Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive459

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Roj im (Result: User warned; page fully protected)

Page: Death of Mahsa Amini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111626619
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111583463
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111581943
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111575757
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111553249
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111552995
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111533134
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111533013
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1110922107
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1110921706

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Mahsa_Amini&diff=1111689802&oldid=1111550547

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HistoryofIran&diff=1111692294&oldid=1111684907

Comments:

I didn't see the 3RR warning as a necessity, because the related section in the talk page should answer everything. Also, this notice on the reported user's talk page might be useful which was put there before the time of this report. — Roj im (talk)

I didnt violate 3RR. You might want to read the guideline again. Note: This user has been edit warring in the article whilst WP:STONEWALLING in the talk page of the article, so it would be very convienent for them to attempt to get me blocked. Will post more when I am home. HistoryofIran (talk)

I am confident enough to say that I did not involve in any edit war. The history can be referred by the administrators :) — Roj im (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's a brief:

1. My first revision on that article: I undid your unreasonable revision of removing her name in Kurdish.
2. HistoryofIran reverted it.
3. I added her name in Kurdish to the box. (Unrelated to their previous revert. I was not aware about that. Also, the box is another location from the first paragraph.)
4. HistoryofIran reverted it.
5. I started discussing the matter in the article's talk page.
6. We were not agreeing.
7. I added a cleanup tag.
8. We got a third opinion from @Ideophagous suggesting to keep her name in Kurdish.
9. I re-added her name in Kurdish because of the third opinion, and stopped editing from this point.
10. HistoryofIran reverted.
11. HistoryofIran continued editing.

Roj im (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't comment on the history, but I agree that @HistoryofIran: is being unreasonable in refusing to let her name in Kurdish feature in the article. The conversation on the talk page can be used as reference.-- Ideophagous (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

First Roj im wrote that I apparently violated the 3RR with 10 reverts, now it's 3 (which even isn't a violation of 3RR to begin with)? So which one is it? If this is not a desperate attempt at trying to get me blocked, then I don't know what it is. Not to mention that these are largely different reverts (some even being "casual" removals, several days between, or removal of unsourced info even [1]), made largely towards different info and different users. Moreover, Wikipedia is a not WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; just because Ideophagous supported this addition, does not mean that it should be added. We have something called WP:CONSENSUS. Also, Roj im is clearly cherry-picking, since I was not the only opposing this [2] [3]. Roj im claims that he is confident that he did not WP:EDITWAR, so what is this then? [4] [5]. Roj im claiming that "we were not "agreeing" is certainly one way to put it, as they actually haven't taken part in the discussion at the talk page yet, instead resorting to textbook WP:STONEWALLING, as seen in the start of the talk page ([6], read the comments from 15:35, 21 September 2022 to 19:19, 21 September 2022).

As for Ideophagous claiming that I am "unreasonable", they are more than welcome to discuss it in the talk page. Except that they did, where they ended up violating WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA by accusing me of "ultra-nationalism" twice and then leaving the discussion [7] [8]. A quick look at Ideophagous' talk page shows they have at least have some history of attacking other users [9]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you politely to "not be ultra-nationalistic about this (the particular point we are discussing)", i.e. I wasn't making a general statement about your opinions or beliefs, of which I know nothing to begin with. Your refusal to concede any points, and disruption of reasonable edits (adding a simple name in a relevant language) is the obstacle here. As far as the Iran/Kurdish debate is concerned, I'm a neutral party, since I have no direct relation to these cultures, and ultimately I don't care about the result as long as there's consensus by the Wikipedia community. My sole purpose is that a solution would be reached, and the cleanup tag at the top of the page be removed, because it's undermining and reflecting badly on everyone's efforts to improve the quality of the article.-- Ideophagous (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Huh? How was that ever going to sound polite? And it doesn't have to be a general statement to be an accusation - see [10] [11]. What points am I not conceding? Who are you to decide that I should even concede those alleged points? And now I am disruptive too? There's no need to be rude just because you find the other party to be disagreeing, something you will commonly find in Wikipedia. Comment on the comment, rather than the user. Again, you're free to re-participate in the discussion. Moreover, you seem to care enough to attack me and even comment here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• As the edit war has continued and is now up to, by my count, 8 "belligerents", I have fully protected the page for 12 hours. When those 12 hours end, it's going to be PBLOCKs and WP:ARBKURDS sanctions for people who keep this going. This is a petty dispute undermining constructive contributions, and it must not continue. That applies to both sides, but in particular HistoryofIran has made 7 reverts here [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], the last 6 of them within a span of 12 hours. I looked at that briefly last night before I went to bed, and by light of day, somewhat regret stopping short at DS notices then. HistoryofIran, I want to be clear: If others' continued edit-warring hadn't forced me to fully protect this page, I would be blocking you. And I'm not sure I'd be wrong to even now, with five previous (non-rescinded) edit-warring blocks, even if not recent. 6RR on a sensitive topic in a high-visibility article is not acceptable. Please consider this a warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Bverji reported by User:PopoDameron (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)

Page: Wing Chun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111461336 by LilianaUwU (talk) This is last time reverting this, but please refer to wikipedia instructions on how list within articles are suppose to be formatted before changing and discuss on talk page. g"
2. 03:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111262998 by PopoDameron (talk) Please refer to talk page. Unsourced and lists should have their own pages via wiki instructions about lists."
3. 02:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */ section is a list, should have it's own page."

Note: not a revert, but against discussion in the talk page. PopoDameron (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* re Wing Chun */ new section"

Other relevant diffs:

1. 03:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC) on User talk:PopoDameron
2. 03:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC) on User talk:LilianaUwU
3. 03:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC) on User Talk:Wing_Chun

Comments:

Bverji first went to the talk page of Wing Chun to propose the removal of the 'in popular culture' section, but they were met with another user's opposition. Nevertheless, they performed these changes without consensus, and when their edits were reverted, the persisted to undo the reverts twice. They claim that no consensus is needed because some of the material in the section is not sourced, but instead of simply removing these items, looking for sources, or seeking consensus once more, they reverted edits again. PopoDameron (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion in the talk page did not include a discussion on how lists should be conducted within articles. I was unaware of how lists should be done 9 months ago when removing the popculture section was discussed 9 months ago on the Wing Chun talkpage. The revert on Sept 20 mentions that it was deleted because it needed to be moved to a new page not removed. Because of this it does not go against what was previously discussed, the part of the article was removed so it could be redone. The section on practitioners on the Wing Chun page had also been changed to this format and yet no one had any problem with it. This format should be consistent within the article. I invited Popodameron to discuss this on the forum and rather than try to discuss it rushed to report me. Later, LilianaUwU reverted and I again undone the revert with a message that I would not change it again, but was inviting them to please refer to the section on how to include lists in the article and please discuss it on the talk page. I don't see how someone claims an edit war when I didn't break the 3 edit rule and explicitly stated I would not change it again, only asking for future edits to read the rules about lists. In my view people started reverting without actually reading and considering why it was reverted and assumed it was removed for the same reason as I attempted to remove it 9 months ago (I believe their explanations support this conclusion). I admittedly have a bias against lists, I think they junk up pages (and this is essentially what the rules on lists conclude as well). All I was looking for was someone to clean up the lists and make it follow the guidelines provided. Bverji (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I "rushed to report you" because even though you were trying to explain your reverts, you were also reverting again at the same time. While looking for consensus, you should stop reverting and move to discuss. As for what you say about formatting and lists, this section was not a list. It may appear somewhat as a listing of items, but this does not warrant deleting the whole thing. You could have instead tried to add more prose to help it flow better. PopoDameron (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

But I did say I would not revert it again and I was obviously trying to get people to come to the talk page to discuss it in good faith. So I was obviously doing what you were suggesting I should do. I said I was going to stop reverting and asking people to discuss. As for how to handle changing the section that is something that would be great to discuss on the talk page. If a section is done wrong it is also not incumbent of me to change it. Bverji (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, giving context this mostly happened within a short amount of time. In hindsight I realize it would have been better to approach this change on the talk page before editing (but I was thinking someone would just make a link page like they did for other things on the page). But the idea that I got reported for edit warring when I didn't break the 3 revert rule, said after the 2nd revert that I would not be edit warring, and was seeking others to form a consensus is absolutely absurd. I am not claiming I couldn't have handled it better, but this was an over reaction. The second revert clearly was aimed to inform new comers on what bases this revert was done and to invite people to change what I had added because I would not be changing it back. The second revert was just for communication (because people often don't even look at the talk page) and was given clear indication I would not change any further changes to the page. Also, PopoDameron presents this as if this was a massive edit and it was not. After having edited for having many things not sourced it was a list of 2 items, this method of deleting the the list on the article page and requesting someone fix it is exactly how the practitioners link page was developed. Bverji (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Wing Chun is not the only martial arts style related entry Bverji has done this at; there are many others - see Special:Contributions/Bverji. He has also been involved in some degree of edit-warring at the Krav Maga entry and it's talk page circa 2020. --TrickShotFinn (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There have been an editor that has consistently been adding pop culture sections that have no sources to many martial art pages. I have cleaned these up when I come across them. As for edit waring in krav Maga I wholly dis agree with that characterization. The Krav Maga page is a target of vandalism and changed often without any sources provided for such changes, that is not edit warring.Bverji (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The reverts stopped after this report. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case: I agreed with your decision and reasoning at the time, but now the user has seemingly forgotten their promise to stop deleting the section, and they have once again (with no new attempt at building consensus, as far as I could find) deleted it. So, I would like to request that this report be reopened. PopoDameron (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from editing the article, as they do not seem to be creating issues at the moment on other articles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:208.92.185.246 reported by User:Sariel Xilo (Result: Blocked)

Page: Critical Role (campaign three) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 208.92.185.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:47, 16 September 2022; First revert by IP Editor
2. 02:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Main */ Laudna is confirmed dead in episode, and won't be back till they decide to bring her back to life. This is correct and needs to be left alone."
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC) to 02:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 02:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Main */"
   2. 02:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Main */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Critical Role (campaign three)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "/*Character deaths in cast list*/ Speculation around plot shouldn't be in the cast list"

Other relevant diffs:

1. 20:57, 11 September 2022; Message about previous character death speculation on their talk page
2. 16:14, 16 September 2022; First addition of plot speculation to article around this character's death
3. 16:20, 16 September 2022; First message about this round of character death speculation on their talk page

Comments:

IP Editor is adding plot speculation into the cast last. They waited several days before doing a 2nd & 3rd revert (so not reverting 3 times within the 24 hour bubble) & haven't responded to any messages on this. This IP Editor previously added incorrect speculation around character death & did not respond to a talk page message on it (essentially adding that E33 was 2 characters last episode before E34 & then these characters were immediately resurrected in E34; the IP editor did 2 reverts on that). Until the cast makes an announcement or it comes up in a future episode, I don't think plot speculation should be in the cast list. Additionally, there was coverage in reliable sources when previous permanent character deaths resulted in a cast member introducing a new character. If E34 was this character's last episode, I'm sure the show will make that clear in upcoming episodes & it will then receive media coverage. Until then, this is just WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC) (Added other diffs Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC))

• Result: Special:Contributions/208.92.185.0/24 has been blocked 3 days for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Venkat TL reported by User:Pravega (Result: Partial block from article for 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:19, 22 September 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 24,546 bytes −1,474‎ Big boss incident is relevant due to the coverage. The career section needs expansion not trimming. List of condolences are expected and generally not included. If state funeral etc is given then that may be included.
2. 12:02, 22 September 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 24,616 bytes −1,404‎ Undid revision 1111697905 by Dympies (talk) broke chronology, discuss the new additions on talk page first before forcing them here.
3. 12:15, 22 September 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 24,440 bytes −1,580‎ Undid revision 1111699516 by Dympies (talk) revert multiple problematic edits. He is not the king of Comedy. It is the name of award he got in one of the comedy show. Several other problems have been raised on the article talk. Please respond there and get a consensus first.
4. 13:54, 22 September 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 23,023 bytes −2,997‎ Undid revision 1111704448 by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) While this is being discussed, source misrepresentation and disputed content should not be restored until a consensus has emerged. None of the source say :He is widely called King of Comedy. The lookalike of Amitabh is his own claim. Disputed on the talk page. List of people who wrote condolence is not encyclopedic, see talk

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned and he also warned another editor.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20][21][22][23]

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

Comments:

Restoring his own edits which he made in violation of WP:BLP and apparent POV pushing.[25][26]

He is also being disruptive on the talk page by removing others comments critical of his edits.[27]

Clear-cut violation of WP:3RR and behavior on the talk page is making him look even more disruptive.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 14:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

In this diff Aman kumar restored several blp violations and source misrepresentations.

The fourth diff in the list above 13:54, 22 September 2022‎ is where all the disputed content being discussed in the talk page has been removed. It is BLP Violation to claim that he is "Widely claimed as king of comedy" when none of the sources say that, so It has been removed. The bit about him being a lookalike of Amitabh is also controversial as it is the subject's own claim. It should not have been restored without consensus on the talk page.

In this 13:54, 22 September 2022‎ obvious BLP Violations were removed hence it is not WP:NOT3RR. I have not violated the 3 revert rule and I am discussing all the disputes on the talk page. . Pravega should join the talk page discussion instead of trying to get users blocked by filing these cases. Venkat TL (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

There have been no "BLP violations and source misrepresentations" other than from you as correctly described here. Falsely accusing others of misconduct is a personal attack.

"King of Comedy" is supported by two of the attached sources. [28] Calling it a "BLP violation" speaks of your own WP:CIR. ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 14:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have noted the BLP violation above above and explained on the article talk page too. And even after reading my response an admin believes that 13:54, 22 September 2022‎ is not covered in WP:NOT3RR. Then I am willing to self revert. My major concern is that this page currently on Wikipedia mainpage should not be having lines that are BLP violations and insufficiently sourced. These were added today morning. Had these issues and poor sources been there in the article yesterday, then the article would not even have been posted on WP:ITN, and others would have asked to fix these Issues. The article version at the time of being promoted to the main page yesterday should be restored and any new edits added after the review if disputed should be discussed for consensus first. The admins should check and restore the article version at the time of this being promoted to main page. Check the time stamp here. Special:Diff/1111562412/1111562810.Venkat TL (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1111721235 And now Pravega has again restored all the problematic BLP violations and insufficiently sourced claims in Wikipedia voice despite no consensus on the talk page to restore them. Venkat TL (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• The only comment I have at this point is that Venkat TL's claim of a BLP exemption for edit-warring is at least procedurally invalid and probably substantively as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 Compare the 4th diff above Special:Diff/1111713656 with the 3rd diff Special:Diff/1111700372. You will find that in this 4th diff, I have not restored my edits that others had challenged. In this fourth I have removed controversial content added without consensus. Anyway, if you disagree that it is not BLPV, then I would have self reverted to avoid 3RR violation. Since Pravega has already reverted my edit I cannot self revert my 4th edit anymore to avoid 3RR violation. Pravega has removed all the other improvements too, that I have not restored. I have raised all the disputes on the talk page. At this stage, what do else do you suggest I should do? Again, My intention is to not edit war but to make sure that only widely supported content remains on the article. I have no intentions to make any more reverts. Venkat TL (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from the article. It took a while to sort through the diffs, the history and the talk page discussions, but it is clear from them that Venkat restored the Bigg Boss material four times within 24 hours, without evidence of a clear consensus to include it. He may ultimately be in the right, but that doesn't justify an edit war and I don't think BLP (or, now, BRDP) quite covers that, especially given that the focus of BLP is on restricting the addition of negative material without strong sourcing and evidence of relevance, not encouraging it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Xoruz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Warned)

Page: The Amazing Race 34 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111792516 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) "teams encountered a new obstacle called the Scramble" It's an obstacle, not a task."
2. 23:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Leg 1 (Germany) */ Not misleading as we include obstacle even in parentheses."
3. 23:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111791837 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) Suðurland is Icelandic for Southern Iceland"
4. 22:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111782705 by EyeStanCirie (talk)"
5. 03:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111642122 by 2600:1700:243D:26D0:94E3:34B3:631E:8779 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Amazing Race 34."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear violation of WP:3RR across multiple editors. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverts of the IP and EyeStanCirie edits were to comply with MOS:ACCESS. Ask Bgsu98. The Southern Iceland revert was done as Sportsfan 1234 removed cited information. Sportsfan 1234 even added it back [29]. Sportsfan 1234 made no attempt to diffuse situation on article talk page. Xoruz (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be editing in good faith, but this is too many reverts (even though #2 and #3 are consecutive). Admins may not put up with this indefinitely. Note that MOS:ACCESS is an important guideline but reverts to enforce that guideline are not exempt under WP:NOT3RR. 'Removing cited information' is also not one of the permitted grounds for reverting. I urge User:Xoruz to employ the talk page and get agreement before changing the article again. I don't see that Xoruz has taken any notice of this complaint except by providing the inadequate excuse above and carefully removing all the warnings from their own talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I intend to use the talk page more often. Xoruz (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Xoruz is warned for edit warring. They are risking a block if they revert again at The Amazing Race 34 without first getting a consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Bgsu98 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Warned)

Page: The Amazing Race 34 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Results */", which was a revert of my edit 23:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
2. 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111793087 by Sportsfan 1234 That looks ridiculous."
3. 23:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111792954 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
4. 05:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1111647361 by Bgsu98 (talk): This cast table is, in fact, being rolled out on all of the previous seasons."
5. 04:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1111647361 by Bgsu98 (talk): Table changes violate MOS:ACCESS."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Amazing Race 34."
2. 00:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Amazing Race 34."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Bgsu98 "/* September 2022 */"

Comments:

Clear violation of WP:3RR. Asked for clarification/started a discussion, which was returned with more reverts and removal of 3RR templates.Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if I violated Wikipedia:3RR. For the record, I did not realize the first instance cited (00:11) was a reversion, and the previous night there was persistent vandalism on the page with section blanking and reversions contrary to MOS:ACCESS. I will be more mindful in the future. Bgsu98 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Bgsu98 is warned for edit warring at The Amazing Race 34. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

User:LeaveMeAlone2 reported by User:Uhai (Result: Partially blocked )

Page: Dyson spheres in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: LeaveMeAlone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Official wiki from the developers, this is not a random wiki.. You are committing vandalism, by removing this sourced information."
2. 01:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "It is the official wiki by the game developers themselves, if you want to remove it, talk to the admin."
3. 23:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "I am not going to play silly games, its sufficiently sourced, if you have a problem with it, talk to an admin."
4. 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Nonsense! They are OFFICIAL Wiki's, and you can just google it, see it on their own website, YouTube, and everywhere else."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dyson spheres in popular culture."
2. 02:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Regarding the mention of Star Trek Online */ new section"

Comments:

WP:3RR vio: user repeatedly adding unsourced content to article. Their only attempt at referencing the content was in the edit summary of their original edit, which contains links to Fandom wiki pages. Fandom wikis are not reliable sources according to WP:UGC.

User did not respond to the post I made on the article talk page and apparently has no interest in collaboration or discussion, evidenced by their statements to "talk to an admin" in the edit summaries of their reverts. Uhai (talk · contribs) 02:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

With this user's behavior (see their edits to my talk page as well) combined with their username and the contents of their userpage, I argue that this user is WP:NOTHERE and should be indefinitely blocked. Uhai (talk · contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Leavemealone2 partially blocked from the article, any more personal attacks will bring a siteblock. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Update LeaveMeAlone2 siteblocked for a week for personal; attacks. It any of this behavior recurs after the block expires, the next block will likely be indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

User:RussGreekMexican reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: International recognition of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Ktrimi991 relying on Twitter is not important. I showed you that one from Jamaica turned out to be false."
2. 06:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Still these Twitter accounts mean nothing. Those were months ago. Also sorry about deleting your account. I just pasted it on there and something got it deleted."
3. 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "I doubt that Twitter posts should be used only news sources and foreign ministry confirmations are better."
4. 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111945737 by Uniacademic (talk)"
5. 18:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111919976 by Uniacademic (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Suriname reconfirmation */ Cmt."

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Planetjanet reported by User:63.155.103.206 (Result: Protected)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Planetjanet

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:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Malformed report, both editors have been edit-warring, already protected by Bbb23. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) There's a helluva lot of edit-warring going on by Planetjanet and an IP (not the reporting IP), as well as edits by new registered users. I would block Planetjanet but they weren't warned about edit-warring until after their last revert; however, they are warned that if they revert again, they may be blocked without notice. I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: The word gusano is at the center of streamer drama between Hasan Piker and Destiny (streamer) with both communities brigading or attempting to brigade Wikipedia, so it's a good semi-protect. Uhai (talk · contribs) 20:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  For the record—and I of course cannot prove this—but I dislike both of those streamers pretty much equally. I am not in either of their communities, and I would not be doing this if I didn't think it was a tendentious and wrong categorization of the word to call it an ‘ethnic slur.’ Planetjanet (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Akshaypatill reported by User:2A01:E0A:911:1070:18C9:4CA2:565:E1F4 (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Second time that this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akshaypatill deleted a section, single handedly deciding that it must be removed, without following up on it whatsoever. I had posted a warning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1111876827 on his talk page when he did it the first time. There are multiple previous occasions when he has been warned by others as well

Diffs of user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahm%C4%81stra:_Part_One_%E2%80%93_Shiva&diff=prev&oldid=1111621995

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahm%C4%81stra:_Part_One_%E2%80%93_Shiva&diff=1111878896&oldid=1110730136 undid revisions by several editors

Warnings on user's talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1065083022 (by another user)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1111876827

There are several other instances when this user makes unanimous decision about what should and should not be on wiki. Excuse my imperfect editing it's the first time I am making this type of post. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:18C9:4CA2:565:E1F4 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections @Bbb23. Can you help me add the warnings with a proper link to the specific section? Also, this user has so many other edit wars but I am not efficient in sourcing them. If you have the time, will be super appreciated. I haven't quite seen such a vandal before. People delete edits, sentences, but removing entire sections that too on talk pages! Never seen before. Thanks a lot to you again! 2A04:CEC0:1184:58FD:257B:49B:2DFD:ABFB (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

When User:Akshaypatill resumes editing I hope he'll respond to this complaint. The IP editor says above "There are multiple previous occasions when he has been warned by others as well". He also removed text from talk pages here in March 2022 at Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. On that occasion he was warned by User:Fowler&fowler that he might be reported for POV-pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This is absurd. This isn't even my edit-[30]. This user is using the talk page as forum to propagate his so called boycutt gang. And he has been reverted multiple times, but he keeps posting the same again and again. DaxServer had removed the same content calling it nonsense. [31], [32].

EdJohnston, Fowler had thanked me for that removal, it was something we should have posted on talkpages.- [33].

And for the POV pushing part the warning was given in the moment of heat. An admin had checked that at the time on Fowler's request- see [[34].

Saw your ping and at a quick glance, while the discussion is really long and somewhat repetitive, the involved editors do seem to be discussing mostly sources and content and (again at a quick glance) appear to be open to compromise. So I don't think there is a need for admin intervention yet.

Check these archieves out if you want (these discussions are too too long) - [35], [36], [37] Akshaypatill (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

And here [38] Fowler tagging me along with some others, requesting to keep an eye on the article after that incident and warning. - Akshaypatill (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• I perceived the posts from the user to be as a WP:NOTFORUM discussion and had removed it saying so (in the first removal). When the second removal is revert, I had let it go and didn't do anything further - perhaps I was wrong in determining it to be NOTFORUM in the first place? If there is a disagreement on my edits/removals, please let me know — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Unbelievable. There is a discussion going on here and meanwhile the user User:Akshaypatill deleted the section again + deleted another edit from user at the same time on the same talk page! Here 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F @EdJohnston (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologise. It was by mistake. I see you have already restored it with a little different wording.

Also, I will request the reviewers to carefully check the actual diffs he provided. One of the diffs he has provided isn't even mine.

Akshaypatill (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok but not sure it was a mistake as you added a comment to the edit: "(Restoring revision 1111894015 by DaxServer: Last good. " 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

References

I think i copied one diff from +1/-1 edit. As I mentioned there are several such edits from this user but I am not efficient in sourcing them. More than happy to get some help on this. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This is what I and DaxServer too had removed - [39]. I perceive it more like as mocking. I am really busy IRL. I wish, I had utilized the time I spent explaining this things here to make some productive edits. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is a complaint about deletion of talk threads. I expect this report is going to be closed without admin action. If deletion of talk threads continues, we will probably get a giant ANI complaint that will rage for a week and achieve nothing. So please consider carefully before deleting any other talk threads. Admins won't spend hours trying to decide who is behaving better on a talk page. Try to improve the article, please! (See WP:DR). EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• No violation per above. While this could, as Ed implies, go very wrong if it continues, it so far has not gotten to the point where I feel a block is necessary, even on a talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your time :) Have a nice day! 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Saynotobiasim reported by User:LionAjk (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Religion in Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saynotobiasim (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. Special:Diff/1112152448
2. Special:Diff/1112074164
3. Special:Diff/1112070022
4. Special:Diff/1111800782
5. Special:Diff/1111435343
6. Special:Diff/1111430104

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41]

Comments:
The user is removing sources that dont fit his agenda I even suggested a compromise which he reverted even a admin by the name of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosguill has been involved in the talk page to who suggested I come here as the user is refusing to listen in the talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LionAjk (talk • contribs) 13:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I have corrected the report formatting. No comment on the merits of the report. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 13:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Clearly here only to publish their personal interpretations, blocked indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Osterluzei reported by User:Tensorproduct (Result: No violation)

Page: International sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Osterluzei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [48]

Comments: This user writes with a huge bias towards Switzerland and even when I tried to discuss it, it took multiple attempts (I also wrote on the users German page [49]) till the user responded but the user kept undoing my edits. Some of the biases included only stating half of the information of the sources (e.g. the allegations but not the response by the government) but also things which were not even true according to the sources that were used. If I include the critic points towards Switzerland and also the fact that only this one agency makes these accusations and no one else from the US government, the user just removes it (there was also a backstory before the war in Ukraine btw.). The user also only refers to one single article and not the articles of the discussion in the Swiss newspapers.

The article is no longer as biased as before, because I completed some of the missing information that was left-out by Osterluzei, but still everyone who reads the article thinks that Switzerland is one of the main places for sanction evations, which is not true (and not one government said that this is true). Switzerland was also put on the list of "unfriendly nations" by Russia because of the implemented sanctions. By law Swiss people have to report the money of sanctioned people. That is why a lot of the money went to places like Dubai. This should be mentioned in the article, Switzerland follows the sanctions. The user deletes it. There is a critic point regarding the attorney-client privilege, which made it possible for Swiss lawyers to move money to offshore entities without noticing the government in the past (e. g. panama papers) - which should be of course mentioned - but that is not the same as hiding sanctioned people's money on Swiss banks. The user deletes it again. The user also broke the 3 reverts in 24 h rule--Tensorproduct (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify further things, there was a conference hosted by the Helsinki Commission where also a Swiss law professor talked and they mentioned some explicit critic points (I posted the source). One explicit critic point was that Switzerland should do more by applying its own sanctions (not just the EU sanctions so that more money is frozen) and a second point was the mentioned attorney-client privilege.

I think these explicit critic points that are part of the basis of the accussation are important. However Osterluzei doesn't want them to be included with the argument that: a) it's bad style and b) quote: we have defined the scope of these entries, Switzerland or the Helsinki commission do not account for such a big part in this discussion. - Which in my opinion is neither a valid nor a qualitative argument (besides where was this defined explicitly..?). This quantitative argument is solely an excuse to not include information that Osterluzei doesn't want in the article.

That the user did not want to discuss things until I warned him several times to not only revert long edits is for me proof, that the user doesn't want to write an encyclopedic article but rather creating a certain political picture about Switzerland. And again, before I started rewriting this section, only half of the information of the sources was included and things that were not even true (see the talk page: for example that "the report by the embassy was from 2022" - which is nowhere stated in the sources). And before I edited, the highest estimate that exist on total Russian wealth in Switzerland was used as "a fact" in the article, even though it's just an estimate and there are multiple of these estimates.--Tensorproduct (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And edit warring has not resumed. No prejudice against reporting in the future if this recurs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

ok, no comment on the subject itself and the reverting of long edits without having a proper discussion? Reverting on the basis of shady reasons? As far as I know this is against the rules of Wikipedia. At least this is what it says in the German WP rules. I thought if it takes 24 h to solve this case, there would be at least a comment on the content itself and the unsubstantiated reverts of long edits, not just the argument of not breaking the 3 revert rule.--Tensorproduct (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be a more appropriate subject to take up at AN/I. Yes, it's not desirable behavior. But this noticeboard says "edit warring", and that's all we're discussing here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

And at the place where I requested before this to the administrators I was told I have to ask here. But it's ok, I will leave completly the English wiki and only write for the German and French one.Tensorproduct (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: No violation; possible sock account indeffed)

Page: Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: Note: Adding this other revert [50] after the report was made. So up to five now! Second edit: Another three reverts here: [51]. Up to 8 reverts now! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC) to 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "I am fixing and cleaning the articles and you kept on reverting. Why can't you use your mind properly? Do you want this article strictly controlled and monitored by yours?"
3. 17:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "why can"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Removal of content by Raymarcbadz */ new section"

Comments:

This user has a history of edit warring and disruptive editing across Olympic related topics. For this particular article, over 6,000 characters were removed, which I objected too as they were removing specific references (along with other errors). They were reverted three times, and have now started reverting the edits in chunks (the two most recent reverts). I think the user isn't WP:HERE and instead of replying to the discussion, they started another thread with a borderline personal attack [52]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, why did you report this to me? I am fixing other errors of the article in which you want to keep them. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What references are missing before you reverted them back? Should you put them in the squads article instead? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that you have exceeded the 3RR limit, as stated before you must discuss on talk page whenever in doubt. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 18:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Which talk page should I discuss? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Note: Rodney Regis Baker, a new account, started edit-warring on the article as well. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note . 1) Magnatyrannus has made five reverts all today and sent me a warning showing he knows about the 3 revert rule. 2) An IP has just reverted ME which I find highly suspicious. Rodney Regis Baker (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  The IP is probably you given that you continued edit-warring and edited while logged out as to seem like a different user. I would never loutsock given that I promised not to do that in my unblock request. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? Well shall we do a CHECKUSER request then? Or are you afraid to find out the results? Oh and by the way. What's the drill here? That IP reverted me and produced YOUR NPOV problematic revision. Didn't it? Rodney Regis Baker (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to the United Kingdom, not Canada, so it can't be me. Also, CU cannot be used to link an IP to an account. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's UK then it can't be me either unless my arms are so long that they span the Atlantic. You made five reverts chum. Rodney Regis Baker (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No I didn't, because you wanted to make me seem like a 3RR violator when really I was just reverting less than three times. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The RRB account alleged above to be a sock has been blocked indef. Since we do not do sockpuppet investigations here, we cannot treat the two accounts as one and thus Raymarcbadz did not violate 3RR (but this should not be taken as a judgement that they have been acting collegially as they have assuredly not been). If someone wants to pursue this they may do so at SPI. As for the IP, it can be investigated; the limitation is that it cannot be publicly identified as a sock, and thus any CU would have to be done via a private request. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Filed an SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodney Regis Baker Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Tedyand reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Giorgia Meloni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "unjustified reversal"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC) to 20:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "Unjustified reversion. Multiple reliable sources describe this party as far-right. Deleting it is vandalism and indicates clear political bias."
   2. 20:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 20:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 18:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC) to 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Giorgia Meloni."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was warned twice and also edit-warred on Brothers of Italy. Vacant0 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I've blocked from article space only, so hopefully they will take part in discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:AU79G11 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Anton Drexler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AU79G11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53] 22:24, 25 September 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54] 22:50, 25 September 2022
2. [55] 22:56, 25 September 2022
3. [56] 22:58, 25 September 2022
4. [57] 23:02, 25 September 2022
5. [58] 23:05, 25 September 2022
6. [59] 23:07, 25 September 2022
7. [60] 23:23, 25 September 2022
8. [61] 23:31, 25 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [64]

Comments: See similar edit warring behavior at Economy of Nazi Germany:

1. [65] 21:52, 25 September 2022
2. [66] 22:02, 25 September 2022
3. [67] 22:06, 25 September 2022
4. [68] 22:14, 25 September 2022
5. [69] 22:39, 25 September 2022

Generalrelative (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And see AU79G11's talk page for an utter refusal to do anything but repeat the same facile arguments. Per WP:AGF, I'm am going to have to assume that AU79G11 is pretending to be that stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Wiki Maintainer reported by User:Winner 42 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiki Maintainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]
5. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [78]

Comments:
No 3RR violation but a slow moving edit war on Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. Wiki Maintainer is also being very uncivil, just read the edit summaries of the provided diffs, admin action may be appropriate to take on that front as well. W42 02:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Blocked and warned for personal attacks. The block is sitewide, based on the PAs, despite their extremely narrow editing focus.. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

User:LeaveMeAlone2 reported by User:Uhai (Result: Partially blocked )

Page: Dyson spheres in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: LeaveMeAlone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Official wiki from the developers, this is not a random wiki.. You are committing vandalism, by removing this sourced information."
2. 01:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "It is the official wiki by the game developers themselves, if you want to remove it, talk to the admin."
3. 23:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "I am not going to play silly games, its sufficiently sourced, if you have a problem with it, talk to an admin."
4. 21:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Nonsense! They are OFFICIAL Wiki's, and you can just google it, see it on their own website, YouTube, and everywhere else."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dyson spheres in popular culture."
2. 02:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Regarding the mention of Star Trek Online */ new section"

Comments:

WP:3RR vio: user repeatedly adding unsourced content to article. Their only attempt at referencing the content was in the edit summary of their original edit, which contains links to Fandom wiki pages. Fandom wikis are not reliable sources according to WP:UGC.

User did not respond to the post I made on the article talk page and apparently has no interest in collaboration or discussion, evidenced by their statements to "talk to an admin" in the edit summaries of their reverts. Uhai (talk · contribs) 02:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

With this user's behavior (see their edits to my talk page as well) combined with their username and the contents of their userpage, I argue that this user is WP:NOTHERE and should be indefinitely blocked. Uhai (talk · contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Leavemealone2 partially blocked from the article, any more personal attacks will bring a siteblock. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Update LeaveMeAlone2 siteblocked for a week for personal; attacks. It any of this behavior recurs after the block expires, the next block will likely be indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

User:RussGreekMexican reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: International recognition of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Ktrimi991 relying on Twitter is not important. I showed you that one from Jamaica turned out to be false."
2. 06:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Still these Twitter accounts mean nothing. Those were months ago. Also sorry about deleting your account. I just pasted it on there and something got it deleted."
3. 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "I doubt that Twitter posts should be used only news sources and foreign ministry confirmations are better."
4. 23:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111945737 by Uniacademic (talk)"
5. 18:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111919976 by Uniacademic (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Suriname reconfirmation */ Cmt."

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Planetjanet reported by User:63.155.103.206 (Result: Protected)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Planetjanet

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:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Malformed report, both editors have been edit-warring, already protected by Bbb23. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) There's a helluva lot of edit-warring going on by Planetjanet and an IP (not the reporting IP), as well as edits by new registered users. I would block Planetjanet but they weren't warned about edit-warring until after their last revert; however, they are warned that if they revert again, they may be blocked without notice. I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: The word gusano is at the center of streamer drama between Hasan Piker and Destiny (streamer) with both communities brigading or attempting to brigade Wikipedia, so it's a good semi-protect. Uhai (talk · contribs) 20:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  For the record—and I of course cannot prove this—but I dislike both of those streamers pretty much equally. I am not in either of their communities, and I would not be doing this if I didn't think it was a tendentious and wrong categorization of the word to call it an ‘ethnic slur.’ Planetjanet (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Akshaypatill reported by User:2A01:E0A:911:1070:18C9:4CA2:565:E1F4 (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Second time that this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akshaypatill deleted a section, single handedly deciding that it must be removed, without following up on it whatsoever. I had posted a warning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1111876827 on his talk page when he did it the first time. There are multiple previous occasions when he has been warned by others as well

Diffs of user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahm%C4%81stra:_Part_One_%E2%80%93_Shiva&diff=prev&oldid=1111621995

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahm%C4%81stra:_Part_One_%E2%80%93_Shiva&diff=1111878896&oldid=1110730136 undid revisions by several editors

Warnings on user's talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1065083022 (by another user)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1111876827

There are several other instances when this user makes unanimous decision about what should and should not be on wiki. Excuse my imperfect editing it's the first time I am making this type of post. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:18C9:4CA2:565:E1F4 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections @Bbb23. Can you help me add the warnings with a proper link to the specific section? Also, this user has so many other edit wars but I am not efficient in sourcing them. If you have the time, will be super appreciated. I haven't quite seen such a vandal before. People delete edits, sentences, but removing entire sections that too on talk pages! Never seen before. Thanks a lot to you again! 2A04:CEC0:1184:58FD:257B:49B:2DFD:ABFB (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

When User:Akshaypatill resumes editing I hope he'll respond to this complaint. The IP editor says above "There are multiple previous occasions when he has been warned by others as well". He also removed text from talk pages here in March 2022 at Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. On that occasion he was warned by User:Fowler&fowler that he might be reported for POV-pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This is absurd. This isn't even my edit-[79]. This user is using the talk page as forum to propagate his so called boycutt gang. And he has been reverted multiple times, but he keeps posting the same again and again. DaxServer had removed the same content calling it nonsense. [80], [81].

EdJohnston, Fowler had thanked me for that removal, it was something we should have posted on talkpages.- [82].

And for the POV pushing part the warning was given in the moment of heat. An admin had checked that at the time on Fowler's request- see [[83].

Saw your ping and at a quick glance, while the discussion is really long and somewhat repetitive, the involved editors do seem to be discussing mostly sources and content and (again at a quick glance) appear to be open to compromise. So I don't think there is a need for admin intervention yet.

Check these archieves out if you want (these discussions are too too long) - [84], [85], [86] Akshaypatill (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

And here [87] Fowler tagging me along with some others, requesting to keep an eye on the article after that incident and warning. - Akshaypatill (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• I perceived the posts from the user to be as a WP:NOTFORUM discussion and had removed it saying so (in the first removal). When the second removal is revert, I had let it go and didn't do anything further - perhaps I was wrong in determining it to be NOTFORUM in the first place? If there is a disagreement on my edits/removals, please let me know — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Unbelievable. There is a discussion going on here and meanwhile the user User:Akshaypatill deleted the section again + deleted another edit from user at the same time on the same talk page! Here 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F @EdJohnston (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologise. It was by mistake. I see you have already restored it with a little different wording.

Also, I will request the reviewers to carefully check the actual diffs he provided. One of the diffs he has provided isn't even mine.

Akshaypatill (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok but not sure it was a mistake as you added a comment to the edit: "(Restoring revision 1111894015 by DaxServer: Last good. " 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

References

I think i copied one diff from +1/-1 edit. As I mentioned there are several such edits from this user but I am not efficient in sourcing them. More than happy to get some help on this. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This is what I and DaxServer too had removed - [88]. I perceive it more like as mocking. I am really busy IRL. I wish, I had utilized the time I spent explaining this things here to make some productive edits. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is a complaint about deletion of talk threads. I expect this report is going to be closed without admin action. If deletion of talk threads continues, we will probably get a giant ANI complaint that will rage for a week and achieve nothing. So please consider carefully before deleting any other talk threads. Admins won't spend hours trying to decide who is behaving better on a talk page. Try to improve the article, please! (See WP:DR). EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• No violation per above. While this could, as Ed implies, go very wrong if it continues, it so far has not gotten to the point where I feel a block is necessary, even on a talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your time :) Have a nice day! 2A01:E0A:911:1070:3DBC:6EA1:8E12:E69F (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Saynotobiasim reported by User:LionAjk (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Religion in Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saynotobiasim (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. Special:Diff/1112152448
2. Special:Diff/1112074164
3. Special:Diff/1112070022
4. Special:Diff/1111800782
5. Special:Diff/1111435343
6. Special:Diff/1111430104

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [90]

Comments:
The user is removing sources that dont fit his agenda I even suggested a compromise which he reverted even a admin by the name of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosguill has been involved in the talk page to who suggested I come here as the user is refusing to listen in the talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LionAjk (talk • contribs) 13:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I have corrected the report formatting. No comment on the merits of the report. dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 13:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Clearly here only to publish their personal interpretations, blocked indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Osterluzei reported by User:Tensorproduct (Result: No violation)

Page: International sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Osterluzei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [97]

Comments: This user writes with a huge bias towards Switzerland and even when I tried to discuss it, it took multiple attempts (I also wrote on the users German page [98]) till the user responded but the user kept undoing my edits. Some of the biases included only stating half of the information of the sources (e.g. the allegations but not the response by the government) but also things which were not even true according to the sources that were used. If I include the critic points towards Switzerland and also the fact that only this one agency makes these accusations and no one else from the US government, the user just removes it (there was also a backstory before the war in Ukraine btw.). The user also only refers to one single article and not the articles of the discussion in the Swiss newspapers.

The article is no longer as biased as before, because I completed some of the missing information that was left-out by Osterluzei, but still everyone who reads the article thinks that Switzerland is one of the main places for sanction evations, which is not true (and not one government said that this is true). Switzerland was also put on the list of "unfriendly nations" by Russia because of the implemented sanctions. By law Swiss people have to report the money of sanctioned people. That is why a lot of the money went to places like Dubai. This should be mentioned in the article, Switzerland follows the sanctions. The user deletes it. There is a critic point regarding the attorney-client privilege, which made it possible for Swiss lawyers to move money to offshore entities without noticing the government in the past (e. g. panama papers) - which should be of course mentioned - but that is not the same as hiding sanctioned people's money on Swiss banks. The user deletes it again. The user also broke the 3 reverts in 24 h rule--Tensorproduct (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify further things, there was a conference hosted by the Helsinki Commission where also a Swiss law professor talked and they mentioned some explicit critic points (I posted the source). One explicit critic point was that Switzerland should do more by applying its own sanctions (not just the EU sanctions so that more money is frozen) and a second point was the mentioned attorney-client privilege.

I think these explicit critic points that are part of the basis of the accussation are important. However Osterluzei doesn't want them to be included with the argument that: a) it's bad style and b) quote: we have defined the scope of these entries, Switzerland or the Helsinki commission do not account for such a big part in this discussion. - Which in my opinion is neither a valid nor a qualitative argument (besides where was this defined explicitly..?). This quantitative argument is solely an excuse to not include information that Osterluzei doesn't want in the article.

That the user did not want to discuss things until I warned him several times to not only revert long edits is for me proof, that the user doesn't want to write an encyclopedic article but rather creating a certain political picture about Switzerland. And again, before I started rewriting this section, only half of the information of the sources was included and things that were not even true (see the talk page: for example that "the report by the embassy was from 2022" - which is nowhere stated in the sources). And before I edited, the highest estimate that exist on total Russian wealth in Switzerland was used as "a fact" in the article, even though it's just an estimate and there are multiple of these estimates.--Tensorproduct (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And edit warring has not resumed. No prejudice against reporting in the future if this recurs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

ok, no comment on the subject itself and the reverting of long edits without having a proper discussion? Reverting on the basis of shady reasons? As far as I know this is against the rules of Wikipedia. At least this is what it says in the German WP rules. I thought if it takes 24 h to solve this case, there would be at least a comment on the content itself and the unsubstantiated reverts of long edits, not just the argument of not breaking the 3 revert rule.--Tensorproduct (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be a more appropriate subject to take up at AN/I. Yes, it's not desirable behavior. But this noticeboard says "edit warring", and that's all we're discussing here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

And at the place where I requested before this to the administrators I was told I have to ask here. But it's ok, I will leave completly the English wiki and only write for the German and French one.Tensorproduct (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: No violation; possible sock account indeffed)

Page: Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: Note: Adding this other revert [99] after the report was made. So up to five now! Second edit: Another three reverts here: [100]. Up to 8 reverts now! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC) to 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "I am fixing and cleaning the articles and you kept on reverting. Why can't you use your mind properly? Do you want this article strictly controlled and monitored by yours?"
3. 17:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "why can"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Removal of content by Raymarcbadz */ new section"

Comments:

This user has a history of edit warring and disruptive editing across Olympic related topics. For this particular article, over 6,000 characters were removed, which I objected too as they were removing specific references (along with other errors). They were reverted three times, and have now started reverting the edits in chunks (the two most recent reverts). I think the user isn't WP:HERE and instead of replying to the discussion, they started another thread with a borderline personal attack [101]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, why did you report this to me? I am fixing other errors of the article in which you want to keep them. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What references are missing before you reverted them back? Should you put them in the squads article instead? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that you have exceeded the 3RR limit, as stated before you must discuss on talk page whenever in doubt. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 18:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Which talk page should I discuss? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Note: Rodney Regis Baker, a new account, started edit-warring on the article as well. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note . 1) Magnatyrannus has made five reverts all today and sent me a warning showing he knows about the 3 revert rule. 2) An IP has just reverted ME which I find highly suspicious. Rodney Regis Baker (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

  The IP is probably you given that you continued edit-warring and edited while logged out as to seem like a different user. I would never loutsock given that I promised not to do that in my unblock request. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? Well shall we do a CHECKUSER request then? Or are you afraid to find out the results? Oh and by the way. What's the drill here? That IP reverted me and produced YOUR NPOV problematic revision. Didn't it? Rodney Regis Baker (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to the United Kingdom, not Canada, so it can't be me. Also, CU cannot be used to link an IP to an account. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's UK then it can't be me either unless my arms are so long that they span the Atlantic. You made five reverts chum. Rodney Regis Baker (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No I didn't, because you wanted to make me seem like a 3RR violator when really I was just reverting less than three times. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The RRB account alleged above to be a sock has been blocked indef. Since we do not do sockpuppet investigations here, we cannot treat the two accounts as one and thus Raymarcbadz did not violate 3RR (but this should not be taken as a judgement that they have been acting collegially as they have assuredly not been). If someone wants to pursue this they may do so at SPI. As for the IP, it can be investigated; the limitation is that it cannot be publicly identified as a sock, and thus any CU would have to be done via a private request. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Filed an SPI report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodney Regis Baker Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Tedyand reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Giorgia Meloni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "unjustified reversal"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC) to 20:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "Unjustified reversion. Multiple reliable sources describe this party as far-right. Deleting it is vandalism and indicates clear political bias."
   2. 20:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 20:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 18:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC) to 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Giorgia Meloni."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was warned twice and also edit-warred on Brothers of Italy. Vacant0 (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I've blocked from article space only, so hopefully they will take part in discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:AU79G11 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Anton Drexler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AU79G11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102] 22:24, 25 September 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103] 22:50, 25 September 2022
2. [104] 22:56, 25 September 2022
3. [105] 22:58, 25 September 2022
4. [106] 23:02, 25 September 2022
5. [107] 23:05, 25 September 2022
6. [108] 23:07, 25 September 2022
7. [109] 23:23, 25 September 2022
8. [110] 23:31, 25 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [113]

Comments: See similar edit warring behavior at Economy of Nazi Germany:

1. [114] 21:52, 25 September 2022
2. [115] 22:02, 25 September 2022
3. [116] 22:06, 25 September 2022
4. [117] 22:14, 25 September 2022
5. [118] 22:39, 25 September 2022

Generalrelative (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

And see AU79G11's talk page for an utter refusal to do anything but repeat the same facile arguments. Per WP:AGF, I'm am going to have to assume that AU79G11 is pretending to be that stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Wiki Maintainer reported by User:Winner 42 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiki Maintainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]
5. [124]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126]

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

Comments:
No 3RR violation but a slow moving edit war on Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. Wiki Maintainer is also being very uncivil, just read the edit summaries of the provided diffs, admin action may be appropriate to take on that front as well. W42 02:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Blocked and warned for personal attacks. The block is sitewide, based on the PAs, despite their extremely narrow editing focus.. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Batreeq reported by User:Leechjoel9 (Result: Stale)

Page: Asmara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Batreeq (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. [128]
2. [129]
3. [130]
4. [131]
5. [132]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

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

Comments: User has added Arabic native name as the official name of Asmara which is not supported by any sources. Despite been warned user has continued with slow edit warring for long period.

• Stale. Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Stan Lee 3000 reported by User:Sneha996 (Result: Declined as stale)

Page: List of Malayalam films of 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stan Lee 3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [135]
2. [136]
3. [137]
4. [138]
5. [139]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [141]

Comments:
Declined Reported user has not edited the article in five days. Yes, he has made the same edit a couple of times over the last month and a half. But no one has, as not noted above, yet resorted to the article talk page to resolve this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Abrvagl reported by User:Dallavid (Result: Stale)

Page: September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [142]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:49, 15 September 2022
2. 20:50, 15 September 2022
3. 20:50, 15 September 2022
4. 20:50, 15 September 2022
5. 20:50, 15 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: formal warning by User:Thryduulf: "You are formally warned that further instances of edit warring, including slow motion edit warring, will result in sanctions."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my discussion and also someone else's

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [143]

Comments:
User reverted multiple other users, despite being given an official warning that future edit warring will result in sanctions, and also ignoring the talk page discussion. --Dallavid (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Stale —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

User:98.155.8.5 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: User warned)

Page: Mahsa Amini protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.155.8.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146]
4. [147]
5. [148]

Comments:

For some obscure reason, this IP keeps on disrupting the original revision, changing "Iranian" to "Iranian-Kurdish", completely disregarding WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS and most important of all; MOS:ETHNICITY. This might be a WP:SPA. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not obscure at all, we are discussing it here, please feel free to participate: Talk:Mahsa Amini protests#Addition of all of her names.

"This might be a single purpose account", are you joking? Look at my edit history! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Had this user been warned about 3RR? —C.Fred (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

No but this IP was already well aware of the rule; "You've also broken the 3RR by removing this content a total of 4 times in the past few hours.". As for the section, I have already read it, and it still remains obscure. The IP doesn't actually seem to have an actual argument / specific reason besides the usual "why shouldn't we add it?". Her ethnicity is already mentioned in the body of the article (so nothing is being "obscure or hidden" as the IP claimed there), but it shouldn't be in the lede per MOS:ETHNICITY. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Warned {{uw-3rr}} placed on IP's user talk page. IP would be subject to a block for any further reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the warning, but Matrayasna (talk · contribs) is over the WP:3RR rule, and I warned them of such on the talk page. See: here, here, here, and here. I also tried to talk with this user on their user talk page, as well. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This information was originally added by @Leaky.Solar: [149] and those edits were based on consensus reached from the Death of Mahsa Amini article, then repeatedly reverted by Mitrayasna (talk · contribs). Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What consensus? A link to it would be helpful. M.Bitton (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I should have been more clear. I meant that the IP was doing this without having achieved any form of WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

My question was to the IP who is claiming that Leaky.Solar's edit was based on consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a long thread: Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#More on the reverted revisions of @HistoryofIran. There is a vote all the way down, but basically, the same text that was agreed upon was being used for both pages, but then repeatedly reverted for some reason. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That thread was about whether using her Kurdish transliteration or not in Death of Mahsa Amini (another article), which by the way, did not reach any WP:CONSENSUS. Your latest two reverts were unrelated to that as well [150] [151] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, but that thread has nothing to do with the content that you edit warred over. M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That conversation was about how to present her names, in both Persian and Kurdish. Consensus was reached for that content on the Death of Mahsa Amini page, take a look at the lede. That text was copied over by Leaky.Solar and then that content was reverted multiple times by Mitrayasna, please see here, here, and here. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's half the story, as that particular thread was about how to present her name in an article that is exclusively about her (whatever consensus is reached there wouldn't apply elsewhere). The other half is the fact that you introduced her ethnicity into the Mahsa Amini protests and edit warred over it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh boy, part of this confusion is my fault at being bad at explaining the whole scenario (it's getting late here, I'm off to bed), that's on me. But obviously that doesn't excuse edit warring over a alleged WP:CONSENSUS in another article, which you at least admitted to being about mention of a Kurdish transliteration, not ethnicity. You edit warred over both. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's true. I figured, if we're not going to include her Kurdish name, then it's okay to include the fact that she is of Iranian Kurdish decent. However, reading over the MOS:ETHNICITY guidelines after the fact, it seems clear that this isn't allowed. (EDIT: I didn't realize that her ethnic/regional info is later mentioned in the Mahsa Amini protests#Background section, which is good.)

I don't understand the problem of including her Kurdish name, since it was agreed upon on the other article about her, but then that got reverted repeatedly and without good explanation. (EDIT: Perhaps her other names can be mentioned in the background section rather than the lede?) Cheers!

Also, just wanted to point out an odd anomaly: previous edits to my own above comment were reverted for some (maybe accidental) reason? Weird. Anyhow, cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Artem S. Tashkinov reported by User:LeaveMeB (Result: Both editors blocked 24 hours)

Pages: Coffee Lake, Comet Laake, Rocket Lake, Alder Lake Comet Lake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Artem S. Tashkinov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Coffee Lake
• Comet Lake
• Rocket Lake
• Alder Lake

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

• Coffee Lake
• Comet Lake
• Rocket Lake
• Alder Lake

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LeaveMeB#In_regard_to_Intel_CPUs_articles [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Artem_S._Tashkinov&oldid=1112715840

Comments: The user has been disruptive, violated the 3RR rule on multiple pages by removing tables that were added for consistency across pages. The user has refused to cease even after another user, Pension Pennerglück, came to my defense and disagreed with the user in question. He still did not cease when he was clearly in the minority and came out with personal attacks against both of us.

Let's talk about these edits in detail:

• A "consistency" argument is purely made-up/falsehood. No other Intel CPU articles have ever followed this style.
• No new information whatsoever.
• Tables have become extremely large both vertically and horizontally and also they are terrible for mobile users.
• Tables now contain a ton of duplicated information which was moved out of the tables to make them smaller and easier to read.
• These tables have existed in this form for over a decade.
• The user tries to copy a style of AMD Zen CPUs articles which has been disputed.
• The user introduced the changes without consulting with other active editors.
• The user provides no rationale for these changes other than to make the tables look "pretty". His other arguments are squarely invalid, including "missing RAM information" and missing release dates (both are provided).
• These changes serve no purpose whatsoever.
• No existing editors have been invited to review these changes. The mentioned user, Pension Pennerglück, has not been an active editor ever. His opinion cannot be considered relevant.

Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The only people that have disputed the AMD tables is you and you have been taking it out on other people for disagreeing with you. That's like citing yourself as a source. You also don't seem to realise that the tables that you reverted to also don't fit on mobile because essentially no tables fit on mobile. There is a fix for "mobile unfriendly" tables: scrolling. The existing AMD tables work perfectly fine on mobile and there should be consistent tables used for AMD and Intel. Other Intel pages like List of Intel Core i5 processors and List of Intel Core i7 processors already use AMD-style tables but you, and only you, are fighting against creating consistent tables across both AMD and Intel and between Intel pages. Just because something has existed before is not an argument because then anything can be justified no matter how bad it is. You could make that argument logically for undoing every edit that has ever been made because there has a previous version that existed before. You can't handle that you are in teh minority and have been taking it out on others. LeaveMeB (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

1) The existing tables are easier to scroll than monstrosities you've turned them into. 2) Scrolling is not and has never been a fix - that's not an argument. 3) The existing AMD Zen articles have never worked for mobile. 4) You continue to provide ZERO justification for adding duplicate information in the tables which already exists.

Speaking of "minority". You're again lying through your teeth as you're making this up. The other user you're referring to has not been an active editor of Intel CPU articles ever. At the same time you have deliberately avoided pinging any existing active editors.

Let's dial your edits to the maximum, shall we? Here's the info list for 13900K. Why not include the following as well:

• Vertical Segment
• Use Conditions
• Max Memory Bandwidth
• Direct Media Interface (DMI) Revision
• Max # of DMI Lanes
• Scalability
• TJUNCTION
• A ton more - there are basically over 50 data points.

Who decides what's important and what's not? Who decides what to include for each CPU? The tables serve the purpose of providing data points which are drastically different across CPUs. You arbitrarily included the same information over and over which is relevant only for you. WP is not your personal blog platform.Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You are incredibly exclusionary and disrespectful to newer editors. It doesn't matter how many edits they have made, their opinion is still valid as every Wikipedia editor is meant to be equal. You are incorrect as Pension Pennerglück has edited Intel articles such as Raptor Lake here and they have also edited AMD articles which should not be disqualifying like you seem to believe. You were disruptive with AMD tables and you are also being disruptive with Intel pages which you feel you have totalitarian ownership over. You do not and others must be permitted to contribute.

The information that should be included is the most important parts like release date, price, clock speeds, memory support, GPU, socket, and power which are the most important for distinguishing between CPUs and can affect user interaction. These are universal specifications that are commonly discussed by media outlets. You are strawmanning and being personaly vindictive. LeaveMeB (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You continue to get personal. You continue not providing any arguments for your edits. You continue not providing any rationale for duplicating arbitrarily data which you personally find important. Here's my final argument. 1920x1080 desktop resolution, old vs new. With your edits the table becomes harder to read, both larger vertically and horizontally with a lot less data on the screen. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Your image really doesn't prove your point. Firstly it doesn't make sense for CPUs to be organised in descending order like you wouldn't organise a bookshelf Z-A. Secondly, your table has the unneccessary branding column which could be used for something actually useful and product segmentation could be more clearly distinguished with a blue line. The table you prefer is also not "mobile friendlly" and uses the same number of columns with less information. LeaveMeB (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

For the 25th time: your edits add zero new information. Your edits provide zero new useful information which is not already there. You arbitrarily decided what to duplicate. For mobile CPUs you specified the socket. No other article on Wikipedia does that. Why? Because mobile CPUs have been soldered since forever. This "information" is 100% irrelevant for the user. It's even irrelevant for OEMs. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You're now calling me "personaly vindictive" - that's an insult/ad hominem. Speaking of "release date, price, clock speeds, memory support, GPU, socket, and power" everything is there already in the articles. For the 25th time: your edits add zero new information. Your edits provide zero new useful information which is not already there. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@LeaveMeB: You were Bold, you were Reverted, now it's time to Discuss (see WP:BRD.) You tried to make some changes, and someone reverted you. At this point the onus is on you to take it to the talk page and get consensus for your changes, not to keep edit warring. You have not left any talk page messages on the articles to discuss why you think your changes should be made and you have not sought to get consensus there. I sense a boomerang coming your way here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Per above. There really isn't anything to distinguish these two editors on this one. The accounts are a different story. I'd be open to an extension of the LeaveMeB block given that that account was created less than two weeks ago and almost at once got heavily involved in this with a level of wikiknowledge unusual for a new editor. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I do wonder if LeaveMeB has edited here before. Canterbury Tail talk 20:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: this other account's edits, their similarly stilted grammar, and LeaveMeB's touting of their support above, all look a lot like sockpuppetry. Storchy (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

And it was also created relatively recently ... 10 days ago, the day before it began editing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

User:FGVillamor reported by User:Bri (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Miss Universe 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FGVillamor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]
5. [157]
6. [158]
7. [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161]

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

Comments:

• FGVillamor is repeatedly changing sort order of South Korea against consensus. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

User:50.202.102.110 reported by User:Vossanova (Result: Block, Semi)

Page: Chevrolet Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 50.202.102.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 16:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC) to 15:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Chevrolet Express."
2. 16:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
3. 16:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Chevrolet Express."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced/OR to many articles, and reverting reverts without discussion. User was warned multiple times, and has made similar changes on August 24 and 15. Vossanova ^o< 16:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: There has been an array of IPs engaging in this same disruption over the past several weeks. The IPs involved geolocate to at least three different areas of the U.S. and it's still unclear if it's meatpuppetry or one disruptive editor using proxies. I would note that the IP reported here resumed disruption days after expiration of a one-month block, and within hours of 2600:1005:B053:E63C:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) being blocked for the same behavior. --Sable232 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 50.202.102.110 (talk · contribs) for 6 months. I've also semiprotected Chevrolet Express and International TerraStar for one month each. Let me know if there is anything more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Mr Ernie reported by User:FormalDude (Result: No action)

Page: Hunter Biden laptop controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr Ernie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 12:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [163]
2. [164]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [165]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#More_attempts_to_change_wordings

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

Comments: Violation of 24-hr BRD restriction pursuant to arbitration decision. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

For real? First of all the article is not subject to the 24-hr BRD restriction. Second of all, an RFC just closed which found consensus to remove the word "alleged" from the lead. So an editor removed it. Then another editor who was very vocal on the side that did not gain consensus in the RFC added "is believed to have." This is just restating the text that RFC rejected. So I reverted it. FormalDude put it back in without any kind of comment or edit summary, so I again restored to the article to RFC compliance and started a talk page discussion. FormalDude then templated my user page and reported me for edit warring. The whole reason we had the RFC was constant bickering over the status of the laptop. The editors who are continually attempting to edit against consensus are causing unnecessary disruption. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess you missed the giant "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" banner at the top of the talk page? And forgot about the discretionary sanctions warning you were given just 3 months ago? Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Typically the DS are listed at the top of the page when you click "edit." Why are you being so combative? You immediately templated me and reported me before any attempt at discussion. You can have your fun here - I'll be at the article talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

To any uninvolved editors, please see the article talk page where the RFC closer adds some helpful comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I left you a custom note informing you about the 24-hr BRD restriction and asking you to self revert, to which you reverted my comment with the edit summary "lol". ––FormalDude (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It looked like the standard template to me. I shouldn’t have been so flippant in removing it. Also, thanks for adding the DS notices to the edit template. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As one of the most active and enthusiastic editors on that page, it is Ernie's responsibility to know the page restriction. The recent RfC was very specific and the close was very specific, to wit: The closer found consensus to remove the word "alleged" regarding Biden's ownership of the laptop. The edits that Ernie twice reverted were fully consistent with the close, indicating that the laptop is believed to have been Biden's. Ernie's edit summaries claim that this goes against the RfC close. This, like his assertion that there was no page restriction, is false. The closing Admin here has the discretion to issue either an EW or an AE sanction, but there is no doubt as to the aggressive attitude and denial that makes a sanction necessary. His reference now directly above to an after-the-fact personal opinion by the closer -- which he calls "helpful comments" -- is further evidence that he is unwilling to take responsibility for his violation and that a preventive sanction is necessary. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems like Mr Ernie's reversion did not constitute edit warring per WP:EW: "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required." RfC is one of the more official means of determining content of articles; upholding the results of an RfC seems like enforcing an "overriding policy" to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes I should have checked closer. The normal way I check for what DS are in force is through the edit window of the article page. When I checked before reverting back to the RFC consensus there was not a mention of the 24 BRD. Nevertheless, the emerging consensus at the talk page is that the material I removed did in fact violate the RFC consensus and should not have been added by SPECIFICO or reverted back in by FormalDude. There should be no further disruptions. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering that you still have not self-reverted your violation, while now claiming to understand it and blaming it all on a little slip-up, it's hard to see why the violation would not be taken at face value as such. Arguing that you think that 4 hours after the fact, editors agree with your edit is an even worse way to show you have no concern about having violated the page restriction. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You want me to undo my edit so someone else can immediately reinstate it? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO inserted "is believed to have", Mr Ernie reverted, FormalDude re-inserted, Mr Ernie re-reverted. I believe Hunter Biden is alive and therefore WP:BLP is applicable and therefore FormalDude should have gotten consensus rather than re-inserted (WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this timing is relevant too: Mr Ernie wrote, above, Typically the DS are listed at the top of the page when you click "edit." 15:10 September 28. FormalDude added an edit notice 15:25 September 28.

If this is a violation of ArbCom-authorized DS (I haven't looked at the dispute, so I don't know whether or not it is a violation), then it really belongs at WP:AE, and not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps an uninvolved editor couild move it there? I agree it is beyond the scope of this board. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie, do you remember the time you dragged me to AE over a 24h revert infraction because I made an edit at 23 hours, 56 minutes?. You have no wiggle room at all to complain when others file for sanctions, even when it appears to be minor. ValarianB (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude is allowed to bring charges against me, and I'll try to explain my edits. You are also welcome to report me if you believe I've done something wrong. I said above I didn't realize that sanction was in effect because the normal way I check revealed nothing. That's on me. What's your opinion about going against RFC consensus hours after it closes and reverting someone trying to enforce said consensus? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyways I’m happy to sit out a “preventative” block (as SPECIFICO calls it) for implementing consensus. On contested topics like the Biden laptop the editor consensus is much more important than the potential odd DS violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie It seems you've acknowledged the violation but have not (yet) self-reverted... why? Looking at the RFC results, I agree you are correct that the "beloieved to belong to: edits are against consensus, but a self-revert would have helped. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I can self-revert so someone else can reinstate the consensus, but to be honest I don't see the point. I don't want to put in bad content because of bureaucracy. The ironic thing about this is that I'm the one editing per consensus - one that was painstakingly reached after weeks of discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-reverting at this point, after all the insistance, denial and now an invitation for another editor to edit war as your proxy as soon as you self revert? That is not very encouraging and certainly not in the spirit of the DS restriction. Please don't complicate things here by an out-of-process insistance on your content views. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see here - diff. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Recommend Mr Ernie be more mindful of the BRD sanction but no block. Mr Ernie was wrong for the right reasons: the consensus from the RFC clearly supports the reverts by Mr Ernie. Arguably, the revert was not even BOLD and this is moot. I'll let another admin close this, though. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I just want to highlight the absurdities that DS sometimes brings us. I’ve been hauled here for reverting edits that were “inappropriate,” and there is no word of warning for the editors who made the “inappropriate” edits. But I understand how it goes, so you may sanction me with a clean conscience. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude should have gone to the talk page before AN3. And the addition of "believed" was inappropriate and has the air of trying to circumvent consensus. I did not mean to use "warning" as a form of sanction but rather as a caution. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You and Ernie both getting off track from the DS violation by pursuing the content issue here. After this is resolved, there will be a review of the RfC close and the content issue is likely to be resolved that way. But Ernie is continuing to assert his content views as a defense and entitlement for his DS violation, and that is simply not how we handle such things, either on this page or at AE. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly this seems vexatious. Go discuss on the talk page instead of trying to user blocked as punishment. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with no action per the advice of User:EvergreenFir, above. The claim by User:Mr Ernie not to have been aware of the 24-hour BRD restriction isn't persuasive. They were elaborately informed of the restriction by User:FormalDude and, even then, Mr Ernie still declined to self-revert. The fortuitous closure of an RfC on the same day does not create an exception to the 24-hour restriction. This was a hot dispute and certainly many others (who were not restricted by the 24-hour BRD as Mr Ernie was) would have been able and willing to impose the RfC result if Mr Ernie had agreed to revert himself. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Vgaiyfi reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1112893333 by Volunteer Marek (talk) An RfC about the permanence of the infoboxes has been opened in the Talk page. Please, wait for it to complete its mission and do not remove the infoboxes without consensus. This is not about POV, it's only about format"
2. 15:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Re-adding infoboxes that were unilaterally removed without consensus; and minor corrections in references"
3. 13:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1112856131 by Rsk6400 (talk) Please, expose your concerns in the Talk page. Do not remove the infoboxes unilaterally without prior consensus"
4. 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Infoboxex re-added; they are a good way to display data to the readers. There was no consensus on the discussion page for not including infoboxes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine."
2. 15:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Charts with no data */ Don't add the infoboxes"
2. 14:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Charts with no data */ Reply"

Comments:

The user Rsk6400 is trying to impose the removal of the infoboxes even though the proposal to not add them was discussed previously, and consensus was not reached. In the absence of consensus to support the non-inclusion of the infoboxes, their use should not be restricted. For that reason, yesterday, as part of the development of the article, they were added. As I have stated before, it is possible to propose the removal of these infoboxes, but there should be common consensus to do so, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog.

However, the user Rsk6400 has been acting unilaterally, removing the content from the article several times (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)

Fortunately, an RfC has been opened on the article's Talk page about this matter. I believe that this is the right way to propose changes, rather than unilaterally implementing them. Vgaiyfi (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please note that the first three edits mentioned above were just one series of consecutive edits, so I made only three reverts. I won't revert again before this case is decided. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is right to wait until this case is decided. Regarding the number of edits, I do not understand the reason to make three consecutive edits instead of only one in a case like this. Anyway, I have referred to content removals made by you, not to reverts. I would also like to point out that the last revert made by me following a content removal, took place when a user had already opened the RfC about this matter on the article's Talk page. Vgaiyfi (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. It is good that Vgaiyfi endorses having an RfC, but bad that they continued to revert after someone else had already opened the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Romwell reported by User:Uncle Milty (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Greg Abbott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC) "Please use the talk page to discuss how the information in this edit should be presented instead of removing important details of how Greg Abbott has been involved in the controversy regarding the Texas H. B. 20 bill's journey towards the Supreme Court. This is important, and has been reported upon by every major news outlet."
2. 12:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC) "Please stop vandalizing Greg Abbott's page by removing this edit. Also please note that your actions violate Texas H.B. 20 act referenced in the edit. Undid revision 1113045051 by Uncle Milty (talk)"
3. 12:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC) ""Undue" according to whom? This is being reported in major publications (TechDirt, Gizmodo, The Atlantic, ...), which have been referenced and sourced. It is very much due, and sourced reliably. Undid revision 1113043868 by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Greg Abbott."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User bragged about these actions on reddit and encouraged others to participate: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/xr6kie/wikipedia_didnt_say_the_most_important_thing/ | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Romwell for 72 hours for edit-warring and WP:BLP violations. I've also reverted their edit per WP:BLPREMOVE. Whether any of the material should be added and how it must be sourced may be discussed on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

User:23.84.19.247 reported by User:B (Result: Warned)

Page: Carlsen–Niemann controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 23.84.19.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (Not a great link to show since the reverts are wholesale section blanking. If you look at the diffs, you can see the same passage is removed four times.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [167]
2. [168]
3. [169]
4. [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [172]

Comments:
Repeated removal of sourced content. --B (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You are violating guidelines on BLP. The sections I removed directly violate:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid gossip and feedback loops

The reverts I made are in turn reverted WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION as to why they are not violations of aforementioned guideline.

Me being reported for edit warring is an abuse of this procedure. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a 19 YEAR OLD TEENAGER and you guys are using these wholly unsubstantiated rumors to CYBERBULLY a literal child. If he were older, it could be fair game, but this is a child still too young to even drink in his country of residence. Including all these rumors on his page is MORALLY WRONG, but more importantly a VIOLATION OF BLP GUIDELINES! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I didn't even get the "you have messages" notice of all this until today. So sorry about this 3RR rule, but I wasn't even aware of it until just recently when I got the notice AFTERwards. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and hence didn't even know how it works with discussions/etc let alone about these warring rules. 23.84.19.247 (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, 23.84.19.247 is entirely correct in both their editing and their comments on the relevant issue. Wikipedia takes edit warring seriously, and rightly so, but it is trivially evident that it takes potential defamation much more seriously. A cursory once over of the language in the WP:BLP policy proves it. If 23.84.19.247 is censured or even warned for "edit warring" then the parties that have attempted to insert slander and innuendo should be temporarily blocked from editing. It's that big a difference. -The Gnome (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! You are literally my hero! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: The IP 23.84.19.247 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. I don't see a BLP reason strong enough for this material to be removed without penalty under WP:NOT3RR. But our normal editorial standards might lead to some of this material being removed anyway in the course of regular editing. Regular editing needs *consensus*, which the IP does not have yet. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with this ruling. If you are going to give me a reprimand then I deserve an explicit answer for the following two points (please):

  • Why does the following BLP guideline not apply to this removal? Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid gossip and feedback loops
  • Why am I not exempt from being edit warring under Exemption number 7 from the following page: Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions? Clearly my intent is to remove slanderous claims against an actual child. This is not politics but the mental well-being and health of a 19 year old child!

  Thank you for your time 23.84.19.247 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Also, am I at least allowed to remove any future addition of sex toy references until said consensus is reached? I.e. until there is a consensus to with intention include reference to sex toys on the page of an actual teenager the default will remain that it is not to be included? I have additionally made a post to BLP columns about it for consideration as well. But can I at least be allowed to blank all sections on this until the consensus says otherwise? 23.84.19.247 (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, you cannot. As I noted on WP:BLPN, in response to your report there, at least some of the claims are backed up with reliable sourcing, so a wholesale blank is not allowed. Further, as EdJohnston noted above, your reverts do not qualify for WP:NOT3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is totally unfair. Why is the default to include defamatory material until it is proven/decided that it is NOT defamation?! 23.84.19.247 (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Indagate reported by User:LightKeyDarkBlade (Result: No violation)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC) "That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, any should should have more than just the aggregate otherwise useless duplication. No policy says there should be one either, stylistic choice so WP:STYLEVAR. You're the one who is repeatedly adding it against status quo, your addition has been reverted so please establish consensus before restoring it. Disagree I have a "history". Undid revision 1113057725 by LightKeyDarkBlade (talk)"
2. 12:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Reception */ remove unnecessary tiny table again"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Echochrome."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been disruptive and participating in edit warring. They also have a history of doing so as can be seen on their talk page, having received multiple warnings in the past. But they "disagree" they have a history.

For this recent incident, the chronology of events is as follows for ease of understanding.

Back in May 2022, I added Template:Video game reviews to the page to display the Metacritic scores for the video game, in addition to the prose. Later in the month on the 26th, the user (who had no prior contributions to the page) removed the template without providing a single explanation or reasoning.

On 29 September 2022 today, I noticed the change and re-added the template along with some other fixes to the page. Minutes later, the user removed it again on the grounds of "unnecessary tiny table".

I made the revert on the basis that it's an invalid argument and asked them to provide a valid reason or discuss at talk page, while pointing out their history of edit warring. It was also my first time encountering such an issue despite having edited the reception section of countless video game pages. I then also gave a level 2 warning to the user as you can see above.

The user then reverted again citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:STYLEVAR, and "useless duplication", which again is not seen as a problem in any other video game articles. There is evidence of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR.

To make matters worse, the user removed my warning on their talk page. Then, the user gave me a level 1 warning citing "misuse" of a warning template as well as a level 3 warning accusing me of edit warring.

The actions of reverting the page (with the edit summary accusing me), removing my valid warning to them, and giving warnings to me instead appear to be an apparent attempt to turn it around against me and relieving themselves of any wrongdoings.

In the past, the user did not meet the username policy and had to be warned and blocked before they requested a change in username. The user also received multiple warnings of disruptive editing and edit warring (which they deny despite the evidence). In addition, they had been given a final warning by User:Praxidicae.

With this incident in addition to all past incidents and warnings the user had received, I cannot in good conscience assume WP:GOODFAITH. There is also plenty of evidence of the user's behaviour that the user is WP:NOTHERE. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• No violation This board is for edit warring, which is not occurring on the page reported. Try WP:ANI if you have an issue about overall behavior of another user. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Sarrail reported by User:4.71.225.18 (Result: Nominating editor blocked, 31 hours)

Page: 2022 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sarrail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]

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

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

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

Comments:

• Looks to qualify for the vandalism exemption, as the reporting IP has been vandalizing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Edited past final warning for vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

User:37.25.84.230 & User:77.29.224.59 reported by User:Throast (Result: Page protected)

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

• 37.25.84.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.29.224.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

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: Once a PROD tag is removed, the proposed deletion is canceled. It is then upon the proposing editor to find other ways of dispute resolution.

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

Comments:

Repeated and reckless restoration of a PROD tag by two IPs which appear to be the same person based on IP data, edit history and summaries. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Mr Throst the Wikipedia article is made up it is absurd to exist such article There are only Macedonians Bulgaromacedonains don't exist it is a made up people that in Macedonia don't exist your admin powers are abused by you and yes these article should not exist Wikiepdia should counter Bulgarian propaganda on Macedonian pages that user Jingiby is doing Wikiepdia is used for right wing propaganda and big Bulgaria propaganda. https://bsc.ius.edu.ba/content/wikipedia-being-used-radical-political-agenda-balkans being silent means that you support genocide of the Macedonian people and accept they crazy demands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.25.84.230 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Throast is not an admin, and it seems that the article is decently well-sourced. Chip3004 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Mr chip it is not well sourced it is sourced with propaganda that you as an editor should counter it.

Hi, everybody, the 2 IPs above are most probably related or is a single user with several accounts. Also WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE; WP:NATIONALIST and probably WP:SOCK. Jingiby (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 1 week DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

DatGuy, just out of curiosity, will the page automatically revert to pending changes protection after semi-protection expires? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes is an interesting, quirky little bit of MediaWiki, unlike other user access level protections. To answer your question, it's separate to the other protections and so it's still active now and will remain as such indefinitely. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Norge17maii reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: User talk:Volunteer Marek (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Norge17maii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [176]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [177]
2. [178]
3. [179]
4. [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181] (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [183]

Comments:
The user in question refuses to stop posting on my talk after being repeatedly asked not to (here, here and here). I removed their comments after they became belligerent and began making personal attacks against me, such as here ("Were you born before 2014?") here and here.

Note also that the user in question is edit warring over this with another user [184], [185] who also removed their unwanted comments per WP:BLANKING. Volunteer Marek 18:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The user has also been referring to my edits as "vandalism" here and and here even after being informed that calling good faithed edits by other editors "vandalism" is a personal attack [186].

The user has also been given a discretionary sanctions notice for the topic area here, and informed about WP:BLANKING here by another user. They've removed all these notifications.

There's also a WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE issue here as the editor appears to believe that they can use other Wikipedia articles as reliable sources for other articles [187] [188] and refuses to understand the fact that you just can't do that. Volunteer Marek 18:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There's also another 3RR violation by the same user on the Melitopol article:

1. [189]
2. [190]
3. [191]
4. [192]

This is pretty clearly in WP:NOTHERE territory. Volunteer Marek 18:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

How could I possibly be at fault but not you? You've made the same number of reverts as I have, the only difference is that I'm right and you're wrong. Russia annexed land today. That means that the territories that they annexed, that are controlled by them, are de jure Russia. This, again, does not say anything about whether I think Russia is right or not. This is just a fact. Norge17maii (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Because you're edit warring against multiple users. I made three reverts and it's MY talk page. You made four or five reverts, both of me and User:LuK3. On Melitopol you reverted other users, User:Dudhhr, as well. Volunteer Marek 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(nice slip of the tongue there btw). Volunteer Marek 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You did the same thing on the Sevastopol page! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sevastopol&action=history

You did it to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fyunck(click)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Serafart

They both told you to stop but you didnt! Norge17maii (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are not 3RR violations. They are most certainly not 3RR violations attempting to restore personal attacks to someone's talk page despite their repeated request for you to stop. Volunteer Marek 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks. I just asked a legitimate question. Am I not allowed to ask questions? Norge17maii (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

User:2A04:4A43:4D5F:D5B9:25E5:C84:840C:A7BF reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: User's /64 range blocked and page protected)

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

User being reported: 2A04:4A43:4D5F:D5B9:25E5:C84:840C:A7BF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Stop edit warring and removing reliable sources."
2. 22:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Yep, as quoted, “Arabs, the Semitic people indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula”."
3. 22:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113319439 by Huldra (talk)"
4. 22:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113320429 by M.Bitton (talk)"
5. 22:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113319439 by Huldra (talk)"
6. 22:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113318941 by Huldra (talk)"
7. 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Stop removing reliable sources."
8. 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113317224 by Huldra (talk)"
9. 21:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113315128 by Onceinawhile (talk)"
10. 21:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "As quoted, “Arabs, the Semitic people indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula”."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Arabs."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They have been at it all day, using other IPs as well (please see 2A04:4A43:4DAF:EAC9:25B6:35D4:B647:BA52 and 2A04:4A43:4D8F:C208:50BC:21E6:CCF9:51D0). M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What was the reason for the reversion in the first place? Aren't they citing reliable sources? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

They googled "arabs are the indigenous people arabian peninsula" ...and found a source, the proceeded to edit war on an article they (as an unregistered user) should not be editing at all. Huldra (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Note: the IP has been blocked by ToBeFree. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure whether these are really violations of the 500/30 rule introduced by WP:A/I/PIA, though. "Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring." Else, I'd have said there has been quite some edit warring beyond the IP's contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:Fma12 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Template:Football at the Pan American Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 31 May 2018
2. 30 July 2019
3. 17:55, 2 April 2022‎
4. 21:17, 1 October 2022
5. 22:06, 1 October 2022‎

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

Comments:
This user has been reverting the template, erasing all the links added no matter who edited the template. I tried to persuade him to cease on his actions (see talk) explanining that other football templates such as Template:Football at the Summer Olympics or even Template:FIFA World Cup use similar formats. But he continued reverting my editions with no wish of reaching consensus at all. Fma12 (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Fma12, you could have started (and should probably now start) a discussion on the template's talk page. As this is a long-term issue of ownership behavior and repeated summary-less reverts, I have blocked Sportsfan 1234 from editing this template for two weeks. The template is protected (in the latest revision, which happens to be Sportsfan 1234's) for two days. If you revert without starting a talk page discussion after the protection expires, I'll need to reconsider the rather one-sided focus of this action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This sounds good to me so I'll start a discussion to hear other editors opinion, searching for a consensus to restore all contents removed by Sportsfan 1234. Fma12 (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

User:178.129.70.231 reported by User:Wikipedialuva (Result: Blocked)

Page: Thought disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 178.129.70.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "Ableism is not acceptable in Wikipedia and not encouraged by the community. Therefore, i urge you to respect people with intellectual disability and to stop bringing back destructive edits."
2. 10:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "Ableism is not acceptable in Wikipedia and not encouraged by the community.Therefore, i urge you to respect people with intellectual disability and to stop bringing back destructive edits."
3. 10:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "Ableism is not acceptable in Wikipedia and not encouraged by the community.Therefore, i urge you to respect people with intellectual disability and to stop bringing back destructive edits."
4. 09:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "Ableism is not acceptable in Wikipedia and not encouraged by the community.Therefore, i urge you to respect people with intellectual disability and to stop bringing back destructive edits."
5. 09:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "The same disorder under another name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "Note: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
2. 10:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by ScottishFinnishRadish. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Guydebordgame reported by User:64.64.172.66 (Result: blocked indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [193]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [194]
2. [195]
3. [196]
4. [197] (this is a stealth revert of this [198] in order to reinstate a claim he had added here: [199])
5. [200]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A; user breached 1RR on sanctioned article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [201], [202], [203].

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [204]

Comments:

Article has been under 1RR since June 23: [205]. Editor's last two reverts breach 1RR.

Guydebordgame has been adding false claims to the article, and editing-warring to retain them, since September 17; see current ANI report, with very important details: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeatedly adding false negative material and BLP vios to a sanctioned article. He does not respond to (or else ignores and denigrates) multiple talkpage attempts to get him to abide by Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:BLP, WP:CONSENSUS). 64.64.172.66 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indef for personal attacks, for reasons explained here. Otherwise, probably would have been a one-month pblock from Bored Ape and Emperor Tomato Ketchup (film). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 reported by User:Rockchalk717 (Result: Page protected)

Page: 2022 Kansas Jayhawks football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Schedule */"
2. 18:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Schedule */"
3. 18:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Schedule */"
4. 18:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Schedule */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2022 Kansas Jayhawks football team."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC) on User talk:2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2022 Kansas Jayhawks football team."

Comments:

A note is in the article advising to not add what this editor continues to add. Long story short, they are attempting (and failing) to use a parameter and are misusing the parameter as well. Rockchalk717 21:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected The edits have come from multiple IPs. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"This editor" is maintaining continuity between schedules. The issue at hand is that "College GameDay" is being added in the "gamename" category to the 2022 Kansas football team's game vs. TCU, and Rockchalk717 feels this is incorrect. However, this has been the correct way of doing this for YEARS. As proof, please see the following:

2022 - NC State vs Clemson, Florida vs Tennessee, Troy vs Appalachian State, Alabama vs Texas, Notre Dame vs Ohio State

2021 - Ohio State vs Michigan, Michigan State vs Ohio State, Texas A&M vs Ole Miss, Tulsa vs Cincinnati, Michigan vs Michigan State, Oregon vs UCLA, Kentucky vs Georgia, etc

2020 - BYU vs Coastal Carolina, Auburn vs Alabama, Oklahoma State vs Oklahoma, Clemson vs Notre Dame, Ohio State vs Penn State, etc

2019 - Wisconsin vs Minnesota, Penn State vs Ohio State, Oklahoma vs Baylor, LSU vs Alabama, SMU vs Memphis, Michigan vs Penn State, etc

All I am attempting to do is maintain continuity and give Kansas the credit they deserve. This has been what happens for years - it cannot change just because this one editor believes it's wrong.

-The editor who is accused of doing something wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There is ambiguity in the template documentation. I have asked for discussion at Template talk:CFB schedule entry#College GameDay. —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. My intention was not to cause a problem or be a burden to anyone - simply to maintain what has been going on for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 and 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57: If you weren't trying to cause problems you shouldn't have kept adding it after it was removed. Wikipedia requires discussion to achieve a consensus. You could have replied to my warnings on your talkpage, you could have posted on the article talkpage. Additionally, just because there's other articles that do it doesn't make it right. The purpose of that parameter is to identify bowl games and rivalries. I don't personally see much ambiguity on the template as @C.Fred:. The page gives examples of usage and the inclusion of College Gameday is not shown in the examples. Could this be an unintentional omission? Perhaps. But this template was created years after College Gameday began.--Rockchalk717 22:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Whenever every article EXCEPT YOURS does something, you are the one in the wrong. I don't understand talk pages and I tried explaining my reasoning but you made no attempt to listen. You are acting like a dictator over something that is incredibly small for no reason. You don't have an issue with it on any other page, only this one. I don't know if you have a problem with Kansas or you just have a really huge ego but your biases shouldn't bleed into Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The more I look at the situation, @Rockchalk717:, this is a content dispute. It takes two to edit war, meaning you were as much as fault as the IP for edit warring—and could just as easily have opened the talk page discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Also - "examples of usage" is NOT all-inclusive. They are examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57: If you want to discuss the issue and attempt to get a consensus please reach out on my talkpage, your talkpage, the article talkpage, or better yet, post to WT:CFB. I will not tolerate you putting words in my mouth or calling me a dictator simply because I disagree with including content you want included in the article. WT:CFB is probably the best place to post in fact. The 3RR noticeboard is not the place.--Rockchalk717 23:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to move elsewhere (will have to figure out how to get there and how it works) but this was the only place that I saw to be able to explain my side of the situation. You can call it "putting words in your mouth" but not once did I ever accuse you of saying anything. You can be offended but your problem wasn't at all the fact that something was wrong, it's that it was wrong on YOUR page. Despite the fact that every other article is the same way and yours is the only one different, you act convinced that you are absolutely correct and instead of attempting to listen to reason, you place a warning saying "DO NOT do this thing I don't want you to do for any reason!" without attempting to listen to any explanation provided. That is what dictators do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not a case of just "some articles do it a different way". Articles going back decades have the same thing going on and a list of examples is not all inclusive. I could say that examples of colors are red, blue, and green, but that doesn't mean those are the only colors in existence. Things have been placed this way to give recognition to teams that deserve it and you are the only person to be so upset over this. But once again it's not that you're upset over "College GameDay" being added - it's that you're only upset it's being added to that specific page and you appear to make no attempt to "fix" any of the other "wrong" pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Also I did not call you a dictator. I said you were acting like one and at the time I believe you were. Now that there is communication, I believe a consensus can be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Also I apologize for leaving so many comments. Apparently I can't edit any past comments here if I forget something or need to change something so I just have to make a new one to edit it. I don't do much on Wikipedia so there is a lot I don't understand in terms of how to do things outside of editing articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

For clarification - I do apologize if I offended you. I spoke in the heat of the moment without thinking about if there was a better way for me to get my point across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@2601:703:4280:7520:F0C6:A0C3:1FEB:DC57: The dictator comment did slightly offend me and it's not my intent to come across that way. I'm just doing what (from what I'm aware of) is policy related to this. Per WP:ONUS, it is on you to seek a consensus over inclusion of content. It is not on the editor removing the content, which is me in this case. The best place to seek a consensus, because the talkpage for a single season isn't going to be watched by other editors, is going to be at WT:CFB. Make a new post there. However, I caution you on using "other stuff exists arguments" to make a point and yes some stuff exists for a reason on the flip side of that. Especially on individual season articles. Season articles are frequented by inexperienced IP addresses and inexperienced registered users who are not aware of policies or that parameters have specific purposes on the schedule entry template. I only keep an eye on the one for Kansas because I'm a fan of Kansas (in case my username didn't give it away) and after the season, I'll probably rarely visit the page.--Rockchalk717 04:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Sscloud21 reported by User:Lard Almighty (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Maajid Nawaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sscloud21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113846701 by Thriley (talk) - with respect you have not read the talk section, and I'm an editor of 15 years FYI. You would see that many instances supporting this descriptor are listed in the Talk section. To your point, yes the body of the text needs to reflect his conspiracy theories more explicitly, and this will be done. However that does not justify your undoing the decriptor entirely, especially as it is sourced"
2. 14:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113823230 by Thriley (talk) it is justified, but your point of adding his views to the body is a fair one. rather than blanket removal of this, you should have just flagged the need to add his views in the body of the text."
3. 10:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113808681 by TWM03 (talk) - Flagging this as vandalism now. The talk page shows concensus on this summation of Nawaz's views and the validity of the sources. Has been repeatedly reversed despite concensus on the Talk pages that his conspiratorial views need to be reflected on this page, and which flagged both links as supportive of this"
4. 21:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113622105 by Sweet6970 (talk) - discussion with prior contributors highlighted the need to tighten references not revert to a 'neutral' version. Article now more aligned to references"
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC) to 21:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
   1. 21:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113510412 by TWM03 (talk)"
   2. 21:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC) ""after espousing various COVID-19 related conspiracy theories" is not the same as "for espousing various COVID-19 related conspiracy theories". Reversion fundamentally misunderstood a basic point of grammar. Furthermore, Quilliam being controversial is explicitly stated in the link itself, and thus the citation is correct. Flagging this as a second instance of ongoing vandalism, a third instance will result in reporting."
   3. 21:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC) "Removal of highly controversial given the passions the statement seems to be inciting in some wiki editors."
6. 18:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113422520 by TWM03 (talk) - Edits are properly sourced and back the edits made in the first instance. Seems to have been undone by a pro-Nawaz actor."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1 2

Comments:

Warning given and deleted by user prior to continuing the edit war. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Continuing to edit war 1 2

• Indefinitely blocked (see details in block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:DerFigaro reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Marriage of Figaro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DerFigaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [206]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [207]
2. [208]
3. [209]
4. [210]
5. [211]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [212]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [213]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [214]

Comments:

Edit-warring even in the face of opposing consensus on talkpage. Failure to even provide any sources to uphold his prefered libretto translation. Continued to edit war to impose his preferred wording even after stating on the talkpage "If it is so important to you that readers get to read falsifying translations and strange interpretations on Wikipedia just because they are 'common', then so be it. ;) " [215].

User is also edit-warring on the article talkpage itself [216], repeatedly removing posts that have already been replied to, in violation of WP:TPO and even after receiving instructions that he can strike out the material if desired. Softlavender (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked. See below. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:DerFigaro reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:The Marriage of Figaro (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DerFigaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [217]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [218]
2. [219]
3. [220]
4. [221]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [223]

Comments:

Please forgive two reports on same editor, but he has breached 3RR on two separate pages after being EW warned about each of them. He was advised re: WP:TPO about posts that have already been replied to (and even told he could strike them instead), but has repeatedly deleted them anyway. He has also vandalized the talkpage by removing the TOC: [224]. Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours It could easily have been a longer block due to the vandalism to the talk page and some of the self-reverted comments on the user's own talk page, but I'm giving the the benefit of the doubt. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Volunteer_Marek reported by User:RadomirZinovyev (Result: Discussed elsewhere)

Page: Kherson Oblast (Russia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer_Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [225]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [226]
2. [227]
3. [228]
4. [229]
5. [230]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [231]

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

Comments: Volunteer Marek in his final revert elected to ignore my response in the talk page, later replying with affirmation to another commenter instead of answering the reply. RadomirZinovyev 15:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)>

This is being discussed here. I removed unsourced and false information which constituted a WP:HOAX. A WP:BOOMERANG should be applied to all the accounts that kept restoring unsourced (this isn't even up for debate - it was unsourced) and fake info. Volunteer Marek 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not the information you removed is false (that is a matter for discussion in the talk page which you ignored until later reverts) you unilaterally made massive content removals and reverts without engaging other editors even after being reverted numerous times. (I am not replying further, the facts will speak for themselves). RadomirZinovyev 15:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not just that it was false it's also that it was unsourced. And it's not just that it was unsourced. It was also false. Also reverting IPs and brand new accounts restoring false unsourced info does not actually count as reverts. Volunteer Marek 15:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@RadomirZinovyev How come you so enthusiastically hopped in and kept restoring unsourced data in support of the IP that started it? It looks that the entire article is going to be deleted because of the sources and WP:FORK issues anyway. Edit war is not about the magic number of 3 reverts. You should add yourself and the IP to this report, but because you kept restoring unsourced information and dared to come here to succeed, WP:BOOMERANG wouldn't surprise me.

You --> [233], [234]

The IP --> [235], [236] - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not unsourced data, it is data which Marek does not like. Which he does not want to engage in dialogue over

If Marek engaged in dialogue and substantiated his position instead of reverts, he wouldn't be in this position. His account is old enough for him to know that. RadomirZinovyev 16:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You call Russian state operated news outlet RIA Novosti a reliable source for such hot topic area? Well, then we have additional issues now.. (neutrality, possible POV pushing etc.) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You are taking this out of context, I didn't add RIA novosti as a source.

They reported the "referendum" numbers which other western sources have also reported since. RadomirZinovyev 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is already being discussed at WP:ANI. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Therefore closed. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Int21h reported by User:Headbomb (Result: No action)

Page: Unruh effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Int21h (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113726745 by Headbomb (talk) pls stop removing wikilinks to authors, and other valid info, and especially stop removing wikilinks to women scientists"
2. 21:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113707186 by Headbomb (talk) please don't remove wikilinks to the authors in the citations, and your change of the Smolyaninov title is incorrect"
3. 21:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "use "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "/* WP:CITEVAR is not optional */ new section"
2. 00:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "/* WP:CITEVAR is not optional */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

• [237]
• This (previous discussion)

Comments:

User continues to violate WP:CITEVAR despite repeated warnings and reminders. After acknowledging that they didn't forget these past discussion [238], the first thing they do is against restore {{Cite q}} in violation of WP:CITEVAR [239]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am re-adding wikilinks to authors, fixing titles, and wikilinking several scientific articles. He doesn't like my edits, that is for talk pages. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• See User talk:Int21h#WP:CITEVAR is not optional and discussions linked from there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see the Stephen Hawking article and talk page where all editors disagree with you: all my {{Cite Q}} edits were kept and are still there. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to link to that talk page discussion. Stephen Hawking has about a dozen CITEVAR-related inconsistencies caused by Cite Q at e.g. citation 333, immediately after "have been found to yield the same result". Those need to be fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There, not here. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Now with trolling, where Int21h makes it look like I'm notifying myself of a discussion I myself opened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive on my talk page. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is straight up heading towards a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:ABF block if you keep this mentality and can't handle being contacted on your talk page about stylistic disagreements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You have never been productive on my talk page, you only leave antagonistic comments. I get linking to discussions, but what you're doing is not it. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious that instead of taking this discussion to e.g. the Stephen Hawking article talk page (that started all this), disagreeing editors are trying to censure me. The community kept my edits, get over it. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why in the world would your edits at Unruh effect be discussed at Talk:Stephen Hawking? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This is either only about the Unruh effect article, or this is about more than that article. Which is it? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If you disagree with the use of {{Cite Q}} on the Stephen Hawking article, you should take that disagreement to that article talk page, not here. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Here's a link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There, where it ought to be, not here. Thank you. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It is 03:30 AM UTC so I'm logging off so to speak. :( Does anyone have any more questions or comments? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Only in the sense that there were only three reverts, though. While after review of the March WT:CS discussion and what would seem to be the controlling authority here, the TfD five years ago, I cannot say that the broad consensus Headbomb claims exists to strictly limit the use of {{Cite Q}} such that Int21h is editing against it by definition. If it is there, nobody cited a discussion reaching that conclusion.

  We then must consider CITEVAR. It is true that the wording explicitly mentions "citation styles", which would seem to exclude citation methods that would render in the same style as a native template, as Int21h reads it. But ... in the last graf there is language clearly meant to prevent someone from invoking CITEVAR to prevent the cleanup of bare URLs, since "that would not count as a 'consistent citation style' and can be changed freely to insert such data." Right now that doesn't seem to me to exclude cite Q as it cannot be changed as freely as an inline citation using one of the {{cite}} family, and by "freely", I mean a novice user (not that many new users try their hand at cite fixing, but the point is that they could), as I don't think it would be intuitive to one to go over to Wikidata to fix the source, to say nothing of actually editing the relevant item there.

  That said, though, I find this passage from CITEVAR most dispositive here: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." That grants one point to Int21h—that citation style is an article-by-article process, not something that can be broadly applied to an entire category of articles, especially when that category is barely defined, if it all, and it largely seems to be the same two editors leading the charge. But it also makes it very clear that, if we consider cite Q to be governed by CITEVAR as a citation style for the reasons above, it should neither be forbidden from an article nor applied to it without consensus. And the current discussion at the article talk page does not appear to have established a consensus either way.

  So, I will be warning Int21h not to make these changes without consensus to do in a particular article in the future. For if they and other supporters of Cite Q (admittedly an unfortunate name for a citation template at the moment) genuinely believe that it is only by using it in mainspace that we can learn how to improve it, it would be best to do so where there is editor support.

  I also note that Int's rather disdainful attitude toward discussion is, as noted above, not helpful to their cause, and probably worth a discussion at AN/I if it continues. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  You don't need 3 violations to violate WP:EW. And WP:CITEVAR most definitely covers citation methods. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  To the first point: Yes, if someone is reverting only once or twice on multiple days, or on multiple articles, then that's blockable. But this report was about one article on one day. To the second: if you read carefully I have concluded that Cite Q is effectively a citation style because of the way it leaves citations not freely editable, a point you and its critics have often made.

  I also suggest a better use of everyone's time would be, at the very least, opening another discussion on WT:CITEVAR to specifically resolve this question (which the March one did not come anywhere near doing; it seemed rather to rehash the existing broken-base discussion), and amend the policy text rather than pursuing it piecemeal through article talk pages and noticeboard reports. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae reported by User:Davoguha (Result: Nominator indefinitely blocked)

Page: List of data recovery companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Praxidicae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_data_recovery_companies&diff=1105149522&oldid=1104939079

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_data_recovery_companies&diff=1113604148&oldid=1112884189
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_data_recovery_companies&diff=1106435437&oldid=1106435368
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_data_recovery_companies&diff=1105311690&oldid=1105311593
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_data_recovery_companies&diff=1105152976&oldid=1105149522

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_data_recovery_companies

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Praxidicae#3RR_Warning

Comments:

I'd like it to be noted that I understand that the contributions in question may be questionable in nature, and I can accept if it is determined that they violate a rule or guideline and must be reverted. That noted, Praxidicae quoted guidelines that specifically make note and exceptions regarding the contributions I added, and upon further questioning based on those notes and exceptions, Praxidicae resorted to callous and rude behavior, simply calling my contributions spam, and beginning an edit war from there, reverting ALL attempts to ensure the page is indeed within the guidelines. During this process, I made significant contributions to the Talk page of this article, as suggested by the Wikipedia guidelines, however, Praxidicae has refused any invitations to contribute to the discussion of the issue, and continues to simple undo any changes I make to the page. The page itself has questionable validity and may in and of itself need to be taken down - but as it does exist, I fail to see how the proposed edits or additions are in violation of any guidelines (note that Wikipedia guidelines in regards to *lists* are quite lax compared to those for standalone articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davoguha (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This self-admitted promo-only account has been blocked. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Reporting Praxidicae is like getting involved in a land war in Asia: a classic strategic blunder. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Kenan Memedov reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: Indeffed as a sock)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113883757 by BlueNoise (talk)"
2. 17:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113881728 by BlueNoise (talk)"
3. 16:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 13:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Notification on the existence of discretionary sanctions on Kurds and Kurdistan */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Kenan Memedov "Warning: Disruptive editing on Kurdistan Workers' Party."

Comments:

The link is just the last of several opened discussions and warnings by several editors within only one day. They have been adverted of edit warring, disruptive editing and an SPI investigation has also been opened on them as they have a similar editing pattern as a blocked IP and editor. No answer by Kenan Memdov in any of the discussions so far. As to me they are editing in a rather disruptive way. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked for Sockpuppetry, therefore I call the issue as solved. Thank you everyone.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Gidua reported by User:Venkat TL (Result: Article protected)

Page: 2022 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "rev vandalism ; user warned"
2. 14:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "Poll prediction"
3. 12:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "→‎Opinion polls"
4. 05:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1113938452 by Dhruv edits (talk)"
5. 15:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Incidents */ survey report"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
2. 15:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Opinion poll survey is added */ Reply"
2. 12:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Opinion poll survey */ reply"
3. 15:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Opinion poll survey */ Reply"

Comments:

Page: 2022 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 14:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC) to 14:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "Added section Poll prediction"
   2. 14:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "/* References */ rev double ref section"
2. 12:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "Poll predictions: see TP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Opinion poll */ new section"
2. 12:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Opinion poll */ Reply"
3. 15:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Opinion poll */ Reply"

Comments: There is no consensus on the talk page to add this yet, User:Gidua is edit warring on 2 pages, against consensus to add controversial content using poor sources that have been debunked as unreliable. He has been reverted by others too. Venkat TL (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 2 days. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:ElderZamzam (Result: No violation)

Page: Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [240] - 14:59, 2 October 2022
2. [241] - 17:54, 2 October 2022
3. [242] - 05:19, 3 October 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [243]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [244]

Comments:
The editor in question has repeatedly removed content related to the status of the country of Kosovo, resulting in a edit war with multiple editors. The editor is removing content which is resulting in the article not meeting WP:NPOV. The article in question is under discretionary sanctions with 1 revert per 24 hours, which the editor has violated. I have attempted to reason with the editor on their talk page, however the editor is still adamant their edits were justified. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahem... That "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is not from the article talk page... The only one who has posted there is me, which I did at the exact same time you did this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the second one is not a revert because the edit which removed it did so inadvertently. They weren't trying to revert me, mine was just an intervening edit. If I am wrong I am happy to self revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I have self reverted, please join me on the talk page so we can talk about using this[245] JPost editorial without any sort of attribution for statements of fact? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No violation It doesn't look like that second revert was anything but cleanup, and now that Horse has reverted that and opened discussion on the talk page that's where this belongs. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:177.192.17.84 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Blizzard of Ozz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 177.192.17.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC) to 01:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "The artist's official website says September 20, 1980."
   2. 01:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "One more source to prove the release date."
2. 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "The artist's official website says September 20, 1980."
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC) to 22:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "Most sources, including Ozzy Osbourne's official website, say 20 September."
   2. 22:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 20:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "The artist's official website says otherwise."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Blizzard of Ozz."
2. 22:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "/* October 2022 */ c/e"
3. 23:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Blizzard of Ozz."
4. 23:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC) "/* October 2022 */ + section header"
5. 01:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Blizzard of Ozz."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Another new user has replaced the ozzy.com ref, which I originally reverted per WP:PRIMARY, please restore the version before all warring. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Also has been POV'ing Diary of a Madman (album). - FlightTime (open channel) 02:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2400:2200:422:F922:44B8:72F8:B0CE:A4BC reported by User:KhanhCN Defender1st Minh (Result: Already blocked)

Page: User talk:2400:2200:422:F922:44B8:72F8:B0CE:A4BC (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2400:2200:422:F922:44B8:72F8:B0CE:A4BC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [246]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Spam + vandalism after final warning!  ☀DefenderTienMinh☽  (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Umm.

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:30D9:C400:A022:3803:177D:9975 reported by User: Groznia (Result: Both editors (/64 for the IP) blocked 24h)

Page: Religion in Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:C7C:30D9:C400:A022:3803:177D:9975 (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. [248]
2. [249]
3. [250]
4. [251]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [253]

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

The user is using multiple IP addresses on the article Religion in Eritrea:

(This my edit below not groznia) Groznia is disruptive without any reason they reverts edits I was the one who messaged them first in their talk page and their personal talk page but they refused to listen and kept reverting the edits check my last revert and check the sources yourself I decided to keep both graphs and use one 2020 estimate and one estimste from 2021 groznia is lying when they said I use old estimates look at the edit history yourself below.

1. [254] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:30D9:C400:931B:9E73:4771:A174 (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours In the IP's case that includes the /64. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole reported by User:Quondum (Result: Malformed)

3RR violation by User:Locke Cole:

• (context: initial edit 2022-10-03T20:37:37‎)
• (context: first revert before 24h period 2022-10-04T05:50:18‎)
• 2022-10-05T15:57:49‎
• 2022-10-05T16:02:15‎
• 2022-10-05T16:36:26‎

This user is currently at ANI for similar edit warring and contentious edits elsewhere (see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by Locke Cole) and already has a long history of blocks for this behaviour: see block log. —Quondum 18:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: This user is an old hand at skirting the edges of WP rules, like waiting for a day before re-engaging in a fourth revert. This kind of repeated pushing of the limit is surely subject to administrative sanction, since the editor only mounts personal and edit warring attacks in response, and is never repentant. —Quondum 18:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, if you look at the edit history, I only reverted immediately after being reverted. Administrators should be aware there are a small, but persistent, group of editors who are very invested in making sure we use IEC units in articles, despite WP:COMPUNITS clearly prescribing they should not be used except in a handful of very rare situations. It's a borderline fringe theory, and an example of these editors trying to use a WP:LOCALCON to undo their failure to overturn WP:COMPUNITS. Our articles should follow reliable sources and the manual of style on this. I've also alerted other editors via a notice at WT:MOSNUM as I do not intend on reverting further than I have so far. Blocks are also preventative, not punitive, and if anything, I'd suggest blocks all around for clearly baiting and working against established consensus at WP:MOSNUM. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:31, 5 October 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) 20:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)