Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: David Gordon (choreographer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "Yes, in AMERICAN ENGLISH. Please see any AMERICAN ENGLISH dictionary, or Google "improvize", where it will reject the word in favor of "improvise". It is NOT one of the many words which differ from "s" to "z" between British English and American English. I have in my hand the Oxford American Dictionary, which lists "improvise" and not "improvize". The same for the Doubleday Dict. Or look at this from Grammarist [1]"
2. 00:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life and career */ "Improvise" is spelled with an "s" in American English. Please consult a dictionary:"
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) to 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 00:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "Restored revision 1151255634 by Beyond My Ken (talk): Restore specific information which was replaced by generalized information"
   2. 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* top */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) to 21:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 21:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "/* top */ restore refs - so reason giben for deletion"
   2. 21:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "/* top */ restore specific places"
   3. 21:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "/* top */ restore marriage dates"
   4. 21:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "Restored revision 1134254814 by Beyond My Ken (talk): A high pertage of this edit is detrimental to the article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* David Gordon (choreographer) */ new section"
2. 00:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* David Gordon (choreographer) */ Please stop you own"
3. 00:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* David Gordon (choreographer) */ cmt"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) "/* External links modified */ Delete per IABot (RfC)"

Comments:

Again, here we go, this guy just don't stop. See block log - FlightTime (open channel) 00:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Consecutive edits are considered as a single edit, not multiple ones. FlightTime is editing warring over "improvize" being the proper American spelling. It is not. In all varieties of English, the word is spelled "improvise". See this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  My reply from their talk: Whatever, it's not the spelling, it's the editwarring across the whole article today, and for years with you. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  I would also point out that while I obviously do not have OWNERSHIP of the article, I do have a legitimate stake in its STEWARDSHIP, having written 96.8% of the 67,653 byte article [2], and that FlightTime's edits in attempting to force the incorrect spelling "improvize" into the article, while not vandalism per se, was certainly not improving the article.

  And then there's FlightTime's animosity to me, sparked when he tried to nominate an unnecessary redirect of an image from Commons, and instead nominated the actual image. When I objected, he flipped me off, referring to me as "Einstein", as if it were I who had made the error, not them. [3]. FlightTime clearly has a quick fuse, and it looks as if they hold grudges as well - which is really what this is about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe I haven't made myself clear, You have an ownership mentality on all article you watch. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• I watch 4,042 articles, so that is an absurd statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Looking at the article's history, when multiple consecutive edits are counted as one, I had only two reverts before FlightTime began edit-warring to force "improvize" into the article. I now -- admittedly, have four reverts, so I guess I'm due for a sanction. I would argue, though, that FlightTime's ignoring multiple attempts to point them to the correct spelling ([4], [5], edit summary, edit summary) is a mitigating circumstance, and would ask for a mulligan on edit four. I don't expect to get it, but I do FT's think forcing a misspelling into an article, whole ignoring please to simply look it up in a dictionary, is as close to "obvious vandalism" as one can get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Your block log show s different pattern. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible for the two of you to discuss your differences at Talk:David Gordon (choreographer) and leave the admins alone? Neither of you have a clean track record when it comes to edit warring, and this would be a really stupid argument to lengthen it over. – bradv 01:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm done. I've taken the article off my watchlist, but the editor has been disruptive for years. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Brad: I'd be more than happy to discuss any lingering problems with FlightTime on the article talk page. In fact, I'll go there now and start a discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Perfect. While you're at it, start one at Talk:Valda Setterfield too. – bradv 01:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Will do. The first is here, and I have notified FlightTime on their talk page [6]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The second discussion is Talk:Valda Setterfield#Discussion on my recent edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Warned – bradv 01:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I'm done. Don't expect me to chime in, I've spent more time than I care to on this user, because after all his blocks, he still doesn't learn. I have in 2019, when was his last block? - FlightTime (open channel) 01:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

FlightTime, will you please explain why you tried so hard to add a spelling error to this article? Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I was using a script and assumed it was correct. But that's not the real problem, this user has WP:OWN, and WP:BATTLEGROUND editing history and just kinda had enough of it. I'm done with this issue and user. Left a poke for the script author on my talk pointing to the issue. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

FlightTime, it is fine to use a script to assist you in correcting spelling errors, but you are fully responsible for the accuracy of your own edits. If you are not reasonably certain that your edit is correct, then please do not make it. Do not blame the script when you make a mistake. And when another editor points out quite clearly that you are wrong, pay attention. Do not let your clearly expressed enmity toward the other editor blind you to the fact that your spelling was wrong. The goal is a better encyclopedia with correct spelling, not conflicts among editors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? Been here almost 15 years, thanks for the Wiki-preaching, I know all this stuff (I didn't blame the script, I just said I used it), but in real life, sometimes shit happens, good Admin response though. Happy editing, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User:EndlessCoffee54 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: San Jose, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EndlessCoffee54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. April 11, 16:47 [8] Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
2. April 23, 01:59 [9] Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
3. April 23, 02:03 [10] Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
4. April 23, 02:35 [11] Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
5. April 23, 03:53 [12] Restored "the cultural, economic, and political center of Silicon Valley"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:San_Jose,_California#Overempasis_on_Silicon_Valley.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments: Back in March 2017, Cristiano Tomás added the text saying San Jose "is the economic, cultural, and political center of Silicon Valley", but this was unsupported by cites. When it was challenged, EndlessCoffee54 added low quality citations in May 2020.[15] Today's fourth revert shown above restores the same disputed text but with new citations. These cites are under challenge on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The original version of this page, before Binksternet began removing the line "cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley" last month, had this phrase in there for years, at least since 2017. I have been contributing to this page since 2012? and I still remember a version of it being there then. Binksternet's removal of this phrase was initially reverted by another editor (CristianoTomas, from what I remember) because it was a controversial change that he disagreed with. When this happens, the page typically stays at status quo per WP:QUO, which is a version of the page that contained "cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley." The onus is on the person making the controversial change to head to the talk page. Yes, he has the ability to be bold and make the edit in the first place. But out of good faith, when more than one editor reverts that change repeatedly, as I and others did, Binksternet should have gone to the talk page to suggest his edits and have the conversation we are currently having now there. Not to keep reverting over the period of a month to get his preferred version.

As a reference point, two or so years ago, I altered the longstanding lede of the San Francisco article from "the" to "a" "cultural, commercial, and financial center of NorCal." I think Binksternet may have been the one who reverted me. Instead of disrespecting his choice, I went to the talk page and built consensus to make that change permanent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_8#SF_Being_*the*_Political,_Cultural,_and_Economic_Center_of_NorCal). Binksternet did not do the same here, instead choosing to selectively revert the longstanding consensus over the course of a month+, even when repeatedly told in the edit history to come to the talk page. He also pursued no intermediate measures like messaging editors to work out a solution in lieu of going to the talk page, or by placing a citation notice on the article or the reference line so that others could add better sources, like the page has now. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that Binksternet also used incredibly crass language in some of his edits and in his message on my talk page, where he referred to the sources as "shitty." That's unprofessional behavior that shouldn't be aired on Wikipedia and doesn't contribute to any meaningful conversation, but instead serves to bully other editors into submission. He's also insinuated on the San Jose talk page that a book on Latino history in the US couldn't possibly have value as a source on Silicon Valley, where hundreds of thousands of Latinos work. I found this comment deeply insulting and to be frank, slightly racist in its tone. This is the kind of behavior that tracks with repeated reverts instead of coming to the talk page to discuss something in good faith after several long-time editors had disagreed with the changes. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

None of this acknowledges your explicit violation of 3RR. Regarding who was supposed to go to the talk page, WP:ONUS could not be more clear about it: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You were seeking to include disputed content, so you should have started a talk page discussion about it. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You also violated 3RR, in spirit, if not explicitly by the letter of the policy. You've reverted the page to your preferred form 7-8 different times over the last month, when asked to come to the talk page to discuss. Your material was in dispute first. It was your onus to begin the talk page discussion. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

A couple of comments from an uninvolved editor:

I've just had a look at this, and it appears that the exact content that is being removed here, had previously been in the article for a long time, since at least January 2021. So if anything, the removal of it is the bold edit here.

However, as of now, multiple other editors have objected to EndlessCoffee54's restoration of that content, and not just Binksternet. Namely, Drmies (diff), and Amakuru (diff). Looking at the talk page, it doesn't look to me like the dispute is fully over yet, but this is where things are at right now. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you or someone you know be open to moderating a streamlined discussion on this so we can reach a compromise? I think what is in controversy is the "Silicon Valley" designation. I do think that some phrase about San Jose being the center of the Valley is necessary. Perhaps "Santa Clara Valley," or "South Bay" instead, since San Jose is the political seat of government and main component of its MSA. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The user complains at length above about the reporter, but none of those matter when he had so clearly violated 3RR within the space of an hour and a half as the reported diffs demonstrate. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User:FlameCelestial reported by User:LVTW2 (Result: No violation)

Page: Central Mountain Range (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FlameCelestial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151371678
2.https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151331802
3.https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151185385
4.https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1150650673
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Warning: Three-revert rule on Central Mountain Range." Warning issued by LVTW2

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FlameCelestial&diff=prev&oldid=1151378640

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FlameCelestial#April_2023_2

Comments: Repetitive vandalism and unconstructive edits conducted by one specific user (FlameCelestial) who evidently violates 3RR within 24 hours with frequent attempts to install personal political ideology into a pure geographical-related topic, which were against NPOV policy and the existing consensus. LVTW2 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is the second time that User:FlameCelestial has been reported here in two days, also by User:LVTW2. The first time can be found on this page scrolling a bit up (permalink). So I guess the next time this happens, some sort of action will definitely need to be taken that time. Also worth noting that as of now, both FlameCelestial and LVTW2 have been partially blocked from RPP/I for arguing with each other over there, despite warnings not to. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Mercy11 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: No violation, Protected 2 days)

Page: Jorge Otero Barreto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mercy11 (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. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]

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:
Mercy11 is edit-warring on Jorge Otero Barreto undoing the consensus agreed since 2021 on the Talk Page surrounding the questionable claim that he was "the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War". Mztourist (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Protected for two days. There is no 3RR violation here, and looks like a pure content dispute. I've protected the article for 2 days, and urge all parties to discuss the changes on the talk page and come to a consensus so that no further edit warring takes place when the protection expires.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Amakuru, I work full time and can only spare little time at WP during week days. With the current workweek just starting today, add to that the possible back and forth discussions dialogue to which I could only respond to once a day, your 2-day timeframe would be a burden on me. Would it be fair to ask you extend the article's protection till Saturday 4/29/2023? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Wikiview2000 reported by User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Robin Hunter-Clarke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wikiview2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism from Richisups. Attempting to defame article subject. Election meddling. IP address sought from wiki with legal action pending against RichiSups. Richsups only article he edits is this one. Unhealthy obsession with article subject."
2. 09:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC) "Reverted vandalism. Undid revision 1151474219 by RichiSups (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) to 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
   1. 06:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC) "After speaking with Wikipedia admin and Hunter-Clarke defamatory comments removed which have been made by Richisups. Clear intention to meddle in current elections. Legal action will be taken against Richisups if he persists."
   2. 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC) "Removed duplication"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Making legal threats on Robin Hunter-Clarke."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Additionally making legal threats in at least two edit summaries 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist as a suspected sockpuppet of UveBeenKippered. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Orinavor reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: 2018 Armenian revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Orinavor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2607:FA49:1F01:7C00:EDB2:D18B:278B:27A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not done, as the edits are clearly WP:NPOV vandalism.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:

• I indefinitely blocked the named account and blocked the IP /64 range for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Asdasf asdas reported by User:Awesome Aasim (Result: No violation)

Page: Windows 11 version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151524280 by Awesome Aasim (talk)"
2. 07:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151260005 by Awesome Aasim (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Windows 11 version history."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC) "/* Version 22H2 */ Reply"

Comments:

Appears to be returning to edit-warring behaviors after getting off of a block from a month or so ago. Nonetheless, the reverting of good faith edits without providing an adequate summary or discussion is disruptive and needs to be appropriately handled.

I have done my best to promote appropriate discussion and to give opportunities for providing a proper revert summary, but those opportunities have not been taken. Despite warning them about 30 minutes after they did their second revert, I feel like it is appropriate to report for failing to heed the warnings leading up to their original block. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wait @Bbb23 is this place for just 3RR issues? I have been trying to work out a compromise on the talk page of that article yet I am not getting any responses from either of the editors I @'d. Isn't it a must that a proper summary is given for reverting an edit if the reason isn't obvious? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  The editor reverted only twice, so they didn't come close to violating 3RR. Edit summaries are always a good thing, but, unfortunately, in my view, they are not required.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 Should I come back to a report if they are refusing to resolve the dispute? I want to know what other options there are if contacting the editor(s) in question does not work. I also want to make sure I don't unintentionally violate the edit warring policies myself. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I noticed that Asdasf asdas was not the only editor who recently reverted you. However, I also noticed that you've attempted to discuss the dispute with both editors on the article Talk page and they haven't responded. My suggestion is you try other methods of dispute resolution if the Talk page doesn't attract any other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Acaunto reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Origin of the Kurds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Acaunto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

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:
Genuinely can't tell if this user is trolling or not. They quickly steered away from the subject on the talk page and started insulting me [36] [37] and saying random stuff, even making what I suspect to be a stereotypical (arguably racist) joke of how Asians speak [38] (I highly doubt this user is Asian (specifically Japanese) as they randomly claim. [39]) They also randomly went to my talk page with this rude, but mostly bizarre message [40]. EDIT: They are now WP:HOUNDING me on my talk page [41] [42]. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the article is that there is no primary source for the content and it is not an article explaining the origins of the Kurds.This user continues to attack me personally without properly refuting my claim that the primary literature does not exist.I didn't just delete the post because I didn't like it.

However, this user continues to claim that the reason I deleted the article is because I hate the article.I apologized to this user several times because I wanted to have a proper discussion while we were very angry with each other due to the editing dispute.This user kept insulting me saying "don't pretend to be a victim".As you can see from my edit history, I'm not a big editr, I'm a frequent Wikipedia reader. I consider myself a newbie as I haven't done much editing myself.I understand that there is an article in the Wikipedia policy to be kind to newcomers. This user seems to be a long-time active user here. As a newcomer, I want to edit Wikipedia, but I find it difficult to be active on Wikipedia because these old users always undo my edits. I think other people will have the same difficulty.If I am sanctioned, I will understand that I have done something wrong. However, I apologized to the user several times in order to have a proper discussion, but this user is just trying to provoke me, criticize me, and report my mistakes. Acaunto (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The Kurds are a people who exist in ancient texts. But this user says the Kurds suddenly appeared. This user doesn't seem to know much about Kurds. Then the editorial dispute should stop and be resolved through academic discussions, but this user is only trying to win the editorial dispute by provoking me from the beginning. Acaunto (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

We were angry with each other over the editing dispute, but I apologized several times because I wanted to have a good discussion with this person. However, this user continues to talk about reports. It seems that he refuses to have any other conversation and only cares about winning the editorial dispute. Acaunto (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

User:2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

Page: Charles R. Pellegrino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 7:04, 25 April 2023, "Undid revision 1151627213 by SHB2000"
2. 06:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151625954 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
3. 05:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1151624122 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
4. 03:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "Dr. Pellegrino has been my scientific mentor for over 20 years, and I noticed a great deal of errors and selective reporting on his page. Rather than feature the large volume of professional contributions he has made throughout the span of his career, his Wikipedia page features largely slanderous content, which has proven highly damaging to such a kind and genuine man's career for the past 13 years. Much of the information presented is entirely incorrect as well"
5. 03:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Charles R. Pellegrino."

Comments:

Nomoskedasticity has been trolling Dr. Pellegrino's page for years and only permits a slanderous narrative on it, editing out ALL objective material, including Dr. Pellegrino's scientific contributions. Since when did Wikipedia become the equivalent of a Mug Shot website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 has a serf-declared COI (see their first and third edit) so they shouldn't be editing the article directly at all. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No I do not have a COI. I cited Dr. Pellegrino's published thesis in my research, proving he has a PhD and feel compelled to report on that and correct these errors. Do you consider Pellegrino's page objective? Reporting on "controversies" like negative book reviews and simple mistakes that were addressed and corrected, like trusting a source that exaggerated their war record? Whenever anyone as attempted to provide proof that Pellegrino earned his PhD, it is shut down. Just look at the revision history of the page and the number of individuals that attempted to edit it to be more objective. How would you feel if a Wikipedia page dedicated to you was nothing more than a catalog of every mistake, rectified or not, every criticism, every low point? The Pellegrino page is supposed to be about an author and documentary scientist. Why not simply report his publications and appearances? Why does the page need to be largely dedicated to slander? 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Pellegrino has many scientific accomplishments that can be reported as well - including being credited by Dr. Ballard for the Downblast theory in the international bestseller "Discovery of the Titanic" whom he sailed with in 1985 in the Pacific, being credited by Michael Crichton for inspiring his novel "Jurassic Park," having interviewed double survivors of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki which James Cameron is preparing to direct a movie about, furthering the theory that Santorini may have been Plato's Atlantis, among many others. Why has none of this been permitted to be reported on Pellegrino's page by Nomoskedasticity? Why is it always erased and labeled "promotional material" when in fact, it is factual, documented evidence of positive contributions? 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

And for the record, Michael Parfit had sour grapes over being booted off an expedition in favor of Pellegrino, both of whom happened to be writers. There are plenty of positive reviews on Amazon and Goodreads for Pellegrino's books, so why are these not reported? Wikipedia isn't a book review site. It's also not a trial for a 13 year old mistake that was addressed and corrected in subsequent re-release of the Last Train book. And evidence exists of Pellegrino's PhD, but Wikipedia refuses to account for it. His thesis was literally published and is cited from the peer-reviewed journal Crustaceana. Look it up. Many others have cited it. If you do not wish to account for the fact that Pellegrino earned his PhD, then simply report that he earned a Bachelor's and Masters and leave the slander out of it. 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Have you read Charles_R._Pellegrino#Doctoral_degree? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that was the result of poor journalism with faulty research who is no longer employed by the New York Times. It's literally Fake News, like when the media reports from "anonymous sources" and we're expected to believe it. The "letter" this "journalist" received didn't even get the Chancellor's gender or name correct. I have screenshots of Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) admitting that Pellegrino earned his PhD on a page they had created for him to post his thesis when I requested it to be digitized from print, and the page was subsequently removed once negative press threatened to drag VUW into the media. They just wanted to cover their own behinds. The page literally said "Doctoral Degree Awarded" and I took screen shots of it. 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)