Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.125.64.26 (talk) at 21:10, 8 September 2022 (→User:84.125.64.219 reported by User:Theklan (Result: Protected): Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:2603:6080:5F01:4CB9:10FF:5474:792E:8E30 reported by User:Qwaiiplayer (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: O. J. Howard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:6080:5F01:4CB9:10FF:5474:792E:8E30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 23:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Stop changing the star"
3. 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Stop changing the Star it does not belong there"
4. 20:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Star does not belong there stop putting it there"
5. 19:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 02:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
7. 23:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC) ""
8. 14:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on O.J. Howard."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Offseason member only */ new section"

Comments:

Keeps trying to remove an asterisk for "offseason only" in the infobox of the player, despite the player clearly only being on the team in question during the offseason. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:7930:6100:B4BC:331A:2DBC:3713 reported by User:MB (Result: Blocked 31 hours for regular vandalism)

Page: Robert McQueen High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1700:7930:6100:B4BC:331A:2DBC:3713 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
   2. 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 06:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 06:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
   2. 06:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
   3. 06:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
5. 05:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 05:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
7. 02:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Robert McQueen High School."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps unlinking the list of alumni and adding NN MB 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for regular vandalism EvergreenFir (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

User:204.15.147.136 reported by User:Shibbolethink (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Boston Children's Hospital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 204.15.147.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Incomplete, biased, and politically charged edit. Make reviews to be less incendiary in nature."
2. 01:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Incomplete and biased information. Incendiary and politically inclined language."
3. 00:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Libs of Tiktok provided video evidence of interaction with three employees confirming the procedure was realized on minors. This article is highly biased and does not include pertinent information."
4. 00:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Libs of Tiktok controversy was highly biased. The writer was not unbiased and failed to provide information that is pertinent to this developing story such as the fact that the website of Boston Children’s Hospital was edited after they faced backlash."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:204.15.147.136&oldid=1108925986#c-PohranicniStraze-20220907011400-September_2022]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP passed 3RR and continues to blank politically charged article for POV reasons. Replies "objective criticism" on talk. Not sure if this should be AIV or EWN. But IP did not follow BRD and continues to revert 4x. — Shibbolethink 03:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Ggux (Result: )

Page: Flavan-3-ol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zefr (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/search/?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1108905952
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1108907385

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Zefr

Comments:

This is an ongoing problem - hence a report after only two reversions. Editor Zefr reverts edits that suggest that flavan-3-ols might have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease risk. There is a considerable amount of evidence - compliant to WP:MEDRS - but this is ignored and statements are always revised to be as negative as possible. I have suggested that this should be discussed on the talk page before reverting - but that request was ignored.

Unfortunately, it appears that there is a personal problem and Zefr believes that I push a NPOV because of a perceived bias. This has been discussed here ]. The statement I have added has been discussed extensively on the talk page ] and in the context of a 3rd opinion request regarding the inclusion of a larger study. There is clear consensus that beneficial effects have been observed.Ggux (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't point to any consensus for your position since EdJohnston's warning in mid-May. I'm inclined to block both of you for continuing the content dispute in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This might have been my mistake, but I believed that the statement I added did not change the meaning but rather clarified it. The original text stated: Research has shown that flavan-3-ols may affect vascular function, blood pressure, and blood lipids, with only minor effects demonstrated, as of 2019. I have added a statement from a source that was cited previously to indicate the incremental nature of the research and put it into perspective: Accumulating evidence suggests that flavan-3-ol consumption can be beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health.

But I appreciate that while this was done in good intentions, I should have added this to the talk page first.Ggux (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

First, that doesn't look like a clarification but a significant change. Second, you edit-warred over it, which is precisely what you were warned would result in a block. Perhaps I should p-block both of you from the article; much as I dislike p-blocks, this seems like a good candidate for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reconsidered this and ask you for a permanent block for me - assuming this is possible. When an experienced editor such as @Zefr has made up their mind, it is impossible to change and simply leads to frustration. For whatever reason, @Zefr believes that neither flavan-3-ols nor polyphenols have any impact on health. While this contradicts the scientific consensus, including reviews and the favourite source of this editor, it is impossible to include it in any reasonable way in a text. Discussions are derailed by making preposterous claims and edits are made without discussion. In summary: @Zefr wins and I would like to leave. Ggux (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to wait and see what Zefr has to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Irrespective of that - please do block me. It will make things easier and Zefr will be able to keep the polyphenol and nutrition pages free from any claims that might link them to health.Ggux (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said - I've given up. I'm sure @Zefr is proud. And perhaps you could consider how to deal with bullies. Good bye.

]

Ggux (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There are no reputable MEDRS reviews or medical organizations, no significant scientific agreement generally, no regulatory agencies (with two minor EU exceptions), and no Misplaced Pages editor consensus to state that any polyphenol has sufficient evidence of providing anti-disease effects or normal roles in physiology. Yet, since May 2022, Ggux has been on a campaign to paint several polyphenol articles with a halo of health effects. In this section, Ggux did collaborate for stating facts without insistence on using primary research to advocate for unproven health claims. 

Ggux has declared COI as an employed academic scientist with a vested interest in promoting that institution's research program, and admits (user page history) to being "terribly biased". Now, confronted with resistance against overselling vague primary research as encyclopedic conclusions, Ggux wishes to withdraw from editing polyphenol articles. That's an easy self-regulated action: if truly wishing to be a constructive Misplaced Pages volunteer, Ggux could just edit other topics.

By the persistence of Ggux editing mainly polyphenol articles and talk pages in favorable terms of health and nutrition (more than 95% of user's total edits), the intent is revealed for WP:SPA which states: "while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed."

Accordingly, a WP:TBAN from editing polyphenol articles due to advocacy and for failure to uphold MEDRS-based neutrality, and encouragement to be a more collegial, diversified editor are in order. Zefr (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at this, Zefr did not break the three-revert rule so they have not broken any policy. I believe Ggux has quit Misplaced Pages and scrambled their password, they also wrote on their Misplaced Pages page they have been bullied. Ggux is obviously an academic in the field of research who was using Misplaced Pages to promote health effects of polyphenols. It is disappointing they have left because if they were a bit more patient and engaged with talk-pages more and requested input from other editors they may have stayed around but I agree with Zefr that some of their editing was problematic by not upholding MEDRS-based neutrality. This user was promoting the COMOS trial but the results do not look statistically significant. Similar to Ggux I do believe that there are health effects from polyphenols but I differ in admitting that to due to difficulties with interpreting results and the limited trials that have been published at this stage the evidence is suggestive, not conclusive. I think their are many difficulties with this topic for researchers to sort out before any consensus is reached. It's true that there is no scientific agreement on this topic right now. I think we need a lot more years research. In a decade it may be more clear. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Jirka.h23 reported by User:Ermenrich (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jirka.h23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has been adding and readding this section several times now, three times four in the last twenty-four hours plus several more prior to that. I think this counts as longer term edit warring.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I have returned it on 27 August, this paragraph was here until 11 August, when you deleted it, so it was just 16 days, and there was a mention of it about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article). As said Slatersteven, the onus should be on those wishing to remove it to get consensus, and I agree on that. Also five people at the talk page is against its removal. Do not force your edit (removal of the sourced content), the page returns to stable version, find first consensus for removal of the paragraph. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

1) I did not delete it; 2) That's all irrelevant. You're still edit warring.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you deleted the paragraph from the page on 11 August 2022.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Diff? You won't find one because these are my edits on that page: .--Ermenrich (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be it ]. Note, not yours. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Being right is not a justification for edit warring (as I told you). Also you are wp:bludgeoning the talk page. 14:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Ok sorry it was ErnestKrause, I was wrong if you both start with "E" :-) Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that he should first find a consensus to remove the long-standing paragraph. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an issue for a different notice board. This is about your edit warring - which is obvious and proven.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

User:ChicagoWikiEditor reported by User:Stoarm (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:17, August 30, 2022
2. 00:03, August 31, 2022
3. 12:28, August 31, 2022
4. 12:33, August 31, 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Do not continue edit warring"

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

Comments:

This issue began when ChicagoWikiEditor made this edit two weeks prior to the edit warring, with no edit summary whatsoever to explain why content that had been in the article since the day the article was created 10 years ago was being removed. I was blocked for my edit warring on August 31 and was unable to file this report until now. Shortly after I was blocked, Chicago WikiEditor made this edit, with the edit summary, "Enjoy your block." Stoarm (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Stale. Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Kutybap reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: Confederation Liberty and Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC) "No sources with proof. Confederation got 5-10% political support, because the are not populism. Confederation is pro-science party"
2. 23:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109093477 by LilianaUwU (talk)"
3. 22:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109072759 by Vacant0 (talk) No sources with proof. Confederation got 5-10% political support, because the are not populism. Confederation is pro-science party. Read the sources and stop revert."
4. 17:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109055890 by PopoDameron (talk) "the sources directly say it's true" - These sources have provided no evidence of this. It is not enough to "say". It still has to be proved. If I create a page where I write that you are a pedophile - it does not mean that you are a pedophile. I have yet to prove it. But in your opinion, you are a pedophile - because that's what the source says. Bring a new source that shows proof."
5. 17:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "No sources with proof. Confederation got 5-10% political support, because the are not populism. Confederation is pro-science party."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Confederation Liberty and Independence."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Has removed something that was sourced from the linked article while writing less than flattering edit summaries. Also, this might be a case of WP:NONAZIS. Liliana 01:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Has removed something that was sourced from the linked article while writing less than flattering edit summaries. Also, this might be a case of WP:NONAZIS"

Stop slandering me, lie. Kutybap (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You've been told to go to the talk page to discuss the changes, yet you decided to keep edit warring. How is that slanderous? Liliana 02:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Kutybap's edit-warring has continued since LilianaUwU wrote this report. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would want to note that blocked user Damianbolek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also repeatedly removed "right-wing populism" from the infobox and also claimed that "there is no proof that the party is populist". Vacant0 (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Two separate 3RR vios in as many days. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

User:SG1994! reported by User:Morgan695 (Result: Blocked 72h)

Page: Shōnen manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SG1994! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: I was previously involved in an edit dispute with this user at shojo manga (discussion on my talk page here) over the addition of uncited info, which I did not escalate here largely because I was unsure of the process for doing so. (That dispute also involved them removing cited information from "Adolescence" because it contradicted their POV). Quick glance down their talk page shows the editor has a history of this kind of brute force, "because I said so"-style editing despite multiple warnings about the importance of providing reliable sources. Morgan695 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Morgan695: How do you justify your violation of 3RR?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: WP:CITE, as User:SG1994! has revised the relevant copy of the article without actually changing the corresponding in-article citation; as it currently stands with SG1994's edit in place, the relevant passage of the article is not actually supported by the McCarthy citation provided. (Though even if the in-text citation was changed, SG1994 has failed to provide any reliable source substantiating their claim beyond some blogs and their own personal POV on the matter.) In any case, I've disengaged from editing the page until this report is concluded. If I can be so frank, I did not feel inclined to engage this editor with the best of faith given their record of being banned for the exact type of unconstructive editing they're demonstrating here, as well as my own previous attempt to build consensus with the editor being wholly unproductive. Morgan695 (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Morgan695: You should read WP:3RRNO. WP:CITE is not an exemption from edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: So what is the resolution here? I've started an RfC on the article talk page, where SG1994! is currently just making bizarre, easily disproven statements about what is plainly written in sources that contradict their position. How am I supposed to engage this person in good faith? Morgan695 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And now openly mocking a third party editor. Morgan695 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

User:84.125.64.219 reported by User:Theklan (Result: Protected)

Page: Juan Sebastián Elcano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.125.64.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:84.125.64.219

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Juan_Sebasti%C3%A1n_Elcano#Whether_Elcano_was_Basque_or_not, and many other discussions.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:84.125.64.219

Comments:
This anonymous IP is trying to pursue a deletion of a fact that is sustained by sources. References are given, but they doesn't stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theklan (talk • contribs) 10:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This page has problems back to some years ago with some users that monopolize it with their own nationalistic POV and they don't care about what people say in the talk page. It shouldn't be blocked for edit warring just because this user tries to impose his POV together with other 2-3 users. Please read carefully the proofs and the text I'll post below. Oh, and none of them (especially Theklan, who made this report) never cared to talk anything in the talk page. They just stick to revert or to add another source that is not proving their point but a similar one.

Some of the historical sources say Elcano was Biscayne, which is not the same as being from the "Basque Nationality" (a nationality that has never existed, btw) and looking at the National Geographic page you mentioned, yes indeed they say he was Basque born in the Basque Country, but inside of Spain, they talk about his return to Spain, I will quote National Geographic "Elcano did not suffer from a lack of fame in his country on his return. Europe’s most powerful man, Charles V, the king of Spain and Holy Roman emperor, duly praised and rewarded the captain who had so heroically completed the voyage." they even claim how the expedition was Spanish (of course including people from all parts of Spain, such as Basques or Andalosians, as well as from other nationalities, such as Portuguese) as you can see no one denies he was Spanish, because he was born Castilian and he died Spanish.

Yes, he was also Basque, like an American can be a Californian or like a French can be Corsican or a Italian can be Sardinian. That doesn't remove the fact he was Spanish, which is the desire of the 3 nationalistic Basque users that keep monopolizing that page for some years... I just encourage you to check the Basque Misplaced Pages to see how there is no mention on the real place he was born (they say it was born in "Euskal Herria" which was a concept that was firstly mentioned by Basque Nationalists in the 19th century) no mention in the lead nor in an important place to the Spanish Empire and even less to Castile, even if he was born Castilian inside the Kingdom of Castile.

I am okay with keeping he was Basque as well in the lead. I think the Nationality tag in the infobox should be deleted, as proposed 2 years ago by other users. Since this is controversial. Like in the Carles Puigdemont given example in the long RfC he had (you can see it in Elcano's talk page) and Puigdemont denies he is Spanish, while there is no historical claim Elcano has ever deniend being Spanish or Castilian since he was Castilian/Spanish, we can say he was also Basque as the sources say Biscayne (which doesn't automatically remove the fact he can also be Spanish/Castilian) so I think it's better to keep it this way. And let's not forget Elcano lost his life while trying to claim a Moluccan island for the Spanish Empire. He gave his life for Spain. That doesn't make him less Basque, but neither doesn't remove the fact he died Spanish and also that he was born in the Crown of Castile. In fact, Elcano has been treated as a Spanish National Hero for centuries and unless in the Basque and the English Misplaced Pages, no other Wiki denies he was Spanish but only Basque... why is someone letting this happen? He even lost his life in an expedition for the Spanish Empire, trying to gather another island for the Empire.

In addition, the only Wikis that say he was only Basque are the Basque language Misplaced Pages and the English Misplaced Pages, which has been modified by the same users that edit the Basque Wiki, in all of the other Wikis no one tries to change the history of Elcano's expeditions or to alter his biography by removing the nationality/citizenship he acquired from the place he was born in and when he died, it's curious how a non-Spanish person (according to Theklan and 2-3 other Basque nationalists editing this Wiki) died giving his life for the Spanish Empire in an expedition he wanted to complete. Kinda contradictory, isn't it?

Here is the National Geographic official source for Elcano, where you can find most of what I've wrote above: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/this-man-was-actually-first-to-sail-around-the-world

--84.125.64.26 (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to add the constant tryouts from 2019-2020 to reach a consensus in the talk page of Juan Sebastián Elcano (including a Wiki's admin opinion there) and no one has even cared about that, including this user (Theklan) or others that constantly edit the page. They just stick to revert the page to what they like. This "dominance" of the page has been already mentioned even before 3 years ago, I just want to keep Misplaced Pages neutral and to reference to what the added sources say, not to missinterpret on purpose the content of these sources. No one has ever provided in 3 years a single reliable source saying he has a "Basque Nationality" or denying his Castilian/Spanish citizenship, to back up such edits, the users I mention such as Theklan, seek for a source where it mentions he was Basque (which is an ethnicity) and that's his reason to revert, while no source says what he exactly claims. Like I said before, only the Basque and the English Wikis have that written in Elcano's page... and the English Wiki has been modified by the same users as in the Basque Wiki. --84.125.64.26 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We are not discussing about citizenship (which is a modern concept) but about nationality. But here the discussion is about edit warring, not about the article. Also, note that this IP has only contributions in this article (WP:SPA) and that the accusations are a clear case of breach of WP:AFG. Thanks Lectonar for protecting the page. - Theklan (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theklan: When you made this report you didn't even envolve in the talk page unless at the end to be able to fill it. You perfectly know this page has had issues by dozens if not hundreds of different users that disagreed with the edits of you and the other 2 users, which "casually" all of you 3 are well known Basque Nationalists that edit the Basque Wiki and you don't hesitate to revert/delete anything without envolving in the talk page to resolve the disputed content. Most users didn't do a further step but I did, btw my account is not a SPA since I've edited several articles and no one confuses citizenship with nationality here.

The fact you barely wrote something on the talk page (and not in the paragraph where it belongs as no one is denying Elcano wasn't Basque, but not from the invented Basque Nationality you claim) shows how much you want to resolve this dispute.

I also thank for the protection of the page and I really hope this user won't act like this again because I'll be the one filling a report next time. It's time to end the dominance you've had in that page together with the other mentioned users, as mentioned in the talk page by several users in 2017 , 2019 or 2020 (when you never tried to reach any consesus other than deleting or reverting almost everything added by everyone else, to impose your nationalistic POV) I hope this will help that poor article which is nothing else than a Verbatim copy of the Basque Wiki version, that says Elcano was just Basque and born in "Euskal Herria" (a Basque nationalist term that was firstly mentioned in the 19th century) they also tried to copy this to the English Misplaced Pages... but luckily administrators here are not biased as in the Basque Misplaced Pages. --84.125.64.26 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Theklan (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• The page has been fully protected for one week by Lectonar.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Lectonar and @Bbb23. I'm seing a bitter tone, with personal attacks and not assuming good faith. I'll try to mention it in the talk page. Could it be possible to revert to the last edition before the edit warring started, please? Theklan (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theklan: Now this user says I'm doing personal attacks just because I'm saying the truth regarding his edits in that page and because he didn't involve himself in the talk page just after making this report?? I have never said anything bad nor offensive. Where are the personal attacks?

@Lectonar: and @Bbb23: Please don't do what he wants to, he wants to return again to his non-consensuated and non-talked edits that differ from what the sources say, right now there is a "status quo" (since he wants to shoehorn Elcano's "Basquism" the page actually mentions his Basque ethnicity based off the sources linked in the page) like I said before, please click on any major Wiki language for this article and then the Basque one and you'll see the English wikipage is basically a verbatim copy of the Basque Wiki.

Right now, I'm trying to reach a point in the talk page (given the fact he and the other 2 active users constantly editing this page deliberately ignored the 2019-2020 stable tryouts) it seems he just wants to see his own edition and to keep alternative facts about Juan Sebastián Elcano, like saying he has a Basque Nationality (something that doesn't even exist, Basque is an ethnicity) and removing any claim related to Castile / Spain while in fact Elcano was received by the Spanish King Charles I of Spain (Charles V Holy Emperor) and died for the Spanish Empire doing a Spanish conquest tryout and he is considered a Spanish Hero since the 16th century. And all of this is well sourced in the page. He just wants to delete history just as it happens only in the Basque Wiki, I'm even assuming good faith and I say let's keep the Basque Ethnicity but what this user wants is to completely unrelate Elcano to Spain which is pointless as he played a major role in the Spanish History. It's like deleting George Washington is American in his wiki page claiming he was actually British because his ethnicity is British. --84.125.64.26 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note – Further discussion of the issue belongs at Talk:Juan Sebastián Elcano, not here! Favonian (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Favonian: Thanks! That's where we will solve this. I would like to add something else from my part (the last one in this page) so you can know. The stable version of this page was broken less than 2 weeks ago by a WP:SPA that made 17 edits in a row for the first and last time in this article and in Misplaced Pages in overall. It's "curious" that no user "patrolling" the page didn't take any action over these edits.

• Mpub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Here you have the last stable version before this SPA account done the 17 edits in a row
• Here you have the edit after the last edit of this SPA account

I will continue in the talk page you told us to, I wanted to leave this written here as well, so you can know who broke the consensuated lead. Thank you! --84.125.64.26 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no thing as "consensuated lead" or "stable version". This article was in barebones when I started a really big contribution. On the other hand, you are doing Misplaced Pages:Single-purpose account clearly, so don't try to blame others for that. Also, stop personal attacks, please. Theklan (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theklan: It's really curious since you still repeat the mantra of personal attacks when I didn't break none of WP:NPA rules, while at the same time you are breaking it right now calling me a WP:SPA while I have engaged in several articles.

"Don't call others" why are you deliberately ignoring the account I've posted above whose all Wiki edits were in this article in a 2-hour span and "curiously" you didn't engage in none of his edits (as they are convenient for your POV) while you call me a SPA account?? You fastly delete/undo most of the other edits others editors have done in that page regarding the lead, but not for that SPA account, mmm... curious isn't it???

Imagine that SPA account would "surprisingly" return today or in the upcoming days? I'll remember it, maybe we have to ask for some proper investigations if that happens, it's funny to see how picky and leniant you are depending on which account does the edits, even if it's an account registered in August 2022 that made 17 Wiki edits whose 17 are all in the same page (Elcano wiki page during the same August day) but that's not a SPA account in your books whilst I am, right? 84.125.64.26 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring