Page: Depp v. Heard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Depp's reaction */ replacing selective vandalising removal of content by User:Gtoffoletto removing Depp's Instagram post but not Heard's"
2. 21:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099266921 by Gtoffoletto (talk) There is consensus based on resolved discussion and WP:5P WP:BALANCE Soapbox? It's not that there's Self-promotion or advertising. There's just a guy whose service has been criticised who is presenting his personal understandings of his situation."
3. 21:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099261399 by Gtoffoletto (talk) Consensus was reached. NPOV is pillar policy and WP:BALANCE IS in favour of inclusion. Juror involvements were criticised and the juror HAS a right to reply. Primary sources are relevant in making direct representation of the sources. Mandy does not apply as the statements are viewed context of other article content."
4. 20:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099257049 by Gtoffoletto (talk) The consensus based on policy has already been made. again, please see WP:BRD. You're pushing change on established text and, even on "votes", you're behind."
5. 20:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099251362 by Gtoffoletto (talk) No, consensus on inclusion was clear as per: [[1]]. people have a right to reply and notable and noted replies are valid. The judge utterly supported the juror. Mandy does not apply. All issues are presented and readers can interpret free of mos:instruct"
6. 19:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Potential effect on the jury */ User:Gtoffoletto please see WP:BRD. No, it's a sub-section to #Reactions relating to a juror who reacted in relation to a range of issues."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [2]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Depp v. Heard "/* Social Media */ new section"

Comments: The "opposing party" is citing BLP as the reason for removal, for example [3]. I haven't validated if the BLP concerns are sufficient for them to avoid a reciprocal block. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for considering the current situation. There had been clear policy based consensus for inclusion of material on the juror comments as agreed at Talk:Depp v. Heard/Archive 3#Juror's statement. The juror's themselves are WP:BLP. The article presents several criticisms of jurors which Gtoffoletto presented in a section 3 Reactions, 3.1 Social media coverage 3.1.2 Effect on the jury and, despite consensus based on, WP:BALANCE, Gtoffoletto is leave criticisms of jury integrity without inclusion of comment directly from a jury member. Other articles on trials include sections on jury comment and there's no reason why Depp v. Heard should be different. Against consensus removing of content Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. "Enforcing consensus" isn't an exemption from WP:3RR, but the link you provided shows nothing like consensus. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

On the Depp v. Heard talk page editors have been highlighting infringements of WP:BRD which I personally followed. I was then faced with the current situation where, despite reverts, there was no return to discussion and I carried on.

As another evidence of editor support, after reviving the Juror content, another editor added to it.[4] GregKaye 20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Following BRD" (an essay and optional method of editing) is not an exemption from 3RR, either. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Which leaves a situation where an editor can just persist in pushing for a change (even from a situation that others have supported) and get their way. GregKaye 20:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Several acceptable recourses are available to you as listed at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Edit warring is not one of them. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's helpful. I'd suggest that those resources might also be adopted by editors making changes away from variously supported content. GregKaye 20:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, but Gtoffoletto is clearly in the wrong in this instance. Despite Gtoffoletto admitting in one of their edit summaries that they knew talk page consensus was not in their favor, Gtoffoletto continued to edit war: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. If anything, GregKaye was the user editing to maintain the WP:STATUSQUO. Just 2 hours before this report was created, Gtoffoletto said here that "challenging" the consensus at the talk page would be "very very easy", a clear indication that they were aware there was an active talk page discussion for them to contribute. Instead, Gtoffoletto edit warred. If an editor wants to add contentious nonsense to an article about jurors breaking the law, it is the responsibility of the editor seeking to add said content to find consensus before addition, especially when it comes to WP:BLPs. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, along with Gtoffoletto. There was no reason for this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2012–13 Slovenian First League (men's handball) (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: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I proposed the third opinion.

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

Comments:
You can block us both if you want and than someone impartial can edit the page properly.

You added unsourced material and have been asked two or three times to provide a source, and yet you just revert back with WP:OTHERSTUFF reasons, so dont bother. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Again you are trying to go against the established Wikipedia handball standard and consensus. There is no practice of sourcing capacities in handball season articles. Nowhere! Apart for that you are rude and uncooperative. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that this content doesn't need to be sourced? Or is it that other articles just aren't as well sourced as they should be? — Czello 11:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is the consensus that it does not need to be sourced in each individual season article. Just check. Deleting this here is not only disruptvie but also biased against one selected country. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this consensus, or where it was achieved? — Czello 14:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The consensus can steam from practice. It is an implied consensus. WP: EDITCON If you want to change it you can open the debate at some sports project. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Bullshit. Just because no one provided references on many handball articles throughout years, that doesn't mean it is now a "consensus" to not use them. And even if there would be a consensus for that, how can you even add something to the article that has no source anywhere, from where is the information taken? For over 60% of those tiny venues of Slovenian handball clubs, which are literally just school gyms, you wont find a capacity numbers anywhere on the internet, I checked everything, so some editors obviously looked at the pictures of the venues and made up some random approximate numbers by themselves, which is full WP:OR. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

See, tipical answer, using words like this. It is not my fault that you could not find enough sources. Why cannot you participate in the talk page normally in a civilised manner? 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't enough. Uncited material can be challenged and removed at any time. — Czello 16:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you list those "established handball standard and consensus"? WikiProject Handball is more or less dead and doesnt have any official guidlines, and yes you need to provide sources for everything if needed, I dont care what other handball articles have as a huge majority of handball articles are poor in styling, unsourced, many original research content etc., you cannot just include some random approximate numbers that you made up by yourself, the capacity sources for those tiny primary school gyms doesnt exist anywhere. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem of discussing individual capacities and comparing sources on the talk pages, in fact I would very much prefer that. Instead I got your uncooperative editing and removing the whole category altogether. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine, so when you find a reliable source for capacity of all 14 venues that are listed in the article, you can add capacities back. And remember that capacity may vary throughout years, so even if you find something, it doesnt mean that those numbers were the same back in 2012, as this article is about the 2012–13 season. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The underlying issue is the IP attempting to force the information into the article without discussion. The correct procedure is to discuss the situation at Talk:2012–13 Slovenian First League (men's handball); I don't see any use of the article talk page in the IP's edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried that and proposed many times, but he did not want to discuss. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? Your one post to the talk page was a minute before this one. —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, check edit summaries. The editor in question started cooperating only when I started this thread here, so I believe I did the right thing. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not. As I stated before, you should have initiated discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment We resolved the dispute. Thanks everyone for help. 93.138.65.235 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Result: The filing IP, 93.138.65.235, is warned they may be blocked the next time they make an unsourced change to the article. The dispute is about handball arena capacities. If there is a good source for these, I haven't seen it yet. When there is no good source Wikipedia can probably get along without the information. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099705571 by Peaceray (talk) I don't like lies you know"
2. 05:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099703471 by Peaceray (talk) too odd"
3. 05:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099703006 by Peaceray (talk)"
4. 04:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099700374 by Ywetapap888 (talk)"
5. 04:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099696836 by Ywetapap888 (talk)"
6. 04:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "new account again? revert vandalism"
7. 22:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099651055 by Ywetapap888 (talk) new account? reverting vandalism"
8. 22:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099647108 by Ywetapap888 (talk) edit warring over"
9. 22:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "revert new user"
10. 20:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099581425 by Ywetapap888 (talk) Seriously?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
2. 05:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC) on User talk:LakeGarda "/* July 2022 */ Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule, WP:BRD, & WP:EDITCONSENSUS"

Comments:

This editor is unwilling to discuss changes & is well beyond 3 reverts. Peaceray (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I myself am at the three-revert limit after restoring it to the last-known good version before the edit war, please consider restoring that version. Peaceray (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked LakeGarda and User:Ywetapap888 for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Bbb23, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItalianConquest might also be of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I corrected the SPI link in the last user's comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Lion Capital of Ashoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Systematic reverting to own preferred version, this version evolving with time

Diffs of the user's reverts:
in less than 24 hours:

1. 21 July, 13:30 [16] Edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): I am working; I did not interfere when you made your edits, not for two years when you were adding undue edits; please show some respect"
2. 21 July, 10:07 [17] Edit summary: "Restored revision 1099429737 by Fowler&fowler (talk): Forget it. it is not going to happen. serial abuse of WP:UNDUE is not what this page is about; take it to the talk page"
3. 20 July, 17:57 [18] Edit summary: "Restored revision 1099420959 by Fowler&fowler (talk): Take it to the talk page. It i sentirely UNDUE., unmentioned by the majority of modern descriptions"
4. 20 July,17:51 [19] Edit summary: "the number of spokes is undue, unmentioned by the majority of modern descriptions" (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
5. 20 July,17:44 [20] Edit summary: "undue" (Reverting the contributions of anonymous user 120.57.187.243)
6. 20 July, 17:43 [21] Edit summary: "this is not a place to dicker with your obsessions Most scholars do not mention 32 at all." (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
7. 20 July, 17:42 [22] Edit summary: "this is not a disquisition about dharmachakras having spokes that are in multiples of 8" (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)
8. 20 July, 17:40 [23] Edit summary: "as usual dicker about undue things. that is not asher's point" (manually undoing contributions by पाटलिपुत्र)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit summary: "please respect the 3RR rule". Fowler&fowler refuses to receive messages from me on his Talk Page: [24] ("Buzz off. Don't ever ever post on this talk page again. Complain elsewhere. I hope this is clearly understood. Never again.")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Fowler&fowler refuses to receive messages from me [26]: ("Buzz off. Don't ever ever post on this talk page again. Complain elsewhere. I hope this is clearly understood. Never again."), so I would prefer not to notice him, but I am posting the notice as I think this is reglementary [27].

Comments:
Systematic reverts and unrelenting battleground mentality, major WP:OWN. Outrageous and abusive edit summaries. Irrational, mistaken arguments and major abusive language on the Talk Page of the article [28]. Fowler&fowler apparently thinks he is above Wikipedia rules and civility standards. Something has to be done. Fowler&fowler was already warned previously for similar behaviour [29], to no avail. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. It's a little difficult to take stock of the diffs provided - it would have been more convenient if they'd had dates as well as clock times, since three different days are involved - but AFAICS, there's no 3RR violation here. For example, User:पाटलिपुत्र, the diffs you have listed as no. 3 - 8 above were consecutive (as were various others), and consequently count as one edit for edit warring purposes. Please see the pink banner at WP:3RR. Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I don't know how to make it clearer: from 1 to 8 above, you have 4 reverts + 1 set of consecutive reverts which counts as 1, so that counts as 5 reverts in 24 hours... The accounting is clear, but what is even more important is the systematic revert pattern and the verbal abuse. I added dates for your convenience. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ? No, from 1 to 8 above, you have 2 reverts (nos. 1 and 2) plus 1 set of 6 consecutive reverts which count as 1 (nos. 3 - 8). 2 + 6 = 8. So that counts as 3 reverts. Bishonen | tålk 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: 1, 2 and 3 are not consecutive (3 is certainly not consecutive, as it follows a contribution of mine), so that's already 3 reverts. I agree 4-8 may be consecutive, although they are reverting two different users. Even in this case, that's 4 reverts in all. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in, but I also see it as four reverts, if I just take one from each consecutive series, these four: [30], [31], [32], and [33]. That said, I don't think it was a particularly willful violation. Had to avoid work for a few minutes. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I missed this edit in the history. Bishonen | tålk 05:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC).

Pages:

• International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Venezuelan presidential crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2019 Venezuelan blackouts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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

Previous version reverted to:

• [34] (International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis)
• [35] (Venezuelan presidential crisis)
• [36] (2019 Venezuelan blackouts)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [37][38][39] (International sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis)
• [40][41][42] (Venezuelan presidential crisis)
• [43][44][45] (2019 Venezuelan blackouts)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47][48] (See also User talk:NoonIcarus#verifikado.com as a reference as a whole)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [49]

Comments: Slow pace edit warring over the course of several days. The user has repeatedly removed a reference, verifikado.com, disputing its reliability. While at first did not provide reasons to support the dispute, citing apparent personal impressions (saying "doesnt appear reliable" in his first edit summaries), in the last reverts Hipal has cited WP:REFSPAM in the last reverts.

Hipal has argued that the onus lies on me to demonstrate the reference reliability. I responded by saying that the source does not show any apparent concern, not being a blog or a self-published outlet, that its reliability remained undisputed for years, and that per WP:BRD, the onus lies on them to demonstrate its unreliability. Another editor, SandyGeorgia, has specifically supported the source's reliability when asked about it. In the following restorations, I tried to include changes to address the voiced concerns, such as adding complementary sources ([50]), but these were discarded as well ([51]). In his last response to my comments, the editor has asked me to "not waste his time", which I fear that can show an unwillingness to discuss the issue further.

Since this is mostly a content dispute issue, I request the stable versions, before the reverts, to be restored ([52][53][54]), while the discussion is allowed to continue in the articles talk pages. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Would my standard offer, highlighted at the top of my talk page, help as we continue to build consensus, I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know.

NoonIcarus, it was you who added it each time, correct?

I vaguely recall a fourth article, perhaps another. Let me look. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Talk:Jeffrey_Sachs#Expansion_attempts_of_Venezuela_section. If I recall correctly, this is where I first encountered verifikado.com. NoonIcarus adds itI revert. I'd expected the other uses of verifikado.com to go as easily.

I believe this is the only article talk page discussion. --Hipal (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs is the article where I last proposed the reference and where I have stopped adding it, although I thank you for providing the talk page and our comments with it. What's at stake here is the unrelated removal of the rrference in the aforementioned articles, which were already in place for years (since 2019 at least if I recall correctly), with different contexts. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

No violation Although they have clearly been of concern to the editors working on these pages, the reverts have neither been frequent nor recent enough to rise to the level of edit warring actionable here, as the original post somewhat concedes. The parties are advised to continue to resolve this through discussion, bringing others in through the processes available to them if they would like, in order to reach a consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Women's FIH Hockey World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Men's FIH Hockey World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55], [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

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

Comments: I tried to persuade user Aleenf1 to stop his disruptive edits, with no success. His only explanations to revert my editions were "MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE and MOS:NOICONS (on the articles summary)," which are incorrect, so in the case of MOS:flags, there is no problem to show flags on lists/tables and they are discouraged on infoboxes (this is not the case). About MOS:icons, they are not allowed in prose format (this isn't the case, either). He also refused to solve this dispute on the talk page. Fma12 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Fma12 is breaking the MOS:FLAGS, where "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality", it doesn't look like he/she get it. Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. He/she clearly breaking the manual of style without any consensus. --Aleenf1 00:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all: I'm "he". Second, according to MOS, flags are suggested to be allowed on infoboxes (and this is about a table). With his reversions, the user not only supressed flags but other paramethers and data added to tables (p.e.: sortable option, number of editions of the tournaments, further notes on template:refn). Furthermore, similar sports articles featuring list of winning teams (p.e. UEFA European Championship, or Copa América) show the respective host countries/cities with their flagicons. Fma12 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking other example doesn't reflect that it follow the Manual of Style, and also doesn't reflect that consensus are done by it. --Aleenf1 00:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind you taking other example from football, field hockey host is awarded to to a city and not represent a country. Therefore is clearly a MOS breaking. --Aleenf1 01:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hockey is not an isolated item, this format can be also found on rugby union competitions (such as Rugby World Cups), where flags are used. Or can be omitted if a consensus is reached, I don't have a problem with that. But when you reverted the edits you also erased other significative changes, not only the flags. And that's because you were reported. Instead of trying to be reasonable and search a consensus, you preferred to revert all the changes, giving vague summaries such as "mos" without being specific. Just like you're being now. Fma12 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Your contradiction and lack of valid reasons are proved on this last reversion, where you put "MOS:NOICONS" as the edit summary , a totally wrong statement as long as it refers to "Do not use icons in general article prose" (and a table does not have any 'prose' clearly). Fma12 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Is your own opinion, WORDPRECEDENCE still making priority. --Aleenf1 01:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Until now, all the MOS you cited as in an attempt to justify your disruptive reversions (flags, noicons, and wordprecedence) do not apply to the changes I made, for the reasons explained above. On the contrary, if you disagree with the use of flags, you could have erased them from the table instead of reverting all the changes made, which were more than a simple flag addition. And I'm not giving an opinion, I'm talking about facts. – Fma12 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the facts of breaking MOS, stop your claim of disruptive. You come with your "facts" to rescue your editing. I stop of putting any further comments here. --Aleenf1 15:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not break any MOS and gave enough evidence of that, while you only came here with falacious statements. In fact, I reported you because of your repetitive reversions with no desire of consensus. Once this dispute is solved, I will restore the paramethers you arbitrarily erased. Fma12 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No violation Both of you went up to the line that day, then stopped. The discussion above has clearly been testy but it is infinitely preferable to further edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 84.250.14.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "/* History */ Add origo source back, because its absence caused confusion"
2. 22:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Remove Template:POV and Template:Multiple issues: Nobody has brought it up to WP:NPOVN and it's not apparent (to me) what is being disputed as non-neutral"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC) to 21:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
   1. 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "Restore revision 1099239087: Remove original research / undue weight"
   2. 21:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC) "+formerly Android Hardening project (origo.hu, pro-linux.de, golem.de sources)"

Tool results are above. My notes follow:

1. Removal of footnotes[62]
2. Re-including mention of "Android Hardening" PLUS adding it to the lead[63]
3. Removed article issue template[64]. Note: NPOV and cherry-picking discussions abound on Talk:GrapheneOS and there is little sign of consensus.
4. Expanded usage of origo.hu source.[65]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Warning/Awareness of 3RR[66]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC) "/* GitHub (or Gitlab) as sources at Wikipedia */ Comment on search, and Footnotes have been added"

Comments:

Origo.hu source was previously removed as poor unreliable source.[67]

Warning/Awareness of 3RR[68]

Note: Tagging or templating established wording in the Infobox[69]

Note: Lack of responsive discussion of merits of the Origo.hu source, and focus on editor behavior here.2#Origo.hu_source_deletion

Aside note: Removed footnotes were re-added as a new section[70] with ridiculous "original research" tags and then a template[71], and then another.[72] Yae4 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment. I am glad to see 84.x now using "reliability" of sources as a criterion. "Notability" of sources had been their primary criterion in previous discussions. Another important policy guideline is: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." (from WP:CONS). I have done my best to follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT, etc., although it was easy to fall into 3RR when "collaborating" with a series of SPA's and meat and sock puppets who don't seem to know or care about wikipedia guidelines. I'm no expert, but I do attempt to present my positions, and consider others', in terms of consistency with guidelines. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I will refrain from further edits, but note ongoing edit warring by SPA EndariV and promotional edits by sleeper Seb3thehacker. This follows a pattern, if you get what I mean. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment. See 84.x refusal to discuss merits: "I'm done with you." Special:Diff/1099617760

You'll have to talk this with someone else, my patience ran short a long ago. I had reverted it the same minute because it was not meant to cause distress. I said a long ago I'm disengaging debates with you. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You said, "I'd like to disengage and focus most of my contributions on other articles from now on. Sorry. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[73]

I hesitate to call another editor a liar, or a hounder, but you almost immediately continued to focus most of your contributions on the same article after saying you would stop. After being asked to stop "engaging" at my Talk page, you continue[74] and continue[75] Everyone is entitled to change their opinions, and revert their own edits to not "cause distress", but some of your statements do look like bad faith to me. That said, I have seen your voluminous criticisms, and will attempt to be more welcoming of puppets, sleeper accounts, SPAs, and IP editors. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Improper ANEW, no evidence of a 3RR violation. I've enforced editor consensus from the talk page and acted in good faith in general. I was about to slap you with {{Uw-disruptive3}} for your initiation to add disputed/contentious statements about "open-source" to the article for the fifth time, despite several (3-4) other editors disagreeing with you, but did assume good faith.

Restore revision 1099239087: Remove original research / undue weight: Your edit was incorporated assuming good faith with Special:Diff/1099460465 before you opened this ANEW, on the basis that consensus exists about "open-source"ness, but the consensus may have been unclear before being reverted; the consensus should not be unclear to me anymore, because @EndariV: reverted Yae4's edits again: Special:Diff/1099481390. Nothing to do here.

The diffs you have shown are 1 edit / revert. I have not been a participant to the "attempt to resolve" on talk, nor shown awareness to it.

ANEW is not a place for resolving content disputes (or to attempt to get deprecate editors who disagree with you); see WP:DR. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There is also no warning/awareness of 3RR demonstrated. The 3RR "awareness" linked here is to a different topic, where User:Yae4 was the violator of 3RR. I had reverted Yae4 once in that former scenario, Yae4 reverted back (violated 3RR) and got partial blocked for a week. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 has removed a timeline of edit warring from here. Special:Diff/1099569822 84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I've re-added it but within a collapse box. I don't believe it was right to remove that. — Czello 20:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

There's an anon IP user that is making repeated edits to Aswan Dam with an English language source that does not support their claim and a Russian language source. Attempts to reach out to user [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aswan_Dam#Why_is_he_trying_to_hide_the_truth?] have resulted in personal attacks. Editor is also using a second IP, but per wp:good faith I assume this is not an attempt at sock-puppetry but just posting form a different location (home vs. school). There have been reverts and counter reverts over multiple days that fall just shy of the three revert rule (wp:3rr) but this is clearly becoming an edit war. I previously reported this to wp:aiv and was told to take it here.

I have notified user per the an3-notice template and also posted to the article talk page to begin the discussion here.

Can someone please help us out on this?

KNHaw ^(talk) 20:20, 23 July 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) 20:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RayLucero123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]
5. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [84]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Aswan Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.145.62.194 (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 - Note comment in revision log
4. diff - And comment again...
5. diff

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: primarily here but a welcome here too

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

Comments:
Originally posted above without using proper form - this is a repost.

Above anon IP is making repeated edits to Aswan Dam with an English language source that does not support their claim and a Russian language source. Attempts to reach out to user here have resulted in personal attacks. Editor is also using a second IP, but per wp:good faith I assume this is not an attempt at sock-puppetry but just posting from a different location (e.g. home vs. school). There have been reverts and counter reverts over multiple days that fall just shy of the three revert rule (wp:3rr) because they're spread over a longer time but this is clearly becoming an edit war. I previously reported this to wp:aiv and was told to take it here.

I have notified user per the an3-notice template and also posted to the article talk page to begin the discussion here.

Can someone please help us out on this?

--KNHaw ^(talk) 04:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months due to long term edit warring. Please note that sources don't have to be in English; we would normally accept good-quality Russian sources if any can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  OK. Thanks. I'll take further use of the Russian source on good faith and extend an olive branch to the editor.

  For the future reference, do we have written guidance on foreign language sources? I mean, how do know a source is "good-quality" if I literally can't read a word of it? Is there a notice/help board where I can request someone with fluency to review? KNHaw ^(talk) 20:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• See WP:NONENG. Though if a Russian firm built the dam, be aware that national pride might have influenced some reporters who covered the issue. The Aswan Dam is a big enough issue that normally you would expect to see it written about in English-language books by this time. So if you search in Google Books you might come up with some English-language results. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I appreciate your help with this. I had poked through wp:sources but hadn't thought of wp:var. It's good to see the policy laid out like that. KNHaw ^(talk) 00:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jorge Rafael Videla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Will not engage on talk page. Discussion there already present on the topic. Editor has prejudicial point of view "yanquicentrista" (yankee-centric) and does states he will not engage in discussion on the topic in his edit summary. MartinezMD (talk) 22:15, 24 July 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) 14:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DannyWard888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100372609 by Ingenuity (talk)"
2. 15:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100372122 by Ingenuity (talk)"
3. 15:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 14:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 14:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warning given on talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100155528 by Alex 21 (talk) This is not a sock edit, my friend engprat and I both agree on this and found evidence"
2. 22:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099869666 by Alex 21 (talk) Please don't change this, because this show is one of my favorite shows and I want it to reach a wider audience. I also heard from pretty much all critics that its the best superhero show, and that it's one of the best written shows also."
3. 20:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "The show has received critical acclaim according to most media critics ^[1]"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC) to 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "^[2]"
   2. 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "There was a sentence error that needed to be corrected"
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC) to 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "The series has received critical acclaim with its first season getting 85% in rotten tomatoes with over 110 reviews, and the succeeding seasons each got 97% with over a 110 reviews."
   2. 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC) "There was a sentence error that needed to be corrected"
6. 14:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Boys (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_21&oldid=1100076451#The_Boys]

Comments:

The editor has now also violated WP:MEAT, by requesting that their "friend" Eaglestack98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) make the same edits; edit and MEAT violation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Result: It is  Confirmed that User:Engprat and User:Eaglestack98 are being operated by the same person, so both accounts are blocked for socking. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1234567890Bobdob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [86]
2. [87]
3. [88]
4. [89]
5. [90]
6. [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

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

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

Comments:

They've been making the same argument since the 1st, theres just no indication that they hear the objections of other editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor is now making explicit personal attacks on my talk page[94]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@1234567890Bobdob: seriously dude stop... Being that disruptive is going to get you indeffed, if you want to stick around you have to play by the rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week by User:Favonian. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jonny Bairstow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2.99.212.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100427568 by Spike 'em (talk)"
2. 21:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Restoring the VASTLY IMPROVED version of the lead. Again, in the face of WP:OWN and WP:EW."
3. 19:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "restored the VASTLY IMPROVED version of the lead → no single sentence paragraph; no bare URL; no citations in lead that should be in narrative; better English; no WP:OWN' etc., etc."
4. 03:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100244684 by The Raincloud Kid (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
2. 21:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit war */"

Comments:

User throwing around 3RR warnings, but continues to edit war themselves. Spike 'em (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• EvergreenFir partially blocked the IP for 24 hours. I've converted that block to a sitewide block for 48 hours after the personal attack the IP made here (since reverted by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FobTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. May - initial edit war
   1. [95]
   2. [96]
   3. [97]
   4. [98]
   5. [99]
   6. [100]
2. after 31 hr block
   1. [101]
3. June
   1. [102]
   2. [103]
   3. [104]
   4. [105]
   5. [106]
   6. [107]
4. July
   1. [108]
   2. [109]
   3. [110]
   4. [111]
   5. [112]
   6. [113]
   7. [114]
   8. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116], [117],

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First, second, third, all my edits in talk

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

Comments:

Long time edit warrior committed to drawn out edit warring. Returned to edit war immediately after previous block ended back in May before the report by User:UtoD had even been archived. Never stopped since, albeit after waiting a few days in between reverts. Recently mass reverted to a "safe version" (their version) in response to me removing blog sources added by them. Responded with deflection in reaction to notice about usage of blogs: [119]. Current mass revert once again ignored all consensus building in talk, and only occurred after User:Chanakal advised them to be careful with their reversions, still resulting in a lazy deletion and combined section where further information links are at the bottom.

Several previous blocks and warnings by multiple users can be seen on their talk page which is almost exclusively composed of warnings and report notifications. See previous block back in May, comment and comment by User:Floydian, comment by User:CurryCity, my own comment. Ignores talk and consensus building. Copy pasted a single reply to two different sections: [120], [121]. Ignored all calls by User:Simpleshooter99 to resolve dispute through third party opinion: [122], [123], [124], [125]. Qiushufang (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Initially User:Qiushufang and User:Thriley were supposed to be brought in as a neutral third-party over the debt trap controversy [126]. There was initially a consensus version or safe version agreed upon by myself, User:Qiushufang and User:Thriley where debt trap would just be a paragraph inside External Debt [127][128] as this would not overshadow the other Causes like Tax Cuts, Agricultural Crisis, Tourism, etc. However User:Qiushufang added content directly from Debt-trap diplomacy resulting in this bloated version[129] which is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACKING. So I placed Debt Trap back inside External Debt, which preserved most of the other copyedits and grammar fixes as per User:Chanakal's concern, while going back to the safe version on debt trap while also including a link on that subject's own page directly. FobTown (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You can't "charge" someone with WP:COAT, it's not a WP. See similar behavior of deflection by Fob in the report by User:MarkH21 back in May 2020. Fob has not changed. Qiushufang (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Have noticed that User:Qiushufang is involved in edit warring on Debt-trap diplomacy[130], with similar charges of WP:COATRACKING too[131]. FobTown (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

FobTown has just cut content from their initial reply and used it as a second reply: [132]. I honestly don't know what to say at this point. Qiushufang (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I planned to split out that as a separate section but then you replied immediately. FobTown (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have been dealing with FobTown for almost two years now. The behaviour listed above is the same experience I've had time and time again, as well as the continual insertion of wordy, unsourced material into good an featured articles; I've pounded my keyboard in utter stress and frustration many times. I've seen several editors who provide meaningful contributions get permabanned for far lesser infractions, much less a multi-year history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The only reason they have managed to slip by almost unnoticed is that they edit niche topics that aren't patrolled by administrators, or by people willing to compile a bunch of diffs to create a report (such as myself). Although they occasionally show signs of "getting it", FobTown's talk page says enough. I would like to put forward a 30 day block, site wide. After that period, they should be placed on a 1 Revert sanction for a full year. Time to force the hand on discussion rather than reversion. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 11:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  In fairness of our last dispute in May 2022, I was the one that had to initiate the talk page discussion for Ontario Highway 5, which was just over the clarify of the 427 photo. I didn't remove the 1955 black and white photo that you added, even though you tried to justify that as a replacement for the removed 427 photo.[133][134] In response to sourcing issues in Ontario Highway 403 over the 401-410 construction, I have found supporting material to rectify it.[135] I felt that you decided to make our Ontario highways disputes personal when you jumped into Peng Shuai and chose sides without considering the material in question[136], this was later settled by an RfC[137] FobTown (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also don't appreciate you mischaracterizing all our disputes, especially those that are one-on-one where other editors were not involved at all. Example is Ontario Highway 427 in February 2021 which was over which photos you deemed "high quality" or aesthetically-pleasing but which fails to show the key attributes of the freeway [138]. I left your art photos in the article, but you kept vetoing the ones I wanted to add over issues of "white balance" or "driver perspective". And for Queen Elizabeth Way I thought it was okay to describe the type of interchange just by looking at an aerial view or map (i.e. stack, parclo A4).[139] FobTown (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks from editing the article, per most other blocks imposed on this user in the last year or so for similar conduct. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: International System of Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 17:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100579166 by Jc3s5h (talk) Please stop replacing the actual definition of 'C' (speed of causality) with something that is NOT a constant under the list of defining constants. It adds confusion to for people studying optics, an entire field based on the fact that the speed of light is not a constant."
3. 16:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100496102 by Dondervogel 2 (talk) Speed of light is *NOT* a constant. (If it were, the entire field of optics would not exist). This value is the speed of light *in a vacuum*, otherwise known as the speed of causality."
4. 03:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1099367321 by 172.82.46.195 (talk) The 'C' literally stands for causality; not light (who's speed is NOT a constant). Specificity is important."
5. [140]
6. [141]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on International System of Units."
2. 22:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) "/* July 2022 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [142]
2. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Is_"speed_of_light"_misleading?

Comments: This is ongoing, please, someone, use that block button or something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This ongoing trolling should be stopped. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC).

• Blocked – for a period of 24h. Favonian (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Vandana Shiva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Withaker10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [143]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:02, July 25, 2022‎ (first addition)
2. 13:10, July 25, 2022 edit warring content back in
3. 07:35, July 26, 2022 formal 1RR violation after notice

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [145]

Comments:
Article is under 1RR, this brand new account started edit warring content in, was formally warned of the discretionary sanctions, and continued edit warring anyways in the last diff. Entirely non-responsive on their talk page or edit summaries. Could have gone to WP:AE, but I figured this board would be more appropriate for low-level disruption like this. Technically the second diff isn't a 1RR violation because they weren't notified yet, but the third definitely was. KoA (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Just an FYI: The second diff isn't a violation whether they were warned before it or not, as it was their first revert. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that first revert is considering WP:GAMING of 1RR (or just 3RR) based on the Arb discussions we had when crafting the DS. The expectation was that if someone just tries to "use up" their single revert for the day, it's still a violation considering that the person is expected to follow WP:ONUS policy and get consensus for the edit. That's what brings the last revert into clear violation territory in multiple aspects rather than just crossing the bright line. KoA (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Got a response on their talk page finally, doesn't really look good You can block me, tbh. But it seemed weird to reference a criticism without context from a source whose trustworthiness has been put into doubt. If I violated rules, I accept it.[146] KoA (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for violation of the WP:ARBGMO 1RR restriction on Vandana Shiva. This page is a GMO-related article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Pan-Indian film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fostera12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [148] 14:23, 27 July 2022
2. [149] 15:33, 26 July 2022
3. [150] 14:36, 26 July 2022
4. [151] 14:23, 26 July 2022
5. [152] 14:18, 26 July 2022
6. [153] 14:10, 26 July 2022
7. [154] 14:04, 26 July 2022
8. [155] 13:58, 26 July 2022
9. [156] 13:53, 26 July 2022
10. [157] 13:39, 26 July 2022
11. [158] 13:34, 26 July 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160], now moved to article talk page [161]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [162]

Comments:
The user seems to be adamant to completely change the article to their preferred wording. In addition, they have also nominated the page for deletion as it is not in their preferred version. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Jayanthkumar123 is party to this war as well. Would you oppose adding/allowing me to add them to the report fields? GabberFlasted (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Again this user Fostera12 is making edits [163] on the article in spite of a discussion going on and a notice on their talk page. Thier (Fostera12) edits are according to their assumptions. For example [164], in this revision his reason is to the edit seems to be personal. In this edit [165], Fostera12 is saying that while the article is assessing notability, the article can be improved, the term did not start off with Telugu cinema, the article is written like an advertisement, there was enthirn before baahubali, let us not get into it, but most of the sources clearly say that the term is emerged from Telugu cinema/Tollywood. In an other edit [166], they (Fostera12) mentioned that there was enthirn Enthiran before baahubali, let us not get into it, but how's that even realted to the article. Such kind of edits are disruptive. Also, there's another case where they have made disruptive edit which is an evidence of their lack of editing skills on wikipedia. See here [167], in this edit they have removed sourced content saying that added correct citation for 12th IFFI, it was not screened at cannes, but the film Pushpaka Vimana (1987 film) was indeed premiered at the Cannes film festival according to already added sources and the new one which is added by me [168]. He is also involved in a edit dispute of S. S. Rajamouli...Thank you...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

These are matters of a content dispute. This noticeboard is not to solve content disputes, but rather to address ongoing edit wars. See WP:EW for the general concept of edit warring, and the bright line rule that identifies what is almost always considered edit warring. The problem here on this noticeboard isn't correct or incorrect information, it is the breakdown of communication and cooperative editing, wherein the editing process is disrupted by large-scale and high-frequency reversions and rollbacks. Let me be clear in that I am not taking a side here, not that what I believe matters anyway. GabberFlasted (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week, Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: New Video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DARKMATTERMAN4500 IS SO EVIL AND ANOYING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100922301 by Anjana Larka (talk)"
2. 10:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100922021 by Lavalizard101 (talk)"
3. 10:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1100921799 by Wikipelli (talk)"
4. 10:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC) "FUCK YOU AND STOP REVERTING MY FUCKING EDITS YOU DUMBASS!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on New Video."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

abusive and vandalism only account - Anjana Larka 10:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Already blocked Hard blocked for username violation, so indef, thus moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: 1991 anti-Tamil violence in Karnataka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Laks883 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6
7. diff 7
8. last 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:
Hi, I think I've never reported someone bcs of 3rr but not sure the editor is a vandal or just an unexperienced editor with a strong opinion not engaging in discussion, so I chose this to seek a short topic ban (and more importantly some advice to the editor) instead of a vandalism ban. From my point of view the editor keeps removing perfectly sound sourced info under various pretexts. The edit summaries say a lot. I also made an attempt to edit the page as to reflect the two sources more directly but that did not help. BTW I see my reverts as reverting obvious vandalism but I suppose the editor does not share that notion. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: After recent PA diff and subseqent edits, I reported the user to AIV. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  GeneralNotability has now extended the block to indef due to socking. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2022 Sri Lankan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FobTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. July -
   1. [169] 03:02, 25 July 2022
   2. [170] 03:10, 27 July 2022
   3. [171] 22:27, 27 July 2022 - editor called this the "stable" version, without any consensus
   4. [172] 00:15, 29 July 2022
   5. [173] 1:17, 29 July 2022
   6. [174] 01:33, 29 July 2022 (fine, we will include both as a compromise) - no consensus for a compromise was reached on talk.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175]

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

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

Comments:
Editor repeatedly restores their preferred version. User:Simpleshooter99 [178] [179] and I [180] [181] have repeatedly called for a third party opinion and consensus building. Editor ignores our requests, makes a comment on the talk page, and then almost immediately reverts the article to their desired version.FobTown Talk Logs FobTown article edit logs

I have also added information not related to the dispute: "The country pursued an economic policy that kept exports low and imports high, which depleted the country's foreign currency reserves. According to the government, Sri Lanka's tourist trade, a major source of foreign currency for the country, was affected by both the Covid pandemic and a series of bomb attacks in 2019 that scared off tourists.^[1]"

I've added this information three times and it was removed twice without any reason by editor, showing that editor is not even reading my edits and is indiscriminately reverting to their preferred version.[182] [183] [184] Editor only stop when I brought it up in the talk page. [185]

Editor was blocked from editing 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis on 26 July 2022. Editor has been partially blocked 5 times in 2022: [186]

User:LilAhok and User:Simpleshooter99 were adamant about repeatedly removing the below statement in italics even though it was well-supported by sources, as they claim that the mere mention of debt-trap is misinformation and unfair criticism to China. Their talk page arguments are the same thing over and over again.[187] Indeed if you look at User:Simpleshooter99's editing history, they have a history of provocative edit summaries like "Vandalism Alert, FAKE INFORMATION. The port wasn't actually leased due to failing to repay Chinese loans. (Lookup Wikipedia article for debt Trap diplomacy for the actual story". [188]

User:LilAhok has removed it twice [189][190] User:LilAhok eventually appeared to support the below statement while reinstating the blurb from the BBC.[191] Right after this then User:Simpleshooter99 comes in and removes the below statement. [192] I eventually thought that User:Simpleshooter99 conceded [193], so I put forth a compromise that would incorporate both the below statement as well as a debt breakdown added by User:Simpleshooter99.[194]

User:BooleanQuackery, who was previously uninvolved, has viewed FobTown's wording maintains neutrality by using words like "accused" and "argue." (Although "said" would still be better.) If good sources mention the existence of a debt-trap, and if that is relevant to the protests, then let the page reflect that. [195]

As part of its Belt and Road Initiative, China was the major source of loans for many megaprojects whose viability has been questioned, causing many to argue that "Sri Lanka's economic relations with China are the main driver behind the crisis".^[2][3] Critics have accused China of using a "debt trap" strategy to gain influence over Sri Lanka and other countries, but others have disputed this.^[2][3][4][5] FobTown (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems like cherrypicking, but in regards to my very first edit description a month back. I typically learn edit rules by watching others, and merely copied the edit description that I once read a month ago that was made from an experienced editor who used that edit description (Vandalism Alert, FAKE INFORMATION). [196] And yes, Fobtown kept trying to promote misinformation that Sri Lanka gave up the port after it could not pay off Chinese debts financing that port. Except many academics have shown why that is misinfo.[197] [198] [199] But Fobtown doesn't want to listen to that in Talk later on and just keeps replying, keeps ignoring what you said then just adding in his own pov pushing into article, that is contradicted by too many top scholars.

• It is hardly just me. There are several others like User:Chanakal, User:UtoD, and User:Qiushufang who are frustrated at his unwillingness to listen to others and have notified him just that on his talk page within the past few months alone.
• And right now, even at the top of this page. There's still an edit warring discussion from a couple days ago, where an experienced editor User:Floydian who is very familiar with dealing with Fobtown is well aware of his constant WP:ICANTHEARYOU patterns.
• In regards to this page, it is the same pattern whereas it doesn't matter what I say. And is not filibustering. I kept telling him repeatedly the issue is UNDUE emphasis and him removing the other parties. And has always been that you cannot follow the very first sentence that's stating that Sri Lanka's external debt increased rapidly. And then mislead readers into believing that's all majorly due to one country. And then self claim it's "stable version" despite two editors never agreed to that. And he could not accept that ISBs are what actually grew those external debts the most. And he also kept repeatedly removing my mentions of ISBs [200], reverting and flooding the first part of article with only his own undue weighted pov to present as if just one country alone is like the primary reason for the entire debt crisis despite showing him the hard facts on why it's undue emphasis, But despite China's deep involvement in the island nation, it is not the primary culprit in the current debt crisis. In fact, international sovereign bonds constitute the largest proportion of Sri Lanka's external debt — at 36.5 percent of total foreign debt and 47 percent of total foreign debt repayments by the end of 2021. They are owned mostly by private investors in the United States [201][202] [203]
• However Fobtown doesn't always go to talk then revert. Sometimes he just straight up mass reverts multiple differently edits without any sufficient reasoning or Fair discussion, like Lilahok mentions above, are typically indiscriminate. Example is when he says in his edit description, that my "info is excessive for the lede" except his reverting actions does more than merely remove information from the Lede, but also deletes all my other edits from the other chapters which he gives absolutely zero reasons for removing them. [204]. And I gave him a notice for edit warring on the talk page afterwards which he doesn't respond to. His Pattern is WP:ICANTHEARYOU and not just me but at least 4 other editors (noted Above) have complained about that of him in the past month alone. [205] Simpleshooter99 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The conflicts with User:Floydian were months ago, and they were settled via the Talk page.

With regards to User:LilAhok and User:Simpleshooter99 repeatedly reverting to remove that brief well-sourced statement on China megaprojects and debt-trap, and then justifying it with a long argument each time insisted that "debt-trap" is wrong so it cannot be mentioned in the article even briefly[206], isn't that an example of Wikipedia:BRD misuse including filibustering? On the related 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis, I've noticed that User:UtoD resorted to a similar pattern of reverts/arguments (and also ran quickly to the WP:Admin complaining of Edit Warring) and once they went silent, User:Simpleshooter99 continued on with such tactics.[207]

User:BooleanQuackery, who was previously uninvolved, has opined FobTown's wording maintains neutrality by using words like "accused" and "argue." (Although "said" would still be better.) If good sources mention the existence of a debt-trap, and if that is relevant to the protests, then let the page reflect that. [208] FobTown (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Fob was article blocked on three different pages in 2022. The last one happened less than a month after a 31 hr block, at the end of which they immediately returned to edit war on the same article, the same one which they were eventually blocked from editing. In 2021 they were blocked for a week. In 2020 a 48 hr block. Fob's behavior is extremely consistent without any sign of changing and anyone who has been on the other side of their edit warring can attest to this. Their talk page history is almost exclusively composed of warnings and blocks. When I notified them not to use blog sources, they deflected and threatened to report me for WP:COATRACKING: [209]. Not only is Fob a long time edit warrior, Fob shows belligerence and lack of civility towards anyone not on their side while canvassing anyone who even shows the slightest bit of support: [210]. After Floydian voiced their support of the last edit war report on Fob, Fob went to their user page and called their behavior "trolling": [211]. Qiushufang (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The message to Floydian was because they had misrepresented our disputes which happened a while back (I was the one that went to the talk page first on Ontario Highway 5), so it is perfectly civil to ask them not to hold a past grudge. FobTown (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a grudge. Your talk page is obviously on my watchlist, and I see the same behaviour that I experienced with you (whether or not one such case of that was settled on the talk page after a game of cat and mouse through multiple articles) is being repeated on other topics. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If its not a grudge, what is it? You jumped into Peng Shuai and chose sides without considering the material in question[212], this was later settled by an RfC[213]

Boiling it down to the content in question, with its supporting sources this is a fair statement, but its getting deleted due to repeated reverts accompanied by a Talk Page filibuster - As part of its Belt and Road Initiative, China was the major source of loans for many megaprojects whose viability has been questioned, causing many to argue that "Sri Lanka's economic relations with China are the main driver behind the crisis". Critics have accused China of using a "debt trap" strategy to gain influence over Sri Lanka and other countries, but others have disputed this. FobTown (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

"User:LilAhok eventually appeared to support the below statement while reinstating the blurb from the BBC." No, I don't support your statement. Speak for yourself. I have never voiced any support for your statement, and the link you've provided doesn't prove I support your statement. I didn't want to engage in an edit war with you, so I avoided making further edits. the link you've provided has nothing to do with the dispute. LilAhok (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

FobTown tends to claim support even when it doesn't actually exist (diff 1). They try to get edits in that way (diff 2). If they can't, they try again after two to three weeks (diff 3). We all make mistakes from time to time, but that last attempt was particularly disappointing, because EdJohnston had been contemplating an indef (diff 4) and during that discussion I explicitly mentioned FobTown's pattern of doubling-down on the same edit. That doesn't seem to have deterred them. Of course, I'm not saying their positions are always wrong, but they are not always right either. The problem is, they behave as if other editors are always wrong and should be overturned by any means necessary. Even when they decide to stop and not to edit war, it's only temporary; they come back soon enough to try the same edit again. They are high-maintenance in this sense. CurryCity (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Night Attack at Târgoviște (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yeniseian (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. [214]
2. [215]
3. [216]
4. [217]

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:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Spearman's hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [218]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [219]
2. [220]
3. [221]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [222]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [223]

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

Comments:

NightHeron reverted an article three times in a slightly over 1-day period (1.1 days). Longstanding WP:EDITCONSENSUS generally aligns with the content of my edit. NightHeron has not fully explained the reasoning for reverting or adequately addressed concerns brought up on the talk page. The last revert was done while a discussion was taking place on the talk page. On the [talk page], a user said that my "current rewrite is an improvement." That user agrees "that NightHeron should make whatever changes he thinks need to be made to the current version, rather than continuing to remove half of the entire article." After reading this, but before talking on the talk page, NightHeron reverted the article a third time, one day and three hours after the first revert. It seems like NightHeron has a history of reverting things generally, so I'm posting here to make sure resolution is achieved. I believe NightHeron is familiar with 3RR policies due to being on Wikipedia for a while and also [225]. Thanks for taking a look at this. BooleanQuackery (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. The most recent stable iteration of the page looks like this, and is from May. BooleanQuackery edited in the disputed material yesterday. There is then a clear edit war over the new material between BooleanQuackery and NightHeron, without any sort of consensus on the talk page. While it's true that NightHeron violated the letter of WP:3RR first, BooleanQuackery is pretty clearly the one who provoked this edit war against the existing page consensus, and furthermore their edit pretty clearly violates the arbitration remedy at the top of the talk page. (Specifically, it's based on dubious sources and violates WP:NPOV.) Loki (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. Also probably someone should run a CU on the OP. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

JBL (talk Disagreement on a subject matter is not a good reason for a CU. However, I invite you to open a sock puppet investigation if you think there is a reason. BooleanQuackery (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with JBL that CU is warranted here. This brand new account has been coming on hot and heavy in a way that is rare for legitimate alts or actual noobs. Generalrelative (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I support a CU as well BooleanQuackery (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The most recent stable iteration of page consensus can be found here, [226] prior to the editing of Generalrelative and NightHeron. A page is not stable if the most recent edits were to remove over half of the article's content, and the very next edit restores some of that content. Also, stable versions of pages are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, especially in a content dispute. See the discussion on the talk page for why my edit was in line with consensus. The peer reviewed, academic sources I added are not dubious. NightHeron has not indicated which sources, out of the two-dozen removed, were problematic. I would be happy to have a discussion about sources on the talk page, and a better alternative would just be for NightHeron to edit only the sources and related content deemed problematic, as opposed to blanket reverting everything. My edit did not violate WP:NPOV. However, if it did, it should not have been deleted; it should be updated per WP:POVDELETION. Wikipedia works best by iteratively improving articles. BooleanQuackery (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

... says someone whose account is one week old and who knows what the unexplained acronym "CU" means. Really the only question here is how much damage you will fit in with this account before you get blocked and move on to the next one. JBL (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:GOODFAITH. It's not good to imply a WP:BRANDNEW user is a sock-puppet, especially in a content dispute. BooleanQuackery (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@BooleanQuackery: Are you claiming to be a brand new user? Generalrelative (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "brand." If you care, you can determine [227] for yourself. [228] BooleanQuackery (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday BooleanQuackery made massive changes to Spearman's hypothesis, more than doubling the size of the article from 9500 bytes to almost 20,000. These edits radically altered the content, especially in the lead, which then gave the impression that Spearman's hypothesis is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence. The earlier stable version of the article emphasized criticism of the hypothesis. BooleanQuackery deleted the following two sentences from the lead of the stable version: Claims of validity of Spearman's hypothesis have been criticized on methodological grounds. Such claims have been used to support scientific racism. As explained in the main body of the article, it was Arthur Jensen, one of the most prominent 20th century promoters of Scientific racism, who coined the term Spearman's hypothesis and popularized it in order to build his case that certain races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence.

I reverted these edits because they violate WP:PROFRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The claims of genetic differences in intelligence between racial groups were discussed in an RfC in 2020 at WP:FTN (see [229]) and in 2021 on the Race and intelligence talk-page (see [230]). Both RfCs on race and intelligence had extensive participation by many editors, over 50 in 2020 and about 35 in 2021. The first one reached a consensus (sustained on appeal) that such claims of inherent intelligence differences between races is a fringe POV. This means that sources that promote such claims (such as the journals Mankind Quarterly and Intelligence (journal)) should be treated on Wikipedia in compliance with WP:PROFRINGE and not given undue attention. A few disgruntled editors were unhappy with this outcome. But the second RfC ended in a WP:SNOWCLOSE overwhelmingly reaffirming the consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. After the RfC in 2020, articles related to racial hereditarianism were edited in accordance with the consensus of editors on the subject. It is those edits, in particular the ones that Generalrelative or I made, that BooleanQuackery is complaining about.

In my edit summary I urged BooleanQuackery to read WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. After BQ twice restored their reverted edits, I put a mild warning (the ewsoft one recommended for dealing with new users) on their talk-page. BooleanQuackery's response to my request to first seek a consensus on the talk-page was to claim that BQ already had a consensus overturning the consensus of the two RfCs of 2020 and 2021. This so-called consensus came from referring to old edits from much earlier versions of the article, edits that had been removed in order not to give undue attention to sources that promote the racial hereditarian fringe POV. BooleanQuackery's insistence on repeatedly restoring their edits shows their contempt for the normal process of forming consensus on Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I WP:BOLDly added a lot of content to the article, after a lot of content had been deleted from the article in May.
• Feel free to add back those two sentences. I have no issue with them. I deleted them at the time because I thought it was undue for the lede, and couldn't find support for the statement, respectively.
• Yes, Jensen coined the term while Spearman first noted it. A large diverse array of authors have worked on it sense. To me, Jensen is only relevant historically.
• My edits had nothing to do with "claims of genetic/inherent differences in intelligence between racial groups."
• Mankind Quarterly should not be used as a source. Intelligence, on the other hand, is a legitimate reputable journal from Elsevier.
• "After the RfC in 2020, articles related to racial hereditarianism were edited in accordance with the consensus of editors on the subject. It is those edits, in particular the ones that Generalrelative or I made, that BooleanQuackery is complaining about." No, it is not. I am not talking about edits in 2020 about "racial hereditarianism" topics. I only refer to the edits on the article "Spearman's hypothesis made in late May by NightHeron and Generalrelative (which improved many aspects of the article, but deleted too much good content).
• "BooleanQuackery's response. . . was to claim that BQ already had a consensus overturning the consensus of the two RfCs of 2020 and 2021." No, this is not what I claimed at all. I'm not sure where this is coming from.
• NightHerson says I referred to edits which gave "attention to sources that promote the racial hereditarian fringe POV." This is not true. I compiled a list of all editors who added examples of Spearman's hypothesis.
• "BooleanQuackery's insistence on repeatedly restoring their edits shows their contempt. . . ." No, this is not true. I explicitly stated on the talk page that "[i]t is not my intention to advocate for the inclusion of all of the above sources." I reiterate the fact that I do not wish to restore the edits that NightHeron is referring to.
• Also, it might be better to discuss some of this on the talk page instead. I will likely link this page there.

BooleanQuackery (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

In BooleanQuackery's rewriting of the lead they removed the two references that were there and added 11 new ones. Eight of the 11 were authored or coauthored by Jan Te Nijenhuis, who is a leading promoter of theories of genetic differences in intelligence, especially between native Europeans and African immigrants; one of those eight articles was published in Mankind Quarterly, which for decades has been one of the main journals promoting Scientific racism. Three others were published in Intelligence, the official journal of ISIR, which functions as an echo-chamber for advocates of racial hereditarianism. After BQ's edits the lead of the article gave a distorted and misleading summary of the article and served only to give credence to a fringe POV.

BQ is correct that the edits by Generalrelative and me to this article were made more recently than most of the other edits that we and others made to articles with racial hereditarian content. But like those other edits, our edits to Spearman's hypothesis were made as a direct result of the consensus of the two RFCs on race and intelligence. NightHeron (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

-If you object to Jan Te Nijenhuis, then just remove the sources to Jan Te Nijenhuis and re-write and discuss if necessary. I don't support [231] including any article published in Mankind Quarterly. I also don't mind if certain authors aren't used in the article. I haven't researched Jan Te Nijenhuis extensively. I searched for "meta-analysis," and he happened to have published multiple on the topic, so he was included multiple times. Also keep in mind that the Nijenhuis sources which I advocated for adding are peer-reviewed and often co-authored with multiple non-Nijenhuis authors.

-I do have to disagree about the journal Intelligence. It looks like a normal journal. The current issue[232] contains no mention of ethnicity. Neither does the most recent full issue.[233] Even if it was true that the journal Intelligence should not be used, that would not substantiate the removal of the rest of my sources, which were from a wide variety of authors and journals.

-I don't have a strong motivation to advocate for any particular journal or author. All I am advocating for is for there to be examples of Spearman's hypothesis included in Spearman's hypothesis. An update of the article addressing your concerns would be more constructive than a revert. BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked As noted in the initial report, there was no 3RR violation. I've watched this develop for a few days and it seems from above and the talk page like the involved editors are talking it out. Keep that up. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Case, BooleanQuackery has just attempted to introduce that same edit yet another time without talk page consensus. Loki (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not an edit I have ever attempted to introduce. Per the edit description, it is a temporary revert to a stable version. The edit I would like to introduce can be found here: [234] BooleanQuackery (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not a revert to a stable version. You were inserting a pro-Jensen POV into the article with that edit, going against consensus. You've been refusing to adhere to the policy for a bold edit that I asked you to read about in WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. You're supposed to seek consensus before trying again to change the content of the article so that it promotes a POV that has been determined to be fringe by a consensus of editors in two recent RfCs. Your stubbornness about this is a case of WP:IDHT. NightHeron (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That edit does not go against consensus. See the talk page where I've previously had this conversation, which would be a better and more relevant place to discuss than here. I would appreciate a diff (posted to talk page) where I tried to "change the content of the article so that it promotes a POV that has been determined to be fringe," because I'm genuinely not sure what this is referring to. BooleanQuackery (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=1101464215&oldid=1101366717

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chanchaldm#Please_stop_your_disruptive_behaviour — Preceding unsigned comment added by GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk • contribs) 11:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This user is citing a false definition of Ranghar and there is no need to cite the definition right after the word when there already is an article about the word. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

NOte that being right is not a jusification for edit waring. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Note as well that you removed long-standing content (see WP:ONUS). Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not remove any content. Everyone can find out the definition of Ranghar by simply going on the Wikipedia page. I also added content about Gulab Singh. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

[[235]] you removed "(Muslim rajputs)". Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Because Ranghar does not signify "Muslim Rajputs". It is only a particular community of the Muslim Rajputs. There are other Muslim Rajput communities, not all of them are Ranghars. Understood? GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, Rajput should be capitalized as it is a noun. I made that argument previously, none of you decided to take it. Hence, it was a quick mobile edit made by the user. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this raises serious concerns, as lying in an edit war report showed utter contempt for our polcies. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

How am I lying? I even wrote on the talk page of the user about the capitalization issues. Now I feel you are taking sides here. That's not honesty, but my fate on Wikipedia is not in my hands. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And by your logic, you are contrasting what the article Ranghar says itself. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You said "I did not remove any content", that was not true you removed "Muslim Rajputs". Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 31 July 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) 13:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2022 Tour de France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [237]
2. [238] partial revert
3. [239]
4. [240] partial revert with below
5. [241] partial revert with above
6. [242]
7. [243]
8. [244]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [245]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [246]

Comments: I've tried to keep details regarding climate change protests on the 2022 Tour de France factual and to a neutral point of view, keeping it to the facts. This user has been reverting or editing the paragraph to what I would consider to be not a neutral perspective, and has not heeded my suggestion not to revert and discuss on the talk page instead. I did suggest that they were not able of having of neutral point of view, given their talk page comments and their edit summaries. This article is currently linked on the front page. (N.B I have not done this before, so apologies if any procedural errors) Turini2 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Having been keeping an eye on this chain of events, user does seem very fixated on maintaining their ideal version of the article. All content that can be construed as positive regarding the protests is being kept wiped,but needless statements such as 'No riders expressed support for the protests.' and 'So-and-so called the protestors imbeciles' are being maintained... All the while paradoxically stating that the article should be neutral and should focus on the race itself. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted (just to clarify, which user?) Turini2 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Raleigh80Z90Faema69 is warned. They may be blocked if they edit the article again regarding climate change or Tour protests unless they have first obtained a consensus for their edit on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @EdJohnston Thanks - they decided to write over 1000+ off topic, personal opinion and complaining about the references on the talk page instead of offering alternative wording. Oh well. Turini2 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [247]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [248]
2. [249]
3. [250]
4. [251]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [252]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [253]

Comments:

They tried to resolve it on my talk page [[254]], hey made no effort to follow my instructions to raise the issue at the articles talk page and instead just reverted. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not do anything wrong, i'm just fixing the article by removing a false definition. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

wp:3RR is policy, being right is not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I apologize, and will accept the policies of Wikipedia. But I request you to please understand my argument. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to revert back to [[255]], and make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This user removed relevant minor details (as it can be seen in diffs) from a long standing version of the article without giving any explanation,and continued it even after making him aware. He hasn't started any discussion on the article talk page, though he should as per WP:Onus. Even after getting warning about 3RR violation and edit warring from me and Slatersteven, he chose to revert to his prefered version of the article, and yet to start a discussion on talk. Requesting admins to take appropriate step against this user for such a grave disregard for our Wikipedia policies. Thank you.Chanchaldm (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear violation(s) of 3RR over the last day and a half or so purely over this edit. 3RR is a strict liability rule, outside of the few recognized exceptions. Saying sorry isn't enough ... there will be enforced silence from this editor for a day. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Variable speed of light (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ascax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [256]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [257]
2. [258]
3. [259]
4. [260]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[261]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [262] and

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [263]

Comments:

• Ascax is edit warring with 3 or 4 other editors about posting their off-topic and NPA comments on to the talk page [264], [265], [266], [267].

• And here they are acknowledging they are in an edit war: [268]. ---Steve Quinn (talk)
• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Page: Judo at the 2014 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [269]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [270]
2. [271]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [272]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [273]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [274]

Comments:

After the user reverted 8 (!) of my edits ([275][276][277][278][279][280][281][282]), I've started a above mentioned article talk page discussion. While the discussion was taking place, the user kept reverting edits of mine on other articles, which are the two diffs provided. After warned and warned again to stop reverting while a discussion is taking place, the user warned me ([283] to stop edit warring. I'm making this apeal before things escelate. This report follows a similar one from a month ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive455#User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:CLalgo (Result: Protected, 72 hours)). CLalgo (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what game you are trying to play, but this is ridiculous. This discussion is still ongoing, my second revert was to add back the correct template (FlagCGFmedalist) and add a piped link to the article, which you erroneously removed with your blind reverting. I have fixed that here [284], and have NOT reverted your edit. Also, "on other articles," please stop lying. This is incorrect information. The only revert after the discussion started, has been on the Judo at the 2014 Commonwealth Games article, and that was to fix your erroneous revert. Also of note, the eight linked above would be reverts of my edits. I created all eight articles today, and the user reverted my edits FIRST. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You see no problem doing the exact same revert on '14 while the discussion is still going on in '22? Saying nothing about antics. CLalgo (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You see no problem with blindly reverting my edits twice on the same article, especially one that had a clear edit description? That is disruptive. My intention on the second revert was to add back the piped link and template you removed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Friend, if I've reverted a piped link edit that was part of your revert than I'm sorry for that. As for your previous comments: One can't revert to something that never was. One can only edit it that case. I've changed the template you've used to another with more functionalities, like I've added categories to those articles and connected them to WikiData. That's editing. CLalgo (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You also reverted and added back the incorrect template: CGFathlete, on the Judo at the 2014 Commonwealth Games article, with your blind reverts. You apologizing clearly demonstrates that you were blindly reverting on the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Also,

"An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert", you did that on all eight articles. You reversed my edits first. You were reverted, and a discussion started as per WP:BRD. There is no further disruption as the discussion continues. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan is pretty well following WP:BRD here. You can emphasize them reverting eight (8!) of your edits all you like but you essentially made the SAME single edit to that many pages, and Sportsfan adequately reverted them. Leading to a discussion. SF essentially made one revert, and 2 on the one page you actually placed in the diff list. This just sounds like you were hoping to avoid being reverted by editing a large quantity of pages. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

My issue is not the first 8 reverts, that were before the discussion has started. my issue was the ones following it. CLalgo (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I find it deceptive to say that you take no issue with it, when you emphasized "8 (!)" reverts, and spent the time to provide a diff for each of them.

I also find it deceptive that the first "diff" you posted is actually a comparison of edits over 6 months apart. Furthermore, you cherry picked the versions that just so happened to align and provide a "no differences" diff, ignoring the subsequent edits the user made to immediately return and improve what was changed by two other users in the intermediate edits. This is looking more and more like a content dispute rather than edit warring. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Sex worker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Volkan1881 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1101740063 by PrisonerB (talk)"
2. 15:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1101735061 by DanCherek (talk)"
3. 14:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 09:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sex worker."
2. 15:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Your edits to Sex worker */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple unexplained reverts to old versions of the article from mid-2020. DanCherek (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Egyptian pound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102039083 by MatthewS. (talk) Please engage on the talk page instead of perpetuating this edit war."
2. 02:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102038736 by MatthewS. (talk) I am not the one edit warring. I made edits using sourced information and removing unsourced or unreliable material."
3. 02:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102038128 by MatthewS. (talk) "Consensus" does not mean "unanimous", please stop this counterproductive edit war."
4. 02:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102037732 by MatthewS. (talk) I requested protection for the edited version as per Talk Page consensus"
5. 02:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102036813 by MatthewS. (talk) PLEASE engage on the talk page. I have already made a protect request, and this just strengthens my case."
6. 22:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision by MatthewS. (talk) Please stop acting against the consensus we reached in the talk page. I also had to concede that my preference for "£E" was not remotely common enough to justify inclusion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am totally uninvolved in this matter, but both users have submitted AIV requests on this page when they are both guilty of edit warring. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Egyptian pound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102039368 by TheCurrencyGuy (talk)"
2. 02:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102039021 by TheCurrencyGuy (talk)"
3. 02:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102038455 by TheCurrencyGuy (talk) Please stop your edit war. Thanks. This is the original version way before you joined Wikipedia. Thanks."
4. 02:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102037893 by TheCurrencyGuy (talk) Consensus was never reached. @TheCurrencyGuy is simply forcing his edition WITHOUT any consensus, replacing what was in place for years. Protection was therefore requested for the original version."
5. 02:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102037241 by TheCurrencyGuy (talk) Protection requested for original version of article."
6. 02:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "I undid TheCurrencyGuy’s edits because there’s no basis to their claims. I included references that are reliable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am totally uninvolved in this matter, but both users have submitted AIV requests on this page when they are both guilty of edit warring. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "My changes are there precisely because there is no consensus, this is not disruption. Since there is no consensus, not only between us, but even between Montenegrin, Serbian and Albanian scholars, no viewpoint should prevail. Btw, your changes (replacing "Likely of Albanian origin" by "Of Albanian origin") were much more disuptive."
2. 13:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Revert when the discussion ends."
3. 11:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "This is not a major change: references have been classified between Albanian, Western supporting the Albanian viewpoint (two sources) ans Elsie (the most reasonable one). Discussion has already started on the talk page, I added my arguments, add yours if you want."
4. 10:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "No consensus has been reached on the talk page. Furthermore, the theory is mostly supported by Albanian scholarship."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [285] after the warning stopped editing for some time, and then returned today and immediately continued the edit war

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has been edit warring on that article, and similar ones, for a long time. They returned to editing on enwiki today after a long pause, and continued the edit warring they were doing in July. 4 reverts today, and others before, mean that sth should be done to calm things a bit. Has been warned for the 3RR by others. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention, Daniel Case. Just a note now that I noticed it. On July 22, the last day Boki edited before returning today, they breached the 3RR on Vasojevići, Piperi (tribe), Bratonožići and Bjelopavlići. This should be taken into account in the future if need arises. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jessica Matten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ it is a third party source not self reported, so I think it should have a greater weight. Metis is used as short hand for mixed, it does not mean red river metis."
2. 01:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC) "updated mother which was removed" and 01:00, 4 August 2022 combined
3. 22:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "There was no synthesis. It is from a single source. Saulteaux is Plains Ojibwe. Metis is not mixed raced, it is a specific group."
4. 22:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Either way it makes not sense to remove the Pocahontas part. Undid revision 1102200602 by Morbidthoughts (talk)"
5. 20:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ clearly defined community heritage is a very important standard for Indigenous peoples"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jessica Matten."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Paternal Heritage */ comment"

Comments:

Continued insertion of WP:UNDUE synthesis from an article that does not even mention the subject. BLP discussion [286] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours For longer term edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jessica Matten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User continues to remove the subjects mothers name for editorial purposes. The article in question is being removed because the subject's mother provided a conflicting narrative of heritage and refers to herself as a "Pocahontas".

The use has also been relying on self-published sources.

https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/canadas-pocahontas-theresa-ducharme-is-a-powerhouse

Continued insertion of WP:UNDUE synthesis from an article that does not even mention the subject. BLP discussion [287] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Djokovic–Nadal rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 31.182.160.94 (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 08:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC) to 08:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
   1. 08:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Famous matches */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC) to 16:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Famous matches */"
   4. 16:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC) to 07:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
   1. 07:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 07:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   4. 07:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   5. 07:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Famous matches */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC) to 10:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
   1. 10:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Famous matches */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Djokovic–Nadal rivalry."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All this IP is doing is vandalism and blanking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours by LuK3 Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Editor8220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102322528 by Kashmiri (talk)"
2. 13:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC) "Jammu and Kashmir is a union territory of India. Arunachal pradesh is another disputed state. Go and check its wikipedia page. It has emblem and map"
3. 12:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1102315895 by Arjayay (talk)"
4. 12:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC) "Map change"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Edit warring in violation of 3RR and ARBIPA. Four warnings (level 1–4) on the editor's Talk page and an ARBIPA warning clearly did not work; editor continues with disruption.

Comments:

I was filing my own report, when I saw the warning on the user's TP - having tried to resolve this on my talk page at [289] - Arjayay (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The user was also warned about discretionary sanctions regarding this topic on their talk page [290] - Arjayay (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Editor is still edit-warring, despite being notified of this report - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Unfortunately we will be contending with this sort of edit war until we can also block India and Pakistan from edit-warring over the actual territory ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Second Cold War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George_Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&oldid=1099709250

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [291]
2. [292]
3. [293]
4. [294]
5. [295]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [296]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [297]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [298]

Comments:

There is a long history of WP:OWNERSHIP and constant reverts from George Ho on this page.

• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Iran Football Championship Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mahan Matin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [299] When the discussion was going on

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [300]
2. [301]
3. [302]
4. [303]
5. [304]
6. [305]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [306]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [307]
[308]

Comments:
i prevented his vandalisms few times but now i'm tired of him. i cleaned up refs in article but he added them again. me and user:Shahin noticed him many times about his vandalisms. he comebacks after a time and do it again! he wants to change the history of articles by fake references and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Miha2020 (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The diffs you posted are NOT an ANEW notice. As seen in red at the top of this page, you must notify users with {{subst:An3-notice}} when opening an ANEW topic regarding them. I have done this myself for the sake of that user. Moving forward, you need to be aware that this action is not optional. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

i tried but that template didn't response. history of article shows that 4 diffs are new. i said that he went a time off wiki then come back and do this edits again! his refs are not correct (wp:RS) (he added them in Fawiki and put it them here too!). he used fake refs to change the history! Miha2020 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  thanks. but he'll come back after few days and do that edits again! he is not active much. please ban him from this page: Iran Football Championship Cup and this template: template:Iranian football top flight seasons. thanks. Miha2020 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 hello. did you see my last cm?--Miha2020 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not taking the kind of preemptive action you suggest.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

if he come back and do that edits again. what should i do? you can see he was not online here last 4 days and 48 hours block didn't make any difference to him Miha2020 (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Paladins (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sru111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "Added sources, but why is the original unsourced version allowed to exist?"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC) to 18:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
   1. 18:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "What's even wrong, the link is reliable and the information is also accurate"
   2. 18:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Setting */"
3. 17:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "I like to think a direct post from the person in question is a reliable source. .-."
4. 15:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 15:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Setting */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Paladins (video game)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Praxidicae "/* Paladins */"

Comments:

Despite a clear and adequate explanation by Jéské Couriano on my own talk page, Sru111 continues to edit war to insert unsourced/poorly sourced cruft to the article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You gave me zero reason for reverting my edits until the second time, acted like a complete asshole by ignoring my attempts at figuring out what was wrong, and now reported me after I added sources straight from the developers. You apparently can't follow a simple explanation of the setting and removed a Forbes article because you didn't personally like it. Ego much? Sru111 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I explained in my edit summary, as did Jeske. Perhaps you should read our policies before creating personal attacks. The one here without a clue is not me, it is in fact, you. Also ironic given your complete inability to follow a simple instruction while also attacking me on my talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, you only did that in the second edit, and you never explained what you meant by "cruft" and just kept being an asshole. There was absolutely no reason to revert everything, as there was a source straight from a developer in the latter section, as I said, yet you did anyway, and now there are sources for the setting as well, yet you reported me anyway, and removed a review that you personally didn't like. And please, give me a break, you consider what I wrote on your page "attacking"? I made absolutely no insults towards you and barely even referenced you, and Jeske's response didn't include any further indication of what was wrong beyond lacking sources and not going too in-depth, while you just told me in the most asshole way possible to "learn to sign responses". Maybe try actually responding and explaining things to people instead of removing what they say and being an asshole about it? So how about actually explaining what's so "cruft" about my edits? Sru111 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage with you any further since you can't seem to have a civil conversation without calling me an asshole for simply going by Wikipedia's rules. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: List of metaphor-based metaheuristics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "lol"
2. 16:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "So you clearly state that you can not judge an algorithm. Just get a life."
3. 16:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "Who are you to judge and what is your field of expertise?"
4. 13:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "I think someone has become obsessed with a widely used algorithm. It has nothing to do with self-promotion. Please be serious."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

GusRDRM is a single purpose account dedicated to writing about one particular algorithm and has previously indicated that they have a conflict of interest. MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This particular wikipedia page is about the brief description of several metaheuristic algorithms. As noted on the page, "This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items". That's exactly what I did, and that's exactly what other researchers are doing. It has nothing to do with self-promoting or whether the algorithm is mine or not. It has to do with the fact that this page is about a list of algorithms. User MrOllie seems to have become obsessed with this particular topic. I fill it in, he takes it out. As you will see in the comments of history, he judges it, saying e.g. "nonnotable, rarely used algorithm" although it leaves the Firebug Swarm Optimization algorithm which appears to be more "nonnotable", according to its citations. Really, can he explain to us why this distinction between those two? Also, how can he judge something that is not in his field? I wish the user MrOllie would stop messing with me, and if he wants to continue improving wikipedia he should learn to do his research before judging. GusRDRM (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If It has nothing to do with self-promoting why did you say you have a conflict of interest? Please explain. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Because I had created a full page that has been put down in order for the algorithm to be on that list. If I remember correctly, I was asked to state this before the page was published. And now you take it out. I just say some information like everybody does. Also, I am still waiting for your explanation on my statements above. Thank you. GusRDRM (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Pages: I Knew You Were Trouble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
White Horse (Taylor Swift song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ippantekina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [309]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [310]
2. [311]
3. [312]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [313]

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

Comments:
This goes for every other Taylor Swift re-recording as well. Tree Critter (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tree Critter: There are many problems with this report, but without going into them for the moment, you have failed to notify Ippantekina of this report, which you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

[315] What else is wrong with it? Tree Critter (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I simply adhere to WP:SYNTH; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The source that Tree Critter gives does not mention explicitly any of the information they want to verify, thus I removed it. Ippantekina (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, I added a rationale for my edits every time, but Tree Critter reverted my edits without proper explanation. This is as much as Tree Critter's fault, if not more than mine, to fail to acknowledge that I cite proper guidelines (WP:V, WP:OR or WP:SYNTH) every time I revert their edits. Ippantekina (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have not combined sources, I'm using one source. I made the initial edits. You reverted my edits several times without taking your concerns to a talk page. I have brought it up in both your talk page and an article talk page because you didn't feel it necessary to do so. I'm not sure if you know what the contents of an album are, but its songs. The songs she has re-recorded. She said contractually she CANNOT re-record them any earlier than November 2020, so I had the articles reflect that. Later in the interview the interviewer asked "So, you'll be doing that?" an Taylor responded with "Yea it's next year. I'm gonna be busy." What is difficult to understand here? Tree Critter (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

A request was made at DRN for dispute resolution. I have declined the request because there has not been discussion at Talk:I Knew You Were Trouble. I will repeat my advice to discuss at the article talk page. That's what article talk pages are for.I have closed the request because the dispute is also pending here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Second Cold War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George_Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&oldid=1099709250

Diffs of the user's reverts: Recent:

1. [316]

Establishing pattern of behavior:

1. [317]
2. [318]
3. [319]
4. [320]
5. [321]
6. [322]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [323]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [324]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [325]

Comments:

• There is a long history of WP:OWNERSHIP and constant reverts from George Ho on this page.
• User is claiming images are disallowed from this page, citing RFC's that closed without a consensus opinion. From my reading, the original scope of these RFCs was never a complete image ban. George Ho links these two RFCs closed without an opinion to justify their edit warring.
• User removed warning from their talk page

User:NickMartin George Ho did not violate 3RR. He only edited once on July 31 [326], two times both on August 2 [327], ([328], August 5 ([329]), ([330]), and on two times on august 7th [331]) and ([332]). Chip3004 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I figured this would be in the scope of the 1RR rule? If i'm not raising this in the right place, please let me know where to do so. Nic Martin (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. The article is not subject to 1RR. This appears to be a content dispute that you will need to resolve using one or more of the dispute resolution methods.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Page: Greatest of All Time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: FMSky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the page Greatest of All Time, user:FMSky violated WP:3RR. On the third revision, he asked to talk on the talk page. I proceeded to do just that, only for him to not bother engaging there at all. Instead he talked about another editor and then asked that same editor to revert my edits since he had already violated 3RR. Then he has the audacity to accuse me of edit warring when he refused to engage in a conversation. Regardless, he has no basis for reverting my edits, he is gatekeeping the page, which violates WP:OWN, and he is trying to get me in trouble. Please discipline him Administrators.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

EDIT- here's a nice addendum. I posted the initial notification about the report on his talk page, and guess what, he proceed to REVERT that edit notifying him, with the following note in his reversion "inserting garbage into articles". So now we know his true motivation- he believes my edits to be garbage, violating WP:AGF and I'm sure some other principle that I cannot find at the moment. Either way, I have posted a second notification on his talk page, so that I do not get in trouble for not notifying.Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when your first message is "Revert again and you will be reported for 3RR." (which doesnt even apply as the reverts were in a span of months) --FMSky (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The span of August 5 = 1 month?Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

He said months, not 1 month, because the only way you can find 4 reverts is if you go back that far (it's more than a month because you'd have to go back to June 20). If you're only including August 5, it is exactly two reverts[333][334] which is not a 3RR violation. - Aoidh (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice how all these users have time to show up and gang up on me here when I was trying to establish a consensus on the talk page and no one was conveniently responding there. 3RR means a total of 3 reversions means the total number of reversions done. He did the first, I the second, and him the third. 3.Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, 3RR means three reversions by the same editor. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

User Valkyrie Red forced "american basketball player and global icon" into the article "Greatest of All Time" and threatened me for removing it despite a talk page discussion (started by an admin) to not include players. addition was also unsourced. --FMSky (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments: -Administrators, it should be made aware that he has reverted my second notification on his talk page. I had refuted the other users's grounds for the edit prevention, and he didn't bother engaging via WP:BRDValkyrie Red (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Valkyrie Red: please see WP:REMOVED. The editor is permitted to remove your notification, and removal is accepted to mean acknowledgement that it has been received and read. There is no requirement that it remain once placed. The diff of the placement, such as this one is permanent evidence that can be found if we for some reason need proof that the warning was placed there. - Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove notifications from their own talk pages whenever they want. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

User:FMSky has not violated 3RR, Techinally Rule #7 - Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy is excempt from the edit warring policy so User:FMSky has not violated 3RR. Chip3004 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice, a sockpuppet created just to back-up FMSky. Now you've violated Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry.Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop with the personal attacks, especially ones for which you have no evidence. You have accused both FMSky and myself of WP:OWN simply because we reverted you, and Chip of sockpupptery for disagreeing with you. Please see WP:NPA#WHATIS (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.) and WP:ASPERSIONS, especially since you have been blocked before for making personal attacks. - Aoidh (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not an Sock Puppet of User:FMSky, I did not violate Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. I am not related to User:FMSky. Chip3004 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Valkyrie Red: So your next edit needs to be either filing an SPI, or retracting the above accusation with apologies to both editors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Notwithstanding by above note to VR, @Chip3004, that's a completely incorrect assessment of policy (besides being moot since, as noted, FM didn't hit 3RR). Please don't weigh in here if you don't understand the edit-warring policy. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest everyone establish consensus at the existing thread at Talk:Greatest of All Time, and hopefully this report goes stale. The OP should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG, reporting a potential 3RR when they themselves are also edit warring and given their own block log history.—Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You have time to reach back 12 years ago but no time to respond to the talk page post. It's disappointing that it had to take a report on the Administrator's Noticeboard for you to do so.Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Valkyrie Red is warned. They may be blocked the next time they try to add an individual player (such as Michael Jordan) to this page unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their edit on the article talk page. In the thread at Talk:Greatest of All Time#Basketball greats, editors have mentioned prior discussions that are relevant. A number of similar lists have been deleted at AfD, indicating a general opinion that lists of greatest players aren't suitable for the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Umar ibn Sa'd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2604:3D09:6981:61C0:6517:BDB0:8D29:421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 05:39, 7 August 2022‎ (UTC) ""
3. 00:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 23:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 22:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC) "Some people are trying to hide history."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Umar ibn Sa'd."
2. 23:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Umar ibn Sa'd."
3. 23:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Umar ibn Sa'd."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Adding the same type of unsourced POV screeds elsewhere [335] [336]. Relevant range at this point is 2604:3d09:6981:61c0::/64. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Result: The IP range 2604:3d09:6981:61c0::/64 has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring and for making unsourced changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Sri Lankan Tamils (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.101.12.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [337]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [338]
2. [339]
3. [340]
4. [341]
5. [342]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [343]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [344]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [345]

Comments: The user has made 5 plus reverts in less than 24 hours and refuses to engage constructively with other users despite being warned. I even started a discussion on his talk page which he has not engaged with. I note he has also being engaging in similar behaviour on other pages. Please can someone intervene. thank you. Oz346 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [346]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [347]
2. [348]
3. [349]
4. etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [350] and [351]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [352]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [353]

Comments: I think it is the very first time I am reporting an editwarring so I am not very familiar with diff and reporting but I do really tried to friendly solve the conflict explaining to the other User that he cannot undo without any prior discussion, but he undid and then he (finally) open the discussion on Kiribati talk page after 3R. This user has made 3 plus reverts on Kiribati in less than 24 hours and refuses to engage constructively with other users despite being warned (but on diff comments). I even started a discussion on his talk page which he has not engaged with. I note he has also being engaging in similar behaviour on other pages. Please can someone intervene? thanks.

--Arorae (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Arorae: You are required to notify the user of this report (see top of this page). Please do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I will now. Done. Arorae (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The OP has been very disrespectful towards me claiming that I should be blocked instead of having a productive discussion. He/She claims that I merged the figures for KUC with KPC when in reality I didn't do it. I have raised a genuine concern that mentioning so many denominations with following accounting for less than 10% of the population has burdened the info box. They also claim that I have broken the 3 revert rule but I haven't. Regards Neplota (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing out the OP has left false edit warring templates on my talk page as well. I don't think they understand the meaning of edit warring. Also pointing out this user reverted Neplota's edits 5 times in the last few days without any inclination of discussion. That is edit warring imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just pointing out also that Sportsfan 1234 had left many false edit warring templates on my own talk page after his own repetive undoing of many of my edits. His comment just here seems like a sort of revenge.--Arorae (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Neplota: says that « the OP has been very disrespectful» : here are the comments I wrote directly on his talk page before any kind of warning ⚠️ : « Religion in Kiribati

Hi. you have recently modified Kiribati by adding info that wasn’t exactly the same of the 2020 Census (files published June 2022), so I have reverted it and stated exactly what is written in the source. sorry for that and thanks again. Arorae (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You cannot merge because it is too long (for you?) in Infobox, by adding potatoes and carrots together.--Arorae (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC) »

nothing disrespectful at all. Arorae (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gitz6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [354]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:39, 6 August 2022 - this is a revert to nearly the same version included by this user earlier [355]
2. 00:01, 7 August 2022
3. 00:42, 7 August 2022 (this is a revert of removal made in this edit: [356])
4. 01:28, 7 August 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [357]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [358]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [359]

Comments:
This user made 4 reverts during 3 hours.

I did ask Gitz6666 to self-revert and use dispute resolution 00:20, 7 August 2022, but they continued reverts (diffs above).

This is especially concerning because they edit war over including the same content earlier: 15:39, 30 July 2022, 10:51, 29 July 2022 ,19:22, 12 July 2022. They edit war about other content on the same page. For example,

1. [360], [361], [362], [363]
2. [364],[365],[366],[367],[368]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

1. I doubt the first diff, 23:39, 6 August 2022, is actually a revert. MVBW says nearly the same version included by this user earlier and shares a link to 15:39, 30 July 2022. "Nearly" is the key word. From 30 July to 6 August six editors discussed on how to report the incident in Stara Krasnianka (where 60 elderly people had died) in a thread I opened at 20:30, 30 July 2022. Four editors agreed on a modified version in order to address MVBW's concerns as expressed when they first removed the section at 00:42, 30 July 2022. The new version was presented at 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC), no editor objected for three days and I then published a substantially new text following a discussion that had apparently delivered a consensus. Is this a "revert"?
2. The second diff is indeed a revert. In the edit summary I explain the process that led to the first diff.
3. The third and forth diffs should be seen as two consecutive edits. The reason why I used two edits instead of one is that I noticed that MVBW (and not Volunteer Marek, as I erroneously wrote in my edit summary) had removed some contents reported by Washington Post without accounting for them in the edit summary. Please note my edit summary: Why did you just remove User:Volunteer Marek contents supported by the WoPo that have been in this article since ever? And with a misleading edit summary? The edit with the misleading/incomplete edit summary is this one by MVBW: 23:53, 6 August 2022, where the removal of WaPo (which is not related to Stara Krasnianka) was not explained nor accounted for. Therefore the third and fourth diffs should be considered as one single revert of that "clumsy" removal by MVBW: distinguishing between two different texts (Stara Krasnianka and WaPo) instead of putting different things into one single "basket" is a good editorial practice.
4. One final note about "style", so to say, or perhaps Wikiquette. When in the recent past MVBW repeatedly violated the 3RR rule on that article, I wrote to them in their talk page and asked them to revert either in a polite and friendly way [369] or in a harsher way [370]. I did the same a few days ago with another user who is also involved in the dispute about Stara Krasnianka: 07:50, 30 July 2022. I see that MVBW behaves differently. Note, finally, that the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" posted by MVBW was made by another editor, with regard to a different dispute, on 23 June 2022, and that the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" posted by MVBW is to the discussion I opened on 30 July, which delivered an apparent consensus on 3 August and to which MVBW did not contribute from 3 August until yesterday. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

First diff is clearly a revert (same title, same link, same text in 2 diffs provided: "On 7 March the Ukrainian armed forces reportedly occupied..." versus "On 7 March the Ukrainian armed forces reportedly occupied..."). No, two last diffs are non-sequential edits. Gitz6666 tells about his edit made per "an apparent consensus". No, there was no consensus. And no, I respect 3RR rule on this and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

First diff is clearly a revert. No, we had a discussion after you had removed the text at the end of July; you gave your arguments, four editors told you that they had different views, a mediation was proposed by a fellow editor, the proposed text was modified accordingly by adding a new sentence; you had three days for replying in the t/p, which you didn't. Publishing that text is not a "revert" of your removal, it is collaborative editing.

No, two last diffs are non-sequential edits You had removed two unrelated texts (Stara Krasnianka + WoPo on Ukrainian warfare) with the same edit without giving any reason and without mentioning it in the edit summary. Am I wrong? Conf. my edit at 23:39, 6 August 2022 (adding Stara Krasnianka after a broad discussion in the t/p) and MVBW's removal at 23:53, 6 August 2022 (removing Stara Krasnianka + WaPo). When I noticed this, I immediately restored WaPo at 00:42, 7 August 2022 and, after 46 minutes, I restored Stara Krasnianka 01:28, 7 August 2022. In the meantime I left a message on the talk explaining why I was restoring Stara Krasniaka for the second time, as Volunteer Marek's edit summary was clearly wrong: 01:24, 7 August 2022. Separating your and Volunteer Marek's all-encompassing removals (Stara Krasnianka + WaPo) into two distinct edits was the right thing to do and counts as one single revert - in fact, I reverted this edit 00:28, 7 August 2022. So yesterday I made two reverts overall, and you reported me without any 3RR warning. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"without any 3RR warning" - are you saying you were not aware of 3RR rule? I already advised you what needs to be done here on article talk page [371], and it is not too late to follow this advice, i.e. self-revert. Arguing that revert was not a revert (when it was) is not really a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: The 3RR warning linked isn't about this incident, but from the 23 of June. AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I left a 3RR warning on Gitz6666's page here. Overall Gitz6666's behavior both on the article and on the talk page has been quite tendentious and disturbing. In addition to the incessant edit warring, there's a huge WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem where Gitz6666 just ignores other users' objections and proceeds to try and implement "their version" via reverting. Worse, in some cases to justify inclusion of disputed text they resort to misrepresenting and even outright ... telling untruth, about what's in sources. This talk page comment is an example - when asked for sources which would support the notion that Ukrainian forces have committed a war crime by stationing troops in a nursing home, Gitz6666 provides sources... which state that Russians have potentially committed a war crime by bombing the nursing home. But the way they present these sources (in this case WaPo and TheTimes) seems to purposefully obscure that fact and Gitz6666s comment suggests the OPPOSITE of what the sources say. Honestly, this has gone long enough. Topic ban time. Volunteer Marek 18:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Result: [User:Gitz6666]] has been warned by User:Daniel Case. Struck out my prior comment in the light of Daniel's follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  That was never intended to indicate that I warned him. VM did, as he said above.

  I do agree that something beyond the scope of this board must be discussed. Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case, sorry, my comment above was meant only to indicate that Gitz6666 has been given prior warnings for edit warring including in this instance. It was not meant as a resolution of this request. Volunteer Marek 04:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I have undone the closure ... sorry about that.

As for what I should be, I think, especially given your suggestion for a topic ban, see below.

No violation It's beyond clear that Gitz's editing has much to be desired. But there are only two edits to the article in the last couple of days, both of which, yes, are reverts, but that's not a violation of policy. Given other evidence presented of user's tendentiousness, I strongly suggest this discussion be removed to AN/I where a discussion of more appropriate remedies, such as the topic ban mentioned, are more appropriate. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to reply to the closer's comment here - if not, please revert. I agree with the closer that the situation at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (and perhaps elsewhere in the EE area) requires community discussion and a thorough review by admins. I have tried to provoke such discussion and review by opening a discussion at AN/I about VM [372] and by filing a complaint at AE against MVBW [373]; also MVBW recently filed a request at AE against me [374]. Perhaps as a consequence of these disputes, a couple more experienced editors have joined the discussions on the talk page and have started editing there, and I hope that their contributions will help containing VM's and MVBW's POV-pushing. Their tendentiousness is both blatant (MVBW publishes racist slurs about slavish obedience and cruelty in his talk page) and relentless (both editors were involved in WP:EEML under the usernames "Radeksz" and "Biophys" respectively), but it can be appreciated only by someone who has some familiarity with the discussions going on "War crimes in Ukraine": in an area as controversial as that, well-intended but hasty judgments by uninformed editors could be damaging and should be avoided as far as possible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

If I understand what happened, MVBW removed the(mistaken) 3RR warning, which VM left on my talk page a few minutes before MVBW filed this request [375]. Does this make any sense? I don't understand that point of removing from my talk VM's warning. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think four diffs above represented very obvious reverts, but I am not going to bring any further complaints about Gitz6666 as someone too involved. If behavior by a user is clearly problematic, I believe the community can handle it. As a side note, Obedience (human behavior) and Cruelty are legitimate subjects for discussion and improvement on WP pages, and they are obviously related to human culture. My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  As a side note to your side note, I suggest you take a look at Cultural racism and at Racism#Cultural. If someone here were to start speculating about "Mediterranean laziness and corruption" or about "Anglo-Saxon arrogance and pettiness", I doubt that would be conductive to collaborative editing. That is such stuff as wars are made on. Your anti-Russian sentiment is so strong that it should prevent you from editing in any area related to Russia, as you yourself once almost admitted [376]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 19:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC) "There is a consensus. That is the dictionary definition. I dont understand why this tiny edit is being reverted"
3. 19:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC) "in the United States as well, it has ALWAYS been defined as two quarters of negative GDP growth. There is no changing that. that is the dictionary definition of a recession in the United States of America"
4. 19:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Recession."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC) "/* OECD definition of recession */"

Blocked indefinitely by User:Guerillero. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not my place, but I don't understand how a user can get an indefinite block after just one violation of their first warning. (Just one minute before, perfectly reasonable that they didn't see it), and with an attempt to resolve the dispute after their last edit. AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing because there were multiple other issues... PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There were, but no prior warning was given before, and I don't think there was malice behind to warrant an indefinite block. AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bythere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bythere has several times reverted my version of the article on Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This new text is based on a version that was published in ru-Wiki two weeks ago. As seen from its edit history, some typos were fixed and some stylistic corrections were made, but in general, there was no hard criticism. And that's in Ru-Wiki, where battles over war-related articles are the hottest! As most sources were in English, I've decided to make a translation for en-Wiki. Unfortunately, user Bythere considers this text to be of 'unacceptably poor' quality. His revisions were twice undone by @JoaquimCebuano:, however, with no success. I do agree that I'm no native speaker and my grammar can be poor, but how can one deny the quality of official sources and respectable publications I've cited? Where's the bias he talks about? I'm in Wiki for more than 10 years and I know how to write, it's just I can't reveal my main account because the editors from Belarus and Russia are officially hunted by law enforcement since February 24. In the meantime, no contribution has been done by Bythere. That is why I ask my colleagues to help me with this issue. His repetitive revisions do not improve the quality of the article and in no way help to improve it. Thank you all in advance. --Quorra Rinzler (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Report was malformed, but 3RR was clearly violated and user was warned. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Case, this was a case of forum shopping after I had declined an AIV report and warned everyone involved for edit warring. I'm dissatisfied to see that Quorra Rinzler is now even, in bold formatting, using the block as an argument on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I just gave context for all those who will join the discussion. Quorra Rinzler (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Quorra Rinzler, you have provided an irrelevant argument that has nothing to do with the article's content. Please remove it from your comment, just as I had removed unnecessarily personal content from the original message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I've edited, but I still think you're being too soft on the "newbie" editor with this pattern of behavior as Bythere demonstrate. Quorra Rinzler (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Forum shopping or not (and yes, I see this happen here and at AIV too), there was a clear violation. 3RR IMO leaves less room for judgement calls. It needs to be seen as strictly enforced. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Independent Online (South Africa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lemonbisi (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. [377]
2. [378]
3. [379]
4. [380]
5. [381]
6. [382]
7. [383]
8. [384]
9. [385]
10. [386]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [387]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [388]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [389]

Comments:

Lemonbisi (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia 2 weeks ago and has continuously tried to edit the opening sentence of the article Independent Online (South Africa) and has not responded to multiple attempts to discuss this on their talk page and on the article talk page. The edit itself is questionable because it is poorly cited and is also part of a pattern of probable conflict of interest editing of this and related pages which I have raised separately at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Independent_Online_(South_Africa). Zaian (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a promotional-only account. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [390]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. An identical revert from August 5th
2. Today
3. Today
4. Today
5. Today
6. Today
7. Today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on talk page, also warned by Dumuzid.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [391] Section was opened by jps on the 6th, Cosmoid did not post to it until around the time of their first threat to edit war over this (see below).

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [392]

Comments:

The user has repeatedly stated their intention to continue edit warring, here, here and here. Happy (Slap me) 14:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Addition: Two more reverts in the time between me noticing the 4th and finishing this report. Happy (Slap me) 14:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Indef partial block from Kevin Knuth. Despite having less than 200 edits, this is not Cosmoid's first block for edit warring. A site-wide block may be necessary if they are not able to adapt and adhere to our policies and guidelines regarding content disputes and collaboration.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Firstly, I did not start the 'edit war' - in fact, if you bothered to review the logs, you'd see that I was the person repeatedly asking that this did not occur. The tag was repeatedly replaced after I had removed it, having stated explicitly why the tag was inaccurate and inappropriate. Yet there was no discussion before revert after revert (I was not even the first user to breach the 3 revert rule!).

Secondly, get your facts straight. I have not been blocked for 'edit warring'. I was blocked for an untrue accusation of 'meat puppetry' (I didn't even know what it was!).

Thirdly, the notability of the article was discussed on the AfD. It was not found that the article lacked notability - otherwise, it would have been deleted. To then tag my article regarding notability within days of the AfD discussion closing - despite there being no consensus that there is any notability issue - is quite clearly trolling. Hence, I removed the tag. I also demonstrated my willingness to compromise, by adding the Primary Sources tag back myself, absent the reference to 'notability'.

Yet, despite the evidence of what occurred here - including interaction by other users who appear obsessed with 'policing' any pages they deem as 'fringe' - I am the one who gets blocked? You refer to "collaboration"; where was collegial behaviour and collaborative mindset that sought to discuss any perceived notability issue on the article's talk page before plastering the tag on the article just days after the AfD discussion? Of course, there was none. It was, I believe, simply placed there to be provocative, since the article was not deleted as had been argued for. There has been collaborative 'pile-on' behaviour by those motivated to devote a quite bizarre level attention to this article. I wonder why ... oh so mysterious. A check of the some of the usernames involved and a studious review of their own edit history might prove enlightening.

In summary: The facts of what occurred here ever since I first published the article are clearly logged for all to see. However, it's obvious to me that a certain subset of Wikipedia editors are not interested in actually adhering in practice to the stated Wikipedia principles to which they pay lip service (and, of course, weaponise to further their own agendas).

I note the ban on this account is indefinite. Please don't bother lifting it. Apply the perma-ban hammer, I implore you. I'm done with Wikipedia. I've far better better things to do with my time than play these ridiculous games.

P.S.: As for your "site-wide block" ... you do realise how trivial it is to fire up a new account under fresh & totally unrelated residential IP, don't you? Luckily for you, I've neither the time nor the inclination to bother. Do your worst. Ta-ta. Cosmoid (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Alexis Tsipras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.66.222.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version related to [393]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [394]
2. [395]
3. [396]
4. [397]
5. [398]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [399][400] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [401]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [402]

Comments: I trimmed the page and removed content that actually exists in the page but is down below in different sections (Early life and career, Political career 1999-2015, Prime Minister) and also in more detail, basically an almost copy of what is written later in the page. Because the content I removed as I said still IS in the page I made a small summary while keeping important information and as for result became easier to navigate (it was too long). The user started reverting my edits without explanation, even another editor restored my version and still got reverted. The user didn't respond to my message and the editor i mentioned sent a warning which both messages where removed by the user.

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours since he continued edit warring and has refused to discuss, even deleting a message to that effect on their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Rebecca Latimer Felton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.15.95.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [403]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [404]
2. [405]
3. [406]
4. [407]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [408] [409]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [410] [411] [412]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [413]

Comments:

The user's edit summary for their most recent edit [414] as well as their accusations on the page's talk page [415] are a bit odd honestly. I don't want to make accusations without more happening but take a look at them if you're stumped please 2603:8080:F600:27A2:6C94:8FC0:CC79:265A (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note IP has not specifically been warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

At least, until I just did. [416] —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)