Page: History of chemical warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "Source does not call this "chemical warfare" (because that would be ridiculous). Trying to put this on the same level as the use of sarin or chlorine gas is extremely offensive. Last warning."
2. 00:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "you restore this idiotic nonsense one more time, this is getting reported"
3. 22:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Russo-Ukrainian War */ freaking ridiculous POV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."
2. 01:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) on History of chemical warfare "Undid revision 1081050934 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Please explain reasons for undo at talk page. Thanks"

Comments:

User commented on the talk page only after making the third revert.

User also breaks repeatedly 3RR on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and fails to adhere to NPOV. AdrianHObradors (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

1. This is not a 3RR violation.

2. The content and context REALLY needs to be looked at so I'm glad that AdrianHobradors brought that here. My edit summaries address the problem. Another user, User:XavierGreen tried to add the claim to the article that two Russian soldiers getting food poisoning from eating some pies is ... "chemical warfare". Of course the source they provided did not say that at all (because that would be ridiculous). So right there you have misrepresentation of sources. I removed this stuff but then AdrianHObradors jumped in what looks like "payback" for the dispute we're having at another article [1]. AdrianHobradors reverted twice. They did not initiate discussion on talk (though I did [2]). Since AdrianHObradors kept restoring text which falsely misrepresents the source, they are at fault for the same policy violation as the original editor who tried to add this material.

3. Frankly, this kind of edit is highly offensive. It's blatantly POV and it tries to put food poisoning on the same level as use of sarin gas or chlorine gas or similar actual real "chemical warfare". It looks very much like a WP:NOTHERE attempt to create false (and unsourced) "Ukraine is using chemical weapons!" narrative. That in itself is probably worth a topic ban in itself.

WP:BOOMERANG please. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems a bit dishonest that you are calling a death by poison "food poisoning". Two persons died and 28 others are in the hospital.

And I jumped in not because of payback, I don't want to have any dispute. Only because I saw someone saying his edits were getting reverted, I went to his contributions, and I saw your revert which only said "freaking ridiculous POV". After checking the content and checking the page, which talks about poisoning food supplies as chemical warfare at the beginning, I decided to reinstate it.

Also you did initiate discussion on talk, but I did tell you to please do so in my edit (as it can be seen above). Mostly because your edit descriptions were not really descriptions, and closer to threats and insults.

To your third point, the text did not put poisoning of food on any level or compare it, and did not say "Ukraine is using chemical weapons", but that civilians in Ukraine did. The only POV I want is a neutral one. AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

AdrianHObrados can continued the edit war just now [3] after filing this report. They also falsely claimed that another user agreed with the restoration on talk page (Edit summary: Added back after 3O on talk page agrees.). This is completely untrue. Presumably the other user's comment on talk page is this one which pretty clearly states: "I don't believe the inclusion is WP:DUE". This is becoming even more disruptive, especially given the over the top POV nature of the edit. Can we please get a boomerang here already? Volunteer Marek 01:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Actively monitoring the page for continued disruption... —C.Fred (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And the disruption continues [4] though this times by the other user XavierGreen. Note that both users are restoring what is essentially a falsification of sources since the source does NOT say this was an instance of a "chemical warfare". Additionally the article is explicit about the fact that this was done by civilians not as part of any military operation. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Extra info Sorry, didn't have time to add the ones at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine:

1. [5] "tag is spurious and false, but we don't even need WaPo here"
2. [6] "no, these are obviously highly POV changes, they are not supported by sources and frankly, given the nature of this topic the changes amount to some very problematic and disruptive attempts to whitewash some horrendous shit"
3. [7] "Undid revision 1081029753 by Anonimu (talk) you REALLY need to stop with this awful POV and white washing"
4. [8] "undo the obvious POVing and obnoxious attempts at whitewashing"

-- AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Adrian, you really need to stop digging. First you start an edit war, by restoring content with false sources. Then you continue the edit war while this report is open. Then, when it becomes clear that you're behaving disruptively you try to deflect by bringing up a different article, and a dispute in which you weren't involved in. In this instance you falsely portray an edit that actually wasn't a revert and that addressed a user's objection (the one with the edit summary "but we don't even need WaPo here"). So in addition to violating WP:TEND, WP:EDITWAR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR you're now doing a pretty good job of WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest you drop the stick and be grateful you haven't gotten blocked yet. Volunteer Marek 03:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Volunteer Mark, I am not warring or edit warring with anyone. I am just reverting unconstructive edits I see on Wikipedia. See current talk page of History of chemical warfare for an example of constructive discussions. You can also look at the edits by BilledMammal there, with descriptive summaries, for an example of good and constructive additions. And the article I brought wasn't a different one, I referred to it on the initial report.

Also I don't understand why you removed the source that was open and left the one that was under paywall? Only because it said "The post could not verify those claims"? I am really wondering why you added back the unverified stuff I removed here in line 164, the part about mining the bodies, but not only that, you removed a {{subscription required}} tag and a {{verify source}}. Are you telling me you can't really see how disruptive your edits are?

I actually go and invest my time trying to verify the sources, many of which are very long, and carefully edit the articles if I confirm the sources don't back it up (like, in this example, where the Washington Post said "The Post could not verify those claims").

Then you go ahead and make huge reverts calling it POV and whitewashing and call it a day. Please, try to be more careful in the future. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@AdrianHObradors: you have filed an inaccurate report about another editor; it is probably you who should be more careful. Cheers, SN54129 10:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Serial Number 54129, I will be more careful if I make any future reports. I did read Volunteer Marek's contributions and the Edit Warring page and it did seem correct to report it. AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, sorry, could you specify where my report is inaccurate? I believe it might have been incomplete, but not inaccurate. I did say "repeatedly" though, on the report, I have striked that, as it was a typo. Meant to says user makes repeated reverts and breaks 3RR, they did not break it repeatedly. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@AdrianHObraors: You are involved in a content dispute. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I don't think any edits on the article are unconstructive. By definition, that means you are edit warring, since you are repeatedly reverting to your preferred position in a content dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @C.Fred, I think I understand what you mean, but I have no preferred position on the content from that article, and the reverts I performed weren't to content created by me, but to another user's content. I reverted it only because Volunteer Marek's revert summaries did not actually reflect the changes done to the article, and I invited him to discuss them on the talk page.

Although as I said I do understand how it could classify as edit warring. I am actually quite new to editing Wikipedia and really enjoying it, and while I believe my understanding of English is quite good, it isn't my first language, so please, I do welcome any advice and any concrete examples of the violations Volunteer Marek mentions, so it does not happen again. Thank you --AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I went and put the page under full protection. At least two other editors have dived into the dispute head-first. At this point, we all need to use the talk page and WP:DR to solve the problem. Reverting repeatedly is not how we solve problems. --Jayron32 12:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Avicenna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Based sogdian (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. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Based Sogdian has chosen not to engage in discussion on the talk page.

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

Comments:

User:Based sogdian has chosen to change "Persian" to "Tajik" ignoring what the sources state and add the Tajik language version of Avicenna. Their first addition of this was at 09:30, 5 April 2022 and was reverted by Iskandar323. Based sogdian's first revert was at 12:17, 5 April 2022, followed by 3 more reverts. Based sogdian has not engaged on the talk page therefore we can only guess what their motives are. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Based sogdian and Based.Khurasani indefinitely blocked as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Kunal Karan Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Naaaina (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 14:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC) to 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC) to 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Television */"
   2. 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC) to 11:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 11:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC) to 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Television */"
   2. 17:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Established actor (2019-Present) */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 04:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC) to 04:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 04:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Established actor (2019-Present) */"
   2. 04:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Television */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kunal Karan Kapoor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps changing the MOS, not to mention disregard of MOS:CAPS. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Naaaina is warned. The next time they make a style revert against the recommendation of the WP:MOS without first getting consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 68.134.33.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC) "Fixed a typo, removed false content"
2. 20:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC) "Removed an opinion statement that had no bearing on factual info"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Claims that the claim in the article that he is considered a pioneer of trap metal is "an opinion" and "false content". wizzito | say hello! 21:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jonny Buckland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Will Champion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Unbh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and GustavoCza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jonny Buckland - Previous version reverted to: 22 March 2021 version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Will Champion - Previous version reverted to: 27 March version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments:

Between Unbh and GustavoCza, there have been countless reverts going on in Coldplay related article, the diffs above refer to some of many edits where one user adds and the other reverts, each of those happened earlier than today, those are examples of the problem which is still ongoing. I prefer not to be involved in any editing of these articles myself and say which one is the better version. Once of them, Unbh, has been blocked earlier this year for violating 3RR once already. I did report a smaller version, about half the size of the one at the start of the month but it was archived without any result given. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason why this happened was because Unbh insisted in removing information from the lead. After all this mess we did kind of reached a consensus thought, the pages are rather stable right now and I hope I don't run into trouble with them again. --GustavoCza (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved observer. Unbh appears to be in the right with regard to content and policy. With this edit, GustavoCza uses a primary source YouTube video to add "wise owl", which is only sourced to the band, not third party media assessments. The media tell the reader that Buckland is described as "the wise one" by his bandmates on their MySpace page, but it isn't so important that it should be added to the lead section, because nobody else uses that description. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you persist in reporting this Iggy. There was no action last time, because it was resolved after an iterative process on edits and discussion on the talk pages, and again that's what's happened here. GustavoCza and I have disagreements about what should go in the ledes in these articles, but on each occasion we've come to a reasonable consensus as Gustavo says above. You also did not properly inform me of this report, just an unclear reply about the last one. Your last one wasn't archived too early, it was archived because it was just not responded to because it was clearly as unnecessary then as it is now.

I should add that I don't see any need for or advocate any sanction on GustavoCza here either- the process worked - we've come to an agreement on this bit, even if it did need a lot of edits to get there.Unbh (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: This is a ridiculous number of reverts. Both User:Unbh and User:GustavoCza are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again in the next month at either Jonny Buckland or Will Champion without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[29]

Comments:

The user has claimed on the talk page that there is consensus for removing but that is not the case. -- 2804:248:f666:900:44bf:96ab:c7a9:2d03 (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from the reported contributor:

The issue is not as simple as is presented here. There are several maps and several contributors involved in this dispute (some registered ones, and an elusive dynamic ip).

In a first stage I removed this map: [30], which is purely speculative and plainly original research, and replaced it by [31], which is more faithful to Dick’s book and less speculative. To that User:Shimbo objected that this latter map is nevertheless also original research, and proposed instead [32], which apparently comes from an admissible source. I agreed in principle, but pointed the problem that the link to this source, even on Wikidata, is for the time being broken. Shimbo said he fixed it, but so far I still see the link as broken. Then User:Gooduserdude came up with an other purely speculative map, [33], backed by no other source on Wikidata than the mention that it is the « own work » of some contributor. When I reverted this, he reinstated the very first map [34], so I reverted again.

Finally a dynamic ip came up, and insisted also in restoring the very first map on the ground that there was no consensus to suppress it. It is probably one of the avatars of this dynamic ip that reported me.

I think the article should remain free of any map until a consensus is reached, either on a clearly acceptable file referenced with an admissible source, or without any map. --Sapphorain (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this summary, apart from it wasn't me who claimed to have fixed the source of the map based on real Axis plans, that was Gooduserdude. As there's only been three people discussing the issues with the maps, and you and I seem to basically agree, I'd say a RFC is the way to build a wider consensus. Shimbo (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable. I am not at all familiar with that process though (how and where?).--Sapphorain (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The process is explained at WP:RFC Shimbo (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I placed an RfC. --Sapphorain (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action, given the assurances above. Consider joining the RfC at Talk:Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II#RfC on map in lead. I advise that nobody should restore the map unless agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Scott Baio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:a000:ffc0:d8:fdf2:3eb5:8751:7a62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:15, 1 April 2022
2. 21:42, 23 March 2022
3. 21:11, 17 March 2022
4. 19:47, 17 March 2022
5. 18:35, 16 March 2022
6. 18:35, 16 March 2022
7. 03:36, 16 March 2022
8. 21:55, 15 March 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:03, 18 March 2022

Relevant talk page discussions: Talk:Scott_Baio#Birth_year, Talk:Scott_Baio#He's_not_reliable_for_his_own_birth_year, Talk:Scott_Baio#How_to_properly_present_and_verify_his_date_of_birth

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected three months. Consider using WP:DRN to settle the unresolved items. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Eran Zahavi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snowflake91 (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. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [39]
2. [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [41]

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

1. [42]

Comments:

We asked User:Snowflake91 on the talk page and many edit summaries from several editors to refrain from edit warring and try to discuss and resolve nicely and politely, each and every revert you made to other reliable additions of other editors who used many valid sources. Check out the revision history on top of User:Snowflake91's talk page. He is a troll who blocks literally any edition whether backed by one or multiple reliable sources. No explanations in the edit summaries besides the old triggerhappy undo message. He is literally a menace for many new and veteran editors who try to contribute to article involving football. Not the first of him getting blocked and warned either. 2A0D:6FC0:1903:7100:E428:9058:3791:BE6E (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You are using personal attacks in edit summaries (talk about "resolve nicely and politely"), you are blatantly violationg copyrighting issues by copy/pasting content from the source directly to the article, entire paragraph was identical to the one on the web, you are using non-neutral words (as expected, since it was copy/pasted from sensationalistic website), you are violating WP:OVERLINK issues despite being warned, you are adding wrong names of the clubs, you are adding wrong categories, you are adding unsourced content to "honours" section etc. etc., and when I fixed everything after you and explained the issues line-by-line, you just reverted back and called me "autistic troll", so dont bullshit here please. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from edit warring and try to discuss and resolve nicely and politely, each and every revert you made to other reliable additions of other editors who used many valid sources. Simple as that, just be kind to others. Wikipedia is about accumulating knowledge whislt having fun doing that along other kind information-savvy editors who are also just people, like you and I. 2A0D:6FC0:1903:7100:E428:9058:3791:BE6E (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• IP blocked for 48h for disruptive editing at Eran Zahavi, including edit-warring, close paraphrasing, and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: WPA World Eight-ball Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JP7i1-u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comments:

I hate dragging people to the drama boards, but this one is particularly frustrating. With the recent announcement that this tournament is returning, I began an overhaul of the article, removing outdated material about the last abortive attempt to restart it (announced but ultimately not held in 2017), removing unsourced material purporting to describe the tournament format, and other general cleanup. I was immediately reverted with no explanation by an editor making what is supposedly their first ever edit. Every subsequent attempt to continue working on the article by myself and Dmoore5556 (who added an infobox) have been blanket reverted without discussion or justification. It's also pretty obvious there's socking going on here as well; in another pool-related item I added sourced mention of the Fargo Rate system used to rank pool players to Elo rating system (as Fargo Rate is a variant on an Elo rating), and lo and behold, it was reverted by someone making their first edit with a similar edit summary. Curiously suspicious. oknazevad (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be aware of the following:

1

2

3

4

5

6

Oknazevad is clearly having a joke when accusing me of "edit warring" when they know that: 1) they are solely responsible for my need to restore the encyclopedic information, ie. involved in the edit war themselves, 2) they started it when removing over 1k of perfectly sourced material without any discussion or consensus. It's pure POV pushing because something (and I don't know what) that did or didn't happen in 2017 makes them personally uncomfortable, and so they behave in this unreasonable manner. I believe the communkity should not tolerate this and Oknazevad should be topic banned from any subject relating to international sports as they clearly have no valid contribution to make. --JP7i1-u (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And here we have another revert of another unrelated editor with a false accusation of StellarNerd being a sock of me. He's not. I've never edited Wikipedia using any other user name in my nearly 18 years here. Oh, and he's contribution stalked me over to Designated hitter, where I reverted some WP:SYNTH. My reversion was restored by another well established editor. oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

And another revert here to re-add SYNTH that has been removed by multiple editors. oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

And now a straight up attack page here created as a subpage of my user page, as well as talk page vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Now Oknazevad has just started whimpering with allegations not relevant to edit warring accusations. I can revert Oknazevd en masse if they are being honest with you. I have only reverted them where I have seen fit due to their poor contributions, such as removing a large chunk of sourced text on the rules of a game. --JP7i1-u (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• LTA blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: List of awards and nominations received by Sarah Geronimo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YuriAki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [57]

Comments:
User YuriAki is cleary WP:NOTHERE and appears to be a disgruntled fanatic of the subject. There has been a history of previous editors who have been blocked for similar violations, such as these users [58], [59] Itssheenabautista (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: User talk:142.105.159.178 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 142.105.159.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff
7. 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:

Special:Contributions/142.105.159.178 has been editing warring across a number of pages, largely refusing to engage on articles’ talk pages. They’ve just broken WP:3RR by reverting four times a static IP template that had been placed on their talk page (the IP seems to be static based on the geo locate tool), with explanation and reference to the guideline at WP:UP. Though it’s not expressly against policy, and it hasn't been directed at me since I haven’t engaged with them much in their ~5mo edit history, I would add that their edit summaries are extremely patronizing (e.g., pay attention :)) and overall indicative of a bad attitude.

Note that, though the warning I linked concerned edit warring on an article talk page, not on the IP's talk page, the Thewolfchild subsequently warned the IP that they had violated 3RR on their own talk page and encouraged them to revert their last revert. The IP responded to that suggestion by reverting Thewolfchild again, and then reverting an additional message from Thewolfchild. diff

Note also that, though this is the only 3RR violation I observed, this IP has been edit warring/reverting without discussion across a number of other pages. I've included diffs below.

Guardians of the Galaxy (soundtrack) diff diff diff

First Lady of the United States diff diff diff

Where the IP does post on talk pages, they tend not to address the content issues at hand, instead making accusations of bad faith and ownership using the same patronizing tone as in their edit summaries. e.g., Buddy, you've got to let go. You started this article and you've been its primary editor, but you don't own it. You obviously think you do, but you don't. diff

UPDATE: the IP reverted the notice of edit warring report I left on their talk page, describing it as vandalism. Wallnot (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Per WP:BLANKING, users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages, however rudely they go about it, as long as they accept that it will be assumed they read them. They might actually have a case against you. And, yes, I agree the IP's behavior has not been exemplary. But maybe this is better handled at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The removal in question was of a template required to be placed on their page by the guideline at WP:UP, not a warning. Such templates are an explicit exception to WP:BLANKING: "For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address" cannot be removed. I'm also not sure how they have a case against me; I've performed only two reverts on their talk page. Wallnot (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wallnot: It may be a "user may not remove" but it does not follow from that that we are required to put it there in the first place. Especially when the user disputes that it's really a shared IP, and the editing history seems to back that claim up.

As for the reverts, I apologize, it seems like it was you and Wolf combined. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for explaining. Wallnot (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Dyson (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A01:4C8:1560:CCC:1:1:462B:36A0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 18:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 18:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 17:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dyson (company)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Please stop edit war! */ new section"

Comments:

• Add Chawa618 to this as this is clearly an account created to continue the edit war. — Czello 18:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Chawa618 (at his talkpage) seems to be promising to continue edit warring, once page is unprotected. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• It is a very complicated case, more than four IP users have engaged in these edit wars with +4 and -4 Pavlov2 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a very simple case. A person with an IP address that geolocates to the U.K. thinks that the article should say one thing, four other people, two with accounts, and two with IP addresses that locate to Singapore and Korea, think that the article should say another. And the article has cycled back and forth between the 2 states 12 times in 24 hours. The article has been protected and I've revoked the editing privileges of the account created specifically to further the edit war. The only question remaining is why, since there's a note in the wikitext, there is no talk page discussion of this point that could have been pointed to. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text#Inappropriate uses for hidden text. Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

    Dyson as a company is British. Yes, operations of its "Global HQ" moved to another country in 2019 however its founders, registered offices and facilities remain in the UK.

    The fact that Wikipedia is stating Dyson as "Singaporean" is false. At least, it should be Anglo-Singaporean. Rather than one or the other.

    Please review this. Sola8273 (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Update Chawa618 and 2A01:4C8:1560:CCC:1:1:462B:36A0 left some disruptive messages on my talk page.[60] Not the worst but clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. — Czello 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Gary0987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly another sock based on this[61] and this[62] — Czello 22:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Add Sola8273 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list of socks based on his recent disruptive edits. — Czello 13:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I filed a SPI against them. seemingly terrible if more sleepers become active Pavlov2 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

More complex than before... Pavlov2 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Some blocks by other admins. User:Blablubbs has put an indef block on User:Sola8273. User:Uncle G has indefinitely blocked User:Chawa618. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chawa618. User:Cullen328 put two weeks of semiprotection on Dyson (company). EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: .50 BMG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (and various other ammunition articles)
User being reported: Scimernet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [63] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]
6. [69]
7. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71] (4th revert in 24 hours)

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

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

Comments:
Additionally Scimernet seems to be making the same changes universally to other ammunition articles - I only have three watched, but those have had the same changes applied to them. These changes have been reverted by other editors, only for Scimernet to reinsert, using the edit summary of "The unit of measure is Caliber not inches. Caliber is a unit "based" on inches; it is not designated as a measurement of inches. Refer to the definition of caliber. Caliber is expressed in hundredths or thousands of an inch depending on the number of digits. When referring to cartridges or bullets the units used are caliber. This would be expressed without any leading decimal. This is correct, it does not need consensus or collaboration this needs to be fixed on all Caliber pages" (my emphasis)

• .308 Winchester

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]

• .45 ACP

1. [77]
2. [78]

• .44 Magnum

1. [79]
2. [80]

Ammunition is not my forte, but this widespread changing of articles without gaining consensus and going against article titles, needs addressing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. User:Scimernet has been warring about ammunition calibers for months. They declare that consensus is not needed (as in the comment quoted above) and have never posted to an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Eric Liddell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ericwearvoon (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 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) to 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "reverted vandalism false allegation"
   2. 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC) to 22:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "reverted vandalism"
   2. 22:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 21:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "reverted unexplained reversion"
4. 21:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eric Liddell."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Location born */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – 24 hours. The user has also been making incorrect charges of vandalism in their edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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: [81]

Comments:

• Page protected – 4 days. The original two-person war between MarnetteD and Ficaia has now widened out to four people. One group wants 'actor' and the other wants 'actress'. This needs consensus to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not in any war, thanks. A discussion thread has been opened on the article Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Ekaterine Gorgodze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:8070:E192:A300:2CDF:96DC:9CE8:BFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This anon IP is having to be reverted by multiple editors while using multiple anon Ip's on dozens of articles. The page listed is one of many. see also here, and here, and here, and many many others. Since tradition IP punishment won't work can we get a limited range block on 2A02:8070:E192:A300: ? Maybe a few days without editing will make them stop. I warned a couple of the anon IPs but the next time they log in it's a different IP. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Since this post they have made more edits (two of which were reverted thus far) right here under a new IP. Again they were warned on the IP talk page, but I don't think it's going to stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• And another right here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Special:contributions/2A02:8070:E192:A300:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for 3 months. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YoungDylan for background.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]
5. [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

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

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

Comments:

Note, this has in fact been going on for days. It also an old issue on this page that goes back years. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected by @Deepfriedokra: Jayron32 13:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Alexander the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Deedman22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Another
2. New revert after report
3. 05:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 22:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081344038 by Dumuzid (talk)see talk"
5. 21:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081343691 by Dumuzid (talk)he gave no reasoning. he's linking an old discussion that has nothing to do with the current image. rv"
6. 21:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081025424 by RandomCanadian (talk)the bust is contemporary and is most certainly an improvement over the one proposed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Picture of Bust of Alexander, again */"

Comments:

Wikipedia editing is not "wait until no-one is looking to reinstate your preferred version", yet that is exactly what they did, despite there not having been consensus for it either now or months ago. This is still the same problem that led to this user's block 8 months ago (@Bbb23:). Not only have they not learned from that, but their edits have once again crossed the 3RR bright-line... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian You literally decided (a few days ago) that you wanted to change the lead image to your preferred version (a lead image that has been in place for months). Your reasoning, aesthetic appeal, makes no sense, as you are replacing a depiction with historical context.

Also, my goal was not to wait until you "weren't looking"— i logged out for a bit, logged back in and saw you changed the image so I reverted it back. I could care less about whether you are looking or not. Cheers. 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Deedman22 (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Why does this look like a perfect copy of what happened back in June last? "Your reasoning makes no sense" is not how things work on Wikipedia. Simply because you disagree does not mean that you are right and others are wrong (that was the exact same line of reasoning you also used when this happened back last year, see I'm right because my reasoning is right, you're wrong because you have failed to provide a reasonable counter argument? from Talk:Alexander_the_Great/Archive_23#Image_dispute,_v2). You reinstated a version which is clearly disputed (as you should know from, uh, getting blocked for edit warring over it?). Please learn to collaborate with, not confront, your fellow editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian Your reasoning is literally "my bust looks prettier than yours, so it should be used" and mine is "the current one has historical context, and it is probably closer to what Alexander the Great actually looked like". the version that you are trying to change has also been in place for months is most certainly not "clearly disputed". So why you are suddenly deciding that you don't like it now and want to change it. Deedman22 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting my comments. I've detailed reasons, which include MOS:IMAGEQUALITY (which has not that much to do with personal preference, but with objective factors such as contrast and clarity of the depicted object - oh, and it not missing a nose) and plenty of others (including how the "historical context" claim is not only unprovable but not a sufficiently major distinction in this case to support a worse picture). You can keep poking the strawman, but that only shows that you're not willing to collaborate and a bit of WP:BATTLEGROUND. You reinstated your preferred version back in late February (which is just over a month ago), without any talk page discussion, despite you knowing full well that such a change had been rejected the last time around. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

huh, I reverted someone's edit who had been trying to change the current image that was already in place. the current image has been in place for over half a year.

This dispute was resolved months ago and the current lead image (which has been in place for over half a year) was the settled-on bust. You (for some reason) have decided that you want to start edit-warring again. Also, if you remember, the bust I originally proposed (the one by Lysippos) is not being used as the lead, and is further down. We came to a middle-ground. There's nothing wrong with the quality of the current bust.

Deedman22 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is very much undeniable evidence that the infobox image was changed back on February 23, just over a month ago, as I was saying, without any accompanying discussion or consensus. Worse than that, it's not even the same picture that's been restored this time around... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, it was changed without discussion or consensus in Febuary, and i simply changed it back. What's worse is you aren't even looking at previous edits to see the image that has been used since at least July 2021. The Feb2022 edit that I made was a reversion to the one that has been used since July2021. And okay, it's the same bust at a different angle (by the exact same artist) so for all intents and purposes it's the same picture. Deedman22 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Deedman22, I agree with RandomCanadian on this. A consensus of 2 should not be hard to challenge, but thus far it seems that you are alone. I would urge you to persuade rather than bludgeon. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've linked the last talk page discussion on this (Talk:Alexander_the_Great/Archive_23#Image_dispute,_v2) - and there is no consensus for your proposed version there. In fact, there seems to be consensus against using your version. This doesn't have to end like last time, although again that's entirely your choice. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian The version I was proposing in that discussion is for an entirely different image. Yes, there is a 2:1 consensus against the version i proposed in that discussion (by the same two people this time around), which is why it's not the image that is currently being used, and the version that is being used was the middle-ground image. Now you two are deciding that you don't like it and are ganging up on "middle-ground" image. Interesting. Deedman22 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  You can't play two tunes on the same fiddle. It's not is for an entirely different image. In that very same discussion, you said, and I quote, It is a picture of the same bust at a different angle. If a very similar picture was rejected, simply using a slightly different one doesn't quite cut it as "middle-ground" per any definition of that term. A middle-ground would be something like the Alexander Mosaic (which a lot of people have said they'd be fine with). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian if you read the discussion i was clearly arguing for the usage of the Lysippos depiction, but since you kept changing that, I began defending the usage of the then-current image (which was the Leochares depiction, the current image now) as the middle ground. Deedman22 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian The bottom line is, you decided, three days ago, that you wanted to change the lead image (one that has been in use for many months) to an image that fits your taste for aesthetic appeal, without any accompanying discussion or consensus, and then you brought up an old discussion about two completely different images (Lysippos depiction vs Roman portrayal), with very little context, and when I tried to change it back you began edit-warring. Deedman22 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Deedman22, however this began, I concur with RandomCanadian now. That looks like consensus to me. If you can show otherwise, please do. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  You've broken WP:3RR, and are edit warring against two other editors who've each made two edits each. Beam in your own eye, and all of that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Deedman22, please stop reverting even while this discussion continues. That will almost certainly lead to sanctions against you. Dumuzid (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: A. E. Housman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Galileeblack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:26, 5 April 2022
2. 21:05, 5 April 2022‎
3. 15:53, 6 April 2022
4. 16:22, 6 April 2022

The last was an immediate reversion of user’s self-reversion

Appeal to discuss matter

1. 20:58, 5 April 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:35, 6 April 2022

Relevant talk page discussions:

1. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A._E._Housman&oldid=1081246595]

Subsequently blanked by user #[90] And replaced by another editor

1. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A._E._Housman&oldid=1081298618]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 8 April 2022

• 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) 13:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: British Union of Fascists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A00:23C4:4788:2400:FDF0:F5B2:3CBE:C401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Oswald Mosley was left wing, his own words. Only a fool or a liar would parrot the left wing diatribe of Fascism being Far Right. Fascism was a progressive left wing ideology, hence the attraction to Mosley. To quote Mosley In 1968, he remarked in a letter to The Times, "I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics."[62]"
2. 20:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Cannolis LMFAO you Soy Boy Black Shirt, I'm waiting for you to revert it again, like a true Left Wing Fascist would. Adolf would have been proud of you LOL"
3. 20:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Cannolis, your personal opinion & political affiliations disregards the FACTS. The Doctrine of Fascism was written by the far left Giovanni Gentile & Benito Mussolini, heavily influenced by communism. FACTS."
4. 19:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Oswald Mosley Wiki page, he was left wing. In 1968, he remarked in a letter to The Times, "I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics."[62]"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on British Union of Fascists."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Well, this edit war was started by this IP user and seemed they don't want to communicate with each other. PAVLOV (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cannolis: welcome to share your opinion about this case. Thanks a lot. PAVLOV (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Looked to me to be an IP trying to push the absurd idea that fascism is a left wing ideology. Considered it to be vandalism so I was reverting freely though perhaps it was just WP:OR with the IP thinking Mosley's quote constitutes a RS for this particular group being left wing. Cannolis (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Also been involved here; the IP has repeatedly reverted several users while trying to equivocate fascism as being a leftist ideology. My last revert asks for discussion prior to future edits. We'll see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Should also note that the first two edits of this string came from Special:Contributions/92.40.174.238 Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours by User:Drmies. The IP editor wants to describe the British Union of Fascists as left-wing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ankit solanki982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [99]

Comments:

Note they have in fact (along with oither users) been at this for days. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note they continue to edit war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note as well the user continues to try and make dishonest edits here [[100]], this is the second time they have tried a stunt like this. I think they need a full on block. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate at ANI? Due to likely sockpuppetry, and POINTY disruption, as well as edit warring and personal attacks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

True, but at the time this was really an edit war issue, now I think there are other issues as well. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

They have now been indfed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Indef blocked by User:Girth Summit per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaideep thakur. The page in dispute has also been EC protected under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Kramatorsk railway station attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chesapeake77 (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. Chesapeake77: [101]
2. Me: [102]
3. Chesapeake77: [103]
4. Dunutubble: [104]
5. Chesapeake77: [105]
6. Me: [106]
7. Chesapeake77: [107]
8. AusLondonder: [108]
9. Chesapeake77: [109]

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:

Chesapeake77 is adding inappropriate infobox to article against reverts of three other editors - AusLondonder, Dunutubble and me. It continues after the edit-warrior being referred to the guidelines: link. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Chesapeake77 said she was not aware of the three-revert rule. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment I did not know about the 3 revert rule.

The first time I saw the rule described, I stopped reverting.

I did not see all the posts about this immediately.

I won't be doing any more reverts on this issue. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Editor posted a template on my talk page to accuse me of edit-warring despite being reverted by multiple editors. Editor also used edit summaries to accuse others of vandalism for reverting the incorrect addition of a second infobox to the page. Fairly new editor so may not be aware of policies regarding edit warring but they need to learn basic policies like this fast. AusLondonder (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. The user may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  They're a new editor. Please be gentle. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Vojvodina's Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 188.120.98.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081140751 by Vacant0 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Check the page history, the same user has been removing content from different IPs. IP 1, IP 2, IP 3 Vacant0 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Previous IPs have been already warned 1, 2, 3, 4 --Vacant0 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Marine Le Pen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "NPOV with inclusion of descriptor further in paragraph."
2. 17:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Refer to WP: NPOV"
3. 17:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Refer here if you need a lesson on neutral introductions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Scholz"

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) to 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Neutral intro accompanied by previously removed description later in paragraph"
   2. 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 03:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Neutral description; see f.ex. Macron, Biden, Johnson, Scholz."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Warned after the report filed 18:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Note User was never warned about 3RR. Warning just issued. [110] —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Chris Hollins (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081659356 by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk)"
2. 20:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081653346 by MrOllie (talk)"
3. 19:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Hollins releases his own birthdate on verified wikipedia page. Better, more comprehensive wording."
4. 00:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I did not write this like a campaign advertisement. And all sources are cited."
5. 00:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Correct Dates, Cite practice areas, update info block to reflect accurate descriptions, revise headings and subheadings"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* New Edits */ Reply"

Comments:

Note in particular persistent removals of the word "Interim" from his sourced job title, "Interim County Clerk". User is a near-single purpose account who was previously blocked from this page for a week for edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Partial block restored, this time indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. Dispute tag initially added here.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I rescue template. The consensus(RFC) has a content gap. The term neonazi is agreed upon, but the issue of its current status is not addressed, this is April 2022. I have said it in the discussion. Why does only one give his point of view? Discuss it there please, before deleting the quote template."
2. 22:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "The edit summaries are for summarizing the edit. I suggest removing templates that a collaborator places only after consensus. I also mention that "multitude" is too broad to describe the two reverters, 3, including you."
3. 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Be discuss removing this template in the discussion. The template "more citations needed" has too survived the criteria of the administrators. And it also dates from April."
4. 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081661457 by BSMRD (talk) The term is not questioned, it questions whether it continues to be or not."
5. 20:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "The edit summary is not the adequate place to justify template removals."
6. 20:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I recreate lost template, after restoration, because whitewashing."
7. 16:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081630255 by EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk)"
8. 16:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I proceed. I do not question the term. I question its actuality. Please remove the template via discussion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* 3RR violation on Azov Battalion */ new section"
2. 22:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* 3RR violation on Azov Battalion */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion */"
2. 21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Dubious template */ new section"
3. 21:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Sources for neo-Nazi descriptor */"
4. 21:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* RfC about the neo-Nazi descriptor */"

Comments:

They reverted another time shortly after I explained to them on their talk page that they had reverted four times already. (Though, when I went over their edits with Twinkle I found even more reverts on top of that.) Note that the text they are trying to tag as disputed was decided with an overwhelming consensus in this RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that they have continued to revert-war after I made this report, [111] (added above as well.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment:The collaborator does not agree that a point is questioned, under a template, totally within the norms. Although the complaint has substance, only I took the flag to defend my staff. That if there had been no objection from a vehements group of followers of the article, they would have discussed it in the discussion.--Berposen (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My Dispute tag initially added here. I hadn't noticed the other user's. I disputed his actuality. The other user, disputed to its origins, that flag, I do not take it, it is clear the agreed point in the RfC. The templates and their places were different. The rollback he are talking about is the rescue of the template quote. Because the other user who took the flag to question the RfC, added other templates, and the reversion that caused, eliminated mine. --Berposen (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

*Comment: Battleground mentality of User:Aquillion. The editor's repeated removal of "disputed" and "dubious" tags despite ongoing, and very involved, Talk Page discussion, in which a plurality of active editors disagree with his POV:

1. [112] - "rm. tag per additional sources."

2. [113] - "rv. recently-added template per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion - it is inappropriate to add a template like this once consensus is established."

User:Aquillion has made massive edits [114] despite all other involved editors refraining (or being forced to refrain through instant reverts) from doing so while the Talk Page discussion over sources and the upcoming RfC is ongoing.

User:Aquillion has refused to engage with the many sources, including those of the leading scholars on the issue (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, et al), in addition to the latest from the news orgs AFP,^[1] BBC,^[2] DW,^[3] CNN,^[4] WashPo,^[5], Financial Times,^[6] which all explicitly refute his POV.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

*Comment: It seems User:Vladimir.copic is also in breach of 3RR[115],[116],[117] - but I wouldn't dream of trying to get him blocked just because he happens to hold the opposite POV to me. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked one week. I also question whether Berposen has even the minimum English skills necessary to edit on en.wiki and to communicate with others.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Bbb23 - Battleground mentality of Aquillion? I feel users who arrive here with such an obvious absurdity to safeguard their POV partner need to be cautioned. I'm referring to the remark left EnlightenmentNow1792. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If another administrator wants to take action against another editor or editors, that's up to them. The block of Berposen was straightforward.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marappagounder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Persistent edit-warring. Previously included the same text as an IP here, but ever since the page protection, warring as a registered user. For instance, see this note on the article talk page. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and here's the latest personal attack towards me. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Here too. This seems to be WP:NOTHERE. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

When the closing admin reads this, please take a look at (and block) the following IPs, who vandalised my talk page after I reverted Marappagounder; based Marappagounder's comment here, they are clearly the same individual:

• 117.249.228.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.245.96.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.249.206.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks. — Czello 08:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Russian Orthodox Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: 106.215.40.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119]
2. [120]
3. [121]
4. [122]
5. [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124] [125]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126] Obviously not interested in engaging in Talk

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [127]

Comments: Weirdness [128], [129]

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The first three edits are manual edits. It is appaling that this user termed these 2 diffs[130], [131] as "Weirdness" when they are just sensible replies to User:El C and now further justified by this deceitful report. 106.215.40.96 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for the source you provided [132] in your recent edit. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. A series of consecutive edits counts as only one revert. The IP has reverted only twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: A. E. Housman
User being reported: u|Galileeblack

Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [138] — Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [139]

Comments:
Second attempt after malformed report on 8 April Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• 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) 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: USS Carl Vinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SteelMariner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [140]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [141]
2. [142]
3. [143]
4. [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: link

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

Comments:
This user has made four consecutive reverts in approx 16 hours, vs two different editors. We tried to discuss on the article talk page, but were met with hostility and insults. There has been no willingness to engage there. A second attempt to 'start over' and discuss was atempted on the user's talk page, but they were equally uncooperative there. In their last comment, after their fourth revert, they stated that they will continue to revert-war the disputed content back into the article. - wolf 06:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC) (pinging BilCat)

Page protected for 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Seth Rollins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Holliganman123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note: 3RR has not been broken.

Slow-moving edit war to add WP:WEASEL / WP:OR to the lead of an article that has been removed by no fewer than 3 editors. Judging by user's contributions they appear to be a bit of a WP:SPA.

Recent diffs, though this goes further back:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• User_talk:Holliganman123#March_2022

Comments:

Blocked for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: High Speed 2 (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: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3

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:

Repeat offender, previously blocked for edit warring, has reverted three times properly referenced material. His/her previous behaviour, for example at Merseyrail and this article to an extent in the past is to assume ownership of the article and ride roughshod over anybody's edits that he/she disagrees with. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked For now. Contrary to your report he has not, it seems, been previously blocked. I do agree this editor is tendentious, but as your diffs show he has not consistently reverted the same material. Certainly it doesn't have to be a 3RR vio to be blockable, but he hasn't quite crossed the line to where I feel one's needed as in addition to not reverting the same exact thing, he is also nominally discussing it.

But for that same reason since it seems like you have a consensus against his position on the talk page now, we should keep this up going forward. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised he wasn't blocked. I remembered wrong. His actions actually directly led to Merseyrail being locked (diff). Anyway, I appreciate the speedy attention, respect your opinion, and look forward to getting the article to where it needs to be based on consensus. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

User:10mmsocket changed content that has been in the article for a while. It was reverted as what he changed the wording to was wrong. In the Talk Page it was explained to him where he was wrong. Golborne is in the Wigan area. This clearly states it. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Area-covered-by-Wigan-Metropolitan-Borough-Council-Wigan-Council-2018_fig5_331547057

If user User:10mmsocket persists action must be taken against him/her.He does have form of being a know-it-all, but persisting when proven wrong. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't proven anyone wrong, you seem a genuinely illogical individual, incapable of making a rational argument.Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thge edit was by you and had no summery. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&oldid=1057017215 --Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack. You have form I have come across you in the past. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes you've been pulled up by mean for your editing style before and total disregard for any other editor plus your rather pompous and self-righteous comment.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case - here you go, a refusal to listen leading to revert number 4 (diff) 10mmsocket (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: Had that reference been included in any prior version? —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The source is an image of a crude map from a paper about using abandoned coal mines for geothermal energy. Not exactly RS for where a train will stop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

No because it is not relevant to the article. As discussed on the article's talk page there is a difference between Wigan a town of approx 100,000 people and Wigan Metropolitan Borough, an administrative area of approx 300,000 people. What the editor has done, again, is replaced every occurrence of "Golborne" with "Wigan" which is a fourth revert - despite addition of a non-relevant reference. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The reference is irrelevant and wrong it simply shows that Wigan is in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Wigan is a link to the town.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Here are two reputable sources New Civil Engineer and The Guardian which confirm "Golborne" not Wigan or Wigan Metropolitan Borough. These were introduced into the talk page earlier today. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

User:10mmsocket reported by User:Wisdom-inc[edit]

Page: High Speed 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 10mmsocket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

User:10mmsocket persistent edit warring when proven wrong in his edits he constantly persists. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

See section above and also the article talk page since the original report. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2016–17 S.L. Benfica season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: P3DRO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Old reverts

1. [150]
2. [151]
3. [152]
4. [153]
5. [154]
6. [155]

Recent reverts

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [160]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [161]

Comments:

P3DRO has been reported before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=730916723#User:P3DRO_reported_by_User:SLBedit_(Result:_)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=746214854#User:P3DRO

SLBedit (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not an admin but I'll save the reviewing admin some time and suggest they throw this out and warn the op since the account they're reporting hasn't edited in 3 days and the supposed discussion they linked to is 5 years old...CUPIDICAE💕 17:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [162]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2022-04-11 16:08 UTC
2. 2022-04-11 16:09 UTC
3. 2022-04-11 22:10 UTC
4. 2022-04-12 00:37 UTC
5. 2022-04-12 18:16 UTC
6. 2022-04-13 04:26 UTC

Diff of warnings given to user: [163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This concerns the removal of a maintenance template, and the talk page already has a thread about the underlying concern, which the user is ignoring as far as I can see. In the same edits, the user is reinstating content that only worsens said concern. As such, I can't see that I can add anything more that would help resolve the dispute. But said thread is here: [164]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [165]

Comments:

This is primarily a conduct dispute, but I am reporting it here on the basis of this statement: "Conduct complaints that fall into certain sub-categories of misconduct have their own administrators' noticeboard; for example, complaints about edit warring should be made at the edit warring noticeboard (AN3)". But I feel there ought to be a better avenue for this kind of complaint.

In my mind, the repeat removal of a maintenance template without resolution constitutes plain vandalism, but my attempt to report it via WP:AIV has failed. In any case, this user is clearly engaging in disruptive editing.

Further things that GliderMaven is doing include:

• Personal attacks – [166], [167]
• Inappropriate, accusatory edit summaries – [168], [169], [170]
• Removing a reasonable, accurate, constructive and reasonably neutral statement without explanation and replacing it with the same contentious content again – [171], [172]
• Refusing to contribute to the aforementioned talk page discussion in order to try to resolve the issue.

— Smjg (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Both editors are warned not to continue edit-warring. If they do, they risk being blocked without notice. They are also both warned not to attack each other in edit summaries, Smjg labeling GliderMaven's edits vandalism, and GliderMaven calling Smjg's edits "ignorant".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: List of Wimbledon singles finalists during the Open Era (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fyunck(click) (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. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [176]

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

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

Comments:
I was asked on March 22 by ForzaUV to make some formatting changes to four tennis statistics articles [178]. I agreed with the changes, and so implemented them [179]. Fyunck(click) disagreed with them, reverted a couple of the edits [180][181] and started a discussion on one of the articles' talk pages (all fine). There were a couple of back-and-forth reverts before the discussion started where I tried to explain the changes [182][183][184][185], but once the discussion started I made no more, leaving the article in the prior state. In the discussion, Fyunck(click) stayed with his objections, with ForzaUV agreeing with the changes [186]. Fyunck(click) explicitly said that consensus would change to the new format if no-one else chimed in Of course if no one else chimes in that's a different story for an article or two [187]. Two weeks later (April 7) with no further comments having been made, I indicated that I would thus re-instate the changes [188], which I did today (April 13) after having waited another week for anyone else to join in [189]. Against his words, Fyunck(click) reverted again, and then we both reached our 3RR limit, with my edits trying to explain that we had had the necessary discussion already about the formatting of these four articles [190][191][192][193][194]. The last edit summary by Fyunck(click) is crucial: You've reached the 3RR limit now, so start a discussion if you disagree — this is an identical copy of an edit summary I made in a revert of him on a completely unrelated page, WP:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines, earlier today [195]. where another editor had also reverted him. But that summary is complete nonsense here as a discussion *had already occurred*, and I had waited ample time to see if anyone else would object to the changes. The parroting of my comment and continued reverts indicate retaliatory edit-warring by Fyunck(click), against the new consensus, and I therefore request he be sanctioned or blocked. Letcord (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Article protected. First of all, reporting an editor for having reverted three times when one has also done so is inevitably not going to result in a one-sided sanction. Secondly, anyone looking at a discussion would be unconvinced by a weak "consensus" of 2-1 on a different talk page completely. I have protected the page so that a discussion with possibly higher visibility than a few editors can take place. Black Kite (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuing discussion. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not reporting him for having reverted me three times, I'm reporting him for having done so after a discussion had been had and he had said "Of course if no one else chimes in that's a different story for an article or two", and for parroting an edit summary from a different dispute saying "so start a discussion if you disagree", when a discussion had already been had and ended with a 2-1 consensus against him (weak, yes, but a consensus nonetheless). "Different talk page completely" is wrong as the four articles are part of a single set of "Singles finalists at the {Grand Slam}", and it was clear that the discussion was about the whole set as the editor had reverted the same edits on two of them before starting it. It's worth noting that this user spuriously reverted 100+ of my edits on March 15 [196], for which he apologized [197], and the WikiProject Tennis dispute is about him repeatedly reverting changes to the guidelines which reflect a consensus from a broader discussion, so this is all part of a larger pattern of behavior where he just reverts blindly if he disagrees with the outcome of a discussion, rules bedamned. "Protected" achieves nothing as almost nobody other than the three editors already involved comment on tennis statistics article formatting discussions, so the 2–1 consensus should be implemented. Letcord (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I know you're a brand spanking new editor here at Wikipedia, but you seem to be harboring some sort of hate towards me. I'm not sure where it's coming from. I know I admitted and error on a set of reverts and apologized for it but this bit is going too far. The Tennis Project guidelines with your changes are a completely different kettle of fish. Those can't be changed without talk on the Tennis Project talk page. You can be bold and do it once but a note of that change must be placed on the Tennis Project talk page so others at the Project can see and decide whether it's minor or needs project-wide discussion. I did a change recently and posted that change to the Guideline talk page, which you promptly reverted. That was cool and the way it's supposed to work for a Guideline/Essay for all of Tennis Project. What happens at NSPORT has nothing to do with Tennis Project guidelines. That needs to be gone over by our team of editors. You also seem to have missed the discussion I posted on this Wimbledon article. Again I don't know why the anger towards me unless you are not a new editor and have come back with a different handle? You seem to know your way around having started editing only six weeks ago. These things usually work themselves out in time, since we are in no editing hurry, so enjoy the editing world of Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I harbor no hatred toward you or anyone else, but you can imagine that our earlier dispute didn't give me a great first impression. Then you intentionally parrot my edit summary while reverting me after I had unambiguously said "I'm going to reinstate these changes" a week earlier with no comment from you, and you having said earlier "of course if no one else chimes in that's a different story for an article or two". It could only be interpreted as retaliatory for the Tennis Guideline dispute. Letcord (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [198]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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: [199]

Comments: P.S. I know I've filled this out wrong. I'm not a technical person. But the recent page history demonstrates the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ficaia (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Stale
  No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Book of Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JudasMacca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [201]
2. [202]
3. [203]
4. [204]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [205]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [206],WikiProject Judaism posts (comments by User:Doug Weller)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [207]

Comments:
Doug Weller and I have noticed recent disruptive changes to the lede of Book of Genesis, which started on 9 April 2022. The edits are unsourced and verge on preaching, with "nation of peace" "nation of people" wikilinked to nation, etc. In a header, Doug Weller has written "that guy's nuts" on my user talk page. This came to a head with four consecutive reverts within 24 hours, which threatens to continue. I am not sure that this user should be editing wikipedia, given some of Doug Weller's observations on the user's talk page and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism (see above). Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC) (refactored)

My comment about the editor being nuts was in response to this series of edits[208] which among other things said that the ruling feudal families of Europe were black and, writing about the Black Death, "which a particular Caucasian demographic brought in via their migration westward from the caves of the Caucasus Mountains where they were engaging in many vile practices (see Arthur Koestler's book) and the rest of the steppe region of Eurasia, and where they were able to spread diseases due to the aforementioned factors and also their excessive body hair which contained lice...". Note that "Caucasian" above is actually a link to Wild man. I'm not sure if the editor made this up himself or copied it, but in any case I think my question about being nuts was appropriate. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all, if you can spell and are not mentally challenged, I said "nation of PEOPLE" not "nation of peace" so that is just outright slander and injurious speech.

Secondly, the term "Jewish" is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. I have a source which refers to the LORD's chosen people in the Old Testament, particularly Genesis, which is pertinent in this instance, as Israelites. I'll post it eventually, give me some time. I have more sources that talk about this.

Thirdly, the primary source for the accounts that took place in the Scriptures, especially in the book of Genesis, are not in some "Jewish" scholar's text or some sociological handbook, right, it's in the Holy Bible which is the source and derivation of the Israelites as a nation of PEOPLE, again, nation of PEOPLE, not PEACE. You can spell mate, yeah?

Also, just as an aside, you got this dude named "Doug" calling me crazy, haha! Someone that knows absolutely about the Bible or the narrative of the Bible and what this thing is truly about. Oh Lord, ha! JudasMacca (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@JudasMacca: you do know my comment was about edits having nothing to do with the Bible, right? You want to explain those edits? Doug Weller talk 09:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

And back to the Book of Genesis issue, before his latest revert I warned him about changing sourced text, which is exactly what he is doing. The source[209] says "it appears as a narrative account of Judaism' understanding of creation and the origins of the Jewish people." He's changing that to "patriarchs and, in general, the origins of the Israelites as a nation of people". He's interpreting that, which we can't do. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say knows absolutely nothing about the Bible or the narrative, audience, purpose and authorship thereof. JudasMacca (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

And, as to the Black Death and wildman reference, well, do you really want me to bring out all the evidence that I have on the Caucasian coming from the caves of the Caucasus Mountains as well as regions of the Eurasian Steppe.

Just look up the Almas of Mongolia which was documented by travelers speaking about basically beast-men living in a savage state on all fours and extremely hairy. Now ask yourself, when I compare that description to the image of the wild men on the Wikipedia page, aren't the two similar? The answer is yes.

When I say "black" I'm not being literal, I'm using that term colloquially because of all the lies that have run this world and gripped people's mind and understanding of these things. In this case as the proper phraseology would be "so-called" because nobody is black, even the darkest hue in terms of skin color is a very dark brown. That's pseudoscience established for the purpose of the perpetuation of the Caucasian man and his ideology. The same goes for the term "white". You all would be "red" not "white".

As for the so-called black rulership, you really want me to bring out all the evidence on ruling class of Europe in the Middle Ages being so-called black while Caucasians were serfs and in an a very low estate. Do you really want me to do that, cause I can if I'm so inclined to do so. JudasMacca (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as being a disastrously bad fit for an encyclopedia, see all the warnings on their page plus for instance the above discussion and this edit summary ("jew-ish"!). Bishonen | tålk 10:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC).

Page: The Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TitanicFog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[[210]] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Oingo_Boingo_members
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:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SkidMountTubularFrame (talk • contribs)

• 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) 18:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Origins of the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [211]
2. [212]
3. [213]
4. 17:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Contemporaneous explanations */ This quote now includes references from several "secondary" sources, though the existing ones were sufficient; two recent books, and one from John A. Logan, an American politician and soldier, a general in the war. His work on the conflict treats it in broader historico-political terms."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [214]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [215]

Comments:

Although this is slow edit warring, I took it here because I'm deeply worried by their comment ":Even though much recent scholarship on American history suffers from the well-documented politicization of academia"[216] Rsk6400 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the accusation of edit warring is unfounded. I have given a good deal of time and effort over this simple addition of a quote -- one that is not disputed as to accuracy or reliability. At first the reversions of my edit were claimed to have been done because I did not make a proper reference -- that because it appeared in Atlantic Monthly, and I referred to that publication, it was hence unacceptable, even though accurate. I then added a second source, from the NY Times, thinking surely that would be acceptable, but was again informed that it was not. Apparently no matter how many primary sources I added it would still not be enough. I added a third source, one that had been used in other places in the same article thinking that would bring it over the bar of acceptability. It did not. I even pointed out that under Wiki guidelines that sometimes, specifically quotes, primary sources were acceptable. Again, this was rejected. Apparently this is not the case. My last attempt was to rewrite the edit with additional secondary sources -- three of them: Two from recent historians, and one from a Civil War Union General (as noted in my explanation). The edit now has half a dozen sources listed on it.

The person making this accusation seems to be concerned about my view of the state of scholarship in academia, and gives a quote of mine (I suppose it's always nice to see yourself quoted), but that was from a different article, about a different subject, and really has nothing to do with whether this is a valuable addition to the article. I have given my reasons in the talk page on why I think that it is, and these can be reviewed there, though I am certainly willing to elaborate on the case. I indicated on the talk page that I was happy to discuss the matter, and I made quite a number of attempts to accommodate the objections made, even though I disagree with the necessity. It is unfortunate that this has been brought here since I believe all my actions have been made in good faith, something I find quite important in all areas of life, not just Wikipedia. Thank you. Sych (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sychonic is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. (Since April 11 they have restored the Jefferson Davis quotation five times). The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Good faith is not enough; you also need to persuade the other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Hizbul Mujahideen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Drprasad30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "HuM has conducted many terrorist attacks on innocent civilians as per their own claims. Their activity falls under the definition of terrorism. They have been added to terrorist list of all major security forces around the world. You have not produced any evidence to dispute any of those evidences."
2. 03:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "hibzul mujahidin is a terrorist organisation based on us dept of homeland security"
3. 23:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 22:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "/* January 2022 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please note multiple policy violations by Drprasad30 in disregard of multiple warnings – WP:ARBIPA, WP:1RR, and WP:TERRORIST among others.

• Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jackson Carlaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 82.32.196.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "Once again removed the superfluous arithmetic of Alex Carlaw, son and longtime editor of this page. While it is appreciated that the Carlaw family may have an inherent inability to work out simple arithmetic, the rest of us are well aware that 13-7=6, Wiki readers can presumably work it out for themselves. It is requested that Alex stops attempting to dumb down Wiki arithmetic to the Carlaw family level, as the average Wiki reader far surpasses them."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Already warned by many other editors on the user's talk page, and already blocked for vandalism and edit warring. Alex (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 159.196.12.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "Updated page, correct usage of grammar, article and mention for notable people."
2. 11:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "“Notable people” serving 23 years in the army accounts him as such, Leave your PC, touch some grass and leave it alone."
3. 11:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "For the love of god, mods, this is not your family history or tree, Let the drtina family write out own wiki page."
4. 10:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "As a member of the drtina family, i have added more of the family tree which is used for history.

- Jake cody DRTINA"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Drtina."
2. 11:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Drtina."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to add links to nonexistent articles. Has disregarded efforts to discuss. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Note that the IP edits by mobile, and hence presumably has not seen any warnings on their talkpage. On the other hand, they use edit summaries, and appear to see 331dot's edit summary explanations. In any case, blocking them seems the only answer here. Bishonen | tålk 12:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Beast (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sathyalingam (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 03:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC) to 03:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 03:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Box office */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC) to 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 05:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) to 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Box office */"
4. 10:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disruptive editor. Deliberately changes financial data (as seen here) and ignores warnings on talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from article space. Hopefully user begins discussing edits. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [217] 1R of adding unsourced content
2. [218] 2R; adding content that has coverage in a different list article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [219]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [220], User has a long history of refusing to communicate when warned for disruptive edits, adding poorly sourced and unsourced content despite numerous instances/warnings from other editors independent of the article being reported above. See examples [221] [222] [223]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [224]

Comments:
It is evident that User has a history of not engaging with other editors' when warned. It took me some time before bringing it up here just to check if there has been a change in behavior or editing pattern(s). I seem to observe that there is none and warnings have proven to be futile. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. This is apparently a long-term problem and should be taken to WP:ANI. If you do, you should mention that the user never talks. Failure to respond to so many warnings is not conducive to constructive editing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 159.196.12.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "Updated page, correct usage of grammar, article and mention for notable people."
2. 11:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "“Notable people” serving 23 years in the army accounts him as such, Leave your PC, touch some grass and leave it alone."
3. 11:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "For the love of god, mods, this is not your family history or tree, Let the drtina family write out own wiki page."
4. 10:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "As a member of the drtina family, i have added more of the family tree which is used for history.

- Jake cody DRTINA"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Drtina."
2. 11:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Drtina."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to add links to nonexistent articles. Has disregarded efforts to discuss. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Note that the IP edits by mobile, and hence presumably has not seen any warnings on their talkpage. On the other hand, they use edit summaries, and appear to see 331dot's edit summary explanations. In any case, blocking them seems the only answer here. Bishonen | tålk 12:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Beast (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sathyalingam (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 03:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC) to 03:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 03:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Box office */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC) to 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 05:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) to 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Box office */"
4. 10:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disruptive editor. Deliberately changes financial data (as seen here) and ignores warnings on talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from article space. Hopefully user begins discussing edits. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [225] 1R of adding unsourced content
2. [226] 2R; adding content that has coverage in a different list article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [228], User has a long history of refusing to communicate when warned for disruptive edits, adding poorly sourced and unsourced content despite numerous instances/warnings from other editors independent of the article being reported above. See examples [229] [230] [231]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [232]

Comments:
It is evident that User has a history of not engaging with other editors' when warned. It took me some time before bringing it up here just to check if there has been a change in behavior or editing pattern(s). I seem to observe that there is none and warnings have proven to be futile. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. This is apparently a long-term problem and should be taken to WP:ANI. If you do, you should mention that the user never talks. Failure to respond to so many warnings is not conducive to constructive editing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Seth Rollins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Holliganman123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

Holliganman123 was blocked for edit warring on this article less than a week ago, report here. He has now resumed edit warring since his unblock, adding the same disputed content. Editor refuses to communicate on either his own talk page or the article talk page (and in fact has never used a talk page). Looking at their contributions they appear to be a WP:SPA — Czello 07:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Update User has reverted again. — Czello 12:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. Long term warring, continued on the same article after a previous block. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: North Moreton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 78.70.161.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [233]
2. [234]
3. [235]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [237]

Comments:

Wasn't sure how best to deal with this. User:78.70.161.206 is repeatedly adding unencyclopaedic comment about the motives of those hosting Ukrainian refugees in the village of North Moreton and reverting my removal of it. Has attempted to defend their interpretation on my talk page and Talk:North Moreton and has reverted my removal of the information three times, though they have toned down the opinionated comment a bit since their initial edits. Has accused me of living in North Moreton (I don't and never have) and being involved in the hosting (I'm not). Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP user has been editorializing in article space, posting a complaint about the actions of the local authorities who decided to house refugees. The IP editor states that 'right-thinking British people' were disgusted by the actions of the village. If the IP continues with personal attacks a block may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Kurdistan Workers' Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1083389999 by Semsûrî (talk) Stop distruptive editing. You should obey the NPOV WP:SUMMARY rules"
2. 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1083387914 by Paradise Chronicle (talk) Wikipedia:NPOV"
3. 14:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "this article is about a terrorist organization, and according to being neutral (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and lead has this brief information. Just unduing this edit is not helping others who are trying to understand what is PKK"
4. 14:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "According to the rest of the article this first paragraph has to be citiation of being terrorist organization. Adding this information to summary isn't againts being neutral. This is talked lots of times in article. Please consider that this is an international page, not just a Kurdish reviewers page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Kurdistan Workers' Party."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

POV-pushing editor who has been reverted and warned by at least two users now. It has also been explained why their edits are problematic but they use the editing guidelines to their own liking (and erroneously). A case of NOTHERE and it seems the 3RR has also been breached. Semsûrî (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The accusations about "editing" do not reflect the truth, According to Wikipedia WP:SUMMARY and Wikipedia:NPOV rules this page should contain brief information in a neutral way about rest of the page. The undoings the editing breaks the NPOV. Ermancetin (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The talk discussion is open. Without talking in the discussion page, editings shouldn't be undo. This is clearly breaking Wikipedia:NPOV Ermancetin (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Early life */Added content"
2. 15:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Early life */Added content"
3. 08:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Early life */Added content to be a more accurate article"
4. 21:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Early life */Fixed typo"
5. 16:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Early life */Fixed typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• And since filing this, they've reverted again despite a talk page section being open. CUPIDICAE💕 16:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Make that 8 reverts now. CUPIDICAE💕 16:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24h firefly ( t · c ) 16:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Candace Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NikolaosFanaris (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: Several recent instances, 3 April, this is failure to observe BRD, content was reverted by 3rd editor NF makes original add[274]

other editor reverts [275] NF restores [276]

The next article edit is a second editor reverting. [277]

Starting 13 April

NF adds "alt-right" to lead 24 Feb [278] and is reverted [279]

1. NF Adds "far-right" and citations to opening sentence [280] Given 24 Feb edit this is a revert vs a new edit

Other editor reverts [281]

2. NF restores disputed edit [282]

other editor reverts "far-right" (leaves citations) [283]

• Editor is warned about edit warring [284] and discretionary sanctions [285]

NF self reverts [286]

other editor removes disputed content [287]

3. NF again restores [288]

The final edit is just over 24hr but is part of a pattern of combative editing based on the assumption that consensus is required to remove new content and editors who don't agree are acting in bad faith (see similar behavior here [289]). This is a new editor with around 100 total edits.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion to resolve issue [290] The combination of bad faith accusations and edit warring is problematic. For example, "I just re-read Springee's original post. It is quite misleading to claim that the two sources I added cannot be accessed because of paywall." The articles in question are behind a paywall. "calling the GAL/TAN scale 'POV' shows that you don't understand political science. " No one said the GAL/TAN scale was POV.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [291]

Comments:

I reversed the removal of cited content which occured without consensus in the discussion page. Therefore, I acted on attempts by Springee to vandalise the article. In regards to the second point, Springee appears to demonstrate a history of removing similar labels (especially the far-right one) in Republican-related articles [1]. For the record, I never used the alt-right one - that's misleading. He did refer to the label and the GAL/TAN scale as POV to justify their removal. His contribution is open to interpretations, but a thorough look at the discussion page can verify my claims [2]. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Added "alt-right" to lead [292]. Springee (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• The filing editor Springee has also violated 1RR:
  • 07:34 15 April 2022: Reverting 15:09 14 April 2022 edit by X-Editor
  • 07:36 15 April 2022: Reverting 15:00 14 April 2022 edit by X-Editor

I'm not sure that Springee's edits rise to the level of vandalism, but there does appear to be some whitewashing/stonewalling going on. For example here they claim that an actual quote of Owens "does not really clarify her views on the subject", and that the opposing RS view is somehow undue. This looks like an effort to undermine the contested "far right" label by removing sources that support it. And Springee has been here long enough to know that a source being behind a WP:PAYWALL is not a legitimate complaint. All involved should be mindful of the 1RR restriction. –dlthewave ☎ 16:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect though it is interesting that once again you have shown up to a notice board discussion that doesn't involve you but does involve me. Anyway, I made a series of 3 edits that were meant to be back to back. FN reverted one of the edits as I was making the 3rd. Note the edits are just 2 minutes apart (07:34 and 07:36) and FN's edits occurred at 07:34 and 07:35. Are you really going to claim that as edit warring when I could have made all three changes as 1 edit? Your other claims are an attempt to poison the well rather than a reasonable description of both the edits and the concerns raised on the talk page. Finally, I did not say that content behind a paywall is unusable. Rather the paywall makes WP:V difficult for other editors (see my diff here[293] "...requiring a subscription. That doesn't mean those sources are unusable.") Please do not falsely accuse me of claiming sources behind a paywall are not usable when that is clearly not what I said. Springee (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what point you were (and still are) trying to make about the paywall, but I never "(accused you) of claiming sources behind a paywall are not usable". Please either strike that statement or provide a diff where I said that. –dlthewave ☎ 15:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks like whataboutism and in any case is not equivalent: it's obvious those were intended to be edits in a row (which count as one revert per WP:3RR). Those latter two edits are perfectly in line with good faith editing. The WP:ONUS for inclusion lies with inclusionists, always has. Quotepicking can still be bad or UNDUE, and removing sources that are redundant is fine (the label "far-right" was already gone). Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

One structural note, NikolaosFanaris when you said "reversed the removal of cited content which occurred without consensus" that implies that citing gives a material a special status that then requires a consensus to remove. Sourcing or sourcability is a requirement for all article space content and does not give it special status such as requiring a consensus for removal. In reality (potential) removal is guided by other policies and guidelines, those centering around wp:burden and wp:BLP being amongst those being very applicable here. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure - but I still think that the removal should be considered vandalism and POV, hence my reversals. Springee deliberately removed cited content that was backed by reputable sources and contained actual quotes. I sense heavy POV behind some of actions, including the continuous removal of the far-right label. Owens' ideology sits on that side of the political spectrum - there is absolutely no doubt about that. Everything in the views' section already points towards that direction, but somehow this is debated by one user who has a history of removing labels in WP. First the label, and now the removal of actual quotes. Please read WP:IMPARTIAL NikolaosFanaris (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The common meaning of "far right" in the US is either the whackiest, most extreme end of that political spectrum or else a pejorative term applied to any conservative by a political opponent. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the aggressive statement, which is clearly targeting me, I have to point out that top academic journals have been used to back the term in the case of CO. I don't care how you or anyone else in the American context use the term. Those are all hypothetical scenarios. With that said, we are currently participating in this encyclopedia and my understanding is that we have to somehow(?) value political science and terminology. And to answer to your previous statement: no, you are wrong! Far-right does not automatically imply (even in the American context!) that someone is sitting on the most extreme end of the political spectrum. That's called extremism (or extreme-right) and is not always related to the far-right family. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

My statements do not devalue political science And we do summarize what is is said in (hopefully good) sources, and summaries are typically done using the common meanings of terms, so those are relevant. My post was also pointing out two different context-sensitive meanings in sources; such may assist in that effort. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a volatile statement and implies that I am adding the far-right label (backed by academic sources) as a pejorative term: The common meaning of "far right" in the US is either the whackiest, most extreme end of that political spectrum or else a pejorative term applied to any conservative by a political opponent. Nothing more, nothing less. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

First, adding to my previous post, regarding your statement that far right does not mean the most extreme end of that political spectrum, IMO that assertion obviously doesn't sound correct.North8000 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Next the first statement in your post makes two claims about me. 1. That I said that in this case it is a pejorative term. I didn't say that, but agree with it. 2. That I implied a certain motivation of yours for making the addition. I did not say or imply that. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Which proves my point that you don't really understand this terminology. The difference between far-right and extreme (or radical) right lies in the ideological compliance with liberal democracy. In most cases, the far-right term is able to accurately describe ultraconservative actors or parties who still operate within those limits. On the other hand, radical or extreme right indicates strong undemocratic notions and a highly authoritarian stance. With that said, I believe that the majority of authors who have come here to accuse me of reversals are driven by clear POV and a lack of understanding of terminology, which shows that certain ideological criteria may cloud their judgmement. To give you a different example, I don't understand astrophysics, which means that I would never express an opinion on such theories. But most importantly, I would never go around trying to enforce my opinion on other OR accuse users I disagree with of attacking conservatives by using a certain terminology. In regards to Candace Owens - no she is not a conservative anymore - she is actually ultraconservative, which effectively makes her far-right because of her clear ideological approach. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

NF accusing others of "vandalism" is a bad sign, as is the stonewalling in this back-and-forth as linked above. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree that saying or implying "vandalism" and other negative generalizations and implying bad motives about another editor is out-of-line at best. IMO doubly so about an editor who, from what I've seen has been has been a cautious, courteous and very Wikipedian editor. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but lots of editors don't understand our strict definition of that term. Bad, but not an ongoing behavioral problem. That link you cite, Crossroads, comes after a very long thread in which the issue has been identified clearly several times. For that editor to clueless ask "what's the problem here?" is a lazy, incompetent, or disingenuous question. I can understand the accused's frustration and snarky response. Not an ongoing crime either. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not vandalism per SPECIFICO. What I'm seeing is a relatively new editor who is not as familiar with the ground rules as they should be, especially when editing the highly volatile AP2 topic area and even more so when it's a BLP. A firm word of caution would definitely help but if it doesn't, then a 6-month t-ban would allow time for the new editor to learn NPOV, BLP, dispassionate tone, REDFLAG, NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and the difference between media opinion and statements of fact. Atsme 💬 📧 20:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: given that they decided to bull-in-china-shop with these exact same issues at Lauren Boebert [294] while this discussion was active, I think a t-ban to encourage them to get experience in a less volatile area is looking increasingly like the best option. They're just not listening. VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, VQuakr. DIDNTHEARTHAT is an undesirable position to be in. I was not aware of the other BLP, but after some research, I am now inclined to agree with you. Atsme 💬 📧 01:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme:...aaaand they're edit warring there, too. [295]. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Inclined to support a six month ban because I simply moved the label, which was already mentioned in the article, further up in the intro? Is that how bans are proposed? How is this even an issue? [1] I think I am being attacked unfairly here without serious evidence. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you didn't just move it. You changed it from "per such and such source" to a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE, which is policy. This has already been explained to you, but rather than learn or ask for clarification you're continuing to edit war. Which means you aren't experienced enough (or don't have the patience in general) to be editing WP:BLP's. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO, for their own wiki-benefit and than of Wikipedia NikolaosFanaris needs to learn how the the alternate universe of Wikipedia works before they try to jump in so heavily on difficult political articles. @NikolaosFanaris:, in the event that you agree, do you have an idea on a self-administered plan to do that? If not I would suggest a tban on the articles in question which might be an impetus for the described evolution and also solve the immediate issue at the article raised here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I will not edit Boebert's page again, but I am not going to back down on Owens. There is some consensus on the talk page anyway. Cheers. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. I propose a close with trouts for OP and the accused. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What did I do? FN violated 1rr and shown a battleground attitude. At minimum a warning is in order. Springee (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Trout's a warning. You reported a newbie, overreacted on talk page and with needless EW report. Neither did anything too terrible. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Are you for real RN? NF's most recent post here [296] is a commitment to keep edit warring, and the OP did exactly what they're supposed to. VQuakr (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's misleading - I never said I will keep edit warring. I said that I will pursue my request for the far-right label. You need to chill bro 🤭 NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

NF is continuing to edit war and restoring disputed edits without consensus [297]. I think a block or similar is in order. Springee (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading and immoral statement by Springee. I brought back academic sources from reliable journals that were removed by them without explanation [1]. He brought up two irrelevant reasons: cite-overkill and paywall. Nobody disagreed in the discussion page about the academic sources as they have been used here to back the claim that CO is an influencer! Not sure what Springee is trying to achieve here, but this is getting close to character assassination. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Does the edit have consensus? If it was removed without explanation then why would you cite (incorrectly I will add) my explanations? Springee (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Springee, you ignored my direct question to you concerning the central issue with respect to sourcing. I don't see that you are engaging in good faith on the talk page. You are both repeating yourselves and drowning out any chance of constructive progress. I've opened a new section on the talk page and you should both take a trout and move on. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Cause the only disagreement came from you. Both explanations are misleading and untruthful. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking through the article history, several editors including Springee and NikolaosFanaris have repeatedly added and removed reliably-sourced content and sources that might be viewed as critical of Owens. Calling for a tban based on a small 1RR violation and making accusations of POV pushing, when Springee's own behavior is very similar even though they insist it did not cross the 1RR line, is not a good look and has the effect, if not the intention, of trying to remove a voice that they disagree with. I would note that Springee is once again pushing back against the paywalled source, claiming that "The problem with the part wall sources (sic) is we don't know if they actually support what NF claims" [298] which is very concerning behavior from an experienced editor. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I can't help but notice that you seem to come out of no where when I report an editor for something like this. When you come out of no where you invariably make excuses or downplay the behavior of the other editor and try to find a reason why I'm at fault. I'm also noticing that you are falsely presenting my paywall argument. My concern is that, without being able to read the reports, I can't see if they actually support the claims in question. Endwise did have access to the reports and confirmed my concerns [299]. It is false to claim I refuse to allow sources that are behind a paywall. However, it is quite reasonable for editors to challenge claims that can't be readily verified when the editor making the claim is making blanket statements vs providing detailed quotes. That isn't "very concerning behavior", it is very reasonable concern. Springee (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is in the edit warring page and about an alleged edit warring violations on a 1RR article and an allegation that it is continuing. I see a lot of stuff that is off of that topic, including unfounded accusations of the reporter (including of vandalism, "character assassination", and of making an immoral statement) Also seeming to say that it's OK to edit war if the person feels that it's a good edit. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Springee has needlessly and vacuously been provoking a vulnerable inexperienced editor when one as experienced as Springee should be addressing the core problem and trying to engage and deescalate. And boomerang is never off limits. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • If you aren't going to also block them, then where's the boomerang for Springee? It's well-deserved. Whitewashing is a serious NPOV violation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

What are you on about? There's nothing warranting a warning for the reporter here, let alone a block. VQuakr (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Har Mar Superstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kingcutie (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 22:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC) to 22:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
   2. 22:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC) to 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
   2. 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */"
3. 22:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC) to 22:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */"
   2. 22:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
5. 21:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */"
6. 21:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Har Mar Superstar."
2. 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Har Mar Superstar."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Repeatedly edit-warring to a version which is POV (calling allegations "community hysteria") and lumps the allegations together with an unrelated sentence about sobriety and promoting his album. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @HarMarSuperstarred, who has also been reverting on this article (to the other version which I prefer) but has stopped since I opened a thread on the talk page and informed HarMarSuperstarred about 3RR. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There are now two IPs continuing the edit war with Kingcutie, 23.88.128.115 and 68.168.182.136; I have given both edit warring warnings. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Kingcutie: Blocked – for a period of one week due not only to this recent edit-warring, but the harassment of other users and a pattern of long-term disruption; account seems to be an SPA with an alleged family connection to the article subject. If the software allowed a longer-term partial block to be imposed on the page and talk page in addition to this sitewide block, I would have done that too and I recommend.

23.88.128.115: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for a clear 3RR vio. I did not block 68.168.182.136 because their activity is too minimal and only one edit really seems to have been a revert.

Should this continue I think page protection may be in order. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Libs of TikTok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.196.104.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [300]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [301] "→‎Background Tag: Reverted"
2. [302] "‎Should we dox everybody with whom we disagree? Tag: Reverted"
3. [303] "Sensitive and unverified personal information should not be on a wikipedia article that is among the first hits when one google searches 'libs of tiktok' Tag: Reverted"
4. [304] "Sensitive and unverified personal information should not be published on a wikipedia article that is among the first hits when one google searches 'libs of tiktok' Tag: Reverted"
5. [305] "personal information, unverified, sensitive, very clearly endangering to her life Tags: Reverted references removed"
6. [306] "Tags: Reverted references removed"
7. [307] "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources." Tags: Manual revert Reverted references removed"
8. [308] "sensistive and unverified personal information, currently being used to launch a doxxing campaign Tags: Manual revert Reverted references removed"

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [309]

Comments:
All this IP's contributions are reverts of a single page, today. Wnjr (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [N/A, Sorry I have never done this and I am doing my best]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [310]
2. [311]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [N/A]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [312]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [313]

Comments:

I think this user is blocking other edits on these pages even when they welcome more information as some parts are especially light in context and resources like the roasts section of Espresso. (which is even mentioned in the talk page) Weirdwiki64 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a linkspamming WP:SPA upset that they aren't being allowed to include their links. Suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. - MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Weirdwiki64, Mr.Ollie Did not yet Violate WP:3RR There was only two edits to Espresso machine by Mr.Ollie. Most likely this report is malformed. Chip3004 (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

• revert #5 after post here.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC) "Why you reverted my edit without reason? I'm just obeying policies, linking that way the languages go against a policy, and to make it clear I'M JUST FOLLOWING POLICIES."
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC) to 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC) "I learned that link the dialect but just as the language Ex. English go against MOS:PIPE and WP:EASTEREGG"
   2. 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC) "Please for more information see this section in my talk page"
3. 02:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC) "But United States is not linked, I do as possible to link both."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC) "/* What to do when your edit is reverted */ new section"
2. 02:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC) "/* What to do when your edit is reverted */ Reply"
3. 02:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Stop changes across to infobox languages mass amount of articles */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Sea of Blue */ Reply"

Comments:

We are having an ongoing problem across many articles with mass amount of reverts. Main problem is the change of dialects in infoboxes across multiple articles eg. As a new editor I was hoping for the best..... but the fact that 90% of the edits are reverted leads us here. Moxy- 02:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Forgive me, I was confused: A user told me not to link the dialect as the language, only the language (I edited like this: French, and he also told me that I have to put two lines (I edited like this Filipino • English), and you tell me that I have to put the linked dialect as the language, which is ? So please can you tell me how do I have to edit? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

pls slow down......90 % of your edits have been reverted..... you have been invited to multiple talk pages to discuss the situation to no avail.... you just keep re implementing the same edits over and over again on multiple articles despite being reverted by multiple editors. Pls slow down.

. Moxy- 02:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

But please explain to me how I should edit those pages that I intend to edit, my head is spinning from confusion. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Some users tell me how I have to edit it and you say the opposite, what is it then? What shape do I have to put it? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If you're confused you just stop editing till you understand the concerns..... don't just blindly revert everyone. Don't you think it's odd that you have to change all these articles from a dialect to generic article. Moxy- 02:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Concerns? What do you mean? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 02:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have a concern: I have no idea what you are doing, and why, and I have another concern--that you do not know what you are doing. On top of that, instead of learning, you are edit warring. I'm not going to block because it's my bedtime, but the next admin might well block you--and they might block you indefinitely for a lack of competence and edit warring despite that. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

But I just applied that they told me, the way that I have to edit, I wasn’t making edit war that much so please don't fire me from Wikipedia, I was just following what you guys were telling me but got confused by a user who told me the opposite. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 03:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't buy this. Someone told you to just revert an experienced editor? "Us guys" are telling you to stop edit warring. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Are they new? {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roald_Dahl&diff=prev&oldid=1083482500 odd edit for new editor]. Moxy- 03:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I explained to you what happens when you get reverted why are you not joining conversations about this? Moxy- 03:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right, why didn't I think about it before? I can talk on the discussion page about what I pretend to edit in those countries pages and I’m gonna talk to reach a consensus, there my concerns can be clarified, please I apologize. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 03:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I am too, but too confused, I applied in my edits what a user told me, but you took it as an edit war, and a user told me the opposite. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 03:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think they’re new. Their prose style, faux English as a second language, and their general approach remind me very much of an earlier troll. Just can’t place them. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not what these three comments are about, so I will start a new thought. TheEncyclopediaReader has amassed more than 3000 edits in just under a wee; many have been reverted and many of the rest probably could be. The edit war on Canada may have been innocent, but outing themself as an IP editor seems to explain how the editor became proficient. I do not think we are dealing with an entirely new editor. I am inferring that Moxy may also think we have a block evader. With no evidence, I will assume good faith and we just have a prolific new editor.

As for the "policies" TheEncyclopediaReader, I assume we have an editor who is rule-based and may be referring to manuals of style, guidelines or even template documentation. Three reverts in under 24 hours does not violate WP:3RR, so I say no violation, but there is a bit of gaming going on and close to WP:NOTHERE behaviour. I am tempted to request lenience, particularly since it does not seem this editor is a native English speaker, but a short topic ban from geographic articles may be worthwhile. Either that or a WP:1RR on those topics, at least until TheEncyclopediaReader gains a bit more competency.

I would, however, like to see who these editors who have supposedly been offering TheEncyclopediaReader advice are, and what advice they are offering. @TheEncyclopediaReader: can you please supply diffs or at least links to this advice? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

See the user's talk page for some of it. I will admit I was getting annoyed and frustrated with their ultimately rapid disruptive editing changing lists to single line with a hard coded circle bullet in between and altering long standing links to languages in official languages to be dialects when the "official" doesn't specify a dialect and general disruption around languages. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz Of course I tell you the users that teached me, Canterbury Tail teached me the policies of MOS:PIPE and WP:EASTEREGG, and also he teached me that making this for example: Filipino • English can be confusing for others, the two lines are more common to use, and I said OK and as you can see I applied in a lot of articles, and you sirs you took it as a disruptive edition when nothing else was following a policy. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 14:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TheEncyclopediaReader is still engaging in edit-warring. [314] They are also clearly incapable of communicating properly in the English language: see here [315] where they start a thread with a confusing word-salad that nobody would be able to make head nor tail of without reading through their editing history. If we aren't being trolled here (which I'd have to suggest is a real possibility), we are dealing with someone simply lacking the necessary skill in English to be able to usefully contribute to the English-language Wikipedia. Competence is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Is not gibberish, I'm just saying what I intend to edit so as not to get into big trouble, but I also asked how he edited it and also told an anecdote, I hope you already understand. TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 19:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, see this edit. [316] If that isn't trolling, it is a monumental display of incompetence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Good call. KJP1 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: John Lee Hooker discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.98.138.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [317]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [318]
2. [319]
3. [320]
4. [321]
5. [322]
6. [323]
7. [324]
8. [325]
9. [326]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [327]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [328]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [329]

Comments:
User previously blocked for edit warring as IP 62.98.130.202 Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. This is a war about chart positions. The IP claims that a certain song reached #1 in the US but this can't be confirmed from any reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: The Blacklist (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dibol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please pardon me. This is my first time doing this, and I am otherwise not directly involved—I only stumbled upon it while going to the article (The Blacklist (TV series)) to make some changes. This is what has apparently been going on in the last three days between the two editors in question (note the ad hominem bscenity):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Blacklist_(TV_series)&action=history

I'm looking for a wiser, more knowledgeable, higher placed head to handle this, rather than potentially botching it on my own. I've just checked the talk pages of the article in question Debresser, and I do not find any discussion about this, though there is this history of a deleted comment on Dibol's talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dibol&diff=1083824617&oldid=1083810886

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dibol&diff=next&oldid=1083824617

I apologize if I am overstepping, or doing something else wrong.

I will place the notices on the talk pages of the editors in question immediately after I finish this comment. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Or not, as I've realized that they should have been sent notices by my using their wikilinked usernames in the title of this section. Please correct me if I am mistaken. —DocWatson42 (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

refiled for you PAVLOV (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• 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) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: The Blacklist (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC) "Fuck you @Debresser"
2. 19:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1083792735 by Debresser (talk)"
3. 23:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC) "Reverted bad faith editing. I did say temporary basis within the context of the episode he was promoted."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Blacklist (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

@DocWatson42: refiled for you. PAVLOV (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 6 months. 9 prior blocks for edit warring, plus the compounding incivility and personal attacks, is sufficient. We've seen enough from this person for a while. --Jayron32 16:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: List of airlines of Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 90.186.249.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "because you are ignorant about theme, airline since long sold out"
2. 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "Undo without a reason"
3. 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "Baufaker"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Prove it */ new section"

Comments:

This user engaged in edit wars in pages. List of airlines of Brazil and Antonov Airlines PAVLOV (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll add 15:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "Undo without a reason" onto the pile of this user's reverts. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! PAVLOV (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked User has a history dating back several days, several warnings (since read and removed). It's time to take a break. --Jayron32 16:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• FWIW, based on behaviour (pages edited, edits made, talk-wiping behaviour, no edit summaries, hostile responses), I believe this is a continuation of the same editor at IP 188.96.90.68. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Black and white cookie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:8800:2004:8100:48BB:73BD:784:F435/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "/* In Popular Culture */Lmao I couldnt care less about what a literally who wants/prefers. This is the FREE encyclopedia. Meaning, free flow of information"
2. 14:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "/* In Popular Culture */Clarified header to allow for the inclusion of more information. Yes I made my talk page post. Thank you"
3. 14:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "/* In Popular Culture */This is what it is. Its all popular culture. So why not change it to popular culture so we can have more information than just three different quotes? Ive looked at the edit history and every time someone would put anything remotely interesting it would get erased. Just because this is ONLY allowed to be about racism. Free encyclopedia huh?"
4. 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "/* In Popular Culture */Fixed header to welcome the inclusion of more information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning, 13:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussed here

Comments:

• Blocked 48 hours. --Jayron32 16:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Morbius (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:17, 21 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1083950686 by Earthh (talk): This critic's single review is not indicative of anything, and we already have a reception section stacked with disproprotionate Leto praise. Please take this to the talk."
2. 18:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1083946133 by 196.4.56.11 (talk): Source is not derivative of RT and does not attribute its specific claims to RT."
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC) to 03:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC) "+Times of India +Yahoo News"
   2. 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UCT) "/* ‎Critical response */"
   3. 17:48, 21 April 2022 (UCT)
   4. 17:52, 21 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1083939609 by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk): Reverting; my edit summary was not added for some reason?"
   5. 17:54, 21 April 2022 (UCT) "WP:BOLD changes per WP:RS and WP:LEDE. Removing praise of Leto from lede as we have conflicting sources on this. Removing direct citations, which are generally not put in ledes. Including specific details rather than citing to RT directly; we have multiple outlets to draw from here now."
4. 23:24, 19 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1083646967 by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk): Please take this to the talk, where discussion is ongoing"
5. 23:13, 19 April 2022 (UCT) "No consensus, and new wording actually ERASES reliably sourced stuff"
6. 03:06, 19 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1083394828 by Indagate (talk): Not properly sourced"
7. 12:40, 18 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1083330002 by Endwise (talk): Reviews were not "generaly" negative, and Leto's performance was not broadly praised."
8. 01:21, 17 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1083039710 by AbsolutelyFiring (talk): Inaccurate."
9. 19:55, 15 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1082895033 by Erik (talk): Ongoing talk discussion"
10. 14:30, 15 April 2022 (UCT) "Don’t lie about what sources say, Earthh. That second source doesn’t praise Leto."
11. 17:04, 14 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1082704825 by AbsolutelyFiring (talk): Not supported by sources"
12. 02:04, 14 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1082558229 by Evope (talk)"
13. 18:12, 13 April 2022 (UCT) "You adding the Leto praise yourself and revert anyone who removes it, {{u|User:Earthh}}. There is no consensus for including this - please continue discussing on the talk page, where you can make your case far more successfully than through edit warring to include it."
14. 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UCT) "Please take this to the talk. There's no consensus and the claim directly contradicts sources"
15. 16:34, 12 April 2022 (UCT) "continue to object to singling out leto's performance for praise when an equal or greater number of reviews actively criticized it"
16. 01:26, 8 April 2022 (UCT) "Restored revision 1081527406 by GoingBatty (talk): Please take this to the talk"
17. 20:47, 7 April 2022 (UCT) "Leto's also received criticism, so I'm not sure mentioning it as praiseworthy is accurate"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:31, 13 April 2022 (UCT)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:04, 8 April 2022 (UCT) "Morbius: new section"

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

Comments:
I have noticed disruptive changes to the lead section of Morbius (film), which started on 7 April 2022. A first attempt to discuss was attempted on the user's talk page, but there has been no willingness to engage there. I warned the user not to continue edit-warring but I was equally ignored as my post was removed from his talkpage (which I incorrectly restored having misinterpreted WP:BLANKING; later another user explained it to me). Erik and I then tried to discuss on the article talk page, but were met with hostility as well. The user is doing inappropriate, accusatory edit summaries [330][331][332]; he is reverting multiple users who object to his edits [333][334][335][336], removing a reliably sourced and neutral statement without any acceptable reason [337][338][339] and refusing to contribute constructively to the talk page discussion in order to try to resolve the issue [340][341]. I don't want to keep edit-warring with him but he specifically said he is not going to stop [342].--Earthh (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool, let's look at your edit history here. On March 31, Earthh made this edit to the page claiming Leto's performance was praised. This edit was almost immediately reverted by Zvig47.

Since then, Earthh has made the following reverts to protect this inclusion:

• 14:01 March 31 reverted edit by Zvig47
• 14:32 March 31 reverted edit by JoeBro
• 10:05 April 6 reverted edit by Reckonerbahbahbah
• 17:50 April 6 reverted edit by AbsolutelyFiring
• 20:36 April 7 reverted edit by me
• April 8 reverted edit by Sekyaw

At this point, Earthh declared their edit to be "consensus" and demanded that it stay in place per WP:EDITCON - clearly ignoring WP:BRD, which would suggest they go to the talk page at any point here. They have since:

• 07:08 April 13 reverted AbsolutelyFiring
• 13:13 April 13 reverted AbsolutelyFiring again
• 14:34 April 15 reverted my additions to critical reception, sourced to reliable sources
• 18:43 April 19 reverted my changes to lede
• 19:19 April 19 reverted to keep his changes to lede
• 12:28 April 21 reverted to keep his changes to lede
• 14:14 April 21 reverted lede
• 14:46 April 21 reverted my addition of new sources to critical reception
• 14:57 April 21 again reverted to keep new source in critical reception out

Earthh is engaging in WP:OWNERSHIP of the article by forcing their changes through, declaring them to be consensus despite them being removed by other editors (six of them, in fact), and now, reporting another user for edit warring. Rather than returning to consensus lead during discussion, Earthh insists that their changes must remain. They appear to be attempting to brute force their changes into the article - it's bad-faith editing and I'm not sure how to resolve it. I have reiterated multiple times on the talkpage that I am open to creating a lede that includes praise for Leto, provided it also mentions the negative reception his performance received; it's a shame Earthh won't engage on the matter. Toa Nidhiki05 23:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Julia Haart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.190.206.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [343]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [344]
2. [345]
3. [346]
4. [347]
5. [348]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [349]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [350]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [351]

Comments:
71.190.206.215 has repeatedly included violations of the WP:BLP policy. A lengthy explanation, including the importance of reliable sources, has not stopped the issue. KyleJoan^talk 02:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have never exceeded 3 reverts in 24 hours. I used the revert function to get back my edits in order to subsequently change them to accommodate the previous revert reason. So, practically they were not reverts, but constructive contributions to improve the art. according to prior suggestions. As the results many of my contributions to the art. still remain in its body. They are added details, improved phrases, and added citations. As a result the art. is much better in comparison to its content prior to my 1st edit. I understand that improvements are not an excuse to exceed 3 reverts in 24 hrs, but that never happened. The art. is still not neutral, but closer than before.

On the other hand the reverts by @Praxidicae: and @KyleJoan: are w/o explanation at all (WP:Vandalism#Blanking, illegitimate) or inconsistent w/ WP's polices, such as WP:NEWSORG, WP:PUS, and obviously WP:GOODFAITH (as discussed on my talk) page qualifying both of them for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring review, instead of me. Additionally, @Praxidicae: was doing the same to my edits of Salt Lake Tabernacle. He did not add a single word to that art., only reverted. His reverts were in violation of MOS:LEAD (+ WP:GOODFAITH) despite being given explanations of its meaning. Multiple explanations were given to @KyleJoan: in regard to WP:NEWSORG and WP:PUS. The reverts of both of them showed bias against PR Newswire despite allowed by WP:NEWSORG and WP:PUS, as consistent w/ WP:RS under 2 conditions, which both were met in this case.

It is impossible to seek a compromise with editors who do not understand WP's rules and only revert while not accepting explanations of WP's rules their reverts violate. They do not want to compromise, but to eliminate editors they disagree with, as this report to this board additionally testifies for. My last edit to Julia Haart was constructive. It provided the reason given for her firing, which had been already mentioned there previously, but w/o explanation. It also set up the sequence of firing vs filling the divorce papers, both of which already there, but w/o telling which was 1st. Those details are important to give a neutral picture of the otherwise distorted events. W/o them she may look like a greater victim that she actually seems according to all sources, incl. legitimate in this case PR Newswire. @KyleJoan: did not accept those explanations and also accused me of giving undue weight while those encyclopedic details were essential to complete otherwise biased info already there.

Please, remove the warnings given to me by @Praxidicae: and @KyleJoan: on my talk, as unsubstantiated, unfair, and self-serving.--71.190.206.215 (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, every single one of my edits to that article, save for the first which restored Mk17b's version (which said "please provide an RS") had adequate edit summaries with links to relevant policies and guidelines. The idea that including more personal details of her divorce and firing dubiously sourced somehow lends itself to more balance or being more encyclopedic is laughable. I also haven't touched the article in 5 days. CUPIDICAE💕 13:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It is "remarkable" (euphemistically speaking) that @Praxidicae: mentions somebody's edit summary ("Mk17b's") for his own reverts. It is just offensive when considering that "Blanking, illegitimate" describes in detail importance of edit summary when reverting. My 2nd edit at 19:41, 13 April 2022‎ included the <ref name="Women'sHealth1"> citation, which still remains in the art. and thus must be consistent w/ WP:RS. His statement that [t]he idea that including more personal details of her divorce and firing dubiously sourced somehow lends itself to more balance or being more encyclopedic is laughable is arbitrary and w/o any connection to the WP:BLP policy. It, together w/ his similar difficulties w/ WP:RS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:PUS, MOS:LEAD, WP:GOODFAITH, and absence of explanations of how WP's policies were violated, rather suggests inability to properly justify any revert (except absence of RS) or maybe even to form any proper justification at all. His subsequent edit summaries also indicate that he believes that naming a WP's policy, as a justification, is sufficient w/o providing how.

@Praxidicae: never related to the requirements of the WP:BLP of following only WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, incl. WP:BLPBALANCE. He effectively calls them "laughable" w/o even knowing that. Elaborating in the art. in several sentences on the alleged Haart leadership's achievements w/o quoting that fin. distress they resulted in was stated as the reason for her termination, but mentioning the termination, is unbalanced. Stating that she was fired and she filed for a divorce on the same day w/o saying which was 1st is unbalanced, as may suggest that she was fired after filling. Calling those encyclopedic details "laughable" indicates unfamiliarity w/ WP:BLP's WP:BLPBALANCE euphemistically speaking. As @Praxidicae: was not able to justify his reverts by stating how they violated any WP's policy, seemed unfamiliar w/ WP:BLP and other WP's policies, and could not produce an argument in re: of WP's policies, esp. WP:BLP, how anything he wrote can be considered as evidence in this proceeding against me and not against his violations of numerous WP's policies, as abovementioned?! The word "laughable" will not do against me, but does against him.

Please, state whether or not under WP:NEWSORG or WP:PUS the following sources were reliable: (A) PR Newswire used at 20:39, 17 April 2022, (B) PageSix used at 19:41, 13 April 2022 as just facts provider, like PR Newswire, quoted inside ‎the <ref name="Women'sHealth1"> citation, which still remains in the art., and just accompanying <ref name="Women'sHealth1"> citation, i.e not standing alone, (C) Yahoo Finance used at 02:35, 22 April 2022 to provide just the quote (fact) cited there, so also, like PR Newswire.

Please, provide whether or not I violated WP's policies and how seriously each.--71.190.206.215 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Warned IP editor, please adhere to WP:BLP and avoid using unreliable sources as described in WP:RSP. Before adding anything, look at that list and see if the reference you're using is on it. WP:PRNEWSWIRE & WP:PAGESIX are not a reliable sources. Articles on people should not focus on controversy or minutia (WP:NOTNEWS). Use the article's talk page before adding material. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Page: Russian Orthodox Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GenuineArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [352]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [353]
2. [354]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [355]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [356]

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)