Svetlana Velmar-Janković

Page: List of national fruits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 35.139.154.158 (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 17:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC) to 17:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284781898 by Doll Allison (talk) it was all unsourced/dubious...feel free to re-add with sources"
   2. 17:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "WP:CITOGENESIS...the source specifically talks about looking this up on google and getting a result from wikipedia"
2. 17:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "the WP:BURDEN for finding a source is on those who wish to add or restore content...feel free to re-add entries with citations...especially bad is when a source is unreliable and/or doesn't back up the claim made"
3. 17:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "not supported by the source (which lists a different variety than pictured anyway)"
4. 17:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "missed one"
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC) to 17:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "unsourced"
   2. 17:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "rm unsourced entries"
   3. 17:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "rm entries sourced to symbolhunt.com...some random website, not an RS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of national fruits."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC) on List of national fruits "Undid revision 1284779652 by 35.139.154.158 (talk) stop it. Take it to the talk page."

Comments:

not really sure if I was supposed to do anything else but this person refused to discuss on the talk page after I asked them to stop edit warring. These edits were probably good faith, but still edit warring and I think they also violate 3RR. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 18:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one month. Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Led Zeppelin (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1700:9a10:8bd0:23e9:f1ce:25af:4d97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] ("It is the 12th you 5 IQ mouthbreathers. It's right on the back of the sleeve. LedZeppelin.com even has it as the 12th. Sunday releases were uncommon, but they did happen.")
2. [3] ("I can do this all day, Brett. Google the release date, dipshit.")
3. [4] ("Fixed Brett's dumb mistake again. Brett I'm making you a founder of ICP on their Wikipedia page because you're the most insane clown I've ever met. You clearly don't know shit about Led Zeppelin and your quoted source is a fan fiction biography full of inaccuracies. Check the date on what Spotify says for the album.")
4. [5] ("Removed Brett's fan fiction source that he loves to pretend is facts. Are we trying to tell the truth on here or just clowing around, Brett?")

Comments:
Edit-warring over a minor release date, and personally attacking Tkbrett with wild abandon. I've got no part in this feud, I just improved the article to GA status. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: New Kingdom of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eeismail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments: Eeismail has repeatedly inserted an improperly sourced land area figure into the article despite requests from multiple users to stop. User:Ritchie333 gave a temporary article block and final warning, but since then Eeismail has simply tried to insert the figure into the infobox instead of the body text. A. Parrot (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely I warned them that's what would happen if they carried on with discussion, and so it's three strikes and you're out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Carlson_(ice_hockey)&diff=prev&oldid=1284944660 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1284755139 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilya_Sorokin&diff=prev&oldid=1284704380 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Wilson_(ice_hockey)&diff=prev&oldid=1284755784

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1284755139
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1284755368
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1284944532
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1285002445

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sbaio&diff=prev&oldid=1285012075

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASbaio&oldid=prev&diff=1285012160

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

Comments:
I have not broke the WP:3RR rule. The editor has not tried to resolve the dispute and keeps reinstating his edits. Editor's comments/edit summaries are uncivil. In addition, all of these additions are purely trivial and recentism (and fanboyism]]. – sbaio 03:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have left comments on talk page to try and resolve the dispute, they have only been deleted. Editor's primary motivation for reverting edits is due to personal bias. JWNimble (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are surely not "try to resolve the dispute". Stop lying, because anybody can see your edits. – sbaio 04:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You both could do with assuming more good faith, and finding agreement on the talk page. I suggest dispute resolution. Anyway, 3RR refers to edits in a 24 hour period, which this isn't. PhilKnight (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Trumpet of Patriots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Silvi2197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1285008254 by StAnselm (talk)"
2. 02:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1285007834 by StAnselm (talk)"
3. 02:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1285006932 by StAnselm (talk)"
4. 02:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 01:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284997999 by StAnselm (talk)"
6. 01:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Trumpet of Patriots."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Far-right? */ new section"

Comments:

All of these were arguably BLP violations, the last four certainly were. StAnselm (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have partially blocked Silvi2197 for a week from the article. I haven't blocked StAnselm, but I would counsel them to be more cautious in future as their claimed exception to edit warring is shaky at best. PhilKnight (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll admit I am new on here and wasn’t too sure how to engage on the talk page I responded by adding a source and I have explained my rationale on the article’s talk page I will fully admit that the first four were probably not okay and I was clearly in the wrong with them but i did find a reputable and fact checked source and revised a few other times and worked out what I was doing with the talk page.

  i am happy to take the block and promise to be more careful in the future however I do stand by the accuracy of my edit and the source provided but I will leave it at this. Silvi2197 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: you don't see the problem quoting a blog talking about the "fascist, prejudicial, and greedy policies of the dictatorial-based leader of the United States, ‘President’ [sic] Trump"? That is screamingly obvious BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article is about the political policies of said person and not their personal life or private life this is a completely different area of topic as far as I can ascertain from the relevant BLP policy. My source is primarily giving a dissertation on the political policies of a party and does not seek to explore or imply anything personal

the admins are free to correct me if this is not the case but it is my understanding that political policy is not something which is considered biographical in nature. Silvi2197 (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think calling someone far right could be a BLP violation. PhilKnight (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My source is calling the political policies far right is that not just a description of the policies of the party and/or leader? the article is fact checked by legal experts and the party in question is directly associated with trumpism which should be noted that the trumpism page on Wikipedia describes trumpism as a right wing to far-right ideology too. Silvi2197 (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, our BLP policy says, "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis original). StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. PhilKnight (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of generation II Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 148.59.73.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Either leave it alone OR put it back"
2. 19:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 22:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC) "/* List of Pokémon */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

admittedly going off-track, but it's pretty clear that this ip intends on disregarding everything to keep their claims in, so... consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 19:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just to note that the template you used to warn the IP user is incorrect. You should've used this template instead. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  it was used before it went into full-blown edit warring, but fair consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 19:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Tamara Kalinic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 37.19.109.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 16:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 16:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
   1. 16:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 16:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
   1. 16:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 16:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
   1. 16:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 14:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.6)"
2. 16:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not sure exactly what the problem is here, but the IP has some issue with ethnicity they will not discuss at talk. Patrick (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked the IP from editing the Tamara Kalinic article for 1 week. They are encouraged to use the talk page to establish consensus for their changes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Vestigium Leonis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BMWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 17:58, 10 April 2025

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:27, 11 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis updated article
2. 21:20, 11 April 2025: BMWF reverts both Vestigium Leonis & another editor's update
3. 03:00, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
4. 13:18, 12 April 2025: NutmegCoffeeTea reverted Vestigium Leonis
5. 13:27, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted NutmegCoffeeTea
6. 13:41, 12 April 2025: NutmegCoffeeTea reverted Vestigium Leonis
7. 13:42, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted NutmegCoffeeTea
8. 13:58, 12 April 2025: BMWF reverted Vestigium Leonis
9. 14:02, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
10. 14:09, 12 April 2025: BMWF reverted Vestigium Leonis
11. 14:12, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
12. 14:22, 12 April 2025: BMWF reverted Vestigium Leonis
13. 14:33, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
14. 15:43, 12 April 2025 NutmegCoffeeTea reverted Vestigium Leonis

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 14:12, 12 April 2025: BMWF warned Vestigium Leonis
• 14:36, 12 April 2025: Sariel Xilo warned Vestigium Leonis
• 14:36, 12 April 2025: Sariel Xilo warned BMWF
• 15:49, 12 April 2025: Sariel Xilo warned NutmegCoffeeTea

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• User:FMSky reopened a past discussion at Talk:Forspoken#Lead
• FMSky & BMWF (along with a handful of comments by other editors) discussed this at User talk:Sergecross73#Longterm EW (not sure why this is where the discussion occured) where FMSky provided the following diffs as examples of this edit war going on & off since November 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

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

• 15:26, 12 April 2025: Notice for Vestigium Leonis
• 15:27, 12 April 2025: Notice for BMWF

Comments:
I haven't edited much on Forspoken but I did see the edit war reheat & added to FMSky's RPP report. Both User:Vestigium Leonis & User:BMWF blew past 3RR during this edit war; User:NutmegCoffeeTea only made 2 reverts so I included for context but I'm not reporting them. In terms with my experiences with the involved editors, I haven't had any issues previously with User:Vestigium Leonis & they apologized after I added the edit war notice. However, BMWF and I have had content disputes before primarily at Dragon Age: The Veilguard & more recently at Assassin's Creed Shadows. When dealing with BMWF, I've noticed they are quick to revert with anything they disagree with even if consensus disagrees while claiming they are following WP:BRD. In the case of Veilguard, I went to WP:DRN in December 2024 in an attempt to deescalate and they refused to engage; when another editor & I finished the process and I implemented the consensus from DRN, they returned to revert saying we didn't have their consensus (this then lead to an RfC). In general, I've noticed that BMWF does not agree with any policy interpretation if it goes against the edits they want to implement even if multiple editors have explained why something is supported by policy & that consensus does not mean every editor involved has to agree. To me, this edit war at Forspoken appears to be part of a larger pattern of disruptive editing by BMWF while Vestigium Leonis simply lost their cool in a single incident. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC) (Added in ANEW notice diffs Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I acknowledge that I went too far with the reverts, there is nothing else I want to add or justify on that part. I’ve dealt with a similar situation on the Veilguard article, which probably played a part in how things went (along with a bad night’s sleep). I agree with Sariel's explanation on here about the way BMWF, and on a smaller scale also the other user NutMegCoffeeTea (who just did the third revert as well), handle the editing on here. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much a complete observer here, but upon reviewing this is frankly ridiculous. @Sariel Xilo, you probably should've added NutmegCoffeeTea too, as I'm sure you know it's possible to participate in edit warring without breaking 3RR, and I think this is prime example. BMWF and Nutmeg were just in a whole conflict on the AE board (it was a mess, trust me you're better off not reading it) where this exact thing happened, [13] and so they should be more than aware of edit warring policy. The fact that they both did this flagrantly so recently afterwards either raises legitimate WP:CIR issues of being unable to read the plain text of WP:EDITWAR or is a pretty serious indicator of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I never do this, but unless these guys show up and inform us that they're gonna completely 180º their behavior, this needs to be addressed. Just10A (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NutmegCoffeeTea, BMWF: Your views on this please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]