Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive447

User:Xoltered reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Warned)

Page: 2022 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xoltered (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]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10][11][12] (consecutive)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2022 Winter Olympics#Lead changes

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

Comments:

User has been trying to get Uyghur genocide removed from the lead in relation to the diplomatic boycotts despite significant opposition to their changes. My capacity to WP:AGF with this editor has been exceeded and at this point I'm pretty sure they're trolling (specifically Sealioning). Also note that these edits fall under the discretionary sanctions related to the Uyghur genocide and Xoltered has been informed of their existence. They've also attempted a similar removal of the Uyghur genocide from the lead of Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics [15][16]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not edit warred, i waited multiple days and after no discussion decided to propose a compromise edit, which you then immediately reverted without explanation. I am not attempting to remove the Uyghur genocide from the lead, i have no issue without it being there, i simply want other controversies to be mentioned (such as environmental concerns) and for it not to be mentioned twice for no reason. You also falsely accused me of violating 3rr on the talk page which is quite concerning. Xoltered (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, my unrelated edits, such as reformatting the list of countries are not relevant to 3rr if that is why you believe i have violated 3rr. Xoltered (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also note, the other page is simply a duplicate of one of the many versions of the main article, and YOU added the extra sentence regarding the genocide to that article. Xoltered (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You understand that between 21:06, 29 January 2022 and 15:49, 30 January 2022 there are five reverts right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Do they not have 2 days between them? Perhaps wikipedia's use of UTC for time has confused me, if so i apologize. Xoltered (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You've had it explained to you multiple times that you were edit warring, each time your response has been "I'm not edit warring you don't know what you're talking about." We are well beyond the stage were feigning confusion can get you out of this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I know you have stated that but i disagreed, if i have truly been incorrect regarding the times however then I apologize regarding that and will make sure not to do so again, perhaps you should WP:AGF and not assume i am "feigning" confusing. Xoltered (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

When you're confused to the point of describing 14 hours (the time between "no discussion" and "propose a compromise edit") as "multiple days" I just don't find that credible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

As stated, i was mistaken due to wikipedia's use of UTC, as my timezone is different and it appeared as more than a day to me as i looked at my own personal time, not UTC, also see below, i think there is a version we can both find acceptable. Xoltered (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, as already stated, i did not really consider it edit warring as i believed my edit was a compromise you would find acceptable. Xoltered (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, when i said "quite some time" i thought it had been two days. (to clarify as you seem to be confused above, when i say two days i mean more than 24 hours) Xoltered (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, i considered my latest edits a compromise, not an edit war. I was attempting to include both ideas in it but it seems my thought that you would be ok with it was incorrect. Xoltered (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you have made this report, when you could have simply explained that it had not been a full day and that i was mistaken, and this would have been much more easily resolved. Xoltered (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also note, the current version features my edit and the genocide, which i would hope would be an acceptable version for you too (though the grammar is now bad and needs fixing). If so then i don't exactly see what the issue is, as this would mean the dispute is resolved. Xoltered (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Among your various other misleading statements (one of which I addressed here), that version featured the genocide link only because Sportsfan 1234 had readded it after you deleted it for at least the eighth time - and then edit-warred to delete it yet once more, with the rather surprising question "How is it not a compromise?" Given that the conversation up to that point had contained multiple specific references to the genocide, it becomes indeed rather difficult to continue to assume that this question was asked in good faith.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That edit mentions the human rights abuses, I'm not sure why that isnt sufficient? Is the genocide not a human rights abuse? You seem quite accusatory here. Me being mistaken about you reading the discussion is not misleading? What? After you made those messages i provided many citations that the environmental concerns should be included, and as i previously stated, that version made very clear the boycotts were due to the human rights (something i thought was already clear but made clearer) and also mentioned the environmental concerns, so i thought it would be a compromise. Xoltered (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I find it very concerning that both of you have apparently just ignored WP:AGF. Xoltered (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I will reverse my edit as I was mistaken regarding the time, however i highly recommend you restore it and fix the grammar so we can have a version we both find acceptable. Xoltered (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You just made an additional revert to the lead, this series of consecutive edits [17][18][19]. Are you once again confused? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

These are not reverts, these are unrelated edits, or do you have a problem with those too? Xoltered (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are WP:REVERT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Xoltered is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they make any further reverts to 2022 Winter Olympics within the next seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:173.66.134.81 reported by User:Twsabin (Result: Semi)

Page: Holly Williams (Australian journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.66.134.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st
2. 2nd
3. 3rd
4. 4th

Updates since the filing of report (within 24h)

1. 5th – reverting to split Early life and career
2. 6th – reverting another editor to split Early life and career
3. 7th – reverting that editor again to split Early life and career

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: --

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -- (not sure if I should message an IP user on their talk)

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

Comments:
I noticed this page in RC. The IP editor exhibits WP:OWN behavior. They are also inserting fairly undue quotes of the subject. Some of the edits which haven't been restored have been aggrandizing of the subject (example). tw^sabin 13:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The person complaining here is "jumping ahead"-- and engaging in "administrative overkill". If you look at "History" on the article, you will see that they (Twsabin) requested a discussion on the Talk Page-- but then never posted any of their concerns on the Talk Page. So complaining here is premature.

Also some editors assume that posting a request for discussion on the Talk Page means that they then get to review and discuss-- every future edit-- on the Talk Page first. Not so. Such a request only relates to subsequent "reverts".

Also a quick review of the latest version of the article will show that all of it is reasonable. So simply getting it reverted because they wrote "let's talk" in the "Edit comment"-- yet then never "in good faith" posted any discussion on the Talk Page is unwarranted-- and appears disingenuous.

I was also never "messaged" about any specific concerns by the party either. So again, another required step was skipped-- and taking the issues here without that is premature.

One further note, Twsabin noted in an Edit comment that the category "Australian journalists" is unneeded because there are more specific categories present. However "Australian journalists" is specifically about biographies and so is not a "super-category" to the others. And furthermore it is not an unwarranted category, removing it is overzealous and risks "dumbing down" the Category area.

173.66.134.81 (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your reply here. I was reasonably clear in my summaries such as "Removed a more general cat" about what the reason for my reverts were, and from your summaries it seems like you understood the idea. But you did not address the concern meaningfully, and kept restoring; eventually you stopped adding summaries. Around that point you should have stated your counterargument regarding categorization on the talk page. You shouldn't have simply reverted after I directed you to the talk page, while pointing you to "Categorization dos and don'ts". Once an editor starts conducting themselves like that, it's practically impossible to continue working collaboratively on an article. tw^sabin 13:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Now you are initiating discussion in the wrong place. As I already noted, you never followed up with any discussion on the article Talk Page. And you never sent me any messages either.

173.66.134.81 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Again taking it to this level is premature. **Because you failed to either 1) discuss it even one bit on the article Talk Page (after putting in the Edit comment that you wanted to discuss it there-- but then you never followed up and posted anything on the Talk Page) nor did you ever 2) message me about any of your concerns.

Doing this now, **without those steps being taken, runs the risk of your "gaming the system" by "rushing administrative intervention" instead of engaging in real discussion (as you requested in the "Edit comment area, seen in "History"--but never followed up on at the article Talk Page-- or by sending me even a even a single message).

You never pursued any of this in the appropriate places, before bringing it here.

173.66.134.81 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You received the link to a very simple rule: "Use the most specific categories possible." yet you still almost immediately reverted. Should I have spelled it out for you letter by letter? How much "discussion" would it have taken for you to understand that simple concept? Instead of your being grateful that I pointed you in the right direction and taking a few minutes to look at the norms of categorization, you immediately proceeded to revert more... and now to complain about me not spending more time on you. Where's basic respect? It means that you don't approach editing collaboratively and are probably still quite intent on edit warring. Edit warring is a wrong in itself, and if you intuitively don't understand how accepting such conduct would have made Wikipedia not a reality, you need a little outside help to raise your awareness level. tw^sabin 15:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

IP user reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Geo_Swan who was indeffed 3 March 2021 by Drmies. The history of the article in question is suspicious to say the least. I may be wrong, but not all the time.   Aloha27  talk  18:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• IP user seems to be making constructive contributions, and looks like they're engaged in discussion finally. Recommend they take it to the article talk page, rather than here, but otherwise, carry on. --GRuban (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one week since the IP continued to revert while this report was open. In case of a dispute it is better to wait for agreement on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:DawnSaki0515 reported by User:2605:B100:91E:2550:2D5B:65DB:8499:1274 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Lunar new year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DawnSaki0515 (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. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25] Another user tried to persuade out of the disruptive editing, but he continued to blank the section.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

User:BrickMaster02 reported by User:Rusted AutoParts (Result: No violation)

Page: Template:Paramount+ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrickMaster02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1065454899

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1069140044
2. 1069163319
3. 1069203546

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1067543697

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1069205710

Comments:
The issue is surrounding shows that have no articles being included in a template, this is improper. Editor incessantly reverts my edits of removing the show in question, live action Dora the Explorer, to Template:Paramount+, and never once offering a reason except telling me to "stop" and expressing whataboutism about another show. I moved that page, 6666 to draftspace but again they just reverted me, no explanation. I left them a message explaining why they can't be included, editor just erased it without comment, so I'm reporting. Rusted AutoParts 04:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor reverted my notice of report. Rusted AutoParts 04:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor also filed a request for page protection on the template, and reverted my comments. Rusted AutoParts 04:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Edits have been reinstated. BrickMaster02 (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Why was this not done until I reported you? Why was this necessary because I told you why the titles were being taken out, even before the talk page. Rusted AutoParts 04:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The editor has been needlessly fightful in edit summaries, such as asking if I'm "happy now?" here and here. Rusted AutoParts 04:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor has reported me to AIV for "complaining about the edits to the template". @BrickMaster02: this isn't "complaining", this is you conducting disruptive editing and being combative when it comes to trying to talk the situation with you. Rusted AutoParts 04:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (sort of double edit conflict) Rusted AutoParts, I have notified the editor you reported. I have Googled the "edit" that you made, and this may be the answer. [27] If this is it, it may put an end to this. Severestorm28 04:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

However, it appears that potentially one user may be blocked, not indefinite, but temporary. Also, I can't give out a warning– especially at 11:35PM, and I don't want to send a stronger-worded warning and shut off my iPad and run to bed. Severestorm28 04:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

User:110.174.147.237 reported by User:126.51.235.77 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Lunar New Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.174.147.237 (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. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]
7. [34]
8. [35]
9. [36]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jambutty12 reported by User:Spy-cicle (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Dominic Raab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jambutty12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]
5. [44]
6. [45]
7. [46]
8. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48][49]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

Comments:
Repeated reinsertion of poorly sourced material on a BLP. I reverted the bold insertions more than 3 times (maintaing the status quo) but that is allowed under WP:3RRNO point 7.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• WP:ONUS, WP:UNDUE. Verifiable information, but I don't think this needs to be included in the article. The majority of these edits included prosecute paedophile TV presenter Sir Jimmy Saville which wasn't in any of the sources they added. They continued to WP:REFBOMB, and thankfully did remove the word "paedophile" from their reverts. Either way, this edit war was prolonged and the user did not attempt to engage in discussion except via edit summaries (haphazardly). --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked by another administrator for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

User:BhagyaMani reported by User:BrightOrion (Result: No action)

Page: Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BhagyaMani (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengal_tiger&type=revision&diff=1069022592&oldid=1069012221
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengal_tiger&type=revision&diff=1068883741&oldid=1068856767
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siberian_tiger&type=revision&diff=1065212696&oldid=1065212158
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengal_tiger&type=revision&diff=1068822615&oldid=1068811779
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siberian_tiger&type=revision&diff=1065032876&oldid=1065030562
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bengal_tiger [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comments:
He or she constantly reverts my work. At least five times. Once, deleting a referenced source. Have tried discussing on their talk page and article talk pages, but there is no real response. I would like him/her to be strongly cautioned, and to leave me alone on Wikipedia. Possibly even a temporary ban.

• Comment one of those diffs is on a different page (Siberian Tiger). BhagyaMani is a prolific and trustworthy contributor on numerous articles on the various species within Felidae (usually big cats like Tigers). @BrightOrion: your ref was redundant to an existing reference on the page, as noted in BhagyaMani's edit summary. You should have obtained consensus for your proposed changes per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN rather than continuously reinserting them. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

May I ask in what way you are connected or know of BhagyaMani? BrightOrion (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. We interacted briefly while working on improving Manul, which is when I learned of their work. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment

Link 1 above. My edit deleted for no valid reason. This was/is being discussed on the talk page of Bengal tiger but he doesn't seem to understand the reasoning for my text. Link 2, a similar edit again reverted for no valid reason. Link 3, changed my wording for no valid reason. Link 4, he removed the duplicate reference. Fair enough, but at the same time he deleted my text about Pakistan, as was shown in that reference. Link 5, there was a distribution map on the Siberian tiger article. The caption said "Distribution of the tiger". It showed the distribution of ALL subspecies and not just the Siberian, which was misleading. I changed it to clear that confusion up. He reverted that edit because I had used the word "species" instead of "subspecies." Again, fair enough but why did he delete the text completely? Link 6, I started a good faith discussion on his talk page. He dismissed me as saying "you are a minor editor". We don't need that attitude on Wikipedia. At the very least, he must learn to communicate better because multiple reverts to the same user does tend to annoy them, and this is not just me. I am also somewhat active on Wikipedia and have created 84 articles. BrightOrion (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@BrightOrion: No. If you are reverted, you are supposed to take it to the talk page. You should not revert back when you are reverted (WP:BRD). Wretchskull (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, which Link are you talking about? I have discussed matters with him on the talk page of Siberian tiger and Bengal tiger and his talk page. BrightOrion (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(I've corrected the link). I saw the discussion at Talk:Bengal tiger#Stating the_number of countries in which the tiger is found. You cannot restore your own edit after it has been reverted simply because you stated your opinion on the talk page. You can only do so when consensus has been reached. BhagyaMani, the main contributor of the article, disagrees, and so you will have to come up with a solution with them rather than edit war back and forth. Wretchskull (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

A valid point. But I have asked him questions on his talk page and he hasn't responded even though he has been active on Wikipedia at that time. I have pinged him as well. Here is an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_13 A talk called "Bengal tiger" I made a proposal and he didn't respond to it. My complaint is his constant editing/changing of my work often for no valid reason. I don't revert it back. BrightOrion (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

They did respond: "What for? Not necessary as countries are ALREADY mentioned with int links in the lead". The last comment ignoring your suggestion is rather justified, as you kept replying with the same question when they have already answered it. Also, they're right. There is no need to mention the number of countries if the actual countries are already mentioned ("Today, it occurs in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and southern Tibet"). Wikipedia articles never have to redundantly mention something already implied. Wretchskull (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the article mentioned four (and only four) countries in detail, when actually the tiger is found in other countries as well. It gave the impression the tiger was found ONLY there. Therefore, mentioning where it actually is found is helpful. That is how the article stands today. I did a "request for comment" and that was agreed. BrightOrion (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

He has been in edit wars or threatened edit wars before. (You can search "edit war" on the pages below.)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_12
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_11
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_9
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_3
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_1

This number of conflicts definitely suggests a communication issue on his part. Full disclosure: I was too, once. But I was a victim of a sock puppet. BrightOrion (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this discussion as nothing of substance is materializing. My intention isn't to put any editor on a pedestal, but BhagyaMani may be "edit-warring" due to the incompetence of the other editors. Most of them are people reverting back to their problematic edits when they should take it to the talk page. This whole discussion boils down to me trying to tell you that you didn't abide by WP:BRD. And by the way, I don't see one instance of "threatened edit wars". Wretchskull (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The other party's comments on BhagyaMani's talk page:

"I don't want an edit war"

"you are currently engaged in an edit war;"

"Both of you: Do not edit war. Disengage."

"will have to report you for edit warring."

"Please don't start edit warring,"

That's what I mean by threatened. I don't feel you have made a fair decision--he is being put on a pedestal, in my view. But I suppose there is no choice but to live with it? This whole issue could have been avoided with communication from him. What about his edit removing my wording of Pakistan? Why is that OK? BrightOrion (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani is also mentioned here

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060

There is definitely some issue with his edits. A mild warning to him for better communication would suffice, but it is warranted due to the number of conflicts he has been involved in. BrightOrion (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that User:BhagyaMani was properly notified of this AN3 complaint, so I have left a notice for them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? You accuse him of edit-warring? As a semi-regular editor focused on cats, I would say that you are the one edit-warring to add variously redundant material- and in the RfC on Bengal tiger, you want to add something for which you give no good reference, and which I have found reliable sources against. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, EdJohnston! This dispute came up in regards to the question whether it is justified to add a population number of 10-12 for the Bengal tiger in Tibet to the lead of this page. And my argument was and is still that it is not justified. I explained my reasons on the talk page, see 1) Talk:Bengal_tiger#Stating_the_number_of_countries_in_which_the_tiger_is_found: There has never been any systematic survey for identifying individuals and estimating the tiger population in Tibet. So it is INCORRECT to state a population number here that is a guesstimate at best. xx tigers photographed is NOT equal to population size.; and 2) User_talk:BhagyaMani#Edit_warring 1-3 non-residents guesstimated during the 2013-18 survey is NOT a dozen!. See also Bengal_tiger#Tibet, where I contributed content based on 4 of the 5 references, all providing evidence that a population estimate has not been carried out to date. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action. If there is still a dispute, consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

User:217.71.190.202 reported by User:Wretchskull (Result: Block, Semi)

Page: Sex differences in human physiology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.71.190.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [59]

Comments:

It would be great if the article could also be protected, as non-confirmed users have rarely made any constructive edits in the last few months/years. Wretchskull (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP has actually made his edit nine times in slightly over 24 hours, including twice after being informed of this 3RR report. There has been no article talk page thread started because the IP was being undone initially for replacing reliable journal references with non-MEDRS references (including a blog). Later edits were simple blankings of the entire section in question. The IP is not just edit warring, but is edit warring disruptive edits. Meters (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

So, initial edit [60] at 5:22 Feb 1

and eight reverts and counting in 24 hours:

1. [61] 10:22 Feb 1
2. [62] 13:01 Feb 1
3. [63] 6:40 Feb 2
4. [64] 6:49 Feb 2
5. [65] 7:23 Feb 2
6. [66] 7:38 Feb 2
7. [67] 8:58 Feb 2
8. [68] 9:36 Feb 2

Meters (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

And now [69] 9:59 Feb 2 Meters (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

And [70] 10:04 Feb 2 Meters (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours given the over-the-top edit warring and the mass removal of references. Meanwhile the page has been semiprotected indefinitely by another administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jemimahtrump reported by User:Heartmusic678 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]
5. [76]
6. [77]
7. [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]
5. [84]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [85]

Comments: Continued disruptive editing and removing sourced/referenced content after repeated reverts. User does not respond to Talk page messages and warnings. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR violation, but a block for disruptive editing might be imminent. When warned on their user talk, the user responds with 'removed vandalism'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Jemimahtrump is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Opera (company) unless they obtain a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The irony of this matter is that Heartmusic678 is defending an unsubstantiated point of view with regards to this subject matter. I will also note that Heartmusic678 has reported me three separate times which I consider intimidating, bullying and quite appalling behaviour.

I would have been willing to collaborate with Heartmusic678 but I don't really care for this gatekeeping and hateful conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemimahtrump (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

User:5.43.74.120 reported by User:Willondon (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Gasoline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.43.74.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92],[93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [95]

Comments:

• Appears to be edit warring on other pages (Belinda Carlisle) with warning [96]
• Routinely deletes talk-page warnings from others (five different editors in the last 2 weeks)
• Engages in otherwise beligerant content removal [97] and edit comments

_signed, Willondon (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

User:JKLlamera reported by User:NewManila2000 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: 2010 Antipolo local elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JKLlamera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [99]
2. [100]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [102]

Comments:
The issue here is the edit warring of the user in 2010 Antipolo local elections. He is not aware or have not read the content of Template:Infobox election and is unresponsive to my comments in his talk page. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment- There has been no attempt by either user to engage in useful discussion Newmanilla's only attempt to discuss content has been to slap a warning template on JKLlamera's talkpage. The talk page of the article in question has not even been created. JKL, has admittingly did more to explain their change, even though it was through edit summaries instead of talkpage discussion, then NewManila has. I believe both probably need a short block and reminder of WP:BRD. NewManila2000 pick one avenue to discuss this, please don't forum shop I would recommend you either withdraw this or the report at WP:AN. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mcmatter: I will withdraw this report instead and will report this in WP:AN. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Username432124 reported by User:Shmayo (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: İdil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Username432124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [109]

Comments:
Possibly a sock of Aramean81.Shmayo (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Radak-ledba reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)

Page: Muslim world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Radak-ledba (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 23:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC) to 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 23:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Islamic schools and branches */"
   2. 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC) to 23:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Politics */"
   2. 23:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC) to 23:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 23:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 23:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 22:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Muslim world."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This a non-communicative edit warrior who is on a mission to replace svg maps with png ones that they edited to remove the border between Morocco and Western Sahara (on this and other articles). M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This user is doing the same edits in the spanish version. Albo Andrés R (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Note: This edit should tell you everything there is to know about this "new" editor. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: Could you please have a look at this case? Best, M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Since this appears to be a war about images, can you explain what's being changed in each case? Is this nationalist warring? What does this edit mean about 'arm Morocco'? Is he advocating for the cause of some country or territory? EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: In each case, they are generating a png image from an established svg image, deleting the border between Morocco and Western Sahara and replacing the svg image with the png image. Yes, it's nationalist warring and that edit summary is advocating arming Morocco (as if it needs it). They also broke the 3r rule. M.Bitton (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Also worth noting is the fact that they were also quickly blocked on fr.wp and have been reported for vandalism on es.wp. M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Radak-ledba is warned. They may be blocked the next time they appear to change a map or article text with nationalist motivations. In particular, this edit raises questions: "You will remain like this until you arm Morocco". EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: They just did it again. M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef. The user continued to make strange edits without giving any response. Any admin can lift this block if the user will respond to the complaint and agree to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

User:146.90.0.73 reported by User:Mako001 (Result: Declined.)

Page: Dick Powell's Zane Grey Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 146.90.0.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "If you do not want it reverted, perhaps you should actually reply to me as I have left messages in the talk here and on your profiles. A copyright notice cannot be added to the page for no reason.Sorry"
2. 11:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "Sorry I am undoing your edit. READ YOUR PROFILE AND THE CHAT. The user who added a copyright notice gave no reason to why he did which ISN'T valid. It is simply vandalism to do so."
3. 11:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "Restoring article. Lets have some sanity."
4. 11:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "Nonsensical. Restoring as there is nothing copyrighted in the article. Everything is fair use for an encyclopedia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "Message related to your edit (level 1)"
2. 11:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent removal of copyvio template, from an article created by a serial copyright violator. I suspect that this is actually that same user, as they have a history of sockpuppetry as an IP. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I asked them why they added the notice and no real answer was given. In fact there doesn't seem to be a real reason except for a rather vague claim that the original creator of the article is a plagiarist. My reverts were done with the good of wikipedia in mind because it seems to me that the user who added the notice is engaging in a strange form of vandalism rather than a rational regard for copyright.

I think if someone is going to just add a copyright notice they should at least put a reason into their edit summary and probably a discussion in the page's talk. The user who added the copyright notice did NONE of these things which isn't at all helpful.

I am not at all the same user this Mako is accusing me of being. I am in fact a member of this wiki with a lot of edits of good standing called The Mummy. I have just forgotten my password. I have no interest in this obvious feud between Mako001 and the person who created the article, who is a copyright offender allegedly, what I care about is the show that now doesn't have an easily readable article on wikipedia due to a copyright notice added for seemingly no reason.

It sets a bad precedent for anyone to just come along and make an article unreadable by adding a copyright without giving a good reason for doing so. If this is acceptable anyone can do it? A troll could do it about literally any media article on the site. _ The user reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.0.73 (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Addendum. On investigation it seems that the creator of the article has uploaded copyright images elsewhere. My question is, why wasn't this reason given when the copyright notice was added and why not just remove the images? It is sad seeing an article about such an iconic show in such a fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.0.73 (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't make an off-topic comment about this users claim to be another user who has forgotten their password. But if true, you should know about 3RR by now, and have just shot yourself in the foot (so to speak) by making that claim. Either way, you have dug yourself into a hole now. Now might be a good time to stop digging? You still haven't addressed why you blatantly ignored the templates message not to remove it until the issue was resolved, and ignoring that, edit warred to keep the template off because you didn't want it there. Mako001 (C)  (T)  12:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, anyone can pretty much add a notice like that for no reason. I ignored it because no reason was given as to why it was added, which I took to be vandalism. Both the user who added it and you yourself should have given an actual reason to why it was added. Even now I am not sure why it was but I presume you two think that the photos are copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mummy (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The notice very clearly states that it is not to be removed until the issue is resolved. There was a credible link to a serial copyright violator, and the article had to be hidden until it could be cleared of any copyvios. I don't see how this isn't a good enough explanation. Quite simply, you have been edit warring. The "vandalism" exception to 3RR doesn't apply here, since this is not obvious vandalism, if it was obvious vandalism, you wouldn't be here now, as neither myself nor the other user who reverted you would have reverted you in the first place. Also, assuming that the user added it as "silly vandalism" as you said on my talkpage is definitely not assuming good faith. The reason it was added was that the article was created by a serial copyright violator, so needed to be checked for copyvios before it was allowed to be visible again. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

However, I am starting to wonder if there is any point continuing this any further. The immediate issue has been resolved, The Mummy has stopped edit warring and presumably won't be doing so again, so this report is getting stale. Would that be a valid observation? Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Declined No violation, since the IPs four reverts were made before they got the 3RR warning. They made no further reverts after they were warned. Bishonen | tålk 11:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

User:2a02:2f0a:c310:4900:9440:9465:8fc5:5363 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ed and Lorraine Warren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a02:2f0a:c310:4900:9440:9465:8fc5:5363 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]
5. [115]

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: [116]

Comments:

Most of this seems to be links to none existent articles or changing the names of links to articles. None of it looks constructive, and in fact, some of it seems pretty disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And with this [[117]] this looms like some kind of vandalism account.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And still at it [[118]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – The IP's /64 range has been blocked one year for disruption by User:Jauerback. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Bkissin Free reported by User:Wan Shi Tong (Result: Blocked for 31 hours; subsequently indeffed as a sock)

Page: SkyWay Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bkissin Free (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [127]

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

Comments:

• There is no 3RR violation. It is, however, possible, that some of the IPs editing the article before the article was semi-protected belong to Bkissin Free. I've blocked Bkissin Free, though, for egregious personal attacks against Wan Shi Tong.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:CurryCity reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Warned)

Page: 2022 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CurryCity (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. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131]
4. [132] (revert of [133])
5. [134]
6. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2022 Winter Olympics#Lead changes

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [137]

Comments:
User is also edit warring over the same content at Boycott and are over 3rr there as well [138][139][140][141] and they were also warned there before getting to four User talk:CurryCity#Edit warring at Boycott. User has also been informed of discretionary sanctions in place in the topic area Uyghur genocide [142]. User seems well are of 3rr, see their comment at User talk:Xoltered "3rr gets everyone sometimes it seems." [143]. If more is required or any questions are had give me a ping, but I think this should be more than enough. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There are also pretty clear indicators of WP:GAMING here, e.g.

• Arguing that the fourth revert within 17 hours was a not a revert because of a minor variation in the parameters of the reinserted template (just 11 minutes after having described that edit as a revert themselves)
• Obfuscatory WP:HUH? arguments ("If you are saying removing is revert, adding is also revert, that just makes everything into reverts???" [144], "in substance it wasn't a revert, because your reason for reverting me was false" [145])

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My edits were consistent with show of good faith, completely omitted from Horse Eye's Back's version of events:

Diff 1: Not only were there 3 editors vs HorseEB on that issue in Talk:2022 Winter Olympics#Rounding up, I pinged HorseEB (Diff 0a) on 01:25, 2 February 2022, waited 24h to write my position after inputs from Xoltered and HiLo48 (Diff 0b), before making my edit on 20:28, 3 February 2022‎ (Diff 1), almost 30h after pinging, a duration that took into consideration HorseEB's active hours.

Diff 2: Right after this, I made a consecutive edit (Diff 2b) incorporating HorseEB's input, showing willingness to compromise. In essence, I had reverted part of my own edit as well.

Diff 3: I had no idea who Sportsfan 1234 was, who had never engaged in our discussion section on this issue before, and gave no actual reason for reverting my already modified edit incorporating HorseEB's input.

Horse Eye's Back's lumping everything together obfuscates what was going on:

Diff 4: Tagging is used to hint that the reader should be aware of certain things. It is atrocious to lump this together with the editing of content. Also notice that nothing else was touched by me. Diff 4 was not a reversion at all.

Diff 5: I added material from source without changing previous meaning, and some copyediting, so that the text about Qi Fabao is supported by the source. I was going to add a more reliable source as well before getting sidetracked by HorseEB. It's a BLP matter for the most part, and again not a reversion of anything before.

Diff 6: I added the wording of "allegation" from the source itself; this point had never been raised by other editors. Again, not a reversion. (in retrospect that might have been a revert CurryCity (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC))

Discussion about HaeB and Horse Eye's Back:

Tagging has been discussed above already. As for the template describing a reversion that wasn't, it was explained and retracted. HaeB bringing up something they already understand serves no purpose. I would also like to bring up HaeB's misleading edit summary ("deleting the link here") while reverting, even though what they chose to revert had not removed any links. To accomodate HaeB's point of "Cf. talk page - well-supported by cited ref", I added ? to the tag, because despite HaeB's perspective, there was no consensus on that, and not hinting at an active debate would be misleading to readers. However, despite multiple explanations such as "It's a different param with ? to indicate ongoing discussion in Talk instead of surety" and "I changed [improper synthesis] to [improper synthesis?] without surety", they ignore all reasoning and only care to talk about something else ("from "reason=see Talk" to "reason=ongoing debate in Talk") that's not even visible to almost any readers". The overall impression I have is that neither HaeB nor HorseEB cares about discussing editing objectively, factually, and fairly; especially HorseEB, whose priority appears to include labeling editors with 'edit war' and spamming it: "Its. Still. Edit. Warring." and "Its still a revert of HaeB's edit" and "It would still be edit warring regardless of what edits follow it" and "Why wait? It would still be edit warring and "even with the amendment its still edit warring", most of this occuring in a Talk section titled "Sourcing" while I was still amending edits: "You can't wait minutes [2] for someone to finish editing before accusing them of edit warring?". In a final WP:HUH?, HorseEB wrote "Be specific, what exactly is this wikivoice statement and why do you say that it unsupported by sources?", even though they were the one that had opened the section with "Can you explain how "...to protest the Uyghur genocide..." is unsupported by a source"? I don't have any intention to 'edit war'; on the other hand, certain editors who are more experienced and coordinated (see point below about Sportsfan 1234) appear to be abusing the technicalities of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines while violating the spirit of its five pillars, effectively thwarting good faith efforts from other editors who might hold different opinions.

Is the unique rendering of my handle as "HorseEB" meant to imply that HaeB and I have some sort of inappropriate relationship? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No I don't believe you are. CurryCity (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about "Boycott" article:

Again, Sportsfan 1234 came to the rescue on HorseEB's side, despite never engaging in or never going to engage in Talk. We've already discussed taggin, so I won't repeat here. After Mhawk10 provided new source, it was over. CurryCity (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Not sure who is the one edit warring here, Horse Eye or CurryCity. My suggestion for the article was stated as: "Suggestion that one of the editors on the Talk page discussion start a formal RFC for this, and no edits on Controversies issues in the lead section until completion of the RFC." Horse Eye rejected this offer and removed it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't really do "offers" in edit summaries, your edit removed the entirety of the section from the lead [146]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is a good approach in many dispute situations. Why do you reject it here? My own edit on the page removed one sentence dealing with the Controversy issue while suggesting the RFC as a better course to take; your calling it "the entirety of the section", is inaccurate. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You removed the entirety of the disputed section. Its not BLP so why remove it during discussion if the discussion is primarily about what it should say not about whether or not it should exist (its the largest single section so there isn't really much question about it being summarized in the lead to some extent)? You also didn't remove it in your first revert [147] (you just restored a tag, scrubbed Uyghur genocide, and scrubbed human rights in China) so what changed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, somebody use the talk page. If User:ErnestKrause favors an RfC, why not make a proposal on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have used the talk page exhaustively... More than 30 edits in the last week, if User:ErnestKrause makes an RfC I will of course participate (more eyes and opinions is always better and for that reason I encourage ErnestKrause to participate on the talk page, even if they don't open an RfC I look forward to hearing what they have to say). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding a synthesis tag is not the same thing as changing the content the tag is applied to, currycity did not break 3rr. Horse Eye's has been edit warring extensively on the page they have reported currycity on and should probably have considered WP:BOOMERANG before making this report. Xoltered (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of Boomerang are you aware that these two edits [148][149] could be construed as WP:GAMING your week long block from reverting at 2022 Winter Olympics [150] especially in the context of the diffs provided above? @EdJohnston: what say you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Those are not reverts, the block prevented me from reverting on that page for 1 week and i have not done so, you seem to be engaged in a bad faith attempt to get me blocked. Please stop. Xoltered (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Also note, one of those isn't even on the page in discussion, and so is irrelevant, (the other, is entirely new content which i added (not a revert)). Xoltered (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's very clear that CurryCity violated 3RR with their edits:

• Per 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.
• At 07:32 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit that removed reference to the Uyghur genocide as a reason for countries engaging in diplomatic boycott from the lead.
• At 17:43 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit which reverted Horse Eye's Back. CurryCity's edit removed reference to the Uyghur genocide as a reason for countries engaging in diplomatic boycott from the lead. This was CurryCity's first revert.
• At 18:24 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit which has a summary indicating that it was intended to revert an edit made by Sportsfan 1234. CurryCity's restoration completely undid this edit by Ironman1104, which was a copyedit. The edit also changed due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and human rights abuses in China to due to human rights violations in China amidst allegations of atrocities against Uyghurs This was CurryCity's second revert.
• At 20:28 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit to insert a tag to dispute whether or not due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and human rights abuses in China is novel synthesis.
• At 21:59 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit to restore a disputed synthesis tag after it was disputed by HaeB. This was CurryCity's third revert.
• At 03:49 on 4 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit. The edit changes due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and human rights abuses in China to amidst human rights abuses in China and allegations of Uyghur genocide. This was CurryCity's fourth revert. It was also the fourth time in that time that the editor removed the clause due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide from the lead within a 24 hour period.

It's also extremely clear that Horse Eye's Back has not violated the three revert rule this month on 2022 Winter Olympics based off of looking at the user's edit history. Looking through the past 1000 edits on the page (which stretches into October of last year), I can't find any point where Horse Eye's Back has violated the 3RR here. CurryCity (talk · contribs · count), however, has violated 3RR within the past day. There is a real difference here between the appropriateness of the actions of the two editors. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

According the reasoning of User:Mhawk10, this adds up to five reverts by CurryCity in a 24 hour period. (I am excluding the 20:28 edit of 3 February, because that time CurryCity was adding a synthesis tag which had not been in the article before, so it was not a revert). EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

To be charitable (and in line with how deleting longstanding content that's been in the article since December is counted with respect to 3RR), I would imagine that the bold removal that started this shouldn't be counted as a fifth revert. That being said, there's definitely at least four, which is obviously a violation of WP:3RR. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Mhawk10 pointed out a third revert (21:59 on 3 February 2022); that was not a revert. The tag I had inserted was [improper synthesis] with the code {{Synthesis inline|date=February 2022|sure=yes|reason=see Talk}}. After HaeB gave their revert reason "Cf. talk page - well-supported by cited ref; concerns about the current naming of the linked article are not a justification for deleting the link here", which by the way was untrue regarding any deletion of links, I removed the "sure=yes" so that the new tag [improper synthesis?] would reflect HaeB's objection. Scrolling through the Talk sections, it is factual that there were heated debates going on. Why would HaeB, assuming good faith, want to remove ANY indication of discussion going on regarding synthesis? I pinged HaeB asking which version they wanted to revert back to, whether they wanted to remove any indication whatsoever, but they replied without addressing it. CurryCity (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A minor point, Mhawk10 is looking at my 3RR right after an incident (namely this one). If you were to do so right after an incident involving HorseEB, you might find something as well. The comparison wasn't even-handed. CurryCity (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It was unfair for Sportsfan 1234 to suddenly come in and revert on HorseEB's side not only once but twice, even though they had never engaged in the respective discussions. Amidst all this spamming of 'edit war', flooding relevant pages with that label, trying to count as many reverts against me as possible, throwing accusations at me instead of making even the tiniest compromise or constructive edit, involving other editors whose only contributions were reverts, etc., what HorseEB and HaeB really wanted was to apply WP:COMMONNAME (1 "I like the common name better", 2 "I wanted to use the common name", and 3 "currently chosen to name the article about this topic Uyghur genocide") outside the context of naming an article, in 2022 Winter Olympics and Boycott for instance, even when the sources themselves employ different terms and meanings. In effect, they wanted to override WP:V and WP:NOR. However, if RSes (short of majority) were to say "the genocide against Uyghurs has stopped, but atrocities against them continue", would it make sense to apply the common name, as HorseEB and HaeB insist, and write "the Uyghur genocide has stopped, but Uyghur genocides continue"? Or, if "countries are boycotting China for crimes against humanity but not for genocide", should we blanket apply the common name as well? RSes and the people they quote use specific language and meaning for certain reasons. That is why we should respect WP:V and WP:NOR outside of article naming, even at variance with WP:COMMONNAME, and why I feel HorseEB and HaeB have placed a lopsided emphasis on 3RR, relying on a reversion arm-race against me, while ignoring more important principles. CurryCity (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:CurryCity is warned for violating 3RR on Feb. 3rd and 4th per the above. They may be blocked if they revert again at 2022 Winter Olympics in the next seven days. I take note that CurryCity has participated on Talk but that does not excuse the reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Telanian7790 reported by User:John Maynard Friedman (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: College of Policing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Telanian7790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_of_Policing&oldid=1062609055

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:06, 5 February 2022
2. 00:28, 5 February 2022
3. 01:44, 5 February 2022
4. 16:24, 5 February 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:College of Policing#Non-crime hate incidents. Telanian7790 has not responded

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Telanian7790&type=revision&diff=1070094263&oldid=1070094198&diffmode=source

Comments:
As content disputes go, a rather trivial one. The source is poorly written. It could have been resolved via the BRD had Telanian7790 bothered to engage. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Xoltered reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]

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: [157]

Comments:

Thank you @Arkon: for that last revert. This is my talk page. This is not OK. This is well over the line into harassment along with the edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Read my edit summary for an explanation, you made a lie about my actions and then repeatedly deleted my response. As stated, i have no intention of continuing any discussion on your talk page as requested. Please move on with your life instead of lying about me deleting messages and deleting my response in which i show it is simply me correcting my own incorrect dating on my own messages. You are aware people can see deleted diffs right? This isn't even an article, and it is simply my own comment, you should also note i stopped before this report was made. Not sure why you feel the need to undo me fixing my own dating on my own message beyond a bad faith attempt to get action taken against me. Xoltered (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, (correct if mistaken) it appears Xoltered was only correcting a date tag [158] to their own comment not anything else, so Diff 1 was not a reversion. Neither was Diff 2 where Xoltered added a comment (additional note below). Diff 3 was actually Xoltered first reversion, following HorseEB's revert immediately prior. And after that was reverted by HorseEB for the second time, Xoltered reverted for a second time as well.

I'm not against Horse Eye's Back having most control over their Talk page, but also want to add that respect goes both ways, in light of their openings of high-level warning sections on mine. CurryCity (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken, they did not just correct the date tag they removed my note about the date being wrong " Note that despite being dated "23:49, 29 January 2022" this comment was actually made 18:45, 3 February 2022 [159]" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, i thought that was automated, in any case it's obviously justified to remove the note about the date being wrong when correcting the date. Xoltered (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not a justification for removing an editor's comment on their own page... Correcting an error doesn't mean that you get to remove the comments which pointed out the error. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That was not a comment? Just a note about the incorrect time. What? So you think i should have left the note about the incorrect time while it now had a now correct time? Also as stated above i thought the note was automated. Furthermore, what issue do you have with me correcting the time, or providing an explanation for me doing so after you misleadingly claimed that i deleted another user's comment? Xoltered (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Notes and comments are the same thing here, they're both my additions to my talk page. You also did delete my comment so I'm not sure whats misleading about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

When you say i deleted another user's comment, people will not think i deleted a simple note about an incorrect time while correcting it, but instead believe i deleted an actual comment in discussion from another user. Even so, what issue do you have my reply existing, why did you feel the need to delete it twice, or make this ridiculous report about me reverting 2 (not 4) times my own message being deleted, which already had justification provided for me doing so in the edit summary. Xoltered (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What exactly in WP:TPO do you feel justified your editing a talk page after being asked not to? And not just editing but edit warring your edit back onto the page after it had been removed... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The link you provided addresses editing other user's comments, in any case Signature cleanup seems to fit this situation quite well. Xoltered (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Also note, another section in the page you linked "Behavior that is unacceptable" mentions "Misrepresentation of other people", something that i believe you have done for reasons discussed above. Perhaps you should read that page and acknowledge your mistake and then move on. Xoltered (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Further note: This discussion about action on your user page, that page is about talk page guidelines, further proving you did not bother to read the article at all before linking it. Xoltered (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Context: Xoltered had already received an administrative warning about edit-warring just this Monday. It's also not the first time that they disagree with their opponents in a China-related controversy about the definition of edit-warring, see [160] (reaction to a warning about edit-warring from Snooganssnoogans), [161] (by Adoring nanny). Similar to CurryCity (thread one above), there also seems to be a pattern of throwing all kinds of counter-accusations at their adversaries, including factually inaccurate ones, which caused to Shibbolethink to advise Xoltered about WP:ASPERSIONS last week [162]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant, what happened is I corrected my incorrect dating in a message, Horse Eye's reverted it and falsely claimed I deleted another user's message, i replied explaining the reality and then they repeatedly deleted my reply while keeping their lies about my action. Xoltered (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

But you did delete another user's message... Mine (as you acknowledge in your response above, even if you blame it on the mistaken belief that my message was automated and then claim that the deletion of my comment was "obviously justified"). So not a lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It was not a comment, just a note about the incorrect time, as stated above (please do not duplicate discussion) it is ridiculous to keep the simple note about the incorrect time while correcting the time. Considering your past action however, and the unjustified issue with me correcting it in the first place, i doubt this is a good faith discussion. Xoltered (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't remove notes either. Its not ridiculous, its what you need to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

So you think it should have been: "Message (signature with correct time) note: this says (incorrect time) but was actually posted at (correct time)"? This is ridiculous, and again not actually what this discussion is about, rather it is claiming I "edit warred" due to reverting back my own reply to what i believe is an incredibly misleading statement about my action 2 (not 4) times. I still do not understand why you take issue with me correcting the time or making the reply. Xoltered (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to encourage edit warring. That said, HaeB's disclosure of information again could have been more complete and balanced, namely that the revert warning Xoltered received was specific to 1 article: "Result: User:Xoltered is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they make any further reverts to 2022 Winter Olympics within the next seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)". CurryCity (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed i think horseeye's might have been dissapointed by the result of that report and wishes to use this report to have action taken against me despite my clear lack of edit warring. Xoltered (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Jumping in here, since I commented on the talk page of Horse Eye's Back: I really don't understand this edit, which falsely backdated an edit warring notice to January 29, making it appear as if it were issued at a different point in time than it was actually given. The edit notice was actually given on February 3, not January 29. This happened well after I questioned why the edit warring notice was given to Horse Eye's Back on February 3 despite there not being anything this month on 2022 Winter Olympics that could have justified giving the warning, especially given that the template is made to get people who are currently engaged in an edit war to stop edit warring. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That happened because i copied the notice from another user's page, however i accidentally copied the date too, It should be noted this discussion is primarily about me fixing the incorrect date (some of the diffs above which horseeye falsely claims are revision show this) which should make it clear it was a genuine mistake. Xoltered (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Infact, it was your mentioning of the incorrect date that alerted me that it was incorrect and so i fixed it. Xoltered (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, the "incorrect date" I was mentioning was with respect to the heading. I also pushed back on substantial grounds, since the notice didn't appear to address issues that were ongoing. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware, i also fixed that and that was also undone by Horse Eye. Xoltered (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion should end. Simply put, i removed a note about an incorrect dating after my own comment which i believed was automated but was actually from HorseEye, while correcting the time. HorseEye then said i should not reply on their talk page and reverted my correction of the dating and i replied to that clarifying the situation and saying i would no longer do so. They reverted my reply and i reverted my reply back two (not four) times as i believe it is important people understand the reason i did the original edit, however after a revision by another unrelated editor i decided not to continue doing so. This report is ridiculous, this discussion is ridiculous. The list of diffs even falsely claims two diffs of entirely new content are revisions, and given that i clearly stated my intention not to continue making replies and did not revert the most recent revision before this was made I don't think HorseEye is genuinely concerned about my action but rather is not engaging in good faith and wishes action to be taken against me due to unrelated disputes on other pages. Either way i hope this report will be closed soon. Xoltered (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a reasonable case for the edit-warring noticeboard. Rather than bickering over comments on a user talk page it would be better to focus on the underlying issue which seems to be 2022 Winter Olympics and probably other articles judging by the intensity. @Horse Eye's Back: Sorry but whatever Xoltered's sins on other pages may or may not be, it is not reasonable to object to them correcting their timestamp blunder and it would be unreasonable to insist that your assertion about the date being wrong be retained after the date was corrected. I suppose if you really wanted to win the battle you could add a new note saying that originally Xoltered posted an incorrect date, then fixed it when their mistake was pointed out. The edit warring concerns Xoltered reposting a comment which, in their mind, sets the record straight regarding an assertion you made about them. I would agree that Xoltered's templated notice was badly implemented and very inadequately explained when you reasonably asked what the concern was. However, my recommendation would be to delete the section from your talk and save energy for articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you are correct in pointing out that an edit war on a widely read mainspace article is more consequential than an edit war on a user's talk page. However, WP:3RR still applies to both, and we can't tell editors they must refrain from bringing policy violations to this noticeboard if they "only" occurred on a user talk page.

it is not reasonable to object to them correcting their timestamp blunder - what edit does that refer to? I though the objection was rather about trying to delete Horse Eye's Back's note that that comment had originally been posted with a misleading timestamp. I realize how insisting to document such an issue could seem to appear a bit petty when viewed in isolation, but take the possibility into account that editors who have had the opportunity to observe patterns in Xoltered's editing a bit more may take a different view - see also Mhawk10's comment above about how that "blunder" may not have been such a small matter.

There also seems to be a tension between WP:NOBAN and the insinuation that Xoltered might have been justified in edit-warring about reposting a comment which, in their mind, sets the record straight ... way after the recipient's formal request to cease editing that user talk page.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The page linked specifies "without good reason" the good reason is provided both when they were made and above in this discussion. Furthermore, even if I were violating that it would not be edit warring. Xoltered (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action taken. The level of concern expressed in the posts here seems out of proportion to the original issue. Be aware that users can revert on their own talk page without penalty under the exceptions to 3RR. Admin User:Johnuniq has given a more detailed assessment of the issue above, concluding that "This is not a reasonable case for the edit-warring noticeboard." This whole thing seems to be a spillover from a dispute at 2022 Winter Olympics. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Nirmaljoshi reported by User:Rastinition (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [163]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [167][168]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [169]

Comments:

The progress of the discussion can refer to User talk:Nirmaljoshi#Do not use content farms or more than 4 references in the same place..

I believe my comments have only gotten his response in his edit summary.Has not received an on-topic response in User talk:Nirmaljoshi#Do not use content farms or more than 4 references in the same place..--Rastinition (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am a bit suspicious of the User:Rastinition.Not sure why the editor is delebrately focused in removing chinese sources. Best regards!nirmal (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

See User talk:Nirmaljoshi#Do not use content farms or more than 4 references in the same place

Although you asked me to delete this report, I can't delete it because I can't change your message. Rastinition (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not strike reports. I've removed those tags. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – It seems that User:Rastinition has provided a good explanation of his concern, so I hope the matter is now resolved. The claim that Rastinition is 'deliberately focused on removing Chinese sources' is troublesome, so I hope that nobody makes that claim again without good evidence. It is unclear whether User:Nirmaljoshi understands Rastitinion's advice not to use content farms. At any rate, WP:RSN is available to settle disputes about quality of sources. Rastinition is not just saying that the sentence used too many references, but that content farms should not be cited at all. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Mbis Saravon reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page: Malay gamelan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "WP:VANDAL"
2. 01:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "WP:VANDALISM"
3. 00:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Do not vandalise sourced article."
4. 23:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "The sources is obvious."
5. 19:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Malay gamelan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I still preserved all sources, I didn't even put any Indonesian sources on the article, all I did just expanded and improve the article based on the sources within the article itself and also some additional sources. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC))

@Mbis Savaron: You have drastically and repeatedly altered the lead without seeking consensus. That's edit warring. –Austronesier (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I didn't drastically altered the article, I expanded it based on the provided sources and also I put one pr two additional source to strenghten the specific content scope. In fact, you're the one who repeatedly remove all the content and sources without any specific reason and consideration, you're the one who did the edit warring. You're even intentionally removed my warning in your talk page. (Mbis Saravon (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC))

A reviewing admin may be interested in this, added after the contribution above. CMD (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User:197.89.19.211 reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Warned)

Page: WrestleMania 38 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 197.89.19.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [170]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [171]
2. [172]
3. [173]
4. [174]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [176]

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

Comments: This is has been going on since February 4, and it is Edit Warring by the ip

You neglected to mention that I was the one who started the discussion on the article's talk page. And, read the sentence the way you prefer it. It is the longest-running professional wrestling event in history. That can only mean one thing. I tried rewording it, to correct it. And, for whatever reason, you prefer it to sound like WrestleMania 1 is still happening. But I won't bother trying to correct very badly worded articles like that again. So, you "win", for what that's worth. And anyway, I'm off to MSG now to watch the still-running WrestleMania 1. 197.89.19.211 (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• The IP is warned that if they resume editing at the article, they risk being blocked without further notice. Your aggressive/attacking style is separately sanctionable, and you have been blocked before for it. Chip3004, reports here require diffs, not links. Your presentation forced me to do all the work myself. Also, your messaging at the IP's Talk page is dreadful. First, with the exception of one edit that was reverted by ClueBot, the IP's edits were not vandalism. Second, you insisted on repeating messages after the IP removed them, which was their right. Third, you double-messaged making the IP's Talk page a mess, all of which they blanked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User:86.175.111.238 reported by User:FlightTime (Result:Blocked by Drmies )

Page: Stevie Nicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.175.111.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Revert unexplained and unhelpful edit"
2. 22:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */As used by the themselves. This is official. This trumps whatever Wikipedia considers correct"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) to 22:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */What does 'putting him through college' mean?"
   2. 22:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */The Corra use a capital (see their website) and is also widely use elsewhere"
4. 22:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Has a capital"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Stevie Nicks."
2. 22:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Stevie Nicks."
3. 22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* February 2022 */ Well, not here"
4. 22:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "+ {{ow}}"
5. 22:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Stevie Nicks‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• IP's comment at AIV - FlightTime (open channel) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Drmies for violation of MOS:THEBAND - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Fewspeed555 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Pages: Pheu Thai Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Democrat Party (Thailand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Thai Liberal Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Palang Pracharath Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fewspeed555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [179]
2. [180]
3. [181]
4. [182]
5. [183]
6. [184]
7. [185]

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

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

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

Comments:
Long-term edit war accross several articles on Thai political parties. RJFF (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• With the exception of a few edits in 2014, the editor has only edited since January 2022. Apparently they change the position of the party in the infobox or elsewhere in the articles. They have never responded to any warnings; indeed, they have never talked at all. I have blocked them indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:49.195.81.81 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Page protected)

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

User being reported: 49.195.81.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision you don't reply for over a week. And USDA trust the analysis and you're speculating that USDA is irresponsible."
2. 04:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070370666 by discuss on Talk First. USDA database is reliable."
3. 03:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses */Added in USDA database for nutrition information and analysis. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173032/nutrients"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Goji."
2. 06:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Goji."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Vitamin A? */ r"
2. 04:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Really? there needs to be a Nutrition chapter */ r"

Comments:

User is edit warring within last 12 hours and in recent history on Goji, using at least 4 different IPs on the talk page and article, despite 4 experienced editors offering numerous explanations for what appears to be inability to understand USDA data presentations and nutrition contents, and need for WP:RS sources. Zefr (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on your own count. I didn't break the 3 RR rule. So nothing to discuss. Today is the first time I specifically added in the USDA database. Never have I ever done that before. So I reverted twice only today and not three times.

49.195.81.81 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected See note on talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Atlantic306 reported by User:Asfedayn (Result: No violation)

Page: James Pallotta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Atlantic306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is the first change I made here, here, After Atlantic306 reverted the change this is the second time I edited the information here which is the present iteration. Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We had a discussion on my talk page my main point here. Regrettably, the discussion was almost immediately made personal by Atlantic306, given almost right away I was accused of having a conflict of interest. Other instances, such as "I am not your mate" further heighten the suspicion that the edit was mistakenly taken personally, when that was not at all the intention of the edit. Even in the report, Atlantic306 seems to suggest an undermining of my position as just someone critical of Pallotta, which again, ignored all the arguments put forward - see below. As I stated on many occasions, the core of the inquiry is on accuracy and truthfulness, which is not personal. I tried to put forward many reasons for why using the word "billionaire" was inaccurate and misleading, but as evidenced by the discussion, all of the arguments were ignored. I tried informing Atlantic306 that the source is an old article from a 2006 issue of the Boston Magazine, which cannot consider the 2009 crisis in which Pallotta lost most of his assets. Further, I pointed out that the magazine itself offered no source or evidence of where how the information was obtained. I tried to inform Atlantic306 that Pallotta is also not present on the Forbes list, which was ultimately ignored as well. While the source might have been accurate over 15 years ago, currently it would be dangerously misleading to suggest Pallotta is a "billionaire" without any evidence of it. I believe we should strive to put out accurate and truthful information, which was the point of my edit - regrettably, an edit war was initiated by Atlantic306 because presumably the edit was taken as a personal attack and no efforts were made in trying to resolve the issue, other than personal attacks such as the insinuation of a conflict of interest.

Comments:

User:Atlantic306 continued to revert that Pallotta is a billionnaire, despite evidence to the contrary. I have tried a discussion on my userpage but as shown above and by the discussion itself, it was made personal by Atlantic306 and, at least presumably, never entered with a bona fide intent to come to a resolution, as the attacks and ignoring of arguments regrettably confirm. Asfedayn (talk) 6:50, 6 February 2022 (PTC)

• I have not edit-warred or I wouldn't have kept your version. As for you calling me a mate that was not sincere and I haven't attacked you in any way at all,Atlantic306 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

As can be seen by the searches on the talkpage there is recent coverage that calls him a billionnaire and there is also some coverage that calls him a millionnaire so it is not a clear cut case you have suggested, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Asking if you have a coi is common practice if you have only edited his article and saying you were critical of him as shown here is not a criticism, just stating the facts. Also I have no coi myself, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – I encourage further discussion on Boston Magazine's claim from 2006 that Pallotta is a billionaire. It seems that Pallotta has not made it into the Forbes list of billionaires. When there is conflict of sources, some qualification may be needed. Actual billionaires tend to be conspicuous and be widely covered in the press. There is at present no discussion of sources on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Asfedayn reported by User:Atlantic306 (Result: No violation)

Page: James Pallotta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is the first change here, their first revert of my restore here, this is their second revert of my restore here which is the present iteration. Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We had a discussion on their talk page my main point here. Although I was incorrect in suggesting a pro-Pallotta coi when they have now shown to be very critical of him in regard to his interests at AC Roma.diff

Comments:

User:Asfedaynan spa removed referenced material from Boston magazine that Pallotta is a billionnaire changing it to millionnaire. I ve reverted twice theyve reinserted twice and I don't want to go to three. Ive tried a discussion on their userpage but it became ill-tempered. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – The same issue was raised in another report. See my closure there. Both sides should consider following WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Loverofediting reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: EC protection)

Page: Mu'awiya I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "See talk page. Removed baseless opinion."
2. 19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "“Tide turned” is baseless and incorrect. Please read what I wrote on the Talk page."
3. 19:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Removed a baseless opinion that the “tide turned”."
4. 19:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Not a fact. An opinion."
5. 18:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Tide turned? Not a fact."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "/* The intro */ reply"

Comments:

Says "See talk page" after not replying to talk page comment. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruption continues [188]. Requested temporary EC protection at RPP in case they get to this first. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are the admins:/ This has been here for 24 hours now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page EC protected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:DudeFromTheBaltics reported by User:Moxy (Result: EC protection)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "I still don't understand why do you all want Latvia look like a Russian state. I bet, add this also to Estonia, since they also have a lot of Russian speakers. This literally makes me angry by knowing how biased some of the editors are."
2. 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Excuse me, are you threatening me to ban, because I said this one guy to stop posting in Latvia's wikipedia page that Latvia's minority language is Russian? Latvian constitutional law doesn't put Russian as the minority language and by that I will stand. Also, you should put this exact sentence to Estonia and Lithuania, not only Latvia. Don't threaten me, this is free encyclopedia after all, and I will work to put it as neutral as possible."
3. 20:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070312450 by Denis tarasov This source doesn't show Russian is a minority language. Stop this or I'll have to report this as vandalism(talk)"
4. 20:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070307023 by Denis tarasov Why you're adding this to only Latvia? There are more than one language. Also your sources doesn't say about Russian language. (talk)"
5. 19:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070269734 by Denis tarasov Unsourced data (talk)"
6. 16:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070125027 by Denis tarasov Unsourced data (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Latvia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Russian language in infobox */ new section"

Comments:

Having no luck in getting editors to talk about edits. Moxy- 02:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: The Latvia article is EC protected indefinitely under authority of WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Cedar777 reported by User:Hemantha (Result: Self-revert)

Page: Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cedar777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1070050132 by Sriramk750

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Context:
05-Feb-2022, 11:44 - Sriramk750 adds allopathic to IMA sentence in lead (while removing some other text)
05-Feb-2022, 11:49 - Black Kite reverts

User's reverts:
06-Feb-2022, 06:46 - Cedar777 adds "allopathic" back in the lead sentence while moving it down, along with other minor (ce,ref titles) edits
06-Feb-2022, 10:47 - I revert the "allopathic" addition and the lead sentence move
06-Feb-2022, 18:33 - Cedar777 repeats their edit (including the word allopathic), but in the body. They don't touch the lead sentence.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Page subject to 1RR. Notice at the top of edit window and talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There was a talk page discussion on the same day where multiple editors explained the consensus about this issue to a new editor. Cedar777 hasn't participated in that discussion, but has commented upon others in the same time.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1070377315

Comments:
Page subject to 1RR. There's longstanding consensus about the sentence in lead - IMA describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks. Occasionally, IPs and new editors wish to change it to - practice allopathic medicine as quacks. hemantha (brief) 05:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action due to a self-revert. Cedar777 undid their last change after my request on their talk page. This edit broke the 1RR restriction on the page which had been applied due to WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for leaving a note on my talk page. My job is intermittent and it can completely interfere with any opportunities for screen time (sometimes this is for very long periods of time). I appreciate the opportunity to self-revert. Cedar777 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: It is clear that the reporting user and I have different views. This was a content dispute. The reporting user left an edit summary stating "there is clear and longstanding consensus against these changes - specifically against allopathic - in talk. Reverting to previous version of the lead". However there is NO RELEVANT RFC (open or closed) at Ayurveda that forbids the use of "allopathic", in the lede or in the article body. Please note that the reporting user did not limit their revert to removing the term "allopathic" - they also removed reliable sources without explanation. User Hemantha did not address the matter in any capacity at Talk:Cedar777, at Talk:Ayurveda, nor did they provide the date for a closed RfC or a direct link to a open RfC for discussion related to "allopathic" prior to coming to this noticeboard to escalate the content dispute; their sole communication was an edit summary when reverting. Cedar777 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Loverofediting reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: Warned)

Page: Dhu al-Qarnayn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Loverofediting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]
4. [193]
5. [194]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [195] [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [198]

Comments:

User was blocked for edit warring on the same page before. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Loverofediting is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:CheckersBoard reported by User:Tunakanski (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [199]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [200] 18:31 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
2. [201]18:47 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
3. [202] 19:29 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
4. [203] 19:34 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
5. [204] 23:34 Feb 8 (different material but another revert on the same article, including a personal attack in summary) Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [205]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [206]

Comments:From looking at their talk page and messages they have sent on other article talk pages, it seems as if CheckersBoard has been extremely antagonistic and passive aggressive over the past 7 years. Furthermore, they have countless warnings on their userpage for a variety of things, some of which are even for edit warring in the past. Simply looking at the version history of Ice hockey or at the latest posts on the ice hockey talk page should provide all remaining necessary context. Thank you. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 00:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:Twsabin (Result: Warned)

Page: 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Axxxion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: revision (4 Feb revision immediately preceding the addition that is being reverted); alternatively construed: diff of 6 Feb revert (being reverted back to)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st
2. 2nd
3. 3rd
4. 4th

     Earlier reverts (not within 24h):

1. 6 Feb

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd (link to talk section)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (link to talk section)

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

Comments:

The discussion involving multiple editors is ongoing, the removed section is both praised and scrutinized, and incremental improvement is being considered. tw^sabin 22:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The objection (not only mine) is that the recently introduced subsection is off-topic and therefore should not be in the article pending the ongoing discussion. The matter is quite plain. Instead of participating on the TalkPage, Twsabin keeps re-introducing the dubious material under discussion.Axxxion (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There had been no consensus that the table should be removed pending discussion. Your edit warring is egregious. tw^sabin 23:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that you were both edit-warring but are now participating in a discussion at the article talk page. I'm not a regular admin at this noticeboard so I'm not going to respond with any penalties, just commenting after looking over this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not breach 3RR and my intent was to maintain the discussed section, so that it may be discussed and improved further, while the here reported editor tried to impose their preferred state of the article (and enforce it by edit warring), bypassing discussion, based on a defective reasoning that something that is undergoing discussion can't also be included in the article at the same time. Seeing how their removal was disruptive in the context of an ongoing discussion, I consider my three reverts to be helpful and generally consistent with policy. I can't accept the conclusion that our conduct was roughly the same. I request preventative action, so that the reported editor understands their error. tw^sabin 01:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Axxxion made four reverts starting with 20:53 on 7 February, each time removing a section called 'International treaties and negotiation structures'. All four of the diffs listed at the head of this report are reverts, since the disputed section was added only recently. A discussion of whether to include the table has occurred at Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis#Structure of table on structures though so far with no clear result. There is nothing in WP:EW that says whether disputed material should be kept or excluded during a discussion. Axxxion's belief that his removals were 'generally consistent with policy' has no basis that I can see. Oops! Corrected my comment in the light of Twsabin below. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: you replied to the above comment as if it had been made by the reported editor, Axxxion, but it was made by myself, the filer, in response to a suggestion of WP:BOOMERANG made by Liz (when "penalties" [plural] were mentioned). Sorry if my last comment made this section harder to parse (it does at a first glance seem like a generic defense of someone accused of edit warring, making it inherently ascribable to the reported party...) My claim to policy-correctness rests on WP:EDITCON: as long as multiple editors have been discussing the section days prior, and have been editing it, instead of removing it, their dispute around specific points did not equal a consensus to remove the section. Axxxion, and only them, tried removing the section once on Feb. 6 and was reverted, then again in proximity to 24hrs, four times in sequence, and was reverted by other two editors, so in total their (Axxxion's) attempts at removal were undone by three different editors. The section is still in the article, and is still being edited and discussed, making it obvious that these attempts were nothing but a disruption. tw^sabin 17:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Axxxion is warned for violating 3RR on 7 February (see my calculation above). They are risking a block if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:184.185.133.150 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sing 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.185.133.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1070681124

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On main article

1. Special:Diff/1070692457
2. Special:Diff/1070676590
3. Special:Diff/1069516827

On Sing (franchise)

1. Special:Diff/1070676457
2. Special:Diff/1069517034
3. Special:Diff/1069310253
4. Special:Diff/1069128088

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion and advice over this addition

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1070699217

Comments:

IPs from Louisiana making the same addition of unfounded content about a sequel, most of them citing a Cinemablend article but most recent incident is now citing a YouTube video. Editing also spills over to Sing (franchise). An IP range block possibly? -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 20:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Special:Contributions/184.185.133.0/24 blocked one month. Addition of badly-sourced material by a variety of IPs. This range has been blocked for as long as three years in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User: Khan Bababa reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: EC protection)

Page: Bajaur Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khan Bababa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [207]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

User Khan Bababa has been disruptively editing the page, they also continue editing the page when the talk page discussion isn't over, claiming I am repeating my points when I am continuing to bring more and new sources to prove my point, but he still ignores such. Claims I am also POV pushing.

User Khan Bababa has also made rude comments, including calling me a "typical ignorant", and "nationalist". [215] "stop being a typical ignorant." [216] "please tell him that this is a neutral area not some nationalist playzone." Noorullah21 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This user completely disregarded my source at first, then started using it after claiming the "1,000" figure was wrong, etc. Then continued to now use the source. The User continues to claim I am being ignorant and am POV pushing/doing vandalism, while I am trying to lead a civilized discussion on the talk page, however, after reverting some of his edits for not continuing to go on the talk page, I decided to now lead a edit warring report. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall, the user has been leading a long term edit war spreading over a sporadic period of months. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Bajaur Campaign is EC protected indefinitely under the authority of WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:JimmyCrow reported by User:RossButsy (Result: Indef)

Page: Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JimmyCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1069864778: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070261615
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070261370
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070246348
4. [diff]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070260937: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070260937

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing before and is seemingly unwilling to engage in discussion.

User has also engaged in edit warring on Sergio Busquets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Updated the diffs. This user is risking an indefinite block for long term warring. I am leaving them a note to see if they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me. It was not my intention to get into an edit war; It will not happen again. In the case of Sergio Busquets, he was following what the source says. If you notice, it was an anonymous user of changed. I put it right and this user who denounces me went and reversed it just because it was me. In the case of Auba, you don't use Spanish La Liga, it's just La Liga... that's a consensus, I think. JimmyCrow (talk) 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If nobody else supports your removal of the word 'Spanish' I don't see how there is a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – Jimmy Crow has been blocked four times previously for as long as one month. They have reverted other editors about fifteen times since 1 February on a variety of articles. It does not appear that the idea of 'consensus' registers with them. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:0rionQC reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Stale)

Page: Bret Weinstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 0rionQC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070756694 by FormalDude (talk)"
2. 03:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "removing the description of Odysee as "fringe" to maintain neutrality. "Fringe" is not an objective or neutral description. "Alternative" by itself is both an objective and neutral description of Odysee."
3. 19:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC) "/* COVID-19 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:0rionQC#February_2022

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Stale No activity for about 24 hours. If disruption starts up again, ping me and I'll look into it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jasper800 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Weequahic High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jasper800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071035200 by M.Bitton (talk) Undoing since no reason given under Wikipedia's rules and regulations. Thank you!"
2. 14:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071034145 by M.Bitton (talk) Per linked information, COI was disclosed. Edit is a statement of fact. Per Wikipedia, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." All edits are above board and within Wikiepedia S&P."
3. 14:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071025640 by M.Bitton (talk)The officially published Weequahic High School Class of 1946 yearbook is a reliable source. COI does not apply in this instance, as the inclusion is statement of fact."
4. 13:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070822272 by Alansohn (talk) Per Wikipedia, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Anyone with access to the primary source can confirm, as statement of fact, that Donald S. Kornfeld went to Weequahic High School, class of 1946."
5. 04:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070753373 by Alansohn (talk) I am a direct descendent of Donald S. Kornfeld. I have the 1946 Weequahic High School Yearbook. The cited link is to page 27 of the 1946 Weequahic High School yearbook which features Donald S. Kornfeld."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Weequahic High School."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "/* February 2022 */ new section"

Comments:

In good faith I can confirm I am not engaging in what is being deemed an edit war. I have a statement of fact I wish to have included in a page, and per all of the linked reasons for undoing this inclusion, there are verifiable reasons for why the edit should remain in the page as I have outlined. Thanks! Jasper800 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dissecting a primary source published by an unreliable source such as "classmates.com" is anything but factual. Also, you continued to edit war over your change despite the fact that you've been made aware of the 3R rule and what to do when you have a conflict of interest. M.Bitton (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That is an edit war. There is an edit you want to make, and you are reverting multiple other users to make it. I suggest you discuss the edit you'd like to make on the article talk page, and see if you can convince others that it is an improvement, or perhaps come to a compromise version. It is also possible that the consensus will be that your edit is not an improvement, or lack sufficient sourcing, as seems to be the case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Chunkygump reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Kingston upon Thames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chunkygump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [217]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [218]
2. [219]
3. [220]
4. [221]
5. [222]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [223]

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

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

Comments:

Not sure if this is edit-warring, or outright vandalism, but either way the edit is simply factually incorrect, and has been reverted by multiple people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Film Enthusiast reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: No violation)

Page: Christian Bale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Film Enthusiast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [224]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [225]
2. [226]
3. [227]
4. [228]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [230]

Comments:
Film Enthusiast has had a history of having their changes related to photo sizes and captions reverted.[231][232][233][234][235][236] Multiple users have tried to ask them to refrain from making these changes when there are no clear problems. KyleJoan^talk 00:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. @KyleJoan: Please don't file reports like this. With the exception of the "revert" today, the other listed reverts are from last year and as far back as June 2021. You are wasting everyone's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: I appreciate the response. That said, it remains true that they've been asked to stop (on multiple articles by multiple users) yet continued. How would you suggest I resolve situations like this in the future? KyleJoan^talk 01:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't know because I don't know how bad it is. You'd have to show a significant pattern of disruptive conduct. If all you can show is a few problems spread out over eight months by an experienced editor with no record of sanctions, there's probably nothing you can do. If you can show more, then WP:ANI is the place to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      • KyleJoan has always had differences with other users over various minor issues, especially when they edit articles he has substantially contributed to. Never did they even explain why my edit was not an improvement. Did I revert your revert at Christian Bale? No. Nor have I engaged in any edit wars the past few months. All those edits that they've brought up were from months ago, and I have learned better from then. I regret making those specific edits, as I was a more inexperienced user then. But I have now learned not to continue that behavior. Whenever I am reverted (and KNOW I am in the wrong, as sometimes I, like we all have done at one point, think I'm doing the right thing), I move on. While we're at it though, perhaps you can explain YOUR behavior and why you feel the need to be so confrontational and difficult to deal with. Why do you make such a big deal when users change minor aspects of an article? If it's such as huge problem in your eyes, revert and move on for god's sake. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 01:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Whenever I am reverted, I move on. You sure? KyleJoan^talk 01:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Yes. Read the context and figure out a logical conclusion. Don't just go through my contributions trying to dig up dirt. It was a good faith edit. I thought it was valid until that user explained to me the reason behind their revert. When I understood, I ceased. Enough with your poor attempts to get me punished. I have done nothing wrong other then rub you the wrong way. Careful to not get yourself shot in the foot. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 01:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:66.8.166.218 reported by User:93 (Result: Semi)

Page: Fan Kexin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.8.166.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [237]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [238]
2. [239]
3. [240]
4. [241]
5. [242]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Reverting multiple users' additions to Fan Kexin mentioning allegations of cheating in a recent Olympic event, both sourced and unsourced. 9³ (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. Any negative claims about a BLP subject need to be well sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the page not under protection anymore? That seemed to be edited out?128.171.195.114 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is still semi-protected, and I have re-added reference to the controversy with additional sources. I will also note that they performed four reverts in a 24-hour period, and five in a 25-hour period. 9³ (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Tannewsie reported by User:Yoon Ezz (Result: No violation)

Page: Indonesia's Next Top Model (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tannewsie (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]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

@Yoon Ezz: I can see a single edit by Tannewsie on this page for the past few days -- I do not see any edit warring. Also, you failed to inform Tannewsie of this report. Please be more careful in making reports like this. — Czello 08:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Two edits, three months apart, do not a noticeboard case make. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Z4i3r7tg6j reported by User:Opencooper (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ephemeralization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Z4i3r7tg6j (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [245]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [246]
2. [247]
3. [248]
4. [249]
5. [250]
6. [251]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A – User already reverted 4 times and continued after being warned; does not show signs of being communicative such as using edit summaries

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

Comments:
Reported user already edit warred with User:Unbh. I only reverted them once and decided to report here since they're clearly not interested in desisting even after being warned. Opencooper (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The edits took place over five days, so it's hard to see a brightline 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I decided to leave this until the user is fine. There are so many edits, all without summaries, and no attempt to engage in discussion that it seemed best to wait for whatever they consider to be finished and then see where we are. Anything else will be and edit warrior since they revert rapidly and automaticallyUnbh (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Z4i3r7tg6j is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment User:Z4i3r7tg6j is back reverting without getting consensus.Unbh (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I know about the burden of proof. But I do not know what to prove, because you have failed to express any substantiated objections on the talk page after reverting my properly referenced edits. By doing so, you are abusing Wikipedia's BRD rule. Z4i3r7tg6j (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You were reverted by three users. You were warned not to revert again and have done so. Your continued edits while it's under discussion make it impossible to try and reach consensus. Pinging@EdJohnston: Unbh (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a Kafkaesque kangaroo court, and you know it. Z4i3r7tg6j (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Z4i3r7tg6j: Multiple other editors have objected to your changes. You need to discuss with them to reach consensus about the changes before making the changes. Do you need additional guidance to understand WP:Consensus? —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for continued warring. After the original close of this complaint, User:Z4i3r7tg6j made additional reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Rogeman123 reported by User:Dawit S Gondaria (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Amda Seyon I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rogeman123 (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. [254]
2. [255]
3. [256]
4. [257]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [258]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [259]

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

Comments:

User last 3 reverts are just beyond the limit of 24 hours. User at first started with removing Amharic characters, and replaced them with romanized ones. I reverted him and notified him of WP:BRD twice in edit summary, he continued to ignore the bold-revert-discussion cycle. Now he is claiming (at least thats what user is suggesting from the talkpage discussion i have started) that Amharic/Geez derived characters which is exactly the same is the only way to write Amda Seyon. I asked for sources here in wikipedia, not recommendations in edit summaries. Discussion is not over, user is trying to edit war his way to his version. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Dawit S Gondaria Note that you cannot edit war to counteract their edit warring. I blocked them as they were previously blocked for disruptive editing. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jroberson108 reported by User:Username142857 (Result: No violation)

Page: Body mass index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jroberson108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [260]
2. [261]
3. [262]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [263]‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [264] (moved from Woodstone's talk page [265])

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [266]

Don't edit war to counteract edit warring Username142857 (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to provide information? And isn't Jroberson108 removing information from an 'encyclopedia'? Username142857 (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation 3 reverts each, but Username142857 is adding content that is disputed, so should not be re-adding it. Use the talkpage. User:Black Kite, 11:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Username142857 reported by User:Jroberson108 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Body mass index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Username142857 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [267]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [268]
2. [269]
3. [270]
4. [271]
5. [272]
6. [273]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [274]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [275] (moved from Woodstone's talk page [276])

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [277]

Comments:

User has violated the 3RR and continues disruptive editing. @Woodstone and Zefr: and myself have tried to stop the disruptive editing. User continues to force changes without reaching consensus through discussion. User reverted with edit summary containing similar edit warring warnings I gave. After adding a warning to user's talk page, user retorted by adding the same warning to my user talk page twice: [278] and [279]. It also appears the user was previously engaged in the same disruptive editing on the Scratch (programming language) page, which a warning was added to the user's talk page. Jroberson108 (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No I haven't. My most recent revert was 8:31 pm on 11th of Feb. 24 hours before that is 8:31 pm on the 10th. In that time period, I have made exactly 3 reverts. The Wikipedia article for 3RR states that you can't make more than three reverts, which I clearly didn't. Also, you didn't respond to my posts. How am I supposed to reach a consensus if no-one replies to me? Username142857 (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed the timestamps that are based on my settings. They aren't needed anyway. Jroberson108 (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Because they clearly prove that I didn't violate 3RR Username142857 (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

69, nice! Username142857 (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I notice that Username142857 just attempted to close this thread deceptively without an admin's input. I would also remind this user that WP:WIKILAWYERING isn't helpful. You don't need to have violated 3RR in order to be guilty of edit warring. — Czello 12:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours This was also not a good idea. After I blocked them, I noticed an extra bit of disruption. Sorely tempted to indef. Favonian (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:2a02:85f:f800::/40 reported by Chip3004 (Result: )

Page: List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a02:85f:f800::/40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [280]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [281]
2. [282]
3. [283]
4. [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:
I told those ip's that they cannot Edit War and the ip's did not learn it's lesson at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip3004 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 Feb 2022 (UTC)

• IP range has also been reported at WP:ANI. —C.Fred (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Block is at the /64 range level. If it needs escalated to /40, another admin please feel free. —C.Fred (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:ChazMclopez reported by User:SunDawn (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Charley McMillan-Lopez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ChazMclopez (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 13:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 13:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* References */This is false information with no sources"
   2. 13:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fasle information from unreliable sources"
   3. 13:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Correct information that has been given from reliable sources"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 13:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fasle information"
   2. 13:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fixed fasle information"
3. 13:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fixed fasle information"
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 13:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* References */Fixed fasle information"
   2. 13:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fixed fasle information"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "False information"
   2. 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Correct information provided"
6. Consecutive edits made from 11:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 12:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 11:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "False information"
   2. 12:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Correct information of the player. That shows the clubs the player has played for and represented."
7. Consecutive edits made from 10:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 10:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 10:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fake information"
   2. 10:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fake information fan option"
   3. 10:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Information has been sourced and verified."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Charley McMillan-Lopez."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* ChazMclopez */ new section"

Comments:

User started with deleting content without explanation, which is reverted by Zanoni, EchetusXe, and by myself. While the user engaged in attempts to resolve the problem, the user keeps reverting, which has violated WP:3RR. User has been warned on his talk page and on my talk page, but the user keeps reverting. Thanks. SunDawntalk 13:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Venkat TL reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: No action)

Page: 2022 Karnataka hijab row (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071066251 by Abirtel (talk) deprecated source"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) to 16:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Background is relevant and sourced reliably discuss on the talk page"
   2. 16:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Remove reference from lead. See WP:LEADREF"
3. 14:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Remove current template: inappropriate use. This is several days old now. The template is used when dozens of editors are editing at the same time. Does not apply now."
4. 14:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071033345 by Rockcodder (talk) Third WP:CLOP violation."
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC) to 14:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071032563 by CapnJackSp (talk) Discuss this on talk page. Banning of Hijab is the meat of the matter. Dont dilute this in the boilerplate notices"
   2. 14:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071032029 by CapnJackSp (talk) WP:CLOP violation. This is the final warning. Another violation will be reported to admins."
6. 14:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by CapnJackSp (talk) to rev. 1071025890 by Venkat TL: Reverting good faith edits. WP:CLOP violation (RW 16.1)"
7. 13:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by Rockcodder (talk) to rev. 1071023714 by Venkat TL: Quote: "The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India.... " (RW 16.1)"
8. 12:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071013740 by La lopi (talk) lots of people have said lots of things. WP:UNDUE"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2022 hijab row in Karnataka."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Background */ Reply"
2. 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Government order */ new section"

Comments:

The user is single-handedly edit-warring without multiple editors and assuming an unlimited concession to reverts. Even a POV template has been removed without any attempt at CONSENSUS. Many more of the edits not listed here were also partly reverting other editors. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC) amended Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

More than 4-5 unrelated content disputes are inappropriately bundled in this malicious report, in an attempt to show multiple diffs and get the user blocked instead of working for consensus on the talk page. In every dispute WP:BRD was followed and content was discussed on the talk page leading to consensus. No content was reverted more than twice. Please check the content in each diff. The template this user is referring to was removed only 'once' after adding relevant sources. Tag was only removed once. There is no ongoing revert war. The only purpose of this report is to snipe the opponent of a dispute. Venkat TL (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Just noted that 3 out of total 5 discussion threads on the talk page on different disputes, have already been resolved after discussion and consensus. Rest 2 are being discussed. This further highlights the maliciousness of this report. Venkat TL (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Could you cut out the personal attacks? It doesn't help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Alright. See below points for every diff.

[1] A deprecated and un unreliable source WP:REPUBLICTV was wrongly added and reverted. Not counted as 3RR

[2].1 (Unrelated to other diff) Discussed at Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Background and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka.

[2].2 (Unrelated to other diff) Explained at MOS:LEADCITE

[3] (Unrelated to other diff) see Template:Current/doc#Guidelines

[4] (Unrelated to other diff) Revert of clear copyright violation. WP:NOT3RR, Not counted as 3RR . Discussed at three places. Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Line_from_CNN, User_talk:CapnJackSp#February_2022 and also at User_talk:Diannaa#CLOP_review

[5].1 (Unrelated to other diff) discussed at Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Banning_of_Hijab_by_Karnataka_BJP_Government

[5].2 (related to diff [4]) Revert of clear copyright violation. WP:NOT3RR. Discussed at three places.

[6] (related to diff [4]) Revert of copyright violation. WP:NOT3RR. Discussed at three places.

[7] (related to diff [4]) Revert of copyright violation. WP:NOT3RR. Discussed at three places.

[8] (Unrelated to other diff)

So 4 out of 8 diffs are reverts of clear Copyright violation, WP:NOT3RR. And rest are different content dispute, MOS Violation, etc. For content disputes, The talkpage shows my genuine efforts for generating consensus and 3/5 threads were closed with resolution. So I questioned this report. Venkat TL (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You are citing MOS:LEADCITE as an excuse, but it says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Placing "citation needed" tag is a challenge, which can only be satisfied by adding a relevant citation, not by citing policy.

For the diff 2.1, you claim it was "discussed". But a more correct description would be "discussion was ongoing", where two other editors other than me disagreed with you. You are preempting all other editors and claiming a divine right to do so. This won't do. And, why on earth did you remove the POV template?

You also did an additional revert after recieving a 3RR warning, within half an hour. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

so you filed this 3RR violation report because I removed [288] the POV template "once" (after I added several mroe reliable source as references for it to resolve the concern of the template). Venkat TL (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile admin Diannaa has also confirmed [289] [290] that content I had removed in Diff [4] was copyright violation Hence my reverts related to diff [4] were appropriate per WP:NOT3RR. Venkat TL (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• The page in dispute has a new title. It has been moved to 2022 Karnataka hijab row, so I have updated the header of this report. There does not seem to be an ongoing edit war so I recommend that the complaint be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with no action since there does not seem to be a continuing edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Skyerise (Result: No action)

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: 16:27, 26 January 2022‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:57, 8 February 2022 - with misleading edit summary (rv. content deletion) when actually he was deleting my content additions, note article size reduction
2. 04:20, 9 February 2022
3. 04:26, 9 February 2022
4. 21:26, 9 February 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [291]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [292]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [293]

Comments:

• Another bad-faith ANI filing, claiming consensus because I *didn't* edit war: Last week Skyerise starting making edits against consensus, such as deleting RS's that 3nd parties found convincing, and objected to me reverting them immediately. So I told them to tag it as 'under construction' and gave them some time to finish what they were doing. I procrastinated a week to review their edits, because dealing with bad-faith editors like this is quite unpleasant. They now claim that because I didn't edit-war over them, they now have "concensus" for their changes. 3rd-party opinion is against them with one exception: they tried to strike a deal with an editor who's been pushing pseudoscholarship on an unrelated article for years, that Skyerise would support their edits if they'd support Skyerise's. At the last 3RR that Skyerise filed,[294] ANI called Skyerise out on that as inappropriate behaviour. Skyerise has no consensus to change the name of the language against all RS's, to delete RS's, or to try to water down RS's by suggesting they're unreliable. The only support they have is against reordering the sections of the article to conform with the standard layout at Wikiproject Languages, where the offer for mutual support (the one that ANI objected to) came to their support. Since that's a change of mine, I'm happy to revert it pending discussion. But per BOLD, Skyerise's new edits should stay reverted unless they get consensus for them.

BTW, I did apologize for my inaccurate edit summary mentioned above. I mistakenly thought I saw a repeat of earlier content-blanking, but I was wrong. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I request that the editor above agree to make incremental changes rather than large-scale reverts. He keeps removing major work I have done before moving forward. Nowhere has he discussed, other than two specific issues ("per Laycock" in tables, and section order), just why he thinks all my changes must be reverted before moving forward. His changes in section order are particularly disruptive and against a clear two-to-one consensus on the talk page. I've requested that he open RfCs on any specific issues he has, but so far he hasn't done so. Skyerise (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Per BOLD, the onus is on you to get consensus for your edits. We don't need consensus to revert them. E.g., it's up to you to get consensus to change the name of the language; it's up to you to get consensus to delete RS's that 3rd parties have found convincing. (Just claiming you have consensus is not enough: you actually need to get agreement from other editors that the source does not belong.) The reason for whole-scale reverts is that the little changes get all bound together. I did make an attempt to restore your beneficial edits after reverting the POV ones, but I may have missed some. If you make just the uncontroversial improvements, we'll have a new reset point if further edits are rejected. We've done that before, after all. If you like, I'll even make an empty edit with the summary "I agree to Skyerise's edits up to this point" so it's clear that you have consensus at least from me. (Of course, others may disagree, but they aren't as active.) — kwami (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Eff your "pers". Just proceed incrementally from where I left off. It's the polite way to edit. And you just can't say that new developments are "against consensus" unless you can point to the discussion that formed the consensus that the edit violates. Which you can't, because there is no previous discussion of my new additions. You're just bullying with multiple repetitive reverts and premature edit-warring notices. You have to wait for my third revert before you post a notice. Just stop being so pushy. It's obnoxious. Skyerise (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, I've asked you many times, read WP:BOLD. You don't get to make whatever edits you want and then demand that others get consensus to revert them. If you're reverted, you need to get consensus to restore them. You seem to think that the rules only apply to others. E.g. "there is no previous discussion of my new additions." That means that you don't have consensus to make those additions, which is what BOLD requires when your edits are contested. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Skyerise, you've been here for over 12 years. You can't possibly not understand the basic conventions for editing, like BOLD, after that much time, and your response of fuck WP guidelines suggests that you do understand. I'm forced to conclude that, once again, you're arguing in bad faith, with the idea that you can get your way if you just obfuscate enough. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You have to wait for my third revert before you post a notice. - not necessarily. Edit warring itself is defined by WP:3RR, but noticing is not as defined. Maybe Kwami jumped the gun, but you're both experienced editors, so none of this should be occurring at all. You both probably need to WP:DISENGAGE and then involve neutral editors through WP:CONTENTDISPUTE or an RfC. Canvassing is bad form, and it would be better for all involved to look for neutral third party input. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a talk page stalker of Kwami's due to our overlapping contributions in Writing Systems and have certainly had run-ins with them in the past, but this is just getting ridiculous. Skyrise has been pointed to the WP:BRD cycle as a means of deescalating this dispute and moving forward constructively, but insists on a pattern of tendentious editing that they keep trying to legalese into a technical violation by Kwami. At this point, with a now third trip to 3RR in the last couple weeks, each time presenting evidence that has just completely fallen flat eliciting anyone to ever agree with them, this is starting to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Kwami can certainly come across as pushy when engaged in content disputes, and would do well to skirt a bit more wide of Wikipedia behavioral lines, especially around 3RR and Civility. But Skyrise seems to be actively dismissive of Wikipedia practices and the suggestions of editors on how to resolve this dispute. At what point do we cut bait on someone who refuses to respect editing guidelines and is dismissive of the advice given to them for moving forward? VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 05:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

WHAT? I've been posting my concerns on the talk page all along, as they arise, but kwami only responds to that discussion after I file a report. Otherwise he ignores it. There was plenty of discussion today, but only because this report is still open. If kwami's usual pattern continues, as soon as this is closed he'll just continue to revert while ignoring attempts to discuss. All you have to do to verify this is look at the timing of his article talk page posts. Skyerise (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Skyerise reverted the article again but this time has justified his changes on the talk page. Most of the changes are fine; I think we have only 2 or 3 outstanding disagreements. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop referring to me as male. I'm a woman. I believe I've mentioned this before so I have to wonder why you are intentionally misgendering me. Skyerise (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Skyerise has started edit-warring again. I thought we had moved to the talk page for consensus, but they've twice restored a rejected change in just a few minutes, with the spurious justifications that (1st BOLD violation) there was a capitalization error in the reverted version, which I then fixed (though per WP:QUOTE it wasn't an error), and then (2nd BOLD violation) with the false claim that they'd fixed that error. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Two reverts is not an edit-war. At least you don't think it is when you do it, as shown above in this report. When I hit four, feel free to submit a report. I haven't yet and I won't. But complaining about my doing exactly what you do on a regular basis, don't you think it's a little whiny? Skyerise (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I fixed it fine. There are two ways to fix a missing ellipsis; one is by restoring the elided material. Skyerise (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action, in lieu of blocking both parties for edit warring. If the war continues and the two editors are not inclined to follow WP:Dispute resolution it might be justifiable to apply a long period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:TheXuitts reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [295]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Feb 13, 11:20 UTC – [296] TheXuitts reverts back to a long list of disputed genres.
2. Feb 13, 16:10 UTC – [297] TheXuitts reverts fact tags added to challenge long list of disputed genres.
3. Feb 13, 18:55 UTC – [298] TheXuitts restores long list of disputed genres.
4. Feb 14, 02:20 UTC – [299] TheXuitts re-adds long list of disputed genres, this time with references

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [300]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and section: Talk:XXXTentacion#Genres

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [301]

Comments:
TheXuitts was already edit warring prior to this sequence of 4RR in the space of 24 hours. Two days earlier, I delivered a standard warning against 3RR on the user talk page, and then I added a personalized message about WP:ONUS.[302] TheXuitts deleted these messages without responding. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The guy in general is completely obsessed with the article XXXTentacion and barely allows any changes to the page. Definitely a case of WP:OWNERSHIP --FMSky (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected. Normally I would set an expiration of a week or so to allow the edit war to blow over, but this article is already on permanent semi-protection and if I set an expiration, it would then drop back to zero protection at the end, which is undesirable. As such, I have set indefinite protection, but that is explicitly not intended to be permanent; any admin can unprotect of their own motion or pursuant to a request at WP:RFPU once a consensus is reached. I am sure I have protected m:the Wrong Version but such is the life of a sysop. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Adoring nanny, User:Slatersteven reported by User:Hcoder3104 (Result: filer page-blocked for one month)

Page: Elections in Cuba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Adoring nanny, User:Slatersteven

Previous version reverted to: [303] (Note: Systemic Bias tag was changed to Political Neutrality)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [304]
2. [305]
3. [306]
4. [307]
5. [308]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:Snooganssnoogans#Edit-warring on Elections in Cuba, User talk:Adoring nanny#Edit Warring on Elections in Cuba, User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/#Edit Warring on Elections in Cuba

Comments:

• Bold move, we'll see if it pays off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll take it to the Supreme Court, or whatever the Wikipedia equivalent is. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Hcoder3104: Have you read WP:BOOMERANG? This report was, uhh, bold to say the least. — Czello 15:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I have. Honestly, I don't care if I don't win the case. And I have made the case for my revisions multiple times. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Starting an RFC is generally better than edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  When you are arguing against multiple other people, we usually call that "consensus" rather than "edit warring." Can you explain why you think this is the latter? Dumuzid (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  See above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Working on a case for the Political Neutrallity tag.Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• I suggest you close this before it's too late, because all the passing admins will see is you edit warring against multiple editors over a tag that you failed to justify (even after another editor started a discussion on the talk page). M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the prior section on that page, there is definitely room for discussion related to a POV or neutrality tag (and my own quick read of the lead suggests a more thorough discussion is absolutely needed about the lede), but I agree that this report is unactionable. --Masem (t) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They however have edit warred (and this does not require false accusations of tag-teaming [[309]]. So I am requesting a boomerang.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really then place for this but the false accusations of Meat Puppetry and the tit for tat edit war warnings (aimed at users with 1 revert) mean this user needs (at the very least) a very stern warning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The tag teaming part is curious. Other than this article, I can't remember the last time I was in agreement with USER:Snooganssnoogans about something. I'm sure it's happened somewhere. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• The filer has been page-blocked from Elections in Cuba for one month for edit warring against multiple users. Bishonen | tålk 16:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

User:Eifygjjgd reported by User:McSly (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Expansion of the universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 18:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 15:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "Plagiarism is use without attribution"
4. 14:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "The copyright term has expired, so the material is in public domain"
5. 05:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "The copyright term has expired, so the material in in public domain"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Expansion of the universe."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also edit warring on other articles like Negative temperature with same account and under IP. User made no attempt to discuss after being reverted by multiple users. McSly (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Back Bay Barry reported by User:Nemov (Result: No action)

Page: Baseball park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Back Bay Barry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071708748 by Nemov (talk) I'm really trying to be patient with you but you know that 7 other editors disagree with you and you're still trying to have it your way, that's not right"
2. 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071708024 by Nemov (talk) stop ignoring the 7 editors who disagree with you"
3. 23:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071706738 by Nemov (talk) you already know there is support for this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball"
4. 23:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071697262 by Nemov (talk) you used the definition of "ballpark", not "baseball park". This article is called "baseball park""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Baseball Park Definition */reply"
2. 23:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Baseball Park Definition */ reply"

Comments:

I'm not gonna engage with user any further. I've attempted to steer towards consensus, but to no avail. I warned the user about edit warring and the 3 revert rule. It was ignored. The user has continue to make make changes after objection and reverts good faith edits. Now the user it changing the redirects to the page as well. Thanks Nemov (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Park_vs._Stadium is that my changes were proper, and Nemov's many many reversions of my changes were not. 7 editors agreed with me and 1 with him. That didn't stop him, though - he's still trying to bully me and threaten me into accepting that "his" version is the right one. I have asked for help. Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: That would not give you an exception to 3RR, though. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I've been talking with Wgullyn at Teahouse. As I told him, I only just read 3RR after he alerted me to it. So that is my fault. But what I don't understand is how Nemov is allowed to do that if I'm not. Back Bay Barry (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: They stopped at three reverts. You didn't. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I see. So there was definitely a method to his madness. I get it. All I can say is I'm sorry, and I've learned from this. Back Bay Barry (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action, per the discussion above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:216.246.144.248 reported by User:Verbcatcher (Result: Blocked)

Pages: Ed Roland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Dean Roland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.246.144.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to:

• Ed Roland:[310]
• Dean Roland:[311]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Ed Roland:

1. [312]
2. [313]
3. [314]
4. [315]
5. [316]
6. [317]
7. [318]
8. [319]
9. [320]
10. [321]

• Dean Roland:

1. [322]
2. [323]
3. [324]
4. [325]
5. [326]
6. [327]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page and user talk page:

• Talk:Ed Roland#Deletion of photographs: [328]
• Talk:Dean Roland#Deletion of photographs: [329]
• User talk:216.246.144.248: [330][331]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[332]

Comments:
The user has repeatedly removed images from Ed Roland and from Dean Roland without giving clear reasons, over several weeks. The user has failed to respond to questions on the article talk pages and on their user talk page. The edits have been reverted by four different users: User:RetroSoulGirl, User:WaddlesJP13, User:TaurusEmerald and me. I disclose my discussion with an involved editor at c:User talk:RetroSoulGirl#File tagging File:Dean Roland.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. The discussion over at Commons about these images seems very thorough and the IP editor is continuing to delete them with no rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:198.48.174.124 reported by User:109.79.68.165 (Result: Semi)

Page: Masters of the Universe: Revelation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.48.174.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

• Special:Contributions/198.48.174.124

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments: anon IP has repeated the same edit over and over again for several days despite being reverted by me and another editor. Anon has not made an effort to discuss the matter in edit summaries, or on their talk page, or on the article talk page. The sour response to the show by some has been discussed at length already, and the larger point has been addressed using a reliable source[333] but the anon IP insists on ignoring MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC and adding Rotten Tomatoes audience scores anyway. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Adding user scores to this page against policy is apparently a cause for a small number of dedicated idiots, meaning a lot of busywork having to deal with nuisance edits from the IP mentioned and what seem like associated IPs/accounts a number of times, they should probably all be identified and blocked. Very much doubt anything of value would be lost. Artw (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The vandalism continues diff. Please do not reward the vandal and punish everyone else by locking the article, even very short sanctions (24 hour block for starters) against the user would be preferable. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned, there was previously some discussion about this, and I suppose admins might want to also check to see if the user who made related complaints User:Kronnang_Dunn is connected to the IP address that is currently edit warring over the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores. Not to accuse anyone, but rather to rule them out. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. Note that User:Kronang Dunn has not edited in the last 30 days and it's unclear why he would need attention from admins. The page already has a hidden comment that the *audience* scores from Rotten Tomatoes should not be used. Even with the semiprotection in place, IP editors can still present their arguments on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You are rewarding disruptive anon IP editors with the power to get pages locked. That is a bad policy. (It also discourages any other anon IP editors from engaging with this reporting process.) Please reconsider and direct the sanctions at the person responsible, not the encyclopedia article page. Even if you truly believe locking the article is appropriate a 30 day page lock seems excessive, 7 days would have been more than enough. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You also failed to revert the latest vandalism before imposing the lock[334]. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

1) that's not vandalism, it appears to be completely accurate on Rotten Tomatoes. 2) see WP:WRONGVERSION 3) that's clearly WP:NOTVANDALISM. Canterbury Tail talk 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello 109.79.68.165. Consider making an argument on the talk page about why the last edit should be reverted. That will give others the chance to respond. Multiple IPs seem to be making similar reverts so there is a case for semiprotection. We definitely would not want individual user comments on Rotten Tomatos to be used as sources on Wikipedia, but it unclear whether the overall audience percentage is considered a reliable index of response to a movie. The hidden comment in the article (under 'Reception') currently states (backed up on Talk with a link to WP:USERGEN).

AUDIENCE RECEPTION AND RATINGS: Do not include them! Wikipedia does not support user-generated content in its articles, and thus audience ratings cannot be included. Please refer to the talk page before proceeding to edit this section, and view the multiple discussions raised on the topic. No consensus has been formed to allow this article to differ from Wikipedia's guidelines and policies by including such content. Additions of audience ratings will be reverted.

Okay then "Disruptive editing" if you insist on making the distinction. It was an edit that continued to do the same thing that was reported, it continued to ignore MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC again including the same Audience scores that are not allowed. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The latest discussion I could find on RSN is this one from 2019, where the commenters seem to reject all usage of the audience ratings unless *the ratings themselves* are commented on in actual reliable sources. So that view would allow mention of the user ratings if other RSs quoted them. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There are occasional exceptions, but this is not one of them. User voted web polls are fundamentally not a reliable source, but sometimes we include the audience scores anyway if they have been reported by a reliable WP:SECONDARY source, and they have not been. The audience scores were inserted before an existing reference to Variety that does not mention them at all, only that fans were displeased and showing it on RT and IMDB. The scores themselves are never even the point anyway, the difference in opinion between audiences and professional critics is the point and that was already expressed. (I too was displeased by the show but unlike the other anon IP editor I am going to stick to what the reliable sources actually say, and try not to give undue weight to the criticism.) Also that isn't the even point of why we are here on this noticeboard specifically, this is WP:BRD, the anon editor fails to discuss and edit wars instead. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Agin would re-iterate that regardless of what you call this, this is disruptive editing by an editor or editors that are making no good faith efforts to improve wikipedia or work within policy, so a lack of meaningful admin action here is disappointing. Artw (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:YouTube12345678 reported by User:Politanvm (Result: Indef)

Pages:

• Syed Pir Nazim Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Pir Nazim Hussain Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: YouTube12345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "YouTube12345678 moved page Draft:Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah to Syed Pir Nazim Hussain"
2. 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "YouTube12345678 moved page Draft:Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah to Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah"
3. 03:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "←Created page with '{{Use Pakistani English|date=February 2022}} {{Use dmy dates|date=December 2019}} {{Pakistani name|Nazim|Hussain}} {{Infobox person | name = Nazim Hussain | native_name ={{small|{{Nastaliq|سید پیر ناظم حسین}}}} | image = Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah Pic.jpg | caption = Nazim Hussian in 2020 | birth_date = {{birth date and age|df=y|1950|03|03}} | birth_place = [[Lahore]], Paki...'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Pir Nazim Hussain Shah moved to draftspace */ new section"
2. 04:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah moved to draftspace */ new section"
3. 22:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah moved to draftspace */ new section"
4. 22:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Draft:Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is move-warring to keep an unsourced BLP draft in mainspace. It was initially declined under a different name (Draft:Pir Nazim Hussain Shah), which the user then moved to mainspace, and was subsequently draftified. The user also created this version (Syed Pir Nazim Hussain) directly in mainspace, and has moved it back to mainspace after it being draftified multiple times.

User hasn't responded to any messages on their talk page. I haven't posted on either article's talk page. Politanvm ^talk 22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:174.86.19.26 reported by User:Mhawk10 (Result: 1 week)

Page: Steve Roberts (Missouri politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 174.86.19.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071950019 by Mhawk10 (talk)"
2. 05:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071949430 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
3. 05:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071949337 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
4. 05:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071949206 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
5. 05:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071948824 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
6. 05:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071948038 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
7. 05:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Removed allegations that were proven to be false."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Steve Roberts (Missouri politician)."

Comments:

IP is edit warring on a politician's page to remove unflattering information. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week from the article only. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:Jungkook1996 (Result: No action)

User: Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page in dispute: Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Issue; one editor gaming the system and ignoring sources that are given to him.

First case - he falsely claimed a skater fell down and nobody bumped into him. But such facts are proven wrong because reliable sources and even the Canadian skater stated that he accidentally bumped into a Chinese kid.

I gave him sources that disproves his edits as being wrong. He willfully ignores it and removed my edit.

My edit that he removed;

(China's Li Wenlong's skate blade had collided with Canada's Pascal Dion's and the Chinese skater fell down. According to Dion, there was no reason for disqualification as he said the two accidentally bumped into each other and "it happens sometimes" and that he believed the judge made a "good, fair call for the Chinese".)

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/short-track-star-hamelin-course-142210057.html

But this information above in bubble is very correct and currently missing. And why I added it in. He also knows I am not able to revert him today and he deletes my edit.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [335]
2. [336]
3. [337]

Second case - Prior to all that, in another section, the editor is using an unreliable community newspaper source to insist that a replay shows no false start and all a conspiracy. If such info was even true, then the major news channels will likely be raving about such a controversial event and won't shut up about it. Currently I see zero major news channels saying that and probably because it's not true. So I told him to please use a better source as Wikipedia cannot rely on poor sources. I put the discussion on talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1071516299

But he kept reverting me on that, and finally after a while stop doing that in that section. However he had also made me use up my 3 revert limit. Then he put a notice of the 3RR rule and this noticeboard, on my Talk page. And afterwards when he knows I am not able to revert him anymore. He then quickly vandalised the article again by removing my edit that he simply dislikes. There's no excuses for his deleting and his spiteful labelling of my edit as "Disruptive". His latest edit shown below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [338]

Even if I rightfully revert his edit above again. I will be just be penalised for the 3RR rule I think and why I believe he should not be pushing me like this to correct him like this. He claims the Chinese skater never bumped into anyone. That is just false. A Canadian skater had admitted to bumping into him. But he doesn't let anyone add that correct info in, and it feels like he is edit warring in bad faith. Jungkook1996 (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a content issue that is being discussed on the user's talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No it's not. Currently he tried to push an outdated claim that the Chinese skater didn't bump into anyone. Newer sources show that is wrong. But he willfully ignores my sources and claims my edits are Disruptive. He knows well that it is correct and reasonably important information yet he keeps reverting and refused to be reasonable. If once, it's okay. He does this constantly. And don't wish to continue this edit war and want admin to tell me if my edit adding such information in, was Disruptive or not.Jungkook1996 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action. – The filer has cleared their talk page (where they were negotiating about this matter) with the comment 'All issues resolved'. Per that edit summary I assume that the dispute is over. If not, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to all. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:CJ337 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)

Page: Draft:Trevor Tordjman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: CJ337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
2. 01:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
3. 21:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
4. 19:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
5. 22:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
6. 21:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
7. 20:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
8. 16:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
9. 15:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Draft:Trevor Tordjman."
2. 02:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Draft:Trevor Tordjman."
3. 21:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Draft:Trevor Tordjman."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to submit the article in question for review. It has been submitted nine times as of writing this, and on the instances it was reviewed, it was declined each time. The user changes nothing each time they submit it. All they are doing is wasting Wikipedia resources—in this case, other users' time. User has received a plethora of warnings, to which they refuse to acknowledge or respond to. Amaury • 23:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• A appropriate sanction in this case may well just be blocking this editor from editing this Draft, and nothing else. I'm not sure they've done anything objectionable, outside of this one Draft. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support a block for that page alone as well, but it should be a long one. Amaury • 01:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Any admin who thinks a partial block would be better is free to change this. An inability to understand warnings or respond to comments is clearly a handicap for someone who wants to edit Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Matias_Affolter reported by User:ClockworkChemist (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: 22:36, 10 February 2022‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [339] (First time the user edited the article)
2. [340] (Revert 1)
3. [341] (Revert 2)
4. [342] (Revert 3)
5. [343] (Revert 4)
6. [344] (Revert 5)
7. [345] (Revert 6)
8. [346] (Revert 7)
9. [347] (Revert 8, this is where this user started to compare this edit war with watergate, calling it "pixagate" among other irrational juvenile comments)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [348]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [349]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [350]

Comments:

• The user {Matias_Affolter:an3-notice} Matias_Affolter (talk) has been adding a self-promoting (possibly dangerous) unknown software called "Pixa.pics" to the software list in the Pixel Art article. This is not a notable software, it doesn't even appear in most search engines (Less than 800 results in google, all going back to the author): It's a GitHub project developed by this user that is trying to use wikipedia as publicity stunt. There's no mentions of this website anywhere except in this person's own blog. I am also sure that this is part of a bigger scam related to NFTs, and here's proof of that connection. The user has even admitted a bias in their own page (This person also created their wikipedia account for this sole purpose, and have no contributions before this incident).

The user is now calling the situation "pixgate" and calling me "pixel mafia", so it seems like it has boiled down to classic trolling/vandalism ClockworkChemist (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for advertising and disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)