Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel Case (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 28 April 2024 (→User:103.52.220.45 reported by User:2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (Result: Declined): This to me is an IAR situation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:TylerBurden reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: Warned user(s))

    Page: Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TylerBurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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



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

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

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

    Comments:

    User:Cjhard reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: No violation)

    Page: South Park: Joining the Panderverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ another reliable review according to this article MOS:TVRECEPTION"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 01:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) to 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
      1. 01:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219715594 by SanAnMan (talk) content farms are not due - you have previously attempted to restore this content against a different editor. Stop edit warring."
      2. 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Reaction */ Forbes"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on South Park: Joining the Panderverse."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User removing critical reviews from majorly sourced critics under claim of “content farming”. User given 3RR and removed it stating “don’t edit my talk page” then blatantly adds a WP:SELFPUB to try to prove his point SanAnMan (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:85.249.162.249 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    Page: Fairport, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 85.249.162.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220152184 by Marleeashton (talk)"
    2. 03:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220151876 by Marleeashton (talk)"
    3. 03:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Fairport, New York."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User: Crampcomes reported by User:Mistamystery (Result: Blocked for a week and topic-banned for six months per AE)

    Page: Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Crampcomes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [7]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8]
    2. [9]

    Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [10]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

    Comments:
    Editor is restoring POV OR items not remotely supported by citations. Is also casting baseless aspersions/accusations, and other uncivil behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistamystery (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems more properly an AE matter since reporting not only a 1R breach but behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Selfstudier In cases like this, do you recommend posting on ANI concurrently, or awaiting the outcome of the above action first? Mistamystery (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You started here, may as well wait and see if someone will deal with it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The article in question has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [13][14], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both IP and account [15] [16] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected. Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question[17]. I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals[18], but he uncivilly refused[19].Crampcomes (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor is evading the central issue - which is clear violation of 1RR and complete refusal to self-revert.
    Otherwise, all of the above are complete falsehoods. The content removed was POV OR and not remotely supported by any of the sources provided (which is also why *other* editors have removed it as well). Also, I did not in any way violate 1RR (my reverts were almost four days apart), and talk page discussions were initiated as per BRD.
    Mistamystery (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus at AE is developing for a one-week block and six-month TBAN.

    BTW, IMO there was no need to go to AE just because this involves an article in a contentious topic under 1RR; we have handled many other such reports here in the past as many of the regular admins who review reports here are familiar with how CTOPS works. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week as arbitration enforcement and topic-banned from PIA for six months. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Buzzy123 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Pblocked indefinitely)

    Page: Nick Di Paolo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Buzzy123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Updating image to a more recent 2021 image that has FULL permissions under CC license and took out the space between the I and P in last name in case that is the reason you keep reverting back to the old picture from 2017."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) to 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
      1. 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "This is an updated, approved and cleared profile picture"
      2. 21:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "I changed the date of the most recent profile image to reflect the year the photo was taken."
      3. 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "I entered Nick Di Paolo's actual birthdate. I am siting this website https://thevogue.com/artists/nick-di-paolo/"
    3. 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Infobox image change */ new section"
    2. 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruption 3."
    3. 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nick Di Paolo."
    4. 21:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Nick Di Paolo image */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Jack4576 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page: Black War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jack4576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [20]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [21], rv [22]
    2. [23], rv [24]
    3. [25], rv [26]
    4. [27], rv [28]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29], Please see editors reply to warning here: [30] , editor has rejected the warning responding to @General Ization: warning with Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure. Apparently the only way to get their attention is a post to EWN.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31], see second discussion at [32] under "Your edit to Black War".

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

    Comments:

    Editor has an unfortunate history of battleground behavior, from their response to the warning, they have no intention of stopping, re: Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure. [34] Regardless of how, this editor needs to understand what they are doing is edit warring.  // Timothy :: talk  06:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BottleOfChocolateMilk reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Blocked indef; /64 blocked a week)

    Page: 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:

    Previous version reverted to: Instance 1, Instance 2

    Diffs of the user's reverts: Instance 1:

    1. 13:25, 20 April 2024 (NZST)
    2. 15:51, 20 April 2024 (NZST)
    3. 16:58, 20 April 2024 (NZST)
    4. 18:05, 20 April 2024 (NZST)

    Instance 2:

    1. 04:01, 23 April 2024 (NZST)
    2. 10:01, 23 April 2024 (NZST)
    3. 13:53, 23 April 2024 (NZST)
    4. 13:55, 23 April 2024 (NZST)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (has been warned previously for other edit wars)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none)

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notified User:BottleOfChocolateMilk, the IP, and User:BottleofStrawberryMilk

    Comments:

    Two separate instances of 3RR violation on the same article by multiple parties. No discussion at all between the users on the article talk page. The first instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP on 20 April, the second instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP + User:BottleofStrawberryMilk today. Despite the username similarity I'm pretty sure it's a different user, as someone else dropped a note on User:BottleofStrawberryMilk's talk page saying that they suspect sockpuppetry by User:HeftyWizard.

    Note that the page is already semi-protected currently, preventing the IP and the non-autoconfirmed User:BottleofStrawberryMilk account from editing. However though, it appears that User:BottleOfChocolateMilk has a lack of regard for the WP:EW policy here, given that they've been editing for nearly eight years with over 16k edits, and they already seem to know and even point out some Wikipedia guidelines like WP:ENDORSE.

    (excuse the NZST dates I have my wiki settings set to display timestamps in my local timezone and it's a bit of a hassle to convert them to UTC.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I've dug through some history and found five prior edit warring warnings from last year: 17 April, 21 June, 7 July, 10 August and 22 August. I also found this old ANEW thread from 8 July last year, where the user and the other involved party were both warned for their edit-warring behaviour. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to add some context to this issue because this user is also known to me but I haven't formally complained about them before. There has been a repeated pattern where BottleOfChocolateMilk selectively removes endorsements or positive material about only left-wing Democratic candidates (such as a Squad member like Summer Lee; or Katie Porter or Barbara Lee in California) while also selectively removing negative material only about centrist Democrats opposing them. They were very active removing well-sourced criticism of Adam Schiff, for example that he had been a coauthor and initial cosponsor of SOPA (which this entire site went dark to protest at the time), as "irrelevant" while also removing Lee and Porter's endorsements. I didn't care to litigate it at the time but it was clear this user's behavior was out of line.
    They often misinterpret rules (as I read it, WP:ENDORSE doesn't prohibit using a candidate's website to confirm an endorsement also reported by another source) and also lean into technicalities; "irrelevant" here could mean that a particular issue caused a problem for an incumbent candidate in a previous election but there wasn't a specific source describing it as an issue in that election. I would allege straight-up bias in this user's edits: I for one believe in leaving any relevant, well-sourced information in, even if you don't agree with that candidate and I would not similarly delete endorsements from Schiff's section.
    Furthermore, they often make changes to articles just before an election, which raises concerns of violating consensus already developed on the article as well as of making untrustworthy changes to influence that election. This edit was made the night before the very contentious PA-12 primary, selectively removing numerous of Summer Lee's endorsements under the false summary "Condensing". This behavior should raise serious concerns about manipulative editing and conflict of interest. 76.6.209.95 (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was watching a lot of the edit wars I kinda want to comment
    There has been a repeated pattern where BottleOfChocolateMilk selectively removes endorsements or positive material about only left-wing Democratic candidates (such as a Squad member like Summer Lee; or Katie Porter or Barbara Lee in California) while also selectively removing negative material only about centrist Democrats opposing them.
    I think this is jumping the gun a bit, since I think the issue might be a lot of "left wing Dem" endorsements come from social media platforms such as Twitter, and aren't reliably sourced elsewhere. Though in this case I'd need to see more specific examples to consider it further. Additionally, Wikipedia isn't a both sides platform, and including criticism of a candidate, whether in election pages or on their own, is generally controversial from what I can gather, so I can kind of understand removing criticism of Schiff.
    2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
    This part of WP:ENDORSE seems very clear that endorsements must come from reliable and independent, i.e. independent of the candidate, sources, which would exclude campaign websites unless said endorsements can be independently sources. So this claim seems quite weak.
    This edit was made the night before the very contentious PA-12 primary, selectively removing numerous of Summer Lee's endorsements under the false summary "Condensing".
    Additionally, the condensing of the table was removing dozens, several dozens of congressional endorsements and condensing them into a list, with the reference link still present to view. It seems quite bloated to me to include so many congressional endorsements or what-have-you. If the reference is maintained, and the number of endorsements listed, it seems quite acceptable and that not much info is lost.
    Lastly I think you might be expressing general bias against the user, you haven't really provided examples to make your case here, so I am not personally convinced. Talthiel (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh believe me the examples are coming in due course. I don't have time to deal with this right now while this dude apparently has all day to police pages he's edited.
    What it "seems" is irrelevant because this individual perpetually refuses to actually engage other users in discussion, just repeatedly does what he thinks is ok and reverts any changes to it.
    And my point stands that it is NEVER acceptable to make gratuitous, unnecessary large edits like this the night before an election. Whether or not there is intent, this creates an appearance of impropriety. 76.6.209.95 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be worth pointing out this legal threat made by 2601:805:8681:A140:D014:8FD5:E240:3B41. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rahio1234 reported by User:AlphaBetaGamma (Result: blocked for 72 hours; blocked the IP for a week)

    Page: A Thousand Times Repent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Rahio1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220365915 by The Herald (talk): Stop disrupt this page"
    2. 10:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk) to last revision by Rahio1234"
    3. 10:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk)"
    4. 10:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220364686 by Rahio1234 (talk)"
    5. 10:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 158.140.53.34 (talk)"
    6. 09:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220361201 by Wikipedialuva (talk)"
    7. 09:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk)"
    8. 09:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220359822 by Rahio1234 (talk)"
    9. 08:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk) to last revision by Explicit"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 10:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Wikipedialuva "/* A Thousand Times Repent vandal */ formatting"

    Comments:

    This thing... has gotten completely out of control. No comments as I'm inexperienced at this ani. The edit war is also affecting Downthesun and Rahio1234 is seen continuing the ew after logging out. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I wonder if the person behind the 158.140.53.34 IP is WP:LTA/BKFIP, considering the argumentative nature of the edit summaries, and the blatant disregard for the edit-warring policy of course. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong location.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, did I malform my reports again? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It is also worth noting that the editor in question has removed the warning and their reply on the user page. I have been seeing a lot of activity from this editor in Recent Changes and I think I seen this pattern before. CpX41 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah I dont live around there, and the only reason why I was 'argumentive' was because I was genuinely trying to improve the page and the user did not get the hint that the source was not only unreliable but also said NOTHING that the sentence was claiming to. The user did stop reverting me until ABG had to step in. Reason why he obsessively kept reverting me I still dont know I tried to explain why his version of the page was wrong but he still persisted adding this fake info with a false source. Despite all this I know what I did was wrong I guess - even though id consider his edits vandalism - I will take a block if it needs to happen. I dont find myself the aggressor here though as I was just trying to edit pages for the sake of improvement and I didnt appreciate that he was just reverting me for what appears to be no real reason. Nevertheless I have since disengaged and stopped the edit wars altogether. Others can take it from here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) PS: As stated above I found it very weird that he also ended up logging out and continued to edit war with me using his IP address as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JabSaiyaan reported by User:Hineyo (Result: Both editors blocked 24 hours)

    The user is persistently adding puffery in Shreya Ghoshal and is engaging in edit war. Diffs of user :

    [35]

    [36]

    [37]

    [38]

    See this [39]. He has originally add this POV content and is working hard to retain the POV content at the expense of WP:NPOV. Kindly look into this. Hineyo (talk)

    As you can see I am only reverting the disruptive edits done by this user. The user is removing well sourced content which is approved by several experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages which you can check in their edit history and I've made a report about it on this page as well. Thank you. JabSaiyaan (talk)

    Differences of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:-

    [40]

    Hineyo (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hineyo reported by User:JabSaiyaan (Result: Both editors blocked 24 hours)

    The user is continuously removing the content which is well-sourced and approved by multiple experienced editors from several Wikipedia pages like - Sonu Nigam, Shreya Ghoshal, Arijit Singh and when edits are reverted they are engaging in edit war.

    Few Diffs of user :

    1. Sonu Nigam - [41]

    2. Shreya Ghoshal - [42]

    3. Arijit Singh - [43]

    These are few of the many examples and also the reason why this user is doing this is because - [44], here you can see the user first broke the WP:NPOV rule and actually added this "POV" content where singer Arijit Singh which I suppose is his favourite was called "Greatest of All Time" and none of the sources attached were actually supporting that claim. So when the edit got reverted the user started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists. In fact the user started removing the edits which are supported by the sources which clearly mentions the statement or sentence added on those respective Wikipedia page. For a fact Every source or reference had a "quote" but the user is just being unprofessional. Please look into this. JabSaiyaan (talk)

    Notice posted on user's talk page: [45] JabSaiyaan (talk)

    Reply:- First of all the aforesaid user is not aware about Wikipedia works. No edit is permanent or is permanently approved by established user. This is an encyclopedia which will undergo constant evolution. He seems to be fan of Shreya Ghoshal which is why he is indulging in senseless edit war and is trying to retain puffery in the lead. Well I have removed only unsourced content and content which are backed by tabloids and weak sources. Reliable sources in Indian context is the Indian Express, The Hindu and Times of India. However the aforesaid user is citing non-reliable sources to justify puffery in the article of Shreya Ghoshal as he appears to be her fan. The user appears to dislike and have strong views against Arijit Singh he have added false information of him marrying and divorcing a women without provide reliable source. [46] This is quite dangerous for the said women's social dignity therefore I had to remove it. And the information about Singh's step children was disputed as it was not backed by multiple reliable sources therefore I considered it best to remove it. And it is a fact supported by reliable sources that Singh is considered currently India's top singer see [47] and Singh is the most streamed artist in Spotify for year 2023, kindly see [48] and even the internationally credible and reliable source like Forbes supports the statement [49] so it cannot be considered as POV pushing as credible RS exist for it. The aforesaid user removed that statement backed by Reliable sources, to which I have no problem as it can be seen in the edit history that I haven't indulged in edit war on Singh's page as I consider Wikipedia to be community driven encyclopedia and not my private property. My concern regarding Shreya Ghoshal is that it's status is of a 'Good Article', the persistent POV pushing by the aforesaid user without being backed by the reliable sources would lead to its eventual disqualification of 'Good Article' status. For instance in the 'Artistry' section in Ghoshal's article there is a line which says that 'Ghoshal is noted for wide vocal range's and the source provided is the Saregama website [50], which is not even a news media, it is a audio streaming website and the other source provided is [51], which is not RS. While removing the POV content I have explained in the edit history that the said content which also features in the lead of the article is not backed by reliable source, however the user User:JabSaiyaan kept on aggressively reverting the edits [52][53][54][55][56] since he appears to be diehard fan of Miss Ghoshal. In order to avoid edit warring, I discontinued editing the page and brought the matter here in good faith with a hope that the concerned administrators would preserve the articles 'GA' status. I would pray for administrative level protection over Shreya Ghoshal article in order to preserve its GA status. Thank you.


    Hineyo (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply:- How can you teach me how Wikipedia works when you removed content from Shreya Ghoshal's page by giving vague reasons like "Source do not talk about versatility or vocal range" when the sources clearly talks about that and it's quoted in reference and also sources are "possibly written by a fan" like are you saying fans are writing for The Recording Academy (Grammy's). The sources from publications like Times of India, The Indian Express and The Hindu are also their along with the several other sources supporting same things or statements but yet you removed the content. Now lets come to Arijit Singh, even Forbes article anywhere isn't calling him a "GOAT" so that just ain't supporting the claim, and him having Spotify streams also has no corelation with the claim, the Spotify thing is in fact already mentioned in the page. On the other hand when same Forbes clearly calls Shreya "prolific" and "popular" in their article you conveniently removed that content. You started damaging the Wikipedia pages of other artists which includes Ghoshal and Sonu Nigam when misleading content from Singh's page was removed that says it all. Also about his wife, I was about to revert it myself because when I was searching for source I found that was just a rumour. There's no need for playing moral card because you are now removing a lot of previously added well sourced content about Singh's personal information from his page which is again vandalism and disruptive editing. You could've discussed about it in the talk section if you actually knows how Wikipedia works. Thank you. JabSaiyaan (talk)

    User:Crowsus reported by User:Fred Zepelin (Result: Blocked from article 72 hours)

    Page: FC Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) "two editors does not make a consensus. This is clearly an content dispute with a third editor now weighing in by taking a side but also appointing themselves as a faux arbitrator, warning only one party while the other continues to revert. The status quo prior the dispute was that the content was present. I have demonstrated that the content is relevant and sourced so would welcome more eyes on the behaviour here, and if that be ANI, as I have been threatened on my talk page, so be it."
    2. 08:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Amakuru (talk)"
    3. 23:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220396142 by Fred Zepelin (talk) per talk"
    4. 14:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220392918 by Fred Zepelin (talk) obviously, the talk you'd already contacted me on. As per that talk, we disagree on what should be on here so seek other opinions"
    5. 02:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Subsequent meetings and similar outcomes */ restore per talk"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. Amakaru warns Crowsus on their talk page


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Dispute over including unrelated matches */ new section"
    2. 16:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Dispute over including unrelated matches */"

    Comments:

    Crowsus reverted my removal of matches that were unrelated to the article topic. I attempted discussion on their talk page, but to no avail. I then started a discussion about the removal on the article talk page to get more opinions, and another editor (Amakuru) agreed that the content was undue for this article. This did not deter Crowsus, who continued to revert, several times with misleading edit summaries saying "per talk", even though they had not achieved consensus for their additions on the talk page. Amakuru posted an edit warring warning on their talk page, but Crowsus has since added their preferred content again. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, on a procedural point the above list of 5 reverts doesn't contain any 4 within 24 hours, but they've all been within a fairly short span and I think the spirit of the 3RR has been broken even if the letter hasn't. And despite the conversation on the talk page continuing, Crowsus has continued reverting. I would imagine a degree of WP:ONUS applies here too - "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", and there clearly isn't (yet) any sort of consensus for the material to be included.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [I had written a lot there but there was an edit conflict and a lot of it was lost. I'll try to summarise]
    As can be seen on the article talk, I have tried to address Fred's concerns but they are determined to remove this content. I am not trying to add it, it was already present for some time on an article with plenty of traffic and nobody had an issue previously. So it is the continued removal of this content which is disruptive, and it's appropriate to return it to its pre-dispute state of the content being included. That has taken me past the 3RR.
    There was justified concern with the sourcing and relevancy of the content, which amounts to two sentences but I have made multiple attempts to address these with demonstrably relevant sources and amendments, which each time are met with obstruction, inaccurate analysis of the sources and, of course, reversion (Fred is also at 5 on that count, but Amakuru chose not to add a warning template to their page, not even when I pointed it out and it was clear that both parties had been reverting the other.
    Moreover, neither of them is applying their preferred deletion of this content logically / correctly - there are 3 matches from the years immediately following the match in the article, involving the same teams and the same unusual outcome, but in the haste to simply revert me regardless, only mentions of 2 of the 3 matches were removed. I have pointed out this inconsistency but been ignored. This obviously makes no sense and indicates a failure to pay attention to what I say on the talk, what is in the article or what is in the references I have added. Fred appears to have decided that they will get their way no matter what - it's been me who has made amendments and added sources while they have just quoted policy links at me, even when I have responded appropriately to meet those criteria.
    And now they've brought it here because I am reluctant to simply yield to their will having made the effort to improve the article to their satisfaction and to seek wider opinions on the matter via a forum such as WP:FOOTY (where I would have accepted an outcome against my opinion, albeit I maintain hope that enough sensible contributors would agree that one properly sourced sentence on these obviously related matches is appropriate), but it turns out nothing will satisfy them except removing relevant, referenced content from this article (bolstered by the support of one other editor who it appears hasn't been paying attention to the details, or their own edit would have been more accurate), and now sanctioning me for daring to challenge them. Crowsus (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours, from the article. Yes, two against one is not the most ideal consensus, but it's enough that you should refrain from continuing to restore while that discussion is ongoing. Apart from your edit warring, the other two editors have a point IMO that the mere inclusion of those other matches in an extensive list of comebacks, even if published by UEFA, is not a sufficient connection to that which is the article's subject to overcome SYNTH. And, Crowsus, when in these sort of discussions in the future please try to at least use paragraph breaks ... as it is your lengthy disquisitions at best make it hard for an admin reviewing an ANEW report to understand your arguments and at worst come across as a combination of TEXTWALL and BLUDGEON. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your opinion and this is something you volunteer to do so don't complain when people give you something to read. Have you looked at the article talk page? Have you looked at the assessments of the references which are either malicious or incompetent in their inaccuracy? (short enough?) Crowsus (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must be in some kind of parallel universe where only the events of the past can be referred to. If those other matches had occurred in the season prior, they would obviously be referred to in the background of the article, and with good reason. But because they occurred afterwards, it's apparently nonsensical to mention them even in passing, even though multiple reputable publications have done so. It is deeply worrying to me that three apparently sensible people would reach that conclusion. Disgraceful, to be honest. Absolute nonsense that it should be your conclusion. Obviously I will abide with the ban, just to be clear. Crowsus (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be pedantic, but it is not a ban, it is a temporary block. There is a difference. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Q.E.D., or, if you want your Latin unabbreviated, res ipsa loquitur. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DrKC MD reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Blocked 36 hours for personal attacks)

    Page: Women in punk rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DrKC MD (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. [57]
    2. [58]
    3. [59]



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

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


    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [62]

    Comments:

    Not technically a 3rr, but he has, despite significant discussion with netherzone and Binksternet, continued to re-add material to the page and reverting removals of the content he added. has also made some personal attacks. I suggested he use the RfC or Dispute resolution, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They have been blocked for personal attacks on other editors. (See their user page). The edit war was has been a slow moving campaign to add content without consensus. Netherzone (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked  for a period of 36 hours by Bishonen for personal attacks, as noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2804:14c:7f80:819b:8c82:6600:972f:7a58 reported by User:Ser! (Result: /64 blocked from article for a week)

    Page: Gerard Piqué (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2804:14c:7f80:819b:8c82:6600:972f:7a58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (on two IPs, but same geolocation)

    Previous version reverted to: here

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 24 April
    2. 24 April
    3. 25 April
    4. 25 April



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: requested in two edit summaries

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

    Comments:
    This person across several IPs has made repeated attempts (earlier even than the scope of this report) to remove cited content from a WP:RSP about a footballer having an affair, and has made no attempt at discussing it beyond one edit summary. This content has previously been restored by other editors and is the consensus version. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2804:14C:7F80:819B:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Blocked – for a period of one week from article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jayanthkumar123 reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: No violation)

    Page: Kalki 2898 AD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Jayanthkumar123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 10:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) "according to the phrase "some scenes""
    3. 06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) "this edit is according to the words said by the filmmaker himself. By the way, I want to let Fylindfotberserk know that it's not Teleugu, it is Telugu."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 13:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Produced in Telugu film industry */ Reply"
    2. 13:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Produced in Telugu film industry */ Reply"

    Comments:

    No effort to engage in Talk page discussion, despite the edits being objected to by different editors. Clearly forewarned of 3RR there, but went ahead and deliberately did just that with a snarkish reply to go along on the Talk page. Gotitbro (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avenger2000 reported by User:ImperialAficionado (Result: Indefinitely blocked as a sock)

    Page: Gajapati invasion of Bidar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Avenger2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [63]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [64]
    2. [65]
    3. [66]
    4. [67]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [70]

    Comments:

    User suddenly appeared to the article Gajapati invasion of Bidar, and added information about a military conflict, that happened after the actual conflict, in which the article is actually in scope with. Moreover, user attempted to mix the first conflict with the second conflict, and made synthesis in the infobox. Can clearly see that I am asking them to not engage in edit war, even asked them if they need my assistance in improving the article (see their talk page). User is not being ready for it, and continued their actions.--Imperial[AFCND] 10:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.160.228.56 reported by User:Felida97 (Result: Blocked 31 hours; blocked one month)

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

    User being reported: 86.160.228.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    2. 14:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 14:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 14:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC) "edit warring" (by JeffSpaceman)

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Note: Subject has been warned sufficiently by another editor. Felida97 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Added 3RR warning by another editor. Felida97 (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to be editing in good faith and trying to add sources, so I'll hold off on blocking for now. @JeffSpaceman: you have also violated 3RR. Please read WP:STATUSQUO more carefully, especially the line Edit warring to maintain a "status quo version" is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing this. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed! You will see that I have now added multiple sources.
    I was somewhat surparised at the trigger-happy approach of a couple of editors who:
    1) Gave lack of citation as the reason for reverting on just this one definition on the page, whilst ignoring that all of the other definitions on the page had no citations.
    2) If aforesaid editors were not familiar with the usage it would have taken mere moments of searching for them to fill the gap in their knowledge and realise that the edit was genuine.
    3) I regret that the device I used for editing had problems which made it somewhat clumsy to provide citations, so I switched to another device on which I could easily fill the gaps that were, aparently, so important for this one definition but unnecessary for all the others on the same page (see above).
    I'm afraid that the impression given was not of professional, good faith editing, but of ignorance of language, laziness or unwillingness to resolve that ignorance, and a somewhat 'boy-in-his-bedroom-playing-shoot-em-up-games" of reverting, "because they could".
    I'm glad that the final comment (by Ingenuity) to which I've written this reply had a more mature and experienced approach, but the fact that the earlier ones didn't and could invoke such easy overriding power reflects poorly on the standards of Wikipedia.
    As an aside, a lecturer that I know at a UK university would set essays for undergraduate students and place a false piece of information in an obvious, related Wikipedia article. When a student submitted a piece of work containing the false information it was used as a example to the class of the unreliability of Wikipedia.
    Unless a uniform, high standard of editing on Wikipedia can be reached it will remain limited in its value. (Most colleagues in the academic world think similarly). However Wikipedia's business model does not make such quality control a likely proposition. (Imagine aircraft being assembled and maintaind by volunteers with no requirement to demonstrated professional competance before being allowed to perform maintenance).
    In some subjects, including some that I have substantial higher education experience in (mathematics, computer science, hard sciences) the quality tends to be high. In many "biographies" of living people it is often low because Wikipedia is used a free PR for "celebrities" and other public figures and the contributors / controllers of such articles clearly use Wikipedia as a publicity machine. 86.160.228.56 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope your lecturer friend was blocked for vandalism. And I'm afraid I must disagree with Ingenuity: you should be blocked for edit-warring - your edits to Horlick are vandalism. If you were a registered editor, I'd indef you as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to give some leeway in cases like this. They've probably never heard of edit warring before, they were told to not add it without a source, which they then did, so I wouldn't describe this as vandalism. IP - please take this as a warning to not edit war; it rarely achieves anything and you will be blocked if you continue. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff should not have told the IP to add sources as disambig entries must point to articles and should not be sourced. However, the fact the IP has possibly never heard of edit-warring (based on their attitude, I kinda doubt it), is irrelevant as they were properly warned before their last revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Ingenuity.
    Unfortunately I don't have time to waste when lazy editors like Felida can undo work with a few ego-driven clicks which seem more driven by power-play than any wish to improve Wikipedia, which takes sonsiderably more work and understanding. 86.160.228.56 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop with the personal attacks. --Onorem (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one final comment (as you might have missed it on your talk page), even though I really don't have to defend myself against the implication that I don't want to improve Wikipedia: In case you didn't notice, immediately after my last revert, I added a link to the Wiktionary entry (the same one you added as a source) at the top of your page. So, just to be clear, I didn't just revert you without considering your addition; I recognized that pointing to this defintion could be useful (i.e. an improvement) and included this information in a way that's in line with Wikipedia's guidelines (and btw, in this situation, that Wiktionary link at the top is the closest thing you're going to get here). If you really want to improve Wikipedia once your block expires, you need to do so within the boundaries of its policies and guidelines, but I agree that does take considerably more work and understanding than simply adding what you believe should be included, edit warring, and launching personal attacks. Felida97 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguation pages don't tend to need citations because they exist to link to articles that have citations. Your dictionary definition entry doesn't have an article, so if it were to be deemed appropriate to remain on a disambiguation page, it would need it's own citations. As far as your lecturer friend's little vandal test goes, I would hope they and the other 'colleagues in the academic world' would explain how Wikipedia should be used. Wikipedia isn't a source. It never should be. The citations (you know, the ones you didn't feel the need to add at first) are what should be referenced. The rest of your post has nothing to do with your edit warring. --Onorem (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I was not the editor that requested sources for you addition (and granted I only raised the following point in my second revert and my message on your talk page), I feel the need to point out that, judging by your argument that "all of the other definitions on the page had no citations", you still seem to misunderstand what the page you're editing is meant for. It is not a page of "definitions" but a disambiguation page with links to Wikipedia articles (this I already pointed to in my first revert). Disambiguation pages specifically should not include dictionary definitions (see WP:DABDICT and MOS:WTLINK). (While there is the exception WP:WORDISSUBJECT, where a word could have its own Wikipedia article, and thus be linked on a disambiguation page, I don't believe this applies here.) Felida97 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I hoped that I could resolve this with a warning, but the personal attack above is not acceptable. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With Ingenuity's permission I've increased the block to one month based on WP:BKFIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:103.52.220.45 reported by User:2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (Result: Declined)

    Page: Talk:Arvind Kejriwal (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 103.52.220.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [71]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [72]
    2. [73]
    3. [74]
    4. [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:

    Has also edited as 2409:40E1:29:4983:6485:60FF:FEA4:F17B and 2409:40E1:1073:8531:2CB1:AFF:FE4B:B3FA

    Declined Complaining about potential bias in the article is not "expressing [their] feelings", it's well within the scope of the quoted talk page guidelines. They should have been engaged on this or left alone; either option would have avoided an edit war. As it is, reverting constantly on dubious grounds gives him the basis for at least a superficial claim to be right when he says he's being censored. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Daniel Case is WP:3RR not a bright line? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D10:ED34:8A2B:CE7E (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it's arguable to me that, even though you may not have consciously been trying, you provoked him into it and so I will not reward you for doing this. Not when they were well within their rights ... in fact, he'd be on better ground reporting you for repeatedly reverting a legitimate edit.
    And there are exceptions to 3RR. Just so you know. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1221240145"