Page: West Ham United F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Egghead06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1123023282&oldid=1123021817
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1123021581&oldid=1123019148
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1123000420&oldid=1122964628

With a history of reversions on the same page to get preferred information into the text where no consensus exist for it on the talkpage.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1117567479&oldid=1117552880
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1117509187&oldid=1117465116

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWest_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1123028726&oldid=1123024323 (also, see discussion page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Ham_United_F.C.)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEgghead06&type=revision&diff=1123030464&oldid=1123024649

Comments:

While only 3R occurred over 24 hours, the user has repeatedly used reversion as a tactic on this page to ensure that weakly-sourced information remains in the text without WP:OR tags. This constitutes a pattern of edit-warring as a deliberate tactic to avoid the need to establish consensus rather than a loss of control or an oversight. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

There were three editors mainly involved in this discussion. Two in favour of adding the information with sources that verified it. The other editor even supplied the sources. One editor only failed to engaged in WP:BRD and constantly reverted the attempts of the other two editors. If any consensus was reached it was to add the sourced info by a majority of two to one. The one being the editor who has raised this "complaint". If an editor won’t follow WP:BRD, then, like this, they lay all the preparations for an edit war, something I tried to avoid.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the discussion page there was no consensus for inclusion of the nicknames, 4 users were against, 2 in favour. The discussions were ongoing when you made a bold edit, which another user supported in principle but not in form. There was no consensus for any of the 5 reverts linked above. And even if there were consensus (there wasn't), it does not give you licence to edit war.

By the way "constantly reverted" is a serious mischaracterisation, as it refers to a single revert on my part, in which no text the other user wishes to see included was reverted. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We as editors had long since moved on from adding nicknames and this editor knows it. A method was supplied, not by me, whereby we could add additional names by which the club was called, specifically not nicknames. The other editor even supplied references. I made the additions based on this suggestion. Thus in this part of the discussion, two in favour, one against. The one against fails to discuss and reverts and claims WP:OR which it isn’t. The discussion should have continued but the complainant wanted their way and reverted.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my assessment of the situation, Egghead's the only one really in favor, and Sue and Koncorde are both against the version that Egghead made. Koncorde's diff: [1] Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to BRD, Egghead made the BOLD edit, and Sue appropriately reverted it and discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mis-read. Koncorde provided the references to support the existence of these sobriquets!!!--Egghead06 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you haven't included any of them yet! Koncorde basically said that they support adding sobriquets but disagree with the way you added them as it is currently OR. Sue disagrees with the current state of the sobriquets section as they are currently OR. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added all of the first set of Koncorde’s supplied references!?--Egghead06 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Verily I can say to you that there were three times that mister egghead reverted, so the good sir has been fighting a battle in this edit war. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the diff external link [17] Aaron Liu (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the problem here is not the facts of the argument, it is that Egghead06 thinks that edit-warring is acceptable if you are right (and who edits thinking they are wrong?). They show no awareness that what they are doing might not be correct, and have so far met with success in using reverts to ensure their preferred text remains in the article. If no action is taken now, this will continue. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the problem here is that Sue couldn’t be bothered to wait for the discussion to come to a civil and orderly end. They decided they were in charge and ended it by removing the content they didn’t like. Isn’t that just the action of someone not prepared to follow the recognised route to differences of opinion. If discussion is ended unilaterally just what are you supposed to do? --Egghead06 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errrm, it was me who was adding tags, and you who was deleting them? Your text was still in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. Lots of discussion both on the talk page (where it should be) and here (where it ought not to be) but I see no consensus that "Cockney Boys" is a nickname or used in any way to refer to the club outside that chant. So until there is a good source for this, it does not go in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case, could you possibly delete the "sobriquets" section so that we can discuss the best way to include the information, if at all? Don't want to do it myself as I am an involved party. Alternatively I could restore the text with OR tags?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be better to comment it out? Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that now. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a football report about West Ham that refers to them as the Cockney Boys and that's not good enough. OK…………--Egghead06 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, others believe this, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe a bit late as I only got home from work half an hour ago, but the Cockney Boys? Really, how is that a common nickname? Like many football clubs, the football club has one nickname and the fans often have a nickname, the Cockney Boys is a nickname that use to refer to the club fans and not the club. Cockney is the language derived in the east end by the people that lived in that part of London. So don't trust the sources, there are a lot of missed communication. As for PeeJay being banned? That's just over-the-top and completely unnecessary. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Who is PeeJay? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Doh!, @Aaron Liu: I meant to say Egghead, not PeeJay! Silly me. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  He is not "banned" ... I have only blocked them from the article for a week since the root of the problem was that they kept insisting on adding it despite a lack of consensus on the talk page. What would have been your preferred resolution?

  Speaking (or, really, typing) of which, these discussions of the validity of "Cockney Boys" as a nickname should really be held on ... the ... talk ... page. Not here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: Akalanka820 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123049185 by LukeEmily (talk) Onus to seek it's inclusion is on those who want to add it in case of dispute. Multiple editors have now pointed it out, even you agreed on t/p that experienced editor raises questions then you would not push. Don't engage in WP:BFN"
2. 13:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC) "Removing it after recent comments and observation by a very experienced editor on WP:INB onWikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Ananya_Vajpeyi_-_Sanskrit_Scholar_and_History_Professor_in_peer_reviewed_paper_-_Oxford_University_press_:Traditions_in_motion:Religion_and_Society_in_History on this subject, it definitely needs extra discussion"
3. 13:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1122005342 by LukeEmily (talk): Restoring it to last clean version, this addition thing needs further especially Fowler&fowler comments on WP:INB here on Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Ananya_Vajpeyi_-_Sanskrit_Scholar_and_History_Professor_in_peer_reviewed_paper_-_Oxford_University_press_:Traditions_in_motion:Religion_and_Society_in_History "
4. 10:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1122353597 by LukeEmily (talk): My queries were not based on WP:RS, but there are contradictory lines wrt to it in other references,. it is a matter of WP:Tertiary as Lindsay Harlan's, AR Desai others say different."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see the talk page and WT:INB.

Comments:

A partial-block is probably necessary. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, the matter is being discussed WP:INB. I didn't crossed 3RR, the third one, I myself reverted it. It can't be counted on as breach of 3RR, as one was self revert here -[[2]] of this diff-[[3]], I myself reverted my own edit, and that is being counted as fourth which is definitely not correct. I took the step after recent observation on this topic by Fowler&fowler on WP:INB here-[[4]] . On the other hand, it is bit surprising rather than seek consensus on talk page to include a controversial content, the attempt is being made to just push their way. I just see an attempt to get me banned.Akalanka820 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is not an entitlement. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TrangaBellam, I haven't reverted after you reverted my last edit. I have literally no interest in edit warring on the subject or on that page, one of the revert happened by mistake, which I had to do a self revert. It is fairly clear that this isn't breach of the rule. Though I agree any kind of edit warring is not good. I took the step after some observations by another editor. Why not restore it before the recently added content? A consensus can be reached out for the content inclusion after discussion. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, for that two reverts, I think I should have waited a bit more. I did understood this point after the revert by TB of my edit. I didn't pushed post their revert. I again repeat the intention behind it was not to push my perspective as such. I just felt that we can have discussion on the topic and that is why I went ahead to restore the page before the content in question. Thank you Akalanka820 (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think @Akalanka820: should apologize for edit-warring, but as their motive is not entirely POV, i.e. has some basis in due weight, this thread should be closed with a warning, but without penalties (in the form of blocks). It is not as if Akalanka820 was edit-warring incessantly or prodigiously in lieu of discussion, for they were also discussing the issues in two venues: the article's talk page and WT:INDIA.
• comment Their pattern of edits across Rajput articles is certainly POV pushing. I will say more tomorrow. Requesting admins to not close it yet. I agree with TB about the partial block.LukeEmily (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But from my limited knowledge (all garnered yesterday) the same could be said about you, LukeEmily. You have attempted to promote a synthesized varna-oriented POV into the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear @Fowler&fowler:, I take offence to that statement and feel I should be allowed to defend myself. The same can be said about all editors who added anything related to varna on any caste page including Sitush, is that not so? - Sitush has added Varna to most caste articles. For Rajput, consensus was reached for those edits after long discussions(that also involved sanjaypal below) in 2020, as well as several senior editors who were uninvolved including admins and we moved on. It was not as if the talk page was silent or that no case was made. Sources were discussed. There were discussions with Sitush too. Do you think I would have added the flattering section on "Religion and Rajput women"(now removed) or "Rajput hospitality" if there was any bias? I have never even been to Bihar/UP/Rajasthan etc - not even seen the Tajmahal in real life. Rajputisation - formation of Rajput community - itself involves shudra to kshatriya transition by starting rituals of twice borns. The very fact that "rajputisation" article was missing from wikipedia or the Rajput page shows how much unbalanced the article was. Should we whitewash all the suffering that innocent Rajput females including infants went through so that the tribe could get varna mobility? The disruprive POV I am talking about by Akalanka820 is removal of sourced content after it has been discussed and a consensus reached as per WP:BRD to add it to the page. You are a very senior editor like Sitush and I respect your opinion highly. If you feel I should not edit Rajput anymore, I will obey you - no questions asked. I am better off writing nothing than writing dishonest whitewashed content that is going to hurt my conscience. Actually, I am mostly done editing the Rajput related pages unless there is disruption. My next project on wikipedia is based on Dr.Madhav Deshpande's paper(you may know him if you knew the faculty at umich (Univ of Michigan)) - it has nothing to do with Rajputs and is based on a Purana (so I am not expecting edit wars) but will will run it by you before I start anything. After that I will move away from caste/religion based articles and focus on adding retired notables from mostly US universities. As a good faith gesture, I will edit the origin to remove multiple mentions of shudra without changing any meaning. I dont think there is any point repeating shudra many times in a single section, but it can happen inadvertently. If it were up to me I would remove shudra completely from all pages and replace it by something non-provocative like "not following twice-born rituals". AFAIK, no community other than Marathas (in the recent court case for reservation), Kunbis or Dalits and few other backward farming castes openly self-identify as Shudra. I apologize in advance for the long text.LukeEmily (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• comment seems like no issue to me. I have seen editing pattern of user reported, the reporter and commentor above me. I think it is more about ones view against other. I have participated in many of the talk pages discussions with them. From one's point of view the other is pov pusher specially when they themselves indulged in what the next person can call pov pushing. I see nothing solid, blocking someone for such a issue will make way easy for pov pushing by the ones who accuse Akalanka of the same. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declined As per above discussion. Looking over the article history, it's really hard to say one editor is primarily to blame ... I could just as easily imagine TB being the subject of this report.

Continue the discussion at INB, please, and I will warn Akalanka about keeping this zeal in check. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Samuel Aba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Giray Altay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

Comments:
To be fair, it was me who first reverted their edit, but they continued PoV pushing even after an other editor intervened ([19]). Warring mentality is clearly not alien to them as one can experience here. I think this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case: [20], [21]. I ping @Erminwin: to share their experiences with the reported editor. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erminwin's here. I frankly admitted that I made a mistaken edit on the Attilid dynasty, when User:Giray Altay pointed that out, I corrected (reasons here, my own quote, then still unedited: "I was mistaken, I do not want to make the same mistakje again."). However, User:Giray Altay also accidentally admitted to POV-pushing here; their own quote: "I simply added the bit about the numerous children because I wanted to remind the reader that Attila had many children and thus the existence of a Prince Csaba (another son) is quite plausible in this sense." yet they did not acknowledge that what they did was POV-pushing (I can't read their minds; so I hesitate to attribute malice) (1, 2 ). There are: (1) this instant of User:Giray Altay, in [talk page], telling User:Borsoka: "you should be wiser and mind your own business." which, to me at least, borderlined WP:BULLY, to which User:Giray Altay retorted (2) "only if you have a prejudice against me can you read it as bullying"; as well as this (3) "You don't need to tag team against me. I will myself leave as soon as the dispute at Samuel Aba is over. This way justice will be done at that page, Borsoka will not get what they want, and because of the two of you Wikipedia will lose my contributions".Erminwin (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring their lengthy threads and PoV-pushing, my principal problem is that Giray Altay seems to be unable to verify their claims. They have been continuously citing the same sources referring to hundreds of pages from a lengthy anthology of old Hungarian essays of various topics, or to a German historical journal containing dozens of individual articles unrelated to the topic. In some cases, it is quite obvious that the cited source does not verify their claim: for instance, he wants to verify a statement about a specific chronicle (Simon of Kéza's late 13th-century Gesta Hungarorum) with a reference to a statement about Hungarian chronicles in general. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erminwin thanks, at least, for "not attributing malice", but just a reminder: had you assumed just a bit (more?) good faith from the first place (but you were always trying to find something wrong with me 1 2, sometimes also making blunders in your haste 3) we'd had much less problems and spared a lot of time.

But regarding your specific accusation here, I also don't think there's malice with you, probably a problem of understanding between us: I explained to you more than one time why I put that sentence in that article. It is not POV pushing, that is an article about the Attilid dynasty, hence, when I wrote it, I focused on the subject and put in the article as many information as possible regarding the king and his progeny. Like I told you recently, an unwitting editor, without knowing that Attila had allegedly a "myriad of children" may say "Wait, gotcha! Attila had only three children: Ellac, Dengizich, and Ernak, so Csaba cannot exist!". Unfortunately, you misinterpreted the text I originally posted Another possible descendant of the Attilids are the Árpád dynasty. Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people". According to Hungarian tradition, one of these children was Csaba, the father of Ed from the Aba (...); ending up claiming to know the reason why the Hungarian chroniclers Simon of Keza and Anonymous wrote what they wrote, changing the aforementioned sentence in: As Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people", medieval Hungarian chroniclers, Anonymus (notary of Béla III) and Simon of Kéza, claimed Attilid ancestry for the Árpád dynasty and the Aba clan.

"you should be wiser and mind your own business." is an advice, not bullying, and you can read it as bullying only if you have a prejudice against me, which you might have, since we have been discussing for a while and I proved you wrong a couple of times (you also did, once, though). I said that because Borsoka pushed himself in an argument that did not concern them, asking other editors to join him against me (4). Isn't that leafleting or something?

You rightly quoted me, I do think this is a form of tag teaming. Read the relative article for more. Several points apply.

And yes, I did say I would leave Wikipedia after this because I got a little tired with all this lack of good faith, and with Borsoka so deliberately pushing their view on that article, nobody doing anything, and the guy even playing the mirror game and saying I am pushing my POV.

While I don't think there is malice with Erminwin, at this point I think there might be with Borsoka. They reverted multiple times my edits, starting first, when they did without even attempting to use the talk page first:

1

2

3

Here another user in support of Borsaka, who did ask to use the talk page but then, once the revert was successfully completed, disappeared completely from the map: 4

5

Borsoka's CIVIL:POV is sophisticated but at some points becomes ridiculous because, when they don't know what to do to have it their own way, they just start making up things, like saying that 8 secondary sources, in their mind, are 1 source, and that the commentary of an editor is a primary source. Then, a) implying to have ordered, received, and read 300 pages of a German book in a few hours and b) claiming that I tell lies, and the text I quoted for one source is not in the book 1; although this is not true.

But this is not the end of it. Each time I expand the article, they don't just delete the content, and the sources, they also remove the templates I legitimately place (I say leigitimately because the content they seemingly "support" does include primary sources, and is otherwise based on a single, 1990s book, whose source lacks both a quote and a link, and I am not able to verify). Borsoka is not just pushing their view, they are also preventing any type of discussion. If they do come to the talk page, they will say the sources (secondary) are primary, that the sources (2007; 2006; 1999; "theirs" is from 1996) are old, that I am making OR, or sometimes will even justify their action with "no need".

Even though what I am doing is not merely reverting their edits, but expanding anew the article each time (that is, each time I edit the sources and add more sources to them) they posted an edit warring notice on my page 1; then reminded me several times not to edit war 2 3, before again deleting the content from the page and claiming they would "stop discussing the matter with me", though we had not reached a conclusion.

For the kernel of the issue, you can read the talk page, but it is very simple: three Hungarian chronicles, two say A and one says B. Borsoka wants to include in the article one chronicle saying A and one saying B, leaving the other chronicle, which would make the A point look more likely, out.

Admittedly I had at first used a primary source (the book of Keza; because the matter is well known, and I thought it wasn't necessary, several other Keza-related and Anonymous-related articles using primary sources) so at least their first revert might be acceptable. But then, I brought to the article, 5, then 6, then 8 secondary , reliable sources, but Borsoka wouldn't have none of it.

My vague suspect that there might be some personal interest in keeping one chronicle out for them was enhanced by noticing that they had already tried to keep such chronicle out of the article (here). Giray Altay (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, I have never stated, suggested or implied that I read a German book. I only proved with a link to jstor that the allegedly cited pages in the book cannot contain the information to be verified. 2. I repeat that the text allegedly quoted from a book published by CEU Press does not contain the quoted text. 3. Giray Altay does not understand that we do not need to repeat in a new sentence an inbormation about the legendary descend of the Abas from Attila just to refer to a further chronicle in the article. Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a) Why do you think that the "allegedly cited pages in the book cannot contain the information to be verified"?! b) I repeat that the CEU Press does contain the quoted text (!) c) see how you have shifted the focus now: first the sources were not good, now, that you know everybody will see they are, you say that the reason of your actions is "we do not need to repeat in a new sentence an inbormation about the legendary descend of the Abas from Attila just to refer to a further chronicle in the article".

The problem wasn't repeating the sentence, but reporting Simon Keza's claim or not. Though in your last edits you left Simon Keza's mention (adding next to it "cn" template, though I provided 8 sources; meanwhile you removed the templates I had placed), what you previously, repeatedly did was trying to hide Simon of Keza altogether, keeping on deleting that content.

Reporting that Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum made such claim is important, actually fundamental. This is arguably the best known Hungarian chronicle, and was written in the same century as Anonymous' (who, by the way, does not deny the alleged paternal Attilid descent). We cannot keep such important information out of the article.

Furthermore, the way you'd like to present the article (cf. him/her and me), it reads like this claim was made as late as in the 14th-century. Which is not true. So the article you'd want is misleading. Giray Altay (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not want to hide Simon of Kéza. I consolidated two sentences with the same core information and asked you to verify your reference to Simon of Kéza in the context ([22]). Instead of verifying your claim, you reverted my edit ([23]). Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not consolidate two sentences, you utterly removed Simon of Keza, and you did it more than once (1, 2). While I tried to discuss at the talk page, and updated the article with new sources, you stalled the conversation at the talk page, initially finding excuses, then even lying (3), and at the same time continued to remove the updated, changed content I added to the article. Because this is not the first time that you thwart attempts to include Keza in the article (4) I came to the conclusion you are trying to hide Simon Keza from the article. Only in your last edit, when the situation had escalated and I had provided many, many sources you included Keza in the article (5). Even so, you placed a "cn" template, though 8 sources had been provided, and for the seventh time (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) removed the templates ("cn", etc.) that I had placed.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed your "cn" templates because you placed them in sentences that were verified by references to reliable sources. All your templates were absolutely useless. Please remember that a third editor also noted this [24]. Borsoka (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot remove templates just because you think they are useless. You should at least discuss this at the talk page. The templates of course, is the last of the problems here, and you haven't yet addressed the main issues with your conduct.

And thanks for reminding me of the other user: after Borsoka had carried out three reverts (1, 2, 3), a third editor popped up, undoing the additions and completely removing Simon of Keza from the article (4). They, too, avoided using the talk page, and justified their action with: "That really does not look like improvement. Please use the talk page to explain your edit". I did has they asked, and explained, another time, at the talk page, pinging them. As silently they had come, so silently they disappeared. They did not join the discussion at the talk page, and they role has been merely undoing my edits. Giray Altay (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors thought that they were useless. You were challenging a quote from a primary source although its use was verified by a historian's work, and you were demanding citations for well cited sentences. How could we describe your behaviour if not as a typical example of vandalism? Sorry, I stop discussing this issue because you fails to listen to what other editors are trying to explain to you. Borsoka (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "other" editor reverted my contributions, gave a vague explanation (That really does not look like an improvement) and then disappeared from the map. Also, always in the edit summary, they invited me to "explain" my edit on the talk page, which I did, pinging them (1). The last time I heard from the was more than 2 days ago (2). They never showed up on the talk page, though they were active in Wikipedia. It was maybe them who had to give an explanation, since they hid content from the article and removed sources; basically, mimicking your behavior.

How could we describe your behaviour if not as a typical example of vandalism? there might by a vandal here, but it is not me. I am the one who is building, expanding the article, you are the one deleting what I build.

Sorry, I stop discussing this issue because you fails to listen to what other editors are trying to explain to you is this what someone who's right would say? It's not the first time that you try to "get rid of me" and end the discussion (2), though consensus was not reached. Giray Altay (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to reach a compromise ([25]) but it is impossible ([26], [27]). Do we need this editor's contribution to our project? Borsoka (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I can see why tempers are frayed but this does not quite reach (IMO) the level of actionability here. Yet. I really suggest going to AN/I or, better yet, taking some other step like an RFC or noticeboard posting to bring knowledgeable editors in to resolve the underlying dispute about the validity of the sourcing. Without doing that, no actions of any kind against any editors are really going to resolve this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Multan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Vintage 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]
5. [33]
6. [34]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments:

As a side note, the User:Vintage 1234 threatened me that he has many accounts to do the same with me[37], a clear indication of sockpuppetry.Sutyarashi (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely purely for the sockpuppetry threat. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: From a quick check Pakistanhistorian1947 is them as well, so the socking is  Confirmed. They're editing from multiple hugely dynamic ranges, so I imagine there will be (and have been) more accounts.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Thanks! Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

Comments:My first time here - I notified the user of the 3RR and went to their user page

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Saying 'the FBI applied for a false warrant' in Wikipedia's voice is over the top. Do you think the FBI went to the court and said 'Please give us a false warrant..'? If you think the FBI misbehaved, you should find reliable sources. Another admin has already revdelled some copyright violations by this IP editor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two of four FISA warrants against Carter Page declared invalid | CNN Politics 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[45]https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/fisa-carter-page-warrants/index.html 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FISA Court Ruling & Disposition Here:

fisc.declassifed.order.16-1182.17-52.17-375.17-679..200123.pdf (cnn.com) 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[46]http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/01/23/fisc.declassifed.order.16-1182.17-52.17-375.17-679..200123.pdf 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The report also accused a low-level FBI lawyer of doctoring a document used to build the agency’s application for FISA surveillance on Page. The lawyer is now under criminal investigation, and has since resigned from the FBI. 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can't make a "copyright" claim or "IP" claim to actual court case documents!

See, e.g., Indictment, United States v. Michael A. Sussmann, Crim. Case No. 21–582 (CRC) (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2021), ECF No. 1, available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/1/united-states-v-sussmann/ [hereinafter Sussmann Indictment]; The Government’s Motions in Limine, United States v. Michael A. Sussmann, Crim. Case No. 21–582 (CRC) (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2022), ECF No. 61, at 13-32 (emphasis added) (seeking the admission of certain communications because they were “made in furtherance of a joint venture between and among the defendant, Tech Executive-1, and representatives or agents of the Clinton Campaign”), available at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd​.235638.61.0_7.pdf. 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already document problems with the FBI's actions (none of which rise to the levels you allege), but you are pushing an extreme right-wing conspiracy theory with false claims, some of which are extreme violations of our BLP policy and must be deleted. You can't push your extremist views without expecting to get pushback from other editors. You must use the article's talk page to discuss such controversial edits. Attempting to completely turn the narrative of events, as reported by reliable sources, on its head to make Trump's 'big lie' and his cooperation with Russia's election interference seem like a good thing won't work here. This is not your private website. Your forbidden advocacy of fringe theories should get you blocked. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which it has, for 1 week. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Governor General's Award for English-language non-fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123375598 by Bonadea (talk) Please stop your disruptive editing"
2. 10:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Bonadea (talk): This is a bad wikilink"
3. 10:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Chipmunkdavis (talk): That's not the way this links by."
4. 10:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Chipmunkdavis (talk): Please note, there should be no link."
5. 09:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by WildStar (talk): This might go wrong in the article after your edit so I reverted it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Article links */ stop edit warring"
2. 10:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Article links */ please self-revert"
3. 11:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Article links */ re"
4. 11:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Article links */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC) on User talk:SpyridisioAnnis "/* Article links */ Reply"

Comments:

I bent over backwards to avoid reporting SpyridiosioAnnis, asking them repeatedly to self-revert their 4RR edit, and to explain why they kept making it, but when it was obvious that they wouldn't, I restored the wikilink they had been edit warring over. Sadly, 5RR followed. bonadea contributions talk 11:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours, clear reverts at 11:52, 10:47, 10:30, 10:16, 09:55. Warned and has actually warned others, so clearly aware of the problem. There probably needs to be a deeper discussion of this editor's overall pattern of edits - many warnings on that page and some seriously deficient responses. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Winston Churchill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CameUpStarvin' (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. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [52]
2. [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [54]
2. [55]

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

Comments: They have already been warned multiple times on their talk page today and they even started to engage in a discussion on the talk page. However, they reverted again two minutes after after their last comment on the talk page without waiting for a reply. GreenCows (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reply was not necessary since the individual who'd reverted my contribution multiple times hadn't bothered reading the article in question anyway. My latest comment on the talk page was an illustration of this - I've offered him the opportunity to refute my statement, suggesting if his were valid then a reversion is permissible but also that he should explain his grounds. CameUpStarvin' (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: What Is a Woman? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LilySophie (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. 19:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "1. No consensus against inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes critics score was achieved on WP:TALK 2. Wikipedia-wide consensus is for the inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes critics score, and even if consensus had been established against it on WP:TALK, it would not overrule Wikipedia-wide consensus, as per WP:CONLEVEL. Please refrain from reverting again. - Undid revision 1123436409 by Sideswipe9th (talk)"
2. 18:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "Wikipedia-wide consensus for the inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes critics score, as pointed out on WP:TALK - If you disagree, it is on you to establish consensus against the currently standing site-wide consensus - Undid revision 1123419216 by Newimpartial (talk)"
3. 15:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "False. There is consensus that inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes' critics score is correct, only that user scores are not reliable and permitted. - Undid revision 1123281986 by Newimpartial (talk)"
4. 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning::

1. 18:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on PinkNews."
2. 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on What Is a Woman?."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:What_Is_a_Woman?#Permitted_use_of_Rotten_Tomatoes_and_IMDB
• Talk:PinkNews#Libel sections

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]

Comments:
Note, LilySophie is edit warring against consensus at two articles presently. What Is a Woman? and PinkNews. At What Is a Woman? LilySophie has made four reverts in the last 24 hours. At PinkNews LilySophie has made three reverts in the last 24 hours:

• This edit by LilySophie reinstates content that was removed on 9 November 2022 by Colin with the edit summary rm Libel claims section per talk. No consensus this section is WP:DUE. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VNOT
• Restored content after being removed by Newimpartial
• Restored content again after being removed by me

An attempt to discuss the PinkNews edit war, along with two requests for a self-revert has been made at Talk:PinkNews#Libel sections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome input from and discussion by other editors. Clearly no progress is being made with either User:Sideswipe9th or User:Newimpartial, who have now also begun to collectively revert pages in an effort to circumvent WP:3RR. My reasoning for each edit has been explained in detail in each edit summary, as well as on the talk page of the PinkNews article. Note that unlike what User:Sideswipe9th has claimed, no attempt to explain their reverts or those by User:Newimpartial was made on the talk page of the What is a woman article. See: Talk:What_Is_a_Woman?#Permitted_use_of_Rotten_Tomatoes_and_IMDB. - LilySophie (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My reasoning for each edit has been explained in detail in each edit summary - providing good edit summaries is not an exception to WP:3RR. You also are not speaking accurately about my own edit summaries - I have pointed to WP:ONUS, and to Talk page discussion that has not favored inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, while typing up and fixing this report after my first Twinkle submission broke, LilySophie has issued a false edit war notice on my user talk page, claiming I'm edit warring against consensus, despite my making only a single revert on each page to restore the consensus version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've extended the block to an indef due to continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour while blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Visigothic Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 5.199.171.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123504433 by Kansas Bear (talk) Unexplained removal of sourced content"
2. 02:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123502630 by Kansas Bear (talk) Unexplained removal of sourced content"
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC) to 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
   1. 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123469567 by REKKWINT (talk)"
   2. 02:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123469433 by REKKWINT (talk)"
4. 09:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123362157 by Marleeashton (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm reporting this here after declining a semi-protection request for Visigothic Kingdom. While semi-protection seemed like overkill, it does look like 4 reversions from this IP address editor. It looks like they received one warning earlier and a stronger warning about edit warring at nearly the same time as their last edit. I think the page may also need to be restored to an earlier version. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked on the status of the report and noticed the IP address editor did 2 additional reversions bringing the total to 6. They also started adding personal attacks to their edit summaries so I have blocked the IP for 72 hours, left the user a block notice, and I rolled back the edit that included the personal attack in the summary. I only reported it here because I was headed out and I wasn't sure whether the 4 reversions warranted additional action given the chronology prior to subsequent escalation. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123558543 by Mike Christie (talk)You deleted the section originally without consensus!"
2. 10:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123553924 by Chaheel Riens (talk) Please see Talk. I would ask Chaheel Riens to add to Wikipedia rather than take away from it."
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC) to 09:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
   1. 09:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123221095 by Mike Christie (talk)Here I am reinstating this section in order to edit ti."
   2. 09:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Etymological note */ Section retained but reduced. Please continue discussion on talk page."
4. 16:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1123055795 by Chaheel Riens (talk) You have been seeking to delete a section in its entirety that several contributors have put much effort into compiling. You say it is 'unsourced', but common usage of a term is not easyily sourced - it's just out there. You should not delete this entire section, but rather work with it to improve it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:Duesenberg#Etymology/doozy

Comments:

Editor is continually trying to force their preferred versions, which originally included copyvio and now they've removed sources is a weasel-word section going against the source they removed. User has been warned on the talk page about their behaviour and the likely results. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. Not a violation of 3RR, since the four edits listed were in a timespan of more than 24 hours, but disruptive edit warring just the same. However, the user may not be aware of the rules against edit warring, since they have not been warned about it. Please post a warning next time a situation like this comes up, Chaheel Riens. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2022 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Godofwarfan333 (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 15:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC) to 15:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 15:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid blatantly unconstructive revision 1123588316 by Spike 'em (talk). stop spamming the revert button. when I'm reverting it, it's going back to what it was before you two decided to make a near unilateral change without anyone's consensus, ignoring the norms of EVERY SINGLE WORLD CUP ARTICLE BEFORE THIS."
3. 15:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "three strikes and you're out. and guess what, all three strikes have been struck,"
4. 14:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "this standard won't be changed until you get consensus in the talk page. and you think you're unimpeachable, when you're actually worsening the quality of the article. primary information required for an everyman is that it is an association football tournament. stop changing it back or you'll be reported for edit warring"
5. 13:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC) "looking at the standard used across all the prior ledes for the World Cup, it's the more sensible course of action to keep it as it was."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor is edit-warring on multiple sections of the article with various other editors. Spike 'em (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems to be trying to game the system by warning others that they are at 3 reverts, but making far more themselves. They seem to know quote a lot about this for a new editor. Spike 'em (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 24 hours. Spike 'em you also reverted three times, which while not breaking the 3RR, means you were clearly edit warring too. Both of you, please work through differences on the talk page rather than continually reverting.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [63]

Comments:
Wuerzele (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, as far as I can tell, you have listed three reverts over three days by two different users (blindlynx and Shibbolethink). I don't see how this can be interpreted as any sort of violation of WP:3RR, while it seems to me that you are editing against consensus. I would humbly suggest withdrawing this report. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At best the report by Wuerzele is a mistake. No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Terence Tao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.92.67.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]
5. [69]
6. [70]
7. [71]
8. [72]
9. [73]
10. [74]
11. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:73.92.67.207#November 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:73.92.67.207#November 2022

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:73.92.67.207#November 2022

Comments:
I now realize I should have looked at the contribs and just blocked them myself, but instead I became involved by undoing their edits and triggering yet another revert. Oops. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. This IP has a history. Blocked 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]