[9] I had warned them a few weeks ago on another page which i included in the report. Can something be done here? Magherbin (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed the Wiki guidelines. I've requested for page protection [10] because the page has been vandalized by persistent sockpuppetry as you can see [11], [12], [13] and after these accounts kept getting banned. The sock attempted to vandalize the page by using his IP and was doing the same thing by adding unsourced additions then made an official account called Rogeman123 and even reverted one of the Administers edit [14]. I was simply protecting the page then we settled our dispute and I told him the source clearly mentions Somali instead of "Muslim" or "Adal" [15] and he complied [16] but Magherbin has personal issues with me and decided to start an edit war with me so he can catch me slipping and create his false narrative that I was causing disruptive editing when the evidence I presented from above shows you the complete opposite. He also recently started an edit war with the user Ragnimo just today. [17] He once had an edit war with me and Ragnimo on Aw Barkhaadle page [18]. He launched a fake investigation on two individuals which eventually proved me and the other user were unrelated. [19]
This user simply has personal issues with me and is known for abusing multiple accounts in the past and was banned for it/ [20] Besides this matter has already been resolved and just reverted back to Magherbin's last edit and attempted using good faith before he reported me. [21] but this user doesn't know anything about good faith and just removes things he disagrees with without consulting us on the talk page. Ayaltimo (talk) 3:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I highly doubt you're misreading multiple sources on multiple pages, and since you removed my warning on your talk page [22] it seems you're well aware of your actions. Continuing to editwar on another page after WP:Hounding me by calling my edits vandalism [23] is not assuming good faith. This is what we call disruptive editing. The users issues go beyond the scope of this noticeboard but sticking to their edit warring habits, some sanctions need to be made here especially their clear violation of 3RR with the IP user. Magherbin (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing misleading and I'll explain why. You were sending edit warning messages on multiple users after engaging with them on multiple pages as you did with this user on the same day which says 24 of November [24] You are not only in dispute with me on that page but also with Ragnimo. We tried to conversate with you on discussion and made our points very clear while you barely made any attempt to challenge our sources but instead, you reverted our edits without consulting us. You are not supposed to engage in an edit war with multiple users and you've reverted the page multiple times in just under 24 hours against two users. [25] You were also engaging in an edit war with him again just today on here [26]. You're basically edit warring with multiple users on multiple pages and I find it ironic how you accuse me of disruptive editing. What I did was simply revert unexplained and unsourced additions produced by a sock puppet. When Reporter104 and his other sock called Parker8 got banned. He made a new sock called Lancer1295 and when that got banned. He began using his IP doing the same edit as his socks which is to add unsourced additions. I would revert his vandalism giving my reason [27] I wasn't the only one reverting the IP's vandalism so was the moderator called Materialscientist. [28] He then made a new account called Rogeman123 and even reverted one of the administers edits called Materialscientist. [29] This user is known for his persistent sock puppetry behaviour and I've requested a page protection [30] for the persistent sockpuppetry then you showed up engaging in an edit war with me all because we have a past and you can't seem to let go of your personal issue with me and that is not how Wikipedia works. We have to be a community and work together. Even after you did that I assumed good faith and reverted back to your last edit. [31] so the issue has been resolved between us but the commission should take action against you for engaging in edit wars with multiple users on multiple pages because that is a clear violation of wiki guidelines. Ayaltimo (talk) 6:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I would like to point out that User:Ragnimo has appeared on the Ethiopian-Adal war article and removed sourced content, these two editor have followed me on multiple articles to edit war and joined multiple discussions on talk pages [32][33]. Editwarring in tandem [34][35]. User:TomStar81 has also expressed concerns of meatpuppetng and closing admin of the SPI concluded there is off wiki coordination going on which explains why these users appear on the same pages [36]Magherbin (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:EdJohnston It seems like the user Magherbin is engaging in another edit war with another user [37] and the other day he was engaging with him on here. [38] I only simply reverted the IP's user edit for adding unsourced addition. [39] I wasn't the only one even another moderator picked up and reverted his unexplained and unsourced additions. [40] Magherbin simply followed me on that page and decided to engage in an edit war with me because he has personal issues with me but I reverted back to his edit to assume good faith and not play his game. [41] My issue with him has been resolved. However, this user is engaging in an edit war with multiple users on multiple pages and actions must be taken against him for his disruptive editing.
User:TomStar81 I don't know if you're trying to connect me with Ragnimo who you accused of being a sock puppet but the moderator has already cleared my name and confirmed I am unrelated to Ragnimo. [42] Matter of fact he reverted one of my edits because he shared a different opinion. [43] He even launched an investigation on me [44] but it turns the sock master called Shit233333334 who owned multiple socks all got banned instead. It's sad that you don't even know you're speaking to a sock master yourself. Magherbin got banned for abusing multiple accounts. [45] He is very likely a sock puppet belonging to Middayexpress when you review the analysis. [46] I will be launching an investigation on him since the evidence is very compelling. Ayaltimo (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Magherbin I was tagged onto this dicussion and above you linked to the Adal-ethiopian war article. I looked at it and the only thing i did was add a correct source to the page, that was missing it. Anyways leave me out of your disputes. You both can edit war eachother without including me into this. I don't have time.
Also don't understand how i can come back to you spamming my talk page for 1 single edit i made. For adding a source and then later you self-revert yourself? [47]. Both of you act like disruptive socks and troll accounts. Also i hope you know Wikipedia:No_talk_page_spamming and What you are doing is clearly WP:BAIT
TomStar81 Ayaltimo is most definitely a troll sock of Alaskalava. I have already launched a sockpuppet investigation against him and i am waiting for a CU to confirm things [48], a few disruptive troll socks i related back to Ayaltimo have been confirmed and banned/blocked.
You can see how Ayaltimo is actively trolling and his edits summaries make no sense [49]
FYI Magherbin has a history of continously edit warring with other editors[50] and has been blocked before for vandalizing the same pages. Click the links and see for yourself. Has a history of disruptive socking [51] , Both of them included sources that didn't state what was added to the page.[52] You can see it for yourself if you click one the sources added for them. He is actively engaging in the same behavior he is acussing others of. But thanks for the suggestion i will definitely weigh in on the Arbitration commite and mention Alaskalava/Ayaltimo and Magherbin/Lokiszm7 and others when i do. Add evidence. Ragnimo
User:Ragnimo he called you the sock. The accounts that you have accused me of has already been banned and were not related to me because I have been the most active in reverting their vandalism. A "troll" account wouldn't safeguard pages from disruptive editors nor contribute to articles that need more development. My edit summary makes sense I simply reverted back to Magherbin edit because the source was highly disputed and I didn't want to get into trouble for safeguarding that page too much. I don't know where you got your ridiculous idea from by tying me with Alaska Lava but I am also building a case on Alaska Lava for potentially belonging to MustafaO. I've already launched an investigation on Magherbin proving he's very likely a sock belonging to Middayexpress. [53] Once the CU closes I expect an apology from you for the ridiculous accusations you've made. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He can call me whatever , there is no evidence. When they finally run a CU check , it will show itself that you are Alaskalava. They only ran a CU check on those other accounts for a seperate reason and confirmed them with eachother and they are your other troll accounts, so all they need to do is a run a CU on you to confirm it.
Source was highly disputed? What are you even talking about? Whats the dispute in the source? You said one thing and the next you say another thing. You have zero consistency in your behavior, you are the disruptive person. You are not safeguarding anything. Cordless Larry even caught you disrupting the Somali article [54]. You added "According to "The origins of Somali" The Journal of African history states:". When you linked source was something else. You are clearly just mocking it. You're a jobless troll that follows people around and i can bet my money on that you are Alasklava doing this for retaliation. Trying to link Alaskalava to someone else doesn't make you not him and you can write these long incoherent ramblings it wont change it Ragnimo (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ragnimo stop with the personal attacks. You are not following the rules of Wikipedia. No Personal Attacks. Please refrain from personal attacks. I don't know how you get the idea of me being Alaska Lava but you also accused Hamza678yu and TBftf of being my sock but it turns out they belong to this sock master. [55] You were wrong about this one and you will be wrong about the Alaska Lava claim once the CU is complete then I expect a full apology from you because clearly, you don't know anything. As for Abdullahi Abdurahman's book. He was actually quoting from Lewis and Herbert when you check further readings. Go to page 65. [56] It wasn't disruptive editing but a clear misunderstanding. Stop asserting your false narrative as you did with the previous accusation against me. Magherbin proved on the talk page the source was a Wikipedia mirror copy. This source was disputed [57] so I simply reverted back to Magherbin edit. It's called using good faith and I was pretty consistent defending that page. Let the CU scan run and you'll see how you're wrong about me again. Ayaltimo (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Describing your behavior and then following up with evidence for it, is not personal attacks. See WP:AOBF I am still not wrong about you being a sock to Alaskalava and have provided evidence for it. Amanda didn't run a CU on you [58] and as she explains she was pointed to it for a seperate reason. If you are not Alaskalava why are you so defensive about it writing long ramblings?
There is no mention of Sade Mire on page 65[59] nor any qouting of her going on. Nor is there any mention of "According to "The origins of Somali" The Journal of African history states:" that you wrote down which is made up and completly nonsensical. All you see on page 65 is just the author summarizing the content of his book in his conclusion.
That other source you linked just now also had nothing to do with what you added on to the page.
On page 65 it says in the further reading section. Lewis, Gerbert. "The origins of Galla and Somali." The Journal of African history, volume 7. That's where Abdurahman references his source when he mentioned the origins of Somalis. Clearly, you don't know how to check the source which makes you the bigger troll between us.
When you said "You're a jobless troll that follows people around" that was clearly a Personal Attacks which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.
How can I be Alaska Lava when he believes the Somali clan's origin are Arabs. [60] and my sources suggest Somalis are native to Somalia. [61] Now the moderator has proved me and Alaska Lava are unrelated. [62]. Ayaltimo (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Three editors are warned for edit warring and alerted to the new Horn of Africa discretionary sanctions (User:Ayaltimo, User:Ragnimo and User:Magherbin). If any of you continue to revert and don't wait for talk page consensus, you are risking a ban from the topic. There is apparently a dispute whether to say 'Ethiopian' or 'Abyssinian', and a dispute whether to say 'Adal' or 'Somali'. The page at WP:DR advises what to do in a case like this, and if you don't follow that, sanctions are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Krutapidla2, and why does he keep posting disruptive and slanderous edits in violation of Wikipedia policies? Multiple people have asked him to stop, including me. He has only redoubled his efforts, in what appears to be a personal vendetta. He has formed a single purpose account for purposes of attacking the aforementioned page. His sole contribution to Wikipedia has been a series of attacks. Please just look at his account history.
Unlike Krutapidla2, I am not a paid editor. I am not an editor or expert of any sort with respect to Wikipedia. I am, however, the subject of this page he has chosen to vandalize. I reached out to right a wrong and correct a slanderous posting on my page. What I received, instead, was a torrent of attacks from Krutapidla2.
Krutapidla2 appears to be a disgruntled paid editor himself who is accusing others.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User talk:89.247.252.171 is short enough to read quickly. These are actually warnings against section blanking, not edit warring, by three editors who are not me; plus my warning that the IP is now being discussed here at AN/3; and a personalised request to read about what edit wars are and why they are pointless. I'll put the current version here, just in case further edits confuse the issue.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:User talk:Tariku Tagel is now "indefinitely blocked"; it's possible that the IP is the same person. In terms of substantive work to clarify editing conflicts, see my latest edit to the talk page in which I point to the sourced info that we have and the fact that this is not a Manichean (good vs bad) situation in terms of the info available, and point to what seems to be a possible overview.
At least a temporary block until this IP user (if s/he is not Tariku Tagel) takes the time to understand elementary Wikipedia principles would seem necessary to me. Boud (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The IP user has started talking on the talk page of the article. It's probably worth waiting 24h or so to see if s/he has started to get the basic principles of Wikipedia editing. Everyone has the right to have a chance to learn. Boud (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Result: IP blocked two weeks. There is an ongoing dispute about responsibility for the massacre. But it is unlikely this can be addressed by deleting mainstream media reports from the article. Most likely the IP is User:Tariku Tagel evading their block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – 48 hours. This user is unlikely to succeed in replacing the term 'African-American' with something else all across Wikipedia. Next block is likely to be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[77]
Comments: Three more reversions by a previously blocked editor who refuses to engage on the talk page. The issue appears to be about the unification of the structure of Unilever: it was unified to a single structure with a head office based in the UK on 30 November 2020. The IP keeps changing it back to how it was (UK/Dutch). I have no idea why the IP wants do do this because they will not engage on the talk page even though I opened a discussion there. Dormskirk (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you EdJohnston, I can assure you that I am not a disruptive account, I am only trying to make articles clearer and nicer. AlexB4 is not showing any proof on why my edits should be deleted, the reason why I reverted his changes is because he is not specifically telling me what is wrong with my edits, he is only showing me some WP. Andrei-Williams-2005 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: Well I approached the page protection noticeboard for protection for the page to prevent reverting while consensus is still to be achieved and the dispute be resolved. The admin said this would be the more appropriate place to bring this up. So could we implement a page protection at least? Alex (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the rush and there is no risk of imminent damage to articles. This basically a question of styling. Come back if you receive consensus for a change on one of the articles, and others won't let you do it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Result: No action for now. Report again if the problem continues. See WP:Dispute resolution for steps you should be considering. User:Alex B4, you need an exact description of the edits you consider to be wrong and you should be submitting them for discussion on article talk, so others can weigh in. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – 6 months for edit warring. The IP user has been blocked as long as one month for disruption since November 1. See also their edit filter log. They don't seem to care what anyone else may think and they don't care about being blocked. They just remove all the notices and keep going. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[94]
Comments:
Editor is also making an unreferenced changetoFlag of Albania to try and prop up their edit, complete with inflammatory anti-Serbian edit summary.
Comments:
Just to make it evident, the Talk page edit was made AFTER the unwarranted Plainsite edits were made repeatedly despite me implementing a revision with the updates that were sourced by reliable third party independent sources (i.e. the second link from above). QRep2020 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Persistently adding content with little to no encyclopaedic value, with little to no sourcing, going back a week now (including 4RR within 24hrs). This is an SPA, that has only made these same repeat additions to this page, has not edited any other page, including talk pages. An earlier 'welcome' message posted to their tp gained no response, same for the 'soft 3rr' message posted to their tp. This user will not engage. - wolf02:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[102]
Comments:
Tenebrae included a primary source in addition to a secondary source to verify a claim. Later, a consensus not to include a primary source when a secondary source is already present, which reinforces WP:RSPRIMARY, was generated per this discussion. After I removed the primary source, Tenebrae repeatedly referenced an irrelevant guideline (i.e., WP:PRIMARY) and told me that there was no consensus to remove the primary source. KyleJoantalk16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not file this report based on any 3RR violation; the report has to do with Tenebrae edit warring against an established consensus to enforce an existing guideline. KyleJoantalk18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, I was about to offer User:KyleJoan a compromise suggestion before taking this editor to ANI, a filing KyleJoan and I even discussed. Now, I'm not so sure, given this spurious 3RR complaint and the fact that — as I demonstrated already to KyleJoan, so they are aware of it — their forum-shopping and claiming a consensus based on two comments within only a few hours does not change policy. Perhaps WP:BOOMERANG might be in order for the untruthfulness, the forum-shopping and the false 3RR filing.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: My reversal of his edits asking to take discussion to talk page: e.g. [110], [111], request on user's talk page: [112]
Comments:
The edit-warring is over an image on the page. The image in question is a depiction of the Almoravid commander Abu Bakr ibn Umar from the 1413 portolan chart of the Majorcan cartographer Mecia de Villadestes. Although the identification is only probable rather than certain (nothing on portolan charts is certain), it is supported by the surrounding labels and inscriptions on the chart, and this identification has been proposed in various secondary sources who have examined the chart (e.g. La Ronciere (1925), Cortesao (1975)).
Alas, this image is a headache since it seems to offend racist sensitivities. Because he is depicted with a dark-colored hue, that apparently offends people who believe that Abu Bakr was not Black, that North Africans are not Black, etc. and so have insisted in removing the image repeatedly from this and other pages. Never mind whether he was or wasn't actually Black, a Medieval Spanish cartographer chose that pigment for his own reasons. What is important is that the placement, labels and inscription sufficiently support the identification.
The IP above is only the latest a series of IPs who have tried to remove the image, believing it is "fake", with accusations of "Afrocentrism" or some such nonsense. It could be the same IP who removed it four times before last year (language is similar):
The last IP came to my talk page to protest on Nov 7 [117]. On my talk page, I gave him some of the justifications for the identification ([118]) (he didn't reply to it).
Although the IP changes, the tone is similar, and I believe it to be one and the same person.
This IP might also be the same person as User:Zakaria the Riffian, who created a user account on January 10, 2019 to do a bunch of edits on Berber topics (he only edited on two days - Jan 10, 2019 and Sep 30, 2020). He was the latest to delete the image on Sep 30 2020 [119] with similar language ("Image is false"). The IP may have forgotten his login to the Zakaria account, or is sockpuppeting.
Now he is back, with another IP, again with the same language, reverting it repeatedly. I have repeatedly asked him to discuss the image in the talk page. The IP has refused, and insists on deleting it.
I don't believe it is earnest failure to understand he is edit-warring. I believe he is the same person behind the IPs that tried to delete it several times earlier. I don't believe he is interested in discussion.
To prevent his deleting it, the page was semi-protected for a couple of days by User:Doug Weller, but the IP immediately returned upon expiration and deleted it again. I would like to request his edit be reversed, the image restored and the page semi-protected or fully protected for longer, if not indefinitely. Thanks. Walrasiad (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Mohammad785' edits were definitely unhelpful (CIR maybe?), and I wish he had gotten the point the first time round and posted on the talk page instead of reverting. But then, I can't say I'm happy that when he did eventually bring up the issue on a user's talk page, instead of receiving an explanation, he was blankly reverted. Can't we do a bit better than that? – Uanfala (talk)15:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, 14 reverts in the space of two days. This is not a normally productive user who's just lost it today and needs a short block to cool down. This is a user who's refused to get the bare basics. Indef for CIR? – Uanfala (talk)17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Warned You both need to go to the article talk page and discuss this matter. If this matter returns to this board, neither one of you may be pleased with the result. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[147]
Comments:
Porterhse is attempting to edit a MOS violation into a GA-rated article. The linking isn't a huge deal to be honest, I would have let it through if the MOS wasn't so clear cut on the matter. Porterhse's disregard for MOS guidelines, consensus based editing and the 3RR policy is more of an issue at this stage. Two editors have reverted him with a full explanation on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The user has done SIX reverts within a 36 hour perdiod, logging out of their account to mask the 3R. The user does not get involved on the talkpage. Several other users have tried to stop their editwar but they keep on reverting and using only the word disruptive behaviour in the edit history. User has been informed but they have removed the {{subst:an3-notice}}tag from their talkpage here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijdenhandje (talk • contribs) 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this topic exists but here's my take. I noticed his disruptive edits which Youngforever reverted because he messed with the format of the page and believed him to be breaking WP:3RR, so I reverted him. He does not seem to understand MOS:ENTO and continued to revert, and did so five times in a short space of time. He then accused us of being the same person which is not true, I am from the UK while Youngforever is American. His claim of "several other users" is patently untrue because there was only one person who made the exact same edit as him out of nowhere which was reverted around 24 hours before he appeared today to make those very same edits. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're grasping at straws and have no evidence to back up these bogus claims. It's not possible for us to be the same person, the technology doesnt exist to teleport between countries within the space of minutes, this isn't Star Trek. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Above statement by the user from his IP is untrue as can be seen in the edit history. Evidence is here and here. As can be seen in the edit history user has a questionable history of reverting. Only telling other people in the edit summary to stop THEIR disruptive behaviour, rather than explaining what they are doing or participating on the TP of the article in question. Bijdenhandje (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided evidence of anything to back up any of the claims you're making. This user [172] who made the same edit as you less than 24 hours ago appears to be under investigation for sock puppetry here [173]. I'd love to know why that account was dormant for over four years only to make the same edits as you. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided no evidence for your location so it does not really matter what the location the IP you are using is. There are clear signs of quacking here. Last time I checked they didn't use tunneling aboard starships. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using a static IP address which rarely changes, as my edit history shows. So far you've only brought false accusations and assumptions to the table. If this is all you're offering I'm done here and I'll leave it up to the admin. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YoungForever has done nothing wrong here, and they have MOS:DASH on their side. When inputting a range—for example, Monday–Friday—you use an en-dash, not a regular hyphen. The filer of the report should be the one warned or blocked here. Amaury • 21:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NO they have six reverts in 36 hours, read the history. They were involved in an editwar with multiple-users. The only thing they did was write:"stop being disruptive" (or simular words) in the edit summary. They were not involved on the articles talkpage. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to bring this discussion back ontrack. Two of the quoted reverts were me reverting the reporting user because he was being disruptive, another was me making a WP:DUMMYEDIT to correct myself as at the time he reverted three times. Youngforever technically has only made two reverts of the user in question. The other two examples are bogus and aren't reverts whatsoever. I think we can all agree that this report never should have existed as its baseless and without merit. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Edit warring can happen whenever. You can revert a total of five times, but all five of those times could be spread out across three different days; however, that would still be edit warring. YoungForever has not violated WP:3RR, though. To break 3RR, you need four or more reverts within the span of 24 hours. Amaury • 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just on a side note: they are counting two different edit, I did withint about a minute, as two different reverts. I could have done them in a single edit but they are different issues. There are no reverts from other people in between the edits. So I don't see how its possible to count them, other than for the use of WP:POINT. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing the edit history is not some kind of secret file. Anyone can look into it and confirm that they started editwaring with another user yesterday. Also there was no mention of a guideline in the edit summary. Only insults about being inconstructive. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make accusations of insults, then you need to provide specific diffs and not expect people to just look around and hope they know what you're talking about, as otherwise you're just making baseless claims without evidence. Now, I took a look at the history of Young Sheldon and can see no evidence of insults from YoungForever. Amaury • 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boomerang. The filer is both wrong on the merits, and is making a non-WP:AGF accusation of editing while logged out with zero proof. FTR, the IP acts nothing like YoungForever so there's almost no chance it's the same editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are the odds of some random IP-user stumbling across some random article and having knowledge of this guideline?
There was no mention in the edit summary of this guideline, all they did was writing insults while reverting. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're leaving me little choice here. I used to edit here under this name [175]. I had a bad experience here and gave up using an account to go IP only after a few months had passed. That's your entire argument destroyed. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments are destroyed by providing evidence not by linking a random user account. It could be you, it could be someone else, it could even be one of many accounts you own. And no I am not saying that you do. Just pointing out the flaws in your 'argument'. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can request that an admin geolocate the IP attached to the account. I haven't personally used the account since I gave up editing Wikipedia regularly. But they will see that we're both from the same town. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bijdenhandje: If an allegation of a 3RR violation is an insult, then how do you propose we sanction the insults you have made against YoungForever, by alleging sockpuppetry? I think it's time to drop the stick and get back to productive editing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bijdenhandje: Again I say, drop the stick. I'm willing to close this report with no action. On the other hand, if you keep going, I'll take a look at the article's edit history again and sanction the obvious 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There were never any insults to begin with. Saying an edit is disruptive is not an insult. YoungForever probably could have linked to the guidelines in their edit summary, but their reverts and reason for reverting were still correct. However, as C.Fred notes above, it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Focus on something more productive. Amaury • 21:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This and this is how you should handle situations like this. That's what prevents conflicts. Insults are what start conflicts. If they had done it Schazjmd's example then there would have been no editwar yesterday and there would have been no insults. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Have you already forgotten what you wrote in one of your responses above? You have provided no evidence for your location so it does not really matter what the location the IP you are using is. There are clear signs of quacking here. Last time I checked they didn't use tunneling aboard starships. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC) That right there is an accusation of sockpuppetry. Without evidence, to boot. Amaury • 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've accused us of being the same person multiple times on this report. You've even quoted edits I've made and placed alongside Youngforevers in your initial report. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Using threats is very counter productive. Please don't do that again. A lot of this could have been avoided by not making insults and informing the users instead. They way Schazjmd did in their revert is the correct way. Threats or insults are not the way to de-escalate a situation. I am not aware of the english moderator guidelines but I don't think this is appropiate. Bijdenhandje (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, there were no insults. I acknowledge that YoungForever could have linked to the guidelines, but their reverts were still correct and he did not use insults anywhere. And I am failing to see the threats that C.Fred is allegedly making. Saying that he'll block you because you're refusing to drop the stick and move on to more production things is a warning, not a threat. I would seriously consider listening, unless you want to be blocked. Amaury • 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amaury, I don't care if I am being blocked after being threatened, cause there is arb-com for that. A block does not change the situation, threats only escalate it. Apparently logging-out to use an IP-adress is seen as sockpuppetry on EN-wiki. On NL-wiki it requires logging into an actual second account, because an IP-adress is not an account. You can't sanction someone for not following an essasy. Even if I did intend to accuse them of sockpuppetry, which is clearly not the case. Schazjmd already resolved this issue ten minutes after I filled the disruption. So this entire discussion is irrelevant given their appropriate use of the edit summary. I do not agree with your opinion on insults, that's all I have to say. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The initial insult on my talkpage here did not contain any reference to MOS:ENDASH what so ever. I removed it and explained in the edit summary that it was posted on the wrong talkpage. The second sjablon was even more insulting, I did not read orange sjablons or warnings when they look like a harrasment to me. In stead of an editwar, there should have been information on the talkpage of Young Sheldon or in the edit summary. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a screenshot of Wikipedia notifications from my email address which will match up with my talkpage. [177] I haven't logged into the account in almost a year and have no intention of doing so(I don't feel comfortable doing so anymore). Here's another screenshot showing my account name and IP address which you can geolocate to the same location as my current IP. [178]. Can this we're the same person stuff be dropped now? That's not true. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption at the article appears to have stopped. Perhaps everyone should take a breath (it's just a stupid hyphen/en dash that doesn't really matter to the reader) and get on with constructive editing. Schazjmd(talk)22:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No violation – 3RR was not broken. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Page protected – 3 days. User:Krutadpidla2, please get consensus on Talk for the material you keep trying to add to the article about the SEC issues. Consider asking at WP:BLPN what is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – 48 hours. This user is unlikely to succeed in replacing the term 'African-American' with something else all across Wikipedia. Next block is likely to be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Warned You both need to go to the article talk page and discuss this matter. If this matter returns to this board, neither one of you may be pleased with the result. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
