Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive452

User:TheKinkdomMan reported by User:Bluerules (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jamie Collins (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheKinkdomMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

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

Comments:
Editor has been repeatedly removing reference to the National Football League (NFL) from this article's lead. This editor's arguments for removing the NFL reference hinge primarily on WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - they believe the article must be written a certain way because other NFL player articles are written a certain way ("this is not how any nfl article is styled", "joining the nfl is not referenced in any article", "this is not the style, learn the rules and styles"). The NFL should be spelled out on first reference to provide all necessary information to readers, but this editor believes it is acceptable to automatically assume readers will know what NFL stands for ("yes you can assume"). Bluerules (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

As I shows this user and sent them a link to the right process of how to structure a article with the NFL they refuse to try to resolved the issue as I haven’t reverted there incorrect editing 3 times I pinged them to the correct format, and then they attack me on a talk page Jamie Collins TheKinkdomMan talk 12:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Lengthy complaint. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This editor has not cited a single, actual policy to support their "structure" argument. Every time WP:OTHERSTUFF is brought up, they ignore it. They did not create the talk page section to help resolve this issue and deem the talk page section an "attack". It is clear they refuse to follow guidelines. Bluerules (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Look at the reverts this user used the same one twice I only reverted twice not three times which isn’t a violation, not to mention this user has been in a edit war with multiple people over the same situation, look at their edits they clearly aren’t following the rules and not willing to resolve a issue TheKinkdomMan talk 12:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [8] [9] [10] They clearly reverted three times, which is a violation. Editor accuses others of not following the rules while continuing to make WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments and trying to deflect by bringing up unrelated matters. They continue to cite non-existent rules to justify their edits. As noted above, they refused to make a talk page section when asked and deemed the attempt resolving the issue an "attack". Bluerules (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC) WP:NFL clearly shows the structure and formatting to the lead, which this user clearly doesn’t understand but insists on using something that is well established throughout the article, I left a warning message before the user did on my page and at no point did they try to resolve the issue, they attacked me on the players talk page and just reported this and used a same revert twice when I only did it twice and not 3 breaking the rules, I was waiting patiently for a response on my page for a discussion but they never made a effort to resolve anything but to resort to lies and this, I did absolutely nothing wrong but try ti help TheKinkdomMan talk 12:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC) @TheKinkdomMan: You stated above 'Look at the reverts this user used the same one twice I only reverted twice not three times which isn’t a violation' you don't have to revert three times to violate the edit warring rule (See Wikipedia's policy on edit warring) which states that The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. So you can be classed as engaging in edit warring regardless of how many reverts have been made. --StarryNightSky11 ☎ 13:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC) WP:NFL does not "clearly" show "the structure and formatting to the lead". This editor flat-out refuses to acknowledge the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF and that their arguments fall under OTHERSTUFF. They did not create the talk page section on the article, which is how these matters are supposed to be resolved (not on other editor's talk pages), and continue to insist it was an "attack" to notify them of the OTHERSTUFF guideline and why NFL needs to be spelled out. And while accusing others of attacking them, they flat-out accuse me of being a liar. Bluerules (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC) @StarryNightSky11: yes however I linked the correct structure to this user and they failed to even respond to me but yet attack me when I tried to help, look at their edits clearly edit wars on every nfl article, I gave them the opportunity to resolve the issue with me when I left a warning message however they sent one back and then processed to report me TheKinkdomMan talk 13:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I told you to create a talk page section to resolve this and directed you to the guideline you were violating. You ignored both. It is not an "attack" to inform you of a guideline you are ignoring. It is an attack to accuse another of frequent edit warring without evidence. Bluerules (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC) However I never violated any revert rule, a edit war yes, however this user never tried to resolve the issue, I pinged them on WP:NFL to show them the structure and they never responded, only to report something that they didn’t like TheKinkdomMan talk 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC) You did not properly ping me on WP:NFL, so I was not notified. And that does not show a structure, it merely provides a recommendation for how articles should be structured. You have been ignoring actual guidelines and that is why you were reported. Bluerules (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Both TheKinkdomMan and Bluerules have been edit warring on this. I'd suggest reaching consensus at Talk:Jamie Collins (American football)#NFL needs to be identified.. Consider notifying WikiProject NFL for other perspectives.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC) TheKindomMan is citing non-existent guidelines for their edits and ignoring actual guidelines. They are playing victim and accusing me of being a liar. They clearly not open to discussion. Bluerules (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC) @Bagumba: I did create a talk page on WikiProject NFL this user never responded TheKinkdomMan talk 13:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I did not respond because I was not notified due to being improperly pinged. Bluerules (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC) 🤦‍♂️ TheKinkdomMan talk 13:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC) It is clear this editor does not want to engage in constructive conversation. I don't know what else is there is to demonstrate this. Bluerules (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC) @TheKinkdomMan: This is a situation where your best course of action is to reach out to other editors rather than edit war. Perversely, you getting reported has worked to your benefit, as I've jumped in on the content matter at the article. (And IMO, the status quo intro that you are editing away from is a mess.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC) How can you talk to someone who clearly doesn’t respond to messages on the talk pages and yet has the balls to accuse me of not wanting to work things out, first off if you wanted to resolve the issue you should of responded to my messages and pings and not resort to this, I showed this user the structure format and they want to ignore it, I’ve created multiple articles using the correct format and have been doing this for years, check the logs you clearly see BlueRules is lying out their ass TheKinkdomMan talk 13:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "yet has the balls to accuse me of not wanting to work things out" "BlueRules is lying out their ass" If it was not clear something needs to be done about this editor before, it is now. Bluerules (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Responding to my messages now after reporting this mess, this clearly could of been avoided TheKinkdomMan talk 13:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC) This could have been avoided if you made the talk page section when I asked you to. You did not. Bluerules (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Just note this user never messaged me and is clearly lying out their ass to cover there’s, check the logs, and being attacked is a clear violation, at no point did they ever mention guidelines, not to mention WP:OTHERSTUFF has absolutely nothing to do with how NFL articles are written and structured TheKinkdomMan talk 13:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I mentioned the guidelines from the start. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to how every article is written and structured. This editor claims they were attacked while simultaneously saying I am "clearly lying out [my] ass". I would greatly appreciate more intervention in this matter because this conduct is completely unnacceptable. Bluerules (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC) My conduct is fine, you are clearly lying when your logs show you never engaged with me to resolve the issue, your lying about 3RR and attacked me first, you clearly have no indication of how NFL articles are formatted, WikiProject NFL show the structure, and lying about messaging someone to get someone blocked cause you don’t like what they are saying is absolutely repulsive, I pinged you multiple times and gave you the structure, if it was subject to change others would have changed it, and not reported someone to get their own way, TheKinkdomMan talk 13:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "My conduct is fine" "yet has the balls to accuse me of not wanting to work things out" "BlueRules is lying out their ass" "clearly lying out their ass to cover there’s" "you are clearly lying" "lying about messaging someone" The fact that you think all of these comments are "fine" is what's absolutely repulsive (and you say this right before accusing me of being a liar again). It is not fine to continually make personal attacks and accuse others of being a liar (from someone who accuses others of attacking them, no less). You keep accusing me of being a liar and haven't provided a lick of evidence to support it. I cited all three of your reverts (twice). You continue to insist a recommendation is a rule when it is clearly not. You did not properly ping me, so I was never notified, and even if you did, your "structure" is still a "recommendation". You cannot push a "recommendation" onto every article. I actually did properly ping you and again, you claimed you were attacked. You are not listening to anyone but yourself. Bluerules (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Ok let’s click you link “ i mentioned from the start” well it clearly shows you didn’t, yet another lie uncovered, as I mentioned b4 they never contacted me to resolve the issue, I sent them the warning message and two minutes later they sent one back and then reverted the edit, and from their on edit war over something I’ve proved the structure to be TheKinkdomMan talk 13:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC) That link clearly shows me citing WP:OTHERSTUFF. Another attempt at accusing me of being a liar is proven false. I contacted you on the article talk page to resolve the issue after you refused to make it yourself and you claim you were attacked. The issue is supposed to be resolved there, not on another editor's talk page. You haven't proved anything about the structure, you only demonstrated your "structure" is actually a recommendation that does not need to be followed. Bluerules (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I’m done engaging with this war, clearly I’ve proved I’m right and they continue to lie I leave the decision up to a admin but check my logs and theirs shows they lied. TheKinkdomMan talk 13:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC) This editor has clearly broken the personal attacks rule they accused me of breaking by repeating accusing me of being a liar. That's all right here. While this editor fails to provide any actual evidence of my "lies", this section alone shows them disregarding an actual policy, insisting a recommendation is a rule, and repeatedly making personal attacks against me. Bluerules (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC) You didn’t do anything but insert the same revert twice and I’ve provided evidence from the structure of the article on WP:NFL calling you a liar isn’t an attack when you click your link it clearly shows you haven’t provided anything but a edit war, not to mention you have a edit war with everyone on NFL article, when the structure clearly points out the the reference and establishment of the NFL player and NFL and I don’t have to insert any attacks when it’s clearly Visible on Jamie Collins talk page, you’ve been lying trying to get me blocked on here when you’ve been proven wrong, standing up for yourself and calling someone out isn’t a attack and neither is playing victim, your logs are visible to anyone who views them, you never tried to resolve anything, your agenda is clear, report anything you don’t agree with and justify it by inserting lies, reading a structure on the WikiProject NFL clearly shows the the correct format and refusing to go by it gets a revert to the correct edit, if I was to attack you I wouldn’t do it on here I’d say to your face, but you’ve been on here for 15 years and still haven’t properly formatted the NFL article shows, I’m not saying I don’t like change however no article is formatted the way your trying to do it, it’s over kill and unnecessary the NFL is established through out the article, agree or not, I’ve shown you the format and your argument is subject to change when clearly it hasn’t changed, so with that being said I hope you have a pleasant day and a healthy life outside of being on a keyboard, enjoy life get outside more to life than arguing over something that I’ve clearly proved via the talk page on WP:NFL And no rules have been broken by me besides edit war, cut your BS Lying TheKinkdomMan talk 14:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC) You claim you're "done engaging with this war" and then write this huge block of text. I told you to bring the matter to the talk page and that you were making WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments in my edit summaries. You ignored both. No matter what you say, the "structure" you try defending your edits with is a recommendation. It is flat-out established that this is a recommendation and cannot be used to justify how every article should be written, especially when that is still an OTHERSTUFF argument. "no article is formatted the way your trying to do it" is an OTHERSTUFF argument and as I have repeatedly pointed out, you cannot assume readers know what the NFL is. You may think assumptions are fine, but they are not. And rather than work to resolve this issue, you throw personal attack after personal attack at me. Sorry, but repeatedly calling me a liar is the very definition of a personal attack, all while you accuse others of doing what you do to them. I made the talk page discussion, you did not. What you use to justify your edits is a mere recommendation and nothing more. And you conclude your insistence of not breaking any further rules with even more personal attacks. Bluerules (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC) @TheKinkdomMan and Bluerules: It's best to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in these situations. If there was more than two people involved, it wouldn't matter as much if one person was "lying". Of course, WP:AGF, when possible. However, this noticeboard is really not the forum to resolve content disputes.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC) A dispute resolution is not going to work in this situation. Just look at this editor's comments. They have been ignoring an actual policy from the start and insisting a recommendation is a rule. They think it is "fine" to repeatedly accuse me of being a liar and use obscenities. This editor does not want to work towards a resolution. They only want the article written their way and will personally attack anyone who disagrees. Bluerules (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Bagumba I agree however the logs clearly show everything and I’m done arguing with this user TheKinkdomMan talk 14:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "And no rules have been broken by me besides edit war, cut your BS Lying". Again, just read this editor's comments. Bluerules (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC) My logs clearly point out I made the talk page again another lie, your digging your hole deeper and when every NFL article changes that’s when it can change until then we follow the structure of WP:NFL stop playing victim every time I say I’m done you add to it causing more fire to the BS that you clearly don’t see, in what article has your format been used in, let’s see none, we follow the structure of what it given until it changes TheKinkdomMan talk 14:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC) You keep claiming you're "done" and then return to continue arguing with me. And you claim I'm digging a hole deeper. You refuse to acknowledge that "structure" is a mere recommendation, you continue to ignore WP:OTHERSTUFF, and you make further personal attacks while still accusing others of what you're guilty of. Bluerules (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC) First off I’ve been wanting a resolution you’re still playing victim, you’ve shown no indication of resolving the matter, not to mention you keep adding and adding and adding more drama over something that has been consistently written the same, no Article has been changed to your format like I said it’s over kill and who wouldn’t know what the NFL stands for, like i said b4 overkill to something that is established further more your argument hasn’t shown any article that has changed thus going in my favor of the structure format I suggest we make a talk page for everyone to chime in TheKinkdomMan talk 14:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I made the talk discussion and I've been having a civil conversation C.Fred over this matter. You are in no position to claim you want a resolution when you did not make the talk page discussion and continue to make the same arguments that ignore two key facts: the "structure" for NFL articles clearly says it is a recommendation and WP:OTHERSTUFF prevents you from writing articles a certain way simply because other articles are written that way. And you are in no position to accuse others of playing victim when you repeatedly insisted you were "attacked" by me making that talk page section. You may not think people wouldn't know what the NFL stands for, but there are, and you cannot make assumptions. Whether articles have changed is irrelevant to the fact that your "structure" argument is still a recommendation, invalidating your "structure format". Instead of "suggesting" a talk page is made, you should have made one from the start. Bluerules (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I’m not guilty of Jack Shit, you’ve been lying for the start, the structure isn’t recommended when every Article is written that way, as I see you want to improve the article it just doesn’t, your overstating something that is established when the structure changes then it changes otherwise no article is gonna look like the one your trying to change, if I can be civil here right now so can you, however when an article changes to the format your trying to make it then I’ll admit I am wrong until then we follow the structure, I’m done calling you a liar and such however let’s make a talk page for everyone to comment and voice their opinions Bluerules is that fair TheKinkdomMan talk 14:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC) You repeatedly claim you were done arguing with me, yet continue to argue with me. The page you cited flat-out says recommendation. How can you even argue this? It is a recommendation, not a rule. And C.Fred agreed with me that NFL should be spelled out and referenced. That's not overstating, that's key information. You cannot base your arguments off of "structure" because of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Focus on the article itself, not how other articles written by many other editors are structured. A talk page section has already been created and it should be made without any prompting from other editors. Bluerules (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I did create a talk page for you and I to resolve the issue you claim I didn’t which is a lie when it’s on WP:NFL sub page structure, I’m trying to be civil but you want to act like a winning key board warrior, don’t lie and try to say things dude, you are not all Mighty on here and you are not a admin, you have been ignoring the structure of every article that hasn’t changed, you’ve been on here for 15 years and choose to argue over something that has a structure that has been followed for the longest time without change like I said stop your lying my logs clearly show I created a talk page and that you messaged back after the fact and clearly say on this message board that I didn’t ping you properly, being caught in a lie is disgusting but yet I’m trying to be civil with you and come to an agreement so enough is enough with the BS TheKinkdomMan talk 14:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC) You did not create a talk page section the Jamie Collins article. That is a fact. Talk page sections are supposed to be created on the article under dispute, not other articles. That is a fact. You said you were done calling me a liar and still accuse me of lying. That is a fact. You claim you're trying to be civil, but throw personal attack after personal attack at me. That is a fact. You refuse to acknowledge the structure is a recommendation that does not have to be followed. That is a fact. You refuse to acknowledge WP:OTHERSTUFF specifically dictates why you cannot structure articles based solely on how other articles are structured. That is a fact. You mentioned the talk page you created here, which notified me of its existence and allowed me to message you back. That is a fact. You did not properly ping me when you created that talk page - you wrote "@bluerules", which does not ping me. That is a fact. What is disgusting is to repeatedly accuse me of being a liar without a lick of evidence to prove it. You are not trying to be civil and it is clear you do not want a civil conversation when you are unable to stop making personal attacks. Bluerules (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I accuse the facts never the less I left a nice message on your talk page to diffuse the situation and yet I get notified of this, one I never said I left a talk page on Jamie Collins 2 I pinged you to the structure since you were so adamant about seeing the evidence, 3 I mentioned multiple times without inserting the link to WP:NFL so instead of defusing you escalate again after I said to leave each other alone, hmm interesting to see after I suggested to agree to disagree, and for the record I’m replying back cause you keep replying back but I was civil and nice on your talk page until I get notified of this TheKinkdomMan talk 15:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC) You don't diffuse an edit war situation through messages on editor talk pages. You're supposed to start on the talk page of the article being disputed. Why is this so hard to understand? I never said you said you left a talk page on the Jamie Collins article. I said you didn't create a talk page section on the Jamie Collins article and that's where you were supposed to have made the talk section, not anywhere else. You improperly pinged me and your "evidence" only demonstrated you were citing a recommendation, not a rule. What are you mentioning is still a recommendation and that hasn't changed. What's interesting is you repeatedly said you were done with me, yet continue to argue. You can't first claim you're done, then claim you're going to keep responding when I respond. If you really wanted to defuse this situation, you would leave and not care about me replying back. If you really want for use to leave each other alone, you would leave and not care about me replying back. If you really wanted to agree to disagree, you would leave and not care about me replying back. Clearly, you are not interested in anything of these things because you are unable to stop replying. Insisting you were "civil and nice" before this does not justify your constant personal attacks. Bluerules (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC) By continuing to reply and reply shows how much you clearly don’t want to let it go you want the last word and that ain’t gonna happen, and you can defuse the situation anywhere you started this by acting like a cry baby by reporting, you never once messaged me to discuss it, you continue to try to have the last word when I said leave each other alone, agreeing to disagree would of been fine I left a nice message to you on your talk page but yet you still act like the victim and continue to reply and reply if you wanted to defuse you would leave it alone as well, two wrongs don’t make a right and acting like a child doesn’t either, like others have said make a discussion I have when you asked me to show you evidence which i did, no other article is formatted to what your changing it to be, evidence right there, like I said I’m trying to be civil but you keep pushing my buttons and if you wanted to be civil like I’m trying to be now you’d leave it alone and not reply back and go on with your day and enjoy life instead of being on a keyboard, so if you can leave this message alone then we can go on without further incident TheKinkdomMan talk 15:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I am not going to leave your messages alone when you continue to throw personal attacks at me, misrepresent the situation, and demonstrate a complete lack of self-awareness. You keep insisting you want a discussion, but refused to make one on the disputed article. I made it. You've now made it clear that you aren't even replying to add anything constructive. You just want to keep accusing me of everything you're guilty - pretending that you want to be done with this, but unable to stop because you were replied to. And that is childish. Bluerules (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC) You are gonna leave it alone I left more than one message check your notifications When your clearly lying if you didn’t lie I wouldn’t point you out as to be, first of all you ain’t gonna have the last word in after I said leave it alone and be civil I left messages but yet you continue to lie and say I didn’t clearly my logs don’t lie, further more if you can’t be civil then go somewhere else and do something constructive with your life, you ignored the structure of the lead bio page on WP:NFL you continue to act like a cry baby and say I’m lying when anyone can see anyones logs and contributions, by escalating a situation that could of been handled with a simple message to me Would of been easier, but no you can’t leave things alone it’s simple don’t reply and look at the message boards to see my replies back to Jamie Collins, I’ve caught you in multiple lies and you back track, enough is enough grow up act like a civil human being and leave it alone, i said I’d agree to disagree which also means we can’t come to a conclusion so by leaving this message alone will give us both peace otherwise it’s gonna go back and fourth until the end of time, just leave it alone I’m asking you nicely to please leave it alone and me, I’m done fighting over something so Fn stupid there is no winner here so just leave it be, if you stopped acting like a winning baby there wouldn’t be any issues here, bitching back and fourth gets us no where so please just leave it be TheKinkdomMan talk 16:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Prove one example of me lying. Prove it. You keep insisting and insisting it, but haven't provided one single example to back up your claims. I never said you were lying, but you do repeatedly claim you're "done", only to write another block of text whenever I reply. You just refuse to accept that your "structure" is nothing more than a recommendation. You can't comprehend that you were supposed to have made a talk page section on the disputed article, not anywhere else, to de-escalate this situation. So long as you continue to make personal attacks and false accusations against me, I am going to respond. If you really were done, you would not reply again. But you will because you don't practice what you preach. Bluerules (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:TheKinkdomMan has been blocked indefinitely by User:RickinBaltimore for making legal threats, per a complaint at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Mathsci reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: No violation, but this really needs to be discussed somewhere)

Page: Pachelbel's Canon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "per article talk page"
2. 15:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "should be discuss on the article talk page as suggested"
3. 15:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "WP:BRD - discuss on the talk page - appears to be synthesized with 3 extra harps doubling the single violins, which is improbable"
4. 05:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "emulating baroque style & tempi per Daniel Hope, Christopher Hogwood, Reinhard Goebel, Jordi Saval, London Philharmonia Orchestra, Trevor Pinnock, et al"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
2. 15:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Pachelbel's Canon."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Synthesized no authentic scoring */ Reply"

Comments:

Mathsci seems to think that they can leave a comment on talk page and that others are then forced to accept their version (not the case, despite me leaving two very clear and unambiguous warnings on their talk page and them being here for far long enough that they should know better). Not only that, but here they've clearly violated WP:3RR, AND, on top of that, they're clearly WP:STALKING me (something which dates back a few months), which makes all of this even more disruptive than it already is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

---

These edits were made, when RandomCanadian was aware that I was involved in renewing urgent stroke prescriptions.

Extended content

I do not know why RandomCanadian is making these odd comments, which do not reflect any kind of reality. Recently RC has made unprompted comments concerning my user talk page; it has been semi-protected for a long time due to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev; historically there has been abuse by User:Echigo mole/User:A.K.Nole, whose disruption ended in May 2013. There has recently been disruption at WP:ANI, which were archived when User:Jayron32 pointed out what I had said about standard practices on a user's talk page (i.e. deleting messages, after they had registered). During that report, the OP was oxDeadbeef: I wrote On my user talk page, if a random user comments, I have the option of deleting that edit once it has registered with me. oxDeadbeef commented five times; I noticed what had been written and deleted it. That report was quickly closed by User:Jayron32. But during that time RC interjected himself[11] writing, Example text This seems to be an deliberate incorrect interpretation of wikipedia policies for what happens on how user page talk pages works; it has been applied only to me. At the same time, seeing the wikilink WP:STALK, RC made seven illegal edits related to stalking, aimed at me.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] [19] RC's then made these edits to my talk page with an appropriate template warning.[20] Then RC this extraordinary edit to my user talk page[21] with edit summary "final warning" (as if an admin) writing You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Pachelbel's Canon. You have been here very much long enough to know not to do this. Stop edit-warring your preferred version back in and stop WP:STALKING me. This shows that RC prepared "WP:STALKING", aimed at me. Without a list of diffs, there is no evidence of stalking, just a lack of good faith. After the standard WP:AN3 notification, RC then added a further comment[22], with the strange edit-summary "Reply" (but I had not written anything) and edit: "This is unambiguously a fourth "revert" (since you are re-inserting disputed content) and you should do everyone the courtesy of stopping the silly edit-warring. You leaving a message on the talk page, and me not immediately responding to it, does not mean that there is suddenly a consensus for it; it just means I haven't yet responded to it. You behaving otherwise leaves an impression that you don't think much of the opinion of others, which is frankly disrespectful."

I cannot see four reverts. I can see one edit where I changed an audio file, having created it from scratch on Commons (it was in fact the second attempt to create such an audio file). Then RC made three reverts.[23][24][25] During that period, after discussion on the article talk page, I had decided to add the brand new audio file in a completely different place where it was relevant (see below). Thus here[26], RC issued a template warning on my user talk page when there were only three edits concerning audio files. At that stage, I made a fourth edit to add new content, not related to any of RC's edits, but instead to correct one Oxford University Press source and add the brand new audio file next to Pachelbel's Canon#Analysis, as outlined on the article talk page. That is the normal way editing is done. However, RC appended a further comment to my talk page[27] writing This is unambiguously a fourth "revert" (since you are re-inserting disputed content) and you should do everyone the courtesy of stopping the silly edit-warring. You leaving a message on the talk page, and me not immediately responding to it, does not mean that there is suddenly a consensus for it; it just means I haven't yet responded to it. You behaving otherwise leaves an impression that you don't think much of the opinion of others, which is frankly disrespectful.

General context for creating music audio files since 2007. My edits concerning audio files show a long record of creating Commons audio files, which have not received criticism, starting from Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" (BWV 769), Clavier-Übung III, BWV 39, BWV 1014, BWV 1019, etc, and audio files for Reger and Buxtehude. So far RC has just described my audio files as "bad"; in that sense, he was unwilling to discuss the article Pachelbel's Canon in any way. He has a few recent edits on 12 May[28] "OR does not include information which would be plainly obvious to an educated person with access to the score; so reinstate some of the basics about the gigue; +major ce to make this sound like an actual encyclopedia and not something written by 5 year olds".[29] – here he deletes a fairly good EL video performance. Then he changed the audio link from a US Air Force Band[30] writing, "this is too slow and everything; but it's better than the other one which is even further away from the original piece". Mathsci (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The gall of the post above is unbelievable. After asking me to follow BRD (despite you being the one who keeps edit warring and stubbornly disrespecting me), you not only A) did not follow it but B) edit-warred your preferred version back in very literal spite of the discussion happening on the talk page (the same discussion where you have, like here, been trying to make everything off-topic with WP:OSE arguments - FWIW, those other MIDI versions are also bad, but that's irrelevant here). An appeal to emotion does not excuse your edit-warring (in fact, makes it even more dubious: if you're having health issues, why are you in such apparent hurry to stalk me and edit war with me?). You did not do "normal editing". You attempted to insert contentious material by piggybacking it on top of a less controversial edit. That is peak WP:GAMING and I'll have none of it. Please A) self-revert B) apologise and stop-edit warring C) stop stalking me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion was about audio files and their educational usefulness for general lay readers; that seems straightforward and something where there is universal consensus. Here this concerned one audio file and its placement. That seems a very neutral and anodyne matter—completely uncontentious. Mathsci (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What little "educational usefulness for general lay readers" a terrible MIDI-generated audio file has escapes me, but you again seem to be refusing to acknowledge the problem here: it's not "completely uncontentious" if somebody objects to it; and you behaving like this (which is essentially total disrespect towards me) in the face of very obvious evidence that it is, in fact, contentious, and edit-warring despite a talk page discussion on the topic, is deeply unsettling. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think regular admins on this noticeboard evaluate audio files, but I could be wrong. Mathsci (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That part of the discussion should continue on the article talk page (you obviously know your way there). As for the rest, you clearly edit-warred by reinserting your preferred version despite being very clearly warned about it and despite an ongoing talk page discussion. This is either an attempt by you at WP:GAMING (by edit-warring your version back in in spite of the ongoing talk page discussion; or by exploiting the first-mover loophole of 3RR) or it's just plain and simple motive-less disruptive harassment (surprisingly, in all of your over a decade on Wikipedia, this is the first time you edit this page: combined with previous examples of you following me to pages you never edited before and getting into a disruptive edit war (ex. 1 2 3), there's a clear WP:STALKING pattern here; and AGF isn't a suicide pact, so I beg you to stop these silly shenanigans. Or you face the music; your choice. In either case, it clearly requires admin attention of some form. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Further evidence of stalking: [31] [32] [33] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. But this seems like it might be better discussed at AN/I or something before it escalates. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Chatul reported by User:Timhowardriley (Result: Not blocked; this really sounds like material for AN/I)

Page: Operating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User:Chatul is not contributing to Operating_system#Interrupts using reliable sources. Instead, he is hindering my attempts to do so. I rewrote the Interrupts section because it had this deficient legacy version. Whereas each sentence in the legacy version was technically correct, the section suffered these deficiencies:

1. The sentences didn't form a narrative.
2. The section was entirely original research.
3. The section lacked a thesis: An operating system has an interrupt module, and its core function is to efficiently and effectively switch between running computer programs. In computer jargon, an interrupt module will likely perform a context switch. (For more information, visit Context_switch#Interrupt_handling.) If an operating system's interrupt module and context switching module are ineffective, then your computer will periodically be sluggish or freeze.

Judge for yourself if the current version alleviates these deficiencies. See Operating_system#Interrupts.

Unfortunately, improving Operating system is hindered by the unwarranted improvement tags posted by User:Chatul. His common complaint is I'm inaccurately paraphrasing the sentences in textbooks; he's being fastidiously semantic. In the Interrupts section, notice citation "[43] [44] [45] [c]"? This is citation overkill, and it's a consequence of him being fastidiously semantic.

Unwarranted Improvement tags and condescending talks are causing me stress. Maybe he doesn't realize the stress he is causing. Or maybe he wants me to go away. Anyway, I've had enough. Here are, in reverse order, his edits and talks that cause my stresses:

1. With this talk entry on May 12, 2022, User:Chatul agreed that an interrupt service routine may cause a context switch. I then added back context switch to the section's lead resulting in this version. Then he moved my newly added sentence from the article to the citation's quote section. So, I started this talk thread: Talk:Operating_system#Unethically_misquoting_a_textbook.
   
   
2. With this edit on May 11, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "The control flow change is known as a context switch." The sentence had two citations from a textbook by Abraham Silberschatz. Silberschatz explains in two different sections that an interrupt will likely cause a control flow change which is known as a context switch.
   
   
3. With this edit on May 10, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "Interrupts cause the central processing unit (CPU) to have a control flow change away from the currently running process." The sentence had a citation referencing page 308 in Andrew Tanenbaum's textbook. User:Chatul's tag justification was, "The cited text does not mention context switches." However, the sentence he disputed didn't have context switches in it either.
   
   
4. With this edit on April 20, 2022, User:Chatul tag bombed the subsection I/O channel. The subsection was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook and was well cited. Moreover, each citation had a link to the specific page in an online version of Tanenbaum's textbook, like page 55. However, User:Chatul was not pleased. Instead of improving the subsection using his own reliable sources, he generated this talk thread. I was disturbed that he accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. This talk thread caused me to run out of energy. The talk thread was 2,063 words, but the subsection had only 134 words. I deleted the subsection.
   
   
5. With this edit on April 19, 2022, User:Chatul accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. Again, I/O Channel was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook.
   
   

I'm a student of computer technology; I have no bias. Different technologies have different strengths and weaknesses. User:Chatul's NPOV accusation is an unsupported denigration. Moreover, it's not just me he's denigrating. With his talk section titled NPOV: undue emphasis on microprocessors, he's denigrating all of the editors. If I were pretending to be Sigmund Freud, I would say he's projecting his IBM System/360 bias.

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources says, "There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner." * The Interrupts section has multiple textbooks as sources. It's been stressful to be denigrated while studiously performing secondary research.

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Attempts_to_evade_detection says, "Bad-faith disruptive editors attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways: Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit is disruptive but the overall pattern clearly is. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it." * After a long period of time, I now get stressed feelings making edits to the Operating System article. User:Chatul doesn't improve the article using reliable sources. Instead, he questions my edits in the talk page and posts improvement tags in the article.

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing says, "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: Engages in 'disruptive cite-tagging'; adds unjustified citation needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." * See here.

Generally speaking, User:Chatul is more concerned with nuance than writing an encyclopedia. He finds a flaw in everything. Here is one example. Well, maybe technology is so vast, that flaws in sentences are unavoidable. Put another way: for a technology sentence to be flawless, it must be overly qualified. The Wikipedia principle that comes to mind is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. It says, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." * If there's a rule saying that paraphrasing a source must contain every word in the source, then ignore that rule. Otherwise, very little will get paraphrased.

Operating System is an important article in computer science. Moreover, there's a lot of reliable sources available to make it a good article. To become good, it needs to attract editors stimulated by secondary research. Please help provide a non-hostile environment by blocking User:Chatul from editing it for one year. Don't get me wrong — User:Chatul does know about operating systems. However, he needs to gain experience in secondary research to appreciate its benefits. Timhowardriley (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kvng: User:Timhowardriley has provided citations that do not say what he attributed to them. He has removed {{disputed}}} tags despite an ongoing discussion with no consensus. He has failed to be civil, even after I pointed out his violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, e.g., describing an editing error as unethical, inventing motives out of the whole cloth. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I reject this ad hominem. Timhowardriley (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• No violation I am not sure that this report even belongs at this noticeboard as it does not seem like any clear pattern of reverting the same edit is in the evidence submitted. It seems to me it got lost on the way to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Avilich reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: Protected)

Page: Siege of Oricum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avilich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34] 14:24, 8 May 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35] 14:37, 8 May
2. [36] 14:39, 8 May
3. [37] 15:02, 8 May
4. [38] 18:29, 9 May
5. [39] 20:30, 14 May
6. [40] 02:09, 15 May

Further reverts have only been prevented by full page protection.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] 22:22, 14 May

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Siege of Oricum#Reverted edits, May 8, 2022

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:
I would like to add that Avlich has repeatedly tried to close down discussion of his reverts on the talk page by claiming the article should not be changed during an ongoing AFD, and telling users to shut up. SpinningSpark 08:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• I trust that whichever administrator looks at this will realize that, 1, diffs [52] and [53] are the same revert; and 2, "claiming the article should not be changed during an ongoing AFD" is not the extent of all grievances outlined in that diff, and thus cherrypicking and misrepresentation. The filer assumed bad faith from the start and had nothing to say about several alternatives I suggested in the talk page. In any case there's no 3RR violation and there's a DRN discussion going on. Avilich (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Result: The page in dispute, Siege of Oricum, has been fully protected for two days by User:Ad Orientem due to a request at RFPP. There has been a lengthy dispute. It appears that User:Avilich is in the minority position on many of these disagreements. I suggest he try to get consensus on the talk page before making further changes. Avilich opened a deletion discussion about the article but it has now been closed as Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

PeeJay at Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. (Result:Article full-protected for three days)

Evidently party to this tense derby. This editor is desperate to present his team in front of their major rival.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=1087586853&oldid=1087207120 Ordinary edit made a short time ago, and not by me if any admin wants to check.

PeeJay's actions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087586853 First revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087589147 Second revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087589292 Third revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087589454 4th revert and violation of 3RR - and a false claim that they are reverting vandalism which they are not. The summaries show that I am engaged in content dispute based on how they interpret the article's purpose against the rest of the community.

Invitation for discussion and opportunity to correct themselves

followed by

refusal to withdraw false claim of vandalism which I maintain the edits were not, and also a refusal to conform to wiki.policy. --Marching on Leeds (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If anyone wants to check the article talk page, it was decided not to include the Sheriff of London Shield in Liverpool's list of honours. User:Marching on Leeds' edits are in direct contravention of that, and they are not assuming good faith on my part, accusing me of bias that does not exist. – PeeJay 11:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

One obvious point of concern is that the statement in dispute (either Manchester United and Liverpool are joint most successful sides in English football with 66 trophies or Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 65) has four references, none of which actually either of the figures being claimed:

• The first gives a 64/60 split
• The second gives a 64/60 split
• The third gives a 60/59 split
• The fourth gives a 62/59 split.

My question is why anyone is editing a sourced sentence and inserting numbers that are different to the sources? Number 57 11:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

A clear case of personal interpretation. Obviously one is welcome to take the matter to An/I but I see not one case of "vandalism" as claimed, and this project page is about 3RR violations coupled with a stiff-necked reluctance to self-immoderate, and only one editor on this thread is guilty of that. --Ramos Ovenready (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If one editor acts in direct contravention of a talk page discussion, that is vandalism, and reverting acts of vandalism does not count against 3RR. – PeeJay 12:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not WP:VANDALISM, which has a specific meaning. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so. However, given User:Marching on Leeds' history of adding controversial content to articles ([43], [44]), one has to question their motives here. – PeeJay 13:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't say so, it's in the policy I linked above. Questioning motives is not exempt from 3rr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Except as you pointed out, WP:VANDALISM says "any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism", but we have reason to question whether User:Marching on Leeds' contributions were indeed in good faith. – PeeJay 13:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

One edit is good faith. Being directed to talk page after revert and continuing with antagonising edit summaries is no longer good faith. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No such thing as "vandalism in good faith". The explanation of what WP:VANDALISM is, is crystal clear, and not open to redefinition by editors pushing their pro-Man Utd POVs on the pretext of "rvv". Not gonna happen mate. --Marching on Leeds (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article for 3 days. If after that time expires, any editor currently involved in the edit war resumes the dispute on the article, they risk being blocked without warning. Also, any discussion on the article Talk page should not contain personal attacks, or editors may find themselves blocked for that reason. I have not posted the result in the header as the report is malformed, and I don't intend to fix it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  It seems to have started again. I think PeeJay's self-declared Man U support means they are violating WP:COI. I have tried to put in something that clarifies it depends on what you count as a significant trophy but that doesn't seem to matter.There is a dispute in RL that dispute should be mentioned but the dispute should not be continued here.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Bbb23. What a load of old cobblers, "malformed". You wanna check your settings and there is clearly something wrong there. The layout is perfectly well presented. Anyone can follow the evidence against PeeJay. if you're claiming there needs to be a uniform way of laying out complaints, 1) "malformed" doesn't suggest that, and 2) it is a very poor excuse not to ban an editor who not only violated 3RR, but made a FIFTH revert with no apology, hiding behind his own personal definition of "vandalism" which differs from the official wording (WP:VANDALISM). --Marching on Leeds (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Rather than log a separate complaint, the contested user PeeJay keeps on removing perfectly good content from the Liverpool FC article without consent from talk page users. He is disruptive and keeps removing Sher of Lon Shield details. Don't care if it's classed as a minor award, there's no rule to say it cannot remain on the LFC article Koppite1 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Did you even look at my most recent edit? I did exactly what you said you would agree to! – PeeJay 15:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

      Now perhaps you should revert your actions on the Aston Villa or any other article you saw fit to remove the content without talk page consent Koppite1 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Trophy count

Regarding the trophy count, the issue is very few articles actually discuss the relevant trophy counts until / as / when they are in parallel or close. Many often split the trophies up, excluding specific competitions based on their own criteria (such as Major vs Minor competitions). The sources are the most recent discussions of the trophy count that are complete (otherwise we get into POV articles specifically supporting one interpretation). The conclusion was to report the total count of trophies as presented in reliable sources (which all universally exclude the Sheriff of London) when discussing the rivalries. The lede has then been updated to match subsequent trophy gains as non-controversial statements of fact. This hasn't been problematic until Liverpool began to become closer to equalling the total. As a result we are running into a broader issue:

1. Our List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won decided to use criteria that includes ALL trophies involving the FA. It's a big piece of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as each individual element can be sourced but nobody ever really counts the trophies in such a way.
2. Sites (less reputable user created ones in particular) are picking up on the wikipedia article and starting to duplicate the SoL inclusion. This clashes with then the reliable sources that exclude it (even exhaustive paper resources, or those such as the Clubs websites) as a historic irrelevance from a not fully professional era.
3. Unreliability of trophy counts from reliable sources. For example Talksport state Major honours counted as season-long competitions (Charity/Community Shield and UEFA Super Cup not included), and no one-off competitions tallied towards total. European trophies include: European Cup/Champions League, Cup Winners’ Cup, UEFA Cup/Europa League and Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. Only top flight league titles are counted as major honours. while SkySports definition of Major differs Major trophies include Division One/ Premier League titles, FA Cup, League Cup, European Cup/ Champions League, UEFA Cup/ Europa Cup, Cup Winners' Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, UEFA Super Cup, Club World Cup and Inter-Continental Cup. Neither include the Charity Shield for whatever reason based on their own definitions of "major" which results in further conflict. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Love of Corey reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Stale)

Page: 2022 Buffalo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Love of Corey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2022-05-16T04:02:46
2. 2022-05-16T04:20:20
3. 2022-05-16T04:35:57
4. 2022-05-16T04:38:38

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2022-05-16T04:31:26 (which they promptly reverted off their talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [46] (which was also reverted without response on their talk page)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

Comments:

Attempted to discuss with editor on their talk page. Behavior is disruptive as victim lists are fairly standard for mass shooting articles like this. WP:NOTBURO, editor wants to re-hash the debate again rather than accept that the victims are central to the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Evidently not as central given there's always a discussion on whether to include victims' names in every significant mass shooting article I see. Love of Corey (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Which, by the way, I've started, so please participate in it. Love of Corey (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Always a discussion which leads to them being included most of the time. And there's only a discussion because a die-hard few editors want to bog down any editing in endless debate about something they know they're likely to lose at. It's bad faith bureaucracy abuse for the sake of stonewalling. And I'm FED UP with it. It's obvious disruption at this point. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• The only viable alternative is blocking both editors to prevent further edit warring ([48] [49] [50] [51]), which appears to be unnecessary at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Your first diff was where I added the text initially. It would be refreshing if we didn't see obvious disruption rewarded, but I guess I was holding out too much hope here. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

User:70.49.162.176 reported by User:Ravenswing (Result: Blocked)

Page: Original Six (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.49.162.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57][58][59]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [60]

Comments:

• Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Samaq reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Blocked 3 days)

Page: Gyanvapi Mosque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Gyanvapi Mosque */ removed false, misinformation, unvarified claim"
2. 10:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Gyanvapi Mosque */ removed false, misinformation, unvarified claima"
3. 09:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Gyanvapi Mosque */ removed false, misinformation, unvarified claim"
4. 09:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Gyanvapi Mosque */ removed false, misinformation, unvarified claim"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

AIV-level vandalism. Warned multiple times. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:MarsTrombone reported by User:GordonGlottal (Result:Partially-blocked for 1 month)

Page: Center for Autism and Related Disorders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarsTrombone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert #1 on 04:20, 21 March 2022 has been blanked for copyright violation.
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [[69]
2. [[70]]
3. [[71]]
4. [[72]]
5. [[73]]
6. I also left extensive edit summaries. He never responded to anything I said, and none of his reverts include any real content explanation.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [74]

Comments:
This is the page for an autism treatment provider that claims to cure autism in children. This editor has inserted promotional language with irrelevant or misleading citations six separate times, even knowing other editors object and having been repeatedly warned. They claimed on the talk page they would stop, waited ten days, and then put it back. I was off-wiki for a while and when I returned I saw their message, reverted them, and warned them again, but they have now re-inserted the same content into the article six times. They refused to engage with the content of critiques on their talk page, in edit summaries, and on talk until today after their fourth revert. They have now reverted again, while arguing on talk that "Why didn't I engage with you previously? Because I have a day job and other commitments and I don't spend all my time on Wikipedia" which I will leave to another editor to fix.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonGlottal (talk • contribs) 04:20, May 17, 2022 (UTC)

• Note Not a technical WP:3rr violation but clearly edit-warring. Have partially blocked them from Center for Autism and Related Disorders for 1 month, so that they can use the time to establish consensus for any of the changes they wish to make. Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Ggux (Result: Both warned)

Page: Flavan-3-ol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1087647443
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1087859311
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1087969558

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zefr&oldid=1087974469

Comments:

There is an ongoing discussion about the structure and content of flavan-3-ol. RfCs have taken place with inconclusive outcomes - but Zefr has reverted edits regularly. The latest set of reversals were based on assumptions that were factually but could probably have been resolved on the Talk page. Ggux (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ggux is under WP:COI notice (user talk page and WP:COIN) for pushing an unconventional concept about non-nutrient chemicals in food being nutrients, and for pushing a preliminary study ("COSMOS") with which Ggux appears to be associated professionally. There has been no consensus established on Talk:Flavan-3-ol for the changes Ggux wishes to make. Zefr (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I have never claimed flavan-3-ols were nutrients - I would appreciate for User:Zefr not to make false statements. Ggux (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears that User:Ggux and User:Zefr have been reverting one another on this article since May, 2021 regarding the claimed health benefits of cocoa flavanols. Ggux wants the COSMOS study to be mentioned and Zefr usually opposes this. The time may have come for an administrator to warn both of them against reverting the article again without a consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Zefr and User:Ggux are both warned for edit warring at Flavan-3-ol. My comment above explains the history of this dispute, which has been going on since 2021. Either editor may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus on the article talk page in favor of their change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you - this sounds like a very sensible solution. Ggux (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User: TRHmTivl reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TRHmTivl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: prior to reversions

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]
5. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1, 2 (Grayfell)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [82]

Comments: The user was contacted repeatedly about their edits and edit warring around an image on the article Saint Thomas Christians. After examining their edit history, I discovered several instances of copyright violations (along with several other issue) on their draft page Draft:Kizhaketheruvu, where they are similarly engaging in edit-war tactics without responding to requests for comment or clarification in diffs and talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbritti (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

TRHmTivl's comments at Commons:User talk:TRHmTivl suggest this is in part a language fluency issue. I'm sympathetic to that, especially for edits about images and geography. However, those comments also show that this editor knows how to communicate on talk pages, but is choosing not to. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring and copyright violations. Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Boynamedsue reported by User:NEDOCHAN (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

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

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

Comments:
I have provided many, many sources that demonstrate my point. Each time, the user has ploughed on regardless. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• My response would be that I have performed only one revert on that page, the following:

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Pimblett&type=revision&diff=1088127985&oldid=1088117269

The first edit is not a revert, it is a bold edit. The text of the second edit is substantially different from the first, and is not therefore a revert but a bold edit which preserves the text introduced by User:NEDOCHAN. The fourth edit is not a revert, it adds a source, in response to an edit-summary which states that the text was unsourced, it again preserves the text added by User:NEDOCHAN.

On the other hand, User:NEDOCHAN has reverted three times:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Pimblett&type=revision&diff=1088133125&oldid=1088127985
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Pimblett&type=revision&diff=1088117269&oldid=1088103886
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Pimblett&type=revision&diff=1088000824&oldid=1087975675

I would suggest this is a case of WP:BOOMERANG. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The bold edit was on 12 May, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1087396094&oldid=1087396040&title=Paddy_Pimblett

The rest are restoring your preferred version, which has happened 4 times in 24 hours.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That is simply not true, your text is preserved in the current version. Even if we class the first edit as a reversion (which it isn't), the second version includes your preferred text, and therefore can not be classed as a revert.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not 'my text' by the way, it's what is stated in the infobox source, as well as these, which are all the main MMA fighter record pages.

https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/fighter/_/id/4008549/paddy-pimblett

https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/36807-paddy-pimblett

https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Paddy-Pimblett-84902

https://www.ufc.com/athlete/paddy-pimblett

https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/fighters/paddy-pimblett

NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is the preferred venue for content disputes. But I would state that you specifically stated there were no sources on the article as a reason to revert, then reported me for edit-warring when I added one. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I reported you for violating 3rr and restoring your preferred version against consensus (as to the sources used in - non compulsory - MMA infoboxes) and while a discussion was taking place. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Boynamedsue and User:NEDOCHAN are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Richinstead reported by User:BarrelProof (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: article version of 23:13, 17 May 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 23:28, 17 May 2022
2. diff 23:48, 17 May 2022
3. diff 23:51, 17 May 2022
4. diff 00:01, 18 May 2022
5. diff 00:59, 18 May 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link 00:25, 18 May 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 16:25, 17 May 2022

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff 01:20, 18 May 2022

Comments:
This opinionated editor has repeatedly removed reliably sourced content and has been reverted by five different editors (which have not included me), and inappropriately reported one of those editors twice at WP:AIV. They've done 5 reverts within an hour and a half. Their user talk page response to warnings was flippant. They have not participated in the article Talk page discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Dochi6090 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Korean beauty standards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Korean idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dochi6090 (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:

• On Korean idol

1. 18 May 2022 "Please write "Fect""
2. 11:07, 18 May 2022 "Just write down the facts"
3. 10:04, 18 May 2022 "Write the facts and Identify the source. This is the best version"
4. 03:51, 18 May 2022 "In Korea, underage plastic surgery is definitely illegal and normal idol agencies do not enforce it. The agencies that enforce illegal activities are illegal companies, and most agencies do not enforce them. If company force plastic surgery in Korea, the company's representative can go to jail under the Child Abuse Act. Illegality can never be referred and should never be justified in any case"
5. 00:25, 18 May 2022 "Delete Unnecessary Parts"

On Korean beauty standards

• About six reverts

For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary Warn the user if you have not already done so. }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

• 3RR 11:25, 18 May 2022
• 3RR 11:08, 18 May 2022

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

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

• ANEW notice

Comments:

A number of users have said this is a sock. Adakiko (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional three reverts at K-Beauty. The Banner talk 11:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dochi6090.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Policynerd3212 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Policynerd3212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [98]

Comments:
This editor was edit warring a few months back on the same article, pushing the same type of content about crime and immigration in Sweden. They were reported to ANI at the time, then went away for several months. They have now come back pushing the same content, when the consensus that was reached was that they should instead focus the edits on the Crime in Sweden article. They refuse to obtain consensus for their edits, and instead repeatedly revert, also randomly undoing old edits by the individual they were edit warring with months ago without explanation seen in one of the diffs above. They show obliviousness to the concept of consensus, as well as the signs of a typical WP:SPA as well as a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor having their English language Wikipedia edits almost entirely focused on not only the Sweden article, but those specific subjects. Despite several attempts to ask them to gain consensus for their edits on the talk page, as well as warnings for edit warring, they show no signs of stopping and I have no doubt they will continue to revert to shoehorn this content in for as long as they can. Update: it continues and user is now well into breaching 3RR, refuses to stop as predicted. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Beanieshark22 reported by User:CreecregofLife (Result:Blocked indef)

Page: Amphibia (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beanieshark22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]
5. [104]
6. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106] [107] [108] [109]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [110]

Comments:

• Normally I'd do a timed block, but Beanieshark22's history of edit warring and stunts like this demonstrate some significant WP:CIR issues that will need to be addressed before an appeal can be considered.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Noting that a new user joined six minutes after the above block, to restore one of Beanieshark's recent edits. SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beanieshark22. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:Wisefroggy (Result: Not blocked; talk page discussion recommended)

Page: Justin Trudeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well-versed in 3RR, having been the both the target and initiator of many Administrator's noticeboard/edit warring edits.

The User in question reverted varied material, within the same article, four (4) times within the span of a few hours, in violation of 3RR.

Attempted resolution via talk: Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Trudeau&oldid=1088461558 User claims "lede (sic) not the place for a list of minor points", and repeatedly deletes material. I kindly request that admins review diffs to determine if the deleted material is reasonable or not. Four straight reverts by the User, of well-sourced, relevant, and succinct material, in violation of 3RR, is not reasonable.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [116]

Comments:
User appears to have a history of edit warring and warnings, including the article in question: Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moxy&diff=1079273985&oldid=1079273146 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1055948051#User:Moxy_reported_by_User:Trackratte_(Result:_) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&oldid=607972275#User:Moxy_reported_by_User:FelixRosch_(Result:_)

Again, four straight reverts of well-sourced and relevant material puts a little strain on the assumption of good-faith, and is not reasonable.

I have no opinion of the reverts. The material is, in my opinion, not relevant or appropriately placed, and from what Moxy is saying (I am taking his word for it) this is a repeat instance of trying to add this content-disruptive. I'd take this back to the talk page and work through this there. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Without having looked at a diff (no time): the lead really is not the place to add sourced material however good the sources. Reverting such things is clean-up, and not understanding it, ... I don't know how to call it. The material might go to the body, if there's consensus to include it, and then further consensus should be reached if any of it is lead-worthy. The whole thing is for the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

They are welcome to get a third opinion on the matter. Talk:Justin Trudeau#Lede from years ago...as for the content all is in the article...just not the lead....as the lead is not the place for list(s) that was removed in 2019.Moxy- 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Not blocked It seems from the above that it would be better being discussed. Reverts were different material each time that doesn't quite rise to the level of edit warring Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Wes sideman reported by User:Inexpiable (Result: Both warned)

Page: Execution of Nathaniel Woods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088576122 by Inexpiable (talk) see WP:STATUSQUO"
2. 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088567696 by Inexpiable (talk) The status quo, before TheXuitts changed it because he doesn't like the source's wording, was ":crack house". Stay with status quo until discussion is finished. That's clear policy."
3. 20:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "this censorship of the exact words used in the sources is getting ridiculous"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference (RW 16.1)"
2. 21:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
3. 21:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* "Crack house" or "drug house"? */"
2. 20:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* "Crack house" or "drug house"? */"
3. 20:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* "Crack house" or "drug house"? */"

Comments:

User keeps reverting edits on the article and is refusing to gain consensus from the talk page. The entire article history shows he has kept doing this with another user. Inexpiable (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment WP:STATUSQUO clearly says "leave the status quo up." On the article in question, the status quo before Inexpiable's ally, TheXuitts, changed it was the use of the phrase "crack house", which is the term overwhelmingly used in reliable sources cited in the article. TheXuitts changed it because he feels it's a "derogatory term" - as I explained on the talk page, we don't get to make that call. Reliable sources say "crack house", so the article says "crack house." Nevertheless, Inexpiable opened an edit war and began reverting back to their preferred verbiage of "drug house" despite almost no sources using that term to describe the events in the article. Wes sideman (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the original wording was "drug house" PROOF in this revision: [117], until Wes changed it: [118] Inexpiable (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wes sideman has been in an ongoing dispute on the page Execution of Nathaniel Woods. Since 2020 he has been reverting TheXuitts edits on the article. Example here: [119] TheXuitts has been changing the content back and every time Wes has been changing the wording. I joined the discussion today and tried to gain a compromise. However, Wes has reverted my edits and is refusing to discuss the matter at Talk:Execution of Nathaniel Woods. Inexpiable (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

More examples, it clearly said drug house until he changed it AGAIN yesterday: [120] Inexpiable (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Check Inexpiable's reverts to my changes and then Gabrielle103's contributions. That second account is 7 days old and inexplicably appeared to revert changes on two pages that I edited - making the exact same reverts that Inexpiable made, mere minutes later. Seems extremely likely that they're connected and being used to avoid breaking 3RR by tag-teaming. Wes sideman (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed it again here in March 2022: [121], again in September 2021: [122] Inexpiable (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheXuitts: So he can explain his side. This edit war has gone on since end of 2020, and Wes has kept reverting his work constantly without gaining any consensus. Inexpiable (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet account. I was patrolling the recent edits and saw that Wes has been edit warring, so I reverted their changes back to Inexpiable's (I say their because I'm not sure what Wes' pronouns are, if they have them that is). This is clearly visible from my recent contributions, in which I have edited multiple articles on or around the same minute as the previous edit (such as Dangerfield Newby, 2022 Lebanese general election and Population displacements in Israel after 1948). I'm just some rando woman lol Gabrielle103 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Gabrielle103 has been blocked as a sock. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It is important to point out they were not a sock of mine though or connected to me in any way, as Wes falsely claimed and made baseless accusations against me without proof. Inexpiable (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Wes sideman and User:Inexpiable are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Execution of Nathaniel Woods without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

User:107.127.39.24 reported by User:Buttons to Push Buttons (Result: Semi)

Page: Kay Mellor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.127.39.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123] This was the first introduction of some phrasing along these lines.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [124]
2. [125]
3. [126]
4. [127]
5. [128]
6. [129]
7. [130]
8. [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [134] and also notified at their new IP here

Comments:

• Considering their dynamic IP has already changed to User:107.123.5.51, a range block may be called for. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 01:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• I didn't even notice, but they also had another IP during this whole thing, at User:107.127.39.16, fwiw. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 01:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Kay Mellor has been semiprotected one month due to edit warring by multiple IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:8802:E01:3AA0:C805:2678:5C48:2667 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: /64 range blocked for a week)

Page: List of current world boxing champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:8802:E01:3AA0:C805:2678:5C48:2667 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [135]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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:
IP broke 3rr while refusing to use edit summaries (because there's no valid argument to give). 3rr warning was left at User talk:2600:8802:E01:3AA0:C5FE:964:92CB:731A. – ².O.^Boxing 09:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Fifth revert. – ².O.^Boxing 11:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And now they're just being generally disruptive at the same article. I'll let the disruption stand until this report has been resolved, so as not to fall afoul of 3rr. – ².O.^Boxing 11:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I forgot to mention that the ANEW notification was sent to the reported IP while the 3rr warning was issued to a previous one (it won't let me view the diffs so I can't provide them). – ².O.^Boxing 11:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sixth revert, followed by a bunch of vandalism. – ².O.^Boxing 23:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been extended to a block of the /64 range for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

User:80.108.55.24 reported by User:chip3004 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Great Replacement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.108.55.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [140]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [141]
2. [142]
3. [143]
4. [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [146]

Comments:

It appears that this ip is edit warring on Talk:Great Replacement

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours for trolling. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae reported by 80.108.55.24 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Talk:Great Replacement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

This user (Praxidicae) keeps removing/reverting my contributions to a discussion on the talk page of the Great Replacement article, because I am criticizing people like him (leftist activists) ruining Wikipedia by using it as a propaganda platform. Keeps saying it "doesn't contribute to the article" when criticizm of obvious biases contributes to the improvement of any article, not just this one.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.55.24 (talk • contribs)

• Result: Filing IP blocked 60 hours by User:Acroterion per a report below. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Nattarintns reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kanawut Traipipattanapong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nattarintns (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 19:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC) to 19:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089075298 by Praxidicae (talk)"
   2. 19:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC) to 19:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089072628 by Slywriter (talk)"
   2. 19:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */"
   3. 19:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */"
3. 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089070825 by Slywriter (talk)"
4. 19:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089068702 by Slywriter (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kanawut Traipipattanapong."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

user has been excessively edit warring (along with several spas) to make the article an unreadable promotional mess and refuses to communicate with editors. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Result: User blocked for 72 hours, for more than just edit warring. This is also not the user's first block. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Nadusally reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: Blocked)

Page: Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 19:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 19:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 19:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam University."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Not a diff, nor on article talk page, but see User talk:Nadusally#Date is 2015

Comments:

I Asked to undo their last revert, but user went on to blank a section of an article listed at my user page. I guess that means 'no'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

User:67.82.112.107 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Page protected)

Page: List of The Fairly OddParents characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.82.112.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Long-term edit warring. Discussion ongoing on talk page. This edit is telling [147]. Resumed as promised after protect expired. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Now 5 reverts in last 24 hours. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP is also making regular personal attacks[148][149][150][151], with that last link also vowing to continue edit warring. — Czello 21:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected 1 month semi protection EvergreenFir (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Telenovelafan215 reported by User:2600:8800:3782:5D00:BCAA:73B1:F637:9DD (Result: Declined)

Page: La casa de los famosos (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Telenovelafan215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

1. [156]

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

1. [157]

Comments:

2600:8800:3782:5D00:BCAA:73B1:F637:9DD (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP user doesn’t understand that the nomination tables for Big Brother follow a style where only the head of household, automatically nominated housemates, and immune housemates are color coded. Housemates that are nominated in the regular nomination process are not color coded and are listed at the end of the table. Here are just three examples of the style that the table follows: [158], [159], and [160]. The IP user has said on my talk page that changing the table style will make the table "much more interesting", which I think is not a convincing reason to change it. – Telenovelafan215 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Declined The IP has made no attempt to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. This noticeboard is not a bludgeoning tool to get one's way in a dispute—especially when one is edit warring themselves to try to make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

User:ArsenalAtletico2017 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [161]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [162] (slightly different language but making the same point after being reverted)
2. [163] (slightly different language but making the same point after being reverted)
3. [164] (partially reverting a different edit [165])
4. [166] (once again, after being reverted [167])
5. [168] (and again)
6. [169] (and again)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170][171]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [172]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [173]

Comments:

This user already has two previous 3RR blocks on their record, one quite recently. They are shaping up to be a real nuisance. Generalrelative (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

For reference, here is the report on this noticeboard from earlier this month which resulted in ArsenalAtletico2017's most recent block. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

These are different edits and some are not even reverts. This user is biased, has specifically confirmed before that they will "monitor" me on Wikipedia and now trying to ban me.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

When you say "these are different edits", it leads me to believe that you haven't read the edit warring policy, which covers reverts "involving the same or different material". I quoted that same portion to you in the last report at this noticeboard. Which of GR's diffs do you think are "not even reverts"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If you interpret "the same or different material" too widely, then I guess you can block anyone you. In this case it is clearly shown that no edit warring was involved. By the way, you are another overtly hostile user who somehow managed to find this discussion, maybe you are working in team or you are just same person with different accounts? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"same person with different accounts": I'm flattered, truly, at your suggestion that I might be GR. Other might take it as an unevidenced aspersion, so I can't recommend it in general. FYI: your user talk page was automatically watchlisted for me when I first edited it, so I saw the noticeboard notice there.

It seems you think we're interpreting the EW policy too "widely". Could you point to the edit or edits which you think are being misinterpreted? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for edit-warring and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

User:5.151.88.4 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: No violation)

Page: List of wars involving Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 5.151.88.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089415161 by Praxidicae (talk) Shadow4dark claims the sources on the War in Afghanistan page state it as a defeat but they do not. On the page they clearly state it as a withdrawal. Check https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan"
2. 16:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Changed portion as suggested"
3. 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089392228 by Shadow4dark (talk)"
4. 14:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Joe Biden ordered the withdrawal from Afghanistan willingly. This does not constitute a defeat on Turkey's part. Wikipedia pages should remain true to their name. ISAF is not Turkey or run by Turkey."
5. 13:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Does not constitute a defeat. Turkey is not ISAF. It is a withdrawal, not a defeat."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of wars involving Turkey."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• I've just invited the IP to use the article's talk page. Waiting to see what happens. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have made my case there. 5.151.88.4 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Besides, the user is discussing. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

User:CarpathianAlien reported by NikolaosFanaris (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [174]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreate_Greece&diff=1089456306&oldid=1089423558
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreate_Greece&diff=1089457866&oldid=1089456539
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreate_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=1089463555
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreate_Greece&diff=1089410856&oldid=1084809577

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:

I have attempted to discuss this with them. Still, the disruptive editing leading to edit warring is clearly their only strategy here as they referred to my edits as propagandising or acts of vandalism, pushing their POV and removing cited content. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Jude Didimus, User:TRHmTivl, and User:Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese reported by User:Pbritti (Result: )

Page: George Alencherry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jude Didimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), TRHmTivl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Jude Didimus

1. [179]
2. [180]
3. [181]
4. [182]
5. [183] (post-report, w/ additional source)

• TRHmTivl

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]
4. [187]
5. [188] (post-report)

• Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese

1. [189]
2. [190] (likely IP use by same editor)
3. [191]
4. [192]
5. [193]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194], [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196], [197]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [198], [199], [200]

Comments:
I am increasingly of the opinion that this page and all associated with Saint Thomas Christianity in India should be protected. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I should add that TRHmTivl received a 48h for edit warring this week that immediately preceded this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

TRHmTivl is repeatedly removing sourced content from a large number of articles such as George Alencherry, List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church, Palliveettil Chandy, Augustine Kandathil, Kariattil Iousep, Antony Padiyara etc. Some examples are [201] [202] [203] [204] and many others. All these comprise of removal of title 'Metropolitan and Gate of All India'.Jude Didimus (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus, I have been observing changes in this page and the edit-warring. I do not support edit-warring if you or the other user does. But when you are saying "sourced content", you should add references/citations from official websites - either from the Church's official website: http://www.syromalabarchurch.in or from the Major Archbishop's official website : http://www.maralencherry.smcim.org/ . Also you can point to the Major Archbishop's circular's for proving that Major Archbishop officially using such titles/honorifics. Thanks ---John C. (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

John C. I don't think so. What we need is reliable sources. However it does not matter whether they are official or not.Jude Didimus (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jude Didimus, I shared my views on this. That's all. Leaving this topic to you and other users and administrators to take a look on the reliability of the sources and their authenticity. - --John C. (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile User:TRHmTivl is edit warring in article List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and has already violated 3RR. Sourced content is removed without edit summaries and reasoning.

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207] Jude Didimus (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a brand new account Mathewkizhakkevila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started an edit war in List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Their edits are identical to that of User:TRHmTivl.Jude Didimus (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Just now Mathewkizhakkevila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed my latest comments. This is a clear violation of conduct.

1. [208]
2. [209]

Jude Didimus (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mathewkizhakkevila, @TRHmTivl, Do not engage in edit warring. Start a discussion in article's talk page (if that is not yet started), list your points and request other users and admins to intervene in that discussion and reach consensus. This is applicable for User:Jude Didimus also. I already shared my views above and hence nothing more to add from my end on this topic. Thanks.--John C. (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC) -

• Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese is Blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing related to edit-warring to re-add galleries of their images. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Jude Didimus is Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Qaumrambista. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Efbrazil reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Page-blocked from the article for two weeks)

Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Efbrazil (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 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) to 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ In another attempt at consensus, I made it clear that american companies are the ones who are importing goods. If you don't like the source at all then we need to delete this information entirely, but we should not be mischaracterizing the source. The source makes it perfectly clear that importers pay the tax."
   2. 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088695359 by Praxidicae (talk) This is a simple fact that is well sourced to CNN. Are you disagreeing with facts? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. If you have a disagreement with the facts, please state what they are."
2. 16:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Yes, it was widely criticized as a failure by liberal and business-oriented interests at the time. I added the fact that Biden maintained the tariffs along with a source to that effect."
3. 16:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ The article is very clear that it is not all american companies that pay, it is american importers of chinese goods. Simply saying "american companies" without clarifying that it is companies doing imports is obfuscation and bias. I added the quote from the article to make the context clear. If you want different wording, please include the key piece of information that it is importers paying, not all companies."
4. 22:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Removing value judgments of Trump Tariffs, better to just stick to facts here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Donald Trump */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user was warned about restoring edits that have been undone and that the article is under a clear 1rr restriction but still continued to restore their preferred content and revert after being given a clear warning and notification of the articles restrictions. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think if you look at the edits it's clear I was on solid ground and was seeking consensus, not edit warring. I've taken the discussion to the talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Removing_bias_regarding_trade_tariffs_from_the_article Efbrazil (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Except you ignored a clear and explicit warning about 1rr on the page itself, multiple times and my warning to you. Just because you believe you are right does not mean you can edit war. And I'm not the only one you've edit warred with. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there's no 1RR restriction on that page, where it was replaced with the 24-hour-BRD rule. The diffs show a violation of that page restriction, but editors will need to determine whether this is the proper venue to review this matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that edit warring is when you revert edits or reimpose edits rather than seeking consensus. Each of my edits were attempting to address prior concerns with content.

Anyhow, I'm not here to make an argument about the letter of the law, and it's kind of water under the bridge as this is now taking place on the talk page. In the spirit of the law, I'd argue Praxidicae is the one that erred by reverting this edit without reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1088695359 Efbrazil (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note Page blocked from the article for two weeks. Efbrazil has quite egregiously violated the 24-hour restriction, making 3 reverts inside 24 hours. Efbrazil, your understanding of what edit warring is, is flawed. No, seeking consensus on talk does not mean you are allowed to keep reverting the article. Moreover, you're nowhere near getting consensus on talk. It would be better to read our edit warring policy than to handwave at "the spirit of the law" (a spirit which you have, in my opinion, violated just as well as the letter of the law, by going right up against the 3RR rule on this controversial article). Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC).

  Bishonen, what are 3 reverts I did? My changes were substantively different from each other, not the same thing repeatedly. I was making changes that attempted to address complaints people were having. The seeking consensus was not on the talk page, it was through my comments on the edits, explaining how they addressed complaints people were having. Please review the edits again and tell me 3 reverts I did. I honestly don't see it. Efbrazil (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Efbrazil, I think I may have exaggerated; only [210] and [211] are reverts. The phrasing "Widely characterized as a failure", which you changed here, was added as far back as September 2021, so changing it hardly qualifies as a revert. YMMV, but I don't think it does. Still, you made two reverts inside 24 hours, on an article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. (PS; it's better to complain on your own page. It was by pure luck that I noticed your post here. You can also get people's attention by using the WP:PING feature, as I just did, by linking your name.) Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC).

  Thanks Bishonen. In detail:

  The first "revert" [212] is not a revert. If you look at the edit, I added a reference to back up the statement. I was responding to a previous revert that said my edit didn't correspond to the source. The article used virtually the exact same wording I did, so I updated the reference to make that clear. I don't think it's a revert if you are replying to a complaint that an edit was unsourced, so you put the edit back in with the sourcing. Do you agree?

  The second revert [213] was a revert, and was arguably a mistake, but it wasn't baseless. The reason I did the revert is that Praxidicae had deleted my edit without giving any reason at all. I don't believe reversion without any stated reasoning is valid, so I reverted with a comment where I respectfully and asked them to state their reasoning for deleting my edit. I don't think that's out of line, but it's fair to say I should have taken a different path. Still, it's also clear to me that Praxidicae provoked the situation by backing out my edit without any basis.

  I hope you'll reconsider the ban. Arguably both myself and Praxidicae could have handled ourselves better, but banning just me seems to be way over the line for this situation. Efbrazil (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Bishonen, your thoughts on this? Efbrazil (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  [214] is IMO a revert. It reverts to your own phrasing here. I think I'm done explaining this now, Efbrazil. Also, I think a two-week partial block from one article is a mild sanction; you still have the rest of Wikipedia to edit. Please take it to WP:ANI for community attention if you want to complain further of my block. Bishonen | tålk 04:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC).

User:188.66.102.161 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked)

Page: Dyson (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 188.66.102.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089563238 by Czello (talk)"
2. 14:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089558760 by Czello (talk)"
3. 13:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 13:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
5. fifth reversion
6. sixth reversion

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dyson (company)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a return of long-term edit warring from April. IP seems to regularly come back to brute-force their changes to the country's nationality. User appears to have waited until page protection ended and immediately resumed. — Czello 14:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe rather than keep blocking, come to some kind of mutual agreement. At least Anglo-Singaporean which has been mentioned. You feel the need to have it your way. 188.66.102.161 (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Then you should stop edit warring and propose this on the talk page, as you're currently ignoring the consensus to force your own changes into the article. — Czello 14:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

British Founded - Singaporean or Anglo-British. 188.66.102.161 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Anglo-Singaporean was meant 188.66.102.161 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by Ohnoitsjamie.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

User:103.216.213.41 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Rangeblocked)

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

User being reported: 103.216.213.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 13:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 11:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 10:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Not Disruptive Editing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 13:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC) to 11:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Kashmiri

Comments:

Ongoing edit warring at Vikarna and other articles (Mahabharat Katha, Dushasana and others). All attempts to reason with this new editor have failed, including a 48 hour block and the discussion at User talk:103.216.213.41 and my Talk page. The user's other IP 103.216.213.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has already been blocked for 6 months because of disruption. A few weeks' block would be useful IMO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Now the user is evading the block under a new account Sushmita Shamita, continuing same disruption[215], threatening me with blocks[216], etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• * Blocked – for a period of 1 month. I've rengeblocked 103.216.213.0/24 for a month.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

User:StN reported by User:Dekimasu (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2&oldid=1086843322

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]
5. [221]
6. (also, the same thing a week ago: [222])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [223] (warned by Hemiauchenia before final revert); [224] (warned by Alexbrn after final revert listed here)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is discussion on the article's talk page, but I have neither participated in it nor edited the page anytime recently. StN is participating in the talk page discussion but has not ceased reverting.

Diff of a new notice posted to user's talk page: [225]

Comments:
The page is also eligible for discretionary sanctions. I would take care of this incident myself, but I edited the article a great deal in 2020. Dekimasuよ! 07:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This may be stale overall, but similar edits are continuing today: [226], subsequently reverted to stable version here. Dekimasuよ! 03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

User:40.133.234.46 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked for 2 years)

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

User being reported: 40.133.234.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "incorrect arabic also. adding references and actually researching this, not just using google; I looked in FOUR dictionaries. to appease you, I added both definitions. please let me finish."
2. 21:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING as "the square root of k minus s"; the closest thing to anything in any reference is *KS. leave this alone. I'm going to work on this more; please don't revert while I do."
3. 20:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "yes it is sourced. I myself checked and cross-checked it. it's in the entyomology section. please do not revert when you could have simply added the reference at the top or moved the reference."
4. 05:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "changed because I actually looked it up in a dictionary?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Couscous."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */ new section"
2. 21:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */"
3. 21:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Why are you doing? */ new section"
4. 21:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Why are you doing? */"

Comments:

Despite my efforts to make them refrain from removing easily attributable content and pointing them to a list of sources (search google books for "kaskasa to pound") to prove to them that their claim of circular referencing is baseless, they kept edit warring and finally, blanked their talk page to continue the edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There isn't a lot I can do to deal with an edit warrior who thinks that <ref>French, from Arabic kuskus, from kaskasa, to pulverize; see kšš in Semitic roots.</ref> (i.e., their commentary inside ref tags) qualifies as a source that trumps the reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please also see this relevant discussion from earlier this month: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1098#40.133.234.46 Disruptive editing and edit warring. Peaceray (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Interested administrators & editors would do well to review User talk:40.133.234.46: Revision history. User:40.133.234.46 has removed at least 10 warning or notices this month. Peaceray (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two years. Edit history shows several previous long blocks, including one for a year. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

User:LemonPie00 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked indef )

Page: Adrian Zenz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: LemonPie00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Optional method, not mandated by Wikipedia policy. You seem to be pushing your own agenda."
2. 12:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "The author's own views and opinions were "challenged by several editors"? Stop trying to defend him. The article is supposed to keep an unbiased and neutral point of view, which the edit provides."
3. 11:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Could you stop vandalizing the page?"
4. 11:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Avoid bias. You don't get to paint only one side of the story whilst ignoring Adrian Zenz's homophobic views."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Adrian Zenz."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note as well this [[227]] and their last edit summary, they are clearly not interested in obeying policy or in not edit waring. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Note as well similar attitudes (and false accusations of vandalism) at other pages. Strong signs this is a wp:nothere account. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that a lot of their edits seem to be whitewashing the CCP or other totalitarian regimes,[228] including genocide denial,[229] I'm inclined to agree that they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 13:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Berry stark reported by User:Ab207 (Result: blocked 1 week)

Page: Prashanth Neel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Previous editor changing details about living person called Prashanth neel, Prashanth neel's father was working as a bus driver & migrant in Andra Pradesh editor seems to be telugu person claiming after the success of a KGF chapter 2 movie . Haven't seen when editing after KGF chapter 1 release."
2. 15:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Some people tried to malign the information of living person called Prashant Neel, Giving wrong information about family, Caste I fixed it with reference please consider my edit."
3. 13:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Added a language"
4. 11:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "He is not telugu, He is from ediga community which can be found in Karnataka. He was born in Andra Pradesh's Neelakantapuram but raised in Bengaluru."
5. 11:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "He is from ediga community ( Kannada caste ) he just revealed has special connection with Andra Pradesh he born in Neelakantapuram but raised in Bengaluru."
6. 10:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Prashanth neel is from ediga community there is no source that he is reddy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Ethnicity */ new section"

Comments:

The new users is edit warring over the ethnicity of a WP:BLP subject. Removing reliably sourced content and adding WP:SPS sites to support their changes Ab207 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Continues to edit war despite stronger EW notice by other editors

1. 05:01, 26 May 2022 "Bot spotted : Fixed the content"
2. 04:50, 26 May 2022 "Warning: This editor is giving wrong information. Bot content"
3. 17:57, 27 May 2022 "In telugu article there is no full name mentioned. Just mentioned Subhash."

Indistiguishable from vandalism and personal attack at this point. If same user is editing as an IPv6, the disruption is worse and might need a page protection as well -- Ab207 (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Jayron32 12:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User:BryanAJones reported by User:PAVLOV (Result: Partial block)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
2. 18:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
3. 07:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on RTFM."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC) on User talk:BryanAJones ""

Comments:

Edit war against different users after discussion PAVLOV (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. Note that this is only a partial block. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User:151.197.236.78 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Partial block)

Page: Free people of color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 151.197.236.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "gente de color libre) are people of mixed .I change were to are Because original people of color still exist . do you think all first nation people no longer exist too?"
2. 16:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 15:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "please change your post to are people o f color i am a free person of clolor i still exist and so does my culture please leave it as are not were"
4. 10:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Free people of color."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP continues to edit war to change the tense in the section about slavery (in the past) to being current and refuses to actually engage in discussion on their talk page PRAXIDICAE💕 16:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• And now they've continued for a 5th time. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Partial block only so that they can continue to make their case on the talk page, though a quick review of discussion there makes me think they don't likely have the language skills to effectively communicate their case. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Alexispapp reported by User:Taxin609 (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: National Creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Alexispapp (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 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) to 23:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 23:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.3)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Please Reach Consensus. */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Wildhorse3 reported by User:Abhishek0831996 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Awan (tribe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wildhorse3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [230]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:19, 24 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,547 bytes +226‎ rv
2. 15:54, 25 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,547 bytes +226‎ Reverted 1 edit by Abhishek0831996 (talk): Rv
3. 22:20, 25 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ m 11,547 bytes +226‎ Reverted 1 edit by Orientls (talk) to last revision by Wildhorse3
4. 08:20, 26 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,547 bytes +226‎ Reverted 1 edit by 122.170.45.88 (talk): Reverting vandalism
5. 12:26, 26 May 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,546 bytes +195‎ reverting vandalism, restoring stable version, discussion: User_talk:Wildhorse3#Awan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [232]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [233]

Comments:
The last 4 reverts came under 21 hours. He has made 0 attempts to discuss any of his edits, despite consensus against his edits on the talk page.

You can also see how he is falsely labeling the edits as 'vandalism' even after being warned. He is confident that whatever he is reverting is actually vandalism per User_talk:Wildhorse3#Awan

Since this editor is a SPA, largely dedicated to promoting "Awan" tribe, I think an indefinite page block or topic ban from this topic would be more effective because of his falsification of sources, WP:CIR, edit warring and inability to gain consensus. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Wildhorse3's claims that they are reverting vandalism are quite unjustified. They also continued to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Mausebru reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Both warned)

Page: Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mausebru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [234]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:16, 24 May 2022 and 19:17, 24 May 2022
2. 21:27, 24 May 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Proof that the user was aware of discretionary sanctions on the article
• My warning that they should not revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• 08:33, 18 May 2022 New topic started at the talkpage; 08:44, 18 May 2022, asking on my talkpage for an answer on the article's talkpage
• 16:00, 21 May 2022, Pinging the user to respond since they have been active without showing up in the talkpage
• [235] New section pinging for de-escalation

Comments:
The article in question is under WP:1RR. Pahlevun (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Note. It looks to me like you both violated 1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  I made one edit and one revert. Pahlevun (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  I assume you think of this as your "edit", but it was a change to the map and a removal of the date of the conflict, which previously were in dispute. That is a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  I know i violated 1RR because I wanted to revert but Pahlevun reverted it back. So sorry for breaking 1RR, but Pahlevun, I have left a message in the Talkpage. I gave you sources Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 01:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Pahlevun, I have put this in talk page. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 10:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Pahlevun and User:Mausebru are warned for violating WP:1RR on this article. You are both risking a block if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:CROIX reported by User:Peter Ormond (Result: )

Page: Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CROIX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff reverting this
2. diff partially reverting this
3. diff reverting this
4. diff reverting this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237][238]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [239] (my talk page)

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

Comments:
This user doesn't understand WP:BURDEN, and engages in WP:OR. I'm tired of explaining him the issue on my talk page, but he still doesn't understand. Also, he creates ridiculous redirects: GGAB, PMAB, FAWST .... Peter Ormond 💬 05:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

We didn’t just resolve this? Also, the majority of those edits you mentioned were either me making the article look cleaner, considering you spammed citiation needed on every single language, even though all those languages had the same source. And one of those edits was accidental, and I immediately reverted it. And, some of those edits were made before we even spoke. CROIX (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources explicitly support your argument. This, I have told you so many times. You don't understand. I told you to read WP:BURDEN, but from edits it gives a view that you don't understand it. Anyone can read this thread, and see that you are parroting the same thing, and don't understand. You create ridiculous redirects, and if one challenges that with sources, then you say they are wrong. I told you to not cite those two sources at Antigua and Barbuda, as they didn't support the content, but you are happy to revert my edits again and again, without actually trying to improve the article and making it factually correct. You just don't understand and keep edit-warring and this prompted me to open this discussion here. Peter Ormond 💬 11:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It is factually correct, they are languages recognized by the government. Once again, the Belize article and the Jamaica article do the exact same thing. CROIX (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@CROIX: "It is factually correct" is not an exception to the three revert rule. You need to discuss the situation at the article's talk page and wait for consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. CROIX (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

And, I do not recall you saying that I should not use government sources, may I have a link to when you said that? CROIX (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I told you so many times that your sources don't explicilty support the content [240] [241] [242], and now you don't "recall" it. Peter Ormond 💬 13:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s not what I said, what I said is that you never explicitly said I should not use government sources. Which are clearly more accurate. CROIX (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

When did I say to you to not use "government sources"? Peter Ormond 💬 04:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

On your talk page. CROIX (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Diff, please? Peter Ormond 💬 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

[243] CROIX (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It can be clearly seen that I commented on those particular sources that didn't support the content. I didn't say to not use government sources at all. You misquote, misrepresent, and are wasting everybody's time by WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you said those sources were not reliable. CROIX (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. If you don't understand the English language I can't help. If this isn't the case, read the earlier reply carefully and understand what is being said to you. Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to reach an agreement with you so we can end the argument? Did you not see it? CROIX (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond What do my redirects have to do with edit warring? I thought this was the place to report edit warring, not report that someone made some redirects. CROIX (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I did report edit warring, which is the main issue. Also, I think other issues need to be highlightled too so that admins can see what to do with you. Peter Ormond 💬 04:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I also do not see how my redirects broke any rules, because I did discuss them, and I never interrupted their process of reviewing them. CROIX (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Where is Antigua and Barbuda's Governor-General referred to "GGAB", the Prime Minister as "PMAB", and the National anthem as "FAWST"? The answer is nowhere. Don't create nonsense on Wikipedia. Peter Ormond 💬 10:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The Antiguan media regularly refers to the prime minister as PMAB, so with the governor-general GGAB. This is very prevalent on political campaign signs on the island. This is the same with FAWST. Do your research before coming to conclusion. CROIX (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I did my research dear. I find no source on the web supporting your view. Repeatedly making WP:OR edits is disruptive. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

How am I supposed to add a source to a redirect page? CROIX (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Can't you source it at the redirect's target article? Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

But I do not see why you are bringing them up, when these issues are being resolved/already been resolved. CROIX (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Because you don't understand Wikipedia policy. Your disruptive editing doesn't end. And I know it would not stop, if I hadn't opened this thread. Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

How was I being disruptive? I did not disrupt the process when the redirects were being reviewed, if you can prove I was interrupting the process I would love to see the evidence. CROIX (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I’m tired of continuing this argument, I’m on vacation, let’s make a deal that instead of adding a citation needed tag, we can add a better source needed tag. Also, I do not see how my redirects broke the rules, as I did discuss with the users involved, although I do not want to debate that. And finally, I’ll agree to remove the recognized languages as long as you are aware that there is no legislation that creates an official language + de jure capital city. CROIX (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, you are parroting the same thing. If there is "no legislation that creates an official language + de jure capital city", then high quality sources must be cited that explicity state that thing. If the soucres don't exist it is WP:OR. Also, nowhere it is written that legislation is must for establishing a capital city. No legislation makes London capital of UK. Peter Ormond 💬 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thats the definition that is said here: [244] CROIX (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source per WP:CIRCULAR. Peter Ormond 💬 20:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thats not a source, that's a definition. CROIX (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you make that definition? Peter Ormond 💬 10:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:WatanWatan2020 reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Herat (1793–1863) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WatanWatan2020 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [250]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [251]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [252]

Comments:

I have submitted a report because this user is constantly edit warring on the page, he takes to the talk page but continues to edit war on the page after and doesn’t provide any reliable sources to his claims usually either. I am reporting this user as he reverted Kailan’s edits, and mine, and another editor which told him to stop. A total of 3 editors told him to stop to which he ignored and continued edit warring, you can view for yourself on the page. Noorullah21 (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, User Noorullah21 and Kalian are engaged in POV Pan Iranian pushing on such article. The sources provided do not show that Persian was the official language of the Afghan dyansty. Furthermore, and to add context to this matter, Afghan Empires, dynasties, and principalities had Pashto as their main language, since they were Pashtuns and had wanted to establish Pashtun dominance over their conquered lands. It is preposterous that such users who are engaging in POV pushing will try and conceal that. Along with this, they Use Iranian sources to try and make their case, but even then those sources do not indicate Persian was the official language of the principality. That is why the user Kalian tried to change the language from main to ‘common languages’ and then added Pashto to try and sweep the matter under the rug. Noorullah21 did not even contribute to the discussion that is ongoing still. His disruption is uncalled for and is taking sides when the matter is not finished from discussion either. Please check those sources they are pushing. It does not even go in line with their theories. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You are claiming it is a discussion when you are edit warring on the page rather then continuing to discuss? Noorullah21 (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We are also not POV pushing, we provided multiple sources, some on the talk page, and even some were provided in the undo category for the revert, to which you simply replied saying to give a source that backed up our claims when we already gave you one, the person who reviews this incident can see the whole string of events and the talk page in general for context. Noorullah21 (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Who was the last person to leave commentary on the discussion? Was it not me? And did YOU yourself ever contribute to that discussion? Of course you did not because it shows who made comments on that discussion. The sources inputted never indicated Persian was the official language of Herat principality, even when it was Iranian sources being used, which of course is not neutral and impartial either. The very “sources” you keep mentioning is actually working against your case. Because if anyone investigates it, they will find that the POV you have is not even back by those sources. It is high time that Pan Iranian POV is checked on articles. Improper sources are used to peddle narratives not only on Afghan Articles, but Turkish and Arab articles as well. This is becoming a major problem and is a major problem because such activity is left unchecked. The moment there is pushback against such POV, such individuals are quick to run to the admin boards. I hope that the Admin board and relevant individuals actually start investigating such POV pushing that is being pushed into such mass number of articles. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Well I did contribute to the discussion, but you continue to ignore that, despite this, you go ahead and disregard Iranica as an unreliable Pan Iranian POV source, which is just blatantly being ignorant. The sources did show that not only were Persian speakers the majority in Herat, it is actually clear that they were even linguistically the most speaking out of the territory Herat held at the time, as stated on the talk page, but I am going to let an Administrator resolve this now rather then continue here, we can continue on the talk page. Noorullah21 (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You did not contribute to the discussuon per the time you first originally launched this dispute here.

I am also asking the notice board to take action against Noorullah21 at this point for stalking my edits and implementing wrong information. The stalking alone of my edits is uncalled for, besides continously POV pushing Pan iranian views on articles Please check the “Ghadir Khumm” “Jawad” “Eid Al Ghadir” and many more articles where he is stalking and undoing edits there. This is getting out of hand. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I was taking action to your Vandalism done as agreed by multiple editors to your disruptive editing, there is currently an arbitration/incident against you, and I went on to remove your POV pushing as a result because it is vandalism it is right here [253]

"Their talk page is littered with warnings and block notices. Such edits therefore shouldn't come as a surprise." In fact, WatanWatan2020 is simultaneously at AN3 at this very moment over what appears to be an ethno-nationalist edit war regarding the official language(s) of Herat (1793–1863), coincidentally also defying the consensus of at least three other contributors.”

Noorullah21 (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• While the merits of the content dispute are likely fairly opaque to non-specialists, what is clear from the revision history is that WatanWatan2020 is aggressively edit warring against the tentative consensus of at least three other users—namely Kailanmapper, Qahramani44, and Noorullah21—and has already racked up an impressive record of ethno-nationalist disruption for a relatively new account (registered in 2020, hence the name) across a wide range of articles. Notably, WatanWatan2020 was blocked 24 hours for edit warring last October, his "talk page is littered with warnings and block notices" in the words of LouisAragon, and he is currently at AE for possible misconduct in the India–Pakistan–Afghanistan topic area. Furthermore, among his many reverts at Herat (1793–1863) WatanWatan2020 committed a bright-line violation of the 3RR ([254], [255], [256]).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Both of these editors seem to are making inappropriate use of the accusation of vandalism against each other, alongside other charges. WP:VD has a WP-specific meaning that does not extend to good faith, but ultimately disruptive squabbling between disagreeing editors. This flippancy with language and accusations needs to be reined in by both. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:StN reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Resumption of edit-warring (technically not a 3RR violation, but this is still obvious disruptive editing) within twenty-four hours of end of a previous block for, you've guessed it, edit-warring; on the very same page. Courtesy ping blocking admin @Bbb23: RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Linking to another Wikipedia article directly relevant to the one I was editing is "edit-warring"? I don't think so. StN (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding a link which is already included (in the very next sentence) in an attempt to bring further attention to one's preferred point of view is disruptive, particularly when debate on the talk page has been pretty much against said stance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: No violation)

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [long history, not sure where to link, but the reverts are all simple]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [257]
2. [258]
3. [259]
4. [260]
5. [261]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [262]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Same-sex_marriage#Gender

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [263]

Comments:
There is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page over the appropriate definition of 'same-sex marriage', which occurs in the lead of the article, and whether that definition is compatible with how the term is used in our various sources. The debate includes whether the words 'legal' and 'gender' belong in the definition.

Recently, I noticed two sources had been added for the definition, and wondered if they might shed some light on the issue. However, neither was a source for the definition. I therefor removed them and added a 'citation needed' tag.

User Newimpartial replaced the tag with a better source. However, that source doesn't fully support the wording of the definition as Newimpartial wants it. I tried both changing the definition to conform to the source, and marking it as 'failed verification', but Newimpartial has reverted me each time, claiming they're "pointy" edits, and that it doesn't matter if the definition doesn't match the source even though it's the point of the ongoing discussion. They also claim I'm the only one who has a problem with it, though others have brought up some of these problems on the talk page and Newimpartial has responded to them. It wouldn't matter even if I were the only one, as failing verification is failing verification, and if they can't correct that themself they should at least leave the tag until the issue can be resolved. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. Newimpartial has reverted only twice in the last 24 hours. I strongly urge an RFC on the definition.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Bbb23, while that is true, I do think both editors have displayed edit-warring behaviour so I'd recommend a formal warning. The reverts/interactions between the two editors have extended throughout the week, and I don't think they should be cut slack thanks to gaming the 3RR limit. I do agree RFC is the best way to actually resolve the conflict, tho. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also Bbb23, Newimpartial did in fact do three reverts (May 22-23) in 24 hours although this diff is not a revert through the undo button but a manual one. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't come here for a 3RR violation, but because I was following the instructions on the main ANI page. I went there to file my complaint, and it said that if the issue involved edit-warring, I should file it here instead. So I did. There's nothing in the ANI instructions about needing to be a 3RR violation to file here. If I should've filed there, please let me know for next time.

  My issue isn't about gaming 3RR (I don't know that either of us were doing that), but that tags should remain in place until the issue is resolved, unless there is consensus that the tag is not needed. They shouldn't be removed just because the other editor doesn't like them, no matter what the dispute. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the issues of this filing (especially the WP:BOOMERANG question) might be better addressed at ANI: in particular, Kwamikagami's on-against-many templating crusade - including their placing templates against text that they added to the lead themselves and that they repeatedly supported on Talk - could be addressed there as a WP:POINT issue, though it is out of scope here. Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, there is no WP:POINT issue. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know how else to describe the repeated insertion of an fv tag against text that was originally added by the same editor placing the tag, text which that editor has also repeatedly supported on Talk, other than WP:POINT (making edits with which they do not actually agree to score a point). What else would you call it? Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  You added a source that did not support the wording. It doesn't matter if it's my wording: sources need to support the claims they're used for. If a source does not support the claim, then it fails verification. I'm puzzled that you still don't understand this. — kwami (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  That isn't actually what happened, though. You changed "sex" to "legal sex". Later, I changed "sex" to "sex and gender". This was questioned, and eventually I added the current source. In parallel to this, I asked you on Talk whether changing "sex" to "legal sex" - as you had previously done - would help with your concerns. You were generally supportive, which is why the resultant text read "legal sex and gender". You have never objected on Talk to "legal sex" but only to "and gender", which is why the source I added addressed only "and gender".

  Let me ask you clearly: what claim is it that you say has "failed verification"? Is it the statement that same-sex marriage is based on "legal sex"? That is amply supported in the body of the article, and your adding it to the lead was compliant with LEADFOLLOWSBODY. If that claim meets WP:V, though (as it does), what is it that supposedly fails verification? You have previously objected to the mention of gender in the lead (even though that was long-term stable content), but that is now given an explicit LEADCITE. So I still don't understand what your good-faith objection might possibly be. Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Kwamikagami Newimpartial this noticeboard is not the place to relitigate the subject of the edit war. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Kwamikagami and Newimpartial: I suggest you take this to ANI as the main issue here is the removal/addition of the fv tag. M.Bitton (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Another editor removed the unsupported wording as having failed verification, and Newimpartial hasn't reverted them. If that continues, then I have no reason to take this to ANI. Perhaps we can instead work on making the article reliable and consistent.

  Another editor is pushing a definition diametrically opposed to Newimpartial's (biological sex and gender identity rather than legal sex and legal gender), so there will certainly be more work to do. — kwami (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  This last claim, like may of Kwamikagami's assertions about the article in question, is unsupported by evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's at the start of the very thread we're arguing in! Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  You used the present tense but the discussion you were referring to took place several weeks ago. So your statement that there will certainly be more work to do doesn't seem to me to be supported by any relevant evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Aayushsthares reported by User:Fade258 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Neeta Dhungana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090386638 by Serols (talk)"
2. 07:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 07:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090386209 by Lol1VNIO (talk)"
4. 07:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent content dispute and revert eidt. Fade258 (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is straight up vandalism rather than edit warring. I've reported them to WP:AIV. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 08:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

... And harassment. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 08:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked as WP:NOTHERE by Alex Bakharev.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Prjg reported by User:XyNq (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Jeremy Gregory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 22:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC) "This is not a hijack it's facts"
3. 02:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC) "Updated Information- Please stop changing it! LOOK AT THE WEBSITE"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC) "Hijacking articles (UV 0.1.3)"
2. 04:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.3)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Jeremy Gregory */ Reply"

Comments:

User continues to attempt to hijack this article instead of creating a new one. User also seems to be heavily affiliated with the subject he is hijacking the article with, and even threatened faux legal action on the talk page. I also believe he is behind the IP edits on this page attempting to hijack with the same content. ~XyNq^t_c 04:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The user seems to have finally made his own draft page with his content, so he might be leaving the article alone now. ~XyNq^t_c 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Steve Murry reported by User:BMA-Nation2020 (Result: Not blocked)

Page: List of DreamWorks Animation productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steve Murry (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 reverting this
2. diff reverting this
3. diff reverting this
4. diff revering this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [264]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [265]

Comments:
This guy, User:Steve Murry, keeps disturbing the page by it’s tone and won’t leave it along. I tired to talk to him but he don’t understand me well. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• @BMA-Nation2020: Where have you tried to talk to him? You have not posted a single message to the user's Talk page. You have not tried to resolve the problem with the user. You have not posted a warning to the user's Talk page about edit-warring or a notice of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  I did on the page once. Told me no Producers and EP added. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Edit summaries are not a proxy for discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ooh… right. Well, he did cause some serious distrbite editing. Should i warn him not to do it again? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Not blocked User has not edited the page in a day and a half. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Connor Marini reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: )

Page: Elizabeth Olsen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Connor Marini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [266]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [267]
2. [268]
3. [269]
4. [270]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [272]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [273]

Comments:
Connor Marini is adamant about changing the beginning year in the "years_active" infobox parameter without providing the necessary sources to do so. KyleJoan^talk 02:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

User:ThatsTheNextStep reported by User:ScottishFinnishRadish (Result: P-Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Age fabrication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "The sources absolutely support that she fabricated her age. This is not tough to understand."
2. 03:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "If she was born in 1959 and gave her birth year as 1962, that means she shaved three years off. To satisfy you I have reworded it."
3. 03:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "I've removed popcrush. TCM stays. If you have a problem with the wording, which is factual and inarguable, you can rephrase it yourself. The California Birth Index is the only source that conclusively resolves the discrepancy."
4. 03:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "None of the links are erroneous. And the California Birth Index is inarguable. This means your edit summary is untruthful."
5. 02:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "This is completely applicable. You have no call to erase it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Rebecca De Mornay */ new section"
2. 03:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Rebecca De Mornay, born 1959 */ Reply"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours (partial block) EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

User:74.12.207.155 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked)

Page: UEFA Euro 2020 Final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 74.12.207.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 22:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC) "Adds nothing important to the UEFA Euro 2020 article"
3. 20:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC) "It has nothing to do with UEFA Euro 2020"
4. 20:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC) "Has nothing to do with UEFA Euro 2020 and adds pointless filler"
5. 03:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC) "Has nothing to do with UEFA Euro 2020 and adds unnecessary filler"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC) "/* edit warring over "Aftermath" section */ new section"

Comments:

Had content dispute, but is doing nothing to resolve by normal means Spike 'em (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours by User:Ymblanter for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Robin75aw reported by User:G-13114 (Result: Referred to AN/I)

Page: Stratford-upon-Avon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robin75aw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [274]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [275] (as ip 79.76.165.218 presumably the same person)
2. [276] (as ip 79.76.165.218 presumably the same person)
3. [277] (as ip 79.76.165.218 presumably the same person)
4. [278] 'EXCESSIVE VANDALISM' (as ip 79.76.165.218 presumably the same person)
5. [279] (as ip 79.76.165.218 presumably the same person)
6. [280] (as ip 79.76.165.218 presumably the same person)
7. [281]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [282] (since reverted [283])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [284]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [285]

Comments:
Part of a pattern of behaviour of repeatedly ignoring guidelines on over linking, image placement and other layout issues. Continuing to ignore guidelines despite being made aware of them. G-13114 (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Robin75aw went to the vandalism board and it was then copied over to the incidents board. As I posted on the incidents board, 79.76.167.138 that is an IP close to 79.76.165.218 was used to revert y G-13114's reversion of Robin75aw. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd: I've noticed that a new user RawUtd (contributions) suddenly appeared yesterday, who's editing seems suspiciously similar to that of Robin75aw. This seems like a sockpuppet to me. G-13114 (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Declined This seems more like something for AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

User:217.149.164.157 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Shusha (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 217.149.164.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090827650 by Praxidicae (talk) YES IT DOES! Who are you American"
2. 16:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090827391 by Praxidicae (talk) not an argument, important fact for multicultural background of the city"
3. 16:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "update, anti-universalism"
4. 14:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090815935 by Beshogur (talk) Rv unexplained removal"
5. 14:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1087897494 by Mfikriansori (talk) Rv unexplained change"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shusha (disambiguation)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

yet again this ip is edit warring on another page and POV pushing after just receiving a 24h 3rr block on three other pages. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week for vandalism by TigerShark.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

User:2400:ADCC:105:2200:C958:7346:ED82:FDF4‎ and User:Waqar ahmed khawaja‎ reported by User:EDM fan 2 (Result: Both blocked 24h)

Page: Rani Begum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:2400:ADCC:105:2200:C958:7346:ED82:FDF4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Waqar ahmed khawaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [286] Last stable version, before either editor began to edit the page.

Diffs of the user's reverts: (Waqar ahmed khawaja)

1. [287]
2. [288] (Not tagged as a revert, but is nearly restoring the exact same text.)
3. [289]
4. [290]

(IP editor)

1. [291]
2. [292]
3. [293]
4. [294]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [295] (IP editor) [296] (Waqar ahmed khawaja)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [297]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [298] (Waqar ahmed khawaja) [299] (IP editor)

Comments:

I am an uninvolved editor in this edit war between these two users. I have this page watchlisted due to having reverted recent vandalism, and I have not attempted to make any reverts since I began to notice large disruption to this page. The war has lasted for over 24 hours but is still disruptive. EDM fan 2 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Apparently User:Waqar ahmed khawaja also posted a Legal Threat prior to being blocked see [300] Chip3004 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Artem188 reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Artem188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [301]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [302]
2. [303]
3. [304]
4. [305]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [306]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [307] [308]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [309]

Comments:

Four reverts in less than an hour. Also note that, in the fourth recert, the editor removed a high-quality RS of precisely the kind they had (perhaps rhetorically?) requested on Talk. Newimpartial (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The removal of the TLS citation was an error. However I stand by the other reverts, and would suggest Newimpartial is guilty of the same offence in undoing my changes within the same timescale. I have just added an additional source to the article to demonstrate that there are far more high quality positive reviews of the book than negative, something the editor appears unwilling or unable to accept. Artem188 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

My reverts are these - [310] [311] [312] three only, in the relevant period. My subsequent edits are not reverts.

Also, Artem188, if this was an "error", why not self-revert? Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

By the time I became aware of the error you had already corrected it. I am owning the error here, that is surely sufficient.

My edits were reasonable and accurately reflect the consensus about this book, a consensus I was nevertheless happy to debate with you about on the talk page. I regret that instead of debating and trying to reach a compromise view (clearly there was one to be had) you simply undid my changes, repeatedly, and in quick succession, and didn't engage with the rational points I was making. I'll leave it there but would close by gently asking you to consider whether you allowed your own fervour about this issue to cloud your editorial judgment on this occasion. I think deep down you know that it did. Artem188 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I offered two additional sources for negative reviews here, on Talk, before adding anything to the article, but you continued to insist that there existed "literally only one negative review". If anyone in that situation might not engage with the rational points the other was making, I dare say that shoe might be on the other foot. You rage-reverted a source I added in article space, you repeated your false statements on Talk in the face of evidence, and you have studiously ignored the expressed opinions of other editors who have disagreed with you on this. Not to mention that you refused to self-revert when you were able to and were asked to do so. If your reason wasn't fervour, I abstractly curious what it was.

Also, concerning the rational points each of us were making, your response to my point that referring to an author as "conservative" whose first book was Neoconservatism: Why We Need It is in no way leading or misleading was to ask whether it was usual to refer to the author in this way. The answer, quite obviously, is "yes", and that is how the sources typically refer to this author- a point amply made by other editors on Talk before I arrived. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, perhaps? Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

User:92.96.132.158 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Already blocked)

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

User being reported: 92.96.132.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Definition */It's fake lolz"
2. 20:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "The human being loses fertility as he moves away from 21 years. The man is not an exception and there are several sources, even in English, that corroborate it. It's ridiculous to think that it increases at 25. Undid revision 1090858773 by Praxidicae (talk)"
3. 20:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Definition */It's fake"
4. 20:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Definition */Possible fake. Source: https://www.consumer.es/bebe/fertilidad-el-reloj-biologico-del-hombre-tambien-corre.html -- https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20170725/4363677488/infertilidad-masculina-reloj-biologico-corre-deprisa-para-hombre-brl.html < Male fertility decreases after 22-25 years"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Infertility."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

this has been sourced for years and the reliability has yet to be questioned (and is widely supported by established RS) but this ip seems to insinuate otherwise, and appears to be vandalizing by removing established fact and consensus claiming the source and content is fake (which it is very clearly not) PRAXIDICAE💕 20:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Already blocked by TonyBallioni EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Vaze50 reported by User:ITBF (Result: Blocked 3 months)

Page: Peter Dutton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Vaze50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 15:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Re-edited so that it fits with the insanity of GeebaKhap and ITBF - they will be satisfied with it now."
3. 12:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090611214 by ITBF (talk) It is a complete fetish and people like you are the worst perpetuators of it. Opposition is a proper noun. Indulge your weird obsessions in your own time, don't rewrite the English language to suit them."
4. 11:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC) "I know there's this utterly bizarre fetish among some here to lower-case absolutely everything, but Opposition is a proper noun, it is capitalised - enough of this nonsense."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is edit-warring over MOS:JOBTITLES/MOS:CAP. I don't care enough about capital letters to continue this but I do object to being called a fetishist and insane. In this edit Vaze just decided to remove all capital letters from the article lede which is just blatant WP:POINT vandalism and unfortunately stayed up for two hours. ITBF (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Homogenie and User:Jonardondishant reported by User:Chaipau (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Ahom kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

1. Homogenie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Jonardondishant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: not applicable

Diffs of the user Homogenie's reverts:

1. [313]
2. [314]
3. [315]
4. [316]

Diffs of the user Jonardandishant's reverts:

1. [317]
2. [318]
3. [319]
4. [320]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [321]
2. [322]

Diff of 12 March, 2022 edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [323]
2. [324]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit-warring has been between the two users being reported. And I notice that though there was no talk page discussion, but there was an exchange in one of the user talk pages (User_talk:Jonardondishant#POV_push).

Comments:

Both the users were warned 12 March, 2022 for a previous case of edit-warring (diffs above). Both the users are also aware of WP:ARBIPA. Chaipau (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Homogenie indefinitely blocked; Jonardondishant blocked for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

User:68.14.208.126 reported by wolf (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: General of the Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.14.208.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [325]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [326]
2. [327]
3. [328]
4. [329]
5. [330]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [331]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [332]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [333]

Comments:
Straight 4RR vio (make that 5 now and counting). IP edit-warrior just keeps reverting and refuses to engage on talk pages. - wolf 20:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)