Page: Reliability of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] but content has been stable I think since Special:Diff/922493350

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1056981702
2. Special:Diff/1056984056
3. Special:Diff/1057147236
4. Special:Diff/1057148945

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1056989527

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This content was also removed from Warsaw concentration camp and WP:List of Wikipedia hoaxes, among other pages, where extensive discussion and RFCs have taken place on those talk pages. Ironically in those conversations (with the same users), the suggestion was made that this content belongs on this page and not the others.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1057156005

Comments:

This is stable content from two years ago that VM (and others) have been trying to remove from multiple pages this year. At this article, VM has removed it four times. I'm also at 3RR on this article. Levivich 20:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol. I’m not sure why Levivich is reporting himself here seeing as he’s the one who’s made three reverts. I made two today, one of which was of a new disruptive account which showed up to just amplify the dispute. Neither Levivich nor the other account (whose user name, PolskaJestNajwazniejsza, translates as “Poland’s the Greatest” and is a pretty obvious way of not so subtle trolling of Polish editors) have ever edited this article before my original edit (which Levivich falsely attempts to portray as a revert above in the report) They both showed up per WP:STALK (no other way they’d see it unless they’re watching my edits closely. That new account was also, at the time of their edit in violation of the 500/30 restriction imposed on this topic area (or at most they had *just* passed the threshold right before they made the revert, they have like 503 edits now - which also illustrates that this is a WP:SPA created for purpose of starting edit wars in this topic area) reverting users who don’t meet that threshold does not count as reverting. So I made ONE revert in past 24 hours. Levivich made THREE. Levivich has also failed to make use of the talk page, unlike myself (and the other users he’s reverting)

So let’s see. I make an edit. Levivich pops out of nowhere to revert. He is reverted by another user who also starts talk page discussion. I comment on the talk. Levivich doesn’t. Instead he begins edit warring. With personal attacks and false accusations in edit summaries. Still doesn’t bother posting on talk. Then another account, which is prohibited from editing on this topic shows up out of the blue to support Levivich in his edit war.

Hmmm, levivich, you sure this report was a good idea? I mean, I was all ready to report you myself but thought I’d wait and see if you could restrain yourself.

WP:BOOMERANG please. Volunteer Marek 20:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've already pointed out that I am allowed to edit this topic area, as I have 524 total edits, not "like 503 edits" (Volunteer Marek) now, and much else of Volunteer Marek's post is just blaming others instead of accepting his own blame and finally stopping this COI editing. (It's also pretty weird someone could genuinely believe I might be a "SPA" in THIS area, that I have edited only very infrequently).Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You jumped into this controversy as soon as you hit the threshold. You’ve been editing around the edges of the restriction since you showed up. You have a username which is clearly meant to troll other editors. You had immediate divinely granted knowledge of Wikipedia policies as soon as you arrived. We’ve seen this song and dance before. Volunteer Marek 21:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thing is, every time I see a complaint of edit warring or similar in this topic area involving you (at AE/AN/ANI/etc), it always seems to involve similar parties, and often the same editors reverting to restore your edit. Perhaps not exactly unusual for articles in small hotbed topic areas, but this article is "Reliability of Wikipedia" and thus not exactly 'in' the topic area. Just saying that it does come across as tag teaming, and it is your edit that is changing the status quo, so really it should be you to start a discussion per accepted good practices (WP:BRD etc). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thing is, this is indeed a small topic area and the editors you refer to are generally active in it so there’s nothing surprising in that they’d take interest. Especially given that they’ve edited this particular article BEFORE (so it’s on the watchlist). Unlike the WP:SPAs, like PjN, who always show up out of the blue, in a constant stream (one gets banned, two more pop up). Or Levivich for that matter. If you want to know why some OTHER editors made edits then ask THEM, I can’t speak for them.

To be perfectly clear - there is no 3RR violation here, not by me. Levivich presents four diffs, but they’re from different days not from a 24 period, and two of them aren’t even reverts. That looks like a pretty straightforward attempt to misrepresent and WP:GAME, esp. since they reverted THREE times (in a 24 hour period). In fact this whole report looks like a pre-emptive move on his part, after I posted a 3RR warning on HIS page [2]. As in “oh crap, I’ve been edit warring and I might get reported so I better deflect attention from myself by filing a spurious report myself first”. Volunteer Marek 21:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Charli D'Amelio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hanzla Faiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Edit warring to remove an image from the infobox

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

Switched to reverting to a different image

1. [8]
2. [9]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11], [12], [13]

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

Comments:

This editor made exactly 10 edits of a rather mundane nature, apparently so they could gain rights to upload an image which was a copyright violation. After that, it has been repeated reverts with no communication. Other editors involved in restoring the original infobox image are User:Newfiebluejay, User:Flash Lloyd, and User:Qhairun. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Hanzla Faiz is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Charli D'Amelio unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the artice talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: List of ongoing armed conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057291622 by M.Bitton (talk)"
2. 18:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057290938 by M.Bitton (talk)"
3. 18:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057289019 by M.Bitton (talk) ok"
4. 17:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "But the mexican drug war less than a thousand deaths and Algeria 100-999 deaths?"
5. 18:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC) "I added this map because it is more updated than the other one."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of ongoing armed conflicts."
2. 18:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of ongoing armed conflicts."
3. 18:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on List of ongoing armed conflicts."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "/* November 2021 */ new section"
2. 18:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "/* November 2021 */"

Comments:

They keep adding an unsourced map that is full of factually incorrect information while refusing to justify it on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 19:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 19:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Removed duplicate and tidied up content, edits to reflect given references."
4. 12:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC) "Try reading it."
5. 12:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC) "According to the reference that is given."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Fruitarianism."
2. 19:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Fruitarianism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Removal of fad diet */ c"

Comments:

User is repeatedly edit warring on a singular (and incorrect) point of view during an ongoing talk page discussion with no consensus or WP:SCIRS sources established to support the user's opinion. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think, and I have written to Zefr, that their claims would have a lot more credibility, if they had not done a far more considerable reversion of all of the work I put into the topic with a summary saying "No constructive edits", here [15].

Zefr then did a subsequent total reversion with a similarly dishonest summary claiming that I had used "poor writing and blog sources" when not only had I done no such thing, indeed, I had removed them, but they themselves were the one re-inserting those poor blog sources, here [16] and again, here [17].

Therefore it appears that Zefr is attempting to accuse me of what they themselves are doing, which I had to reject. Here's the comparison of the contributions I have made improving the topic. They have added nothing of any benefit to the topic, and yet are willing to invest their time is constructing this instead?

Is that really what people are here do to? If no one can see what this person is doing and it's acceptable, then there is no hope for the Wikipedia. --Danny Mamby (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I have just work out what this is about. It appears that it was Zefr who added the reference to Fad Diet in the lede without any reference, here [18], and so what they are engaged in is some kind of gaming to protect that NPOV edit and that for the most part of the topic's history, there has been no such consensus to include it. --Danny Mamby (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Palestine Solidarity Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine_Solidarity_Campaign&type=revision&diff=1057325681&oldid=1057325659
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine_Solidarity_Campaign&diff=next&oldid=1057325681
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestine_Solidarity_Campaign&diff=next&oldid=1057325706

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

Comments:

Nableezy first reverted a paragraph that I had re-added to the article. Contrary to his claims when he first deleted it, this info was indeed from a RS (The Jewish Chronicle) which is listed as a reliable source in the list of perennial sources. He then went beyond this initial revert, removed a bunch of other text which I had added some time ago. He deleted an entire section of the article. When I informed him he was potentially in violation of 1RR, he told me that he could make as many reverts as he felt liked, so long as they were sequential. I could find no mention of that exemption on this project page. I felt like, at best, this was gaming the system and so wanted to bring it here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Here, I'll help you find it. Go to our edit-warring policy and hit whatever key combination your browser uses for find in page. Then search consecutive. You should find two instances of that word. The second being in the sentence A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. What I told you was Consecutive edits are a single revert. This isnt the place for content discussion, and you can continue to be somewhat misleading on what the consensus of the source is, just as youre being misleading on what I said to you regarding the reverts, but do it elsewhere. As far as the claim on edit warring, I made a series of consecutive edits. Among them to material that the sources flat out do not support. Sorry. I did not say I may revert as many times as I like, what I said was Consecutive edits are a single revert. And they are. nableezy - 00:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll withdraw this request on that basis. I honestly did not see it when I looked on this project page.

However, realize that I'm going to have to revert your massive revert tomorrow such that I can work on and try to improve that section. If the text doesn't match what's said in the source, let's fix that. And now I can't work on it because the entire section does not exist. So, I'll yet again, ask you politely to please undo your reverts so that forward progress can be made on this page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Likewise not the place for this, but you can create User:Bob drobbs/sandbox1 and work on that material to your hearts content. Ill even make it and copy it there for you. nableezy - 00:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

And done. nableezy - 00:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• No violation and request withdrawn, based on the above discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Tony Dalton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2806:2F0:60C0:849F:E5:1FD:9245:87A6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2806:2F0:60C0:849F:E15E:9619:368F:8F1C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:2806:2F0:60C0:849F:E5:1FD:9245:87A6 (not a diff because the warning created said talk page and is the only thing on it)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Edit warring to remove sourced information, IPs probably are the same person, they have edited other articles in a similar fashion changing nationalities and birth places. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Although the IP is edit-warring, the change to the subject's nationality was introduced by a new user and is poorly sourced. Indeed, the entire article is badly written and sourced. The change should have been - and still should be - discussed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've brought the nationality in line with reliable sources.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wierdly they were removing the nationality part which is now reliably sourced rather than the part which was unreliably sourced and had now been removed, which they have done similar on other articles but never edit warred over it once those were reverted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. Use the talk page to reach agreement about Dalton's nationality. The IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:60C0:849F:0:0:0:0/64 have reverted seven times altogether over three days, and have never used a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Criticism of Sikhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MehmoodS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

Comments:

He has violated the 3RR rule by reverting edits 3 times. In contrast I only reverted once. The original version of the article was riddled with unsourced claims, puffery, pov claims, promotion of organizations. I explained this here on WP: Request for edit and on the talk page [32]. You can see the original article had a plethora of issues and I restored it to a neutral version that coincided shortly after the previous consenus building talk page discussion which was on Dec 2019, and the version I restored to was from early 2020 and much more neutral, relevant to the topic at hand, backed up by numerous, reliable and verifiable sources in stark contrast to the original version. [33] (early 2020 version) vs recent Nov 26 version [34]. MehmoodS was restoring the article to a clearly POV, poorly written (had numerous spelling and grammar issues and had numerous unsourced claims) As I was waiting for admin input, another user removed 90% of the article and never bothered to explain it on the talk page. He only left a short comment after he deleted most of the information on the article. I added some more information to the page, salvaged some information from a neutral version of the article [35] despite the addition of information being very fairly written and relevant to the topic at hand and backed up by numerous sources and attributed to various academics. MehmoodS once again reverted the edits, Numerous editors are deleting information without discussing it on the talk page and holding double standards for themselves where they can delete information without discussing it on the talk page because WP:IDL and holding different standards for people who actually wish to expound on the article. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, neither editor has violated 3RR; both are at three reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I reverted once. Not 3 times C.Fred Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's count:

1. 04:15 UTC [36]
2. 14:31 UTC [37]
3. 22:05 UTC [38] removal of material added by another editor

That's three reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The second one was not a revert it was undoing my own edit because I accidentally restored to the wrong version. The third one isn't a revert; it's removal of unsourced and dubious claims. The lead paragraph after my edit was more neutral and less POV and took both sides into account Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"Last stable version before edit wars" is clearly a revert. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised that the user reported me even though he was the one who began reverting the article to revision one year old. He did this multiple times. [39], [40], [41], [42] and though a discussion is still in progress on the article's talk page, this user went ahead and readded content that was originally removed. [43]. I just told the user to wait till a concensus is made. The article also got 3rd opinion [44] where changes with constructive editing was done to the article but this user still went and readded changes. So I am surprised that this user even reported me here when he is the one who began editing by reverting changes to revision back to a year old without even having a discussion about the issue in the first place. I am aware of 3RR rule but clearly this user is misusing this forum in trying to block me because the decision by 3rd editor didn't fall on his side. MehmoodS (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. It is sufficiently clear that there is a content dispute. That is best handled via discussion at the talk page, not via sanctions against other editors. To ensure that the parties discuss at the talk page, the article is now fully protected. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred For how long is it fully protected? It doesn't say on the article. Also would you consider reverting the article to perhaps a date further back since the current article has a plethora of issues like unsourced claims and has many spelling and grammar issues? (It doesn't have to be my version of the article, any version with more sourced claims and less POV and fewer grammar mistakes is good) Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Suthasianhistorian8: Full protection is for 72 hours. See article talk for a possible alternate version to place the page at. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you C.Fred Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Assault weapon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.30.187.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] See recent 3RRN discussion resulting in block [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51] IP editor has shown a strong propensity to not hear the concerns of multiple editors on the talk page and on their user talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [52]

Comments:

IP editor was blocked for 48hr due to edit warring starting 23 Nov [53]. Springee (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't make any reversions. In none of the edits cited did I revert any content. Please take a look. I've opened a discussion on the talk page to seek consensus on any changes to the article, as this editor knows. This report is extremely disingenuous. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, there is an obvious revert, a substantial revert, and an edit that counts as a revert even though you added extra material. I'm not seeing a fourth revert. I'm also not seeing any reverts in the last three hours. —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor has been, with no success, trying to push editors towards their POV on the talk page. Though they were recently blocked they once against pushed content that was disputed into the article. They then reverted the removal 3 times. I do see that this isn't a bright line violation of 3RR but it's clearly a continuation of their prior edit warring that earned a block less than a week back. Springee (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"The IP editor has been, with no success, trying to push editors towards their POV on the talk page." This is truly incredible. Now this user apparently wants me banned for discussing changes on the talk page. You truly cannot make this shit up. Administrators, do you see what I am having to deal with here? The reporting user literally just requested I be banned for "trying to push editors towards my POV on the talk page" (i.e discussing article changes with other editors on the article talk page.) This whole report was submitted in bad faith by the editor who already knew I was actively discussing changes to the article with them at the article talk page at the very time they filed the report. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the diffs provided, we've got:
  • [54] - Initial edit adding new content. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing anything prior that would make this a revert.
  • [55] - Editor re-adds content with sources, addressing the concerns raised by MattSucci. This doesn't seem to violate the spirit of 3RR.
  • [56] - Reinserting content in a different place, to address concern raised by OhKayeSierra. Again, this seems to be an effort to find a version that works for everyone; that's not edit warring.
  • [57] - New changes per talk page discussion, in which the IP is an active participant.

The IP might be jumping the gun a bit with the bold edits but what I see here is a good-faith effort to address others' concerns. This report looks like an attempt by Springee to get rid of an editor they disagree with in order to win a content dispute; this (in response to the IP's offer to implement North8000's compromise) tells me that Springee is not interested in working together to reach consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 21:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That ignores that the IP editor was just back from a block for edit warring on the exact same topic. The please stop was in reference to the edit warring. I trust you aren't condoning that even if they didn't violate 3RR today. Springee (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Then why the heck would you post that in the middle of a talk page discussion instead of on their user talk? Do better. And yes, I do condone the edits made today and don't consider them edit warring (as explained above), although I think they could stand to slow down a bit. –dlthewave ☎ 21:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ask if you supported the content, I asked if you condoned the edit warring. Per the requirements here they were notified of this discussion on their talk page. Do you dispute that they were edit warring? Springee (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I do condone the behavior which you are referring to, and I do dispute that they were edit warring. That's what I meant. –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

So you are claiming that once the text was removed the first time it was OK to restore it back three more times even though several editors (I was not one of them) reverted the change. That isn't edit warring in your book? Springee (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW the prior block was literally just for adding a NPOV tag to the article. I made no other changes to the article in the previous dispute and I'm sorry I took literally the tag which stated "This tag is not to be removed until the conditions for removing it are met" when this user immediately removed by the tag and as a result restored the tag several times (which merely stated that a discussion on the article's neutrality was being raised on the article talk page.) I am honestly being treated maliciously by the reporting user as you can clearly see by their bad-faith complaints above that I should be blocked in part because ""The IP editor has been, with no success, trying to push editors towards their POV on the talk page." (i.e has been trying to discuss the article on the article talk page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I'd really like it if you could answer my question. Why did you think it was appropriate to comment on editor behavior in the middle of an article talk page discussion, instead of user talk? –dlthewave ☎ 23:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

In the link you provided I asked that the editor stop edit warring and pointed out the flaw in the argument they were making. Where did that link comment on editor behavior other than asking that they stop edit warring? Back to my question, are you saying you don't think it's edit warring to add content, have it removed by a first editor, restore it, have it removed by a second editor and repeat that cycle 2 more times with yet another editor? You accuse me of being here to impact content. Since you support the content would it be reasonable to say you are here for the same reason? Neither of us were involved in the edits/reverts in question. Are you suggesting that it's not edit warring because it didn't violate 3RR? Springee (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Next time you think you see someone edit warring, please just go to their user talk page instead of bringing it up in article talk. You know this. And as for your question, I think I clearly explained my position in my first comment. Make of it what you will, take it or leave it. –dlthewave ☎ 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying you think it's OK to be bold then restore 3 times. You are saying that isn't edit warring in your book. Springee (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, fine, you got me, I'm just a big ol' POV pushing edit warring apologist. –dlthewave ☎ 00:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If you were claiming this was edit warring but didn't cross the 3RR bright line I think your comments would be reasonable. However, you have said they weren't edit warring (presumably at all). Clearly they were. Then again, if they agree to get consensus before adding new content perhaps we can close this. Springee (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You knew there was no edit warring and I had opened a discussion on the talk page which you were participating in. In the middle of discussing a proposed edit, you told me to shut up and that my views were "fundamentally flawed" and came here to report me even though you knew the only edits being made were to the talk page. You then started complaining I was "trying to push editors to my POV on the talk page" (i.e trying to discuss the article on the article talk page." 108.30.187.155 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did I say "shut up"? Calling your argument fundamentally flawed is a comment about your arguments. Springee (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_weapon&diff=prev&oldid=1057447807&diffmode=source. Posted immediately before you opened this bad-faith complaint. No, I'm not going to grovel to you to get you to get you to withdraw your spurious report. You literally knew I had opened a talk page discussion titled "Seeking Consensus" which you were participating in, you got mad for some reason, and came here to waste people's time with a bad-faith report when you knew I was just posting in the article talk page... 108.30.187.155 (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, where did I say "shut up"? You were blocked for edit warring. Once your block was lifted you returned to edit warring. Springee (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Your actions have been transparently seen through by others as an attempt to win a content dispute with a spurious report of "edit warring", as judged by everyone else in this thread (and which you knew to be false when you made it.) Go ahead and continue embarrassing yourself further, I'm enjoying it. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: The Real Housewives Ultimate Girls Trip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Underdog (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Vanderpump Rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Geraldo Perez (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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Someone must block Geraldl Perez indefinitely Cpu8 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Frivolous report that isn't even done correctly. Furthermore, the fact that this user only joined on November 23 and knows which venues to go for certain things and is running around whining trying to get Geraldo Perez blocked indefinitely is fishy. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Vanderpump Rules, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism#User-reported, and User talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Block Geraldo Perez. And besides that, from the moment they joined, they went straight to creating tons of categories and mass adding them to articles. Whether or not they should exit is another discussion, but if this user is a sock of someone or similar, then it invalidates their edits. Amaury • 08:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Cpu8 blocked indefinitely for a variety of reasons. I too suspect the user is a sock (putting aside the block evasion of some IPs), but, although the pattern is familiar, I haven't put my finger on the master. It would be helpful because a lot of actions the user took could then be undone, albeit with a fair amount of effort.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Meditation music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 17:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 15:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 06:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) on Gubbi Gubbi people "Undid revision 1057388931 by Laterthanyouthink (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gubbi_Gubbi_people

Comments:

Repeated edit-warring with a number of editors over the past couple of days, with this article and Gubbi Gubbi people. Attempts have been made to discuss on the talk page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This dispute is actually about Gubbi Gubbi people and Gubbi Gubbi language. I've modified the header above to reflect this. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:SavageCabbages is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again on any article related to the Gubbi Gubbi without getting a prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Boston University Academy : Boston University Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Zeke5044 Zeke5044 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

@-noah-: I don't see here the user has been warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Warned —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Nov 28, 11:00 – [59] revert, restore new text
2. Nov 28, 22:22 – [60] revert, restore new text
3. Nov 29, 00:00 – [61] revert, restore new text
4. Nov 28, 01:38 – [62] revert, remove newly added maintenance tags

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [65]

Comments:

WikiLinuz is new to the swastika topic, but is clearly desiring to redefine the topic by exchanging the English loan word swastika with the German word hakenkreuz. WikiLinuz is misinterpreting the sources and cherry-picking the parts that seem to support the notional redefinition. WikiLinuz has participated at the article talk page, and has started another discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Swastika. But WikiLinuz refused to self-revert when asked, and stands at 4RR with this fourth revert in 24 hours. Binksternet (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet had failed to address the objective case raised on the talk page when I attempted to seek consensus, where I quoted multiple peer-reviewed sources here, here, here, here and here. I explicitly asked the editor to provide the contrary sources which supports their claim, however, they never talked objectively, nor did they cite any academic sources in support of their argument; thus, disregarding my attempt in seeking consensus. Since the editor isn't receptive to going through the academic sources I quoted, they acted in an uncivil manner and made talkpage block threats—although I didn't violate any content policies—when requested to provide sources in support of their argument. Since I don't see any progress in seeking consensus with them, I opened the issue at DRN board, to avoid further deterioration of the process. By stating that I wasn't edited on swastika page, thus I shouldn't make changes—even if the edits are supported by academic sources—shows content ownership behaviour. The editor isn't narrow on the issue at hand—the Nazi Party's Hakenkreuz, and it's English lit. translation—and doesn't seem to look into the source cited. The allegation of cherry-picking was already addressed here, and the claim of misinterpretation was unfounded since I literally quoted the sources at the talk page discussions. WikiLinuz (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

And, regarding the listed diffs by Binksternet,

• 3rd diff: In this revision, as stated in the edit summary, I restored the partial text by removing the disputed material on Simon D. Messing's writings. Binksternet had only challenged Messing's writings on talkpage, and not the German Hakenkreuz translation.
• 4th diff: The use of Template:Inconsistent is when statements that are inconsistent with other parts of the article, however, there isn't a single instance where Hakenkreuz is translated other than "hooked cross", so the usage of {{Inconsistent}} template makes no sense in this case. From the start, Binksternet had shown disfavor regarding the translation of Hakenkreuz as "hooked cross", but didn't provide any pieces of evidence on the discussions where Nazy Party's swastika—Hakenkreuz—isn't translated as "hooked cross".

WikiLinuz (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The third diff was a revert: you restored the word Hakenkreuz which I had previously removed. The fourth diff was a revert because you removed a cautionary template I had just added. Four reverts in 24 hours. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

So, according to your "idea" of revert, it's a 3RR violation when someone reverts non-constructive edits by an editor who isn't interested in seeking consensus, nor is interested in any dispute resolution; interesting. However, analyzing the evidence seems like you're the one culpable of violating 3RR, and was disruptive. WikiLinuz (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No thoughts on the underlying issue here, but please note that 3RR policy is a bright line rule--you don't get to ignore it for edits you find "non-constructive" unless they are obvious vandalism. Just a word to the wise. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears that WikiLinuz reverted four times in 24 hours, starting at 11:00 on 28 November and ending at 01:38 on 29 November. They may be able to avoid a block if they will promise to make no more reverts without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ed, there's already an ongoing RfC and discussion at the talk page. I was always receptive to consensus, as I previously showed my efforts. And yes, I vow that there will not be any reverts concerning Hakenkreuz. WikiLinuz (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You are agreeing to make no more reverts on the Swastika article without prior consensus on the talk page? Please let us know in so many words. (It is unclear why you broke 3RR if you are so receptive to consensus). EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am agreeing to make no more reverts on the Swastika article without prior consensus. WikiLinuz (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Seems like Binksternet is reverting my responses and RfC disambiguation note at the consensus talk page see this and this. I don't think this is allowed in Wikipedia, seems like they're WP:GAMING the system towards their desired consensus outcome. WikiLinuz (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And now if I try to get my censored reply back to the RfC, that's in violation of 3RR too? Wow. WikiLinuz (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just chiming in that this isn't the first time this is happening, EdJohnston. Bishonen had earlier warned on a possible topic ban if this sort of behavior continued, we may have reached that stage. ARBIPA warning is also under a year old. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  @SpacemanSpiff: I was a new comer at that time; the one that you're referring to. I made mistakes in the past, and I did learn from those mistakes, and I haven't repeated the mistakes ever since. I'm not sure why this specific issue has in relation to "topic ban" warning; I'm not sure which exact policy I violated on my edits at Swastika, except this. WikiLinuz (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – One week to User:WikiLinuz for edit warring at Swastika and for changing the content of the RfC statement at Talk:Swastika after the discussion had already started. (He did not try to get agreement from anyone else before doing so). WikiLinuz's comments at Talk:Swastika suggest WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Toma Raspasani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 177.40.130.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Do not restore sock User:Zemertrimi nationalist vandalism"
2. 17:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057962909 by InternetScavenger89 (talk) unexplained edit"
3. 17:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "rv vandalism"
4. 17:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "rv restore of sock User:Zemertrimi add"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Someone already reported this IP to WP:ANI, but this may be a more appropriate page. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — SANDBOXES — LOGS — 17:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• I was open to giving a window of time to see if the user acknowledged what they were doing was wrong, due to their decision of blanking their talk page. They are now continuing with the exact same behaviour, therefore the IP editor is directly ignoring the warnings they received. Panini!^🥪 18:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• The IP (assuming he's a new bloke & not an evading banned editor), need a figurative slap (a blocking) to the side of his head. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  He needs a slap. And I'm not talking about trouts. *Epic theme music plays* Panini!^🥪 18:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: I am so sorry, i didn't mean to get anyone blocked. Please forgive me. --InternetScavenger89 22:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Cannabis cultivation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Hydroponics */"
2. 02:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Hydroponics */"
3. 00:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Hydroponics */"
4. 23:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Hydroponics */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Cannabis cultivation."
2. 05:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cannabis cultivation."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 06:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Hydroponics section */ new section"
2. 06:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Hydroponics section */ add"

Comments:

New user is repeatedly inserting a large amount of text without attention to MOS formatting and SCIRS sourcing, and without edit summaries. User is not engaging on their own talk page or on the article talk page. The inserted text does not mention 'cannabis' - the subject of the article. Consequently, there is a legitimate concern the inserted text is a COPYVIO. Zefr (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours by User:Scottywong for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Lynnwood, Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057870726 by SounderBruce (talk)"
2. 03:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057858018 by SounderBruce (talk)"
3. 21:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Media */ added the web address to the citation. Paper has been serving Lynnwood since April of 2019."
4. 16:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Media */ added the Lynnwood Times newspaper"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest."
2. 03:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lynnwood, Washington."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Username is potentially signaling a COI (matches the publisher of the newspaper). Keeps re-adding mentions of a newspaper without adequate sourcing. SounderBruce 03:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• New user making good faith (but disruptive) edits it seems. Definite COI. I'm going to warn on their user talk page and offer resources. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Warned per the report below. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello, I am Mario Lotmore, the publisher of the Lynnwood Times which is a recognized and legitimate and trusted news paper serving the Lynnwood Area. It is recognized by the cities of Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Lake Stevens, Marysville, Edmonds, and Everett. The paper has published and printed 66 issues with a circulation of ten thousand, viewed by tens of thousands of online users per month, has been featured multiple times on KING5, talk radio, and government agencies. The Lynnwood Times is a member of the Society of Professional Journalist and the Washington Newspaper Publisher Association. I added my paper, citing the introductory article from April 4, 2019 written by award winning journalist Carol Ladwig titled, "Your Lynnwood Times" - https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2019/04/04/your-lynnwood-times/. I have also added citations from articles published by other companies including KUOW/NPR as further evidence that we are a respected and notable newspaper representing Lynnwood and Snohomish County. I do not understand why user SounderBruce (Bruce Englehardt) is consistently removing the fact that the Lynnwood Times is a newspaper serving Lynnwood. One can go to the Lynnwood Times (lynnwoodtimes.com) and verify it exist and go to E-Edition to see past publications of the paper. Please inform me how I may elevate this concern. I am new to wikipedia.

Mlotmore (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This is what I added added under Media section, "Lynnwood is served by a bi-weekly in-print and daily online newspaper called the Lynnwood Times."

Here are the sources I am using to prove we exist:

https://www.alphasls.org/community-feature-alpha-in-the-lynnwood-times/ https://wnpa2.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=0&club_id=220213 https://behindthebadgefoundation.org/from-our-friends-at-the-lynnwood-times/ https://www.kuow.org/stories/ongoing-coverage-of-protests-for-racial-justice-in-the-seattle-area-aug-3-11 https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2019/04/04/your-lynnwood-times/

The article https://lynnwoodtimes.com/2019/04/04/your-lynnwood-times/ is the introductory article from April 4, 2019 written by award winning journalist Carol Ladwig.

Mlotmore (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I was only warned and reported by you after you consistently changed it and removed it after another editor said it was ok. You never warned me prior that any rules was being violated as I only signed up yesterday. You have a COI as you are contributor to a competitor. I am going to report you as you are unfairly discriminating against me.

In reviewing the rules I noted the following:

1. Avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors; - I added the name of my newspaper because it covers Lynnwood. If I can't do it, would you? - I notice that if editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a COI or paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. For example: "Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft." This transparency helps editors and readers to determine the extent of COI influence on the article. It also complies with copyright requirements.

2.Propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template); - I am attempting to use the talk pages to resolve.

3. Disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI); - It was disclosed in my notice board to the admins

4. Avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming); - Well, this was unintentional. Another admin being helpful removed the link and said to use a citation instead.

SounderBruce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a COI. He is contributor to a competitor and works/volunteers in the media industry.

How can I get the Lynnwood Times added to the Lynnwood, Washington Wikipedia page? Please help.

Mlotmore (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mlotmore: which competitor does SounderBruce work for? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you for the tips on my page. I will read them to become familiar with it and the syntax used here. According to his Wikipedia user page he is a blogger for Seattle Transit Blog which I verified - here is the link: https://seattletransitblog.com/author/sounderbruce/ and according to his linkedin profile he has been doing that for almost 6 years along with other side jobs. He is also a photojournalist whose work is listed in his user page and can be seen here on wikipedia - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_Floyd_protests_in_Seattle_-_June_3,_2020_-_police_vehicles_on_Capitol_Hill.jpg.

First he removed the addition of the Lynnwood Times stating "No significant coverage of this newspaper besides a dispute with a council candidate" which is not true as we have been featured on national outlets. Then he stated "until there is an independent citation that provides WP:SIGCOV of this paper, it should be omitted" and lastly the COI. It appears that SounderBruce is weaponising the rules to find a reason to not include the Lynnwood Times on the Wikipedia page.

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would you add the Lynnwood Times to the Wikipage? The former papers are mentioned because they went out of business. How can a legitimate paper for the city of Lynnwood be added? I am requesting an exception. Mlotmore (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Mlotmore, is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. This user's COI is evident. It should be up to others to decide whether the newspaper deserves coverage. Their language about 'weaponising the rules' is verging on a personal attack. We have had these rules for years and their application here is perfectly consistent with other usage on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057908187 by Venkat TL (talk) edit warring - you must seek consensus"
2. 10:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057907535 by Venkat TL (talk) as before -- rv drive-by tagging based on a misconception about B. Swami's name"
3. 10:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057901381 by Venkat TL (talk) rv -- see talk"

Page: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057879078 by Venkat TL (talk) please take this to talk rather than edit warring #"
2. 16:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC) "Restored revision 1056779721 by Dāsānudāsa (talk): Deleted source information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates (RW 16.1)"
2. 10:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
3. 10:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Fan pov */ new section"
2. 08:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Promotional content being restored by some users */ new section"

Comments:

The user seems to not understand that the maintenance templates should not be removed till the concerning issues are fixed. He is not allowing the templates to stay. Also showing WP:OWN issues at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada where multiple users have complained on the talk page, but this user will not allow maintenance tags. Venkat TL (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to explain multiple times to @Venkat TL: that he needs to seek consensus for his changes, and engaged with him where he's opened a discussion, but it's unfortunately fallen on deaf ears. I haven't filed my own report as I knew this was coming (because he can't grasp that if he wants to change a long-standing stable version of the page he needs to gain consensus, rather than just edit warring to shoehorn his changes through, and is instead accusing me of the same), but I think the diffs above are pretty self explanatory. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Page history of the article A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada shows that it is anything but stable. This user along with some others keep reverting article improvement done by other users and keep the article in its current promotional and Fan POV tone. The templates should not have been removed without generating consensus that the problems have been resolved. So here we are. Venkat TL (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to reply here, but the content you tried to remove on the AC Bhaktivedanta Swami article has been there since at least May 2020 (I haven't gone back further), so it's not some new addition. It's also sourced to what looks like an academic text. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The problematic content is clearly promotional and sourced to books by the organization run by the subject. It seems there are WP:CIR issues as well, if not bad faith, in misrepresenting the sourcing in the article. As his reply and actions clearly suggests, that he will continue removing the maintenance templates in the article, so I had to report here, even though he may not have violated 3RR on one page. Venkat TL (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Dāsānudāsa is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar or at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. The warring over the 'fanpov' tag seems unlikely to lead to article improvement. It would be better to discuss actual content changes. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: David Miller (sociologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057953710 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) There is no problem citing twitter if the account is not anonymous and the tweeter is a recognized expert on the subject."
2. 16:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057948841 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) Not in cited tweet, if it is in some other tweet, needs a separate cite."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk page has a healthy number of 1RR warnings...

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Straight-up 1RR violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have undone the second edit, which I would have done anyway if complainant had thought to inform me on my talk page as is customary. The Arbpia notice which is being relied on here for 1R should actually be the "partial" notice and not the full notice and I am going to change it, since not all of the article and specifically the reverted material has any relation with the Arab Israeli conflict. I would add that in the case of the first edit, that was a revert of material failing verification and then when that went through, complainant decided to delete the entire material on spurious grounds. I rather think that this kind of editing is not collegiate.Selfstudier (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The edit was a clear violation of WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:SELFPUB. Crazy to think that this was an appropriate edit. I'd invite others to evaluate whether the change to the Arb restriction is self-serving... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding, as stated in the edit summary is that tweets from recognized experts in the subject matter, Dave Rich in this case, are permitted. If it was the subject of the article tweeting about themselves that would be aboutself/self pub. This cite was for the purposes of third party verification of primary source material.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment Though the user have self reverted the real problem the usage of unreliable sources like Electronic Intifada[66] that marked red in WP:RSP in WP:BLP --Shrike (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

My self reversion is of a tweet by Dave Rich, not the Electronic Intifada.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action due to the self-revert by User:Selfstudier. If problems continue, full protection of the article should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Kubrat Pulev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dowohawon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]
5. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [74]

Comments:
The IP and account are the same person. The editor is changing information to make it appear that Pulev's most recent fight was a professional boxing match; it was a boxing vs. MMA crossover fight in a triangle ring without boxing gloves. – ².O.^Boxing 00:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. clpo13_(talk) 00:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Page 1: 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 2: 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See contributions for additional pages.
User being reported: Donnizyy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I know I am supposed to provide individual links here, but I think the edit history speaks for itself. This user needs a time-out.

I bring this to your attention because it was posted at WP:COIN and it seemed to be edit-warring that needs to be stopped at least for a while during which the alleged conflict of interest can be sorted out. Thanks. --SVTCobra 01:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Page 1: The Voice (American season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 2: The Voice (American season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 3: The Voice (American season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 4: The Voice (American season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 5: The Voice (American season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 6: The Voice (American season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 7: The Voice (American season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 8: The Voice (American season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 9: The Voice (American season 9) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 10: The Voice (American season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 11: The Voice (American season 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 12: The Voice (American season 12) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 13: The Voice (American season 13) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 14: The Voice (American season 14) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 15: The Voice (American season 15) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 16: The Voice (American season 16) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 17: The Voice (American season 17) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 18: The Voice (American season 18) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 19: The Voice (American season 19) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 20: The Voice (American season 20) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.46.26.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
(NOTE: one of the reverts was taken from Season 20, the previous completed season, more below on the explanation but just to give you an insight on his actions.) 3 December:

1. [76]
2. [77]

1 December:

1. [78]
2. [79]

29 November:

1. [80]
2. [81]

28 November:

1. [82]
2. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff - I posted but none of them replied, but I want to give this a try, and I should have enough evidence for this, based on all of its edit history, as well as his backlog. These are also the evidences just for reference (go all the way back to last year and see what it is):

• Season 1
• Season 2
• Season 3
• Season 4
• Season 5
• Season 6
• Season 7
• Season 8
• Season 9
• Season 10
• Season 11
• Season 12
• Season 13
• Season 14
• Season 15
• Season 16
• Season 17
• Season 18
• Season 19
• Season 20

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

Comments:
This is not the first IP address and I know that was the same anonymous user who keep on reverting all of The Voice (American TV series) (including each season's article) and all of its related articles, according to the article's backlog and it have persist since (please refer to these articles), despite there are at least a few IP addresses that had contributed to the revert had been blocked previously. Please, under the clause, we require you to indefinitely semi-protect all of the aforementioned articles stated above, because this revert had kept on violating the WP:MOS. TVSGuy (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for three months for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Page 1: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro - Keeps on reverting to the edit where he is posting a coat of arms that he made that is not approved by the Archdiocese
• Page 2: Jose Cabantan - Keeps on reverting to the edit where he is posting a coat of arms that he made that is not approved by the Archdiocese

For further evidence that he is using unverified coat of arms, refer to this link on this facebook account from the Archdiocese itself

• https://m.facebook.com/ascacdo/posts/10151528548424978
• https://m.facebook.com/svfplibertad/photos/a.108283277475895/179825020321720/?type=3

• User: User:PPBenedictvs, I think this user is a minor and he needs to be banned due to spreading of misinformation as all the information we are taking is from archdiocese, furthermore, he is planning to copy and spread misinformation to the other archdiocese.
• 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) 21:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Chokha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cherkezy (talk · contribs) 208.127.224.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

[84]: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Cherkezy

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]
5. [89]
6. [90]
7. [91]
8. [92]
9. [93]
10. [94]
11. [95]
12. [96]

208.127.224.196

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100]
5. [101]
6. [102]
7. [103]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [104] [105]

Comments:

I'm not a fan of several of those edit summaries either but I think we should address one problem at a time. Amortias (T)(C) 16:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Issues in social nudity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.178.184.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC) "My edit was constructive. You don't put inappropriate photos of children online. And yes, these are children."
2. 09:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1058899884 by VeryRarelyStable (talk)"
3. 06:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC) "Very inappropriate to show under aged people here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Issues in social nudity."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

And other articles. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Partial blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Zeynalabdin Shirvani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RamazanBazarov111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [109]
5. [110]

Comments:

User keeps altering the sourced lede of the article to Persian -> Azerbaijani. Although some of the same reverts have been done by two different IPs, it is no doubt the same person. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-protected 3 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, the article is an embarrassment. It's full of unsourced material, and much of it reads like an advertisement.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can't argue with that. I'll add it on my to do list xd. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: History of Tunisia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.178.148.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]

Comments:

IP has embarked on a revert spree on this article and many other 'History of x' articles, attempting to force a irrelevant gif map showing the historical growth of the Roman Republic and Empire. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Squid Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [115]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [116]
2. [117]
3. [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:

• The information that SquidHomme has been trying to add (related to a story that a student in North Korea had been executed for importing copies of Squid Game into the country) had been discussed earlier on the talk page and it was determined that there was enough doubt raised by reliable sources to not include. (See Talk:Squid Game#Death penalty in North Korea for owning squid games. My first revert allude to this disproven story. SquidHomme asked on my talk page about what sources were there to disprove it and I provided the talk page link: [121]. Apparently they could not see that despite the clear links on the talk page, and claimed that if I couldn't provide sources that disproved it, they would readd the material -- which itself is a precursor to their own edit warring. I had reiterated the talk page section in today's discussion on my talk page [122] and also repeated the talk page section link in one of the reverts. [123] There's a bit of WP:CIR aspects here as they do not seem to be able to read the clear talk page section (linked to them) where the discussion and source links discrediting the story have been provided and other editors have established the information should not be included. --Masem (t) 05:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Largest prehistoric animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DinosaursKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:01, 15 October 2021 changed "Otodus megalodon" to "C. megalodon"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:46, 16 November 2021 changed "O. megalodon" to "C. megalodon" and added 20.3 metre 103 tonne claim
2. 16:42, 24 November 2021 changed "O. megalodon" to "C. megalodon" and added 20.3 metre 103 tonne claim
3. 02:17, 28 November 2021 revert to preferred version of the Mackerel sharks (Lamniformes) section
4. 12:50, 30 November 2021 revert to preferred version of the Mackerel sharks (Lamniformes) section
5. 08:32, 1 December 2021 revert to preferred version of the Mackerel sharks (Lamniformes) section
6. 12:47, 1 December 2021 revert to preferred version of the Mackerel sharks (Lamniformes) section
7. 21:14, 1 December 2021 partial revert to preferred version of the Mackerel sharks (Lamniformes) section. The difference between this version and his/her previous version shows that he/she has accepted that it is Otodus megalodon.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Largest prehistoric animals#Mackerel sharks (Lamniformes)
• User talk:DinosaursKing#Megalodon
• User talk:Ishan87

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [125]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2021‎ (UTC)
amended-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

I understand that the subject in question is User:DinosaurKing. However, User:Ishan87 is still not off the hook. While reading through his userpage, i found evidence of multiple 1st, 2nd, and 3rd warnings. Also, i found that many copyvio files that had been uploaded by his account are falsely claimed to be his own. However, the first user to break the three revert rule was User:DinosaurKing. Still, User:Ishan87 had been making continous possibly unconstructive edits. Just wanted to add some helpful information. Please notify me if i have seen wrongly. --InternetScavenger89 17:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Ishan87 is a problem here; DinosaurKing's version is the status quo at least. Both are edit warring however. Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

How was any of my edits on that page unproductive may I ask? I updated scientific names as well as size estimations of quite a few animals matching according to the pages of those animals. The links I used are also there, you guys can check them up. Still why are you accusing me of warring? All that DinosaursKing guy did was change things (a section in particular) back to whatever he likes, which's not acceptable to Wikipedia standards. He has no contribution in Wikipedia other than subbornly sticking up to that 1 page and undoing whatever he doesn't like. Still you're blaming me? Please be real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishan87 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There has been continued discussion on the article's talk page, but no consensus that I can see, and now that the protection has ended the edit war is continuing, with 3 more reverts by user:Ishan87 [126] [127] [128] and four more by user:DinosaursKing [129] [130] [131] [132]. There's also one revert since the protection ended by User:Toddy1, who is participating in the talk page discussion and is not edit warring. Meters (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked DK for 72 hours before seeing this. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Austin S. Miller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 162.222.25.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 04:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Information"
3. 04:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Information"
4. 04:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Austin S. Miller."
2. 04:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Austin S. Miller."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continues to add his own personal view by alerting readers that there are some scammers impersonating the subject. I warned him, but he never listened. Kaseng55 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Acroterion (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I found another user. Look like a ban evasion or a meatpuppet. The IP address is 2600:1004:B156:140:8560:5DD9:7E6F:3E70. Kaseng55 (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Acroterion has now taken care of the second IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Christian Rosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 37.172.150.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 00:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 00:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 19:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC) ""
7. Consecutive edits made from 19:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC) to 19:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC) ""
8. 19:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC) ""
9. 19:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
2. 00:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The IP editor is attempting to edit war in a 1978 birth date or equivalent ("aged 43"), when some other source give the date as 1982. I apologise for edit warring with the IP here, I thought I was justified on BLP grounds. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Another admin has taken care of this by applying partial blocks to two IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]
5. [138]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139]

(note on my user talk page)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [140]

Comments:

User keeps making frivolous threats and accusations. First he made numerous edits removing the sentence that Singh was a common Rajput suffix/surname by the 16th century, he obviously didn't bother to read any sources before edit warring and this was proven on my talk page. After making 3-4 edits removing that for no reason, he then added it back after realizing he was wrong and removing sourced claims. [141]. He now keeps reverting edits to fix his oddly placed and worded statements that are already repeated in the article within the same paragraph. He is absolutely insistent on unnecessarily repeating himself in the article and making redundant edits. He clearly has a poor grasp of the English language as seen here, [142] and [143], and is insisting on edit warring to repeat a claim in the leading sentence that is already mentioned in the ending sentence of the article === "it eventually became a common surname adopted by different communities." while in the very same paragraph it goes on to say "As a surname or a middle name, it is now found throughout the world across communities and religious groups, becoming more of a title than a surname". On top of that, he frequently vandalizes various caste articles and keeps making baseless threats. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked Suthasianhistorian8 for two weeks. The bases may be found in the block log and at the user's Talk page. I'm not closing this report, though, because Ekdalian also edit-warred at the article. I'll leave that aspect of this report to another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Suthasianhistorian8 has been blocked two weeks by Bbb23. I'm warning User:Ekdalian that his own reverts don't qualify for exemption under WP:NOT3RR, even if the other party sems to be violating common sense. In such cases it's better to report the other party to admins right away and avoid breaking 3RR yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Harley Quinn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.71.190.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]
5. [149]
6. [150]
7. [151]
8. [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [155]

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected one year. In the past the article has sometimes been protected for a long time. This particular IP editor reverts constantly and has no experience in using talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Page: LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Serols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need a second opinion about the current page history of "LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates" in the context of an earlier report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not even unsourced. If Serols was at least correct about removing unsourced material, but no, the source says "for attempting to resemble women", and the reverted contributor tried to add "because they were cross-dressing". Serols reverts them for adding "unsourced content" and requests page protection for "persistent vandalism". I'm really out of hope here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The source says: The two Singaporeans, Muhammed Fadli Abdul Rahman and Nur Qistina Fitriah Ibrahim, told Human Rights Watch they were wearing jeans, sneakers, and long-sleeved button-down shirts at the time of their arrest. Fadli, a cisgender male fashion photographer, said he wore a chain around his neck and has an ear piercing and a nose piercing, while Ibrahim, a transgender woman who works as a model, had long hair. Police told them their arrest was on the grounds of "looking feminine." But it's not just that edit that's being disputed, it's also the one about "In September 2016, the Government passed Federal Decree No 4"...? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

When someone uses the edit summary "not providing a reliable source" (sorry, I accidentally misquoted that from mind above), I expect it to primarily refer to addition, not removal, of material. Anyway: WP:3RR, WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Three unexplained reverts of good-faith contributions, one additional incorrectly explained revert, a protection request for "persistent vandalism". Add five incorrect warnings for things that didn't happen. One, two, three, four, five. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

At 18:21, 8 December 2021‎ Serols reverted the addition of "because they were cross-dressing", and gave as a reason: not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS). The cited source did not mention the words "cross-dressing". Serols did the same thing at 18:17, 8 December 2021 and 18:15, 8 December 2021, but with no edit summary. In each case Serols placed warning templates on the talk page of the editors reverted. In two out of three cases the warnings mentioned that the problem was that the edits reverted were not supported by reliable sources, which was both correct and helpful. Though Serols was probably right to make those reverts, he/she was not reverting clear cut vandalism so the three reverts count towards the three-revert rule.

The reverts at 18:13 and 18:14 count as one revert because there were no edits by other users between them.‎ Serols was reverting vandalism, and the warning messages Serols left on the editor's talk pages were appropriate.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I would wholly support this analysis. Editing, particularly by anon IPs, who are based in the region, can often get a bit fraught. I have encountered a series of crusading WP:SPAs, on this and similar articles, over the years. Not always easy to "police." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Toddy1 and Martinevans123, thank you for your comments. The fact is, that I have read this editing and accepted it. For me, this edit was the only one, that complied with the rules. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There has been a short additional discussion at Serols's talk page, and it does resolve my concerns. Thanks to everyone! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The page at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates has been semiprotected for one year by User:ToBeFree under WP:ARBGS, which looks to be a reasonable step. I've discussed with ToBeFree and Serols on their talk pages whether any further action is needed, though I have none to propose at this time. Serols is getting close to the point where loss of his rollback flag should be considered. If you believe something is unsourced and your response is to get into an edit war, that's not advisable. In this particular case the material really *was* sourced and some discussion might have helped realize that. Neither the IP nor Serols used the talk page, which is the place where this could have been worked out. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Patty Hearst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.178.80.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Criminal as per article."
2. 06:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Criminal, as per the article. These are not my words."
3. 06:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "How about criminal."
4. 04:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "It says she was a member of Symbionese"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 06:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Modern history of Saudi Arabia."
3. 06:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Patty Hearst."
4. 06:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
5. 22:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Patty Hearst."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Same behaviour on Patty Hearst article Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The IP is already blocked per Laterthanyouthink's prior report.

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

User being reported: 49.178.80.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "But it is. It is an example."
2. 06:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059218244 by MrOllie (talk) What photo would you like then?"
3. 04:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059202807 by MrOllie (talk) This is an example. Mugshot"
4. 01:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059098841 by MrOllie (talk) Unexplained."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156] after this report was started, but prior to the IP's 8th addition of the material.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157] by a third party after the fact

Comments:

Pattern of unconstructive editing and argumentative - pretty sure it's the same person who got blocked the other day under another IP. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Also tendentious edit warring at Patty Hearst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FDW777 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

IP was not warned for edit warring, but this is egregious. IP has actually made the identical edit 7 times since December 7, including [158] and [159] on December 7 (neither is included in the original report) and [160] on December 10, 'after the user had been informed of this edit warring report. Meters (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

IP has now made the edit an 8th time [161], after having been given an edit warring warning, and after the talk page thread was started. Meters (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

And now a 9th time [162], albeit in a different place in the article. Meters (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hard to believe that shoehorning this image into the lead instead is a goodfaith edit. Meters (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that the last 4 reverts took place in less than 24 hours and thus broke the bright-line 3RR rule, with two after the edit warring warning: [163] 06:51, December 9, 2021; [164] 03:15, December 10; [165] 04:26, December 10, 2021; [166] 04:35, December 10, 2021 Meters (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

IP has also added the image to Mug shot. Politanvm ^talk 05:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days. This IP's edits form a pattern. In addition to their 3RR violation here, a large fraction of their last 50 edits have been reverted by others. This suggests either that they have trouble perceiving the consensus, or they don't care. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: CBN (AM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 142.68.17.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059441584 by Aloha27 (talk)"
2. 12:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059376287 by Aloha27 (talk) Ramona Dearing no longer does Cross Talk"
3. 02:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059335740 by Aloha27 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Block evasion Again. IP JUST came off a two week block by Jezebel's Ponyo. SPI case exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/47.55.50.49   Aloha27  talk  13:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 3 months for evasion per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/47.55.50.49. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Dhu al-Qarnayn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A04:4A43:4D7E:8961:611C:579A:C33A:C141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [167]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]
5. [172]
6. [173]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:

1. Comment in warning
2. Section in talk (both linked in edit summaries: [175] [176])

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [177]

Comments:

Dynamic IP is replacing long-standing sourced content with poorly-sourced personal opinion. They use specious edit summaries to claim that "sources were given" even though they failed verification (the IP sources do not mentioned early Muslim commentators). They also ignored my requests for quotes (e.g., [178]) and on their talkpage ([179], [180]). I had asked for page protection to force the IP to talk, I was advised to warn the user and report them to AIV or ANI. It's been a while since I've been in a dispute so I hope this is the right forum. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. User:Wiqi55 you could be more credible if you had explained the issue on the article talk page. As it happens, this IP is editing from a range that is already covered by a partial block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Bipin Rawat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [182]
2. [183]
3. [184]
4. [185]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186] [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [188] [189]

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

Comments:

The user not only made more than three reverts in less than 24 hours. He also lied in his edit summary, he said earlier user who removed this also considered this source as dubious which wasn't the case. The earlier user wasn't aware of the rules and he thought such caste names are not permitted on wiki hence he removed not for dubious source like @Venkat TL claimed. He tried to give me warning and intimidate me as I am new user but he himself removed many warning given to him minutes after it was given. I gave almost seven different sources in the talk page. This user made fourth revert within less than 24 hours and that too when discussion on talk page was open. He also tried to change the language of BLP policy saying it applies here when I showed it him that it only applies when there is consensus for the same and there isn't but he is being adamant.Shanusar (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is on the Wikipedia Mainpage and Shanusar is adding controversial BLP material without consensus.

I am following WP:3RRBLP. My reverts are Removal of BLP Violation and not violation of 3RR ( Specifically Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, lists, and navigation templates).

Someone added the disputed content in violation of BLP. Arunib had removed this caste info, once already. Once removed, instead of making consensus about the disputed content. User:RS6784 started edit warring. The onus to get consensus is on the person adding the disputed content. But here immediately after my first revert I started the discussion thread Talk:Bipin_Rawat#Rawat's_caste After User:RS6784 completed 3 reverts [190] [191], [192], User:RS6784 stopped and another Shanusar appeared to continue the edit war. Instead of discussing, Shanusar made 2 reverts, [193] [194].

For the sake of not continuing the edit war, I left the BLP violation content in the article for a day and waited for them to reply on the discussion page. Neither of the 2 users replied to my comment. So today removed the controversial BLP content once again. I advised Shanusar to approach the WP:BLPN for this, but he posted on this noticeboard. Sigh. Venkat TL (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I have posted on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#General Bipin Rawat's caste Venkat TL (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page is EC protected two months under WP:ARBIPA. I am concerned about the revert war over caste membership which raises a BLP issue. See also WP:GS/CASTE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Islamic calendar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Salman khan 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [195]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [196]
2. [197]
3. [198]
4. [199]
5. [200]
6. [201]
7. [202]
8. [203]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [204]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [205], [206], [207], [208], [209]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [210]

Comments:

User is removing image of Islamic Propet Muhammad on ‘religious grounds’, contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED. DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for general disruptive editing across many articles. The user has made no constructive contributions since they started editing on December 5.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: London Action Resource Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paki.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [211]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [212]
2. [213]
3. [214]
4. [215]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [216]
2. [217]
3. [218]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [219]

Comments:

It's a long running dispute as shown on the talkpage. The latest section for that is Talk:London_Action_Resource_Centre#Continued_adding_of_disputed_text which includes my recent attempts to engage, with no response in the last 24 hours Mujinga (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

So since reporting this I've been called a liar and the adding of disputed text by Paki.tv continues. I'm then accused of vandalism for removing it. Mujinga (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Paki.tv is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at London Action Resource Centre unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Some of the issues in the current revert war appear similar to the material mentioned by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry in a comment in the 2009 WP:Articles for deletion/London Action Resource Centre. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well thanks for giving Paki.tv a clear warning on their talkpage but it unfortunately hasn't helped, they are still adding the disputed text. Mujinga (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Killing of Daunte Wright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 172.58.84.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059835171 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
2. 22:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059835049 by Currentlybiscuit (talk)"
3. 22:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059834587 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
4. 22:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059832783 by Currentlybiscuit (talk)"
5. 22:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 22:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC) ""
7. 22:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 22:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC) to 22:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Also edit warring at 2020–2021 Minneapolis–Saint Paul racial unrest. Blatantly offensive and inaccurate content. Firefangledfeathers 22:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours WP:AIV would have been appropriate for this user too. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Jussie Smollett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC) "" (After this report filed and notice given)
2. 07:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Added to be consistent with other similar pages."
3. 05:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Added to be consistent with other similar pages listing felon status in first sentence. Admit the truth."
4. 05:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Added to be consistent with other similar pages."
5. 05:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Added to be consistent with other similar pages."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned repeatedly by General Ization.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Issue is under discussion but no actionable proposals have actually been made.

Comments: Naked attempt to right great wrongs by edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

And even after receiving a final EW3 warning and a notice about this report, the editor repeats the contested edit again tonight. General Ization ^Talk 01:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Edit warring to keep 'convicted felon' in the opening sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Interlake Maritime Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scope creep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [220]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [221]
2. [222]
3. [223]
4. [224]
5. [225]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [226]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [227]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [228]

Comments:
I've also had some talk page warnings from Scope creep. We had a disagreement the previous day in which they accused me of edit warring, however I don't believe this to be the case. They have also reverted my edits without any explanation (example).

Lengthy discussion. Click to view.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Deproding and reverting redirects[edit] I didn't accuse you of edit warring at any time while I have been in here, until you edit warred. These are the reason why we are here: Yesterday, two articles were deprodded for no reason that I can see and an article was reverted after being reviewed by two new page reviewers in good standing. The subject started to edit war to restore the article and I reverted at back to the redirect. I reviewed the articles and the references looked atrocious. This is the article: Victory Brinker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The subject has no existance outwith the show, there was no secondary sources, but somehow had be reverted back to the article, which was never explained, really. The prod's he took off were Wondernet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and SuperSonic (ISP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There was seven of these ISP articles originally created and four of them were deleted by A7, created by by mix of UPE/Paid/WP editors. Wondernet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been sent to Afd and will be deleted as will the other one, as they're generic, but they had to go to Afd as well. They're was no work by the editor to determine, why they were prodded in the first place, no work to determine anything really, it had to go to Afd. No attempt to build consensus. No mention of the guidelines. Conversation yesterday[edit] I had a conversation with NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yesterday, trying to find out why they deprodded the articles without any reason. The conversation didn't go anywhere really, even though I attempted to determine why, but there was no reason behind it. In the conversation, the editor states I wrote in the history "add ref, decline PROD. Has had more than one appearance on different programs, so I feel she may be notable". I'm sorry, I don't need to provide any more reasoning than that. No attempt to build consensus. The reference I reviewed on Victory Brinker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was about the show. They're is no secondary links on this WP:BLP. The article was reverted back to redirect. The editor seemed to think that prod was somehow outside consensus. I reviewed on NPP was [Interlake Maritime Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), twice. It is now at Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interlake Maritime Services. The article is a brochure article, it was at prodd, but it was deprodded by editor Kablammo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), even though the four references were routine coverage. It was sent to Afd. NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who voted to keep in the discussion: Regardless of the level of sourcing on Interlake Maritime Services specifically, the company has been active for a while as Interlake Steamship Company[4] and appears to have recently restructured after taking over the operation of the Lake Michigan Carferry Service.. That was their rationale and that is when I had an epiphany. This whole insn't about deprod, although that is part of it. The whole is WP:ARS at work. Here is another editor complaining about NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big John (dinosaur) stating they are WP:ARS and that is when it clicked. The editor is stating of the Afd: The Article Rescue Squadron is essentially organised canvassing for inclusionists, which explains the sloppy reasoning of the keep votes so far. On here, NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is part of the group. Here something insightful, that I noticed today. On NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he is getting a Dobos Torte from 7&6=thirteen. Which brings it today. Yesterday[edit] Yesterday, Interlake Maritime Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was sent to Afd. I participated due to doing the review, it came on the watchlist. After I did review of the three routine annoucement references and 1 primary ref to the company, NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to vote take part, stating: Regardless of the level of sourcing on Interlake Maritime Services specifically, the company has been active for a while as Interlake Steamship Company[4] and appears to have recently restructured after taking over the operation of the Lake Michigan Carferry Service. which to me, looked like a UPE. I asked him about, he no, I said fine. Later, he started updating the article. One part of the update was adding a sentence to the end of the Interlake Maritime Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Subsidiaries section, for article that had previously been deleted. References were put on them: Interlake Logistics Services - this division formerly operated a chartered cargo ship Montville[5] Interlake Port Services None of that exists on Wikipedia. There is no context here. I took it off, they put it back on. I issued disruptive warning x 2. He went to the talk page, stating Please can you explain your motivation? , we talked. I stated: There is no context for those links He stated: Sorry, I don't follow this reasoning at all. There is no links, no information of Wikipedia on it at all. No attempt to build consensus. No mention of the guidelines, in the past three days. No mention of WP:V, WP:NCORP or WP:SIGCOV. Nothing, no mention of any guidelines. It was just another ARS attempt to save the article from AFD. It went back and forward several times and here we are. I am really tired of this bunch. I have identified about 13 of them. They work with their own ideology and no interest in building consensus, discussing guidelines or making the thing fair. I intend to make a complaint to the WMF about them after Christmas. I came across this Afd today, and I took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesey Alfred Davoren. Look at the pile on at the end. NOTE: It is not all the ARS there though. It is important to state that. After the relist. scope_creepTalk 20:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC) The first time I heard about them was from another editor complaining about them. Since then, I've been alerted to a few AfD discussions through the project page which I followed. That is the limit of my involvement with ARS, though I'm not sure how that is relevant here. 7&6=thirteen left a message at mine and Jamesallain85's talk page after we both voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesey Alfred Davoren. Regarding Victory Brinker, your first edit summary claimed the PROD hadn't been contested. It had, by myself, so I reverted what appeared to be an edit made in error. You reverted me without reason. I don't believe I was edit warring here, and I object to having my edits reverted without even an attempt at an explanation. Per WP:BLAR, if the redirect was restored, the next step should be discussion or AfD. Scope creep nominated Interlake Maritime Services for deletion apparently in retaliation to me deprodding two articles (see our discussion on their talk page). Scope creep removed these bullet points (which I didn't add, btw) four times with differing reasons each time and sent me two warning templates again with different reasoning each time. Scope creep's summary above is incomplete. They actually wrote There is no context for those links, not in a see also section. See also sections entries, usually point to something internally to Wikipedia. to which I replied Sorry, I don't follow this reasoning at all. The links weren't in a "See also" section, the section is titled "Subsidiaries". Scope creep then accused me of adding a reference with no context merely to win an Afd and keep that article. That was the reason it was added. I think that's enough for now. NemesisAT (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC) I hope that User:Scope creep will respond and explain why they should not be blocked for violating the 3RR at Interlake Maritime Services. All this stuff about WP:ARS is interesting but not germane to the edit warring charge. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC) True, but there is always an underlying cause and that is it. It was a clear violation of edit warring as its defined. We were both edit warring that day, not because I normally do that because the process was followed. The editor was edit warring on the Victory Brinker article for the same reason. I removed the links with different reasons edit summaries because he wasn't willing believe me, to trust me what I was saying. I don't think the editor was interested in the reason. I've worked with 100's of editor's on articles hoping to meet WP:HEY and if the article was updated to a decent quality, I would have given them help. I've helped in articles that I considered absolutly rank, no use to wikipedia, man nor beast and still, but I've still helped folk when they made a really good argument for it. Here there was no logic to it. Regarding the prod, usually there was a decent argument left in edit summary. When you see that and it makes sense, it is natural just to move on and forget about it. There was nothing there, apart from a message about references. Regarding the Victory Brinker that was reviewed by myself and another editor. It was badly referenced. He wanted it to taken to Afd, without suppyling any kind of rational reason, for it. It is within process to redirect badly written and very poor quality articled, so I restored as it was on my watchlist. I sent the Interlake article to Afd as it is the process. Not because of retaliation. I sent the other deprodded for the exact same reason. I have done with 100's of articles It is an advert article with no place on wikipedia. The editors additions of those list entities would have made it more brochure article. The reference on the text could have went anywhere on the article, it didn't need there. All in all, it has been a crap experience. scope_creepTalk 15:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC) WP:PROD suggests AfD as an alternative if a PROD is contested. WP:BLAR suggests the next step after a redirect is objected to is AfD. I don't have strong feelings about that article itself and I also understand that WP:BLAR is a valid alternative to deletion. I don't particularly like articles being redirected without discussion as it can easily be done without other potentially interested editors noticing and in this case I felt my objection to the PROD should be enough to suggest I didn't want the article turned into a redirect either. Hence why I restored it, per WP:BLAR. What I really object to is editors using their NPP privileges as an excuse to revert me without any explanation whatsoever, as you did. I removed the links with different reasons edit summaries because he wasn't willing believe me, to trust me what I was saying. This sounds like edit warring to me. How can I trust you when your reasoning varies each time, and you send me warning templates for daring to disagree? NemesisAT (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC) My reason never varies, it is based on the policies and nothing else. That is all there is. If you knew the policies you wouldn't say that. I write a lot of articles and I know what needs to go into them. I varied the edit summary a bit because you don't seem to trust what I'm saying. That is breaking the WP:AGF], what I'm saying is the truth. What else am I doing. All my work can be checked. All I want to see is high quality articles, that it is. If come after Afd, per heymann, then it's the same process. If you don't understand policy, then why going around deproding article and not even looking at the history around them. There is a consusens in NPP that a good redirect is better than taking Afd or proding. That was a good redirect. It accurate and helpful. Trying to save and expand absolutly junk when there is nothing there, is wrong and wasteful of everytime time. The ref you put was woeful. Putting a ref doesn't fix the original problem. BLP's need secondary sources every time, real susbstance, otherwife how supposed to trust the fact. It's them rabbitting on about themselves. This Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Starks (2nd nomination). You stated you think it passes the GNG. Did you look for secondary sources. You say you don't have strong feelings about about it. That Steve Starks article was created by a covert UPE sockfarm. It is worst piece of crap on Wikipedia. Why did you even vote on it. Do you not want to support Spam group, coin and admin corps? Do you care about them. They do vital work, without them we would sunk in 4 weeks, like a sinking ship. There is no secondary sources, nobody is talking about him. A quick search would have shown that. Lastly you fixated on WP:BLAR policy. I use when it needed, but there there is other guidelines and consensus that are equally valud, are in there as well and they take equal consideration, like how coverage the article is. scope_creepTalk 17:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Scope creep is warned. You may be blocked if you revert again at Interlake Maritime Services unless you have obtained a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. (You violated 3RR on this article on December 7th). EdJohnston (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Talk:List of presidents of the United States#Discussion 2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (RfC)
User being reported: Tol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [229] (version just prior to the problem comment)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [230] - first post of problematic comment
2. [231] - despite my request to strike, they reply but the comment remains (for a 2nd time)
3. [232] - has again restored the comment after I struck the text (3rd time)
4. [233] - has again restored the comment after I struck the text, (4th time)
5. [234] - has again restored the comment after I struck the text, (5th time) - only this time they have 'doubled down' and repeated the comment (6th time) in their reply.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - did not have an opportunity, but if the object of the warning is to ensure the user is aware of the prohibition against edit warring, this user has filed at least 2 reports to this board, noted here;

• [235] & [236]

And they have posted several EW/3RR warnings to users;

• [237], [238], [239], [240] & [241]

Which would all strongly indicate that they are aware of the of the EW policy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - as it was, we were already in a discussion. I didn't think that this user would repeatedly repost that accusation, especially after I pointed out the issues with it and they admitted it was wrong. I suggested the simple and obvious solution of striking it, then we could disengage and move on.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [242]

Comments:
They posted a factually incorrect comment in the RfC, that was irrelevant to the RfC. They have even acknowledged this. As the comment is in response to a question about the need for the RfC, and in the section where several editors appear somewhat outraged at the perceived opposition to adding text for access to assist disabled readers, I was accused of being part of that opposition. I asked the accusation be struck, but it remained. I struck it, it they reposted a second time. This went around again and it was reposted a third time, then another go around and it reposted a fourth time, and then a fifth and sixth time with the same edit. The disingenuous accusation is a personal attack, the repeated posting of it is trolling, perhaps even vandalism. As such I attempted to strike, per TPG and the associated P&G, but for some reason unknown to me, they insist on keeping this accusation posted. And along with all this, they repeatedly become upset that I altered their comments", yet ironically they alter my comments to make minor corrections each and every time.

I realize this is atypical. I'm not seeking a block or even a partial block. I'm just asking that the accusations (both) be struck, that the entire sub-thread be collapsed as off-topic, with the exception of the portion of their first reply that follows the accusation, and perhaps a warning. And then we all carry on with with more worthwhile editing. Thanks (sorry about the length). - wolf 08:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Please don't call me "they"; "she" or "he" works. I try to not edit the content of comments (with the exception of grammar/spelling fixes or clarification in the minute after I post them). Striking part of my comment with no sign that the comment was edited was particularly annoying. Is this a suitable compromise? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Out of everything, that is your first concern? I have no idea of you're a "he" or "she" and I was not going to use "he or she" or "him or her" every time I referred to you. I used the widely acceptable singular "they", as supported by the pronoun guidelines. If you wished to be addressed by a particular pronoun, just say so. I have no problem accommodating that. As for "Striking part of my comment with no sign that the comment was edited was particularly annoying." Yes, I understand. Just as being accused of something I didn't do is particularly annoying. That said, you could've struck that part of your comment and left a "sign" stating that you did that and why. Still can. - wolf 21:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not my first concern, it's just the first thing I read and so the first thing I responded to. Either third-person singular pronoun is fine. I said "she" or "he", not "she or he". If you want a particular one, go with "she" (chosen randomly). I've already edited the comment to append a note on this. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I've also moved and collapsed the discussion as requested. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not what was "requested". - wolf 21:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

"Factually incorrect comment... irrelevant to the RfC" — I quoted you, and the quote was correct, but in the wrong context. In the context I believed it to be in, it would have been relevant to the RfC. "Personal attack" — I'm not attacking you, I mistakenly took a quote out of context. "Trolling, perhaps even vandalism" — no, I just don't want my comment to be edited, especially when I can't find any part of TPG that supports striking others' comments (except in the case of a sockpuppet). Could you please give a link or quote from TPG which supports striking my comment? My "minor corrections" did not change the meaning of your comments, they corrected the format per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, bullet point "Fixing format errors": "Examples include ... fixing list markup". Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't edit your comment at first, but instead pointed out the problem to you and even noted it should be struck. That is when you should've struck it yourself. People make mistakes all the time, that is why striking them through is a solution often used and is also found in the guidelines. You could've quickly and easily fixed this days ago, but instead chose not to, if not by violating, then by manipulating the guidelines. The real question is why you insist on retaining an accusation you know to be false? - wolf 21:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Why not just strike the sentence-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed like a reasonable and obvious solution. Still does. - wolf 21:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Thewolfchild, is warned for talk page edit warring and making unjustified changes to another person's comments. You want admins to intervene in a case where the user is restoring their own comments to a talk page, and has explained their own misunderstanding in a follow-up? If you think User:Tol mischaracterized your previous views that is something to be solved through normal discussion. It doesn't entitle you to strike through User:Tol's posts. User:Tol's comments did not constitute personal attacks or BLP violations, so there was no cause for you to edit them, even if you personally think they were wrong. 'Thinking that somebody is wrong about you' is not listed as an exemption from WP:3RR in WP:NOT3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ed, I saw their claim that the initial post was a "mistake" and I even tried bringing it to their attention. I didn't touch their post, I instead pointed out the error and stated it should be stuck. When they replied, they could've struck or otherwise fixed the problem, but refused, and again left the accusation in place. It's well established that unfounded accusations are considered personal attacks, and TPG allows them to be struck or redacted, so I did. They edited that page more than 4 times in 24 hours to keep the same unfounded accusation in place, that is why I sought admin assistance here. There is also the secondary issue of them repeatedly altering my comments against TPG which was somehow been overlooked here. I didn't create this problem, I tried addressing it, then came here seeking a resolution. Yet the initial problem remains, the page has been made worse and through it all, I am unsurprisingly warned. Very well, I will take your warning on board and leave their unfounded accusation as is and again attempt a "normal discussion". Thank you for your attention to this matter. - wolf 21:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Noting for the record User talk:Tol/Archives/2021/12#RfC comment (permalink), a discussion on this at my talk page. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

TBH @EdJohnston: This whole matter could've been avoided, if Tol had merely struck out the sentence-in-question at the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Gee Pee eeL (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 09:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC) to 09:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 09:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC) "/* 21st century */"
   2. 09:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC) "/* 20th century */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC) to 20:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "/* 2000s */ This event belongs in the 20th century category, as the events took place in 2000. 20th century spanned from 1901 up to and including the year 2000."
3. 00:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1058920633 by Joeyconnick (talk) With all do respect sir, the heading takes precedence over any subheadings. The 20th century has a clear and distinct definition and the year 2000 falls into that category."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Toronto Transit Commission incidents."

Attempts to resolve dispute:

According to Joeyconnick, "so per WP:STATUSQUO, this page has had the year 2000 in the 20th century for years (there are even comments in the subsections to that effect) so if you want to make changes to the established consensus, please respect WP:BRD and make a case for your edit on the Talk page; date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script." Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've indefinitely blocked Gee Pee eeL as WP:NOTHERE, not as much for the edit-warring (the user did not violate 3RR), but for the edit filter. I have a couple of comments, though. First, I believe the statusquo is wrong (see 20th century). Second, Johnny Au, you should really change your signature. The combination of the colors and the font make it very hard to read.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. By the way, I have simplified my sig. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060029990 by LVTW2 (talk)"
2. 01:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060028186 by LVTW2 (talk)"
3. 01:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060026504 by LVTW2 (talk)"
4. 00:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060020449 by Justiyaya (talk)"
5. 00:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060019868 by Justiyaya (talk)"
6. 00:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060018593 by Justiyaya (talk)"
7. 23:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059946387 by Timrollpickering (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Taiwan." Warning issued by Justiyaya

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is currently engaged in an edit war on Taiwan. Given the nature of the content, and that this dispute also seems to be occurring on the article's talk page I'm not sure if this should be reported here or at AIV Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66: I was just about to indef this account as NOTHERE based on past edits. Do you have any objections to me changing the block? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do. I was thinking about that myself. — Maile (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely EvergreenFir (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: 2022 in Philippine television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 112.209.106.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060105926 by VictorTorres2002 (talk)"
2. 13:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060096388 by VictorTorres2002 (talk)"
3. 11:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060087684 by CruzRamiss2002 (talk)"
4. 11:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060085875 by Abrilando232 (talk)"
5. 11:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060083054 by CruzRamiss2002 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
An IP user has been adding unsourced material on the aforementioned page (mostly adding upcoming programs on BuKo) in which the IP is undoing its reverted edits back to its own revision. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor has been blocked one week by User:Scottywong. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Ambrose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.154.55.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before first addition: [243]

Diffs of the user's additions:

1. [244] 24.154.55.106's first addition
2. [245] my initial response, moving part of it, reverting rest
3. [246] puts it back, now it's in 3 places in the article
4. [247] I reverted a second time
5. [248] they put it back a third time; still no response on talk

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: no one has reverted 3 times; they have added in reverted material 3 times, [249]

My first attempt to talk is at the very bottom of this, and they might have missed it. [250] this is my second, third and subsequent attempts to talk [251] [252]

This is an anonymous user with only a special contributions page. I went and posted on a talk page that wasn't there before I did so, so I don't know if it's actually connected to them or not [253]

Comments: I don't know if they have received any of my efforts to communicate with them or if they are even aware that putting back disputed material repeatedly is a problem, but I know I need help since this is causing problems in the article itself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:24.154.55.106 is warned . They may be blocked if they revert again at Ambrose unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for continuing to revert after the final warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Virginia Halas McCaskey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060060865 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
2. 05:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060054081 by 66.44.4.251 (talk)"
3. 05:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052730 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
4. 05:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052670 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
5. 05:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052609 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
6. 05:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052527 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
7. 05:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052484 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
8. 05:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052438 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
9. 05:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052405 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
10. 05:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052343 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
11. 05:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052251 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
12. 05:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052202 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"
13. 05:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060052148 by AfricanChristmas (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Virginia Halas McCaskey."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Related discussion: [254] Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Scottwong: Please clarify which two editors you blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• My mistake. I blocked User:AfricanChristmas and User:Zxirius, both for 72 hours, for reverting each other approximately 53 times within the span of 45 minutes. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Louis Till (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2603:8080:2302:BC93:9082:35F4:946C:4BF8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [257]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [258]
2. [259]
3. [260]
4. [261]
5. [262]
6. [263]
7. [264]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [265]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [266]

Comments:

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Rebel News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 70.48.197.212 (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 20:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC) to 20:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   4. 20:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC) to 20:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 20:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC) to 19:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rebel News."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: File:Krack film poster.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: IndianEncyclopaedic (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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I felt like laughing when he said, "Don't revert the film poster with the newer one because the older one felt badaas, true expressional and nostalgic to me and the audiences". Need consensus on how to pacify him. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC).

But this old poster looked good to me Kailash sir so that I fixed it. Any queries, then ask me immediately. IndianEncyclopaedic (talk) 4:27, 15 December 2021 (IST).

No violation. Nevertheless, don’t blank reports. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 83.213.205.178 (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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060418362 by Esiymbro (talk)Please don't distort history"
2. 10:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060416352 by Esiymbro (talk)- 结赞以羌、浑众屯潘口，傍青石岭，三分其兵趋陇、汧阳间，连营数十里，中军距凤翔一舍，诡汉服，号邢君牙兵，入吴山、宝鸡，焚聚落，略畜牧、丁壮，杀老孺，断手剔目，乃去。 《新唐书》 - 漢裳蠻，本漢人部種，在鐵橋。惟以朝霞纏頭，餘尚同漢服 《新唐书》 Hanfu was only the clothes of the people of the Han Dynasty, or it was to distinguish between the costumes of other ethnic groups and the costumes of the Han Chinese."
3. 09:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060392246 by Esiymbro (talk)Hanfu refers to the costumes worn by the Han Chinese, and the origin of the official costumes influenced the neighboring countries was not Hanfu, but the costumes of the Xianbei people. so the costumes of the Xianbei cannot be regarded as Hanfu."
4. 04:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060331739 by Qiushufang (talk)There is not enough evidence."
5. 19:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hanfu."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Strayacj */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: My body, my choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 78.152.213.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060524696 by Kaseng55 (talk)"
2. 02:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060524413 by Kaseng55 (talk)"
3. 01:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060523921 by Kaseng55 (talk)"
4. 01:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060523804 by Rexh17 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 01:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on My body, my choice."
3. 02:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continues to add his own point of view, even after being warned that they are about to break the 3-revert rule. Kaseng55 (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Already blocked for disruptive editing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Coivdology (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 00:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC) to 00:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 00:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060498066 by MartinezMD (talk)"
   2. 00:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC) to 16:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060367184 by MartinezMD (talk)"
   2. 16:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "WP:MEDRS"
2. 22:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC) on Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic "WP:BRD Use talk page"

Comments:

Will not engage on Talk page. I indicated BRD and MEDRS policy on my edit summaries. Discretionary sanctions are still in effect I believe. MartinezMD (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Peter A. McCullough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 04:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Peter A. McCullough."
2. 04:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit summaries, controversial changes */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Previously warned about this on their talk page. Does not seem to have heeded such warnings, nor even attempted any communication. This is a clear case of edit warring and being disruptive even if the theoretical 3RR limit has not been breeched. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• The same problematic behaviour also at Luc Montagnier. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• I've topic banned Thomas Paine1776 from COVID-19, broadly construed. Bishonen | tålk 08:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC).

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [267]
2. [268]
3. [269]
4. [270]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [271] [272] Other editors tried before I could intervene.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [273]

Comments:

The editor was previously blocked for 31 hours in November after making the disruptive edits. [274] where he replied back in the condescending manner to the responsible moderator. The user also left what I perceive as quite an uncivil message in the talk page of Mount Everest [275]. SirachaEditor (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SirachaEditor: have you edited under a different account before? I'm a little surprised that your first edit on wikipedia is to file a well-formed 3rr report.VR _talk 13:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• This report is a bit stale, but Hayashihouyi has been blocked before for disruptive editing, and since that time the pattern of disruption, failure to collaborate (including uncivil comments) with other editors, and certain nationalistic agendas persist, so I have indefinitely blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: James Ma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2403:6200:8813:3D25:B535:56EF:6EB5:CF2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "หล่อ,น่ารักครับ"
2. 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Okนะครับ"
3. 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Ok"
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC) to 23:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "น่ารัก"
   2. 23:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC) "ครับนะ"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on James Ma."
2. 00:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on James Ma."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Look at his early life. He was born in Bangkok and his family move to Hong Kong, but this user think he was born Hong Kong when he was actually born in Bangkok. Kaseng55 (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – the /64 range for one week. See also the edit filter log. The IP edits include some height-weight vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• Spbremarat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dustsemus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roarmessy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mobilegyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tupiox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lemealec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Strawocolte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.193.119.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 140.0.196.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎221.118.72.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 96.33.148.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 58.136.0.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: they're just editing the lead image back and forth; the IPs want a photo of Singapore, the named accounts mostly want New York or London (User:Strawocolte may be the IP registering an account)

Diffs of the user's reverts: one or two per user at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyline&action=history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: one for the most recent named account yesterday (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spbremarat&oldid=1060569931), one for the most recent IP (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:103.193.119.174&oldid=1060569951)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skyline&diff=1056594874&oldid=1020497610

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: none

Comments: I requested straightforward page protection to stop this back-and-forth, given that this was an edit war between an IP and what may be a sockpuppeteer making a new account for each edit, but this was rejected and I was told to consider WP:AN3 instead. Doesn't quite fit the format, but here it is. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page EC protected for two months. Lots of single-use IPs and brand new accounts warring with one another. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Comparison of free blog hosting services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PhysicistZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:49, 16 December 2021‎
2. 00:14, 17 December 2021‎
3. 07:28, 17 December 2021‎
4. 17:07, 17 December 2021‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:41, 17 December 2021‎

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

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

Comments:

Aggressive editor who seems to know a lot for a newbie. Warnings were issued by BilCat and subsequently deleted from the talk page. Edit warring has also occurred at List of content management systems and Guyana

And at Feng shui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Standard WP:BKFIP arrogance. Blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Mid-Atlantic American English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joshua Cannady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [276]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [277]
2. [278]
3. [279]

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

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

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

Comments:
User:Joshua Cannady is repeatedly making reverts (edit warring) without any discussion despite requests from myself and User:Lithopsian to discuss; the most recent article in question is Mid-Atlantic American English. Joshua's talk page shows that they have been warned by other users beside us in the past for this same kind of behavior. Wolfdog (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for general disruptive editing, among other problems detailed in the block log and block notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: The Egg (Weir short story) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chiyote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [280]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [281]: Claim to authorship (see comments) first added by User:Chiyote on 27 November 2021
2. [282]: Reverted by two different anon users (each in part) on 3 December 2021
3. [283]: Claim re-added by Chiyote on 3 and 4 December 2021
4. [284]: Reverted by a third anon user on 6 December 2021
5. [285]: Restored by Chiyote on 6 December 2021
6. [286]: Reverted by User:Trellion on 14 December 2021
7. [287]: Restored by Chiyote on 14 December 2021
8. [288]: Reverted by User:Dylnuge (report filer) on 19 December 2021. User warned on apparent edit warring. Talk page discussion started.
9. [289]: Restored by Chiyote on 19 December 2021. No response to talk page or user warning given.
10. [290]: Reverted by Dylnuge on 19 December 2021. Includes some reverts to content missed in reverts from 3 December 2021. As of filing, this is the current version of the page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chiyote&oldid=1061108049

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Egg_(Weir_short_story)&oldid=1061101932

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chiyote&oldid=1061138217

Comments:
The user Chiyote is repeatedly adding a claim to the page for a short story entitled "The Egg," written by Andy Weir, that they are the original author of the work. This claim has been added in multiple forms ranging from listing themselves as a co-author of the work to simply claiming the work is inspired by them. In all cases, no citation besides the text of Chiyote's own work has been provided. This is a low-traffic page; all activity on it over the last month has been Chioyte adding this claim each time various other editors have removed it for being unsubstantiated. I informed Chiyote on their talk page that further discussion should occur on the talk page for the article as it appears like an edit war, as well as a likely WP:COI violation. I'm filing here following that being disregarded and the claims being re-added by Chiyote. Dylan (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

In the time since I filed this, there has been one more round of reverts [291]. This is now within the 24 hour window for WP:3RR, though even before Chioyte's behavior was apparently to just restore it immediately after an editor noticed there was an issue (and then the invalid edits would remain live until someone else noticed). Dylan (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Supreme Leader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dktamiledit (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:

1. 15:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC) "/* December 2021 */ More problematic edits."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Supreme Leader is a tough page to watch. Ideally I'd try to to negotiate but I have no time, energy and I'm not in the mood. But need to avoid edit war. Doing nothing is not a great option either. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for not raising this very well; will aim to do better here next time. Currently have a complex open edit and have RL to switch to after that. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – for sockpuppetry by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.124.127.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5 – follows edit warring notice

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt by PNW Raven

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

Comments:
IP persists in making the same edits, and has also begun edit warring at other articles. Needs a block quickly as an ongoing disruption. Since it has spread to other articles, page protection is an insufficient solution. oknazevad (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goofy&oldid=1050989513

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goofy&diff=1060514178&oldid=1059258099
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goofy&diff=1061140447&oldid=1061103756
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goofy&diff=1061141232&oldid=1061141007

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user is aware of what they're doing: "we're not going into a edit war over this"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Goofy#He's not necessarily a dog

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LittleJerry&diff=1061143243&oldid=1061012646

Comments:

• LittleJerry posted his opinion on the talk page, made his change without consensus and is unwilling to consider any compromise. I need to go do something else for the sake of my blood pressure.— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not edit war, I reverted your edits twice in one day (which doesn't count as 3RR). You are the one who changed the consensus and I recommended that you get more opinions. AlsLittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

LittleJerry, you accused me of OR which I didn't insert. You threatened to report me here. You threatened to report me on my talk page as well. You accused me of throwing a hissy fit. And in the talk page discussion a source was quoted that literally says "He is not a dog", but you inserted "| species = Anthropomorphic dog or dogface" and "Goofy is a tall, anthropomorphic dog". If you would just try to see where other editors are coming from it would go a long way, but you're too busy threatening with reporting to the admins and already made up your mind that Goofy must be a dog, even if the source says otherwise. The three-revert rule is a bright line but not the definition of edit warring: it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. It also states When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page. You reverted twice before posting on the talk page and even when you did you didn't appear interested in discussing the matter. You accused me of OR on the talk page saying No source describes Goofy as a "dog-like human", something I never inserted into the article text. That's hardly discussing. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Also another user seems to agree with me. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• No violation. LittleJerry is correct. They reverted only twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Dua Lipa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Veneta1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:48, 10 March 2021
2. 03:17, 15 March 2021
3. 20:47, 6 April 2021
4. 21:36, 6 April 2021
5. 22:23, 6 April 2021
6. 00:04, 27 April 2021
7. 21:48, 28 April 2021
8. 00:07, 29 April 2021
9. 15:16, 30 April 2021
10. 22:46, 31 May 2021
11. 19:30, 5 June 2021
12. 21:27, 26 June 2021
13. 16:34, 18 July 2021
14. 05:44, 23 August 2021
15. 19:48, 23 August 2021
16. 22:06, 23 August 2021
17. 09:18, 24 August 2021
18. 09:01, 1 September 2021
19. 21:52, 1 September 2021
20. 00:01, 9 September 2021
21. 05:27, 12 September 2021
22. 07:03, 16 September 2021
23. 22:49, 30 September 2021
24. 08:00, 15 October 2021
25. 18:55, 20 October 2021
26. 08:23, 17 December 2021
27. 17:24, 17 December 2021
28. 13:16, 19 December 2021
29. 14:00, 20 December 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:29, 7 April 2021 by User:Binksternet
2. 06:02, 23 August 2021 by User:Binksternet
3. 20:40, 23 August 2021 by User:LOVI33
4. 10:41, 2 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
5. 15:17, 9 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
6. 23:00, 20 October 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
7. 13:49, 20 December 2021 by User:Demetrios1993

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [292]

Comments:

This is a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, as explained here. I don't know if this is the correct noticeboard for such cases, but User:Veneta1 has been trying since March 2021 to either alter the meaning or totally remove reliably sourced content pertaining to the maternal ancestry of the subject, hence why i didn't put a diff under the "Previous version reverted to" above, since the diffs aren't always exactly the same. The above diffs don't pertain to same-day reverts, but reverts over the course of 9 months. He/She has been reverted multiple times in the past by a number of editors. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue, Demetrios1993. For long-term conduct issues, WP:ANI is the correct forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Bbb23; i will address the issue there. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. 19:22, 30 November 2021‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:05, 21 December 2021
2. 19:21, 21 December 2021
3. 19:27, 21 December 2021
4. 19:33, 21 December 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:39, 21 December 2021‎ by User:TechnicianGB (he quickly reverted the tag I've inserted in his talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:23, 21 December 2021 I gave him a warning here on the edit diff as well as I have recommended to follow WP:CYCLE and to use the talk page but the user kept reverting instead of using the talk page. He has used the talk page but after doing all of these reverts, I have also used it after that trying to resolve this issue but the user just keeps repeating the same "arguments" instead of trying to reach any point.

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

1. 20:24, 21 December 2021 (reverted within 2 minutes after writing it)

Comments:
The user Weatherextremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just keeps deleting sourced content because he finds it "unreliable" and without even trying to solve anything in the talk page, he just reverts and reverts, as I've got reverted 4 times in less than 30 minutes. This user has a problem with this phrase as well as he deleted it in the past, but in July I have inserted again this phrase with a proper source backing it up but he suddenly deleted it 2 days ago, when I've said it's his own problem (because no one else has bothered to delete this content) and that it should be discussed because he's the one that doubts on that source, I got 4 reverts in exchange, even after warning himself on the edit diffs, I reckon I have warned him too late in his own talk page, but I have has as well another "incident" with this user this past summer where he also edit warred on another page until an administrator took action, but that's a different thing. I suggest to return to the previous stable version of this page while doing some kind of action against this user, he has been also partially blocked on a certain article this year as well for trying to impose this own WP:POV as he is doing right now in the page Seville. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Both editors have broken WP:3RR on this today, and there is no exemption. This is a simple content dispute, not vandalism or a BLP issue. As far as the content goes, I will comment on the quality of the supposed "proper source" on the article's talk page, but an argument over whether or not a source is reliable is not a valid excuse for an edit war. Meters (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If you look closely to the difs I tried twice to have the user engage in the talk page! I even left a message! It was only after I pointed to them that we should resolve this in the talk page they started engaging. I chose not to report them even though they broke the 3 revert rule also (that is my usual way of de-escalating similar situations) and have them discuss on the actual dispute over in the talk page! They keep throwing personal attacks against me (saying for example that I use self-published sources) and keep on escalating the situation without going into the essence of the debate, which is that we are talking about a tourist/clickbait source of low quality in order to enforce their POV. Weatherextremes (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Luckily edits are registered within Wikipedia. So he says he actually told me to go to the talk page? Interesting. this was the previous revert he done before I have told him about discussing it on the talk page, does anyone see any "advice" to go to the talk page? Or is it just this user that writes an argument saying again that source is not reliable? After that, I have warned him again about going to the talk page and to discuss as per WP:CYCLE instead of just reverting everything but I got instantly reverted 4 minutes later, where amongst other things, he said "the user is refusing to engage in talk page of the article." when I specifically wrote that this should be solved on the article's talk page, he reverted without even trying to do anything in the talk page. So please @Weatherextremes: can you tell me exactly when did I try to enforce my POV if it's you doubting about a source, without even using the talk page (just after reverting 4 times, not listening to advices as well) and deleting the warnings in your own talk page. How is that a behavior showing you want to resolve any dispute? Even if it's just you saying "it's a trashy tourist source" when it's actually not, but whatever. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, again the same non arguments! I feel we are going into circles here. I am at liberty of blanking my own talk page.This does not say anything on my willingness to resolve a dispute.It has been pointed out to you other times in the past, so please do not try to explain my actions through your own filters. I have asked you to engage in the talk page repeatedly and even left a comment in the talk which you responded to only after I pointed this out to you. Weatherextremes (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Warned Both Weatherextremes and TechnicianGB violated 3RR and are warned that any further reverts will likely result in a block. This is a content dispute. Please settle it on the talk page or on WP:RSN EvergreenFir (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [293]
2. 02:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Changing the subject of the lead sentence to match the title of the article"
3. 01:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061490261 by Newimpartial (talk) Changed the subject of the lead sentence to match the title of the article"
4. 01:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Changed the subject of the leading sentence to match the title of the article"
5. 00:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061488466 by Newimpartial (talk) Changed the subject of the leading sentence to match the title of the article. It is not a POV edit. The article itself refers to "Cultural Marxism" on the very first line, and this article refers to the use of the term in that conspiracy, not the term itself."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warned by Newimpartial previously, warning was blanked.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User reverted a fifth time after blanking the notice of this edit-warring enforcement discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I meant to block from the two titles that were in play, but the redirect to Cultural Marxism seems to be unrecognized by the interface. The block is for article space in general instead. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Sony Pictures Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.93.246.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [294]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [295]
2. [296]
3. [297]
4. [298]
5. [299]
6. [300]
7. [301]
8. [302]
9. [303]
10. [304]
11. [305]
12. [306]

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: [307]

Comments:
User was warned twice in their talk page -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 20:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Netto-uyoku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Storm598 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: []

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [308]
2. [309]
3. [310]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [311] [312] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [313]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [314]

Comments:
I've warned this user twice against edit warring and initiated a discussion on the talk page after he ignored my suggested for him to do so himself, despite this he has continued to revert the page. XiAdonis (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The user has been biased editing in several Japanese political articles. We can tell right away by looking at the article Netto-uyoku. # On the other hand, I have clearly presented a reliable source that supports that "Netto-uyoku" is essentially similar to or equal to "Alt-right" or "populist". --Storm598 (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In particular, as you can see from the "history" of the Netto-uyoku article, XiAdonis performed a clear vandalism by erasing all the edits I didn't contribute to in large quantities.[315] --Storm598 (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators should check the article's Talk and History. [316] [317] --Storm598 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• @XiAdonis and Storm598: Both have you reverted twice in a 24-hour period, which means that neither of you has violated 3RR. However, calling each other's edits vandalism is disruptive and not conducive to resolving your dispute. Therefore, you are both warned that if you persist in reversions and attacks, you may be blocked. I strongly urge you to continue your discussion on the article Talk page in a civil and constructive fashion, and if that doesn't work, use other methods of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Storm has in fact violated 3RR. All 3 of his reverts are listed above. Just pointing that out. XiAdonis (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@XiAdonis: The first revert was from December 9, meaning it wasn't even close to being in the same 24-hour period. And just so you know, it takes 4 reverts to violate 3RR. You should really read the policy before you make such claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Serena Auñón-Chancellor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Andrew1718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061183596 by TJRC (talk)"
2. 18:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1060960495 by Rebroad (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Serena Auñón-Chancellor." by TJRC (talk)"
2. 23:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Serena Auñón-Chancellor." by TJRC (talk)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Space Station Hole Controversy */ Reply"

Comments:

User won't back off from EW. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 17:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The editor also received a WP:OWN warning from Rebroad ([318]) on the same behavior. His responses to warnings have consistently been to simply remove them and continue his behavior: [319], [320], [321].

In addition, there many more reverts over the last few weeks by this user beyond the two listed above; a more complete list: [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328]. TJRC (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And just now, even after this notice-board discussion was opened, he has reverted again. TJRC (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a BLP matter Are you seriously reverting to include an allegation of a deliberate destructive act, sourced to an aggregator, in a stand-alone section in a BLP? As far as I'm concerned, this is a BLP-exempt situation, and other editors are cautioned to respect BLP. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• No violation The reported editor has expressed a valid BLP-based reason for reverting. Editors are cautioned to respect such reasoning, and not to revert disputed content back into articles and then report here. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Alans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.26.202.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [329]
2. [330]
3. [331]
4. [332]
5. [333]

Comments:

Three different IPs have suddenly appeared out of nowhere and started edit warring to push the same view, reverting three veteran users. As seen in the revisions, the person behind these IPs is altering sourced information to POV push. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two years by User:Favonian due to a request at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley
95.167.33.112 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.167.33.112

Previous version reverted to: [334]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Fernando_Valley&diff=1061522216&oldid=1061438791
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Fernando_Valley&diff=1061605050&oldid=1061565405
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:
Greeis6 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Greeis6

• 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) 19:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)