Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive446

User:122.172.201.32 reported by User:Russ Woodroofe (Result: Semi)

Page: University of Massachusetts Amherst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 122.172.201.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064706918 by Sdkb (talk) v+ Why are you deleting because you hate the university. Please refer to University of London. Please refer to honroary degrees at Harvard (https://commencement.harvard.edu/honorary-degrees)"
2. 20:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064704759 by Russ Woodroofe (talk) + If Bill Gates who has a honorary degree from Harvard can be called and named as Harvard alumni then I think there should be no probs. Refer to Talk Page before vandalizing and deleting it because you feel like it. Separate is not fine and your hatred and bias can be clearly seen.. A page for University of London honorary degrees was made but deleted. Please see history."
3. 18:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064689350 by Sdkb (talk) + You are selectively deleting honorary graduates but not the rest of the honorary graduates. This is your bias and haltered for the university (UMass Amherst).+ Please see University of London and other article such as List of honorary graduates of the University of Exeter, List of University of Florida honorary degree recipients"
4. 16:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064666788 by ElKevbo (talk) + They are. University of London have their degree holders and honorary listed there. In UK, honorary degree holders are considered to be alumni. LSE considers its honorary degree holders are LSE alumni. You are American so you view can be to yourself."
5. 15:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064665495 by ElKevbo (talk) +They are. Bill Gates attended Harvard but does not have a degree from Harvard. However Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg were awarded honorary doctorate degrees from Harvard and thus are degree holders from Harvard and an named alumni"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "3rr"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Honorary degree recipients are not alumni */ no"

Comments:

ElKevbo, Sdkb and myself tried to resolve at Talk:University of Massachusetts Amherst#Honorary degree recipients are not alumni. User responded briefly, but then continued to revert, all while accusing us of bias, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I endorse Russ Woodroofe's report. A clear-cut case. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This editor has continued and is now edit-warring with five different editors with continued allegations of bias and general insults ("Bunch of friends of administrators protecting their bigotry and petty politics. Please talk of Talk Page before removing, deleting and committing persistent vandalism. Administrator are not a license for low IQ."). This needs to be stopped. ElKevbo (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are three more reverts by the IP since the report, after two other editors (Willondon and Seloloving) came in and reverted the changes the IP is pushing. Special:Diff/1064729389, Special:Diff/1064728139, and Special:Diff/1064711072. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

User: 91.122.13.30 reported by User:Greeis6 (Result: Protected 3 days)

Page: San Fernando Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.122.13.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

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

Comments:

The is the second case of edit warring from this non-registered user on the San Fernando Valley page. They keep changing the page to the way they think it should be written, instead of listening to the inputs from other users. They also keep showing up under different IP addresses, reverting other's edits. Refuses to use the talk page//consistent non-collegial editing from this user. Greeis6 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the lead-in to the correct version written by BeenAroundAWhile: diff. By the way, it was you who invited BeenAroundAWhile to settle the edit war: diff. And now you are edit-warring against his version. In lead-ins to Wikipedia articles, alternative names are always bolded, which makes quotation marks redundant. For example, in the lead-in to the City of London article, the nickname is bolded and does not have quotation marks: the Square Mile. In the lead-in to San Fernando Valley, the definite article before the bolded name is not bolded: the San Fernando Valley. For formatting consistency, the definite article before the bolded nickname should not be bolded either: the Valley. —91.122.13.30 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article for 3 days. I suggest you go back to the Talk page to resolve the dispute. I see no consensus in the December discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • On the talk page, Greeis6 has failed to provide any authoritative sources and instead resorted to personal insults: diff 1 diff 2. He poisons Wikipedia and needs to be permanently banned. —91.122.13.30 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Miller110 reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Sock blocked)

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

User being reported: Miller110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064907962 by TrangaBellam (talk) dont do edit war.you are removing well source contents."
2. 20:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "the line is well sourced and it is from census report by goverment of wesbengal.I am following every rules which ekdalian taught me.check the kayatsha surname articles like ghose,bose,guha,mitra etc where the component elements (varnas) are clearly mentioned"
3. 17:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "dont revert my edits.i dont need permission to edit on wikipedia.I have provided the source,if you cant find it then ask me first before revert my edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "Adding General Sanctions Notice (sasg) (TW)"
2. 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Important Notice */ Reply"
3. 20:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sengupta."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Thread 1 and an aborted attempt

Comments:

Complete cluelessness: see the parallel edit-warring at Sena dynasty (stayed at 2RR) and misrepresentation of sources before finally giving up. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Can you take a look at Satnam2408, an SPA devoted to proving that Baidyas were a higher caste? Returned after a long hiatus to restore Miller110's edits. [See the intersections in editing: meat puppetry.] TrangaBellam (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Someone97816 reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: )

Page: Murder of Mohammad Anwar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Someone97816 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065133663 by Etzedek24 (talk) Sure take it to whatever you like. I stand by my discussion. From what I see you just use the excuse of "unreliable sources", "disruptive editing." or "advance a minority viewpoint" to fit your narrative. I am more than happy for more people to review it. So go ahead"
2. 00:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065130296 by Etzedek24 (talk) And I checked WP:RSPSOURCES couple time and the two sources I cited here are not on the list. Also, I know twitter generally is not reliable source but can be used in certain situation, which is exactly what I did here. You can check WP:SELFSOURCE for more information. If u still disagree with me. I am happy to take it to Noticeboards"
3. 23:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC) "Changed the Daily Kos ref as some editors think is unreliable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Murder of Mohammad Anwar."
2. 00:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Murder of Mohammad Anwar."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is adding summative references from unreliable news sites in addition to a Tweet in order to advance a POV reading of an article where discretionary sanctions might well apply. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried to explain to user Etzedek24 my counter arguments and posted it to his talk page, which he reverted it for some reasons using the reason of "spam". From what I see, the definition of "unreliable sources" for user Etzedek24 are just based on his taste. He basically suggested all the content he dont like is "minority viewpoint" and should not be included. It sounds more like censorship and whitewashing. I checked WP:RSPSOURCES couple time and the two sources I cited here are not on the list. Also, I know twitter generally is not reliable source but can be used in certain situation, which is exactly what I did here.(WP:SELFSOURCE) I dont think my tone is biased and I even tried to provide conter-argument but it was eventually removed(See the verson of 02:04, 11 January 2022‎) I am always more than happy to discuss it in civil manner with him but that became impossible as he keep threaten to ban me (see my talk page)and basically ignored everything I said in his talk page (He reverted all of it). All he did is leaving angry messages on my talk page. I also suggest to take it to noticeboard for more people to review it couple times but he keep using his agressive attitude toward me.Someone97816 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've reverted Someone's last edit. My view is that if they revert again, they should be blocked for violating 3RR (they haven't done so yet). Obviously, I will not make that decision as I now consider myself WP:INVOLVED.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I wont edit the page until the case is solved. If user Etzedek24 can talk with me in civil manner instead of being condescending and threatening, it probably would be solve much earlier Someone97816 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • There's not really a discussion to be had. The sources you are attempting to add, and thus the prose, are from news websites that I cannot imagine any experienced editor would consider reliable and are clearly pushing a certain point of view. So, not only do they fail WP:RS, but also WP:NPOV. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I would not touch the WP:RS issues for now as I think it's best for other people to review it at this point. But as everyone can see in his comment here, he never have any intention to discuss it with me. He never make it clear why he think the sources I cited are not reliable nor reply to my questions (He deleted all the messages I left on his talk page because he think those are "spam"). He believed he is an "experienced editor" so he can decide what is allowed and what is not. I also want to make one thing clear here about WP:NPOV. In the earlier verson (See the verson of 02:04, 11 January 2022‎), I tried to provide arguments from both sides. It only been removed because the first revert. My intention from the start is never about pushing agenda from one side. And it saying a lot about this community since you admit u already make up your mind right from the very start and dont even wanna have a discussion with me all these times.Someone97816 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Someone, your addition to the article was about as balanced as a seesaw with a pebble on one end and a boulder on the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
          • If this is the issus here, I am more than happy to find more sources to balance both sides. But user Etzedek24 never really point out this concern (as he never wanna have a discussion with me)and just keeping saying I am pusing POV, threaten to ban me and revert everything. Kind of hard to know what really the problem is when the other guy just being extremely agressive toward you and refuse to listen everything u said Someone97816 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Aydin.mirz reported by User:Curb Safe Charmer (Result: Blocked)

Page: Digital transformation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aydin.mirz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Their rationale for their revert is that they want their version of the page left up 'to get a grade'.

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

Comments:

• Blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User: 110.137.195.235 reported by User:The Bangsawan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kota Kinabalu International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:110.137.195.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]
6. [21]
7. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Comments:
There is a severe edit warring from a non-registered user in the Kota Kinabalu International Airport page. Parts of the page was being blanketed by the user without providing any justification. Several users have tried to resolve the matter and even highlighted the issue on the non-registered user page. However both of the notice were ignored by this user. The record on the removal can be seen on the history tab of Kota Kinabalu International Airport-د بڠساون (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 12 hours for vandalism by User:TheresNoTime. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:61.247.41.175 reported by User:The Bangsawan (Result: Semi)

Page: Kota Kinabalu International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:61.247.41.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Comments:
Based on the timeline (as both non-registered ip addressed flip-flop their accounts on the blanking the page of Kota Kinabalu International Airport almost simultaneously, and as-per ip address lookout between the two address location located in the same area, we can deduce that the latter account is a sockpuppet of the former.--د بڠساون (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:RegentsPark. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Buffalo8 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Partially Blocked 1 week)

Page: Intelligence quotient (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Buffalo8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Sex */ Added clarification"
2. 18:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 17:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) ""
4. More similar edits dating back to last October

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warning #1
• Warning #2

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Generalrelative opened [Talk:Intelligence_quotient#Buffalo8's_addition|a talk page section]] to discuss Buffalo8's edits, and pinged them. They have not engaged in any discussion.

Comments: Edit warring since October despite multiple warnings and an invitation to discuss rather than revert. Firefangledfeathers 18:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Partial block on Intelligence quotient EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:68.42.245.120 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: blocked for three months)

Page: New Century Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.42.245.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

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

Comments: Similar behavior over the same period at American Renaissance (magazine). See these reverts over the past hour:

Original: [36] Attempt to resolve dispute: [37]

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
   

Generalrelative (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months Even ignoring the question of edit-warring, a block is warranted for persistent disruptive editing to try to impose a point of view. The disruptive editing started in November 2021, but has only now started to be done on a large scale.JBW (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:74.15.131.143 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)

Page: First Barbary War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 74.15.131.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC) to 21:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 21:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "its not irrelevant , Algerine troops sent 12+ ships to back of Tripoli in the first barbary war which led to the second one"
   2. 21:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065277348 by M.Bitton (talk)"
3. 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "the picture is literally american captain paying tributes to the dey of Algiers the picture is preserved in washington during the first barbary war stop with your propaganda even in casualities you can see ALGERIA: NONE meaning we participated"
4. 01:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "the picture is about the american captain paying tribute to Algiers after the first barbary war you idiot"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on First Barbary War."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

Apart from their personal attack (see the idiot remark in their edit summary), they are also edit warring on Algiers expedition (1541) (removing sourced content and describing any attempt at restoring it as "vandalism" and "propaganda"). The invitation to join the discussion has been ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Note: The addition of factual inaccuracies to other articles continues (left as is until something is done about the IP's behaviour). M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Nunuxxx reported by User:217.149.166.67 (Result: Filer blocked for evasion)

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

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [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: User speaks about non existent consensus: regarding azeri name on Russian Empire governorate in modern Armenia and Azerbaijan. reverts without saying why.217.149.166.67 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

4 differences have been cited however, the 2nd of the 4 is not a revert, therefore I have not broken 3RR. It should also be noted the user opened the discussion 6 minutes before the report was posted, and that no revert was done after the opening of the discussion. Nunuxxx (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: The filing IP is blocked two months for evasion. I'm taking their removal of someone else's comment from my talk page that the claim of evasion is likely true. The original IP 217.149.166.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was conducting a lengthy war across different articles within the WP:AA2 topic. The two IPs both come from the range Special:Contributions/217.149.166.0/24. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:GIFTASEAN reported by User:Someone97816 (Result: Stale)

Page: Chandran Nair (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GIFTASEAN (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. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]

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: [54]

Comments: User GIFTASEAN basically removed all the negative/controversial parts in the biography and then put up a tons of informations about the subject's publications, which he elaborated in detail. It looks like an advertisement and whitewashing, especially considering User GIFTASEAN only edited this page and nothing else. Someone97816 (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Stale. The user's series of consecutive edits occurred on December 20! Bbb23 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Unbh reported by User:Zippybonzo (Result: Both Unbh and Geysirhead blocked for 72 hours)

Page: Warm Showers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065658033 by Geysirhead (talk) read WP:OWN please"
2. 17:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065654428 by Zippybonzo (talk) all my edits have explanations. removal of non notable list of names which are not properly sourced and general clean up of the article. Look at what you're restoring please."
3. 17:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065649953 by Geysirhead (talk)"
4. 16:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065640336 by Geysirhead (talk) RV. All not notable"
5. 15:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065637339 by Geysirhead (talk)"
6. 15:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Geysirhead (talk) to last revision by Unbh"
7. 15:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Geysirhead (talk) to last revision by Unbh"
8. 15:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065636353 by Geysirhead (talk) still not notable"
9. 15:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065636135 by Geysirhead (talk)Not notable."
10. 15:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065634625 by Geysirhead (talk)being listed on a tax return does not make something notable to be included in an article."
11. 15:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065634337 by Geysirhead (talk) The IRS is not a reliable source to establish notability."
12. 15:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065634006 by Geysirhead (talk)"
13. 15:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065633832 by Geysirhead (talk)RVV"
14. 15:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Geysirhead (talk) to last revision by Unbh"
15. 15:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065632874 by Geysirhead (talk) removing non notable information without reliable 3rd party sources,"
16. 15:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065632531 by Geysirhead (talk) material without RS should not be there."
17. 14:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065632041 by Geysirhead (talk) still not notable, and the IRS is not a RS. being listed in a tax return does not establish notability."
18. 14:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065631601 by Geysirhead (talk) not notable or reliably sourced. discuss on talk before restoring."
19. 14:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Geysirhead (talk): None of this is notable or reliably sourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"
2. 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Zippybonzo "/* Warm showers. */ Reply"

Comments:

This is the most edit warring that they have been involved in. I am almost certain that Geysirhead was also violating 3RR. Zippy (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Geysirhead went through and reverted everything I edited across multiple articles, including Justus of Jerusalem for goodness sake, which is pure stalking. they screated my userpage repeatedly, and keeps restoring their talk page edits even after i've acknowledged I've read them. they're adding swathes of poorly sourced information that doesn't meet any sort of notability, and reverting any edits on the page they feels they own.Unbh (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Unbh I agree with you on the stalking but you still violated 3RR whether the source was reliable or not. Zippy (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• For the record—the disruption isn't obvious to non-admins as I've deleted the pages in question—Geysirhead is also harassing Unbh by repeatedly creating a page in Unbh's userspace. I've just in the last few minutes issued a formal warning about this, as I can't think of any conceivable AGF explanation. ‑ Iridescent 18:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Fully protected for 3 days. Both Unbh and Geysirhead have violated 3RR. Both users are warned that if they resume edit-warring after protection has expired, they may be blocked without notice. In addition, the dispute should be resolved on the article Talk page, and it must be done civilly. Personal attacks may also be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  The users have violated 3RR on a few other pages as well. Zippy (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 they also violated on BeWelcome, Hospitality Club and CouchSurfing Zippy (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't propose protecting all the pages on which they're in conflict. If they're not willing to follow our rules, they should just be ejected; it's not reasonable doing a mass-protection and disrupting the workflows of other editors on their account. ‑ Iridescent 18:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I thought that too. Zippy (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• I wish I'd known about the other violations earlier. I've blocked both users for 72 hours for edit-warring across multiple articles. I've also lifted the protection on Warm Showers.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:103.5.134.36 reported by User:Anjuvannam (Result: Semi)

Page: St. Mary's Jacobite Soonoro Cathedral, Angamaly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.5.134.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff:1065367613
2. diff:1065355594
3. diff:1065207758
4. diff:1065025807

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

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

Comments: Continuous removal of sourced information and references
12:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month due to edit warring. There seem to be many disputes about the Malankara churches. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:178.155.64.69 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Semi)

Page: Crimean War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.155.64.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [63]

Comments:

They have been reverted by two users, asked to make a case and there may be wp:coi issues.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Crimean War#Quotes cleanup regarding the mess this editor (using various IPs) has made of the article by their constant addition of unattributed quotes within the text, something they were told about back in December yet are still doing with their current edits. FDW777 (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep huge WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to add to this discussion to this edit war, as someone uninvolved with WikiProject military history or this article, I previously witnessed this editor making questionable edits to Crimean War. Personally, I found his edits to be POV pushing and his persistency in not attributing quotes problematic already, but it's clear to me now that this editor is simply not here to contribute to the project with respect for the work of others or for our readers. Pilaz (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem may be (or it is just a convenient excuse) they are Russian and thus seem to have issues with understanding English. They seem (for example) to not understand what prose means (AGF, which is getting harder). Even with the AGF they are still a time sink.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe an editor who can write a talk page post such as this has any difficulty understanding English. FDW777 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months due to disruptive editing, including unsourced changes. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Тимур Азадов reported by User:Llammakey (Result: Blocked)

Page: Montreal Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065419935 by Eastfarthingan (talk) You are presenting factually wrong and misleading information of forces actually engaged in the campaign. The inclusion of 20000 men strong local civilian population "able to bear arms" without any evidence of their involvement in the conflict in the "Strength" section is egregious. Stop edit warring and present sources proving active Canadian insurgency against the invaders."
2. 07:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065303936 by Eastfarthingan (talk) Please learn the difference between "forces at disposal" as stated in the source and "forces engaged in the campaign". The article makes it look as if the French had 23200 troops and the British only 18200, which implies the French had numerical superiority. Although the article reeks of British bias, that statement is beyond ridiculous and refuted by all respected historians."
3. 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1065242245 by Eastfarthingan (talk) I will keep reverting your changes unless you provide a reliable source stating that the totality of 20,000 inhabitants of the region did participate in the campaign with arms drawn and were offering active resistance to the British during the campaign, otherwise their presence in "Strength" is not justified."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This keeps popping up on my watchlist. Eastfarthington keeps telling them to take it to the talk page. They refuse. Llammakey (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring, for removing references, and for their promise to 'keep reverting your changes'. This looks to be a new account that was created for warring on the Montreal Campaign. But the point they are trying to make about the size of the French forces probably needs to be looked at. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:David xmz reported by User:LVTW2 (Result: Warned)

Page: List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David xmz (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. 05:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Undid revision 1065360442 by LVTW2 (talk)"
2. 04:12, 13 January 2022‎ (UTC) Undid revision 1065204492 by LVTW2 (talk)"
3. 06:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Undid revision 1065169600 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
4. 03:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Undid revision 1065096450 by LVTW2 (talk)"
5. 10:58, 11 January 2022‎ (UTC) Undid revision 1065204492 by LVTW2 (talk)"

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

04:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita." Warning issued by LVTW2

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

User is currently engaged in an edit war on thr List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita

• Result: User:David xmz is warned. They may be blocked if they revert this article again unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Editors are reverting as to whether Taiwan is a country or a territory. It seems to have been settled in a previous RfC that Taiwan is a *country*. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User: Llll5032 reported by User:Michael.C.Wright (Result: Both warned)

Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Llll5032 (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. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]
6. [69]

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [76]

Comments:

First they falsely accused me of violating 3RR, when actually they had (first group of diffs above) and then after trying to resolve the issue, they again violate 3RR (second group of diffs above). Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I disagree almost wholly with this description of our dispute. I can explain more if asked. The diffs and article history show how and why we have been at odds about some edits. I have tried to avoid violating 3RR (both of us have made edits over 3 days) while removing or tagging various unreliable, deprecated or fringe sources that Michael added or re-added. I have also edited or tagged some original analysis of primary sources. Some of our interaction has been contentious, so I would agree to us both informally taking a short break from the article to let more experienced editors work on it, if Michael agrees. Llll5032 (talk)

• Result: Both editors are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Legensd reported by User:MarioProtIV (Result: Sock indefinitely blocked)

Page: 2021–22 North American winter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuously reverts edits on said page which contained poor grammar and wording and thus was removed by me in favor of being rewritten in a clean way later on. User also violated WP:3RR while doing so and also appears to be ip-hopping while doing so to evade said rule (see this which appears to be the user logged out and even changing the message left when logged in and another possible evasion by undoing said edit). Also tried removing my request for protection for the 2021–22 winter page with a nonsensical reason. Highly recommend a block in part due to breach of 3RR. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I will add a note here that the user filing the report (MarioProtIV) also violated 3RR, and in fact violated it before the user in question. In addition, MarioProtIV also reverted constructive edits with poor reasoning, simply stating that it was "poorly written", when instead they could have followed WP:FIXIT. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Malaysianwarrior1957 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Baju Kurung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Malaysianwarrior1957 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1066065063 by Austronesier (talk) a sourced content about a first lady of indonesia wearing it does not mean it originated from indonesia, it's like saying a suit is an indonesia shirt just because their president wear it all the time. a sourced content must be given an academic proof that it has some indonesian origins which they don't have, stop backing something that is false."
2. 17:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1066063808 by Northheavensky (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Baju kurung."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has made several reverts as IP before registering a user account:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]

Based on the language in the edit summaries, this must be the same person. Austronesier (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Malaysianwarrior1957 and blocked the IP for 48 hours. This was not an instance of editing with an IP before registering an account but abusively editing while logged out.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

User:TheGoldAge reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Withdrawn)

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

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [87]

Comments:

Thisx had acitaly been going on since the 11th, Tnhere were many issues with htis massive addition. Most of which have been adressed (after much arguemnt), but the over coverage of one threates is still being inserted (not even one thrater, its one nation).Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Originally, I made this edit [88] that was reverted by user Moxy, he told me to bring this to talk page, which I did, I shouldn't have reverted his edit on the basis that he didn't give me a reason for the disagreement, I was too rushy there, but stopped and did bring it on the talk page. On talk page he explained the reasons for his undo, Slatersteven intervened with his objection about the lead. I listened to them and was about to make an edit that will address all these objections [89]. In order to address all these objections I had to revert to my previous version and start from there, mentioning in the summary that "will soon be edited to comply with Moxy's objections". When I did that, Slatersteven reverted it back calling it edit warring despite me stating in the summary that this undo was only made to edit the text based on their objections. So I edited it back with the with the modifications I made until he unded it [[90]], telling him that in the summary it's only so that I can start editing from there. (note that it's a different text, and it's not the final version either, because I did not had time to address all the mentioned issues before Slatersteven reverted it, but it does fix some of the objections mentioned). Then he reported me here and told me on the talk page that I did not change anything to the text including the lead, I told him that the whole text that he reverted is unchanged because I only reverted to that version so I can start working from that version, the lead was about to be reverted to the original version before he undoed it. And began to address a new issue under expansion [91]: the over coverage of one threates is still being inserted (not even one thrater, its one nation). TheGoldAge (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

And as I said here [[92]] that was only the start of my objections. But when you have a wall of text you deal with it in bites. Moxy objected to your expansion of the eastern front here [[93]], yet you still added it back, more than once.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You posted that message on - 12:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC), before we had that long discussion on the rest of the talk page where you told me the rest of your objections. And I responded to Moxy here [94], he originally said western europe as a typo [95] so my reply was to that. Where is that more than once? Since I began to talk on the talk page I only made 1 revert - the one were I was about to modify the text in order to address your objections, the one you reported me for. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

An edit war warning is not "you have 3 more reverts after this" (3rr is not a right, it is an upper limit) it is "you are about to break the rule, stop editing now".Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I belive all done in good faith...editor simply trying to expand on a section they have interest in .......but that said we dont need a duplication of the main article to this article....no point in saying the same thing in 2 articles. Copy and pasting from one article to the other on mass in generaly not helpfull. Articles of this nature is not the place to learn how Wikipedia works....start small with writing in your own words and adding sources you have seen.Moxy- 13:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven: An edit war is when you continously revert to the same version, I was not about to as clearly show by my summary in the 3rd revert. I assumed you didn't read the summary since we did discuss the issues on the talk page and I told you I will address those issues so it made no sense for you to revert it. You raise an objection, I tell you I will address it, and when I try to edit it to address the issue you revert me and report for edit warring.

Moxy: The information I added is not a copy-paste of the Romania in World War I article, I read the article and made a summary of it. Romania in World War I is a huge page, the edit I suggested for World War I is a summary of one subesction. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing as they seem to have got the message.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Crashed greek reported by User:MehmoodS (Result: Both warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Battle of Peshawar (1758) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crashed greek (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. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]
5. [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [103]

Comments:
Originally it was identified on article Battle of Peshawar (1758) by other editors that two of the sources were unreliable where one author copied from wikipedia whereas the other author had no expertise in the area but infact is a regular user on other media sites like quora and blogger. So those two sources were removed and additional citations from multiple academicians were added. The poor formatting of the infobox as well as the citation template was also fixed. But couple of days after, Crashed greek reverted all the changes back, removing all the sources by academicians except for the two unreliable sources. I started the discussion on the talk page, explaining how the sources were unreliable but user Crashed greek replied with personal attack instead of being civil and he got warned about it by an administrator on his talk page [104]. This user wouldn't even give any proper explanation for his reverts. So after I moved the changes back, he again reverted them, again removing multiple sources except the two unreliable ones. So I realized that ok, the talk page explanation isn't helping, so in good faith, I first reverted with addition of multiple academicians citations and ALSO added the two unreliable sources that there was dispute on. Then I submitted request for opinion in WP:RSN which you can see here directly [105]. And after this, I provided this link to the user on the article's talk page and explained that all the sources including the disputed ones are currently on the article so there is no reason to revert, plus I told him that a discussion is currently in process on the WP:RSN about the two disputed references and nothing will be removed till a consensus is reached. But I am not sure, if the user fails to understand what I stated or he is doing it rather purposely, because even after everything that I did in good faith, he ends up reverting the changes again, removing multiple sources except the two unreliable ones. And his reason is that there is no consensus. That's all. Even after I explained and took the initiative to submit discussion on talk page and on WP:RSN, which actually is what he should have done to prove that the two disputed sources are reliable, he still reverts which ends up removing citation from multiple academicians and messes up the formatting of the infobox and citation templates. And then seems like, after he reverted, he got some sense and then tried to add back some of the sources (causing duplicates to be added) by academicians that he removed, and he mis-arranged them. So, this user has been disruptive time and again, who just doesn't want to take time to read and understand the discussion, but instead just reverts the changes to what he personally feels comfortable with. I did warn him on his talk to page to stop being disruptive but I don't think he cares no matter who or how many times he is warned. And this has been going on for days. So, some help would be great from an admin to stop this disruption on the page especially since discussion is ongoing in WP:RSN and also would like his changes reverted back. MehmoodS (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Also on noticeboard [106], its proved that the disputed sources are indeed unreliable and even after the user saw the evidence, he still ignored it and called it a "coincidence", that the author's book plagiarized from wikipedia. MehmoodS (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Consecutive edits count as 1 edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Sorry Mr. Slater, I didn't quite get it what you mean. Here I am talking about reverts and disruption. MehmoodS (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To have edit warred they would have had to have made 4 separate full or partial reverts. If they make 3 reverts in 3 edits with no interruption, that counts (in effect) as 1 revert. Their reverts have to have been separated by another user's actions to count as fresh reverts. As I see it they have (and I note you have too) made 3 "blocks" of reverts.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr.Slater, I had two reverts, and as far as the other user is concerned, he has engaged in edit warring. There is more to it which I have explained already where the user ignored warning and caused disruption for days while a discussion has been going on especially on WP:RSN to reach a consensus. He has been causing disruption for days, using personal attack, as well as failing to comply with discussion on talk page where other editor has tried to explain him as well about the disputed sources. Also on noticeboard [107], its proved that the disputed sources are indeed unreliable and even after the user saw the evidence, he still ignored it and called it a "coincidence", that the author's book plagiarized from wikipedia. MehmoodS (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your first revert [[108]], your second [[109]], your rhird [[110]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't it.[[111]]. I have provided explanation above in detail. MehmoodS (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• User:MehmoodS has opened a discussion of source reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dispute over unreliable sources. It seems that User:Crashed greek's opinion on the sources is not getting any support from other editors there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the version of the article before MehmoodS introduced changes [[112]]. Now maybe their source is better, but the date for the battle was long-standing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I also note that one of the sources MehmoodS uses says 8th May.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

that is not the source used by me, and that is the source that there is dispute on which has been mentioned in WP:RSN as unreliable. This source had been there for a while which I identified as problematic. MehmoodS (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Odd as it is used is this revert of yours [[113]], and this one [[114]], so you are not removing it, so they can't be adding it back.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

yes I added the two unreliable sources back in good faith as I mentioned in detail explanation in the post on how the discussion progressed. You can see here [115]. The reason to do so was to stop the user from continously reverting changes till a concensus can be reached on WP:RSN about the unreliability. But yet, the user continued to revert. MehmoodS (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is user User:MehmoodS who has violated the WP:3RR. No third user has reverted my edits, only this user has done. And I have just reverted to a version that has stood for months together, before this user has come to this article. And this user is a similar user User:Hiensrt, another user was using the same Wikipedia essay to remove sources Talk:Battle_of_Peshawar_(1758)#Refs_removed a few months ago, who had even proposed deletion of the article. That user has gone inactive, and this new user has become active now, with the same point. See the version that was there months before this user came [116], and he is changing the article without consensus in the talk page. See the diff of him doing [117] and I am doing [118]. I have kept the sources he has added, I have not reverted that part. But he is changing the article without consensus in the talk page. Crashed greek (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  You are again being incivil with personal attack and using false accusations. Bbb23, he is at it again even after being warned. Crashed greek, your version heavily relied on two unreliable sources that I mentioned time and again as unreliable and even on WP:RSN, they are considered unreliable by other editors. Editors even told you on the talk page and yet you ignored them including WP:RSN and continued to disrupt by reverting changes to version you liked. Your version has multiple issues such as citation templates, formatting and information based on unreliable sources that were fixed with addition of citations from academicians. And the version you are claiming is yours is false as you added back all the sources on January 16th that I originally added of the academicians but you mis-arranged them and yet continued to use information relied on unreliable sources. The link you shared of my version shows me adding all the citations from academicians which you removed couple of times before just like you did here [119] and here [120]. MehmoodS (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Crashed greek and User:MehmoodS are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus for your change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  But User:EdJohnston, I followed all necessary steps to reach concensus, even added back the unreliable sources in good faith along with additional sources I added, so that no reverts would be needed till we get further opinions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dispute over unreliable sources. But user still made the reverts. And you can see clearly on the RS noticeboard that multiple editors oppose user:Crashed greek's opinion but the user just refuses to accept, calling the plagiarism from wikipedia, as just a "coincidence". How can you reach concensus with someone who hold such opinion, just stays in denial, and is repeatedly uncivil with personal attacks even after he was warned once before? MehmoodS (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Crashed greek's choice of sources has been questioned. But the revert rules apply to everybody, including you. You need to stop until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with revert rules but I am still baffled about how to reach consensus with someone who doesn't or not even trying to reach one? Or do you mean the consensus from the WP:RSN? Please help guide me so that I know what more I can do when facing editors like him. MehmoodS (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't, you report them. Or you get others to support you.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That is what I did here Mr.Slater. I also contacted admins to intervene but to no avail. Before this, I used the article's talk page, used WP:RSN and now here. MehmoodS (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What I meant was, you wait till they have made 4 straight reverts and then report them, preferably after you have not made 3. What you do is let others take up the slack, then if they continue to revert you report them. Being in the right is not (read wp:editwar) a justification for edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand now. This helps. Thank you User:Slatersteven. And thank you and apologies User:EdJohnston. MehmoodS (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• User:EdJohnston, I have reverted his edits to previous consensus version which had stayed for months. And I even added back his new sources after realizing, but I kept the article text at the consensus version. No third person supported User:MehmoodS's changes in the talk page, but he still continued the edit war. So warning me here is unfair. Crashed greek (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mathsci reported by User:Gumshoe2 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [122] Jan 16 9:03
2. [123] Jan 16 11:38
3. [124] Jan 16 11:51
4. [125] Jan 16 13:32

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [128]

Comments:
The section in question is "connections with the same geodesics" also called "Geodesics defined by a metric or a connection". The situation is fully explained on the talk page for Fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Response. Checking my edit history, I was adding content to many articles on Renaissance art, related to Michelangelo, Raphael and Leonardo da Vinci using multiple WP:RSs; e.g. Benois Madonna and Study for the Madonna of the Cat. Also Jean-Joseph Bonaventure Laurens and Alexander Kok. On wikipedia with CMD I have been one of the main editors patrolling Europe. My sourced changes to the lead of Handel and Bach required care. Similarly upgrading the "Music" section for United Kingdom of Great Britain required care with sources from archive.org and Commons. Since 2008, I have made numerous edits to articles about Riemannian geometry and connections.

User:Gumshoe2 has made edits to several maths BLP articles and some mathematics articles. Today he forum-shopped on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. [129] He later left an untemplated message on my user talk page. Here is a summary of Gumshoe2's edits.

1. [130] initial blanking of content by anon IP
2. [131] deletes brand new content on "connection with same geodesics" with WP:RSs
3. [132] deletes same new content
4. [133] deletes same new content
5. [134] deletes WP:RSs
6. [135] deletes same new content
7. [136] deletes WP:RSs
8. [137] deletes WP:RSs, removes "Further reading" section
9. [138] deletes WP:RSs

Since I previously added quite a lot of content in November August 2020 (the second proof using covariant derivatives), this was on my watchlist. With the edit summary comment on connection with the same geodesics, I wrote a short comment on the talk page mentioning the WP:RS. [139] Later Gumshoe2's Latex code had to be altered by me so that wikipedia users could read it. In the end, I wrote, "I have no strong views on whether the Addendum on geodesics should be added or not: I've not really had a chance to look at relevant papers nor to read the CUP book of Nomizu & Sasaki." Gumshoe2 is still commenting on the article talk page.[140] Mathsci (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope everyone will read the talk page, where I think everything is rather clear. Anyway, Mathsci has made three bizarre errors here, the significance of which I am unsure of- 1) the initial blanking, as you can see, was done by me and not by an anon IP. 2) Mathsci did not previously add "'a lot of content" to the page, and it was not in November 2020. His sole contribution was to add one sentence and rephrase two others, all on one day in August 2020. 3) I did not delete "brand new content", it was the same content as before, rephrased. Even if you don't understand the math, you can see this from the fact that the main reference (page 249 in Spivak) is identical to the reference for the previous content. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I refactored that post: it was August not November. This diff shows me removing my own content. The other content was created in October 2015 by a fixed French IP using Spivak's book.[141] It read like a stream-of-consciousness, quite different from my style. I made similar edits in 2008 in France, citing Kobayashi & Nomizu's 1963 book. This was my fixed French IP.[142] Mathsci (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another bizarre error or lie. It is not your own content. It was added by "Geometry guy". Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Gumshoe2's report gives no supporting diffs, no standard warning, no proper notification, and wrong time stamps. He dug up a 2007 diff of GeometryGuy, unrelated to me, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on "errors" or "lies". Articles from Jan/Aug 2008 contain hundreds of my edits on connections, curvature, Cartan forms, etc — User:OdedSchramm also made edits there. Fast-forwarding, 4 months after creating an account in 2020, Gumshoe2 filed a WP:CIR report.[143] That contrasts with OdedSchramm's edits, the last being shortly before his tragic accident. I've already stated several times that no editing by me is happening in the article. Mathsci (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My report to ANI was not primarily about competence. I think it is normal for editors to sometimes make mistakes or misunderstand material, and so it is fine for mathsci to have some gaps in his knowledge. As I phrased it later in the discussion, the problem was about "the impossibility of communicating with [mathsci] about this page in a rational or coherent way". (Confusingly to me, the ANI was closed with mathsci pledging to avoid personal remarks, which was totally unrelated.) Incidentally, a version of this is happening again, as you can see by looking through the talk page for Fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry. Anyway, I have no idea of what the relevance of 2008 edits, Oded Schramm, or my 2020 ANI report is meant to be. I am only trying to keep things factual. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(I suppose I should also point out that I have no idea of what the relevance of almost any of mathsci's comments here are meant to be.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Administrator note: It appears that both User:Mathsci and User:Gumshoe2 have broken 3RR on this article on January 16th. So what are you hoping that the admins will do? Block both of you? EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It is true that I removed the relevant text four times. I thought I was following the rule, but maybe I misunderstood. I did not know that any removal of text would count as a reversion and so I thought that the first removal would be considered a direct edit and not a reversion. You can see from the page history that after mathsci's last addition of the material, I did not revert it; that was because I believed I had reached the reversion limit with my previous removal. If I should be blocked then so be it. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I should also note that in his presentation above, mathsci listed the same edit of mine twice, as entry #4 and #6. So he made it look like I made one more reversion than I did. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like he also listed my other edit twice, as #5 and #7. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) @EdJohnston: thanks for pinging me. Although initially undecided, I was relieved to remove the "Addendum" section at 22:10 on Jan 16th. Since both of us have previously collaborated on cleaning up another section amicably,[144][145][146][147] I am not sure that any action needs to be taken. I looked back in the AN3 archive for Mathsci: in 2010 there were WP:ARBR&I warnings (borderline edit-warring); similarly just after 14 July 2016 (2016 Nice truck attack), there was a warning. I can see new "Addendum" material added here[148], a revert[149], a revert[150], and then, while an in-use tag was applied while when I was undecided, a self-revert as I decided that the Addendum section was optional (like a vast amount of WP content).[151][152] When I need to think through material, I sometimes temporarily add in-use tags for sections when the the whole section needs rewriting.[153] Removing WP:RSs is another issue and most users rarely do it (for WP:FA like Frédéric Chopin, it's done to keep articles concise). As a regular AN3 sysop, only administrators like you can judge. Thanks for your help and patience. Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC) (second refactoring to correct diffs)

Another error/lie/misrepresentation. As listed in my initial report here: four reverts, [154] [155] [156] [157], all done while refusing to engage with the relevant commentary on the talk page. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why the word lie has been used. I've always edited in good faith as happened in the 2010 WP:ARBR&I case. My method of editing has always been anodyne and neutral: identify the best WP:RSs and then summarise them. Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Mathsci and User:Gumshoe2 are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus for your change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:F1V8V10V6 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Both warned)

Page: Max Verstappen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: F1V8V10V6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [158]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [159]
2. [160]
3. [161]
4. [162]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164]

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

Comments:

User began to edit war after a edit of theirs on Max Verstappen changing ″Formula One″ into ″F1″ was reverted, they were told several times to seek consensus for the change on the article talk page but didn't listen and instead just kept restoring their preferred version. It should also be noted this user has a history of hostility and unwillingness to cooperate and take feedback, usually just emptying their talk page on communication attempts, both their history at Talk:Max Verstappen (where they have also violated talk page policy) and their own talk page shows this, but that is a different story. I reverted to the stable version 4 times as it did not seem right that they are allowed to bully their version into existence without consensus, and as it is also a BLP article. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"User began to edit war." That is not what happened. This user reverted my edit without a PROPER explanation as to why exactly he/she did it.

"didn't listen and instead just kept restoring their preferred version" I didn't listen, because you NEVER gave a proper edit summary (with a good reasoning) why you changed it from "F1" to "Formula One."

"It should also be noted this user has a history of hostility and unwillingness to cooperate and take feedback, usually just emptying their talk page on communication attempts, but that is a different story." First of all, that's not true, at all. Where's the "history of hostility"? That's a false accusation. Emptying my own talk page is not a serious act of braking the rules, and that isn't relevant to this discussion anyway. I only emptied it because the talk page discussions were nothing serious, just general stuff.

"I reverted to the stable version 4 times as it did not seem right that they are allowed to bully their version into existence without consensus."

"I wouldn't have done that 4 times if you had given a proper edit summary as to why you reverted my edit in the first place. You never have an explanation, all you said was: "No need for the change." THAT is NOT a proper explanation. See?

Finally, what's the difference between "F1" and "Formula One" anyway? They're both the same thing. Formula One themselves refer to the sport as "F1" almost all time, everywhere, on social media, websites, everything..

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. This could've been avoided if, as I said, you had explained exactly why you reverted my edit instead of "No need for the change."

 F1V8V10V6!  11:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

When reverted, what you should have done is go to the article talk page and discuss. I provided an edit summary for my revert, which was ″No need for the change″ because like you said they are the same thing and it was an unnecessary edit. That is a ″proper″ edit summary. Formula One is more appropriate for an encylopedia in my book, but that is not what the report here is about. As for your hostility, do you want me to provide diffs of your activity in the Verstappen talk page, was that before or after you changed your name? This could have been avoided you're right, if you had followed proper procedure and started a discussion on the talk page when reverted. I should also note that the user is continuing to edit war as this report is ongoing. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"No need for a change" is not good enough explanation. At all. You just agreed that they are the same thing, so by your own words, why does it matter that it was chnaged to "F1" from "Formula One" (which I added myself in the first place, that wasn't there before)? Then why did you change it? Also, after those 4 edits, I then immediately changed it back to "Formula 1" anyway, but you ignored that. Is "Formula 1" not good enough? That's literally the title of the official F1 website, the title of all their social media accounts, and everything.

Regarding your "hostility" accusation, are you referring to the argument I had with user Pyrope? Well, what hostility? An Emoji? Me saying "hahahaha"? Or the fact that I said "Is that why you whined about the..."? Also, I see you've read that discussion, then you should know that the user "Pyrope" was the one who started writing with an aggressive tone: "I don't give a rat's fuzzy little tush about.." which is WHY I responded to him in the way that I did. I just did what he did.

None of that is hostility. False accusations are against the rules of Wikipedia, that's a dangerous thing to do. Please don't do that again.

 F1V8V10V6!  11:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And by your own words, why change it in the first place? I can apply that same logic to your edit, per the manual of style it should be Formula One. You calling people ″triggered″ and ″you sound like an angry Hamilton fan″ (amongst other things) isn't hostility? Interesting definition of hostility you have. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia editor, don't you realise that I was the one who added that at the top of Max's Wikipedia page in the first place? It wasn't there before, check the revisions. I was the one who added "Formula One" too. The reason I changed it (and I EXPLAINED why, unlike you), was because I wanted to make it shorter.

"I should also note that the user is continuing to edit war as this report is ongoing." ANOTHER lie? I just edited it once, again, and this time, not "F1" but "Formula 1", which is different, and not the edit you disagreed with in the first place 🤦🏼‍♂️  F1V8V10V6!  12:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you added it, you don't own anything on the article. It also doesn't matter that it's a different word you reverted to, it's still a revert on the same page. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate being called a liar, I don't falsely accuse people, you have most certainly displayed hostile behaviour on Wikipedia. And instead of owing up to it and improving your conduct, you double down and refuse to admit any wrongdoing using the excuse ″but the other guy did it first″. Concerning to say the least. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a lie because you said I did an edit war again, but I didn't, it was one more DIFFERENT edit. "Formula 1", not "F1."

"(You calling people ″triggered″ and ″you sound like an angry Hamilton fan″)

Oh my God, I said "triggered" once, it's the end of the world. And I said "you sound like an angry Hamilton fan", oh my God, how could commit such a criminal act? Anyway, again, I said those things (not hostile because I was replying to that user who said things in a similar "hostile" tone, so I was only replying to him in the way HE did. So, not "hostility" at all as I didn't START it.  F1V8V10V6!  12:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, how is it concerning? I said NOTHING offensive, I was only replying to the other user in the way he replied to me first. And while it might be 0.00000001% hostile, you're acting like I broke some serious Wikipedia rules.  F1V8V10V6!  12:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how edit warring works, just because your edit on the same word was different this time you think it's different, it's not, you still did the same thing. Changed it back to how you want it instead of discussing on the talk page once reverted. Also no one said it was the end of the world, just that you have a history of hostilty, which you absolutely do and one that you are continuing to build on in this very thread. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So if you percieve someone to be hostile you are free to be as hostile back to them as you want without it being hostility? I'm sorry, but that logic is twisted. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"you still did the same thing."

Not at all. Why? Because I did it once, with different wording, and because I gave a reason why I did it. A proper reason.

"History of hostily"? History implies I've done it a lot, when I haven't, except in one discussion where I said the words mentioned above, that's it. That's not history. Therefore, you have made another false accusation. Stop it. That's dangerous.

"continuing to build on in this very thread."

That is yet another false accusation, I I didn't say anything hostile in this thread. Seriously, stop it.

Also, "Formula 1" and "F1" aren't the same thing, like, at all. "Formula 1" is waaaaay closer to "Formula One" (your preferred edit), THAT'S why I changed it to that. See?  F1V8V10V6!  12:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no point in going in circles here, I've explained my side and you've explained yours. I never said it is the same thing though, read what I wrote again. We'll see what the administrators think about this. Have a good day/whatever it is for you. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You also seem to conveniently forget the fact that after your first edit summary, "No need for the change", I reverted it back to what I first edited by saying "F1 driver is shorter and easier to read" (that is a better edit summary than "no need for the change", which doesn't really explain anything, and by "no need", it suggests that it doesn't matter which one it is), you changed back saying "not really" which is again inadequate.

Also, the major problem here that caused the edit war is that at the start (before the 4 edits) YOU DID NOT explain what you did just now, that "Per the manual of style, "One" is more appropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:MOS", you DIDN'T say that when I first made the edit, why? You didn't say that after I made those (3?) subsequent edits either. Instead of mentioning that Wikipedia rule after I made the edits at the beginning, you ignored that and you just said "No need for the change." And then, "not really." THAT'S why I reverted your edits. If you had mentioned that at the start, I would've NEVER done those edits.  F1V8V10V6!  12:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I stand by every edit summary I made, the issue here and the report is you edit warring instead of taking it to the talk page to discuss as you should have done after I first reverted you. Then we could have talked it out instead of ending up here. As I said, I can't sit here all day and talk in circles as you falsely accuse me of being a liar. It's not productive and I have things to do in real life. Take care. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh and don't try any of that sneaky stuff you did on the Verstappen talk where you in hindsight delete what you said, or even worse edit or remove any of my comments. It will be found out as it is all in the history. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You didn't address my final point, why? You dodged it. Why?

I listed ALL the things you falsely accused me of above. Like 3 or 4 false accusations. I gave my reason as to why I said you lied. Still, you falsely accused me of multiple things. That really is dangerous.

"Oh and don't try any of that sneaky stuff you did on the Verstappen talk where you in hindsight delete what you said"

You mean the one where I deleted the "🤣" emoji I posted? That's not a serious violation, or even a violation at all, because it's just an emoji.

"or even worse edit or remove any of my comments."

That is almost another false accusation, because you're trying to make me look bad, because when I removed the comment of mine from Verstappen talk page, I accidentally removed a comment from another user, WHICH is why later on I removed my own comment (the emoji) instead, after that.

"It will be found out as it is all in the history"

Yes, I know that. I may not be as much an expert on Wikipedia rules as I am when it comes to F1, but I still know the basic rules as I did edit F1 Wikipedia content once back in 2017, but I stopped after a while. Anyway, don't worry, I won't edit anything.

"Things to do in real life."

Really? Great! I can see that you've been on Wikipedia 24/7 for the past 8 months...and you have over 4000 edits. By things in real life, do you mean Wikipedia edits? Just a question.

You still didn't address my final point about you failing to mention this "Per the manual of style, "One" is more appropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:MOS" when I first made those 3 edits, because if you had stated the rule (instead of saying "not really" and "no change needed", there's a HUGE difference) when I did the edit, I would've never reverted your change back twice. Your edit summary "no need for the change" was not good enough, and quite rude, which is why I reverted it. Again, if you had mentioned that Wikipedia rule then, or if you had just given a slightly more detailed summary as to why there is "no need for the change", then the repeated 3 edits we both did would've never happened.

 F1V8V10V6!  13:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Both of you have violated 3RR, and none of your justifications for doing so is valid. The only reason I'm not blocking you both, although another administrator may still do so, is because the dispute appears to be resolved, at least at the article itself. F1V8V10V6, detailed edit summaries are sometimes helpful, but they are not necessary; in fact, edit summaries not required at all. Not providing edit summaries good enough to satisfy you is not an exemption from edit-warring. TylerBurden, alluding to another user's "hostility" without providing diffs is not appropriate. Also, another user's failing to reach a consensus for a change to an article does not permit you to edit-war. Both of you are warned that any more reverts may result in a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I made it clear where the hostility had taken place, and it can be seen in this very thread too. Like the implication that I have no life away from Wikipedia because I have been active fighting vandalism since around mid November somehow makes me having been on Wikipedia ″24/7″ for 8 months (before November I had like 10 edits). This guy has already butted heads with numerous people in motorsports related articles and I don't see that ending anytime soon given the attitude, but great to know that he has administrator blessing to bully his content in without consensus since the person trying to maintain the stable revision will naturally always reach 3 reverts first since they made the first revert. Very functional. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Yuvraj rathore2424 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result:Indef)

Page: Atrangi Re (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yuvraj rathore2424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [166]
2. [167]
3. [168]
4. [169]

This is a long-term edit-war report. They were blocked for edit-warring over cast order on December 30th [170] for 48 hours. After returning from that block, the edit-warring continued and they were blocked for a week on January 5th [171] for a week. Returning from that block, it's continued with the same edits, on the same article. Requesting either a longer block, or an indef block from Atrangi Re. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely – Constant edit warring on the same article after two previous blocks. Any admin can lift this block if the user will agree to follow Wikipedia policies in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Hello1person reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: EC protection)

Page: Dadivank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hello1person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [173]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [174]
2. [175]
3. [176]
4. [177]
5. [178]
6. [179]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [181]

Comments:
176.23.54.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Hello1person are obviously the same person. Edit war was started by the IP, and continued by the newly registered account. The account's only contribution are 3 reverts, and despite the warning and invitation to discuss concerns at talk, he continues to edit war. His last revert was made after I posted 3RR and discretionary sanctions warnings at his talk page, so clearly he has no intention to stop. An admin intervention might be necessary. Semi-protection of the article could be useful too. Grandmaster 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

New user User!Aaah! (talk · contribs) is clearly the same person who created a new account to continue edit war. Grandmaster 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Dadivank is EC protected indefinitely, under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Patch455 reported by User:Manticore (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Patch455 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [182]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [183]
2. [184]
3. [185]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [187]

Comments:

• User continues to revert to their preferred version of the article, with edit summary comments including "it doesn't interest me". I have referred the user to WP:SPOILER and WP:LEAD which they continue to ignore. As a separate issue, based on edits such as this, I would suggest this user is WP:NOTHERE. — Manticore 12:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:76.69.7.202 reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: Semi)

Page: Original North American area codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 76.69.7.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1066276107 by Kbrose (talk) Revert vandalism by editor that refuses to use talk page and has been reverted countless times."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Original North American area codes."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Several back-and-forth revisions over the last 3 days with User:Kbrose. Perhaps an underlying issue of WP:OWN MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Additional links to reverts: [188] and [189] -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This IP user has never explained his/her objections to the content deleted. He simply reverts content seemingly arbitrarily, and this has been a habit on other articles, as shown in his talk page history. All content deleted in Original North American area codes is recently added and properly sourced content, added not in any WP:OWN situation, but simply to expand the content of the article in good faith manner. kbrose (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again.... Senseless edit warring without ever stating the nature of the objection: DIFF

The editor User:Kbrose has been reverted by several editors, asked to use the talk page, and exhibited WP:OWN behaviour. User:Kbrose has refused to use the talk page despite numerous requests to do so and reverts. The edits which kbrose is attempting to add have numerous factual inaccuracies. If this user would simply follow the WP:BRD policies, these errors could be sorted out. It is actually User:Kbrose that is edit warring and not following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You have never explained your reverts, or participated in any manner on the talk page, as noted by several users already. You have been warned. On the contrary, I have been involved in talk page and other dialogs. Your ire appears to be founded in my reversal of your first edit on that page, when you added conflicting statements, HERE. An NPA that includes all of a province cannot have another, southern part with another NPA. I corrected this later with better information, but you don't seem to recognize the defect of your addition. Don't put up more smoke and fire to complicate the situation. kbrose (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not my job as pard of WP:BRD to bring reverted bold edits to the talk page. It's part of your job as the editor suggesting bold edits to use the talk page, as you were asked to numerous time, yet repeatedly refused. I continually asked you to use the talk page on your bold edits. I explained that your edits were not factual, as did other editors, yet you repeatedly added the info again and again without edit explanations or use of the talk page. Your above excuse of earlier use of the talk page on a completely different subject matter is only meant as a deliberate tactic to try and mask your gross misuse of editing and article ownership which borders on vandalism. It is only due to not finding the proper reporting page that I did not report you earlier. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My edits to the article are not bold and not controversial based on the ample references. I cannot vandalize it, because I wrote the entire article, and it is factual and well sourced. That is not ownership. I am open to improvements by others when relevant references support changes. I suggest you show some proof for your lies and accusations. They are just smoke and mirrors. If you think your senseless deletions without reason and explanation are an improvement then explain it. I will continue to defend the article as written against all misinformation and vandalism, and I will likely expand it further with new source material. You senselessly deleted the last round of expansion, wholesale against any logic. That is not engaging in any kind of edit cycle, which you claim. You have never participated in any such activity in this article or the other articles for which you were warned against similarly disruptive editing. kbrose (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected six months. The IP editor has reverted many times since the beginning of January but has never used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:97.71.167.55 reported by User:Czello (Result: )

Page: AEW World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 97.71.167.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Reigns */"
2. 14:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Reigns */"
3. 14:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Reigns */"
4. 14:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Reigns */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on AEW World Championship."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:NerdyGenius1 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Indefinitely partially blocked)

Page: Aafia Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NerdyGenius1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: It's complicated

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]
4. [193]
5. [194] (partial revert of this edit
6. [195] (as previous diff)
7. [196]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [197]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [198]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [199]

Comments:
There may be more reverts in their many edits, I didn't feel like checking all of their many edits when I could already see four reverts in less than 24 hours. Concerns raised by several editors, myself included, at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Aafia Siddiqui regarding the slant placed on the article by this editor. FDW777 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Few extra diffs added. FDW777 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In the past few hours since, he has reverted that page several more times, despite being informed by at least 5 different editors that his edits are whitewashing/lawyering in violation of NPOV. Additionally I noticed the same issue in the related Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis page (and his edit history in general, which should be looked into).Yaakovaryeh (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I counted 7 reverts in the past 24 hours. That aside, Cullen328 gave an indefinite partial block from Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis and Aafia Siddiqui. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have concluded after looking closely that these articles would be better off without the direct input of an editor who is not trying to build consensus but seems to be trying to push through their preferred versions against opposition by other editors. If they can gain consensus on the relevant talk pages, then their proposed changes will be implemented. Otherwise, no. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I was getting tired of trying to defend those articles from that biased material. Love of Corey (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Kbrose reported by User:76.69.7.202 (Result: Declined)

Page: Original North American area codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kbrose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [201] 16:42, 11 January 2022
2. [202] 17:43, 14 January 2022
3. [203] 15:56, 17 January 2022
4. [204] 17:54, 17 January 2022
5. [205] 19:17, 19 January 2022
6. [206] 23:48, 19 January 2022

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [207]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [208]

Comments:
The editor User:Kbrose shows aggressive displays of wp:own and claims "I wrote the whole article to begin with". Repeatedly adding a factually inaccurate edit. Reverted numerous times by more than one editor. Had me reported for reverting their edits and asking them to use talk page. The page was semi protected and the User:Kbrose immediately returned to edit warring. Until yesterday refused to use talk page on the issue despite countless requests. Other editors attempted to communicate through editors talk page and even asked to have a third party review. All attempts were refused and the conversation deleted by the kbrose. This is a clear example of edit warring, article ownership, and general aggressive/rude treatment of other editors. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

All that needs to be pointed out is that this is just retaliatory behavior based on this: #User:76.69.7.202 reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: Semi) kbrose (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually tried to report your edit warring, article ownership, and refusal to use the talk page before you had User:Macaddct1984 report me. Unfortunately I was unable to find the proper channel to report you in time. However, any editor that reviews the edit history of the article noted above would clearly recognize that User:Kbrose added some bold edits, they were reverted by multiple editors, asked to use the talk page (which they refused), and continue to edit war. I'm not sure if your relationship to User:Macaddct1984 and subsequent report is a simple case of WP:IPHUMAN, or if there is more to this story that perhaps an admin should look into this WP:TAGTEAM behaviour. But that is not the issue currently at hand. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Declined. This is not an appropriate venue for these accusations. If the IP wishes to pursue this - and their behavior will also be subject to scrutiny - they make take it to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bbb23's closure, but have suggested to Kbrose that they consider undoing their last change to the article. For reasons explained there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: Complex - their last preferred version was a moving target.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
2. My first attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page was posted after the first revert, at 04:46, 17 January 2022
3. 04:56, 17 January 2022
4. 05:00, 17 January 2022
5. 05:15, 17 January 2022
6. Edit-warring notice was posted at this point, after four reverts; editor subsequently made four more.
7. 05:22, 17 January 2022
8. 05:37, 17 January 2022
9. 05:38, 17 January 2022
10. 20:49, 17 January 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKwamikagami&type=revision&diff=1066180600&oldid=1065769933

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts Talk:Enochian#Claims_that_Enochian_and_English_alphabets_are_'equivalent'_or_a_'cipher', Talk:Enochian#Overstating_Laycock

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKwamikagami&type=revision&diff=1066325582&oldid=1066323687

Comments:

Multiple reverts of two different edits. They do not revert the same material every time, but the material removed was recently added by me. Repeatedly removed a long footnote with a quote - which they requested with a citation tag. The edit summary, where they claim "Skyerise has requested I start editing again" is simply not true. I added a citation request, their response was to take that as permission to revert to their preferred version. Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Skyerise added some material to a stable article. Some were corrections or improvements, but a few I reverted, and Skyerise templated me for 3RR. Rather than continue to argue, I restored the stable version of the article. There it stayed overnight. Meanwhile, Skyerise tried arguing that reporting linguistic analysis was copyvio and that even the history of my edits should be deleted. The copyvio claim was rejected. They then said that I needed to provide citations for one the claims in the stable version,[209] which I took as agreement to start editing again. I did. They then said I was engaged in "lies" and that if I didn't revert myself, they'd report me here for 3RR.[210] So I reverted myself (within 10 minutes)[211] -- and they started this 3RR anyway. It appears to me that Skyerise is editing in bad faith, pushing the TRUTH of mysticism over RS's, and is using 3RR and copyvio as bludgeons to get their own way against RS's. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the truth of the matter is that while I was trying to improve the article, I was reverted multiple times before I was even finished. That each time I was reverted, I started a discussion about the issue on the talk page. And that KK here continued to revert rather than respond and discuss. The responses finally came after I posted the 3RR notice on their page. Skyerise (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Finally, KK acts like I am a complete newcomer to the article. That's simply not true: I've been editing it since at least 18 March 2015. Not gonna waste my time going back more than 500 edits for a clearly aggressive edit-warrior. Skyerise (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You can use the {{under construction}} template to let other editors know that you're in the middle of revamping an article.

Also, read WP:BOLD. If you make a change, it's up to you to justify if reverted. Claims of 3RR when you're the one changing an article can boomerang.

Don't know what responses you're speaking of. I responded multiple times. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That claim can be disproven by the timestamps: 3RR notice posted on your talk page at 05:17, 17 January 2022‎. First response on the talk page is timestamped 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC). You didn't start to discuss until after you had already violated 3RR. You then went on to make four more reverts. Skyerise (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As for me being an edit-warrior, I can't help but point out that your block log for 3RR is twice as long as mine (8 blocks for you vs. 4 for me). Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, of the diffs provided, only three of the edits constitute a revert of any kind. And of those three edits, two of them - 05:37 and 05:38 on 17 January are actually a single revert undertaken in two consecutive edits. The other five edits all seem to be standard edits - bringing in more precise language, adding details, fixing wording, etc. I can 100% attest to Kwami sometimes being frustrating to work with, but they have not engaged in 3RR here, and I would highly suggest that Skyerise follow WP:BRD and start discussing exactly what content they want to add on the talk page instead of trying to brute force changes that don't have consensus. On the other hand, I would vehemently recommend that Kwami to please double down on observing WP:Civility, as his talk page edits sometimes leave a bit to be desired on that count. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 22:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely need to work on my civility!! I have a hard time being civil toward ppl who are acting as trolls, which of course is counter-productive.

But there's another issue: "revert yourself or I'll file a 3RR complaint". I revert myself, they file the complaint anyway. Shouldn't the complaint be dismissed as being filed in bad faith? — kwami (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I see that you've started editing the article again, deleting things you don't like, despite the ongoing 3RR complaint. Does that mean you've abandoned this 3RR complaint? Or do you think that if you file for 3RR, the other user has to stop editing the article but you can continue? — kwami (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't you see the closure? It's what you're replying to. Also, I take offense at your characterization of my removals as "things I don't like". I removed material without citations which appears to be unverifiable. And said so in my edit summaries. Please just chill with your projections of what I might or might not 'like'. You're gaslighting. Skyerise (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What closure? This filing is still pending, and you continue to edit the article you've been edit-warring over. Regardless of whether your edits are justified, that puts you further in violation of 3RR. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you claiming to have added the material I've removed? It's been in the article for years and presumably has nothing to do with you. I haven't touched any of your work, so you can let whoever added the material file a complaint, eh? Skyerise (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR: I'm hip to your game and am not going to allow you to gaslight me into thinking I can't edit the article. What I can't do is revert you for a bit. The rest of the article is certainly fair game. You don't own it. Skyerise (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You've been engaged in an edit-war over this article. You filed a 3RR report. Yet you continue to edit the article. It doesn't matter who you're reverting. You're effectively saying you can make whatever edits you like, but I can't revert you because that would be in violation of 3RR. 3RR isn't a blank check to allow the accuser to do whatever they like.

So, are you going to abide by 3RR and self-revert your recent edits, or are you abandoning this 3RR complaint and agree that we can both edit the article, including me reverting you per BOLD? — kwami (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not reverting you. No reason you should get to revert me. I'm working collaboratively with User:Double sharp on the talk page. Perhaps you could learn from their example? Skyerise (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I've got no reason to take advice on "how it works" from you. Give it a break. I'm sure some other editor will let me know if my continued non-revert edits are disallowed. Until then, please refrain from pretending to give me advice. Skyerise (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't wish to file a tit-for-tat 3RR complaint because you're gaming the system. That would be a waste of time for the ppl here. But you can't make edits with impunity. Any edit can be reverted. For the next few hours I'll play your game and ask someone else to revert any bad edits you make, and -- as you seem to think that's how 3RR works -- will continue to make unrelated edits to the article. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page protected five days. If reverting continue when protection expires, blocks are possible. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Skyerise (second report) (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [212]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [213]
2. [214]
3. [215]
4. [216]
5. [217]
6. [218] (and calls me a vandal for placing a {{fails verification}} tag.)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [220]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [221]

Comments:
Keeps removing column headings "(per Laycock)" and/or adding "Dee's" before "pronunciation"; keeps repeatedly adding Category:Constructed languages despite consensus against. Second editor against is User:Double sharp ([222]). As there are only three active editors, the consensus is against and this user knows it. There is also no supporting citation for the category as required in the article body. Skyerise (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As before, Skyerise is playing games, thinking that filing 3RR enables them to edit with impunity. (They've continued to add material to the article that needs to be reverted after filing 3RR.) Skyerise's recent reverts:

1. [223] (note that Skyerise made this rv after they filed this 3RR, and after they acknowledged that they were past 3RR themself)
2. [224]
3. [225]
4. [226]
5. [227]

   Comment (This last edit is not a revert, I added the citations requested in edit summary "not sourced" [228].Skyerise (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC))

   A revert is a revert. You argue below that content is irrelevant, so yes, this is a revert. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

   I believe you are wrong about that when you specifically request sources. However, I have reverted it so now clearly haven't broken 3RR. Maybe you better revert yours too, KK. Skyerise (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

   I'd be happy to agree to that, except that AFAICT you haven't reverted yourself. — kwami (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

   I can't because you modified the citations, so I can't revert it without reverting you again. Skyerise (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

   So, you have "reverted it so now clearly haven't broken 3RR", except that you "can't revert it without reverting you again." So you haven't reverted it.

   The main issue here is WP:BOLD: when you change an article, and are reverted, you need to justify your edits. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

   And I have. Every single one of my objections is detailed on the talk page - but you pretend not to understand them. THe main issue is that you are making stronger claims than your sources make. Skyerise (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

   BOLD doesn't say "post a comment on Talk and continue edit-warring", it says "reach consensus". Again, you're claiming that WP:TRUTH exempts you from 3RR. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

   No, you're the one trying to claim "Truth" by not allowing attribution of opinions in the article text and table headings. I just want to say - who says this - as a courtesy for the casual reader who is not looking at the footnotes. We do this in many, many articles and many, many table headings, and never have I seen another editor object to it. What makes you so special? Why are you "too good" to edit collaboratively and include textual attributions like other editors do? Other articles have both attribution and citations in headings. But you object? Please explain why you so strongly need to present informed opinion as fact? Do you really think its so important that you walk all over another editor's additions? Get some f*cking perspective! Skyerise (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A couple issues: language articless need to be categorized as such. I don't care much which category is used, as long as it makes sense. But deleting all lang categories is not appropriate.

The other is the insistence that we add "according to X" to statements where Skyerise disagrees with RS's, but not to where they agree. They tagged the table header "failed verification", then "quotation needed", then when I added a quotation, tagged the quotation as "failed verification" despite it being a direct copy of the source. Like Skyerise's claim that copying data from a source is copyvio (e.g. "revert copyvio; exempt from 3RR" in his previous edit war[229]), or that a linguist is not a RS on a linguistic article if he doesn't interview angels (!), Skyerise appears to be using 3RR as a bludgeon to protect the WP:TRUTH from inconvenient RS's.

And despite Skyerise's claim, this isn't a problem with the other editor, Double Sharp. They changed the info box, and I agreed. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Double sharp agrees on the talk page than Enochian doesn't fit the definition of a constructed language. That only 'Divine language seemed to fit. It seems Adamic language is in 'Religious language' and not 'constructed language'. But I guess you missed that. Skyerise (talk)

I saw that. You two were talking about the info box, and I agreed with you. You took it on yourself to remove all language cats from the article. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that all categories have to be discussed in the article and cited, right? You didn't add any support any of the multiple times you added the category. What do the RS's say? Skyerise (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, you need to read WP:BOLD. You're the one with the reverted edit; you're therefore the one that needs to get consensus for it. And no, cats don't need to be cited: there's no place to cite them. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course categories have to be cited: see WP:CATV. You cite them by actually discussion why the article is in the category with citation for who says it is, just like anything else in the article. Skyerise (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to read that. They don't need to be cited, they need to be verifiable. If you want, you can use {{Uncited category}}, but decategorizing an article is inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Verifiable the same way anything else is, with a citation. It tells you what is required. Better read it more closely. Skyerise (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't cite cats. There is no mechanism for that on WP -- if I'm wrong, please show me how to do it, because I haven't seen it once in thousands of articles.

But I have provided a RS on Talk for Enochian being a conlang. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It has to be in the article, like any other citation. You add it by saying - according to so-and-so, this is a 'whatever language' with a cite after it. Tell me you're not so unschooled in WP policy, yet you're trying to school me? Geez. Skyerise (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's very common that our category titles do not appear in the article. They don't have to: they only need to be verifiable. And no, I'm not going to add anything to the article, unlike you continue to do, because we're in the middle of 3RR. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement to stop editing the article when filing 3RR. That's something you apparently believe, but it simply isn't true. Also, new additions are NOT REVERTS under the definitions on this page. I am perfectly free to continue adding content. All this just because you don't want "(per Laycock)" added to the table - for which you have given no valid reasons for omitting. Skyerise (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Above violates WP:ASPERSIONS. Skyerise (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Skyerise took this to ANI, and it was laughed off.[230] — kwami (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, content issues are irrelevant here. You have 5 separate reverts, with edits in-between by myself or other editors, in the past 24 hours. I stopped at 3. To claim restoring something removed with the comment "not sourced" which adding sources is a revert is disingenuous. Skyerise (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, one of the five you counted against me wasn't a revert. And how do you file a 3RR report and then continue to edit-war, after acknowledging that you're past 3RR yourself? — kwami (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Note User:Kwamikagami has removed one of my comments from this filing. I have returned it clearly marked as a comment. Skyerise (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As you should have. You make it sound inappropriate for me to remove your edits to my comments. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, this is the comments section. We are both allowed to comment. You are not allowed to remove my comment from this section. Note to admins: this guy is gaming the system, repeatly, and I think you can see that clearly. He also seems to be a bit of a bully. Please advise him to stop, or I will also take this behavior problem to ANI. Skyerise (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So I get to insert my comments into your argument? Because if you're exempt from 3RR if you claim that my edits are copy-vio, then I'm except when your edits are vandalism. Though claiming that would attempting to game the system -- it wasn't vandalism so much as just a bad-faith edit, and reverting bad-faith edits isn't exempt from 3RR any more than spurious claims of copyvio make you exempt. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you don't. Comment go in the comments section. You don't get to edit above the underlined Comments line. Skyerise (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then here's my comment that you removed from where you say I "called you a vandal":

Comment No, I said it was vandalism to tag a verbatim quote as "fails verification." — kwami (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But as I stated above, that was overly strong: it was a bad-faith edit, not what would qualify as vandalism under WP policy. I don't think that reverting tag-bombing is exempt from 3RR. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What failed verification is your strong claim in the heading, that the column contains Dee's pronunciation, rather than what it actually is, a reconstruction, which the quotation clearly supports, but it doesn't support your heading. I;ve spelled my objections out clearly on the talk page, but you pretend not to get the issue? Geez, that trick isn't going to work for you much longer, is it? Skyerise (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

What you tagged as failing verification was the quotation that you had requested.

Your factual argument is basically that what the words "sounded like" is not how they were "pronounced". I don't understand the difference, but as I said before, I don't care if you change that wording. But claiming it fails verification is disingenuous. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I tagged the heading. If I'd meant to tag the quote, I'd have tagged the quotation inside the citation, not in the heading. Try to keep up, dude. There's a talk page discussion describing what exactly I objected to. Skyerise (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Then you should've tagged the heading and not the quotation. Okay, a simple error, but I assumed what you did was what you meant to do. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I did tag the head. Directly after the citation that fail to verify what it was supposedly supporting, even with the quote. That's exactly where the tag is supposed to go, because it's the citation that failed to verify what it was pretending to support. I know the details of the rules, and you are bluffing your way through it. This is called a reality check. See you in 72. Bye. Skyerise (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Kwamikagami, you did make an error when you deleted some of Skyerise's text in this edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't think it was acceptable to add our comments inside someone else's text. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Of ffs... I'm going to take a nap. Kwamikagami, I didn't see that Skyerise inserted comments into your comments (in about 6 edits...). In that case, you should have moved Skyerise's comment (instead of deleting it), but Slyerise was wrong to edit in the middle of your comment. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by all means keep digging yourself in. Perhaps you'd like to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man while you're at it? Skyerise (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am not involved in this, but already based on the number of uncivil comments made by Skyerise in this thread alone (in addition to the edit warring, and forum shopping), I think admin action towards Skyerise is warranted. This kind of behaviour is definitely not suitable. Jeppiz (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, really. I guess you didn't look into KK's intentional provocations on my talk page: [231] and [232], and continual misrepresenting of the reasons for my edits, which are generally clearly explained both in edit summaries and the talk page. He is continually accusing me of bad faith when I am make very ordinary edits to improve the article, the kind of edits that are only rejected due to page ownership issues. IF you haven't stepped through the edits one by one - then you should. Skyerise (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • You seem to be under the impression that it's ok for you to violate policies if someone else does. That is completely wrong. The problem I identify is your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Even if KK had been very disruptive (and I see little evidence of that), it would not excuse disruptive behavior from you. So not only is your argument above moot, it reinforces the impression that there is a problem with your behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      • What? He's been reverting my work, trivial additions of four words in a table heading, both useful to the reader and not worth fighting over, six or more times a day for several days and I'm the problem? You opinion is noted - as wrong. Skyerise (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This bit of canvassing is unacceptable and should be grounds for admin action. Woodroar (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page protected five days. The same issue was also reported above. Protection should take care of both complaints. Consider using WP:Dispute resolution. See also a complaint at ANI which has been closed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:36.225.249.252 reported by User:Wizzito (Result: Rangeblocked)

Page: Elsa (Frozen) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 36.225.249.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "/* International versions */"
2. 02:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "/* International versions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user, using the IPs 36.225.249.252 and 36.227.21.166, has removed content on Elsa (Frozen) and Anna (Frozen) without giving an edit summary or explanation, and re-removing when their edits are reverted. I don't know what to do, as they are not communicating and just reverting. wizzito | say hello! 09:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Special:Contributions/36.225.248.0/22 was rangeblocked by Ferret. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Belevalo reported by User:Hassanjalloh1 (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_diaspora&oldid=1066971283
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_diaspora&oldid=1066972777
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_diaspora&oldid=1066975352
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_diaspora&oldid=1066965501

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

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

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

User:180.252.173.255 and User:180.252.163.183 reported by User:The Bangsawan (Result: Declined - already at WP:RFPP where it belongs)

Page: Kota Kinabalu International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
180.252.173.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
180.252.163.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[235]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [236]
2. [237]

Comments:
A continuous blatant removal of contents by a similarly sourced ip address location (both based in Jakarta, Indonesia). A similar addressed ip location was also recorded doing the same action in the article a week prior (which resulted the Kota Kinabalu International Airport article to be protected for a week). The action returns after the removal of the page protection.

The user was warned in the similarly addressed ip location a week before via this link User talk:110.137.195.235--د بڠساون (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Declined. Already at WP:RFPP where it belongs. Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the page is already protected, hence it is quite redundant to block the user (as the action by these unregistered users are only directed to only a single page). Thank you for the feedback and assistance. --د بڠساون (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Young Brujah reported by User:2A05:4F46:70:DC00:5CFA:E6:AB8F:8214 (Result: no violations )

• User being reported: Young Brujah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Domenico Losurdo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Young Brujah violated 3RR and is constantly vandalizing the lede. 2A05:4F46:70:DC00:5CFA:E6:AB8F:8214 (talk) 11:58, 21 January 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. I will also point out that you didn't provide any links. These are the user's first edits in five months; while he's walked up to this line a lot, enough to warrant an AN/I thread about this IMO, he did not break any rules today. Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Eddie-ginnley reported by User:Wretchskull (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Franz Liszt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eddie-ginnley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: their talk page

Comments: The user has been warned for edit warring, and 3 Editors (including myself) begged the user to take it to the talk page, but they have violated 3RR. Wretchskull (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Graham Beards reported by User:Invasive Spices (Result: Resolved)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viroid&diff=1066849337&oldid=1066832010

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [238]
2. [239]
3. [240]
4. [241]

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: [242]

Comments:
Additionally Graham Beards how did you manage to ping me with the first edit? Fascinating. Can you explain? Invasive Spices (talk) 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have commented on the article's Talk Page [243]. Graham Beards (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

All of which is non responsive. Why did you make the first - absolutely catastrophic, almost full year - reversion? Why did you - non responsively - proceed to make the same catastrophic reversion piecemeal after the first time I reverted? Why are you suddenly, as of today, so obsessed with reverting me with the phrase "consistent citation style"? Why do you think you are justified in 4rr to remove almost a year of edits by 19 (thereabouts) editors? Invasive Spices (talk) 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct in part. Perhaps I should have made my intentions more clear. I plan to do some work on the article and as was the case with my work on Menstrual cycle, which I brought back to FA status (and which was on the Main Page last year) this required a lot of culling of many poor edits that had accumulated over several years. I had similar complaints with my efforts there. Quantity is not quality, and poor edits can, unfortunately, remain for a long time. I would happily remove ten years worth, or more, of edits to improve Wikipedia. My question is why did you not engage with me on the Talk Page. Graham Beards (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

An entirely new story. Is this the story you're sitting on now? Alright then, I won't be distracted so let's go one problem at a time, why are you joining in with this "consistent citation formatting" gang? Invasive Spices (talk) 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Consistent citation style is a FA criterion. The standard to which we all should aspire. Graham Beards (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

We can see from your direct quotations of Boghog this entire issue is a Boghog problem. The real issue here is that another user has a long history of edit warring with a large number of editors on a large number of pages using unauthorised bots. Besides edit warring to force his personal preferences onto pages the bots in question do not work. (To be brief I will not review all the possible malfunctions that may occur - all are occurring in this case. I have told Boghog about this and he has alternately dismissed them as known and unimportant, and promised to correct his code. He has never done so and instead this gang is now retaliating. This has brought us here.) Two other users before Graham Beards have taken up the cause - edit warring to force |vauthors= onto random pages on Boghog's behalf. Edit warring over preferred styles has been repeatedly brought before ARBCOM and repeatedly resulted in bans. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Graham Beards. It is not unusual for experienced editors to remove large portions of old, uncited, or poorly cited text. If you object to this @Invasive Spices: you should really engage GB on the article's talk page, Please withdraw the ANI and continue the discussion there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Certainly I will not be doing that. Fowler&fowler can you name any examples of editors doing this - without using Talk first - and instead of BRD just edit warring to 4rr - and other editors approved of this? And can you name any part of the text of Viroid that was old, or uncited or poorly cited? Graham Beards reverted all the newest edits, and 4rr to remove my AR derived material. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Move on please. I have given my explanation and my apology. The article in question BTW is Viroid not Virion. There was no 4rr and I have no idea what "AR derived material" is . Graham Beards (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: If I understand you properly, you are saying that you did not violate 3RR. Four reverts are listed above. Which in your view does not constitute a revert?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards is continuing to edit war while we are talking here ([244][245][246]). That is an egregious amount of bad faith conduct. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: That's nonsense. Graham Beards has not edited at Wikipedia since my request above.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Technically this seems to be four reverts by Graham Beards. Graham, even if you think a poor reference style has been used, blanket reverts will often cause an uproar. Your commment, "Perhaps I should have made my intentions more clear" is the understatement of the day. A sincere desire to create featured content does not suspend the edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Non technically it was four when I opened this and is now seven. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop making misleading or false statements. GB did not make seven reverts. Bear in mind that consecutive edits count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I am being neither misleading nor false. That is simply some kind of score keeping method I have not heard of before. Why would I be aware of that? In any case he continued something after this ANEW began and while commenting here. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Why would I be aware of that? Because it says so in WP:3RR ("An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert."), and I expect users accusing other editors of violating the policy to read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23: Yes but I don't understand how that is different from what I said. Graham Beards continued to edit war at the page since I opened this ANEW. He continued to do so while replying here. He continued to do so after instructing me to "move on", that he had not 4rr and did not know what I was complaining about. (Then he has not since you replied. Yes.) Invasive Spices (talk) 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Graham Beards has self-reverted his fourth revert and will seek consensus on the article Talk page for his edits. I consider this matter resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I do not. Graham Beards has again resumed while this discussion was ongoing. That is further aggressive bad faith conduct. @Bbb23: above you drew attention to the fact that GB had not edited in the prior few hours at that time as if that somehow indicted me and exonerated him. Would you like to share your thoughts on this? This is the opportunity to end a large amount of damaging edit warring by GB and his compatriots. Such strenuous efforts to waste it would be shocking. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2600:1700:C760:1C50:C953:8527:8317:3993 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Allen West (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1700:C760:1C50:C953:8527:8317:3993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */1.) Personal page is not the place to debate treatment success/efficacy

2.) Talking about a treatment not having a track record of success creates the precedent of editing all covid vaccine references and stating that they don't stop you from catching covid 3.) I'm sorry all of your biases against different treatments blind you so much"

1. 18:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Wtf is meat/sock puppet? Also it's sourcing doesn't matter if the info is irrelevant. This is a personal page, not somewhere to argue about the success of covid treatments. If this is OK then any reference of the vaccine should be edited, "though this does not prevent you from getting covid". I'll point you back to Wikipedias page on relevancy."
2. 21:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */I've added to the talk page but there is no reason for this irrelevant information to be up at all. Not only is it irrelevant to the article itself, it's also not cited as there are absolutely no sources used that say his treatments are "unapproved" (even though they are by some). ✌"
3. 21:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */It's irrelevant because it's about what treatments he used, not if they're approved or not. Secondly the citation article used includes no mention of them being unapproved or by who. I can do this all day"
4. 16:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Removed irrelevant information. Again"
5. 06:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */I never once "denied covid", if you actually read what i said you'd know that. All I'm saying is that the info you're peddling is untrue as you never state who this treatment is unapproved by, irrelevant because it adds absolutely nothing to the article itself and disruptive because you continually add it back despite its blatant irrelevance"
6. 03:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Undid revision by Zaathras. Information added by Zaathras is A.) Untrue as it doesn't state who these treatments are or are not approved by, B.) Irrelevant as they do not pertain to the page and C.) Disruptive, as this (untrue and irrelevant) information has been added multiple times despite it not belonging here."
7. 02:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */You can't just change the page because you disagree with it Ruslik. Secondly, the phrase "neither of which are approved treatments for the disease" is not relevant to the article to begin with and it shouldn't be included"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Diff of warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Diff

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours also page semi-protected EvergreenFir (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: Caution)

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

Previous version reverted to: [247]

4 mass reverts in 24 hours:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [248] 16:24, 22 January 2022
2. [249] 17:05, 22 January 2022
3. [250] 17:56, 22 January 2022
4. [251] 08:40, 23 January 2022 (Blanking this edit [252] made by me 30 minutes earlier, previous version reverted to: [253])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [254]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] And on User talk:TrangaBellam: [260] [261]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [262]

Comments:
User:TrangaBellam started by wholesale blanking 6 edits of mine [263], restoring his spelling mistakes, grammar issues, deleting newly added refs, and then starting to add his own content. I tried to restore 2 times, while discussing on Talk Page, but he repeatedly reverted my content [264][265]. Then I added new content (a whole paragraph), but he again reverted me [266]. User does not seem to want to understand what collaborative editing is about. User also has a stunning habit of mass-deleting content and blanking whole articles he doesn't like, in total disreguard of proper procedures, and in total contempt of the work of other editors [267] [268] [269].पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

restoring his spelling mistakes, grammar issues, deleting newly added refs, and then starting to add his own content - Absolute nonsense and he knows that; see the tacit admission at my talk-page. I had reverted him but then manually self-restored his edits including correction of spelling mistakes, grammar issues.

It was clearly pointed out to him that I had restored every bit of his edit except what he was unable to justify at the talk-page discussion like a misleading paragraph on Nezak Trakhans or citing a 960-page book without page number or replacing sfn with bare refs. His replies (both at my t/p and the article t/p) make it clear that he is not keen in bettering our article but rather being bureaucratic.

I am also inclined to view of this as a revenge filing - the OP has opposed a series of merge requests, moved by me, on spurious grounds and none of the discussions seem to be going their way (Discussion 1, Discussion 2 and Discussion 3). TrangaBellam (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

My reply to OP. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User also has a stunning habit of mass-deleting content and blanking whole articles he doesn't like, in total disreguard of proper procedures, and in total contempt of the work of other editors - The OP does not get to decide what is proper procedure; WP:MERGE says,

No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted).

I think Kautilya3 might want to state something, having partaken in most of these merge-discussions and in light of an old discussion where he had commented on the OP's habit of railroading discourse.

FWIW, the mention of this irrelevant point only adds evidence to my claims of this being a revenge-filing against merge discussions not going their way. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties are cautioned against reverting again at Nezak Huns without first getting consensus on the talk page. If they are unable to do so, the next step might be full protection for the article. The above discussion looks like a dispute as to who makes the better quality of edits or who has the better motives ("..mass-deleting content and blanking whole articles he doesn't like..") If you guys care so much about the fine points you should spell them out individually and use WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Hunterb212 reported by User:NEDOCHAN (Result: No action)

Page: Ciryl Gane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hunterb212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [270]
2. [271]
3. [272]
4. [273]
5. [274]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [275]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [276] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [277] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [278]

– — Preceding unsigned comment added by NEDOCHAN (talk • contribs) 22:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments:
So I'm being accused of edit warring but the user reporting is also engaging in edit warring and also reverting my edit which uses a reliable source with accurate information. He is doing this because of his own personal preference of Sherdog for all MMA stat purposes which has been proven time and again to not be the total authority on MMA. Plenty of cases of inaccurate information on there have been seen in the past yet this user deems that Sherdog should be used over all other sources such as ESPN or the UFC website which are clearly accurate and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterb212 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You're being accused of violating 3rr. Could anyone explain if I have made a technical mistake with this report that's led to no-one having addressed it?NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: I'm not sure why the report sat unaddressed. Backlog? Since the edit warring has ceased, I'm inclined to take no action. Hunterb212 is reminded to use the talk page, rather than to edit war, as they may not be so fortunate in avoiding a block if they were to be reported again. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: so my question is what is the reasoning for not using ESPN as a source for height or weight when it is accurate and can be cross referenced with the official UFC website and other sites confirming that? ESPN and the UFC site list him at 6'4" while only Sherdog lists him at 6'5". Just because they have a contract with the UFC to show their PPV's on a streaming service does that mean they aren't considered an independent source or somehow invalid? I don't understand the logic to use a less accurate source when multiple more reliable ones are available. Hunterb212 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, this report was due to a breach of 3rr. It relates to edit warring.NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hunterb212: The ESPN/Sherdog sourcing dispute is a content dispute and outside the scope of this noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Wudini00 reported by User:Cryptic (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Caleb Wu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wudini00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [279]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [280]
2. [281]
3. [282]
4. [283]
5. [284]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [285]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [286]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [287]

Comments:
New user removing {{blpprod}} after adding only unreliable sources and sources that don't mention the article subject. I've probably got a block coming too; I misremembered the BLP clause on WP:NOT3RR as applying to all of WP:BLP, not just contentious material, and had thought my fourth reversion was only my third besides. —Cryptic 05:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Stix1776 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [288]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [289]
2. [290]
3. [291]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [292], [293], [294], [295], [296]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [297]

Comments:

Obviously circumcision is a controversial topic, so I'm sorry to rope you guys in. The newish user named KlayCax made some problematic edits which I reverted. Here [298] and here [299] were pretty WP:RECKLESS, and this [300] was specifically counter to the listed source.

My reverts were reverted because MrOllie says "I see no good reason to blanket revert". WP:BRD isn't required he says. I mention WP:UNRESPONSIVE, WP:CAUTIOUS, and WP:RECKLESS. Also I did ask KlayCax before to please edit more carefully [[301]].

So I actually made a list of 10+ problems with the edits here [302]. There's 3 obvious failures of WP:MEDRS, one obvious failure of WP:RS/AC, many cases of removing high quality sources, adding text not in the source, removing clearly sources material, and changing the text from newer sourced to older sources against WP:AGEMATTERS.

Like I showed in the diffs, I requested 4 times for a dispute resolution if they weren't using WP:BRD. MrOllie is still holding on to bad edits despite clearly being shown the issue. What do you suggest I do? I'm not a very experienced editor and I'm at a loss for what to do. Maybe you don't need to impose a block, but can you suggest another alternative that isn't reverting. Is arbitration a solution? Because these editors aren't giving any.

Am I allowed to mention that MrOllie has had other problems with edit warring [303], [304]

User Alexbrn is in the pro circumcision POV camp, although he's not part of the edit warring.

Comment - It appears there is robust discussion on the talk page, so at this point WP:BRD should be the path that is taken. Try breaking your edit into smaller pieces, and gaining consensus for individual changes or reverts, rather than as one large revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually very pro WP:BRD. The question is if the originals should be reverted, or my reverts should be reverted? I suspect that this will a point of contention with other editors. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, someone made an edit, you reverted, a second editor reverted you, and a third editor expressed support for reverting you. At this point, it appears that consensus is against you. Again, at this point I suggest you seek consensus for individual small reverts rather than a blanket revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. Stix1776 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• There is certainly no violation by MrOllie, who made three reverts over nine days. Please compare WP:3RR. Stix1776, I hope ScottishFinnishRadish's advice above is useful to you. FYI, yes, you're allowed to mention your opponent's history if it's relevant. But going back nine years to do so is not to the purpose, and does not make a good impression. Bishonen | tålk 05:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC).

User:93.22.38.147 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Blocked)

Page: Al-Tirmidhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.22.38.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [305] 21:28, 24 January 2022‎ (Added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
2. [306] 21:25, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
3. [307] 16:30, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
4. [308] 19:27, 24 January 202 (Added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
5. [309] 16:30, 24 January 2022‎ (Added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
6. [310] 15:27, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
7. [311] 15:25, 24 January 2022‎ (added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
8. [312] 15:13, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
9. [313] 15:11, 24 January 2022 (added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
10. [314] 13:59, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
11. [315] 13:58, 24 January 2022‎ (added "Arab" + non-WP:RS source)
12. [316] 12:24, 24 January 2022] (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
13. [317] 11:51, 24 January 2022 (Removed Cambridge University Press + "Persian")
14. [318] 10:41, 24 January 2022‎ (Removed "Persian")

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 14:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Said IP keeps removing the long-standing and well-sourced mention of the word "Persian" backed up a renowned Cambridge University Press source (The Cambridge History of Iran). I even added a direct quote from page 471 for readability, yet the IP continues to falsely accuse the multiple editors who revert him of "it is not written he was Persian on page 471",[319]-[320] as well as "Persian propaganda"[321] and "We can not check the source".[322] While trying to remove both the source and the word, said IP persistently tries to insert the word "Arab" accompanied by a non-WP:RS source. Said IP has been reverted and warned on several occasions, unfortunately to no avail. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours by User:Blablubbs. Meanwhile, another admin has semiprotected the article for two weeks. This appears to be nationalist edit warring (Arab vs. Persian). EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Dora the Axe-plorer reported by User:2800:484:7391:3B20:C81:A136:2268:C25F (Result: No violation)

Page: Armero tragedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [323]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067776643&oldid=1067776193
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067774860&oldid=1067771187
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067728257&oldid=1067699616
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armero_tragedy&diff=1067776193&oldid=1067774860

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [324]

Comments: I have never made a complaint here XD, the point is that this user, I don't know what her problem is, I put the respective sources to my edits, but Dora doesn't want to understand. I would prefer a thousand times that an administrator corrects me. I'm asking for help here, I don't know if this already covers the 3 edits and edit war rule but it's frustrating that I put the respective sources of my edits and someone else reverses what I work so hard to research and edit.--2800:484:7391:3B20:C81:A136:2268:C25F (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote in the final revert edit summary to have the sources properly cited (aka filled up using the correct citations template with the source title, date, author, publisher, etc). Clearly you just didn't follow this and simply added the URL to the source. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 21:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It's far better to have a source, even if it's bare url, than to have none? Bare URLs can be tagged. Or can be easily filled in with a tool like ReFill or Reflinks? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked at your other edits and you still gave the bare URLs but since they weren't reverted like I'd expected, I shall restore the article to your version with the proper citations. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Just looked at the history; there is no 3RR. The first revert is within my rights under WP:UNSOURCED. I do not bare any responsibility to find sources to verify additions that have zero verifiability, that lies on the back of IP. All three reverts are in the interest of maintaining the FA-class status of the article WP:3RRNO. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary for your first edit was "New additions are completely unreferenced." Good call. But the IP then responded by adding the requested sources, albeit non-English language and bare urls? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing and references are very good in the article. It should be kept that way throughout for an FA-class work. I removed them because they were not up to standard with the rest of the article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I've not checked the sources for WP:V, so that's needed anyway. And I don't know if the material supported is notable or not. I guess the IP just felt slightly bitten, which is why they came here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – Nobody broke 3RR. But if reverting continues, blocks are possible. The filing IP is editing from the range Special:Contributions/2800:484:7391:3B20::/64. There is nothing from either party on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Aramean81 reported by User:Shmayo (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Tur Abdin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aramean81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Article Tur Abdin:

1. [325]
2. [326]
3. [327]

Article Defence of Iwardo:

1. [328]
2. [329]
3. [330]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [331]

Comments:
New user. 3RR violation. Shmayo (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Temporary tempuras reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Albert Agarunov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Temporary tempuras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [332]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [333]
2. [334]
3. [335]
4. [336]
5. [337]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [338]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user received multiple warnings on his talk page, [339] which he deleted: [340]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [341]

Comments:
New user making POV edits and edit warring. 3RR violation. Grandmaster 09:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I will use Translator. I already explained my reasons: "Biased government sources. False content of sources. Anasynchronistical content. Deleted citation needed sources." But editors Nicat49, Adakiko say I have no reason for removal. I clearly explained, but they did not answer. My hand was forced. Not POV, and if they have problems, the could say. But they did not. I sorry for editing, but my addition is valid, and experienced users bully me and accuse me of mistruths. Not problem here Translated with DeepL TranslatorTemporary tempuras (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Precious delicate sweet little baby reported by User:BeŻet (Result: No violation)

Page: Socialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [342]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [343]
2. [344]
3. [345]

etc.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Socialism#RfC on sentence discussing the definition of socialism

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [346]

Comments:
This is not a WP:3RR violation, however user Precious delicate sweet little baby (further referred to as Precious) has been edit warring their way to force their way. I have created an RfC to try to establish a consensus, however Precious has ignored the RfC and is still pushing a variation of their version, despite their changes being reverted by several users, some of them insisting they discuss them first and seek approval (e.g. [347] [348] [349]). So far nobody has agreed with Precious regarding those changes, therefore there is clearly no consensus. Special:PageHistory/Socialism shows the edit warring across several days. I don't want to get involved in another back and forth, so I marked the contentious sentence in the article, and reporting the situation here. BeŻet (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

1) False claim that I have "ignored the RfC." I've been amply commenting in the RfC, when any argument came up. More than Bezet has. As evidence, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialism#RfC_on_sentence_discussing_the_definition_of_socialism

2) "So far nobody has agreed with Precious regarding those changes, therefore there is clearly no consensus." Obviously there's no consensus, by evidence of the fact that you revert my edits. But there's no policy requirement that there be consensus before making an edit. (Look up BRD). And, there's only 3 of us that have any interest in the RfC. You, and then one other person that really hasn't offered much comment.

3) "despite their changes being reverted by several users" Nope. Not that that's relevant to anything.

4) My last revert was to revert out a edit comment that I was "rude". Bezet is out line, attempting to denigrate me in the edit comments.

5) Bezet appears to be trying to use an RfC for some purpose it wasn't designed for, apparently to try to stop me from editing. The RfC process was not designed as a way to prevent another editors from editing. An RfC is supposed to be simply a way to get comments in order to try to come up with a consensus. Obviously, I've been trying to do that through my arguments in the RfC.

6) Bezet has been reverting as much as I have. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&action=history If I'm "edit warring," then he is to.

Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

By ignoring the RfC I meant that you are ignoring the attempt at reaching a consensus and forcing your version instead. BeŻet (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's false. My attempts to reach a consensus are there in writing in the RfC. And, me doing an edit is not "forcing" any changes. You're free to revert. On the other hand, you're literally trying to "force" me to refrain from editing, with this action seeking to employ some kind of police power. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BRD works. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, now you discuss. You don't continue to make the same edit while there is discussion on-going. That's not forcing you to refrain from editing, it's saying "don't make that specific edit, which does not have consensus at this time, until there is a consensus one way or another from the on-going RFC on the topic." It's a little bit different than saying you can't edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a note. The BRD article "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community," it says at the top. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR This page documents an English Wikipedia policy... Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been discussing in the RfC. And that Edit War policy doesn't say anything about not being allowed to make edits while an RfC is going on. Precious delicate sweet little baby (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're reverting back to the version you boldly edited, then per An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts, you're edit warring. I'm a completely uninvolved third party here, with no skin in the game, and I'm just advising you that trying to make an edit that there is currently an RFC to deal with isn't a great idea. Take that as you will. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that "My last revert was to revert out a edit comment that I was 'rude'": there was no personal attack or anything remotely similar present in the text of the edit, so there is no exemption from 3RR that may be claimed here (although, as noted, there isn't a brightline 3RR violation by Pdslb, either). —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious, you mentioned that BRD is not policy. That is true. However, CONSENSUS is. A subsection of CONSENSUS discusses what to do if a consensus related to article content can't be reached, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. " Basically a BOLD edit is assumed to have consensus until someone challenges via a revert and/or on the talk page. At that point policy says we don't have consensus thus policy dictates the change should we reverted. While BRD isn't policy, the R in the middle comes straight from the CONSENSUS policy. Your proposed change might be "right", BeŻet's support of the stable text may be "wrong" but until a new consensus is shown (and the RfC is a good tool to establish the consensus) the long standing text should be left in place. Springee (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

BRD isn't policy, but it describes a situation that is within policy and what policy says....that the third step after "BR" must be for someone who wants to pursue the initial edit, I.E. that policy generally discourages or forbids "BRR". North8000 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – Pdslb did not break 3RR, but the advice of User:ScottishFinnishRadish appears correct: "I'm just advising you that trying to make an edit that there is currently an RFC to deal with isn't a great idea". EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:75.172.13.103 reported by User:CanucksoffCoast (Result: Semi)

Page: Kumiho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.172.13.103 (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. [350]
2. [351]
3. [352]
4. [353]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [354] [355]

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

Comments:

The following user has constantly been replacing the originally sourced statement in the article with the user's own claim without providing any valid sources. In both of the article's edit summary and user's talk page, I have asked the user multiple times to not alter the sourced content and provide the valid sources to support the information he/she is replacing, but the user has been keep replacing the original contents with neither discussion nor response.

• Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Basedafghan reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Alauddin Khalji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Basedafghan (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. [357]
2. [358]
3. [359]
4. [360]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [361]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alauddin_Khalji&diff=1068283448&oldid=1054594722

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Basedafghan&diff=1068283594&oldid=1066730574

Comments:

Persistent and disruptive editing of page over sporadic periods of time, often erases content as a whole, basically vandalism.Noorullah21 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

He is still doing it after on the page. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Basedafghan promotes the Pashtun origin of Alauddin Khalji instead of a Turkish origin. His user page (translated) says: "Khalajians and Ghorians are all Pashtuns and the founder of Ghorians was the Syrian emir of the Pashtun people". While insisting on the 'Pashtun' label for Alauddin Khalji this editor also removed a lot of references. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:KingdomScribe101 reported by User:Killarnee (Result:Blocked)

Page: Apollo Quiboloy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: KingdomScribe101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1068371134 by Killarnee (talk)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Kingdom of Jesus Christ (church)."
2. 02:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Doesn't want to discuss, just edits as they pleased. Seems like COI. I'm just on the go, but someone should take a closer look at the user please. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Killarnee Adding Potentially Libelous Content | Reported by User:KingdomScribe101 (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked )

Adding libelous content on the following pages. Showing agenda on destroying reputation of such personalities/entities. This is strictly against Wikipedia guidelines which clearly state that adding information on pages that defame any person or entity is not allowed. It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.

Page: Apollo Quiboloy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page: Kingdom of Jesus Christ (church) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: User:Killarnee

• KingdomScribe101 indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Kishore Editing reported by User:Llammakey (Result: )

Page: Dakar-class submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1068253805 by Llammakey (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC) to 01:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1068070150 by Llammakey (talk) Only Korea's KSS-III submarine and Israel's Dolphin submarines have been mentioned, but only a few times. However, that does not mean that they can be removed from the article entirely. It would be useful for the viewer to associate the Dakar-Class submarines with other submarines that either possess similar capabilities, roles or duties, or the same era. Just having to is not nice."
   2. 01:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1068069985 by Llammakey (talk) In the Wikipedia article of "Naming Conventions (Ships)" - the "Naming articles about ship classes" sub-sections specifies that for a ship, the naming convention should be like this "<class name>-class <ship type>". Moreover, the naming convention also stipulates that hyphenation can be used when the article has adjectival references."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Dakar-class submarine."
2. 12:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Invincible-class submarine."
3. 16:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on KSS-III submarine."
4. 18:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Editing ship articles */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Kishore Editing "/* Editing ship articles */ new section"

Comments:

I have given links to the user trying to get them to read the MOS and I have tried to improve their articles to make them a better editor. They just ignore my suggestions and revert me. Llammakey (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Apology request:

• Hi, I'm Kishore - the user that the complainant reported. With regard to the User:Llammakey, I had no previous knowledge of the "three-revert rule", nor did I find that my edits had errors that may have possibly conflicted with Wikipedia's regulations. Please, I will not commit any such mistakes/flaws in the future; I shall re-read the specific link that User:Llammakey has sent to me previously. Please, do not block me. I have erred multiple times in the past, but I shall not resort to them again; I shall edit abiding by Wikipedia's regulations with renewed sincerity. Kishore Editing - 17:02 (IST) 28 January, 2022

User:Andrewgprout reported by User:Username006 (Result: No violation)

Page: Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 6895 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrewgprout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [362]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [363]
2. [364]
3. [365]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [366]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [367]

Comments:

• This user continuously asks me to follow WP:BRD for my "disruptive" edits lately, yet when I ask on the talk page, he doesn't reply. It seems that he himself is being disruptive by ignoring consensus per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Username006 (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• No violation The reverts are on three separate articles. That is not edit-warring, and this is a vexatious complaint. I'm going over to ANI. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:92.218.124.109 reported by User:Herr Matheus (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Automotive industry in Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.218.124.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [368]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [369]
2. [370]
3. [371]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [372]

Comments:
User used xenophobic words to offend others; unavle to reach User IP's Talk Page M. (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours for disruption and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:DMySon reported by User:174.246.82.172 (Result: Semi-protected for 3 days)

Page: Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DMySon (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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aditya_Birla_Fashion_and_Retail&diff=1066876769&oldid=1066870386 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aditya_Birla_Fashion_and_Retail&diff=1067833335&oldid=1067664542 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aditya_Birla_Fashion_and_Retail&diff=1067833335&oldid=1067664542

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] No use talking to a company that claims "WP:ATTACK" when you are writing about their recent data breach that affected MILLIONS of users.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] Sadbunny3 DMySon Comments:

• Article semi-protected by another administrator for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:8080:4208:149C:7146:E3A7:9344:ED74 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: )

Page: A Skylit Drive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:8080:4208:149C:7146:E3A7:9344:ED74 (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 18:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC) to 18:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 18:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1068667764 by 2601:202:180:CAE0:E06D:233D:EED4:F17C (talk)"
   2. 18:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) "There is only 1 legal member of this band"
2. 18:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1068667164 by Ifnord (talk)"
3. 18:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1068665970 by Ifnord (talk)"
4. 18:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC) "Federal Lawsuit filing for Trademark Infringement. The name A Skylit Drive is federally protected and can only be used by one person who is not listed in post."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on A Skylit Drive."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Preventing an edit war - regarding band line up */ new section"

Comments:

User:82.132.213.165 reported by User:Pyrite Pro (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Code reuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.132.213.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [373]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [374]
2. [375]
3. [376]
4. [377]
5. [378]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [379], [380], [381]

Some of these warnings were deleted, as well as a user talk page reply from my side. [382]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion on user talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [383]

Comments:
User has a history of harassment, reverted edits and sourced content removal. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly do not. This reporting user has seemingly not understood how IP addresses get frequently reassigned. The situation here is simply that I removed nonsensical text from an article; this user has put that nonsense back, reverting four times in twenty minutes, and offering no cogent explanation for doing so. A sample of the text that they are trying to force into this article: "Code reuse may be achieved by different ways dependending on a complexity of a programming language chosen and range from a lower-level approaches..." Plainly, that is garbage. So why is this reporting editor trying to force it into the article? 82.132.213.165 (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@82.132.213.165: Nice try,WP:BKFIP, but NO. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

From the history of your edits and the style of edit summaries, I doubt whether your IP has been reassigned. And I have offered an explanation: non-constructive edit. I could also have chosen something like removing sourced material, or even vandalism, as your behaviour on this article and other articles have sometimes shown to be destructive. Combined with the fact that you deleted my messages instead of replying, this shows a lack of collaboration and WP:OWN behaviour. And I'm not even beginning about the WP:HOUND behaviour of which I suspect that this is only the tip of the iceberg. But for now, let's keep it at a 3RR violation. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pyrite Pro: It's Wikipedia:BKFIP who is constantly harassing my edits. I've previously reported him at WP:ANI/I:

• WP:ANI#Incidents#51.6.138.13_by_Alexander_Davronov
• WP:ANI#Hohaaa_by_Alexander_Davronov
• WP:ANI#User:51.6.138.90_reported_by_Alexander_Davronov
• WP:ANI#Vfnn by Alexander Davronov

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Withdrawn )

Page: Wingnut (politics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [384]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:51, 30 January 2022
2. 17:36, 30 January 2022
3. 20:27, 30 January 2022
4. 20:42, 30 January 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [385]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [386]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [387]

Comments:
Not my fight. Reporting on behalf of User:Nicholas0 and User:PackMecEng. Skyerise (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

As the editor in question has self-reverted, I withdraw this complaint. Skyerise (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:7BE4:C800:2D5A:EB52:EB0B:2EFB reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: Blocked 2 days)

Page: Stephen Pearcy (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1700:7BE4:C800:2D5A:EB52:EB0B:2EFB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2600:1700:7BE4:C800:F914:256B:308B:B166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2600:1700:7be4:c800:5c4d:1b64:bd93:d9ca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [388]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first, undone by David Gerard
2. 2nd, also reverted by DG
3. 3rd, accusing DG of "article sabotage", undone by Chip3004
4. 4th, undone by DG
5. 5th, undoing DG without explanation, rv'ed by Chip3004
6. 6th, another accusation of "article sabotage"
7. 7th, re-inserting the same content again, undone this time by XLinkBot
8. reverting the bot
9. inserting the same content again
10. and again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [389], [390], [391]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I know I should, but given the lack of engagement with User-talk warnings and the issues raised in edit summaries, I don't think it would do very much good. Sorry. XOR'easter (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Comments:
XOR'easter (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The IP keeps putting in low-quality and blog sources. A block would work, but it's an IP-hopping IPv6, presumably someone on a phone. Really the fix is for an editor to find better sources ... I'd pay this more attention myself, but as you'll see from my contribution history going quiet, I'm away for a bit with personal matters and attempting to write another book - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is still going on. The IPs aren't hopping around too much ... could someone try a block, or semi-protect the page? XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

And another cycle [393][394]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 days EvergreenFir (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Izzet sabrie reported by User:Bruce leverett (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Izzet sabrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [395]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [396]
2. [397]
3. [398]
4. [399]
5. [400]
6. [401]
7. [402]
8. [403]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [404]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [405]

Comments:

Bruce leverett (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved user comment. In addition to edit warring, the user engaged in personal attacks in edit summaries and made false accusations of WP:VANDALISM. Specifically (all three summaries are from the above-listed edits): "Vandalism communist by Seryo93 (talk) school classmate communist capital there is not largest city."[406], "Undid removed by Bruce leverett (talk) vandalism we don't removed Alma-Ata"[407], and "Deleted vandalism undid by Bruce leverett (talk) shut up Bruce communism capital there is not in the largest city"[408] Not only that, but in the various reverts, the user suggested both Leningrad and Alma-Ata as the largest city. Not only are both false, but they are mutually inconsistent! I'd suggest a WP:NOTHERE indef. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Effects many articles...need some sort of recognition from this editor if not ban.Moxy- 03:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Already blocked Izzet sabrie has been indefinitely blocked for continuous disruptive editing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:2A01:CB1D:1CB:6F00:B4DC:45E8:6B42:FC2 reported by User:Levi OP (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Sam W. Heads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A01:CB1D:1CB:6F00:B4DC:45E8:6B42:FC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [409]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [410]
2. [411]
3. [412]
4. [413]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [414]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [415]

Comments:

I first reverted their edit because the ip was removing parts of the article such as the date of birth in the intro paragraph. I left a warning on their talk page automatically, to which they responded on my talk page saying that they were working with the person in the article. I responded to them letting them know that editing with another person could be a conflict of interest and that if they're going to be changing things on the page they might want to leave messages on the talk page. Shortly after they left an angry message on my talk page saying that I'm destroying everything.

This could be me over enforcing rules in ways they don't apply and in situations that aren't required, but I'm not sure. I'd like another opinion on whether what I did was correct. Thanks, ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)