Page: International sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Osterluzei (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]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments: This user writes with a huge bias towards Switzerland and even when I tried to discuss it, it took multiple attempts (I also wrote on the users German page [8]) till the user responded but the user kept undoing my edits. Some of the biases included only stating half of the information of the sources (e.g. the allegations but not the response by the government) but also things which were not even true according to the sources that were used. If I include the critic points towards Switzerland and also the fact that only this one agency makes these accusations and no one else from the US government, the user just removes it (there was also a backstory before the war in Ukraine btw.). The user also only refers to one single article and not the articles of the discussion in the Swiss newspapers.

The article is no longer as biased as before, because I completed some of the missing information that was left-out by Osterluzei, but still everyone who reads the article thinks that Switzerland is one of the main places for sanction evations, which is not true (and not one government said that this is true). Switzerland was also put on the list of "unfriendly nations" by Russia because of the implemented sanctions. By law Swiss people have to report the money of sanctioned people. That is why a lot of the money went to places like Dubai. This should be mentioned in the article, Switzerland follows the sanctions. The user deletes it. There is a critic point regarding the attorney-client privilege, which made it possible for Swiss lawyers to move money to offshore entities without noticing the government in the past (e. g. panama papers) - which should be of course mentioned - but that is not the same as hiding sanctioned people's money on Swiss banks. The user deletes it again. The user also broke the 3 reverts in 24 h rule--Tensorproduct (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify further things, there was a conference hosted by the Helsinki Commission where also a Swiss law professor talked and they mentioned some explicit critic points (I posted the source). One explicit critic point was that Switzerland should do more by applying its own sanctions (not just the EU sanctions so that more money is frozen) and a second point was the mentioned attorney-client privilege.

I think these explicit critic points that are part of the basis of the accussation are important. However Osterluzei doesn't want them to be included with the argument that: a) it's bad style and b) quote: we have defined the scope of these entries, Switzerland or the Helsinki commission do not account for such a big part in this discussion. - Which in my opinion is neither a valid nor a qualitative argument (besides where was this defined explicitly..?). This quantitative argument is solely an excuse to not include information that Osterluzei doesn't want in the article.

That the user did not want to discuss things until I warned him several times to not only revert long edits is for me proof, that the user doesn't want to write an encyclopedic article but rather creating a certain political picture about Switzerland. And again, before I started rewriting this section, only half of the information of the sources was included and things that were not even true (see the talk page: for example that "the report by the embassy was from 2022" - which is nowhere stated in the sources). And before I edited, the highest estimate that exist on total Russian wealth in Switzerland was used as "a fact" in the article, even though it's just an estimate and there are multiple of these estimates.--Tensorproduct (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. And edit warring has not resumed. No prejudice against reporting in the future if this recurs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, no comment on the subject itself and the reverting of long edits without having a proper discussion? Reverting on the basis of shady reasons? As far as I know this is against the rules of Wikipedia. At least this is what it says in the German WP rules. I thought if it takes 24 h to solve this case, there would be at least a comment on the content itself and the unsubstantiated reverts of long edits, not just the argument of not breaking the 3 revert rule.--Tensorproduct (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a more appropriate subject to take up at AN/I. Yes, it's not desirable behavior. But this noticeboard says "edit warring", and that's all we're discussing here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And at the place where I requested before this to the administrators I was told I have to ask here. But it's ok, I will leave completly the English wiki and only write for the German and French one.Tensorproduct (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Talk:Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Second time that this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akshaypatill deleted a section, single handedly deciding that it must be removed, without following up on it whatsoever. I had posted a warning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1111876827 on his talk page when he did it the first time. There are multiple previous occasions when he has been warned by others as well

Diffs of user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahm%C4%81stra:_Part_One_%E2%80%93_Shiva&diff=prev&oldid=1111621995

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahm%C4%81stra:_Part_One_%E2%80%93_Shiva&diff=1111878896&oldid=1110730136 undid revisions by several editors

Warnings on user's talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1065083022 (by another user)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1111876827

There are several other instances when this user makes unanimous decision about what should and should not be on wiki. Excuse my imperfect editing it's the first time I am making this type of post. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:18C9:4CA2:565:E1F4 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections @Bbb23. Can you help me add the warnings with a proper link to the specific section? Also, this user has so many other edit wars but I am not efficient in sourcing them. If you have the time, will be super appreciated. I haven't quite seen such a vandal before. People delete edits, sentences, but removing entire sections that too on talk pages! Never seen before. Thanks a lot to you again! 2A04:CEC0:1184:58FD:257B:49B:2DFD:ABFB (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

When User:Akshaypatill resumes editing I hope he'll respond to this complaint. The IP editor says above "There are multiple previous occasions when he has been warned by others as well". He also removed text from talk pages here in March 2022 at Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. On that occasion he was warned by User:Fowler&fowler that he might be reported for POV-pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. This isn't even my edit-[9]. This user is using the talk page as forum to propagate his so called boycutt gang. And he has been reverted multiple times, but he keeps posting the same again and again. DaxServer had removed the same content calling it nonsense. [10], [11].

EdJohnston, Fowler had thanked me for that removal, it was something we should have posted on talkpages.- [12].

And for the POV pushing part the warning was given in the moment of heat. An admin had checked that at the time on Fowler's request- see [[13].

Saw your ping and at a quick glance, while the discussion is really long and somewhat repetitive, the involved editors do seem to be discussing mostly sources and content and (again at a quick glance) appear to be open to compromise. So I don't think there is a need for admin intervention yet.

Check these archieves out if you want (these discussions are too too long) - [14], [15], [16] Akshaypatill (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here [17] Fowler tagging me along with some others, requesting to keep an eye on the article after that incident and warning. - Akshaypatill (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I perceived the posts from the user to be as a WP:NOTFORUM discussion and had removed it saying so (in the first removal). When the second removal is revert, I had let it go and didn't do anything further - perhaps I was wrong in determining it to be NOTFORUM in the first place? If there is a disagreement on my edits/removals, please let me know — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. There is a discussion going on here and meanwhile the user User:Akshaypatill deleted the section again + deleted another edit from user at the same time on the same talk page! Here ^[1] 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F @EdJohnston (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. It was by mistake. I see you have already restored it with a little different wording.

Also, I will request the reviewers to carefully check the actual diffs he provided. One of the diffs he has provided isn't even mine.

Akshaypatill (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but not sure it was a mistake as you added a comment to the edit: "(Restoring revision 1111894015 by DaxServer: Last good. " 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think i copied one diff from +1/-1 edit. As I mentioned there are several such edits from this user but I am not efficient in sourcing them. More than happy to get some help on this. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I and DaxServer too had removed - [18]. I perceive it more like as mocking. I am really busy IRL. I wish, I had utilized the time I spent explaining this things here to make some productive edits. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a complaint about deletion of talk threads. I expect this report is going to be closed without admin action. If deletion of talk threads continues, we will probably get a giant ANI complaint that will rage for a week and achieve nothing. So please consider carefully before deleting any other talk threads. Admins won't spend hours trying to decide who is behaving better on a talk page. Try to improve the article, please! (See WP:DR). EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation per above. While this could, as Ed implies, go very wrong if it continues, it so far has not gotten to the point where I feel a block is necessary, even on a talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys for your time :) Have a nice day! 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Dyson spheres in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: LeaveMeAlone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Official wiki from the developers, this is not a random wiki.. You are committing vandalism, by removing this sourced information."
2. 01:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "It is the official wiki by the game developers themselves, if you want to remove it, talk to the admin."
3. 23:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "I am not going to play silly games, its sufficiently sourced, if you have a problem with it, talk to an admin."
4. 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Nonsense! They are OFFICIAL Wiki's, and you can just google it, see it on their own website, YouTube, and everywhere else."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dyson spheres in popular culture."
2. 02:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Regarding the mention of Star Trek Online */ new section"

Comments:

WP:3RR vio: user repeatedly adding unsourced content to article. Their only attempt at referencing the content was in the edit summary of their original edit, which contains links to Fandom wiki pages. Fandom wikis are not reliable sources according to WP:UGC.

User did not respond to the post I made on the article talk page and apparently has no interest in collaboration or discussion, evidenced by their statements to "talk to an admin" in the edit summaries of their reverts. Uhai (talk · contribs) 02:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With this user's behavior (see their edits to my talk page as well) combined with their username and the contents of their userpage, I argue that this user is WP:NOTHERE and should be indefinitely blocked. Uhai (talk · contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leavemealone2 partially blocked from the article, any more personal attacks will bring a siteblock. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update LeaveMeAlone2 siteblocked for a week for personal; attacks. It any of this behavior recurs after the block expires, the next block will likely be indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: International recognition of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Ktrimi991 relying on Twitter is not important. I showed you that one from Jamaica turned out to be false."
2. 06:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Still these Twitter accounts mean nothing. Those were months ago. Also sorry about deleting your account. I just pasted it on there and something got it deleted."
3. 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "I doubt that Twitter posts should be used only news sources and foreign ministry confirmations are better."
4. 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111945737 by Uniacademic (talk)"
5. 18:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111919976 by Uniacademic (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Suriname reconfirmation */ Cmt."

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Gusano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Planetjanet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Planetjanet

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

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

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

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Malformed report, both editors have been edit-warring, already protected by Bbb23. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) There's a helluva lot of edit-warring going on by Planetjanet and an IP (not the reporting IP), as well as edits by new registered users. I would block Planetjanet but they weren't warned about edit-warring until after their last revert; however, they are warned that if they revert again, they may be blocked without notice. I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bbb23: The word gusano is at the center of streamer drama between Hasan Piker and Destiny (streamer) with both communities brigading or attempting to brigade Wikipedia, so it's a good semi-protect. Uhai (talk · contribs) 20:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record—and I of course cannot prove this—but I dislike both of those streamers pretty much equally. I am not in either of their communities, and I would not be doing this if I didn't think it was a tendentious and wrong categorization of the word to call it an ‘ethnic slur.’ Planetjanet (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Religion in Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saynotobiasim (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. Special:Diff/1112152448
2. Special:Diff/1112074164
3. Special:Diff/1112070022
4. Special:Diff/1111800782
5. Special:Diff/1111435343
6. Special:Diff/1111430104

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments:
The user is removing sources that dont fit his agenda I even suggested a compromise which he reverted even a admin by the name of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosguill has been involved in the talk page to who suggested I come here as the user is refusing to listen in the talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LionAjk (talk • contribs) 13:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the report formatting. No comment on the merits of the report. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 13:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely Clearly here only to publish their personal interpretations, blocked indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: Note: Adding this other revert [21] after the report was made. So up to five now! Second edit: Another three reverts here: [22]. Up to 8 reverts now! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC) to 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "I am fixing and cleaning the articles and you kept on reverting. Why can't you use your mind properly? Do you want this article strictly controlled and monitored by yours?"
3. 17:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "why can"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Removal of content by Raymarcbadz */ new section"

Comments:

This user has a history of edit warring and disruptive editing across Olympic related topics. For this particular article, over 6,000 characters were removed, which I objected too as they were removing specific references (along with other errors). They were reverted three times, and have now started reverting the edits in chunks (the two most recent reverts). I think the user isn't WP:HERE and instead of replying to the discussion, they started another thread with a borderline personal attack [23]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, why did you report this to me? I am fixing other errors of the article in which you want to keep them. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What references are missing before you reverted them back? Should you put them in the squads article instead? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have exceeded the 3RR limit, as stated before you must discuss on talk page whenever in doubt. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 18:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which talk page should I discuss? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Rodney Regis Baker, a new account, started edit-warring on the article as well. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note . 1) Magnatyrannus has made five reverts all today and sent me a warning showing he knows about the 3 revert rule. 2) An IP has just reverted ME which I find highly suspicious. Rodney Regis Baker (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The IP is probably you given that you continued edit-warring and edited while logged out as to seem like a different user. I would never loutsock given that I promised not to do that in my unblock request. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Well shall we do a CHECKUSER request then? Or are you afraid to find out the results? Oh and by the way. What's the drill here? That IP reverted me and produced YOUR NPOV problematic revision. Didn't it? Rodney Regis Baker (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP geolocates to the United Kingdom, not Canada, so it can't be me. Also, CU cannot be used to link an IP to an account. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's UK then it can't be me either unless my arms are so long that they span the Atlantic. You made five reverts chum. Rodney Regis Baker (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't, because you wanted to make me seem like a 3RR violator when really I was just reverting less than three times. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. The RRB account alleged above to be a sock has been blocked indef. Since we do not do sockpuppet investigations here, we cannot treat the two accounts as one and thus Raymarcbadz did not violate 3RR (but this should not be taken as a judgement that they have been acting collegially as they have assuredly not been). If someone wants to pursue this they may do so at SPI. As for the IP, it can be investigated; the limitation is that it cannot be publicly identified as a sock, and thus any CU would have to be done via a private request. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filed an SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodney Regis Baker Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Giorgia Meloni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "unjustified reversal"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC) to 20:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "Unjustified reversion. Multiple reliable sources describe this party as far-right. Deleting it is vandalism and indicates clear political bias."
   2. 20:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 20:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 18:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC) to 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Giorgia Meloni."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was warned twice and also edit-warred on Brothers of Italy. Vacant0 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I've blocked from article space only, so hopefully they will take part in discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Anton Drexler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AU79G11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24] 22:24, 25 September 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25] 22:50, 25 September 2022
2. [26] 22:56, 25 September 2022
3. [27] 22:58, 25 September 2022
4. [28] 23:02, 25 September 2022
5. [29] 23:05, 25 September 2022
6. [30] 23:07, 25 September 2022
7. [31] 23:23, 25 September 2022
8. [32] 23:31, 25 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments: See similar edit warring behavior at Economy of Nazi Germany:

1. [36] 21:52, 25 September 2022
2. [37] 22:02, 25 September 2022
3. [38] 22:06, 25 September 2022
4. [39] 22:14, 25 September 2022
5. [40] 22:39, 25 September 2022

Generalrelative (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And see AU79G11's talk page for an utter refusal to do anything but repeat the same facile arguments. Per WP:AGF, I'm am going to have to assume that AU79G11 is pretending to be that stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of Malayalam films of 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stan Lee 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [48]

Comments:
Declined Reported user has not edited the article in five days. Yes, he has made the same edit a couple of times over the last month and a half. But no one has, as not noted above, yet resorted to the article talk page to resolve this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiki Maintainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [57]

Comments:
No 3RR violation but a slow moving edit war on Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. Wiki Maintainer is also being very uncivil, just read the edit summaries of the provided diffs, admin action may be appropriate to take on that front as well. W42 02:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Blocked and warned for personal attacks. The block is sitewide, based on the PAs, despite their extremely narrow editing focus.. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batreeq (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. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

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

Comments: User has added Arabic native name as the official name of Asmara which is not supported by any sources. Despite been warned user has continued with slow edit warring for long period.

• Stale. Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages: Coffee Lake, Comet Laake, Rocket Lake, Alder Lake Comet Lake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Artem S. Tashkinov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Coffee Lake
• Comet Lake
• Rocket Lake
• Alder Lake

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

• Coffee Lake
• Comet Lake
• Rocket Lake
• Alder Lake

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LeaveMeB#In_regard_to_Intel_CPUs_articles [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Artem_S._Tashkinov&oldid=1112715840

Comments: The user has been disruptive, violated the 3RR rule on multiple pages by removing tables that were added for consistency across pages. The user has refused to cease even after another user, Pension Pennerglück, came to my defense and disagreed with the user in question. He still did not cease when he was clearly in the minority and came out with personal attacks against both of us.

Let's talk about these edits in detail:

• A "consistency" argument is purely made-up/falsehood. No other Intel CPU articles have ever followed this style.
• No new information whatsoever.
• Tables have become extremely large both vertically and horizontally and also they are terrible for mobile users.
• Tables now contain a ton of duplicated information which was moved out of the tables to make them smaller and easier to read.
• These tables have existed in this form for over a decade.
• The user tries to copy a style of AMD Zen CPUs articles which has been disputed.
• The user introduced the changes without consulting with other active editors.
• The user provides no rationale for these changes other than to make the tables look "pretty". His other arguments are squarely invalid, including "missing RAM information" and missing release dates (both are provided).
• These changes serve no purpose whatsoever.
• No existing editors have been invited to review these changes. The mentioned user, Pension Pennerglück, has not been an active editor ever. His opinion cannot be considered relevant.

Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only people that have disputed the AMD tables is you and you have been taking it out on other people for disagreeing with you. That's like citing yourself as a source. You also don't seem to realise that the tables that you reverted to also don't fit on mobile because essentially no tables fit on mobile. There is a fix for "mobile unfriendly" tables: scrolling. The existing AMD tables work perfectly fine on mobile and there should be consistent tables used for AMD and Intel. Other Intel pages like List of Intel Core i5 processors and List of Intel Core i7 processors already use AMD-style tables but you, and only you, are fighting against creating consistent tables across both AMD and Intel and between Intel pages. Just because something has existed before is not an argument because then anything can be justified no matter how bad it is. You could make that argument logically for undoing every edit that has ever been made because there has a previous version that existed before. You can't handle that you are in teh minority and have been taking it out on others. LeaveMeB (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) The existing tables are easier to scroll than monstrosities you've turned them into. 2) Scrolling is not and has never been a fix - that's not an argument. 3) The existing AMD Zen articles have never worked for mobile. 4) You continue to provide ZERO justification for adding duplicate information in the tables which already exists.

Speaking of "minority". You're again lying through your teeth as you're making this up. The other user you're referring to has not been an active editor of Intel CPU articles ever. At the same time you have deliberately avoided pinging any existing active editors.

Let's dial your edits to the maximum, shall we? Here's the info list for 13900K. Why not include the following as well:

• Vertical Segment
• Use Conditions
• Max Memory Bandwidth
• Direct Media Interface (DMI) Revision
• Max # of DMI Lanes
• Scalability
• TJUNCTION
• A ton more - there are basically over 50 data points.

Who decides what's important and what's not? Who decides what to include for each CPU? The tables serve the purpose of providing data points which are drastically different across CPUs. You arbitrarily included the same information over and over which is relevant only for you. WP is not your personal blog platform.Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are incredibly exclusionary and disrespectful to newer editors. It doesn't matter how many edits they have made, their opinion is still valid as every Wikipedia editor is meant to be equal. You are incorrect as Pension Pennerglück has edited Intel articles such as Raptor Lake here and they have also edited AMD articles which should not be disqualifying like you seem to believe. You were disruptive with AMD tables and you are also being disruptive with Intel pages which you feel you have totalitarian ownership over. You do not and others must be permitted to contribute.

The information that should be included is the most important parts like release date, price, clock speeds, memory support, GPU, socket, and power which are the most important for distinguishing between CPUs and can affect user interaction. These are universal specifications that are commonly discussed by media outlets. You are strawmanning and being personaly vindictive. LeaveMeB (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to get personal. You continue not providing any arguments for your edits. You continue not providing any rationale for duplicating arbitrarily data which you personally find important. Here's my final argument. 1920x1080 desktop resolution, old vs new. With your edits the table becomes harder to read, both larger vertically and horizontally with a lot less data on the screen. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your image really doesn't prove your point. Firstly it doesn't make sense for CPUs to be organised in descending order like you wouldn't organise a bookshelf Z-A. Secondly, your table has the unneccessary branding column which could be used for something actually useful and product segmentation could be more clearly distinguished with a blue line. The table you prefer is also not "mobile friendlly" and uses the same number of columns with less information. LeaveMeB (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the 25th time: your edits add zero new information. Your edits provide zero new useful information which is not already there. You arbitrarily decided what to duplicate. For mobile CPUs you specified the socket. No other article on Wikipedia does that. Why? Because mobile CPUs have been soldered since forever. This "information" is 100% irrelevant for the user. It's even irrelevant for OEMs. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're now calling me "personaly vindictive" - that's an insult/ad hominem. Speaking of "release date, price, clock speeds, memory support, GPU, socket, and power" everything is there already in the articles. For the 25th time: your edits add zero new information. Your edits provide zero new useful information which is not already there. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeaveMeB: You were Bold, you were Reverted, now it's time to Discuss (see WP:BRD.) You tried to make some changes, and someone reverted you. At this point the onus is on you to take it to the talk page and get consensus for your changes, not to keep edit warring. You have not left any talk page messages on the articles to discuss why you think your changes should be made and you have not sought to get consensus there. I sense a boomerang coming your way here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Per above. There really isn't anything to distinguish these two editors on this one. The accounts are a different story. I'd be open to an extension of the LeaveMeB block given that that account was created less than two weeks ago and almost at once got heavily involved in this with a level of wikiknowledge unusual for a new editor. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder if LeaveMeB has edited here before. Canterbury Tail talk 20:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: this other account's edits, their similarly stilted grammar, and LeaveMeB's touting of their support above, all look a lot like sockpuppetry. Storchy (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:49, 15 September 2022
2. 20:50, 15 September 2022
3. 20:50, 15 September 2022
4. 20:50, 15 September 2022
5. 20:50, 15 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: formal warning by User:Thryduulf: "You are formally warned that further instances of edit warring, including slow motion edit warring, will result in sanctions."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my discussion and also someone else's

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [65]

Comments:
User reverted multiple other users, despite being given an official warning that future edit warring will result in sanctions, and also ignoring the talk page discussion. --Dallavid (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Mahsa Amini protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.155.8.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]

Comments:

For some obscure reason, this IP keeps on disrupting the original revision, changing "Iranian" to "Iranian-Kurdish", completely disregarding WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS and most important of all; MOS:ETHNICITY. This might be a WP:SPA. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obscure at all, we are discussing it here, please feel free to participate: Talk:Mahsa Amini protests#Addition of all of her names.

"This might be a single purpose account", are you joking? Look at my edit history! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: Had this user been warned about 3RR? —C.Fred (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No but this IP was already well aware of the rule; "You've also broken the 3RR by removing this content a total of 4 times in the past few hours.". As for the section, I have already read it, and it still remains obscure. The IP doesn't actually seem to have an actual argument / specific reason besides the usual "why shouldn't we add it?". Her ethnicity is already mentioned in the body of the article (so nothing is being "obscure or hidden" as the IP claimed there), but it shouldn't be in the lede per MOS:ETHNICITY. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned {{uw-3rr}} placed on IP's user talk page. IP would be subject to a block for any further reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the warning, but Matrayasna (talk · contribs) is over the WP:3RR rule, and I warned them of such on the talk page. See: here, here, here, and here. I also tried to talk with this user on their user talk page, as well. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This information was originally added by @Leaky.Solar: [71] and those edits were based on consensus reached from the Death of Mahsa Amini article, then repeatedly reverted by Mitrayasna (talk · contribs). Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? A link to it would be helpful. M.Bitton (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I should have been more clear. I meant that the IP was doing this without having achieved any form of WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My question was to the IP who is claiming that Leaky.Solar's edit was based on consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long thread: Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#More on the reverted revisions of @HistoryofIran. There is a vote all the way down, but basically, the same text that was agreed upon was being used for both pages, but then repeatedly reverted for some reason. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That thread was about whether using her Kurdish transliteration or not in Death of Mahsa Amini (another article), which by the way, did not reach any WP:CONSENSUS. Your latest two reverts were unrelated to that as well [72] [73] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but that thread has nothing to do with the content that you edit warred over. M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That conversation was about how to present her names, in both Persian and Kurdish. Consensus was reached for that content on the Death of Mahsa Amini page, take a look at the lede. That text was copied over by Leaky.Solar and then that content was reverted multiple times by Mitrayasna, please see here, here, and here. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's half the story, as that particular thread was about how to present her name in an article that is exclusively about her (whatever consensus is reached there wouldn't apply elsewhere). The other half is the fact that you introduced her ethnicity into the Mahsa Amini protests and edit warred over it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, part of this confusion is my fault at being bad at explaining the whole scenario (it's getting late here, I'm off to bed), that's on me. But obviously that doesn't excuse edit warring over a alleged WP:CONSENSUS in another article, which you at least admitted to being about mention of a Kurdish transliteration, not ethnicity. You edit warred over both. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. I figured, if we're not going to include her Kurdish name, then it's okay to include the fact that she is of Iranian Kurdish decent. However, reading over the MOS:ETHNICITY guidelines after the fact, it seems clear that this isn't allowed. (EDIT: I didn't realize that her ethnic/regional info is later mentioned in the Mahsa Amini protests#Background section, which is good.)

I don't understand the problem of including her Kurdish name, since it was agreed upon on the other article about her, but then that got reverted repeatedly and without good explanation. (EDIT: Perhaps her other names can be mentioned in the background section rather than the lede?) Cheers!

Also, just wanted to point out an odd anomaly: previous edits to my own above comment were reverted for some (maybe accidental) reason? Weird. Anyhow, cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Miss Universe 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FGVillamor (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]
6. [80]
7. [81]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [84]

Comments:

• FGVillamor is repeatedly changing sort order of South Korea against consensus. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Hunter Biden laptop controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr Ernie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 12:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#More_attempts_to_change_wordings

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [88]

Comments: Violation of 24-hr BRD restriction pursuant to arbitration decision. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For real? First of all the article is not subject to the 24-hr BRD restriction. Second of all, an RFC just closed which found consensus to remove the word "alleged" from the lead. So an editor removed it. Then another editor who was very vocal on the side that did not gain consensus in the RFC added "is believed to have." This is just restating the text that RFC rejected. So I reverted it. FormalDude put it back in without any kind of comment or edit summary, so I again restored to the article to RFC compliance and started a talk page discussion. FormalDude then templated my user page and reported me for edit warring. The whole reason we had the RFC was constant bickering over the status of the laptop. The editors who are continually attempting to edit against consensus are causing unnecessary disruption. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed the giant "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" banner at the top of the talk page? And forgot about the discretionary sanctions warning you were given just 3 months ago? Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the DS are listed at the top of the page when you click "edit." Why are you being so combative? You immediately templated me and reported me before any attempt at discussion. You can have your fun here - I'll be at the article talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]