Page: Onde-onde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Klepon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Megat Lanang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1], then continued on edit wars on his latest edit [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]
7. [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: unresponsive to my invitation to address the problem in Klepon talk page also ignoring other user warning. Gunkarta  talk  12:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Fraser Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ash.david (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 14:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 08:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "Reverting of this edit is politically inflammatory. Please do not change it again."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "/* Adding uncited statements */ Reply"
2. See existing discussion on User talk:Ash.david for awareness of edit warring policy, and other discussions linked at Talk:Fraser Island#Recent addition to § Toponymy for further discussion and explanation of the edit warring policy

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent addition to § Toponymy */ new section"
2. 19:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent addition to § Toponymy */ Reply"
3. See also other discussions linked at article talk for previous attempts at resolution

Comments:

Ash.david is edit-warring to include the unsourced statement that "many locals and tourists still refer to it as Fraser Island" (rather than its traditional, and now official, name of K'gari). Three different editors, including myself, have removed this unsourced claim. Ash.david has behaved rudely on talk pages, including at User talk:Ash.david § Adding uncited statements and elsewhere as linked in the article talk page discussion. Most recently, Ash.david added four inline citations to the statement, ostensibly supporting it, but none of the citations have any text supporting the claim. When I started a discussion on the talk page to centralise the multiple discussions on user talk pages that had been started, Ash.david reverted my new discussion without comment. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ash.david has since added another inline citation that does not appear to support the statement anywhere. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I might have considered just a longer partial block from the article, but editor's defiant, tendentious and combative attitude (including a past promise to edit war) clearly calls for a sitewide block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case @Tol apologies if this is the wrong place to mention it, but I've just noticed that a brand new account (TyromannA) has made the exact same edit, then proceeded to edit Ash.david's talk page claiming that it is their own. This seems to be a fairly clear and deliberate circumvention of the block and continuation of the edit warring. Turnagra (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Turnagra, I opened your ping and saw your message right after I also noticed this behaviour and filed an SPI. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 06:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the new account indef. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the block expiring, Ash.david has again added the content to the article and deleted the talk page discussion three times (once after a self-revert) - see edits 1, 2, and 3. After I reverted one of the removals, they also sent me an email accusing me of, among other things, giving "an uneducation to children". Turnagra (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week this time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2023 Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Claudiogostoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:
User inserting wrong redirects. He was blocked in the past week due to this exact same behaviour, and he refuses to answer when asked to and he deletes all the messages that I sent to him. Guilherme (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one month Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Draft:Wild Furry Pawtality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 02:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 02:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "/*Quick note on Draft:Wild Furry Pawtality*/ Quick note"
2. 02:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Draft:Wild Furry Pawtality."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edwinonus has repeatedly removed an AfC decline template from their draft, in direct opposition to the comment alongside it asking users, Do not remove this line!. They have ignored multiple warnings on their user talk page not to do so and appear likely to continue removing this tag. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially blocked – for a period of indefinitely from Draft:Wild Furry Pawtality. - Aoidh (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Michele Evans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 69.117.93.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "This is vandalism. Proper edits were made according to Talk page. Quit deleting accurate, relevant, unbiased, numerously sourced information on Michele."
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) to 06:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
   1. 06:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "Making edits to comply with talk page discussions."
   2. 06:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "minor edit"
3. 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "Removing un cited claims as no examples were given on talk page and this biased editor continues to vandalize."
4. 04:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "Continued vandalism revert. Added additional sources. Non-biased Sources now total 25."
5. Consecutive edits made from 04:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC) to 04:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
   1. 04:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1194653381 by Nikkimaria (talk). Vandalism is not OK in the name of cleanup!"
   2. 04:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "fixed typo"
   3. 04:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "adding clarification"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Michele Evans."
2. 05:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ reply"
3. 06:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Michele Evans."
4. 07:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ reply to 69.117.93.145"
5. 07:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Michele Evans "re"

Comments:

See also WP:BLPN#Michele Evans. Has been consistently accusing Nikkimaria of vandalism on talk pages and in edit summaries. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 07:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entirely of the article was being deleted. From what I have been told that is vandalism. If it is not, I apologize but it's the information I had at the time. I addressed Nikkimarias concerns once I was able to finally get them articulated. My concerns of mass deletion keep being ignored however. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also can someone help me understand why Nikkimarias was not reported as the person who started the mass deletion? I'm confused why the initiating party was not reported and I was. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Ordinarily, I take a cautious approach when the article reported is the subject of an AfD, as you would expect a lot more back and forth in that situation which some editors might regard as edit warring. But not here. More than the usual 24 hours for a first block for 3RR because the editor went to about five reverts, plus they have clearly demonstrated a tendentious mindset and battleground mentality as evidenced by their bludgeoning the AfD, and also have failed to assume good faith. They have thus earned themselves a break from the AfD and article for a while, but not so long that they will be unable to return to the former before it closes (although I'm not optimistic that the tide will suddenly and dramatically shift to keep). Hopefully—emphasis hopefully—they will be able to participate in a more civilized, collegial fashion and gracefully accept the very-likely deletion of the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Maxwell Jacob Friedman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dingo175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC) to 03:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
   1. 02:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 21:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 11:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC) "He has not resigned with AEW as of edit"
5. 02:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) "He is no longer signed to aew contract ended Jan 1 2024"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
2. 10:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ Reply"
3. 10:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring in a contentious topic area, persistent addition of unsourced material to a BLP, refusal to discuss on talk page, also making personal attacks[14] — Czello ^(music) 10:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add onto this my final revert was removing unambiguous vandalism from an unrelated user; wanted to point this out just in case it was misinterpreted as continuing to revert Dingo175. Their BLP violation still stands. — Czello ^(music) 11:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to: (see table)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

These six reverts fit in under 48 hours; the final 4 reverts (3b, 4b, 5b & 6b in pink) span under 25 hours—if you're short on time, just look at the last 4. I felt I should include the earlier reverts to put the series in perspective, especially showing the edit warring started right after Cambial Yellowing's edit-warring block expired. I apologize for the length, and hope this chronological table helps simplify/illustrate an edit warring series that would have been too complicated to follow if abbreviated to just diffs. I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

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

No specific warning given. Cambial had received a 72-hour block the prior week for edit warring with me on the talk page of a related article (see AN3 archive 477 § Cambial Yellowing). Cambial is quite familiar with 3RR and AN3, having participated here several times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Two threads on talk page; neither resolved:

1. Talk:Scientology § Reduction project B&P (re content forks—edits 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b in table above)
2. Talk:Scientology § Misuse of maintenance templates (re failed verification—edits 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b in table above)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 01:57, 11 January 2024

Comments:

During 28–30 December 2023, Cambial edit warred with me on a related article, culminating in Cambial's 3RR violation on the talk page for which they were given a 72-hour block. Since that edit warring incident, I have made no further edits to that article. (I gave up.)

During Cambial's block period, I made only one edit to the Scientology article (the article of this 3RR report). In less than 24 hours after Cambial would have gotten off their 72-hour block, Cambial reverted my edit, and continued for the next three days almost exclusively edit warring or arguing on this article, and not stopping until after I ceased engaging.

I have been slowly working on this article over the last few months to remove duplicate material resulting from content forks (Talk:Scientology § Reduction project B&P), but during this period, everything I tried to do in this article has been reverted and reorganized by Cambial Yellowing (who keeps re-adding the duplicate material) until it is too complicated of a jumble to figure out how to fix it.

It wasn't until after I quit trying to work on the article, and abandoned the two talk page threads (which were not resolving), that I counted up the edits/reverts and subsequently drafted this report.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambial has been one very nasty individual at the Scientology articles. Mostly with Grorp plus I've had some exchanges with them. I'm not concerned about me but they are harassing away it's best editor (Grorp). There should be some type of warning given. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at the article's talk page (permanent section link) is full of unproductive discussion about user behavior, which doesn't belong there (focus on content; no meta). This isn't entirely Cambial Yellowing's fault; Grorp and North8000 also raised conduct concerns there instead of leading by example. Describing an editor as "very nasty individual" and another as "best editor" is a highly subjective approach that turns pages into battlegrounds and is unsuitable for a noticeboard discussion.

So if a warning is needed, this here is one for all of you three. Now we can archive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]