Page: Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FelineThesaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BhagyaMani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tijkil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
YusufCatLover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: See the history. There are 11 reverts by 4 users in the last 24 hours. It's 18 reverts in 3 days and approximately 30 reverts in the last week.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2] [3] [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6] [7] [8] [9]

Comments:
4 users with a half-dozen reverts each. Clearly none of them know anything but the undo button and everyone needs to be stopped. 171.66.135.95 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Makes more sense to do this with multiple edit-warriors. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Daniel Case,

Actually i warned the people in the Talk section of the bengal tiger website regarding these 2 users that delete informations, which just come from papers. The reason behind this is serious bias. Can you tell me how i can solve this? Maybe you could read the message i sent in the talk section and follow it in the 9th july to see it yourself. I have a good reputation in other websites (other languages). However if the users keep deleting the parts without any serious reason. Hope you can clear this problem for me and can give a serious warning to the 2 other users.

Kind regards,

YusufCatLover YusufCatLover (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full protection is sort of a warning in and of itself (we usually don't deal with multiple reportees here). If it continues after the protection ends, I think AN/I would be a better place to deal with it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would suggest you to open the talk section in the bengal tiger thread were i talked about this issue. All i did was originally adding a tiny bit of additional information. However two guys kept deleting those edits without any acceptable reason. I hope you can understand. YusufCatLover (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2028 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• • 15:04, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096768162 by Czello (talk) RFC ongoing; cities always listed with states in US

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 13:16, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096750181 by Aleenf1 (talk) Cities are always listed with states.
• 13:28, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096761187 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) undothank Tags: Undo Reverted
• 13:32, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096761529 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk). INCORRECT.
• 15:04, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096768162 by Czello (talk) RFC ongoing; cities always listed with states in US

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Unable to honour the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#RFC: What to put in the 'host city' section of the infobox Aleenf1 14:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmargi has now reverted 5 different editors in a very short span of time - this needs to stop. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 1 week; previous history of edit warring blocks, crossed bright line 3RR rule, edit warring against multiple editors, edit warring against apparent consensus, edit warring after clear warnings to stop edit warring. Come on. Last block was several years ago, which is why this is not longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Shantel VanSanten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aniket Singh Bhadoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Edit"
2. 14:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Edit"
3. 11:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Edit"
4. 23:08, 15 June 2022 "Original edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (note this is a Level 4 warning after two separate Level 3 warnings)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Shantel VanSanten#Portrait photo in infobox

Comments:

Edit warring warning can be found on their talk page. Not sure why the diff didn't show up in Twinkle. Amaury • 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User also has a recent history of making some disruptive edits. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The salient point here is the user in question started a Talk page discussion, that I responded to laying out my position (and pointing out the objectionable part of their edit), and then they simply ignored the Talk page discussion that they had started from then on, and never commented again and just repeated the same edit over and over again! I can't think of anything more disruptive than starting a discussion, and then ignoring it to keep reverting! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Note also that the IP edits on June 30 at the article may be the same editor, though I don't know for sure. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096780734 by Zefr (talk) On the wikipedia article it is only stated that the analysis was performed in silico, in vivo and in vitro. No clinical infromation was mentiond. The pharmaceutical claims are quoted directly from the referenced authors"
2. 14:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096769568 by Zefr (talk) Zefr is vandalizing this article erasing parts without discussion"
3. 14:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096764709 by Zefr (talk) The source was erronously misunderstood as a low-quality journal for unknown reason"
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) to 09:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
   1. 09:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096683312 by KH-1 (talk)"
   2. 09:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "I added an extra reference that mentions the existance of cannabis strains that produce large amounts of CBG"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cannabigerol."
2. 13:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* July 2022 */ Reply"
3. 14:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Cannabigerol."
4. 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cannabigerol."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* What a reliable source means */ WP:PRIMARY sources"
2. 15:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* What a reliable source means */ r"
3. 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* What a reliable source means */ r"

Comments:

User is repeatedly warring against two editors, with no consensus established on the article talk page and insufficient justification on the user's talk page. Zefr (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in context, Zafr wants this phrase removed because he/she believes that such claim requires clinical research published in high impact factor jounral.

"Some strains, however, produce large amounts of CBG and CBGA, while having very low quantities of other cannabinoids, like THC and CBD."

I presented a source (a citation of a review published in a journal in with an impact factor higher than 3) that mentions the existence of such strains, but the user considers such information as "unjustified, exaggerated and misleading". These are personal interpretations of the user which should have no relevance for the validity of the source. Since the user was left with no further arguments, he/she preferred harass me through this report. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours No direct 3RR vio, but in continuously reverting others' edits to the article and restoring material clearly against policy while casting bad-faith aspersions on Zefr (this one is particularly rich), who has pointed out several good policy reasons why this source should not be in the article, gonzalez is clearly being tendentious and warrants a block. It's also worth noting that the account was created just days ago and seems to be an SPA.

Granted he stopped editing a day ago; whether he resumes again after the block I don't know but the point needed to be made. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Mayra Flores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Added source and info"
2. 20:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Evangelicals don’t have a Sacrament of Confirmation only Orthodox Christians and Catholics do. Campaigning with the support of evangelicals =/= being an Evangelical, Donald Trump is an example of this. Also this article uses tweets a sources for other statements but provides no source for this statement. Her own statements directly refute this.
3. 18:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Added information and source"
4. 18:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Added information and citation on personal life."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 20:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mayra Flores."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
2. 20:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
3. 20:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"

Comments:

This user doesn't appear to be able to edit without edit warring, whether it be adding erroneous, unsourced or incorrect information of varying degrees. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocked I agree they were heading in the direction of a block, but This edit following the talk page discussion seems to have stopped them; they've gone on to edit other articles since then. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Amanda Lear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 92.10.13.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096837089 by Binksternet (talk) Removed WP:BLP violation, I encourage you to read the BLP policy - which this info violates"
2. 22:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Wikipedia is not a gossip column"
3. 20:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096816863 by ZimZalaBim (talk) This is an obvious WP:BLP violaton. I am not going to seek consensus regardless of sourcing, considering the purpose of the info. If someone found sourced information of her social security number that would still be a BLP violation and not what Wikipedia is for. Passport + birth cert info is not Wikipedia appropriate and u know it. You'd delete it on any other article."
4. 20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "This entire section and the ending of last quote is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and regardless of intention serves purely as tabloid journalism on something private - potentially violating the privacy of a living person WP:BLP - as a way of exoticising trans women. Either way, if Lear's trans, then she'd be closeted and this would be a big BLP vio - but she said she's cis constantly. Info about her birth certificate and passport is outrageously unacceptable"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Amanda Lear */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP has engaged in edit wars on numerous pages over the past week or so. Amanda Lear, Emily St. James, and others. Attempts to engage on user talk page are met with hostility or blanking warnings. ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours It has as of this edit expired and they have returned to editing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Simona Halep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "RV vandalism"
2. 18:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096799991 by Wolbo (talk) s"
3. 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096795631 by Wolbo (talk) it is ludicrously unencyclopaedic. it is an embarrassment. If you think otherwise, you must not have looked at it."
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC) to 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096659084 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
   2. 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096646249 by Fyunck(click) (talk) if there is unencyclopaedic shit like this in other articles, it should be removed from them. There is no justification for restoring such rubbish here."
5. 10:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1096577846 by Fyunck(click) (talk) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines##4:Career says otherwise"
6. 08:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC) "/* 2022 */ I don't think every single tournament needs mentioning, especially not in a badly-presented list riddled with grammar and style errors."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Simona Halep."
2. 00:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "/* July 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple editors keep trying to stop this content removal.... so far to no avail. We have asked it be brought to talk, even though I doubt any editor would agree with this blanking. That also has not happened. This is a high profile page right now with Halep in the semifinals and this disruptive editing is something we don't need. Warnings and explanations on the personal talk page were ignored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: 192.181.85.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
2. 04:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bucharest."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also them acting in the previous days. It seems they particularly hate the Turks, see their other edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption continues, I have reported it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: NATO phonetic alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theknightwho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, but edit-warring nonetheless. Seem to be POINTy edits. Theknightwho removed some unsourced wording [18] (common enough statement in the lit, but not one I have a ref handy for), and I cleaned up the result by restoring the subject of the paragraph. Theknightwho then edit-warred over deleting the subject, claiming it was "redundant". Of course, you don't want the topic of a para to be a pronoun, because if someone copies the para, it won't make sense out of context. Theknightwho seems to object to the wording "spelling alphabet", but that follows from the lead and is well-sourced.

Anyway, it's late, I'm tired and am going to bed. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The full context of this hasn't really been explained, and is cross-project because it involves a disagreement that has mostly happened at Wiktionary. I know we're only concerned about Wikipedia here, but some of the Wiktionary stuff is necessary to understand what went on here.

The issue is over the term "phonetic alphabet", which has two meanings: it can refer to phonetic transcription (e.g. the IPA) or spelling alphabets (e.g. the NATO phonetic alphabet). @User:Kwamikagami considers the second usage to be incorrect and thinks we should always call those alphabets "spelling alphabets", which I consider to be prescriptivist. I think they're just synonyms, and in any event a prescriptivist tone is explicitly disllowed on Wiktionary (and frowned upon here, so far as I'm aware).

Kwamikagami added the paragraph in question back in March 2021[19], and made similar edits to the "phonetic alphabet" and "spelling alphabet" entries at Wiktionary[20][21] a few hours later. That paragraph was then used by someone else to add a similar note to the "phonetic alphabet" Wiktionary entry in May 2021.[22]. This issue came to my attention yesterday, when I noticed wikt:Template:phonetic alphabet had just been moved by Kwamikagami to wikt:Template:spelling alphabet[23] on the basis that these are not phonetic alphabets. We then had a lengthy discussion in which we managed to come to some level of agreement at a few points, but which was ultimately frustrated because (from my perspective) it didn't really feel like Kwamikagami was arguing in good faith, but instead wanted everyone to follow their preferred terminology, irrespective of whether their arguments actually made any sense when taken as a whole. However, the paragraph in question is one of the things that started that discussion in the first place (yes, I did check the WP article history), so I changed it to something more neutral when it seemed like Kwamikagami had at least conceded that what mattered was how a term is used, and not what they personally deemed correct.[24]

In that context, Kwamikagami changing the wording from Although called "phonetic alphabets" to Although spelling alphabets are commonly called "phonetic alphabets"[25] felt like an attempt to insert prescriptivism in by the back door by implying that one is more correct than the other (and also a bit of WP:OWN, to be honest). I reverted it on the basis that it's redundant (which it is as the referent is obvious), but also because I didn't want to reignite things based on a hunch by making an accusation after one revert. However, after it was reinstated[26] I then explained why it was a problem[27]. Kwamikagami then added their wording for a third time on the basis that I should take it to the talk page and stop edit warring,[28] which felt like pretty obvious bad faith given the discussion we'd already had (and their own edit-warring behaviour). Their warning on my talk page was anything but an attempt to resolve the issue,[29] and just seemed like a way to throw their weight around while insulting me.

Honestly, I'm not happy that any of this happened and wish I hadn't got involved, but I'm really unimpressed with the actions of an editor that has this much experience. Theknightwho (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far there is nothing about this disagreement on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was completely exhausted dealing with this because it felt like the points had been discussed already between the two of us, but someone else has conveniently started a conversation on the talk page on the name issue, so hopefully we can build some kind of consensus on how to handle the naming collision between the two kinds of "phonetic alphabet". Theknightwho (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since making this report, Kwamikagami has replied to the previous conversation on Wiktionary[30] about something else, and also decided to call me grossly ignorant on a project talk page over a different disagreement, without even tagging me to inform me they’d made the post[31] (which I have had to move to the correct forum, as things work a little differently on Wiktionary due to it being smaller). What they have not done is try to engage with me on this issue anywhere. I’m struggling to see the good faith here. Theknightwho (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: has now reverted for a fourth time, clearly trying to circumvent 3RR on a technicality.[32] This is a breach of WP:3RR, which says that Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. They have still made no attempt to discuss the issue, and this user is experienced enough to be aware that this is bad faith. Theknightwho (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Julie Christie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1.144.111.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]
7. [40]
8. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43] (not the article talk page, but I tried to explain the issue by reaching out directly on the editor's talk page)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

Comments:

Page: Javon Walton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Javon Walton."
2. 03:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Javon Walton."
3. 03:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Javon Walton."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I see a big problem with this report. The editor you reported was not given an edit warning or 3RR warning on their talk page, so they likely have no idea about edit-warring or more specifically about 3RR. There are vandalism templates you placed on their talk page, but their edits are not vandalism. Further, they didn't violate 3RR, you are the one who has violated the 3RR rule, making 4 reverts within 22 minutes of each other. I also don't see that you've made any attempt to discuss this on the talk page or on the user's talk page, and even your edit summaries don't include an explanation of what's wrong with the edit so how would they know? Maybe slow down and discuss the content? - Aoidh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Btspurplegalaxy: Please address the issues raised by Aoidh.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51][52]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [53]

Comments:
User:47.227.95.73 is the same person as User:Semsûrî and is gaming the system by using an another IP. 178.218.98.228 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sockpuppet (Ezidishingali) that has been vandalizing Kurdish subjects for some time now through VPN. Semsûrî (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denying is useless. 178.218.98.228 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined Reported user's edits qualify for a 3RR exemption for reverting a blocked user's edits. @Semsûrî: please report the sockpuppet next time rather than make so many reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: P. V. Sindhu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xyxx6587 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Also in page Tai Tzu-ying, keeps ignoring talk page messages and edit summaries made by me when I reverted their edits and manually revert to their preferred version..zoglophie 13:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 13:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Grant Shapps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HMRC69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [61]

Comments:
VViking_TalkEdits 13:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Template:Https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید مهدی موسوی
MEHDI MOUSAVI: Template:Https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=بحث کاربر:Mahdi Mousavi&oldid=35058582

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/بحث:سید_مهدی_موسوی#اشکالات_بی%E2%80%8Cشمار_در_محتوا،_اطلاعات_و_منابع

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

Comments:

I was trying to edit a page -which I found out about its short comings because of its English version- And tried my best to point out the fact that it has no references except the subject himself, but as I wad still editing, the subject himself and with an ID, identical to his own name, boldly edited his own page! I have joined just a couple of days ago and one of the first steps was the declaration of not to try to create or edit a page for myself or someone close.

Are people really allowed to create their own personal pages on Wiki, brag about anything they want and keep the others from criticizing or editing their pages? Don’t understand how someone can boldly do this and don’t even feel the need to create a fake account and under a different name… Would appreciate it you answer my question; spend a lot of time working on that page and witnessing this bold action made me feel hopeless about bettering things and striving towards the truth. Thank you

Page: List of WWE Champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:240:8400:8A00:0:0:0:831A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Changed the end date of WWE Championship Name"
2. 12:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Names */"
3. 12:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Reigns */"
4. 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "/* Names */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "/* List of WWE champions */ new section"

Comments:

Page: X-Men: The Last Stand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:C8AE:161A:FE24:E93D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Lol. It is you who doesn't understand basic English. 'They' is not a singular pronoun. Grammatical errors corrected."
2. 11:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Corrected aforesaid grammatical errors"
3. 09:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Corrected grammatical errors. Plural wrongly being used to describe a singular person."
4. 21:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC) "Corrected grammatical errors"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:Nothere, warned for warring on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A01:4B00:8449:3900:C8AE:161A:FE24:E93D&oldid=1096834237 already JeffUK (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Counting Crows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Msftwin95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097158660 by FlightTime (talk) Cut it out. I used three sources, all of which are reliable."
2. 01:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097137582 by Binksternet (talk) I'm pretty sure it counts as a reliable source, but I've added a couple more for good measure. Whether Counting Crows are a rock rather than a jangle pop band is your own point of view, as many sources describe them as both."
3. 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097134399 by Binksternet (talk) The source explicitly refers to them as jangle pop. I honestly have no idea why this was reverted."
4. 21:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1097120348 by Binksternet (talk) Sourced genre"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Counting Crows."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: My attempt to resolve the issue at Clicriffhard's talk page. Newimpartial's attempt to resolve the issue at Clicriffhard's talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [68]

Comments:

Pretty straightforward 3RR violation at Talk:Graham Linehan over removal, and then hatting of a disruptive IP editor's comments. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that while the four reverts were not identical with each other (nor does that matter), they actually all involved restoring an IP comment and all included restoring the non-neutral subject line favored by the IP, ‎He's not anti-trans. He's pro-women. There's a difference. Also note that I tried twice to hat the off-topic IP comment after CliCriffhard objected to its removal [69] [70], to which Clicriffhard responded with the last two reverts. Also note that, after Clicriffhard became aware of the GENSEX discretionary sanctions - that is, before the third and fourth reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is absurd. Sideswipe9th and Newimpartial have been repeatedly trying to delete or remove portions of an IP user's comment on an article's talk page, and I've simply reinstated it because it is very clearly a comment about the article's treatment of its subject - I don't find it a very compelling comment but they have every right to make it and either be engaged with or ignored. For whatever reason, Sideswipe9th has decided to accuse me of edit-warring and not Newimpartial, who was the user who started the repeated deletion of someone else's comment on a talk page. Sideswipe9th is also fully aware that I was midway through posting on an administrators' noticeboard to get some outside input, but has decided that it's a clever idea to race me to it?! Frankly I don't know what to make of that, but I hope that whoever picks this up is able to see through it. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:3RRNO do you think covers I've simply reinstated it because it is very clearly a comment about the article's treatment of its subject - I don't find it a very compelling comment but they have every right to make? The policy is not known to care about editors' feelings or noble intentions. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of this excuses the WP:3RR violation you have made by virtue of your fourth revert to that page, in the space of 4 hours. If you self-revert, I will be happy to withdraw this as resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are trying to game the system by splitting your edit-warring between the two of you and then claiming it's a simple numbers game, and I'm sure you understand that you'd have hit this magic line before me if you hadn't worked in tandem. And again, you (specifically Newimpartial) made the initial reversion of the IP editor's talk page comment, and then the pair of you have taken it in turns to repeat the deletion with subtle variations. That is edit-warring. I'm completely fed up with the bad-faith argumentation, the hypocrisy, the game-playing, and the bullying of various editors that I've seen from a small group of people that includes the pair of you over the course of what must be many months now. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]