Page: Dum Dum Lok Sabha constituency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack deGrasse Tyson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

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

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Comments:

I've been trying to revert unreferenced election results from this page for a few days. There's no consistent user to report; one banned user, two anonymous IP users, one named user. So maybe This notice board isn't the right place, but for sure we can't have users repeatedly re-introducing unreferenced, challenged, and ill-formed content back to the corpus. I need some help with it. Is it possible I'm fighting puppets? Unfortunately, the requirements of reporting here mandate that I notify users who might not have done three reverts themselves directly. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the docs here a couple times, but I can't figure out what "ANEW" is, or how it's different than "edit warring / 3RR warning". -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack deGrasse Tyson Blocked indefinitely a few hours prior to this report, via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007. No prejudice against further action (SEMI maybe?). DMacks (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for a year (closing as "already blocked", though). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikeblas, when in doubt, just add "WP:" in front of it and enter it into the search bar – it's an abbreviation/shortcut for the "Administrators' Noticeboard (subpage for reporting) Edit Warring".

The "ANEW notice" is {{An3-notice}} and needs to be placed on the user's talk page. The requested "Diff of ANEW notice" is the proof/diff of you making that notification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Seems like the instructions here could be clarified. I'll do that presently. Meanwhile, I've added {{uw-3rr}} to User talk:Jack deGrasse Tyson and posted a link to it here. Also, I've again reverted the unreferenced material at the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Moycarkey–Borris GAA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tipp81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 6 Mar
2. 31 Mar
3. 31 Mar
4. 31 Mar

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 23 Mar and subsequent diffs

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

Comments:
The user has repeatedly added c. 12,000 bytes of content that is entirely unsourced, self-admitted WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and when told about WP:ONUS has continually reverted to their preferred version. It's not quite a 3RR violation yet, but the editor is a WP:SPA that has only ever edited this page and is continuing to edit-war, and after the last comment on the talk page has continued to revert to their preferred version. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User wanted sources for the information I posted on the above page.

I have now posted a number of sources in the reference section of the above page.

I have attempted to resolve this dispute on talk page but I found my reply's to repeatedly misinterpreted. Tipp81 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tipp81 is a WP:SPA and has only edited the article. I have indefinitely pblocked them from editing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: George Michael (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Phạm Huy Thông (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1216629480 by BlueboyLINY (talk) it was well documented in the article and it’s a known fact that he had various charity foundations"
2. 03:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 14:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Note: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (UV 0.1.5)"
2. 04:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: 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. Only two reverts (the first one above is the original edit, not a revert; it should have been under "previous version reverted to". Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Hillsborough disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 143.58.205.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 11:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "So it is not editorialising to mention a certain fact at one place in the article, but it somehow is editorialising to mention the same fact elsewhere in the article? That makes no rational sense. The bottom line is this: this information is accurate; you admit it's accurate. So it's going in. That is the end of the discussion, and I will not engage in any further debate on this topic."
3. 11:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Not editorialising. That was the inquest verdict."
4. 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hillsborough disaster."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit warring continues. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Chuvash people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Artem Petrov CHV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comment: I noticed crazy hoax & copy-pastes in Chuvash page. I created a talk page to discuss with him. Explained hoax & copyrights in the page. However, the user @Artem Petrov CHV keep reverted my edits. I tried to talk with him in his talk page but he didn't reply me. Then I created another talk section for him and even tagged him. Despite all my efforts he didn't reply me and reverted my edits. There's no doubt it will be fourth or fifth time and I'm tired to deal with someone who denied to talk with me twice. Auzandil (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Chuvash people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Artem Petrov CHV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (1)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (1)
2. (2)
3. (3)
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

Auzandil (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) I noticed crazy hoax & copy-pastes in Chuvash page. I created a talk page to discuss with him. Explained hoax & copyrights in the page. However, the user @Artem Petrov CHV keep reverted my edits. I tried to talk with him in his talk page but he didn't reply me. Then I created another talk section for him and even tagged him. Despite all my efforts he didn't reply me and reverted my edits. There's no doubt it will be fourth or fifth time and I'm tired to deal with someone who denied to talk with me twice.[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. This is so far more of a content dispute, really, and I encourage you to keep it going on the talk page. Bring in other editors, preferably with subject-matter expertise, if you have to, to help reach a consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Atomic Heart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Gameplay */ It says so in the sources"
2. 18:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Gameplay */"
3. 17:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC) "OK, I've added some sources, though I think it's a bit pedantic to do so in this context since any idiot can access and play this game"
4. 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1216521431 by FMSky (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC) "Re"
2. 18:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC) "Re"
3. 18:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) "/* March 2024 */ re"
4. 18:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Editing tests on Atomic Heart."
5. 18:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Atomic Heart."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring continues, despite talk page messages. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Makks2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Category:Countries of Voice of Global South added"
2. 17:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Voice of Global South Summit"
3. 16:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Category:Countries of Voice of Global South added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on India."
2. 18:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sri Lanka."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:India#Text_updated?

Comments:

Further edit warring on India. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Please wait to report editors after they have violated 3RR, not when it looks like they're about to. Also, notwithstanding the comment above, user does not appear to have even edited, much less edit-warred on, India anytime recently. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniel Case Are you joking? They're a whisker from being blocked on India today, and have now moved their edit-warring elsewhere. Indeed, if they revert anyone else today, I'm going to block them myself. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like you saved me the problem while I was typing this :) Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Yes, I decided to look at the actual history of India and found the edit warring (you have to go several pages into it from the user end). {@The Herald:, it would nonetheless have been very helpful if you had provided diffs to review. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I was actually searching and piling up the diffs when you declined it. That happened because I put Sri Lanka as the primary target in Twinkle ARV. Will recheck next time fo sho. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Death of Nex Benedict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter L Griffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17] - On April 1, 21:32, changes Libs of TikTok ("accused of" phrasing). Change was reverted in [18], which Peter reverts again
2. [19] - On April 1, 06:05, reverts a removal of the phrase "altercation". This was a lead section debate around whether inserting "pouring water" was necessary in the lead. I remove "pouring water" and change to "during altercation", and an uninvolved editor removes "during altercation". Peter reverts this change.
3. [20] - On April 1, 06:07, reverts a removed wikilink within a quote.
4. [21] - On March 31, 05:17, Ongoing discussion and reverts of "Pouring water" phrase in lead
5. [22] - On March 31, 05:18 removes verification failed tag to contentious sentence around notes about self-harm. Tag was added here[23] in response to Peter's edits (here)[24] See also talks about failed verification in lead here Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#the_lead,_NPOV,_and_BDP , apparently this sentence was part of the previous edit war three days ago.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Previously has done edit warring and was warned by admins: [[25]]

Continued edit warring after Page Protection was removed. Edit warring accusations have been flying since.

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

Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#the_lead,_NPOV,_and_BDP Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Pour_water Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#"caused_by_a_drug_overdose"

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:

Additional dispute is on here, for the admin who was resolving this issue the last time:Special:Permalink/1216788202#Admin-shopping User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Previous edit war documentation from 4 days ago or so is here[27][reply]

Note the result of the previous edit war was Wikipedia:1RR. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want this to come to this point again. Since the last dispute, I have been careful to not edit war, which is evidenced by each bullet point being one revert; not multiple.

Proof I did not violate 1RR

I will address Sawerchessread's bullet point's one by one:

1. The first linked edit is not a revert, but a normal edit adding contextual information -- "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." The second link is to a revert. Since there is only one revert, 1RR is not violated.

2. There is only one revert, and no violation of 1RR. In fact, I am restoring the page to Sawerchessread's preferred wording, despite my own objections.

3. This is a MOS edit. Whether or not it is considered a revert -- which is highly debatable -- it is only one edit, and does not violate 1RR.

4. One revert. No violation of 1RR.

5. Sawerchessread mischaracterizes the edit. Another user, on the talk page, had disputed my edit from last week where I stated in wikivoice that Nex Benedict left notes suggestive of self-harm. That user noted that all sources quoted the medical examiner, and did not make this claim in their own voice, and the wording then was not sourced. So, I qualified the claim as the opinion of the medical examiner, and removed the failed verification tag. This is clearly not a revert at all.

In fact, to be proactive so that nobody could misconceive me as edit warring, I self-reverted my own edit here [28] about the phrase "drug overdose" so that the matter could be discussed further on the talk page.

Proof Sawerchessread did violate 1RR

Sawerchessread, on the otherhand, has violated 1RR.

• In this edit, after the full protection was removed, they replacing the "pouring water" phrase with "during an altercation" [29], without consensus. I revert this because of the lack of consensus and warn Sawerchessread [30] that any further revert will violate 1RR and could subject them to a block. Nonetheless, Sawerchessread reverts my revert anyway [31]. This second revert flagrantly violates 1RR.
• Sawerchessread has also, interestingly, engaged in the same behavior that I have engaged in -- namely single reverts, nearly always to my edits [32] [33]. As single reverts are not violative of 1RR, those reverts are not rule-breaking per se. Yet it is interesting that since Sawerchessread apparently believes single reverts constitute edit warring, they must also believe a different standard applies to them.

Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have similar concerns to those in the report about the editwarring of Peter L Griffin, and agree that there is a violation of the bright line of WP:1RR. I hadn't gone through quite so comprehensively as Sawerchessread, but left a note on the talk page of Red-tailed hawk, who handled the previous case. Griffin appears to believe that "contentious" means anything that he does not agree with. I am concerned about the appearance of WP:STONEWALLing and WP:Civil POV pushing, with a heaping side of Wikilawyering. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a note on Valereee's usertalk to request help after posting the first ANEW report; I then followed up about concerns related to PLG's post-ANEW conduct. Since then, my concerns continue about ongoing risks of disruption, including what appears to be bludgeoning various discussions, as well as apparent original research and potential attempts to assign undue importance to a single aspect of a subject [34], apparent original research and potential attempts to right great wrongs [35], [36], [37], [38]. Beccaynr (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other users are expressing support for these discussions as well. I, and those users, believe that your edits are undue. You aren't privileged over other users in making edits which are contentious. Peter L Griffin (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I have not edited the article since 03:34, 28 March 2024 [39], to add a failed verification tag; this was further discussed in this talk section, e.g. [40], [41]. Beccaynr (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also potentially relevant is PLG's conduct at Talk:Conspiracy theory#A part does not equal the whole and Talk:Conspiracy theory#Plausible conspiracy theories, including concerns expressed by participants, e.g. [42], [43] [44]; and this comment [45] in discussion about another topic; and this recent addition to a BLP [46]. Beccaynr (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You finding evidence of people disagreeing with me does not mean I don't have the right to make my case. I disagree with you, yet I don't dispute your right to hold the view you do. Peter L Griffin (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I added links to discussions, including further examples of potential bludgeoning, along with what appear to be similar concerns about conduct expressed by participants; as well as a comment made about Wikipedians, and what appears to be the addition of contentious material sourced to e.g. the WP:NYPOST in a BLP. In my request for help at Valeree's usertalk, I included some diffs of conduct towards myself and others; overall, I am concerned about what appears to be bludgeoning discussion and editing processes, which seems to impair collaboration on article development. The rapid and repetitive rate and high volume of participation by PLG creates a challenge for presenting a concise overview of various concerns related to potential disruptive editing. However; warnings and guidance have been provided, and from my view, there appears to be an ongoing risk of disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC) - expand comment to clarify Beccaynr (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply, disagreeing with you, or anyone else, is not a policy violation. Your insinuation that it is runs contrary to Wikipedia being a collaborative platform. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are very dogmatically wikilawyering everything and citing random essays/policies which are only tangentially related to the mater at hand. You were found to be edit warring as well, so I don't understand why you're singling me out like I'm the problem here. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, this is a conduct issue. You have made some broad statements here, such as "Other users are expressing support for these discussions as well. I, and those users, believe that your edits are undue," but this is not a content dispute. For example, in the RM, some support for the proposed move does not excuse what appears to be your bludgeoning conduct; another example is during discussion about how to develop content related to the medical examiner's report, differences of opinion between editors does not excuse your conduct when it appears disruptive to the consensus-building process.

Since the time another editor was p-blocked from the article and article talk for what appear to be somewhat similar behaviors (complaints at ANI included edit-warring, bludgeoning, adding 'the facts don't care about your feelings' to the article talk page, an extreme focus on 'pouring water'), I think there had been constructive article development and discussion on the article talk page; but then your rapid, repetitive, and high-volume participation began. At 19:40, 26 March 2024, you asked me, "Why do feel as though you dictate where the discussion takes place?" and I offered a link to the talk page guidelines [47] to follow up on my comments about the already-open discussion [48], [49]; your response seemed to personally attack me, which you later seemed to continue after a warning.

As noted in my comment above, you have been warned about your conduct, e.g. [50], [51], [52], and guidance has been offered, e.g. [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]; but you do not seem to WP:LISTEN, e.g. because you appear to be continuing to bludgeon discussions, edit-war, attempting to use original research, and recently began a repetition of discussion about your focus on 'pouring water', contrary to the talk page guidelines e.g. [60], [61], [62]. From my view, the scale and impact of your ongoing conduct seems disruptive to building the encyclopedia, and particularly the Death of Nex Benedict article, including on the article talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be getting out of scope for 3RRN. Indeed, the edit warring from PLG at the page in question seems to have stopped. (To be clear, I think there was a violation of 1RR, but it is now stale, and I understand that blocks issued here are to prevent further edit-warring.) I share some of your other concerns, and it looks like something to potentially raise at WP:ANI if the pattern persists. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah this dispute now spans multiple admin talkspaces, mine and plgs and other talkspaces, a dispute resolution ticket and two edit war tickets… but also the wikiwar has gone cold for now.

given its been only two days since the last reverts on this ticket, not sure if its a temporary truce or a permanent ceasefire though in this dispute User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree that if the die down in activity stays then ticket should be considered stale User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As seen above in my first reply, User:Sawerchessread has edit warred and violated 1RR. This should be dealt with appropriately. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that you hold myself and yourself to a different standard, and act as if your edits are privileged over mine. Since the full page protection, User:Sawerchessread seems to have taken on a role similar to yours previously.

Both of you seem all too happy to direct me discuss on the talk page (and you reply to everything I say, which in your case, you don't count as bludgeoning). But you, in the meantime, insist that the page gets to look the way you prefer with the discussion pending, even when my preferred version is what the original full protected page displayed (ie. pouring water). It's unclear why you think the page should show your preferred version by default (achieved through violations of 1RR) while we discuss. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Atlas Shrugged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:8800:4021:DE00:80F7:9F14:7472:1231 (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 04:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC) to 04:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
   1. 04:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1216817840 by RL0919 (talk)"
   2. 04:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 03:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1216816249 by RL0919 (talk)"
3. 03:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1216813581 by TechnoSquirrel69 (talk)"
4. 03:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1216802864 by TechnoSquirrel69 (talk)"
5. 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Atlas Shrugged."
2. 03:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC) "/* April 2024 */ edit warring to insert a personal interpretation"
3. 04:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC) "/* April 2024 */ again, stop edit warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) to 18:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Atlas Shrugged

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 00:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 00:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 00:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 00:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Special:Diff/1216962972

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pages:

• Enforcement Directorate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Katchatheevu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: The Doom Patrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to on Katchatheevu: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts on Katchatheevu:

1. 21:07, 31 March 2024‎ Undid revision 1216554655 by Ratnahastin (talk) Vandalism. Removal of sourced content without explanation. Go to talk page and explain before further reverting.
2. 14:13, 1 April 2024 Rv mass vandalism by Rzvas. Explain in talk page how it is a "garbled verbatim" and reach consensus before further revert.
3. 09:36, 2 April 2024‎ The Doom Patrol Rv mass vandalism of sourced content by Ratnahastin without explanation, and refusing to discuss the matter in talk page.
4. 15:41, 2 April 2024‎ The Doom Patrol Repeated vandalism. No explanation whatsoever, and refusing to discuss the matter in talk page.

Previous version reverted to on Enforcement Directorate: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts on Enforcement Directorate:

1. 20:34, 29 March 2024 WP:CRITS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia & not a newspaper to public every allegations made by the Opposition.
2. 14:29, 1 April 2024 Stop adding distorted data baout conviction rate. There's already a discusison at talk page. Reach consensus there before blatantly reverting. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
3. 09:49, 2 April 2024‎ Rv Ratnahastin. See WP:CRITS. Repeatedly adding fake data about conviction rate, misusing Wikipedia for propaganda.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[65][66](himself warning others against edit warring)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[67]

Comments:

Mislabeling any edits he disgrees with as "vandalism" contrary to WP:NOTVAND despite having been warned to stop it.[68]

Was reported to ANI before making 4th revert on Katchatheevu and there as well he has doubled down with his disruptive behavior and falsely accused others of making personal attacks.[69] Ratnahastin (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked The Doom Patrol for 48h for WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA (repeatedly labeling other editors' edits as vandalism).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1216982320 by Moxy (talk) re-add image until I can find a better one as per talk page discussion."
2. 02:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1216980633 by Moxy (talk) Not a joke, that is the park in question, it is helpful for readers of the article to show Toronto life"
3. 02:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Parks */ update skiing information, rm Centennial Park skiing, add photo of Earl Bales"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ replied"
2. 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ clarified"
3. 14:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ clarified"
4. 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ clarified"
5. 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ clarified"

Comments: 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. There have been only two reverts ... No. 3, above, is the edit reverted to, which does not and never has retroactively made it a revert. While there are reasons why this image is probably not a good fit for this article, which I will go into in the talk page discussion after I'm done here, trying to resolve this with a report to this noticeboard was not the best course of action. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion..... Ask for input here and got it. Hoping this is resolved. Moxy🍁 20:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have understood why people don't like my photo, so I won't put it in those articles anymore. I have not and will not violate the 3RR. Félix An (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An:Please don't be disheartened about this..... I'm expecting great content contributions from you. Moxy🍁 00:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Conflicts between the Regency of Algiers and Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 808 AD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1217048374 by M.Bitton (talk): the oued kiss was there before you and the other editor came here. So it's one that must be kept until we discuss it. Stop edit warring please."
2. 14:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1217047868 by M.Bitton (talk) I read it. Now it's your turn. The article says nothing about the borders so don't add something that makes no sense"
3. 14:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1217046493 by M.Bitton (talk):Please stop it. What you're trying to add here is not sourced."
4. 14:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1217031836 by Descartes16 (talk): Source?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Conflicts between the Regency of Algiers and Morocco."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They keep replacing content that is mentioned in the article with something that isn't, while arguing for an imagined status quo. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes16 came out from nowhere to add their unsourced information. I don't understand why you're defending it. The oued Kiss was there before you both came there. 808 AD (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: "808 AD" who has done nothing but stir up trouble and edit war since joining the project is Possilikely a sock of Pickle_Rick_02, aka SimoooIX. Please see the SPI's result. M.Bitton (talk)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Exteahans71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "I think this should be moved to a seperate article, so there is little clutter. Added this just in case."
2. 20:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Added link." Note: this did not actually only add a link, it reinstated the disputed content, and this does not appear to have been a mistake/merge conflict
3. 19:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "These are not indescriminate facts and fan speculation. These actually came from real sources, and I think it should be fair, it should have real information, that is very important."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
2. 21:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken."
3. 21:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Turning Red."
4. 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Turning Red."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Production section */ Reply"
2. 20:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Production section */Add 3RR acknowledgment."
3. 22:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "/* I think relocating the production section into a seperate article is a better idea. */ Reply"

Comments:

See also ANI discussion, but this is a clearer cut 3RR violation in meanwhile. User repeatedly has blanked warnings on their talk page, or said "sorry" while continuing to do the behaviour of edit warring and pov pushing. lizthegrey (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 22:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 22:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 08:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 07:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 07:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on FCSB."
2. 08:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on FCSB."
3. 08:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on FCSB."
4. 08:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on FCSB."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note he deleted stuff 4 times. Seslem01 might be WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]