Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley

User being reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:178.71.197.203&action=edit&redlink=1

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Fernando_Valley&diff=1056273475&oldid=1056272709

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:

User keeps changing IP address to get around block. Edit warring has been going on constantly - user refuses to reach resolution. Greeis6 (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protection applied for 72 hours. Not sure entirely what's up, but edit summaries show me it isn't collegial editing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll tell you what's up.

1. The highly authoritative references 2, 3 and 4 in the lead-in of this version of the San Fernando Valley article testify that the shortened colloquial name of the San Fernando Valley is the Valley. Greeis6 deletes references 3 and 4 and claims that the name should be written as The Valley, but fails to provide any authoritative source.
2. Greeis6 insists (diff) that "Calabasas is classified with SMM - not SFV." But this authoritative source (the U.S. Department of the Interior, 1980) explicitly states that "Calabasas is not included within the boundaries of the Santa Monica Mountains NRA."
3. Finally, on the Talk page, Greeis6 deleted my perfectly legitimate edit: diff.

So, if you care about Wikipedia's trustworthiness, permablock Greeis6 (he has a long history of edit warring--see his Talk page). And revert the article from the current erroneous version (the two errors are "The Valley" and "Calabasas is not part of the SFF") to my last version. —178.71.197.203 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This is well into WP:LAME territory. If the over-the-top sniping continues, there will be blocks and rangeblocks just to spare everybody another capitalization war. Acroterion (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred — I wasn’t active in the past few hours, but thank you for protecting the page. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 22:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Saleh and Daoud Al-Kuwaity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.82.178.37

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]
6. [13]
7. [14]

Ignoring the talk page discussion to settle the dispute

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Comments:

This IP 78.82.178.37 has been persistently edit warring to push the same view, reverting the work of other users and deleting sources. This user was warned twice in his talk page. As seen in the revisions, the person behind these IP is altering sourced information to non-constructive POV push. This user continues ignoring the talk page discussion and accuses every source he doesn't like as being "biased kuwaiti". He deletes all the sourced information about their father's Iranian origin. In addition to persistent edit warring, 78.82.178.37's actions violate the following policies: WP:Ownership, WP:Civil, WP:RELIABILITY WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA. Many of his contributions do not follow the standard format outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography. At this stage, 78.82.178.37 should be held accountable. This IP is seemingly under the impression he owns this article. I'm not the only Wikipedia user who has noticed this IP's non-constructive behaviour in the article Saleh and Daoud Al-Kuwaity. Earlier this week, Such-change47 reverted this IP's nonconstructive edits. Similarly last month, GorgeCustersSabre reverted this IP's non-constructive edits. --Dilmunite (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months due to disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 86.3.209.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 08:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC) to 08:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 08:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 08:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   4. 08:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   5. 08:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 08:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Robert Evans (writer)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to remove paid editing templates, even though the templates are appropriate. Article is being discussed at WP:COIN Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months due to apparent COI editing by an IP. Use the talk pages to propose any changes you think are needed to article content. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: 2 Unlimited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Revirvlkodlaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 5.182.74.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts: User:Revirvlkodlaku

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]

User:5.182.74.202

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]
6. [30]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None undertaken by either party. Page-protection was put in place to encourage discussion. None undertaken and straight back to reverting when the protection expired.

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

Comments:

• I've blocked Special:contributions/5.182.74.0/24 as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

• Apologies for the edit warring and lack of talk-page discussion. I considered the edits made by unregistered user to be wrong-headed and stubborn. My reason for not starting a talk page discussion was that I didn't expect an unregistered user, impossible to tag and address directly, to respond or engage. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The IP's /24 range has been blocked one month by User:Bbb23 as an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Peppergoat23 (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. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Disruptive behavior, notified here and here WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 01:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: persistent vandalism despite multiple warnings (this, this, this, this, this) WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 02:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: African Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Taharka155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061589172 by Erp (talk) How can a consensus be reached that is completely contrary to the citations provided. Provide a source for the claim that African American is an ethnicity because the two citations listed clearly state that it is category defined by race and contains multiple ethnicities. Having an ethnicity purely defined by race makes no sense.."
2. 14:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061573541 by Rsk6400 (talk) You need to address the uncited claim you have included in this article. Do not edit war please."
3. 14:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061569785 by Rsk6400 (talk) Undone edit. You need to provide a source for your claim of an ethnic group rather than the two sources your provided that clearly state it is a racial category consisting of multiple ethnic groups."
4. 12:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "changed ethnic group to racial category as neither source describes African Americans as an ethnicity, but explicitly as a racial category that contains multiple ethnicity. - "The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican.*""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on African Americans (ethnicity)."
2. 19:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on African Americans."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "/* African and Caribbean immigrants are not African American. Neither are Kamala Harris nor Barack Obama */ Warning: 3RR"

Comments:

We had long discussions at Talk:African Americans, Talk:African Americans (ethnicity), and WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_Americans_(ethnicity), in the course of which they attacked me personally, the worst attack being this one ("Ethnocide ... is precisely what you are doing"). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

I have attempted to resolve disputes and have conversation with the individual Rsk6400, he has ignored and failed to address any of the points I have raised on multiple occasions as can be see in the talk pages for African Americans as well as African Americans (ethnicity). I've never had a long discussion with this person. He has reverted edits I have made repeatedly, followed me to other pages and reverted edits I have made there, and has not made any attempts to resolve the issues raised in maintenance templates that the user added to African Americans (ethnicity). The user has made several assertions that the ethnicity which I belong to does not exist. That is the definition of ethnocide, which he has falsely taken as an insult.--Taharka155 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

At my talk page, we had this conversation in which they equated opposition to their personal definition of the term African American with the Holocaust. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Taharka155 is warned for edit warring at African Americans. They may be blocked the next time they revert this article unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. And accusing another editor of 'ethnocide' risks earning you a block for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.149.166.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

Comments:
This IP is edit warring across multiple pages, could be a banned user. Made multiple reverts on other articles too. For example, he made 3 rvs on Harry Sassounian: [38] [39] [40], misquoting the source, despite other users telling him that the source does not support his claim. In general, most of this IP contributions are edit warring on Azerbaijan-Armenia related articles, which is area covered by arbitration ruling. He was warned about that too: [41] Grandmaster 23:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

”Could be a banned user” - I’ll just let that sit here. Isnt the number one rule to assume good faith? I ask the administrators to review Grandmaster’s record of edit warring and POV pushing on Talk:Shusha and Talk:Stepanakert and Talk:Lachin. That is edit warring, along with ganging up on other users.—217.149.166.11 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Let us also not forget that you have tried to downplay Azerbaijani-backed sources as neutral. That in itself deserves a mention at another noticeboard, but I wont do it because we already have one open - something that you do not seem to realize--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

As someone who commented in the last discussion regarding IP, I must admit this is getting ridiculous. First, ANI discussion was opened with ban calls accompanied by insufficient diffs, despite IP communicating with every editor and opening discussions [42]. Now, edit-warring report is being opened even tho IP isn't even aware of WP:EW or WP:3RR? There isn't even a single edit-warring notice in their talk page. Without diving into content details which isn't relevant here and is actually being discussed in the talk page (which was initiated by IP), I would like to only point out that we don't shop with reports, especially when relevant warnings weren't even given. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP was given sufficient warning about edit warring with all the necessary links. [43] He was also warned about arbitration ruling. Yet he chose to continue the same behavior on many pages. Grandmaster 23:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you joking? The Robert McClellon thing was in response to a turkish vandalist (Enverpasatr, named after Enver Pasha), to which the user who removed my edit then responded by blocking the vandal --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#EnverPasaTr. That is all resolved. Again, you are looking for artificial evidence while accusing me of something you can not support factually--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

How about keeping the discussiom to one noticeboard or one place? you should know better than to start WP:FORUMSHOPING all over the place. It's funny that you edit warred until he made one more revert than you to report The IP. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation at Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907. I think that some semiprotections of WP:AA2 articles might be considered if problems continue. The edits of User:Enverpasatr certainly deserve no credence. But the continuing problem is an IP making lots of reverts in AA2, an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The IP continues to edit aggressively since their arrival on Wikipedia on December 16th. EdJohnston (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Karbala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ishan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 13:15, 25 December 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:42, 25 December 2021 revert HistoryofIran
2. 15:41, 25 December 2021 revert HistoryofIran
3. 16:08, 25 December 2021 revert HistoryofIran
4. 16:41, 25 December 2021 revert Wikaviani

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle of Karbala#Edit warring

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:53, 25 December 2021

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16:43, 25 December 2021

Comments:

Amongst other things, user keeps adding the 'citation missing template', even though the article is well sourced, hence it's recent GA status. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I accepted the citation tag removal but he keeps removing my other edits claiming WP violation, though I read those notices but it looks like to me my edits were reasonable, maybe I am wrong because I don't quite understand those stuff well enough quite yet. As for edit warring, he's the one who initiated it, and I suspect he used other IDs to remove my edits to avoid 3 revert rule. With this I rest my case. I'm not going to edit that page again until an admin investigates this issue. (Ishan87)

Page: Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Lyndsay Dart (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:

• 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) 17:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Jean Alesi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chami46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

Comments:

Users edits have been challenged on not just the mentioned page but numerous other pages too, and rather than get consensus for the changes they just keep reverting back to their version with minimal discussion. They have not yet violated the 3RR, but that is because I stopped reverting because I reached 3 reverts reverting back to the stable version. Editor is currently continuing to edit war.

1. [51]
2. [52]

Now also including insults in edit summaries.

1. [53]

See users history page for more examples. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: User has also started editing other talk page contributions GimliDotNet (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@GimliDotNet:, I think it might have been a case of editing the wrong version. I made my comment in two pieces and it corresponds, so I wouldn't consider the interaction on my talk page to be part of edit-warring, just something that ought to have occurred at Talk:Jeff Hardy. They did not revert me when I undid their edit. --SVTCobra 22:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. Edit warring to add the word 'former' to articles about sportsmen who have apparently retired. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Spider-Man: No Way Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nyxaros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I was just about to warn them on their talk page when they came to mine, threatening me with a permanent ban for daring to revert their unjustified edits. At that point, I wasn’t sure whether to disperse the convo over multiple talk pages, so forgive me if I should have.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion occurred on user talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [59]

Comments:

• This is incorrect. The third one is not a revert. User clearly doesn't know how to write an article, and keeps adding unsourced information and accuses me of "vandalizing" and being "unsourced". I told them to stop edit warring and talk, but they keep ignoring the page and edit summaries and continue to write incorrect and irrational "reasons". I didn't threaten them "with a permanent ban for daring to revert [my] unjustified edits". That's a lie. ภץאคгöร 18:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I didn’t write the article, so to say I have no idea how to write one is irrelevant. You can’t cite a single instance of me ignoring edit summaries, and you’re accusing me of edit warring when your edit is the disruptive one. You then call me irrational on my own talk page to cite which reviews don’t mention Tom Holland as a standout performance. You just admitted to ignoring edit summaries because they’re “irrational” and illegitimate reasons, yet I’m the misbehaving one? And as for calling for a permanent ban? That’s this edit. I should also note that they removed their ANEW message from their talk page--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

None of what you wrote makes any sense to me. Even the link you provided just leads to your talk page. You should link the section, where I don't "threaten with a permanent ban for daring to revert [my] unjustified edits". What is the point of continuing to distort the facts and refusing to cooperate? ภץאคгöร 19:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s the comment you left on my talk page. What’s so hard to comprehend about that? Where am I distorting the facts?--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• CreecregofLife, your first revert was without an edit summary. You can't expect someone to cite multiple reviews in an edit summary. You removed it with a baseless claim that the reviews don’t back up what the caption says. You didn’t cite any of the reviews, you just said “the reviews”, the claim is based on the reviews cited in the article, and if you reverted without an edit summary you're not trying to engage in a discussion, and your reversion are likely to be taken as disruptive. If you want it discussed so much, you go to the talk page is needlessly combative, and seems you don't want to engage in a discussion, which is contrary to how Wikipedia works. Nyxaros is correct that in fact only one of the reviews considers Holland "a standout", saying Holland remains the best of the cinematic Spider-Men. The rest praise Holland but in the same terms as the rest of the cast, not highlighting him particularly. Then you just said Please stop vandalizing the page, not answering to his arguments and dismissing them as without substance, when all needed was in the article for you to read. —El Millo (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, this talk page comment by Nyxaros (Though some of the info is unsourced. User:CreecregofLife wants to keep the unsourced info by edit warring, ignoring the page and the edit summaries, and writing nonsensical reasons and accusations) is also needlessly combative and just unloading on a barely-related thread. —El Millo (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but based on the information initially given, I didn’t think I needed an edit summary on the first reversion. I didn’t think it would escalate. If I had known I would’ve put the edit summary right away. All I was looking for was for Nyx to identify the publications that didn’t mention Holland as a standout, and Nyx never did. I wanted to discuss it, but then Nyx started with the personal attacks, and I didn’t have to take them. Every time I run into something, I’m the one who’s told that the onus is on me to go to the talk page, never the other person, even though the other person is in the same conflict and supposed to be following the same rules. Because of that, I encouraged Nyx to start the talk page discussion on the subject’s talk page, and I would have followed them there. To say I wouldn’t have been interested in discussion is highly presumptive. It was an invitation to talk about it on the appropriate grounds. Just because something seems some way doesn’t mean it is that way. That’s all.--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Nyxaros and User:CreecregofLife are both warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again before getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. The phrase 'needlessly combative' seems to apply to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I am clearly describing what the editor has done. If you look at his edit summaries and accusations ("vandalizing", "disruptive editing", etc.) against me for removing unsourced info, you will see that he was edit warring, ignoring the page and messages, and throwing baseless accusations. This has nothing to do with being "needlessly combative", Facu-el Millo. I can't believe any editor would ignore this user's actions just like he ignores the article he is editing. Apparently it's acceptable to insist on keeping unsourced info on the page and attacking those who remove them. ภץאคгöร 11:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Raja Dahir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2400:ADC1:14F:1B00:B83D:5DCE:DE0A:2FAD (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. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [66]

Comments:

IP socking/hopping reverts through 2400:ADC1:14F:1B00:B83D:5DCE:DE0A:2FAD as well (included in diffs above). Unresponsive to comments on Talk page with no-ES/unexplained disruptive reverts (despite being asked for) and removals on multiple articles (despite attempts at resolution on the IP Talk page). Started using alt IP exactly after being warned and asked response from. Gotitbro (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

See also Rohri, Sateen Jo Aastan with similar warring by both IPs. Gotitbro (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The range Special:Contributions/2400:ADC1:14F:1B00::/64 has been blocked two months for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062076258 by Alexbrn (talk)"
2. 03:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062075736 by Alexbrn (talk)"
3. 03:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062075532 by MartinezMD (talk)"
4. 03:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062042738 by MartinezMD (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continued reverting to language that is grammatically incorrect. History page has BRD and request to use talk page. Article is COVID-related and may be subject to sanctions (not sure about it on this particular page) MartinezMD (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2405:205:1482:E419:0:0:111:28B1 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [73]

Comments:
Unresponsive to comments on the user talk page, the article talk page and the edit summaries. No-ES/unexplained disruptive reverts, despite being asked for on the user talk page. The IP user has not yet violated the 3RR, but that is because I stopped reverting, since I reached three reverts. Rockcodder (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Shawn Quinn (American Football Coach) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Csp22397 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 06:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 06:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Warning: Edit warring and copyright */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Csp22397 is repeatedly restoring copyright text copied from [74] and [75]. DanCherek (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Ali Kemal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) DeCausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061910205&oldid=1061863311 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061910205&oldid=1061863311
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061558594&oldid=1061435855
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061636107&oldid=1061615492
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061707133&oldid=1061703288

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ali_Kemal [diff]

== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#ZaniGiovanni. Thank you. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#DeCausa. Thank you. [diff]

Comments: I have read many books on the subject. Since I know Ottoman Turkish, I also read the 20th-century newspaper reports of Ali Kemal. But I couldn't convince ZaniGiovanni and DeCausa not to delete my edit. Since it is an open-source network, I tried to explain my sources to them on the talk page. But he and DeCausa just kept deleting my edits without showing any source. I told them again and again, my sources include Ali Kemal's own posts from the newspaper but they insisted on deleting my edits. After many reverts and long explanations I decided to report the case since it was obvious they were not trying to discuss, they were doing an edit war. The page of Ali Kemal was very pale and uninformative. Because I have read many books and did many researches on the subject, I edited the page with long and detailed sources. User 'ZaniGiovanni' also said that he doesn't count Turkish sources as reliable, which sounds very racist to me. I guess we should convince him first before putting any war reports from the Turkish Ministry of War History(!) I think it damages the open-sourcenes of Wikipedia to delete my edit which is a result of months of reading, in a few seconds. I am pretty sure they don't speak Turkish but they are so persistent of deleting my edit by just saying 'your sources are not reliable because they are Turkish'. As a Turkish person I honestly feel like we are being attacked on the internet, on Wikipedia specifically. They are editing the page of the Turkish War of Independence and trying to label it as genocide. Every page that includes Turks and other nations is being excessively edited. User ZaniGiovanni is an Armenian person and I respect that but it is clear that's why he keeps deleting my edits about Ali Kemal. Anyways, I don't want to make this report too long. I know not everyone is hysterically racist. Thank you for your help. Hsynylmztr (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for including disputed content, and secondly, no guidelines were broken by me or DeCausa in Ali Kemal article. You've been explained both by me and 3rd party editor why your edit is WP:UNDUE and is essentially a jingoistic WP:ADVOCACY, please read the talk discussion and comment. Also, "I have read many books / I read Turkish" isn't an argument. This whole report overall seems very WP:BATTLEGROUND motivated. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't need fancy words. Just explain how did you decide these sources are unreliable if you do not speak Turkish. I did not say I am right because I speak Turkish, I said I can actually read sources about Ali Kemal because I speak Turkish. Even his own newspapers are not of a source enough for you? Hsynylmztr (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I did actually explain it to you in talk, and it isn't just reliability. You seem to ignore the guidelines that I show you or don't read them. And this isn't a talk page discussion btw, you filed an inadequate report and now came here to discuss content? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I know it is not the place for discussion. I was waiting for an admin to respond, why did you reply to me here? It is not an discussion page. And you didn't explain anything toa anyone. You just deleted my entire edit by saying 'Turkish sources are not reliable'. How come Ali Kemal's own newspaper reports are not a reliable source ??? Is there any other source that is more reliable than his own words? Please stop editing my report. I am sure admins will read both of our edits in the talk section. You deleted all the books because they are Turkish. Hsynylmztr (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Hsynylmztr opened this AN3 thread on their 24th edit. There’s clearly a longer history behind this account. Since May, Hsynylmztr has been attempting to slow edit-war this change into the article despite beng reverted by 4 different editors. Since 22 December they have reverted x3 compared to ZaniGiovanni’s 2 reverts (or my 2 reverts). So unclear the basis of their complaint. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Hsynylmztr is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I provided sources but they didn't. I know you admins are not academicians so I am not trying to tell you about reliability of my sources. With the result of this file we saw which is important for Wikipedia, actually having sources or having more people to back you. Hsynylmztr (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Agdam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.149.166.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79], please also see this report: [80]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [81]

Comments:
This IP has just returned from 48 hrs block, and immediately started new edit wars across multiple pages. For example, removal of Azerbaijani name for a region located in Azerbaijan: [82] Revert warring on Agdam: [83] [84] Just to note that according to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement Republic of Armenia agreed to withdraw its army from Agdam, so claiming that it was occupied only by Karabakh Armenian forces is false. In general, I don't see that this anonymous editor has made any constructive contributions to Wikipedia so far. He sparked at least 3 serious edit wars on Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907, Harry Sassounian and Agdam. Community attention is required. Grandmaster 15:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 2 months. My comment from the last AN3 still applies: "...the continuing problem is an IP making lots of reverts in AA2, an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The IP continues to edit aggressively since their arrival on Wikipedia on December 16th." If this were a registered account, we would already be considering a topic ban from WP:AA2. In my opinion topic bans of IPs aren't really useful, so the only way to prevent further disruption is a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have plenty of IP addresses. Do you think this will stop me? :)--217.149.166.11 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Pages:
Taleh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dervish movement (Somali) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dabaqabad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Removes Caroselli (Taleh page) 21 May
2. Removes Caroselli (Taleh page) 14 June
3. Removes Caroselli (Taleh page) 11 August
4. Removes Caroselli (Dervish page) 3 Dec
5. Removes Caroselli (Dervish page) 22 Dec
6. Removes Caroselli (Dervish page) 25 Dec
7. Removes Caroselli (Dervish page) 27 Dec
8. Removes Caroselli (Architecture of Africa page) 27 Dec
9. Removes Indiana University source (Dhulbahante page) 27 Dec
10. Removes Caroselli (Dhulbahante page) 27 Dec

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87], [88]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [89]

Comments:
There was a consensus formed on the Italian-language desk link on wording of garesa; the consensus-formed wording was implemented by Lambian (link). User Dabaqabad seems to have an aversion to endonymic term garesa in Caroselli source. He says alternative name is "undue". WP policy debunks this as WP:OTHERNAMES says "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph", and the Caroselli sourced text is an extract of a high-level government letter (Dervish-to-Italian). It should be noted Dabaqabad is currently under special editing restrictions, which read "you are to always follow a revert with an article talk page comment explaining it in any and all WP:ARBHORN topic area pages or edits (whatsoever)", and in October a 6 month topic ban on Dabaqabad, partially for removing reliable sources went stale. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is not a good venue for this report. Consider taking to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Bilal ibn Rabah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ishan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:25, 7 October 2021
2. 10:37, 7 October 2021
3. 10:56, 7 October 2021
4. 14:56, 17 October 2021
5. 06:20, 25 December 2021
6. 01:27, 28 December 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90] [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [93]

Comments:
User has been trying to edit-war in a calligraphic lead image (first File:Bilal_RA_arabic.png, later the near-identical File:بلال بن رباح.png) instead of the long-standing pictorial lead image (File:Bilal.jpg), citing concerns over images of Islamic figures being offensive to Muslims. Does not engage with argument at talk page but instead waits a bit and then changes lead image again. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I would like to know the opinions of the Admins about this issue too. I did engage with him in conversations in talk pages about this, so I don't understand why he's balantly lying here! I kept both of the images in the article. I accepted his arguments and worked a way around it to include my edits too but it seems to me he still doesn't like it, so I want admins to solve it 4 us too. Thank you. This is Ishan87

• Blocked – 1 week. Second block in just a few days! This user does not seem to understand how Wikipedia works. It is not enough to discuss with others. If your changes do not find consensus, you must concede the point. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Overview */ changed to reflect current sources"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC) to 05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
   1. 05:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Overview */ Removed verifiably false information"
   2. 05:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Changed to reflect current sources"
3. 04:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Removing verifiably false information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on WikiIslam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC) "/* I've tagged the article as NPOV and taken it to WP:NPOVN */ Replying to Doug Weller (using reply-link)"
2. 18:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Intersect redux */ Replying to Underthemayofan (using reply-link)"
3. 18:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC) "/* New Section on the "History of WikiIslam" */ +Oppose"

Comments:

Single-purpose account (who denies having a COI) devoted to white-washing the subject's (illustrious) history against consensus of three editors (me, Snuish, and Doug Weller) at the talk-page. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Underthemayofan is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at WikiIslam unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. I do not believe I have broken this rule, and I am also a relatively new user. May I appeal this ruling in any way?--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Underthemayofan: No appeal is necessary. All you need to do is discuss edits at the talk page and let consensus form before making any further edits to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khalji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062460858 by Doug Weller (talk) - Check https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ikhtiyar-al-Din-Muhammad-Bakhtiyar-Khalji"
2. 15:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC) "I didn't make the claims first. The burden of proof is upon yourself, sadly. Something that has not been proven to be impermissible is permissible by default. You have been unable to provide proof for your claims until now. That is how rules work."
3. 15:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC) "Kindly substantiate your claim by mentioning the page containing the guideline. Its a simple transliteration. There seems to be no foundation to the reversion."
4. 15:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC) "1. It's Ikhtiyar and not Ikhtyiar, 2. I have seen transliterations being used in other pages as well as far as I can recall. Kindly mention the page containing guideline being used."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

3RR warning removed here: [101] Doug Weller talk 16:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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:

• 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) 20:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: I.S.S. (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheSnowyMountains (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [109]

Comments:
There's a dispute involving the editor named in this complaint, Bovineboy2008 and I regarding whether it's appropriate to mention The Black List (survey) at the article in question. Unfortunately, TSM has taken it upon themselves to edit-war to push their POV that the list should not be mentioned in the article rather than waiting for a clear consensus to emerge or pursing other forms of dispute resolution, as I encouraged them to do[110]. DonIago (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Frood Fouladvand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062567126 by Azadmard101 (talk) Please stop. I have already reported you. Enough."
2. 06:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062565917 by Azadmard101 (talk) There are 20,000+ Qashqai Turks in Lorestan state today in the city of Azna and very many have names of Fouladloo. Fouladloos are older than the Fouladvands who derive from the Fouladloos. There are Fouladloo Bakhtiaris who speak Turkic in Hamedan state. You are Turkic be proud of this. We are related we should not fight."
3. 06:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062564972 by Azadmard101 (talk) This was written by you or your father? Read the real Fouladloo-Fouladvand history because you originate from Fouladloo-Bakhtiaris we are Qashqai Turk be proud."
4. 06:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062564109 by Azadmard101 (talk) Fouladvands were originally called Fouladloo who are originally Turks of the Qashqai clan under the branch of Bakhtiar but some became Persianized. My family's name is Fouladloo and we call ourselves Bakhtiari. Search Fouladloo history. You are a low-life who cares who you think you are."
5. 06:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062562600 by Azadmard101 (talk) kooni padaro padarbozorgate. kojayi? Irani ra kharij? bache kooni. mikhai biam bezarem koonet? I am real Bakhtiari-Qashqai you are nothing but a fraud!"
6. 05:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062561270 by Azadmard101 (talk) I have many more sources including personal family references. Please stop!"
7. 05:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062560189 by Azadmard101 (talk) Please read sources carefully you are the troll! Qashqais are older than Bakhtiaris!!! Look when Baakhtiari was said first and when Qashqai was said first in histsory! You cannot delete history! Please stop!"
8. 05:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062559210 by Azadmard101 (talk) Bakhtiaris are origined of Qashqai Turk. I am Bakhtiari-Qashqai Please stop harassing the truths."
9. 05:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062556754 by Azadmard101 (talk) Please do not undo this edition is true Dr.Frood Fouladvand was a proud Iranian Turk. Turk olduguni yazde kendishi soyledi gururlu bir Turk oldugumu."
10. 04:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062556440 by Azadmard101 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Complete MAT action (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also report for Azadmard101 Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite EvergreenFir (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Frood Fouladvand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Azadmard101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062567029 by Turkempire (talk) None of the sources that you have provided support this idea. Unless you can provide one, stop."
2. 06:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062564851 by Turkempire (talk) I'm literally a Fouladvand myself. http://yaftenews.ir/introduction/book-introduction/7786-fooladvand.html Try reading actual books for once. This book was written *by* a Fouladvand. You are no one. You are simply pretending."
3. 06:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062563731 by Turkempire (talk) I unironically have never laughed harder in my life. You have no idea who you just insulted by bringing my father into things. Where I live is irrelevant. You speak Turkish like an Anatolian, so I'm assuming you are too."
4. 05:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062562476 by Turkempire (talk) Sources: kooni hasti. Let me tell you as a Bakhtiari Lur myself that we are not in any way Turks. You are an Anatolian looking for trouble."
5. 05:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062561105 by Turkempire (talk) Qashqais being older than Bakhtiaris means nothing. You have no proof that Bakhtiaris are of Qashqai origins, and you never will. Stop."
6. 05:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062560016 by Turkempire (talk) Bakhtiaris are most certainly not of Qashqai origin. None of the sources that you have provided prove this. You cite an event that took place 150 years ago to claim that the Bakhtiaris are of Turkic origin, when the Bakhtiaris are several centuries older than 150 years old. Cease. You're not funny. Judging by how you talk Turkish, you're an Anatolian troll."
7. 05:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "This is vandalism. Speaking as someone who personally knew the man, I can very much tell you that he was not a "proud Iranian Turk" and did not see himself as a Turk at all. Undid revision 1062558995 by Turkempire (talk)"
8. 04:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062556692 by Turkempire (talk)"
9. 04:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062555981 by Turkempire (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "Complete MAT action (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also report for Turkempire Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 07:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely EvergreenFir (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  Azadmard101 also seems to have created a sockpuppet to assist with their side of the dispute, User:Nijnij567 was created at UTC 6:43 and made a series of edits to revert back to Azadmard101's preferred version, within one minute of creating the account, and with a similarly lengthy summary. Erm, quack? Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 07:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Patrick Stewart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: High professionalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He/she keeps deleting my suggestion several times (now 3) from the talkpage of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrick_Stewart&action=history and is also putting back insults on my talkpage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.206.64.153 (talk)

all this guy is doing is removing peoples edits and threatening to block — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.77.4 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Already blocked. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks i have removed some of the vandalism (things like this:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sneek&type=revision&diff=1062610039&oldid=1062608233) but there is probably a lot more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.206.64.153 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm also reverting some of the unnecessary rapid reverts this LTA has been making. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I also found a list with stuff the user has done, if it is the same user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/ItsLassieTime). Added by 188.206.64.153 (talk

Page: Missionaries of Charity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.178.86.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]
4. [115]
5. [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [118]

Comments:
5th revert (reverting another editor) was after notification of this thread. DeCausa (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [126]

Comments:

Attempts to insert OR and remove sourced content and a refusal to accept they have to do things according to our policies. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And they are still at it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

With this they are about at 6RR [[127]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

And still reverting [[128]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

We need a block NOW. -- Valjean (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: 2022 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: L1amw90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_PDC_World_Darts_Championship&oldid=1062531216

First of all I am sorry about not strictly following the format. I am not a regular editor of wikipedia, so I do not understand . I spent at least an hour trying to do so. I failed.
Thus here in plain "html". There seems to be a difference in opinion about what to write in the Section "Representation" of the article if one country has no more representatives. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_PDC_World_Darts_Championship">talk page</a> of the article describes this very well. The mentioned user is repeatedly editing the page to use N/A instead of 0 or None. He never answered on the talk page. His only comment was: "14:07, 22 December 2021‎ L1amw90 →‎Representation: Leave the 0 as n/a as it looks better"
I think that wikipedia is striving for accuracy, correctness and making sense. In this context N/A does not make any sense at all. I do not want to judge whether N/A looks better than 0, because I think a knowledge database is not like a Miss Universe beauty contest (sorry for this satirical but nevertheless true comment).
I will now try to automatically notify the user, but I may fail to do so. If so, this is not intentional, but the result of me not being able to understand how to edit Wikipedia pages.

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Draft:Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (Part Two) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First instance of incorrectly claiming "unsourced material"
2. Wholesale restoration to their version despite lengthy explanation that the material was sourced, places discussion onus on me as a way to intimidate others from removing the disruptive edit, makes unfounded claim their edit was "justified"
3. Reverts edit warring warning on talk page, claiming their edits had "way more justification"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This message was reverted off the page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I suspect I was told to start the convo on the talk page so it can be ignored. It really seems like they’re trying to avoid accountability, especially because it’s their edit they need to actually justify, and not ignore already-presented objections

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Did not realize/remember the template made the section title, sorry

Comments:

Why is the status quo being ignored? Why is it no matter whether I’m the changer or the maintainer, I always have to be the one to bring it to the talk page? It’s like as if if I’m in the discussion, the other person doesn’t have the same responsibilities I do.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk about "that escalated quickly"! I reverted your edit at my talk page because there was no need to keep it: I read it and know what the issue is, I literally just cleared my talk page with an end of year archive, WP:DTR, and because the warning applies as much to you as it does to me which I noted in my edit summary. I haven't started a discussion at the talk page / responded to your message yet because I am still working through my watchlist (from oldest to most recent) post-holidays and was going to circle back to this issue when I was done. You've really jumped the gun here, reporting me less than two hours after you started the talk page discussion which is not at all a reasonable amount of time to wait before deciding that someone is ignoring you / trying to "avoid accountability". Starting an edit war to try remove "source needed" tags from an article when the information is literally unsourced and then reporting the other editor to WP:AN/EW within a few hours is very much not assuming WP:GOODFAITH. I am happy to pretend this didn't happen and continue the talk page discussion in a reasonable time if you are. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I did assume good faith. Good faith was lost when you decided to steamroll and force the less-tenured user to defend the status quo when that’s not procedure. You needed to propose your change on the talk page and not force it through. The expiration is not time-based, it is action-based--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Trying to get people blocked because they didn't respond to you immediately is not how Wikipedia works. The discussion that you started has now continued (in a completely reasonable amount of time) with multiple editors joining in and if you are willing to help we may be able to sort all of this out pretty quickly. Please do so and stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. "avoid accountability", "ignore already-presented objections", "egregious abuses", etc. is all a bit much for a minor disagreement. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop with the assertion that there’s a waiting period for reporting violations. There isn’t. You’re not helping your case.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said there was a "waiting period for reporting violations", what I am trying to get across is if you had waited a little longer you would have realised that there was nothing for you to report. We are now having the standard talk page discussion that is getting it all sorted out, so you could have saved us the trouble of the whole reporting thing by having a little patience. You should really only be coming to AN/EW and taking up the time of admins if there is an actual problem, and I am suggesting that you would have realised there is no problem of that level here if you had just waited a little longer before going for the nuclear option. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

For any admins watching this, it appears the issue has now been resolved after a standard talk page discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: It looks like the two parties have reached agreement, per this comment by CreecregofLife. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Atrangi Re (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Yuvraj rathore2424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 13:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 12:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 03:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 15:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:28, 30 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:

Continued over several days, their response to my warning [130] was not inspiring. Ravensfire (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [137]

Comments:
{{This editor has been repeatedly editing their preferred version of the article regardless of opinions of all other editors who disagree with him/her; this is classic edit warring, as Wikipedia says, "regardless of whether those edits are justifiable." All editors involved in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine's talk page's "Lead" section has worked around to argue back and forth with this editor, but the editor, who started that discussion, has persisted in pushing his/her personal opinion on how the article should read and undermined the other 2 editors involved in the discussion. The editor also admonished other views, e.g. "using US as an adjective is clumsy." This editor stopped participating in active discussion and has since then cancelling edits from other editors. We hope this kind of conflicting behavior is apt for this report.ORdeDocsaab (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)}}

The four reverts listed above are spaced across almost a month, so clearly not a 3R violation. However, I'm blocking the OR for a rather obvious case of tendentious agenda editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Climate of Greece (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: [138]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [139] 11:27
2. [140] 11:44
3. [141] 11:59

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [142] 11:39, his talk page
2. [143] 11:52, the page's talk page
3. [144] 11:59, warning in his talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [145]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [146]

Comments:

This user changed the last stable version of the page yesterday without any kind of source Here today, I have inserted the previous data and I've inserted the citation needed tag. Then this user threw up a random source in Greek that it doesn't say anything related to his claims, so I have tried to talk with him in the talk page here and then I've inserted the official Hellenic National Meteorological Service official Climate Atlas of Greece here backing up the previous WP:STABLE version of the page as well.

Turns out this user, which has a background of edit wars, simply didn't care and started an edit war to revert everything I write without even engaging in the talk page before reverting first, at 11:27 UTC he wrote "see the talk page" while he didn't write anything in the talk page until 11:42 in the meantime I've warned him in his personal talk page and I've also done a ping on him but he just wants to impose his own WP:POV and I've warned him 4 times, one in the edit diffs, recommending to solve this and he didn't try anything but just kept reverting, another one in the own page's talk page and twice in his own talk page (where he fastly deleted both of my warnings) I don't know how to act with this user after I recommended him to talk, to respect WP:CYCLE and to be more Encyclopedical instead of just trying to impose WP:NPOV but it seems like I'm talking to a wall because this user doesn't care about any warning and he doesn't even take recommendations of any advice I've gave him in his own talk page or in that page's talk page.

Also, this is not exactly a content dispute, as shown above, he firstly changed that temperature claim without any kind of source. When I did insert an official source, he came with a random source (that's in Greek and doesn't back up the claims he write to) I have tried to explain in the article's talk page even if we took that source as useful, that data can't even be reached without getting too specifical, abd 6-7 years of unofficial data are not climate normals whilst Rhodes does have long term official data and I've inserted the official HNMS Climate Atlas which he deliberately ignores and says "it's not valid, it's extrapolated" (albeit being the only Greek official data) just to put his own sources again where it doesn't back up anything he claims. I have engaged in the talk page in a friendly tone trying to make him make constructive edits, he reverted, I've inserted an official source that's backing up the previous stable version, he reverted again, I've warned him in his talk page, yet he reverted again. I don't know what else to do, I even said "please stop because you're on the edge of an edit war and you're at just 1 edit to break the WP:3RR, expose your arguments on the talk page" yet he lasted 2 minutes to revert again thus breaking 3 reverts in the Climate of Greece page. --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is a clear content dispute with the editor escalating in order to impose their own POV disregarding any arguments and turning the whole thing into an edit war. The official source is given as per the Lindos article. It is in the interest of the average reader to have the official data from the National Observatory of Athens for Lindos since the area presents a considerable difference from the long term official data shown for Rhodes. This has already been discussed with the editor during the summer of 2021 in the Lindos article.Weatherextremes (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How I'm exactly trying to impose my own POV when you've made a change without any kind of source [Here, yesterday] and then you've just searched for a random source trying to make a point even if your source doesn't even back up your claims?

You have also ignored the official Hellenic National Meteorological Service source [inserted exactly here] to repeat your own claims on the official source (this is your personal opinion and content dispute over an official source) yet you just repeat that the official data is not valid according to yourself and just the source you've presented is valid (based on WP:NPOV) even if your source doesn't even show up the data you claim. You've also broken the 3RR rule. --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The HNMS source from the climate atlas is in the article as you will see. What you fail to understand is that I have added on top of that the official source from N.O.A's meteo search database as per the Lindos article to further articulate the huge difference from the rest of the island which admittedly is Greece's warmest area from the official NOA data. Granted, we are talking about a smaller period and this is why you will notice on my last edit on the article I have accurately described the chronological period this refers to. Weatherextremes (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Weatherextremes: The HNMS station of Rhodes shows an annual mean of 18.9ºC so it's not anything "extrapolated" proof: https://web.archive.org/web/20170325112626/http://www.hnms.gr/hnms/english/climatology/climatology_region_diagrams_html?dr_city=Rodos taken from the official HNMS site. Rhodes has to be left there because it's based on official HNMS data, not only by the map itself. You doubt on the map being official data while putting unverifiable data... That's disruptive.

I have left Lindos with that specific quotation, but your source doesn't show anything you claim on, as it's just a Greek source with lots of stations and it doesn't say in any moment that the 2014-2021 mean has been 21.9ºC and nevertheless even if we accept this (which we shouldn't, but I left it to see what other users think) this doesn't remove the fact that you've broken the 3RR even after I warned you several times. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, here is where the core of the content dispute lies. You are trying to generalize the Diagoras airport data to the Lindos official NOA data. We have covered this in the Lindos talk page [147]. Bear in mind that you have multiple edits yourself exactly because you are turning this content dispute into an all out edit war. You did the same in the Seville article recently. Weatherextremes (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to generalize anything except for the fact you've deleted Rhodes with it's official HNMS source (again it said Rhodes, not Lindos) to add Lindos with a source that doesn't back up anything you say, that's disruptive editing because you were changing a reliable source that says what's referenced to against one that doesn't say nor proves what you've changed. Your first change (yesterday) was even unsourced, as proven above. You need to understand that Wikipedia doesn't work like this and also others as well as administrators have warned you in the past. Today you've made an edit war and after breaking the 3RR you always try to solve things up, but you don't try before doing it. The last time you only got warned, but it seems you didn't learn from it. Also, I don't know why you keep mentioning other pages that have no relationship with this 3RR that you've broken today. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I replaced the word Rhodes with Lindos but kept the HNMS source however. I simply added the NOA source to highlight the huge difference between other areas of the island/Greece and Lindos. Again, I would advise you to try first to have a proper discussion in order to find a solution instead of rushing to report me every time. We found a solution in the Seville article, we did the same in Lindos article, the Athens article and we also managed to find a solution on this one at the end. I just ask that you remain calm and engage with me. In the end we always find a solution. We did it in 4 articles Weatherextremes (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors have violated 3RR. I've blocked Weatherextremes for 3 months based on their block history and TechnicianGB for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Wisdom-inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 14:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC) "Reverted. No personal opinion. Not this fella again! Find out what Merseyrail and City Line is."
3. 12:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC) "restored superior explanation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor has been a problem for several weeks on this and other rail articles exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour. Today he/she has had engagement on both his/her talk page and also on the article's talk page, but has persisted in pushing his/her personal opinion on how the article should read. The editor has also resorted to personal attacks on User:Kitchen Knife along with childish threats, e.g. "UP to your tricks again Sunshine. If you keep harassing me you can be dealt with." This editor really needs time out on the naughty step to reflect on his/her bad behaviour. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of behaviour is likely to wane.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• The article has been fully protected for one week by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

See also a complaint filed at ANI on December 10 about edit warring at Merseyrail. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The user seems intent on carryon [[148]] --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Page: Timeline of major crimes in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.178.82.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062941260 by Meters (talk)"
2. 08:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Obviously a major crime. It's an important building."
3. 07:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062933792 by Melcous (talk) It is neutral now."
4. 07:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Reliable sources"
5. 09:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Timeline of major crimes in Australia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "/* contested edit re Parliament building in Canberra */ clarify: source says it is "Old" Parliament Building"

Comments:

A contested edit that has been removed five times by three different editors. The first attempts to add this were WP:POV in that the protestors were called "savages", but the issue of whether this should be considered a major crime was already raised in the first undo by user:Nickm57. User:Melcous undid the second POV addition. The fifth attempt to add this was after the user had been warned for 3RR, and after the talk page discussion had started. Meters (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Warnborough College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ash01.francis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [150]
2. [151]
3. [152]
4. [153]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, as this is purely PROMO editing, though Talk:Warnborough_College#This_article_was_mentioned_in_a_Slate_podcast is relevant.

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

Comments:
A new SPA editor making promotional (and in some cases incorrect) edits on an article that has previously suffered from the same COI problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 12:02 31 December, 2021 (UTC)

Even after warning and notice of this discussion, SPA again reverted to restore their version, without discussion. Banks Irk (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: HDMI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2003:C9:C714:2000:B6:261D:4C02:AE91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: [156]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157] (partial restore of initial edit) [158] (made new edit at the same time), both reverted by me
2. [159] (user restored both) [160] (made new edit), both reverted by me
3. [161] [162] (user restored both)

I have stopped reverting now.

Related, while this was going on I also reverted another edit made by a different user a few days ago, and the user being reported also restored that one (without explanation) [163], which was unrelated to their own edits, so they appear to just be undoing whatever I do on that page now.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [164] I explained the edit warring policy to them in the talk page discussion (which they have responded to), since they are an anon with no talk page. Sorry if this is improper.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [166]

Comments:

• User made edits I did not agree with
• I reverted them and explained the issue.
• They restored them.
• I reverted again, and invited them to open a talk page discussion instead of restoring.
• They restored again, but they did post on the talk page.
• I reverted and replied to the talk page, and also told them about the edit war policy and that they should not restore their edits until a consensus has been reached.
• They restored again, and replied to the talk page.

I stopped reverting at this point. Talk page discussion is still ongoing. Don't think a ban is necessary but an admin revert and comment might help them realize that they need to follow editing policy and stop restoring their disputed edits while the discussion is unresolved, it isn't an optional thing. GlenwingKyros (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP has not edited since you filed this report. I hope they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Me too, although I suspect they won't have any interest in continuing the discussion as long as their edits remain the current revision. GlenwingKyros (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since neither party broke 3RR. But if either side continues to revert, blocks are possible. It appears the wording could easily be tweaked to satisfy the goals of both parties ('additional features' versus 'optional features'). Consider making some proposals on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Can the article at least be restored to original state while discussion is ongoing? — Glenwing (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Parag Agrawal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 43.247.159.35 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [173]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [174]

Comments:

User keeps adding the meaningless and unhelpful phrase "Schooling and Intermediate" to this article. Not a 3RR breach yet (unless they re-revert) but continued edit-warring and refusal to discuss despite warning. Talkpage and analysis of contribs shows that with some exceptions this user has a blatant history of trolling and vandalism. Has already been blocked once (for three months) for vandalism (June 2021) despite sparse edit history. Softlavender (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Doing a block from just the article, so they will find the talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Pattern hair loss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Johnnyvee333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "Addition to the causes of MPHL section based on recent data."
2. 16:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Addition to the causes of MPHL section based on recent data."
3. 14:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Causal factors in MPHL"
4. 14:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Causal factors in MPHL"
5. 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC) "Explanation for male pattern hairloss edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Pattern hair loss "/* Skull Expansion */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That was a page-block; User:Girth Summit upgraded them to indef siteblock for subsequent harassment. DMacks (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

    I did. I wasn't aware of this report, the remarks at Zefr's talk page flashed up on my watchlist. Insults, coupled with creepy 'there will be consequences' style threats, are not cool. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilead_Sciences&diff=1063028762&oldid=1063027736 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Minus: Gilead holds the patent for GS-441524, a nucleoside similar to remdesivir.^[1] Studies suggest the compound is effective in treating the otherwise highly fatal feline infectious peritonitis, but Gilead opted against pursuing authorization for veterinary use of the compound, leading to a black market for buyers with FIP-infected cats.^[1] The buyers generally source the compound from unauthorized producers in China.^[2] In 2019, Gilead stated that it would not seek such authorization until after remdesivir had been approved for human use by the FDA, fearing that if complications of GS-441524 were to arise when used in cats, the approval of remdesivir would be slowed.^[3] Some veterinarians and concerned cat owners have lobbied the company to reverse its stance.^[4] Niels Pedersen, the researcher who demonstrated the effectiveness of GS-441524 against FIP in initial studies at UC Davis, has expressed frustration at the holdup of the drug's approval for veterinary use by Gilead,^[2] which he believes is due to the company's fear of being unable to profit off of remdesivir.^[5]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zefr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilead_Sciences [diff]

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

Comments:

I am very new to this, so I apologize if my syntax is improper. I'm happy to remove my anonymity and provide my bonafides and credentials to a third-party administrator. It will demonstrate that I have no financial or other conflicts of interest or ulterior motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk • contribs)

• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Cyrus Cylinder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Yousif gang11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 02:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 01:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 00:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 00:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 14:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "I fixed the location and the modern term for the place."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cyrus Cylinder."

• No need to waste more time on this. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Atreyu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tobi999tomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user made a threat to me, is deleting real information, undid more than 3 times, and taunted me when I said he was breaking the rules. Visit the Atreyu edit history he threatened me, taunted me, and undid a change more than 3 times. He is also not an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Half korrupted heart (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Half korrupted heart: 1) You must notify any user you have reported (I will do it for you). 2) You must substantiate your claims with diffs. 3) This doesn't look very good. M.Bitton (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Bde Maka Ska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oncamera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [175]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [176]
2. [177]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [179]

Comments:

The page in question is a major landmark (a lake) in the city of Minneapolis. Recently its name was officially changed to Bde Maka Ska, but unsurprisingly as few people speak the Dakota language, many people continue to refer to by its previous name, Lake Calhoun. The Wikipedia article includes a non-neutral POV in the lede sentence, claiming it is "formerly known as". It continues to be known by both names, regardless of whether a sole name is the official name. The verbiage ought to be changed, but some very active users on the page seem to be shutting down anyone who attempts to.

The editor in question also removed my "non-neutral POV lede" tag without it first meeting the proper requirements. Kislorod23 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• FYI: Kislorod is also involved in the edit war and has been warned. They also fail to provide sources for their edits as mentioned per talkpage. They claim many people refer to it by its previous name, yet haven't provided any reliable sources for their claims.

• I'm only following Wikipedia standards of removing unsourced POVs. All Kislorod has to do is provide sources for their edits. They're only bothering to "report me" for edit warring because they can't provide sources for their claims. They have also been warned about personal attacks and childish name calling against me. I have been polite during the whole discussion and interactions with them, clearly explaining how Wikipedia works since apparently they are a new user.

• Diff of their edit warring reverts

1. [180]
2. [181]
3. [182]
4. [183]

• Diffs of their repeated personal attacks (they were warned about this behavior)

1. [184]
2. [185]

• If an admin wants to explain to them that they should provide reliable sources instead of edit warring or personal attacks, that would be great.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 19:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It's hardly edit warring when you improperly removed the non-neutral POV tag without the necessary conditions first being met, and I simply replaced it. As for 'reliable sources' for a name in current use, it's a red herring. I don't know, search Twitter? Do you live in Minneapolis? Then you've heard it, and you've admitted as much on the article's talk page when you said "eventually future generations will only know it as Bde Maka Ska." How about addressing the blatent POV motivation there? For the record, this all started because I changed the words "formerly known as" to "also known as" which makes it a truthful statement. If you look at my Wikipedia contributions they've all been minor. I'm irritated that this untrue sentence continues to be reinserted with a sense of arrogant moral superiority. I was never the one to put "Lake Calhoun" in the lede in the first place. Take care. Kislorod23 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

You apparently don't even understand the Template:POV tag since it clearly states YOU need to provide sources for your claims.

The template:POV states that this tag should go on articles when: "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources... The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant.". Again, YOU need to provide high-quality, reliable secondary sources that show the previous name is used in media, newspapers, etc instead of Bde Maka Ska. Again the personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant per template:POV.

Thus your personal views, your personal claims are irrelevant WITHOUT ANY RELIABLE SOURCES. I've explained this to you multiple times.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not my personal view. Wikipedia won't let me link to Twitter search, but anyone (clearly you don't care) can search "Lake Calhoun" and sort by date and see many people refer to it as that who are not me. Therefore it is still known as Lake Calhoun. Known being the operative word here. (Which I never wrote into the article!) Kislorod23 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A Twitter search is no way considered a "high-quality, reliable secondary source" for use on Wikipedia per WP:USERGENERATED.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument, because the turn of phrase "known as" implies popular usage, not official usage. How do I give a reliable source for a generally acknowledge popular usage? Does the Star Tribune need to write an article stating what everyone familiar with this subject, including by your own admission, you, know? Kislorod23 (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you need to use reliable sources for your claims such as the Star Tribune. How many more times should I type that before you understand it? This is how Wikipedia works. Provide reliable sources for you claims; the personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant without high-quality, reliable secondary sources.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not true, or there would be endless footnotes to every sentence. Anyway this whole thing could be resolved by simply writing (as on the Russian page) "Bde Maka Ska, formerly Lake Calhoun," eliding the use of a verb altogether. Then it wouldn't imply something false. Kislorod23 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

High quality articles do have footnotes to every sentence.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. https://www.startribune.com/obituaries/detail/0000406042/ There's an obit in the Star Tribune from October. Oh wow it says Lake Calhoun. Now it's reliable. Kislorod23 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

An obituary? No, not reliable per WP:USERGENERATED.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Not going to bother explaining what "known as" means again. But here's an article that uses it too. https://www.startribune.com/mpls-park-board-plans-1m-rehab-of-cedar-lake-of-the-isles-channel/572344052/ Kislorod23 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Back to the topic of the 3RR, I did not revert 3 times in a 24 hour time period.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

And neither did I. That doesn't change the problem that a group of Wikipedia editors are lording over this article. Kislorod23 (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

And now a different editor has linked to the website of a Minnesota governmental agency where it's listed as Lake Calhoun. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fishing/downtown/calhoun.html But that's not good either. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bde_Maka_Ska&diff=1063299024&oldid=1063295969 . Just admit you're having fun interpreting the rules to maintain what you want to see on the page, which isn't an accurate representation. Kislorod23 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This page is not for content disputes. Use talk:Bde Maka Ska or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which is what you should have done in the first place.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm documenting your problematic behavior. Kislorod23 (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Declined Since the reporting user has acknowledged there is no violation, I don't see the need for administrative action at this time. I hope that both parties are able to work collaboratively through the article's talk page to reach a solution; if necessary, please use WP:Dispute resolution processes, including other noticeboard (WP:NPOVN was already mentioned) and requests for comment. —C.Fred (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Paul B. Kidd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 107.115.207.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Birth month and day unknown."
2. 13:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Birth month and day unknown."
3. 13:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Birth month and day unknown."
4. 13:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Birth month and day unknown."
5. 13:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Birth month and day unknown."
6. 13:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Birth month and day unknown."
7. 12:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063325690 by Vaticidalprophet (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Warnings here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC) on User talk:107.115.207.53; did not respond

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Maltodextrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.97.53.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 86.187.170.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [186] (this IP has already been blocked)

Diffs of the users’ reverts:

1. [187] 51.6.235.10 (this IP has already been blocked)
2. [188] 86.187.170.176
3. [189] 86.187.170.176
4. [190] 88.97.53.4

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

1. [191]
2. [192]

(Both blanked by user)

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

As per WP:BMB and the evidence this is a long-term known abuser, I do not think we need to go through the formality of discussing it on the talk page as per WP:BURO

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

1. [193]
2. [194]

Comments:

This looks to be MariaJaydHickey:

• This diff from the already blocked 51.6.235.10 is the same diff as this edit by User:Sista_II_Sista, a confirmed sockpuppet of MariaJaydHickey
• 88.97.53.4 and 86.187.170.176 made the same edits as 51.6.235.10
• Geolocation shows British IPs, same as used by MariaJaydHicky: [195] [196]

Samboy (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected for one weekYmblanter (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Mickey Mouse Mixed-Up Adventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 73.211.12.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 19:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 18:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 18:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC) to 17:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mickey Mouse Mixed-Up Adventures."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor has repeatedly restored their edit claiming the show has ended, even though no official announcement has been made and it hasn't been a full year since the most recent episode aired. Editor has ignored the warning I left on their talk page and continues to revert. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: IP editor has made a snarky reply to the notice of AN3 discussion left on their talk page. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Now blocked. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Louis Riel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063420577 by Moxy (talk)Reverting to enhancements per Talk. I consider this revert by Moxy to be vandalization."
2. 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063419221 by Moxy (talk) There goes Moxy again"
3. 23:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063415657 by Nikkimaria (talk) I don't agree. The issues needs to be escalated to some higher authority."
4. 23:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063268505 by Nikkimaria (talk) Last stable version is not agreed to in Talk. I stand by proposals made in 16 Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba about substance of enhancements made. The onus is of course on you to defend why enhancements should not be made."
5. 03:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063079040 by Nikkimaria (talk) We talk then change"
6. 02:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063077318 by Nikkimaria (talk) Cleanup in not appropriate response"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned multiple times by different editors

• [197]
• [198]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: At the point where even being blunt is not heard [199].

• We lock up the page to facilitate discussion to no avail....once unprotected back to edit war.

Comments:

Have been dealing with this for a few weeks now. Editor has not gained consensus to re-add the content or many sources. Editor has been explained multiple time the process for dispute resolution. Moxy- 01:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reversed the editor's changes. He should respect WP:BRD & get a consensus for the changes he wishes to make. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I guess that I am the "higher authority". I have indefinitely pageblocked Cblambert from Louis Riel although they still have access to the article talk page to try to build consensus for any proposed changes. Let me know if this editor engages in disruption elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That works fine.....more administrator should do this.Moxy- 02:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Moxy, here is my thinking: If an editor is being disruptive on one article, then pageblocking that editor from editing that one article indefinitely is a better solution than blocking them temporarily from editing the entire encyclopedia. That gives the editor the opportunity to advocate for their changes on the article talk page, and improve the encyclopedia in less contentious areas. Of course, if their disruptive editing spreads more widely, a general block may be called for. But my observation is that some people have "a bee in their bonnet" about some specific topic, and keeping them away from directly editing that topic and forcing them to discuss with other interested editors is a good thing. We will see how it goes in this case. By the way, I have been observing the Louis Riel situation for weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Going by his reaction to his page-block notification. I don't think he's going to be in any kinda mood for discussing the topic. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Spider-Man: No Way Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edsandeggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200] (trying to find one where all the littler, acceptable edits remain intact)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 2

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [201]

Comments:

This is adapted from an incident report from @Facu-el Millo:, who stated "This user keeps changing the plot summary, making it way too long and over the 700-word limit per WP:PLOTBLOAT, also poorly written and editorialized. The editor doesn't use edit summaries and does not respond to warnings at their talk page."

Then I came in with my take: On the ones I reverted, I put the full summary that Eds tried to put in into a word counter. I got 2200+ words. I wanted to check before I reverted just in case somehow the 4800+ character addition didn’t exceed the 700 word maximum. Keep in mind that it’s triple over the limit. So I revert it (including my observations in the edit summary) and soon find that it was readded with 100+ characters more than the previous version. No communication, just readded. And then there’s the fact that these are carried out over 30+ edit stretches. There’s obviously no use of the edit preview button. Granted, I’ve been neglecting it too, but this case is to an incredibly extreme extent. And I doubt it’s to save progress on a slow-responsive computer. The concerning behaviors are not just on NWH, but a few other pages he’s worked on, according to his contributions.

From @Jolly1253::To add on(as someone that is watching the page and have contributed), apparently the full summary that Eds tried to put in is copied from the MCU Wiki fandom page for NWH under 'Plot'. Prior to this, Eds had also tried to insert the same full summary on 31 December 2021, which was reverted

Then we were told that that was the wrong venue, and this was the proper one. We don’t know if he will be back, but this was getting ridiculous--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging remaining editors mentioned in the ANI report:@Adamstom.97 and InfiniteNexus Jolly1253 (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The length of the block is partly based on the disruptive nature of many of the user's other edits and their failure to respond to warnings. Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Zali Steggall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063508434 by Playlet (talk) Edit removed material from three primary sources and endorsed reversions by suspected candidate campaign operative."
2. 12:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063303427 by Playlet (talk)"
3. 04:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063283571 by Jack Upland (talk) Corrects misleading impression fostered by Steggall and Gardner in reference immediately prior."
4. 04:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063254315 by Playlet (talk)"
5. 23:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063133590 by Playlet (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [202] Warned by User:El_C 11:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Zali Steggall "/* Modelling etc */ new section"

Comments: Edit-warring to add in a pretty clear BLP violation which has previously been discussed on the article talk page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks for edit-warring, BLP violations, and personal attacks. Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1063537518 by Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk): Shite"
2. 15:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1063535285 by Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk): Shrine built was explicitly cited by shite traditions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Legendary nature of the later story about Abu Lu'lu'a's miraculous transportation to Kashan */ new section"

Comments:

User refuses to engage at talk page after having been explicitly asked to do so. The same has recently happened on another article [203] [204]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no 3RR violations and only a few instances where there's a back-and-forth. I'd call this a content dispute at this point, not edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir! The problem is that I disagree with their latest edits, have rendered that very clear on the talk page before they made them, and don't know what to do now. Should I revert again? Come back here when they have reverted 3 or more times without answering at the talk page? Please advise, thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Katy Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bryan296 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063616152 by Mediafanatic17 (talk)"
2. 00:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063615938 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
3. 00:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063615636 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
4. 00:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063615197 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
5. 00:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063614879 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
6. 00:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063614593 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
7. 00:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063613629 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
8. 00:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063610675 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk page notice following thread on image use

Comments:

8 reverts in the past half hour alone, and user ignored talk page warning as well as thread on infobox image. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: More reverts have come up, and Hassanjalloh1 has made a bunch as well to undo this, most recently here along with these other instances, but at least that user tried to engage in talk page discussion first. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 60 hours by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• While I was investigating, Ohnoitsjamie shortened the block to 48 hours. I've now indeffed the user as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Darul Huda Islamic University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063313558 by Sabeelul hidaya (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Tinkvu is one of the Suspected accounts. He is constantly trying to establish his point of view on Wikipedia. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for understanding! Tinkvu (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Template:Los Angeles Clippers roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:6C51:4A7F:E9EE:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:55, 19 December 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:40, 31 December 2021
2. 03:35, 2 January 2022
3. 17:23, 3 January 2022‎
4. 23:25, 3 January 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:29, 3 January 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:35, 3 January 2022, which directs to discussion ongoing since 27 Dec at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Covid list

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [205]

Comments:
IPv6 range, presumably one user, is continually re-introducing new notation without consensus—an "L" footnote—for basketball personnel unavailable due to COVID-19 safety protocols. There has been a related ongoing discussion at WikiProject NBA since 27 Dec.

The user's address keeps changing due to the nature of IPv6, but an edit warring warning was left at one of the addresses. A discussion was also started at the affected template's talk page, leaving notification regarding the WikiProject discussion. Still, their reverts have continued.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: List of ethnic groups of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MrMan9700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063540772 by Rsk6400 (talk)"
2. 15:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063530508 by Rsk6400 (talk)"
3. 15:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063470483 by Austronesier (talk) I am willing to discuss. If that is the case, then Africans need to be added as contemporary groups in Europe and Asia. Let's discuss. The dutch, french and british are not conte"
4. 02:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063391032 by Rsk6400 (talk) Africans and African languages have been spoken in Europe, Asia, and the Americas for 500 years... yet they are not ethnically those languages. Who do we need to talk to in order to resolve this. Afrikaans is not a language that belongs to an AFrican ethnicity. Especially if it is labeled INDO_EUROPEAN."
5. 19:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Update linguistic groups--Indo European is not an indigenous African language. It is not tied to any African ethnicity. There are Africans living in Europe in considerable numbers, that speak African languages, but they are not identified as European languages."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [206]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Indo-European languages */ new section"

Comments:

Their first four reverts violated 3RR, but yesterday I was too lazy to report them. I do so after they reverted a 5th time, not engaging in the discussion I started at the article's talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Cyrus Cylinder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Yousif gang11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 04:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
2. 05:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "/* January 2022 */ WP:BRD"
3. 05:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuation of edit warring prior to 31 hour block. HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) and I have requested that the user try to resolve the issue on the article talk page, but this editor has failed to respond & just keeps edit warring. Peaceray (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Samsung Galaxy S21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hajoon0102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [207]
2. [208]
3. [209]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [210]
2. [211]

Attempt to resolve dispute on an article talk page:

1. [212]

Attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

1. [213]

Comments:
Reverts any addition to the Galaxy S21 FE on the main S21 article despite continuing talks on Talk:Samsung Galaxy S20 FE regarding merge. Already warned the user to keep status quo on both articles to which the S21 FE contents on the Samsung Galaxy S21 article remains together with the Samsung Galaxy S21 FE article created by Hajoon0102 (talk · contribs). The user has vehemently opposed the merger of the S21 FE without being too constructive on the reasoning as to why they do oppose and instead would resort to edit warring as seen above and would spam my talk page of warnings that reverses the story constituting a WP:HUSH.

To add further insult, the aforementioned user would reply in an unintelligible statement (possibly due to google translate as user is originally from Korean Wikipedia) and would retaliate by doing a counter-reporting, that while it is within their right, is done in bad faith given how the user goes as far as as to claim that "I damaged Samsung Galaxy S21 FE and reverting his edits without discussion" [214] when clearly I have been politely and constructively discussing the matter in Talk: Samsung Galaxy S20 FE as per WP:ETIQUETTE wherein I instead included S21 FE instead for a merge proposal template retaining the status quo in both the S21 FE article and my earlier edits in the main S21 article until a consensus has been made.

Clearly, the discussion is ongoing and as such I am being open to arguments from both sides but the other user would only sporadically chime in without much discussion on their opinion. I'm open to more opinions, but any discussion cannot start from a user who barely expounds on their point and rarely engages in a constructive dialogue. So I request that the Samsung Galaxy S21 FE and my edits including the S21 FE in the main Samsung Galaxy S21 be kept up until a consensus has been made in the Talk:Samsung Galaxy S20 FE as an act of WP:DGF. GadgetsGuy (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@GadgetsGuy: Talk:Samsung Galaxy S20 FE is not complete. Do you understand? --Hajoon0102 💬 06:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I prevented a WP:EDITWAR by doing a report instead since you have breached 3RR and I wouldn't want to do the same. Plus when something is not done, the best recourse is to keep both at status quo ergo my edits in the main S21 article and the S21 FE article you created. Also user keeps on insisting I am reverting his edits [215] when he was the one that keeps on reverting to the point of violating the 3RR .GadgetsGuy (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@GadgetsGuy: I reverted my edits in Samsung Galaxy S21. --Hajoon0102 💬 07:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [216]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]

Additional diff's of the user's reverts on the same sentence of earlier date:

1. [220]
2. [221]
3. [222]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [223]
2. [224]

1. [225]
2. [226]
3. [227]
4. [228]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [229]

Comments:
Diffs of Santasa reverts [230] [231] [232] [233] Additional diff's of Santasa reverts on earlier dates: [234] [235] Comment If I am to be blocked for 3 reverts (even though it is 4RR rule) then this sanction should be involved to the editor that reported me since they made 3 RR in the same way, not just that, on tp one more editor confirmed that the source clearly states what it is written in source, as you can see it also since the source is open access, page 20 [[236]] so you can see what I posted and you can see what this editors posts on 3 reverts, [237], [238], [239], [240], with additional editing warring on previous dates [241], [242] which caused page protection by an admin [243] please read source before decision making. Diff from another editor involved on tp [244], diff that add more citation from Fine [245] and diffs that explains guidelines [246], [247] and diffs that clearly explain sources and and their usage [248],[249],[250],[251].Theonewithreason (talk) 02 January 2021 (UTC)

Article is under WP:ARBEE. Contested issue is within the scope of WP:AGEMATTERS guideline, with editor's persistent insistence on using older book of the same author, whose last book on the very subject matter in question is 20+ years younger and in which author completely refutes the editor's argument and everything they read in to author's earlier works.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Age matters does not implies in this case especially if there are other books newer or older that only confirm Fine. Which is in this case. Zachumlia was inhabited by Serbs since the arrival of Slavs here is just one of examples [252] from the book from 2018. and all other historians confirm that. This editor uses WP:SYNTH thinking that if Fine writes something in one book that does not have anything to do with Zachumlia, that they can apply that on other articles. The last book of Fine deals with Croatia and not with Zachumlia. The editor draws they own conclusion based on that completely ignoring the fact that our job on wikipedia is to follow the sources, not making our own conclusions.Theonewithreason (talk) 03 January 2021 (UTC)

Guideline WP:AGEMATTERS is preeminent on all scholarship used as a source in English Wikipedia, especially if author is one and the same, and please, follow your own good advice.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am doing that, and I am following sources what they say and in no case does Fine denying himself or his previous work. Theonewithreason (talk) 03 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors are warned. Either User:Theonewithreason or User:Santasa99 may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Atrangi Re (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Yuvraj rathore2424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Gerald Waldo Luis "/* Atrangi re cast */ new section"

Comments:

User was blocked on 12/30 for edit-warring on this article. After returning from the block, they continued to push their version. They started a user talk page discussion but it was more of a demand. They haven't responded further in that discussion. Also worrying signs of similar behavior on Mujhse Shaadi Karogi. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Vilkha (missile complex) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Current version of 1057924595

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [253]
2. [254]
3. [255]
4. [256]
5. [257]
6. [258]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [259]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [260] / [261]

Comments:

I suggest the report immediately below is looked at per WP:BOOMERANG. The editor has been repatedly informed of the WP:RSN discussions about the garbage references they insist on restoring. FDW777 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked PsichoPuzo for 1 week for their continued edit warring and unsubstantiated claims of vandalism despite my warning and a previous block for the same behaviour.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Vilkha (missile complex) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PsichoPuzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [262]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [263]
2. [264]
3. [265]
4. [266]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [268], [269], also user talk page post at [270]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [271]

Comments:
Editor has been repeatedly directed to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#defence-blog.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#armyrecognition.com regarding the garbage references they insist on restoring. Despite being told twice by @Ponyo: at 22:18-22:20 that my edits absolutely were not vandalism, they still repeated the vandalism claim at 22:38. FDW777 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week per my comments in the previous report.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Parag Agrawal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 43.247.159.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [272]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [273]
2. [274]
3. [275]
4. [276]
5. [277]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [278]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [279]

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

1. [280]
2. [281]

Comments:

User keeps adding the meaningless and unhelpful phrase "Schooling and Intermediate" to this article. Usertalk and analysis of contribs shows that with few exceptions this user has a blatant history of trolling and vandalism. Has already been blocked for three months for vandalism in June 2021 despite sparse edit history.

The user was reported here at ANEW five days ago [282]. The applied sanction obviously did not work, as the editor is back at it. Softlavender (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected for a month, as there seem to be a regular stream of IPs making questionable or BLP violating edits, and the page has been protected similarly not that long ago. A sample of the IP's edits gives me the impression they are at school and thus this looks to be an issue with WP:COMPETENCE. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: History policy of the Law and Justice party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063940557 by Macktheknifeau (talk) per prev; SYN, bias, the obvious"
2. 18:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063933661 by Macktheknifeau (talk) rv personal bias, as before"
3. 16:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063700679 by Macktheknifeau (talk) don't spam in your opinion as a see-also"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Chasing me around the site */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

William, after disagreeing with me on edits to a different article (which I'm no longer interested in wasting any time on so if he'd left it alone I'd have moved on), chased my edits on a completely unrelated page (adding a link & summary in the "see also" section for a similar event in another country), reverted them three times claiming this very short section which is effectively a summary from the lead of the newly linked page is somehow "personal syn bias"). 2:25 Jan 6, 4:02 Jan 6, 20:22 Jan 6 (from the time as I see it on the contributions). Breaching 3RR unless I'm sorely mistaken. Do I have to be worried now about someone with a major history of incivility chasing all of my edits and reverting them for no reason? Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

First, William M. Connolley, didn't exceed 3 reverts in a 24hr period thus isn't defacto edit warring. Second, per ONUS, once the edit was challenged the burden is on you to get consensus for this new content. Take it to the talk page. If the content is good it shouldn't be hard to get others to support it. You can always use the various noticeboards or a RfC if no one joins the discussion. Springee (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but can you just ignore each other and work on something else for a bit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Speaking Out movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "/* All Elite Wrestling */ Fixed typo"
2. 02:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "/* All Elite Wrestling */ Fixed typo"
3. 19:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "/* All Elite Wrestling */ Fixed typo"
4. 09:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "/* All Elite Wrestling */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links, darby allin was cleared of the allegations a while ago after he provided evidence that the girl lied about everything" (NOTE from filer: this wasn't a revert, just the first addition of unsourced controversial content)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Speaking out movement."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not a 3RR complaint, but this user added unsourced controversial info related to a living person and has reverted its removal 3 times using misleading edit summaries. They declared at their talk page that they intend to keep reverting. Firefangledfeathers 16:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Teh tarik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 202.186.83.151 (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 01:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC) to 01:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064178865 by Seloloving (talk) nah it's malaysia"
   2. 01:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064178696 by Seloloving (talk) singapore also never existed back then so apply same logic .make ur mind first."
   3. 01:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 00:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "look at source :))"
3. 00:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "i never remove anything. i follow what it says. can tell me what i do wrong?"
4. 00:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 00:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC) to 00:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 00:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "fix"
   2. 00:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
2. 01:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Already blocked KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Stephen Maturin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by Temax (talk) to rev. 1064332794 by Eric: rv unhelpful edits by editor on campaign"
2. 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064325038 by Temax (talk)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "/* "Irish-Catalan" vs "Irish-Spanish" to describe Stephen Maturin */"

Comments:

The editor is on a campaign of ideological editing on Patrick O'Brian, Stephen Maturin, and related articles removing "Spain" and "Spanish", which are the actual true country and nationality of origin of Stephen Maturin. Temax

Why is Spanish being replaced with Catalan? Last time I checked, Catalonia wasn't independent, but rather a part of Spain. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The editor, Eric, is on a campaign of ideological editing on Patrick O'Brian, Stephen Maturin, and related articles removing "Spain" and "Spanish", which are the actual true country and nationality of origin of Stephen Maturin. I explained to the editor that we can accommodate for both national and regional on the Talk page. There is no need to delete any information that is a fact. The editor, instead, decided to create a warning on this page, instead of using the Talk page to debate it. He has not responded on the Talk page at all to any of my messages. However, he came here to post a warning, directly. He did not try to debate anything. He just used the Talk pager to put a comment, and right afterward came directly here. Again, as the Talk page says, I am more than happy to put both national origin and regional origin. However, the editor decided to just remove my changes, which added the national origins. Irland and Spain are countries and Irish and Spanish nationalities. Catalonia is a region of Spain, and Catalan is not a nationality. I suggested to the editor to, after the national origins, add also the regional origins. The editor did not respond and he just created a warning (the one above) accusing me of a campaign and went ahead to removing Spain and Spanish without any explanation whatsoever. That is the definition of ideological vandalism. Temax (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is not clear. No violation to have an actual factual truth, which is keeping Spanish, or no violation to remove it without reason? Temax (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay and all, I think if you look at Temax's contribution history, you will see that this report is a retaliatory expedition by the user in response to the above report by me, and to a couple messages I left the user. This section may also shed some light on the issue: Talk:Patrick_O'Brian#"Irish-Catalan"_vs_"Irish-Spanish"_to_describe_Stephen_Maturin. Eric ^talk 23:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In that Talk page we are still waiting for you to tell us why are you removing Spain and Spanish from the articles. What is the reason behind it, when it is the actual truth? Temax (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Temax. Would you please put your signage at the end of your posts, rather then the beginning. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. I just fixed it.

Page: Patrick O'Brian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Spanish means a person associated with Spain. Irish with Irland. Both are countries, and is accurate, see Talk page and various links in that post"
2. 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064331300 by Eric (talk)"
3. 19:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064324898 by Prairieplant (talk)"
4. 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064323414 by Prairieplant (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "/* "Irish-Catalan" vs "Irish-Spanish" to describe Stephen Maturin */ fix Temax's post and reply"

Comments:

Editor is on campaign of tendentious editing on Patrick O'Brian and related articles. Eric ^talk 21:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that after I posted a warning on the editor's talkpage, the editor made a copycat post on my userpage with the edit summary "Stop vandalizing Wikipedia". Eric ^talk 21:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is totally untrue. I have modified the article just by adding the country of origin and explained in the [[283]] page that we can also add the regional origins. To sum up, I am ok with both national and regional origins being explained, but Eric is continuously deleting the country of Spain, and any reference to Spanish. That is the definition of vandalism, especially when the person we are referring to was Spanish. I posted a warning on the editor's talkpage about his vandalism, and he claims that I just did it in the user page. But that was just an honest mistake. It is now in the Talk page. Temax (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Temax for one week for disruptive editing, including including edit-warring at multiple articles and personal attacks (calling other editors vandals).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with using Spanish, instead of Catalan. As Catalonia is still a part of Spain. When your block expires, perhaps a less combative approach would be best. Consider opening up an RFC on whether or not to use Spanish or Catalan, for example. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Niš Constantine the Great Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Easternmagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&oldid=1059365063

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1059365063&oldid=1057082937
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1061492602&oldid=1061428481
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1061785608&oldid=1061694967
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1062055957&oldid=1061987976
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1062358702&oldid=1062326134
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1063791637&oldid=1063764031
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1064178525&oldid=1064108807
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1064187090&oldid=1064183633

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

Tried to raise for discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANi%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1063799767&oldid=814242669 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEasternmagic&type=revision&diff=1063799150&oldid=1056665427 [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEasternmagic&type=revision&diff=1064185616&oldid=1063799150

Comments:
After Covid-19 became serious in early 2020, airlines around the world suspended flying certain routes from pretty much all airports, including Niš Constantine the Great Airport. On other airport pages - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports - the convention is that routes which are not currently flown, are not bookable for a future date (e.g. 6 months in advance), and have no specific date for a resumption of flights are considered to be terminated and thus removed from an airport wiki page. Airlines however typically issue press releases saying the flying is temporarily suspended, but do not bother to say later that a temporary suspension has become permanent. Thus, when should Wikipedia remove a route from an airport page ? There seems to be quite a few people on this wiki page who propose removal of these suspended air routes, but Easternmagic has a different opinion. Can an admin take a look please ? Pmbma (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Easternmagic is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Niš Constantine the Great Airport without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 95.0.32.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "It was sourced"
2. 15:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Made it relevant"
3. 15:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Separate section"
4. 15:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Added without removing"
5. 15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Ok I accept but a modern one should be used for the lead. This article has too many old telescope images"
6. 15:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "It should be added to the history section. Modern perception of telescope have changed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 15:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments: I’m puzzled how is adding sources a violation of Wikipedia’s policy.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your source doesn't support your content, and edit warring is always against Wikipedia's policies, unless reverting copyright violations of WP:BLP concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok I understand now I’m only here to do good faith editing sorry for any inconvenience.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So you say, then you went back to the page to revert again. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred beat me to it. Can't say we didn't try the talk nicely and explain route. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not revert it again just added the image of the modern telescope. I have gone to the talk page to discuss and waiting for any editors their.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverting back to your preferred image is also reverting. - MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok now I am not but we need to make a consensus on the talk page of that article.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The reported user appears to have moved on to a different issue on the talk page and not even mentioned the image. On the plus side, they haven't tried to change the image again. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor has been partial-blocked from editing Telescope for 48 hours by User:Girth Summit. That follows on a conventional block issued five days earlier by another admin. It might be optimistic to hope we have seen the end of this editor's problems at the admin boards. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Bajaur Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khan Bababa (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. [284]
2. [285]
3. [286]
4. [287]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [288]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [289]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [290]

Comments:
User Khan Bababa is being disruptive in his edits, not only has he violated the 3 revert rule within a 24 hour period, but he refuses to listen about WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, I also tried to take this to the talk page with him at [291] to point out my sources with his contested claims, but he constantly ignores them. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Khan Bababa should respond and explain why they should not be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston I agree, I have tried to talk to him but he ignores it. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week by User:Amortias. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• User:Noorullah21, please don't undo admin comments on this board. Post on my user talk if you want to discuss further. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Ariel Fernandez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1064093879 by Roxy the dog (talk): Return to good following BLPN stupidity, issue settled years ago, good grief"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Ping pong */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Roxy the dog "/* Ping pong */"

Comments:

There is ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN on this topic. This page was fully protected off the back of an ongoing edit war for 2 days. A minute(!) after that protection lapsed, this user has re-inserted the content under discussion at BLPN (with an, albeit weak, inflammatory edit summary) and has refused to self-revert. Darren-M talk 16:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Bradv as the protecting admin - which I presume was done off the back of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ariel_Fernandez_&_BLPRESTORE Darren-M talk 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

They were at already at 3RR when the page was protected[292][293][294] and warned.[295] To revert right after the protection should be seen like a 4th. Then a coincidental proxy ip edit with [296] Perhaps a full block is in order. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (partial block) – bradv^🍁 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Roman (given name) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 19:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064699653 by General Ization (talk)"
3. 19:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064697678 by General Ization (talk)"
4. 19:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064391601 by FMSky (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking."
2. 19:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Already blocked The reported editor has been blocked due to disruptive editing including harassment. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Bebe Rexha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 46.177.5.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 21:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 21:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 18:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 18:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ""
7. 18:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ""
8. 18:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064684598 by General Ization (talk) Still, the edit "North Macedonia" solely existed for much time unbothered till sb changed it. Which means most editors were ok with it,"
9. 18:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064683607 by Binksternet (talk) There is no country called "Macedonia" and in wikipedia we must always refer with current data and info."
10. 17:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bebe Rexha."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IPsock continues edit warring at this article by blocked editor LefterisApos (talk · contribs). General Ization ^Talk 18:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no country called "Macedonia", thus the other editor is merely providing false and inaccurate info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.5.227 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Also simultaneously edit warring at R.I.P. (Sofía Reyes song); Let You Love Me; Ritual (Tiësto, Jonas Blue and Rita Ora song). General Ization ^Talk 22:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2022 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064354517 by Drmies (talk) Contributors have spent a lot of time on this, "good god, no" is definitely not a valid argument for arbitrarily deleting extensive text. Thank you for understanding."
2. 21:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064338892 by ItsKesha (talk) Perhaps you should read that yourself. Thank you."
3. 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064337110 by ItsKesha (talk)The rationale is quite obvious - to see how individual players performed in the tournament; in-depth stats."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 2022 PDC World Darts Championship."
2. 21:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on 2022 PDC World Darts Championship."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Statistics */"
2. 21:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Statistics */"
3. 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Statistics */"

Comments:

Ignoring requests for discussion, ignoring warnings, repeatedly reverting against consensus and policy All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I definitely haven't ignored requests for discussion, you can see my contributions on the Talk page. There is no consensus. The article has thousands of readers and dozens of authors, and 4 - four (sic!) - of you agreed upon deleting the section. That is not what I call a consensus, so stop misleading. I have stated quite clearly that the given statistics have their justification and significance. No one has convinced me otherwise. Likewise, I can argue that you ignore warnings and keep reverting. Thanks. Penepi (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Your contributions on the talk page were: "Are player statistics not part of the tournament?" (nobody was arguing for or against this), "the list as such is, in my view, useful and readable" (there's no context or explanation to the statistics whatsoever), and "it looks like you haven't really looked at the statistics. Otherwise, you wouldn't write that it has no context" (hint, there is no context to the statistics and, when asked, you have failed to provide any). Four people citing policy versus one edit-warrior saying there is context without describing it, is not misleading, but a highly accurate view of proceedings. "I said this thing quite clearly but offered no explanation as to why and with no sources" yeah I'm sure that'll help people reading the article understand the context. Your non-explanation on the talk page. Also, well done on completely misusing "sic". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

ItsKesha, I will not react unnecessarily to that amount of nonsense when the decision has already been made and, moreover, has expired. Anyway, you may want to study basic facts next time before you start teaching others in an embarrassing, sarcastic tone. Penepi (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't block em cause I reverted once, and it's not obviously vandalism or something like that, so I guess I'm involved--but they certainly deserve to be blocked. On the other hand, they stopped--but I think it would be good for an admin to at least slap em on the wrist. The whole "there's thousands of readers and only four supported deletion" (and they are the ONLY ONE in favor), with that silly "sic" in there, shows that they completely misunderstand, intentionally perhaps, what consensus is. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The user's latest comment does not give any hint that they will stop warring. Four different people have been reverting their changes, but apparently that is not sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 82.6.5.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Updated to make page more consistent with formatting on other wikipedia pages as well as common convention outside of wikipedia"
2. 2 January
3. 2 January
4. 17 December
5. 11 December
6. 9 December
7. 8 December
8. 7 December

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 2 January
2. 9 December

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been edit warring for over a month to change "female-male" to "male-female". No talk page engagement. Firefangledfeathers 18:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Page: Technical University of Berlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BarrelProof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [297]
2. [298]
3. [299]

Comments:
Moves of the article's title have been requested four times. Every time, the result has been no consensus (neither for the current nor for the proposed name), and the current name has been maintained just because it was the status quo. A constant is that BarrelProof (talk · contribs) has vehemently led the opposition to every move request over the years. The reason for the request is that the current title of the article Technical University of Berlin is a free translation not accepted by the university.

After the last requested move in 2020 (the fourth one), whose result was too close to tell, a new section called name was added to reflect the fact that the university considers the name Technical University of Berlin as inappropriate (which is obviously relevant for the readers, as they deserve to know that using the name Technical University of Berlin in considered impolite).

The section was repeatedly edited by me and BarrelProof (talk · contribs) [300] [301] up until a version arisen we both could live with. Surprisingly, however, BarrelProof (talk · contribs) let a couple of month passed by, just to delete it when no one noticed (as it was). I know I've got to Wikipedia:Assume good faith but the user is making it very hard for me. Now after undoing the deletion, the user insists on deleting it. I know, that 3R within a day have not occurred, but it's a clear case of edit warring by an experienced user, who knows how to go around the rules. It's behavior in this article over the years has shown the every discussion is futile.

I'm open to more opinions, but any discussion cannot start from the version that BarrelProof (talk · contribs) has been trying to impose by force. So I request that the consensus version including the section be kept up until further notice SFBB (talk)

— Above comment submitted at 00:51, 5 January 2022‎ (UTC)

I welcome this discussion and I'm looking forward to hearing how others feel about the content dispute and the article naming issue, which have been repeatedly disputed (although they are really rather minor matters in the grand scheme of things). Just to correct the record, it looks like I did not participate in the first two RMs, and I believe there have been five of them. And the most recent disputed matter had been stable for the last year and three months until a couple of days ago. My view, of course, is that Wikipedia does not need to really worry much about what name for it is "accepted by the university" (to use the complainant's phrase, if indeed the university's view is being properly interpreted by the complainant) – e.g., per WP:OFFICIALNAME. Since things like WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:IRS are part of Wikipedia's well-supported guidelines/policies, I feel pretty confident of my opinion. I also believe that the so-called "consensus version" of the article was not really supported by any evident consensus. Concerning 3RR, there have been only two reverts in two days on my side (and three reverts in two days by the complainant), and this content dispute just arose a couple of days ago after more than a year of stability, but it would be nice to get input from others to help resolve it. Please note that the first of the three reverts by me that were shown in the complaint was from more than a year ago, so this has not an especially heated recent battle. More commentary can be found on the article Talk page, so I will try to avoid repeating everything I have said here. I also somewhat have the impression that there's been a bit of attempting to prevail by insistence, and recently a threat to report the incident here; that's really not much of a threat, of course, as I welcome opening such a discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

SFBB, you have not demonstrated any WP:3RR violation, and it is you who are editwarring to restore your BOLD edit, when instead per WP:BRD you need to go to the talkpage and make your case and establish WP:CONSENSUS before attempting to restore your BOLD reverted edit. ANEW is therefore not the correct venue for this, unless you want to be blocked for edit-warring. I therefore suggest you withdraw this report. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Addendum:
Despite of the open report the user insists on imposing his version by force and kept the edit warring [302]. SFBB (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there some rule that people are supposed to stop editing once a discussion starts here and retain the version most recently edited by the complaining party? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

To answer your questions: This noticeboard is about edit-warring only, never about content. Do not edit war even though you may be right. Discuss content on the talkpage of the article and reach WP:CONSENSUS. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've had a quick look and I don't think blocks or any sanctions are helpful at this stage. I think it would be useful for one of you to get a third opinion or suggest dispute resolution. I admit I haven't read the talk page discussion, but from a quick look at the recent history, might I suggest a compromise that the policy about the name goes in a footnote rather than the body of the article. It does seem a shame that such an important article about one of the most prominent universities in Europe is quite small in relation to its German Wikipedia counterpart and you seem to be getting involved with relatively minor details. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: I frankly do no understand at all why you say I'm the one editwarring. I guess, you just checked the history of the article and observed that in the last three days I was the one reverting first. If so, you're completely missing the point:

1.- The section name was established after continuous editions between me and BarrelProof (talk · contribs). For instance, [303],[304],[305],[306],[307],[308],[309]. Note that the last one, which I accepted as a consensus was written by BarrelProof himself.

2.- As I accepted the consensus version (again written by BarrelProof) and I operate assuming good faith, I stopped watching the page. Obviously I did not expect than a couple of months later BarrelProof would come back to delete the very consensus version he himself had proposed. This is the BOLD edition.

3.- When I discovered the BOLD edition by BarrelProof I reverted it ([310]). That's precisely what WP:BRD suggests.

4.- I want to stress that a BOLD edition going against a consensus version doesn't stop being a BOLD edition, because no one discovers it in months. Otherwise, you'd be creating a perverse incentive to hide editions by faking the acceptance of consensus just to delete them after the other users stop watching the article.we already went though a WP:BRD process; what would be the incentive to go through that again if in the very moment I stopped looking, everything will be deleted again

Finally, I'm very much aware what this noticeboard is for and I'm only requesting that the consensus version of the section of 31 May 2020 (again written by BarrelProof) be upheld and not the BOLD edition by the same user once I stopped watching the page. As I said before I'm open for a WP:DRN, but I'm not willing to start that while the status quo is the BOLD edition. That's not how WP:BRD works. SFBB (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: @Ritchie333: The name issue is not WP:BIKESHED. Anyone who knows the university well, knows how important it is (see e.g. the Affiliation Policy, among many documents that stress the importance of the issue). I comes as no surprise that dozens of users have discussed the issue in the Talk Page and the so many Move Requests have been made personally, myself I worked for the university in the past - although because of WP:COI I did not edit up until I had already moved to another institution - and I vividly remember colleagues threatening to leave conferences if the batches were not corrected o speakers boldly interrupting the presenters, because the name was wrong SFBB (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, that referenced document has not previously been mentioned during discussion of this content dispute. It is interesting new information, and I encourage further discussion of it on the article's Talk page. Thank you also for confirming your previous affiliation with the university – I had wondered previously if you had some sort of special connection with this matter. Please note that the the version of the article of 31 May 2020 was not written by me (it was a minor edit of two sentences that had last been edited by you, I believe), and I never said I supported that version of the article, which obviously was from more than a year and a half ago anyway. The fact that I edited something to improve it does not indicate that I agree with it. My edit of that version was just to correct an obvious falsehood, but was not an indication that I supported what remained in those two sentences. From your anecdote about outbursts at conferences based on the affiliation printed on people's badges (presumably based on how they had listed their affiliation when registering for the conference), it seems clear that the dispute on this matter may exist outside of Wikipedia as well as here. If you can find any independent reliable sources that discuss it, that would be especially interesting. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:BarrelProof and User:SFBB are warned they may be blocked if they revert this article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. There appears to be a standoff on the article talk page. SFBB declares "I refuse to discuss with you.." The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available. Consider an WP:RFC or WP:DRN if the two of you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)