Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive454

User:Semsûrî reported by User:Dortana (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Breaking the 3RR within 24 hours. Dortana (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a sockpuppet investigation going on pertaining to Dortana and I did involve an admin just an hour ago in regard to Dortana's blatant POV-push[9]. Dortana (an two or three dozen other sockpuppets) have been disrupting Wikipedia since at least 2015(!). My frustration with this sock made not aware that I would have reverted a fourth time instead of a third time. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A user (admin?) active on German Wikipedia notified me of a list they had created of all of the sockmaster's accounts which includes the "Dortana" account[10]. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

---

On another note, there was no 3RR warning from Dortana. Dortana has linked to the notice on my talkpage of this discussion. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

---

178.243.110.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I suspect that this is a sockpuppet of Dortana as they just continued Dortana's disruption. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked At this point he hasn't edited the page in a day. Any suspected sockpuppetry should be reported at SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Look at the page history. He has edited the page in a day on 13 June 2022 four times with reverting.[11] Dortana (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"four times with reverting". Yes, but that's not four reverts of the exact same edit. He made the same revert three times, reverted a different edit twice, and then doesn't seem to have edited the page much since. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR): "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." And also per Wikipedia:Edit warring: "The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Dortana (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue at this point is the report is stale. I don't see anything to be gained by action. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The result of this report is against the rules. According to 3RR the User should be blocked for 24 hours and maybe this is not the first time that the User has breaked the 3RR and was blocked for edit warring. Dortana (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:STICK Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

See and read Wikipedia:Edit warring and also Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia Dortana (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Truthseeker2006 reported by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus (Result: User notified)

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

User being reported: Truthseeker2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093664224 by ElderZamzam (talk)no it does not not,they are 2 different sources which claim different things"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC) to 00:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093561576 by Griboski (talk) a serbian source from the milosevic era about kosovo is not reliable,also the quotation needed was never provided"
   2. 18:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC) "added"
   3. 00:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 09:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC) "removed some content due to WP:AGEMATTERS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not only have you broken 3RR, but you've also done it by citing the "Ali Hadri Institute", no less, which has used violence and intimidation against Serbian Orthodox pilgrims and clerics to promote its ethno-nationalist agenda of usurping the Visoki Dečani monastery. [12] Don't edit war, discuss this with your peers. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

i only reverted twice i dont know why for some edits where i added studf it said reverted,also i quoted ali hadris research not political opinions about ur church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker2006 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note Given nature of the edits, I have placed a discretionary sanctions alert on the reported editor's page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Warned This report is premature. No user talk page warning, no discussion. Closing with no action. C.Fred has already provided a warning. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you C.Fred for alerting the new editor about the discretionary sanctions covering the Balkans. While I strongly suggest to Truthseeker to seek consensus on the talk page for every change that is challenged by another editor, I also want to highlight the fact noted by Anachronist that AB reported a new editor without a warning or advice or an effort on the talk page. AB got an AE warning a year ago when he tried to defend a pro-Serbian nationalism editor who got topic banned Several unconstructive edits and this report show that a new report at AE should filed, as admins need to take a look at AB's editing again. An editor with an AE warning needs to be more careful. The Balkans are a controversial topic but everyone should try to stay calm and give their best. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991: The Balkans are a controversial topic. Editors do need to stay calm, yes, and work toward a positive solution. I'm willing to give a little grace for AB coming to a noticeboard to seek outside assistance—especially since when I drilled into the article's history, this wasn't TS's first flirtation with 3RR (see edits on 5 June). That said, I do agree that Amanuensis Balkanicus was premature in the report, given that the user had not been warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed C.Fred, hence I suggest to User:Truthseeker2006, like I have suggested to many other new editors, to edit uncontroversial edits for some time to gain experience with consensus building processes etc and then to start editing controversial articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I should have been more patient with TS and will try not to bite the newbies. They seem very precocious judging by their edits, however, so I figured they knew what they were doing. I am engaging in multiple TP discussions with one of the other users. TS hasn't taken part at all. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:TheRealSerenaJoy reported by User:Throast (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1092967237

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1093301322
2. Special:Diff/1093419822

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1093313579, Special:Diff/1093306481 (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1092969142

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1093423746

Comments:

Although a discussion was initially started on the talk page by the editor themselves, they've repeatedly reintroduced the disputed material in the meantime on grounds that their version is the "accurate" one. The talk page discussion is ongoing, and consensus appears to move contra to the editor.

Although 3RR has not yet been broken, the editor has explicitly stated their intention to do so here in order to get editors to "concede". Additionally, the editor has insulted editors involved in the dispute, implied COIs on their part without evidence, accused them of bad faith (edit summary), and of "collaborating on misinformation" and discrediting the subject of the article. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I also hope that the purely retaliatory decision by the editor to report both Popoki35 and me below is taken into account. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked C.Fred seems to have had an effect with this edit summary, for now. While TRSJ's tenacity, bordering on tendentiousness, exasperated the other editors in the discussion, most of their edits were to that discussion and only a couple to the actual article. Those latter do not yet rise to the level of block-worthy edit warring, IMO, although as I think even TRSJ realizes here they were headed that way if they continued.

Frankly the whole episode might well reach LEW if it goes far enough (Edit-warring over, in part, the wording of the short description?) Since I assume good faith, I take TRSJ at their word when they believe that they are interpreting policy correctly. I think a higher level of dispute resolution, probably an RfC, might be effective here where the voices of five very involved editors have not been so far. When everybody's calmed down a little. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No action whatsoever (not even a strongly worded talk page message by someone with actual authority?) seems unreasonable looking at the toxicity I laid out in the second paragraph above. I'm afraid editors involved with the article will have to endure much more of that, if not worse, if the editor is not reined in somehow. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: Sanctions should be preventative, not punitive. The behaviour has ceased, so there is no need for further action at this time. I have the article on my watchlist, so I would see if that were to change. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Daniel Case and @C.Fred for the feedback. I agree with LEW status, which is why my replies to the editor group involved reached a passionate level as it's hard to believe that anyone would fight me so hard against adding one word — and an accurate one at that — to a short description and the title in the article when fully supported by wikipedia rules and sources. The page still contains some inaccuracies, which I will chitty-chat out on the talk page with my new friends. The fact that they 1) reported me when they initiated reversions to my super-benign edits; and 2) want me punished my my "toxicity" for attempting to edit a page, which anyone should be free to contribute to. It all further supports my thinking that where theres smoke, there's fire and I stumbled into something other than simple editing of a BLP of one-of-a-million producers. I would hope that Wikipedia and it's tiers of support volunteers and admins are good at recognizing good and proper behavior, along with questionable behavior and dig a little into the pages to see what's really going on. Hopefully, they will not continue to block contributions to pages as its conduct that is quite unseemly of an experienced editor. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is quite ironic that you agree with the LEW comment since you seem to be just as passionate, if not more so, about changing ROLEBIO in the lead as others are about leaving it be. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Toa_Nidhiki05 reported by User:Aunger67 (Result: No violation)

Page: Factions in the Republican Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toa_Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[18]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments:
Toa_Nidhiki05 regularly demonstrates gatekeeping behavior over the article "Factions of the Republican Party (United States)." The user regularly reverts edits by merely responding "no" or "This is not helpful" instead of clarifying his position or making adjustments. I have tried my best to outline the case against Toa_Nidhiki05 and will help provide clarification as much as I can in this process. Thanks.

You're clearly a new-ish editor here, so I would advise you read up on WP:3RR and WP:BRD in particular; when adding new content, the onus is on the person adding it. Toa Nidhiki05 19:41, 18 June 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. @Aunger67: The warning you gave Toa_Nidkihi05 does not really serve as a warning about edit warring, and there has been no violation of 3RR. Further, you are wading into the area of American politics, which is subject to discretionary sanctions by administrators. Thus, it is especially important for new editors to go slowly and follow accepted norms and practices at articles, including the need to get consensus for changes like the ones you attempted to make. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

User:86.30.52.72 reported by User:Wolfdog (Result: Blocks)

Page: Essex dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.30.52.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

Comments:
A user named Judeobasquelanguage was warned about edit warring on the relevant page. Scope creep, Czello, and I have been trying to maintain the page status quo ante. Then the anonymous user listed above appeared on the scene and continued the process of reverting. Possibly a case of block evasion? Canterbury Tail may concur / know more. The anonymous user has been the only one to take to the talk page, but when I responded, they responded in turn with off-the-rails ad hominem-style gibberish. Wolfdog (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)}}

This is Judeobaquelanguage's IP address, they've confirmed it in the past including on the IP talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 20:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

IP id blocked and Judeobasquelanguage has been indeffed for complete inability to operate in a collaborative environment without calling people racist just because they disagree with them. Canterbury Tail talk 21:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Dentren blocked 48h; Bedivere warned)

Page: Izkia Siches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093751406 by Bedivere (talk)-discuss in talk before such massive removals"
2. 16:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093750576 by Bedivere (talk)-discuss in talk before such massive changes"
3. 16:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093623195 by Bedivere (talk)-refrain from making POV-pushs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Izkia Siches."
2. 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Izkia Siches."
3. 16:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on El Líbero."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Disputed material */ Reply"

Comments:

User has been making POV-pushing edits in several Chile-related articles, including Gabriel Boric, inflation in Chile, and lately Izkia Siches and El Líbero. He started RFCs in the first two ones' talk pages, only to be told his actions were incorrect (POV-pushing). Since they are not listening first to advice, second to warnings, I suggest sanctioning them. This is not the first time they engage in such behaviour. Bedivere (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Bedivere is Diego Grez-Cañete, a user who is permanently banned from Wikipedia [26]. 2) Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete refuses to engage in constructive discussions on talk pages (see Gabriel Boric, inflation in Chile). Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete is strongly into left wing-politics by his own account (former member of Socialist Party of Chile and current supporter of Social Convergence), and is an open supporter of Gabriel Boric [27]. This is not the first time Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete engages in conflict of interest (see Diego Grez-Cañete old saga of warnings and bans). It would be of further interest to have Bedivere-Diego Grez-Cañete disclose all his current and past link to Chilean politics and political activism. Dentren | ^Talk 01:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You have absolutely no proof about that supposed sockpuppetry, for which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever. Now there's another problem here: this user is not assuming good faith, making totally groundless accusations and ultimately disregards politics, disrupting the project in order to prove a point. They should be definitely stopped. I am not reverting once again their edits, but an admin should call them out at last. Bedivere (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Both User:Dentren and User:Bedivere are edit-warring at Izkia Siches. I think page protection may be the best option, to encourage everyone to discuss on the talk page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Mx. Granger, agree this is what Bedivire-Diego Grez-Cañete should have done from the biggining instead of warriyng. Dentren | ^Talk 11:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop calling me like that. You have no proof at all and I consider that a personal attack. You should apologize. Bedivere (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Mx. Granger. Not to mention it should be restored to its stable version Bedivere (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Dentren for 48h for edit-warring and for the personal attacks here. Another reason for the block is that Dentren reverted yet again today, well after this report was filed. Bedivere, you too were edit-warring and are warned that any future reverts at the article will probably result in a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Mahato King reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Partial block, 48 hours)

Page: Kurmali language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mahato King (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 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
   3. 15:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade language */"
   4. 15:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
   5. 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   6. 15:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   7. 15:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Language variation */"
   8. 15:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses of Language */"
   3. 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:69, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   5. 15:69, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Kurmali language."
2. 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kurmali language."
3. 15:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Kurmali language

Comments:

New user keeps removing sourced content without reaching a WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD despite multiple warning, comments and requests at talk page. Makes a comment that "Some people's who edit Wikipedia from outside India manipulate Kurmali writing with false information." here Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Broke 3RR [28], also removing hatnotes. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Also note accusation here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

To demonstrate that the user is being disruptive, the sentence And bilingually spoken by Bhumij, Ho, Kharia, Lohara/Lohar, Mahli, Munda, Oraon, Santal, Savar and Bathudi communities which was removed by the user here is cited from a Indian Govt source [29] (page 410). And the hatnote "and Karmali language, a dialect of Santali language" abides by WP:HATNOTE since the spelling is similar. I've explained this in the article talk page as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

More accusations against me [30] [31] [32] even after I asked them to maintain WP:CIVIL here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring continues [33]. I wonder whether it is a case of WP:CIR, since the user still keeps on reverting sourced content instead of seeking a WP:CONSENSUS. Pinging Peaceray. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the 6th revert. Also note uncivil comments [34] "You support a crime Mr peaceray". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have just told the user very clearly that they must discuss at the talk page rather than revert.[35] I'm watching closely to see what their next action is. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from the Kurmali language page only. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  @C.Fred, another account has started removing the same content from the same page (1, 2).... Kpddg ^(talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  • This new user came up immediately. They are removing the same content [36] [37] [38]. Possible sock. Requesting page protection as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    I have requested protection. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    Page is now semi-protected. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

    Both users blocked. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Xpenz reported by User:StellarNerd (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Tesla Autopilot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094108867 by StellarNerd (talk) Stop removing my edits unless you have a good explanation" (revert of [39])
2. 19:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "" (revert of [40])
3. 01:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "These reported crashes is after Musk made these comments. If you want to add them you need to rephrase it." (revert of [41])
4. 00:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093963018 by QRep2020 (talk) so has other automakers and AI companies, that does not make it relevant though." (revert of [42])

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tesla Autopilot."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Toyota */ new section"

Comments:

Instead of discussion on article talk, posted on their talk: ""Undoing another editor's work" did not happen, as long as you keep deleting my edits I'll keep re adding it. ". They have reverted four times in the past 24 hours, both me and User:QRep2020. They have potentially a fifth revert in this edit, but that's not a reversal of a very recent edits. All of the four edits listed above are reverts of editors in the last 24 hours. StellarNerd (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:HamHammm reported by User:M.Bitton (Result:Sock blocked)

Page: Ibn Battuta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Added multiple sources from multiple scholarly papers from various academic institutions, universities and various history websites in addition to further clarify the identity of this person, "Maghrebi" is a term that refers to overall geographical region of the Maghreb of just like Southern Europe/Southern European people or South East Asia/South East Asian, Wikipedia should be a source of accuracy please do no undo as it took me a lot of time to edit these sources with the correct format"
2. 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094102323 by M.Bitton (talk) I added one additional source, there was no sources in the first place next to Maghrebi, this term is vague and the entirety of the sources I added mention that he was indeed Moroccan, the term Maghrebi is not accurate enough as Maghreb is a vague geographical region that includes Algeria and Tunisia."
3. 19:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094100475 by M.Bitton (talk) Added an additional source from history.com, please stop removing sources and references and provide proof that clarify your stance otherwise this considered WP:VANDAL per Wikipedia rules and I'm gonna be forced to report you."
4. 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094099228 by M.Bitton (talk) Please do not remove sources and references next time you edit without a detailed explanation, all the sources added are from highly reputable platforms. If you have any reason (backed by sources of course) to believe that he was from other countries that form the "Maghreb" please provide them."
5. 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Added some more precise clarification, plus additional sources."
6. 17:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Early life section states that he was born in Morocco on 24 February 1304.."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ibn Battuta."
2. 19:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */ new section"
3. 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
4. 19:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */ new section"
2. 20:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Comments:

This "new" editor keeps replacing scholarly sources about the subject with whatever is mentioned in passing and edit warring against two editors. I left two comments on their talk page that they ignored. I then moved those comments to the article's talk page and pinged them (to no avail). They only started communicating after breaking 3R.

I reported them earlier and retracted the report once another editor got involved. After blanking their talk page, they are back to continue the edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, the claim that they forgot their old account's password doesn't hold much water. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Confirmed sock account has been blocked indef.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Ponyo: Many thanks. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Watercheetah99 reported by User:Amaekuma (Result: No action)

Page: Peter Obi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Watercheetah99 (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. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Watercheetah99#Hello

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

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

Comments:

As I noted on my talk page and in edit summaries, the other user has been removing sourced content and adding falsehoods in an attempt to promote a politician. These edits fall well within grounds to maintain neutrality and avoid bias. I noted three falsehoods on my talk page:

• "However this was proven to be wrong as Obi on an interview with Arise TV, stated that he resigned from all his companies before taking the office of Governor of Anambra State." - This has no proof, it's a denial.
• "The investigation by the EFCC didn't yield any incriminating evidence and all charges were dropped." - This is just a lie, the EFCC have never released a statement clearing him nor did they file charges in the first place.
• "Although no law was technically broken by Obi regarding the Pandora papers leaks" - This is also false. First, Obi remained as a company director for over a year while being governor (against the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act); second, Obi did not declare his offshore companies when he became governor (against the Constitution); and lastly, he maintained foreign accounts while being governor (that is against both the Constitution and Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act). All of these were directly addressed in the source.

Let me make some things abundantly clear. Give me a minute of your time and read please

* First I need you to understand that the subject here isn't a government official presently, he is in the opposition. If you know anything about politics in Africa and other developing countries, you will know that the incumbent government go to any length to silence the opposition. With that said, I hope you get the context with which I'm writing this below

* Premium Times newspaper (the media house who brought out the article) isn't a court nor is it official anti-corruption body of Nigeria. So their investigation is neither conclusive nor damning. The official anti-corruption body of Nigeria, the EFCC called the subject in for questioning, investigated him and dismissed the case. If there was something on him, he'll be in jail today but was never been charged to court on the matter. So neither the article above nor the wikipedia editor above can't be police, judge and executioner.

* Wikipedia is built unbias and balance. There is always two sides to a story. Yes, His name was listed in Pandora papers. Yes, a damning article came out about the matter. But there rebuttals from the subject. There were also rebuttals from other reputable media houses condemning the approach of Premium Times who brought out the first article. Is that article a court sentence? Why can't I append the articles of the subject defending his innocence? Why can't I append the articles where the approach of Premium Times was condemned? Why must premium times be allowed as citation and the others can't?

* In conclusion, I dare say if the subject was guilty in any way, they present government would have thrown him in jail by now. This is Africa, opposition gets squashed, blackmailed or neutralized and The subject is the main opposition running for the President of Nigeria. With all that said, tell that Wikipedian to stop interrupting and reverting my well sourced edits. Wikipedia is a community and everybody has a right to edit any article within his technical purview as long as it is backed with good citations. Amaekuma (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's address these:

• "the EFCC called the subject in for questioning, investigated him and dismissed the case." - Again, this is a lie. The EFCC have never released a statement dismissing the case.
• "Why can't I append the articles of the subject defending his innocence?" - The article already notes his denials, what you are trying to do is pretend like his denials are proof of innocence.
• "if the subject was guilty in any way, they present government would have thrown him in jail by now" - This is just laughable. Decades of politicians (in the ruling, main opposition, and/or minor parties) getting away with massive corruption with no issue and you claim that some tax evasion would have sent him to jail? Tinubu has hijacked the Lagos State funds for 20 years (mainly in opposition) and is free, Atiku was accused of corruption as a major opposition figure in the 2000s and never went to jail, Obiano was immediately arrested for corruption but is perfectly free, Ali Modu Sheriff literally started Boko Haram while in opposition and nothing happened to him; the law does not apply to these people for major offenses so why would it apply to Obi for a relatively minor one? Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What is laughable is that you think Wikipedia is the place to pass your judgement. You have no right to do this, and that isn't what Wikipedia is.

I say again, the anti corruption body has never charged him to court regarding the matter. I am not saying he was charged to court and judgement hasn't been passed. What I'm saying is that there isn't any case in court. Nothing. That is even the most crucial thing.

An article that has been rebuffed, picked apart and labelled a witch-hunt is what is being used on Wikipedia to tarnish a man's image. There is an availability of an opposing view online and the Wikipedian above won't let me post these links and citations. I took my time to read what Wikipedia is, and his behaviour goes against all the principles, pillars and ethics of Wikipedia. He is rude, seriously trying to push a narrative and unwilling to work with others. And more importantly, he violated the 3R rule in the process. Amaekuma (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• What judgement? What is written is the contents of the article nothing more or less. That is exactly what this site is for: information on subjects.
• "What I'm saying is that there isn't any case in court." - You cannot continue to lie about easily verifiable things, you continuously said Obi was "cleared" which isn't true. I've added that no case has been filed, you did not.
• Every piece on corruption is "labelled a witch-hunt" by the politician, we can't remove the section for that. As I've said, the article already notes Obi's denials, what you are trying to do is pretend like his denials are proof of innocence which they are not. You have let your support for Obi cloud logic.
• The sad part about this mess is that if you wanted to find a way to add info about Obi, there is a very easy and positive way to do that: write neutrally about his time as Governor. By almost all accounts, he seems to have done very well in education and healthcare (I noted that in the page's intro) so just find good sources and write about that. Every Nigerian politician has corruption allegations, not every politician has a genuinely good public record so stop trying to whitewash the scandal and write about his governance. I was gonna start on that next week but I'm sure you can find some articles on educational rankings and the amount of money in state coffers by 2014. Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked Any edit warring that happened stopped happening two days ago. I wish you guys could have had the above discussion on the article talk page, but then it's also pretty obvious that neither of you is backing down. So, you need to bring in other people to get some consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:UtoD (Result: No action)

Page: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "rv editor whose account was created the same day"
2. 14:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "rv anon...sockpuppet?"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) to 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "have both viewpoints represented"
   2. 13:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "ABC source"
4. 02:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "RV as that editor's account was just created today"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User FobTown continues edit warring with other users in the page and also making accusations of being sockpuppets of mine towards other users without opening any sockpuppet investigations on these accounts. Even the reason for reverting is claiming they are sockpuppets In addition there are also threats like Your account was just created today so you will be under scrutiny. Read the following before you give your cookie-cutter arguments that are similar to those made by User:UtoD Considering that sockpuppet accusations in talk page and edit summaries pretty much drags me back into the dispute and using these accusations as reasons for revert/attacks rather than reporting them is WP:ASPERSIONS. I am putting this in the edit warring reports but also want to report the casting of aspersions. UtoD 18:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It is true that User:Simpleshooter99 created an account and went right to editing 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis. Plus User:Simpleshooter99's first edit was similar to User:UtoD [49], and both use similar rhetoric on their edit summaries and article Talk page.[50] In addition, I was about to call out User contributions for 49.186.67.124 for being a potential sockpuppet, however User:Simpleshooter99 later admitted to forgetting to log back in.[51] Ending up User:Simpleshooter99 and I did have a discussion on the Talk page, with User:Thriley and User:Qiushufang being involved, and so far we seem to have come to a compromise. [52] FobTown (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked I see that there has been discussion on the article talk page, although it does not seem like it will end any time soon. If FobTown seriously believes that socks have been created, they should report them to SPI; otherwise, to simply refuse discussion on that basis is bad faith. Most edit warring has currently stopped and, frankly, the alleged socking seems like the bigger issue. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:Sportspop (Result: No action)

Page: Mil Mi-10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BilCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I must first point out that these past days, I was blocked temporarily for edit warring despite not breaching 3RR. I feel that the experience has helped me greatly to identify when edit warring and certainly breach of 3RR is the case.

User:BilCat has single-handedly (ie without consensus or support from other users) edit warred on Mil Mi-10 beginning with this edit on 19th June. Since then he has not left the article alone pretty much day and night. Just a short time ago, BilCat corssed a red line and violated 3RR.

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert and breach

It is my understanding that BilCat is well aware of 3RR and the rules on edit warring based on this edit. I must warn that where he breached 3RR his summary claimed "rvv" (I think reverting vandalism). If he believes that I committed vandalism when he is welcome to report me to the vandalism noticeboard but I was not doing anything of the nature. All I saw was wasted spaces that were not improving the article. I do not believe BilCat should escape sanctioning particularly after what I went through just a week ago. --Sportspop (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

PS. The reasons specified in BilCat's summaries (unsourced) are not covered by Wikipedia:3RRNO. Vandalism is, but his claim is false and nobody will agree with him that anything amounted to vandalism. --Sportspop (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't why know you restored an unsourced claim when you where clearly aware of the problem of the lack of a citation, which at the time seemed like vandalism to me. Are you in the habit of reverting legitimate reversions of unsourced claims? I didn't warn the user adding the content several times, and even told them repeatedly on my talk page they needed a reliable source. I didn't realize I had gone over 3RR tonight,but otherwise my edits and warnings were proper. Anyway, another user had supplied a reference, so we can all move on from here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This claim isn't "proper" by any definition. Plus there's since been a fifth. You know the rules and you know when it is ok and not ok to revert. Especially with three different editors on the same day. --Sportspop (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Now the user has posted personal attacks on my talk page and in his edit summary, calling me arrogant, along with demands that I don't post on his talk page,and hoping that I get banned for my arrogance! Really? Ok. Well, I'm headed to sleep now, and I hope this can all be dealt with in my absence. The issue with the article has been addressed with a source, and all I did in my last edits was to add the source and fix a date. As I said, my breach of 3RR was unintentional, and I won't cross that line n the future. BilCat (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The above is a matter of opinion and does not exonerate four reverts, and a fifth which happened after he knew about the report. --Sportspop (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• No action. BilCat has acknowledged the edit-warring violation, and the article has apparently been fixed. Sportspop, this malformed report smacks of sour grapes because of your recent block for edit-warring. You are a new user, and you have not gotten off to a good start. I strongly recommend that you find more useful things to do than to hunt out edit-warring by other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Since this hasn't been archived, and User:Sportspop has requested that I not post on his talk page, I'll add this here. Sportspop, I was very tired last night, and should not have been editing because of this. I was frustrated because the other user kept making the same edit over and over, despite repeated warnings to add a reliable source. Instead of seeking page protection and/or starting a discussion on the article's talk page, I just kept reverting, hoping they'd get the message that a reliable source was required. When you reverted my revert, I got angry and took it out on you. I was wrong, and I take full responsibility for that. At that point I went offline, and then, stupidly, I returned about an hour later and found out you'd filed this report. Some of my comments above were also made in anger, and for that I apologize too. We've never interacted before, that I know of, but I do hope that if our paths cross again, we can have a civil interaction. I will not post on your talk page again, except for required notices such as informing you of ANI reports, etc. (Those are not optional.) @Bbb23: Thanks for not blocking me, and I promise to be much more careful of edit warring in the future. Finally, as it turns out, one version of the Mi-10, the Mi-10K, was apparently still in service as of 2014, and may still be in service somewhere! That's why we require reliable sources, and we just don't take someone's word for it. BilCat (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

BilCat.Thanks for explanation. As we got off to bad start that needn't have been as it was, I'll discard what I said about you not posting on my talk page and if you need to, you're welcome by me. I generally aim not to provoke warnings but don't always get things right myself. All the best! --Sportspop (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:47.183.120.205 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Semi)

Page: Hot dog variations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 47.183.120.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Do a simple google search, no such thing as a houston dog. https://www.google.com/search?q=houston+style+hot+dog&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS771US771&hl=en-US&ei=oHuyYpjQMpiekPIPgcKSgA0&oq=houston+styled+hot+dog&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAEYADIECAAQDTIICAAQHhAIEA0yBQgAEIYDMgUIABCGAzIFCAAQhgMyBQgAEIYDOgcIABBHELADOgoILhDHARCvARANOgYIABAeEAc6CAgAEB4QCBAHSgQIQRgAUOkTWJwZYOkgaAJwAXgAgAGOAYgBngWSAQM0LjOYAQCgAQHIAQjAAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp"
2. 02:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "No sources claim this as a houston dog just stop"
3. 01:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "No sir, houston native. I’m literally on houston Bay Area food groups right now as we speak. We do not claim this as our hot dog, I looked up houston hot dog and there is zero source for this, the hot dog you claim is a houston dog is actually called a true dog CREATED BY A LOS ANGELES NATIVE. The article included in this article Even states he is from Los Angeles. A Texas dog is a New Jersey styled hot dog that’s been deep fried in oil. So please as a houston native we are offended."
4. 01:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "There is no such thing as a houston styled hot dog coming from a houston native. The hot dog provided was a menu item offered at a houston area hot dog restaurant created by a Los Angeles native. Please don’t readd this because it’s stupid."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Hot dog variations."
2. 02:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: Page semiprotected indefinitely by User:El C per a request at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:8001:2902:64F4:589A:844B:7ACB:E018 reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Blocked)

Page: Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:8001:2902:64F4:589A:844B:7ACB:E018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 02:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "I didnt get it from https://web.archive.org/web/20111112140746/http://www.bos.co.la.ca.us/PDFs/RULES_of_the_Board_December_2008.pdf That Charter is no longer in use"
3. 01:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 23:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor is persistently readding copyright content to this draft, which has a history of revision deletion for the same reason. DanCherek (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. The IP editor persists in restoring copyright violations to the draft. The history shows many revision deletions by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Alessiorom13 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Warned)

Page: MJ the Musical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alessiorom13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. April 29, 14:33 UTC. [54] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mostly critical acclaim".
2. June 13, 12:39 UTC. [55] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mixed reviews".
3. June 20, 17:29 UTC. [56] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mixed reviews".
4. June 21, 16:44 UTC. [57] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mixed reviews".
5. June 21, 18:42 UTC. [58] Changed "mixed to negative reviews" to "mixed reviews".
6. June 21, 21:05 UTC. [59] revert to restore awards entries

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

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

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

Comments:
Alessiorom13 has been engaged in a non-neutral long-term edit war at the article MJ the Musical. Starting on April 30, talk page discussion among several editors has returned again and again to Alessiorom13's attempted whitewash of the article, by way of diminishing negative reviews and adding poorly sourced positive reviews. Alessiorom13 has not violated WP:3RR in the strict sense but has repeatedly violated WP:NPOV, persistently reverting attempted improvements by others. A few minutes after receiving my edit-warring notice, then countering with an edit-warring warning posted on my talk page,[63] Alessiorom13 turned around and restored their preferred version.[64] This shows they are aware of the consequences. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• A possible solution would be partial block from the page in question. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The same can be said about User:Binksternet who has been participating and started this so called "edit war". As you can see on the Talk:MJ the Musical. Consensus from various different users has been reached yet ignored by User:Binksternet on this very topic. Alessiorom13 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Alessiorom13 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Jol451shore1 reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: Protected)

Page: Aaron Parnas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jol451shore1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094416030 by Hey man im josh (talk) (The article does not assert that Aaron Parnas' money was used in a donation, only that he sent $5300 to Aaron Investments. It is improper to speculate that his money went to Trump when there is no sourcing to support that)."
2. 13:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094415209 by Pennsylvania2 (talk) (The FEC is responsible for handling all political donations. The cite to the FEC page proves that Aaron never made any donations to Trump. As a result, it is improper to assert that he made donations, when he did not). Stop spreading libellous information."
3. 13:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094413016 by Hey man im josh (talk) This was a constructive edit, as it is improper to (1) cite a blog piece that acknowledges that it is speculating and (2) never states that the $5300 was for a donation to anyone, let alone Trump. This 5300 was never implicated in any other article or legitimate source."
4. 13:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "This is improperly sourced. The article literally notes that it cannot determine what the money was for, and notes that they could be birthday gifts: We of course don’t know the source of these funds Aaron put into one of many entities his father named after him. Some were incorporated around the time Aaron was born. The money could be as innocent as birthday gifts from friends and family. Confirming this with FEC reports would be proper sourcing."
5. 13:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "This is still not properly sourced. There is no indication that the $5300 was "donated" to fund Trump inaugural events. The proper source here would be to look at FEC reports to see whether Aaron Parnas made any donations to Trump or his Committee(s). Moreover, the pictures remain improperly sourced."
6. 02:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "This is not sourced. The first article references pictures posted by Lev Parnas, not Aaron. If Aaron was in one of the pictures, that does note mean "Parnas (referring to Aaron) posted the photographs." The second source does not even have Aaron's name in it. Instead, it is more appropriate for Lev Parnas' page as he created the Aaron Investments entity, as noted by the article."
7. 16:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "This information is not supported by the citation included. The citation included refers to Lev Parnas, not Aaron Parnas. This is flat out incorrect information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Aaron Parnas."
2. 13:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Aaron Parnas."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is WP:NOTHERE. They're edit warring in a manner that is completely unproductive. Appears to be a single purpose account for editing on Aaron Parnas, as that's where all of their edits since registration have been. Most of their edits are removing large chunks of content that often is just added back later. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The editing is completely proper. The source cited comes from a blog and asserts that Aaron Parnas sent $5,300 to Aaron Investments. The source does not assert that Aaron's money was ever used to donate to Trump or the Trump campaign. The source only cites to approximately $325,000, coming from Igor Fruman that was donated to Trump. The source merely asserts that Aaron's wire transfer exists, not that the money was used to fund a political donation. By asserting that it was, without any legitimate source to back it up, is extremely dangerous and libelous. This comes after repeated efforts by the individual who included the source to make outlandish allegations on Aaron Parnas' page that have since been disproven. Jol451shore1 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jol451shore1, did you happen to read my warnings on your page about edit warring? I want to quote part of the first warning I placed on your talk page;

The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus.

Regardless of intent, there's been a disagreement on the article content and you've been edit warring about it instead of allowing for discussions to take place and play out on the article talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Noted for the future, I look forward to discussing this on the talk page, if necessary. Jol451shore1 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I can appreciate your intentions and I hope that all is smooth moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Protected. Normally I would block the editor that is violating 3RR but in this case I'm not convinced that EmptyWheel is a reliable source either - it does appear to be a blog, and we certainly can't use a blog to source a negative element in a BLP. If someone can provide evidence that Emptywheel is reliable, then that's a separate issue. In the meantime, I've fully protected the article for a month, so there's time for an in-depth discussion of reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'd also just point out that there's a specific exemption to the edit-warring policies at WP:3RRNO, which states the one of the exemptions is "Removing contentious material that is libellous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." Now one could certainly argue that edits like this are poorly sourced, and they're certainly biased. Material like that should definitely be impeccably sourced, and this isn't. Black Kite (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There are other sources (not just that site) that show Parnas donated the money. See Page 16 [65]. This comes from the Daily Beast, which is a reliable source.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That Daily Beast page does not show that Aaron Parnas donated any money. All that it shows is a screenshot that Aaron Parnas sent 5,300 dollars to Aaron Investment. It also shows over 1 million dollars worth of money coming into Aaron Investment. The Daily Beast page does not assert that this money went to America First, and the Emptywheel blog asserts that only 325k of the 1+ million dollars went to the PAC. No source says that Aaron Parnas' money went to the pac, or that the money sent has anything to do with a political contribution. Jol451shore1 (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

All we know from the Daily Beast is that he donated the $5,300. My suggested edit never says it necessarily went to the Trump PAC. It reads "Parnas donated $5,300 to a shell company named after himself called “Aaron Investments” that his father used to hide assets and avoid creditors. Aaron Investments went on to donate $350,000 to American First Action, a pro-Trump PAC." Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Beast never says that he "donated" any money, merely that three separate wire transfers were made. These could have been for household expenses, personal expenses, etc. There is absolutely no relevance to including this information, especially if it merely discusses Lev Parnas' actions, not Aarons. Your suggested edit is merely biased, with no factual relevance or support. Jol451shore1 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:DAILYBEAST: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:ZimZalaBim reported by User:Avica1998 (Result: Both warned)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YouTuber&oldid=1094310556}
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [68]

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: User ZimZalaBim refuses to allow edits to the following text, engaging in reversions and threats:

A YouTube personality and/or influencer, more commonly known as a YouTuber, is an individual who produces videos on the video-sharing platform YouTube,[1] specifically whose main or only platforms are one or multiple YouTube channels, personalized subpages of the platform.

The source cited (#2) simply defines “YouTuber” as “video bloggers (vloggers) who regularly post videos on their personal YouTube channels“ , makes no mention of the “main or only [YouTube] platforms” qualifier and relies on a source from 2009 for its citation.

ZimZalaBim rejects the following modification:

A YouTube personality and/or influencer, more commonly known as a YouTuber, is an individual who produces videos on the video-sharing platform YouTube. While the term originally applied to those whose main or only platforms were one or multiple YouTube channels or personalized subpages of the platform, it has since expanded to include those who also utilize similar video platforming services that compete against YouTube…

ZimZalaBim rejects the following sources as “unreliable:” based upon the inclusion of the first:

ZimZalaBim argues that the three sources above do not use the word “YouTuber” and thus are not relevant. The undersigned argues the following:

The source used to justify the qualification “specifically whose main or only platforms are one or multiple YouTube channels, personalized subpages of the platform” says no such thing and is a whole-cloth invention of the original author who wrote it

Any inference of the authenticity of the above qualifier would be based solely upon the state of the video-blogging market as it existed in 2009, not 2022.

That the three proposed sources do not use the term “YouTuber” is irrelevant to the proposed changes, as qualifier as is not supported by any source and is an invention of the author (and premised upon 2009 market conditions, no less).

That ZimZalaBim is displaying an emotional attachment to the concept of “YouTuber” consistent with his qualifier (or the qualifier of the original author of the text) not supported by any source and based upon 2009 market conditions

That ZimZalaBim is displaying an ideological bias against ANY source that challenges the aforementioned emotional attachment

That the qualifier “specifically whose main or only platforms are one or multiple YouTube channels, personalized subpages of the platform” should either be properly sourced, removed or updated with a more accurate qualifier that reflects 2022 market conditions.

That this Wikipedia entry should not be used as a public relations tool for YouTube and its affiliated brands.

Trying not to give this too much credence, but you can read my comments to Avica1988 on their talk page and the YouTuber talk page where I try to explain the logic of why their edits are not acceptable. Lots of bad faith and mis-use of NPOV templates, etc. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim does not address the merits of the complaint Avica1998 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• Result: Both User:Avica1998 and User:ZimZalaBim are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at YouTuber without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:GhostOfDanGurney reported by User:Pelmeen10 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:
All these 5 edits within 24h to reword "racial slur" to "nigga". Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

First edit shown was not a revert. I have also initiated a talk page discussion which the user making this report has to have known of before making this report since it is mentioned in an edit summary. I'm not sure what this user is wanting out of this report other than possibly a punitive block. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I reported you because there is a possibility you continue edit warring. It's up to admins to decide if a block is necessary. You need to understand that editwarring is not okay, you do not seem to understand that. After starting a discussion on the talk page, you still continued reverting. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• GhostOfDanGurney, your last revert was at 13:58. This report was filed at 15:05. You responded here at 15:08. Your edit was reverted at 16:58 by another editor. You could have self-reverted but did not. It is only now that a block could be considered punitive, not when you said so. Nonetheless, consider yourself warned. If you resume the edit war, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Page: Herbalife Nutrition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Pyramid scheme allegations */"
2. 14:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Liver disease inquiries */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 09:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC) "Adding in an additional source"
   2. 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Liver disease inquiries */"
4. 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Pyramid scheme allegations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 14:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Herbalife Nutrition."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

user continues to whitewash and add copyvios to articles despite warnings and reaching out on talk page PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

appears to be UPE as well based on the username FRANKHLNl (FRANK HLN = HLN = herbalife nutrition) PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

They've now added yet another edit to their war and have completely ignored their talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Partially blocked from Herbalife Nutrition given the persistent edit warring with an apparent COI.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

User:2402:8100:3905:2b4a:a094:ba57:a713:d680 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Semi)

Page: List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2402:8100:3905:2b4a:a094:ba57:a713:d680 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75] featuring POV intentions in edit summary
2. [76] again featuring POV in edit summary
3. [77]
4. [78] Reverts another user
5. [79] Cleans up error in an edit I don’t think counts as a proper revert but the intention to disregard the conversation on the talk page is evident

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

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

Comments:

As is typical in Indian Christian articles, unsourced edits to claim continuity with ancient Christians are prevalent. IP adds material that all fail verification and has ignored warnings and requests for discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I admit I didn't look terribly closely at this case. I noticed what looked like an IP using canned edit summaries and edit warring, reverted and warned as a good measure. When I was informed the IP may have been doing good faith edits, I reverted my warning and left them a note about edit summaries. I was doing some light RC patrol during downtime at work and did not have the time to analyze the edits fully (hence my decision to apologize and undo the warning, which based on this may have been better left in place), so I am afraid I won't have much else to offer here. Thanks for the ping. ASUKITE 16:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Roy Smith. The same IP is included in a /35 range that is under a one-year partial block applied by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

User:67.82.112.107 reported by User:PhantomTech (Result: Blocked)

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:

1. 01:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094509062 by 47.227.95.73 (talk) Back off. I changed the head titles for a reason. See talk page you idiot."
2. 01:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Sick of you idiots and hypocrites."
3. 01:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094508630 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
4. 01:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Special:Diff/1094508834 Talk page notice
2. Special:Diff/1094508779 Notice in edit summary

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It seems the situation is that they were blocked about a month ago for edit waring on the same page and have now resumed. They've been warned to not edit war on their talk page and in an edit summary since their block ended. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 2 weeks by User:Ks0stm. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Yae4 reported by User:84.250.14.116 (Result: one week p-block)

Page: GrapheneOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. Special:Diff/1094363773, Special:Diff/1094473794 (by User:Resonantia)
2. Special:Diff/1094477304 (by reporter)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1094307821
2. Special:Diff/1094400458
3. Special:Diff/1094475710
4. Special:Diff/1094489078

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1094472787/1094482255

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Special:Diff/1094481231/1094485592 (by reporter)
2. Special:Diff/1094486178 (by User:Yae4)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1094490395

Comments:

Introducing original research or questionable sources (disputed citations) to the article. More warnings or WP:DR may be the way to go. I would like to revert again (I'm not the only one to disagree with User:Yae4) until consensus is found on the talk page, but I won't continue this edit war. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, but I did a lot of work on this Article over the last day or two, only to see a "swarm" of dormant, single purpose, and IP editors undo half my work with virtually zero discussion. As stated at the Talk page, the IP editor has added other similar primary-source information. Actually, they restored what I added, but somebody deleted: My add[83]; their restore[84]Also please note my bcc of Administrators in my Talk comments, and the lack of any response or dialogue by the Reporter to my Talk comments; and my request for semi-protection.[85] I try not to, but also suspect puppetry, but was dragging feet on asking for investigation, in hopes of getting some real dialogue or consensus. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember what the guideline or essay is named here on enwiki, but editors can be busy and not respond (I think the guideline or essay said to give maybe up to 3 days to respond). I did not have time to respond to talk in 31 minutes, however I did so once I became aware of it and had time. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week (partial) Yae4, after choosing a revert at random, I was looking at your revert edit summary RE: twitter (diff) and, like the IP editor (diff), I found myself confused as to what that has to do with anything. I presume it's about you wanting to omit the qualifier that it was stated, specifically, by Derrek Lee (while the IP editor wants to include it). Personally, I'm not sure why that entire paragraph about Jack Dorsey's tweet is even worth mentioning at all, Derek Lee'ing or not. But then again, this is the first time I've heard of this OS. The point, though, is that this one revert I sampled randomly (which just happened to be yours) did not add up for me. El_C 01:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Because my intent was to undo "Anonymous526" edits; not the "84.250.14.116" edit which occurred 7 minutes before my rollback, and was not observed by me until after. Usually articles like this have much less activity. I agree Dorsey's tweet is insignificant, but GrapheneOS fans seem to believe Tweets are the bee's knees... Anyway, thanks for the wiki-vacation. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) while the IP editor wants to include it I had no intended involvement in regards to the Twitter / Derrek Lee dispute between User:Anonymous526 and User:Yae4; when I became aware the rollback on my diff wasn't intended, I excluded my maintenance tag diff from Yae4's rollback ("fixed" the rollback) and subsequently became uninvolved in that Twitter dispute. In other words, I had no real role in the Twitter / Derrek Lee dispute. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC); edited 01:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yae4, if you wish to take a wiki-vacation just for not being able to edit one page out of six million for one week, well, that is certainly your prerogative. The random example/sample is not that important, it was just confusing to me. I'm not really following the explanations regarding it, but I don't think it's important that I do. What's important that you do, however, Yae4, is to watch out for WP:3RR in the future. IP, that wasn't a WP:ROLLBACK, it was just a revert (i.e. Tag: Reverted, per se.). El_C 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

IP, I just checked and Yae4 doesn't even have the rollback user right. They don't have any WP:PERMs, in fact, aside from having gained the extended confirmed one automatically (500 edits, 30 days). El_C 03:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Having been already banned from climate change articles reduces the total available articles significantly, as I'm sure you're also aware. Whatever you technically call it I see "restore this version" on old versions of article pages, which to me as non-wiki expert is a rollback. Consider me reminded of 3RR, and how a swarm of probably connected users can revert-bate someone easily. Yae4 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware (or maybe I was at one time and had forgotten since?). Why would you presume I'd be aware? Was I connected to reviewing or enforcing that sanction? The reason I corrected the IP editor wrt them saying you've used WP:ROLLBACK to revert (which obviously you did not), was to highlight the following tautology: since you don't have that WP:PERM, you obviously can't use it, thus, you can't be sanctioned for misusing it.

To clarify a bit further: one could use a non-rollback revert that's accompanied by an automated edit summary. Like, for example, using 'naked' WP:UNDO (i.e. without any custom text added). But again, that's not the same thing as rollback because undo isn't a perm (and rollback could be used rapidly while undo cannot).

When I became an admin back in 2005, only admins had access to rollback. Now, of course, it's a perm that non-admin could also have. But even back in those olden days, folks (admins) would frequently get in trouble for rollback mis-use (i.e. when using it in content disputes, failing to limit its usage to vandalism/disruptive editing, etc.). HTH El_C 17:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Because you checked logs and maybe looked at user pages. Also, I have a recollection of you siding with Jzg/Guy on some issue and claiming "non-involved" at some point, but can't put fingers on that right now, so water under bridge, almost. Every-day for you. Unusual surprise for me, I know. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't look at logs, just user rights (prompted by the IP's rollback claim). Sorry, I have no memory of that. I've blocked close to 10,000 users and protected close to 10,000 pages, so the expectation that I'd recall this or that from a while ago, while frequent (example), isn't really realistic. El_C 19:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Blocked for a week)

Page: Gabriel Boric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Presidency */ please make a convincing case in the talk page before insisting in unilaterally removing sourced poll content from WP:RS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Just a day after their block for edit warring has expired, Dentren is back at it restoring a section that has been removed after discussion at the talk page mostly (except for Dentren himself) agreed the opinion polling section should not be included at this time. I did not revert their actions since I am not starting myself an edit war, for which I was also blocked recently. Bedivere (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Bedivere continues as he has done before to do unilateral removal of well-sourced content without engaging in discussion first. A close look at the history of the article shows this disruptive pattern. And again, Bedivere is not a legitimate user but a sockpuppet of banned user Diego Grez-Cañete. Dentren | ^Talk 02:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week Restoring the opinion poll material was clearly against consensus on talk page. And do not repeat your sockpuppetry claim as fact since the SPI closed without a check being done. Nothing will come of this except more and longer blocks as long as you continue to not AGF here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

User:SkylerLovefist reported by User:HHH Pedrigree (Result: Redundant complaint)

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

---

Page: List of Impact Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SkylerLovefist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:
User has been reverted 4 times by 3 users. He includes a picture as a source even if has been explained in edit and talk page that pictures are not valid as reliable sources. Everytime an user explained the rules, he said we are gatekeepers and said we WP:OWN the article HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Read the above report, brotocycle. Redundant complaint. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary this is a perfectly valid complaint, and not only that the user has a history of persistently making accusations of WP:OWN in other parts of professional wrestling. I was on the verge of reporting him to ANI for harassment on my talk page, but this complaint will suffice as a perfectly good substitute. His refusal to accept corrections (his comment here is a perfect example of said refusal) has also been constant. He has been blocked previously for harassment. See his block log. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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

User:SkylerLovefist reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked - 7 days)

Page: List of Impact Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094741868 by HHH Pedrigree (talk) I'm beginning to get really tired of you and Addicted gatekeeping."
2. 07:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094733672 by Addicted4517 (talk) Look, pack in the WP:OWN. You're just editing to your own ego rather than for the good of the article at this point."
3. 22:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094671570 by Czello (talk) THEY DO RECOGNISE IT. THATS THE POINT WE'RE MAKING"
4. 22:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094581195 by Czello (talk) For GOD'S sake. He came out on the Pay Per View with the damn belt, they called him the NEVER Openweight Champion, he's holding the belt in the picture. This is just getting ludicrous at this point."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "/* What good sourcing looks like */ new section"

Comments:

First off, nobody linked me to that discussion on the Impact talk page. And secondly, the "edit war " is only happening because other users are deliberately ignoring sources which verify the edit myself and another user made. When we make an edit stating that a company holds a title and to placate a user with a history of WP:OWN, we provide a picture of the wrestler in the company in question holding the belt in question because the users arguing for whatever reason don't actually watch the product in question and call the edit invalid and then say the picture WHICH PROVES WHAT WE'RE SAYING EXACTLY isn't good enough, they're just editing for ego rather than the good of the article. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not the first time the user has problems. Every time we try to explain rules, he attack the other user, saying we WP:OWN the article (first time I hear about asking for sources is WP:OWN and act as gatekeepers). He has no knowledge about Wikipedia rules and no interest to learn them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Three different editors have now informed you that your sourcing isn't good enough. You're also resorting to personal attacks (you've called editors egotistical several times, including in the above comment, and you have accused several editors of WP:OWN). I did inform you I'd start a talk page discussion (here). Regardless, none of what you've said above justifies going over WP:3RR. It's a hard line. — Czello 08:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what concerns me more, the extreme hyperbole from HHHPedrigree or that you're choosing to ignore the behaviour of said editors I've cited using WP:OWN. It does justify it because you, him and Addicted are all ignoring WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm not "ignoring rules and refusing to learn them" per the broken English above. I'm citing the lack of being reasonable coming from him and Addicted. I'll concede, Czello that while I don't agree with you either, you are attempting in your own way to be diplomatic. Those two in my opinion are not. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Talking about your behavior. [91] You included unsourced information and other users removed. You stated the discussion with WP:OWN accusations. The usual way: You include unsourced information, other user revered because unsourced information can not be here. You accused him of WP:OWN and gatekeeper. Every time other user tries to explain the rules, you ignore him and attack him. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it does not justify it. You are only permitted to break WP:3RR to undo vandalism or remove BLP violations. — Czello 09:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 7 days. The violation of 3RR is one thing, the persistent refusal to accept that an image is not a reliable source and the attacks on other users (including in this report) makes it worse. Cut it out, please. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Both warned)

Page: Talk:Malayan Emergency (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Chipmunkdavis (talk): Previous notional explanations did not justify inappropriate POV heading"
2. 02:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Sockpuppet edits: alleged Original Research */"
3. 02:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Claimed Sockpuppet “Original Research” */Neutral heading, per TalkHeadPov"
4. 23:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "TPG"
5. 23 February 2022 "TALKHEADPOV: “heading should … not communicate a specific view about it.” The discussion is about what aspects constitute OR, if any. Titling the section OR is unquestionably a specific view on that subject."
6. 22 February 2022 "WP:TALKHEADPOV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "/* TPG */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 04:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC) to 09:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Malayan Emergency

Comments:

Cambial Yellowing has gone over 3RR to change a talkpage header on a topic I began. This is a reactivation of previous attempts to do so from February [92][93]. (Pre-emptively noting that while there are some IP edits doing the same in the history, these are emphatically not Cambial Yellowing, but more of the socks in question.) CMD (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do not lie about other editor's behaviour, Chipmunkdavies. As can be seen from the diffs you provide, exactly two of those edits are reverts, compared to your three. My other edits have sought to find a compromise that includes the phrase "original research" which you seem eager to include, while maintaining a neutral heading. The bland "sockpuppet OR" phrase tells editors nothing about the discussion content.

In future, do not fabricate actions to pretend I have made reverts, when my edits are clearly not reverts, and are seeking to accommodate or compromise to your concerns.

Chipmunkdavies edit warring:

1. "rv, per previous"
2. "rv, heading is accurate"
3. "rv, per previous"

Cambial — foliar❧ 03:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Trying to make the same edit in different ways is reverting. As regards to the mention of sanction gaming and fabrication, all the diffs are presented above without modification. CMD (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Worrying that you try to justify your misrepresenting other editor's actions by doing more of the same. "Trying to make the same edit" - what does this even mean? If I had tried to make the same edit, I would have achieved it. Plainly this edit (23:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)) and this edit (02:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)) and this (02:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)) are not trying to make the same edit - I don't even use anything close to the same words. It is you who have repeatedly reverted to the exact same inappropriate POV wording for reasons that are unclear. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, User:Cambial Yellowing has only made 3 edits to Talk:Malayan Emergency [94], [95]and [96]. Techinally he has not yet violated 3RR, there has to be a fourth revert in a 24 hour period in order to be an violation of 3RR, that has not yet happen yet so an admin should consider it as a No Violation. Chip3004 (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Trying to make the same edit means trying to alter the discussion header I used. The wording is specifically tailored to the topic being raised, which was various OR added by sockpuppet. Chip3004, I linked four diffs from the past few hours above, and the bright line doesn't change the fact this is a sudden re-attempt at something previously tried in February. CMD (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Trying to make the same edit means trying to alter the discussion header I used. No, it doesn't mean that. My edits are clearly different, as you (rather obliquely in editsum) objected to the initial title change. All your edits are the same and with essentially no explication or explanation in ES - that's edit warring.

I note with interest Chipmunkdavies that you had edit-warred with several IPs over the same issue after the end of our earlier talk page discussion: 1 2 3 4 Perhaps you can explain why you are willing to edit war so repeatedly to maintain a particular POV? Cambial — foliar❧ 03:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to oblique objection, I included a specific response on the talkpage at the time. As for the POV assertion, I continue to not understand this assertion. What is my POV here, that unsourced or falsely supported edits are OR? CMD (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I explained the reason at the time. My reason did not preclude any number of possible alternative headings which you could have used to maintain a neutral intro for other editors who may join the discussion in future. Instead you reverted to your singular version, multiple times with other editors, and then again when I tried alternatives which included the phrase "OR" which you say is the important issue. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not following as to what my supposed POV is. WP:OR is not a POV, it is policy. Getting off-topic for this board, but to show again, the discussion was raised about the Sockpuppet OR removed in this edit. The text involved that was added/changed including the addition of 13 sources: Newsinger 2013 p.220, Newsinger 2013 p.219, Hack 2018 p.203, Newsinger 2013 p.218-219, Leary 1995 42-43, Siver 2009 (no page), BBC 2021 (audio), Tilman 1966 p.407-419, Newsinger 2013 p.221, Newsinger 2015 p.33, Zahari 2007 p.102, Komer 1972 p.8. Of these, none stood up to scrutiny and only one remains in place (Newsinger 2013, p. 220., and I don't think anyone has checked it, however it feels relatively low risk given Newsinger 2015, p. 52. was already there). I'm not sure how much more OR you can get. Furthermore, looking into it now, most of these appear to have been randomly copied from elsewhere in the article. Komer 1972 p.8 seems to have been invented literally because it sat between an existing Komer 1972 p.7 and a Komer 1972 p.9. Remarkable. CMD (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No-one has suggested WP:OR is a POV. Arguing against a point no one has made is a waste of time. The question is over your explicit claim that all the content you removed *is* OR. Given that a good deal of the content remains in the article, supported by scholarship, this does not bear out. The Siver and Newsinger sources that you removed remain in the article (the Siver in a later expanded edition; both versions support the text). The bulk of the discussion was about the content sourced to Siver, which you inaccurately claim was referenced in only two of your comments (it is in five) and which you call an "unexpected derailment" despite being content you removed and then started a talk section about claiming it was original research.

Back to the topic. You made eight reversions to your exact same Heading claim of OR, four within 24 hours in Feb and three within the last 24 hours:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8

Attempts to rewrite completely differently, to include what you say is the issue neutrally, you ignored: you simply continued reverting. You then come here and misrepresent another editor's actions, and then misrepresent the content of the earlier discussion directly to me, on my talk page. As though I wouldn't notice your claim was not accurate. It's not clear what your aim is in misrepresenting this scholarly content from a detailed academic source as OR, or why you refuse any alternative solution to avoid misrepresenting it as such. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

To try and be clear, I have sought clarification on what the point is supposed to be, not argued against anything. Regarding what you say is my claim, I did not claim I only referenced Siver twice, I claimed that only two of the comments did not touch on the overall topic of OR. Regarding Siver and Newsinger, I did not remove them from the article, they were already in the article, as I have previously stated. They are just no longer used as fake sources. I did not misrepresent the topic of the discussion on your talkpage or elsewhere, I repeat again that it was a discussion that I started, so I am reasonably sure I know what the topic for it was. At any rate, I find myself repeating things, and I think I have covered everything above. The continued accusations of misrepresentation are saddening, as well as feeling oddly misdirected. CMD (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

1. But you did remove those sources from the section that you altered. Claiming “I didn’t remove them”, because they happen to additionally be used in a completely different section of the article, is quite disingenuous. 2. You stated, in text and ES, "Only 2 of my 8 comments were about the Geneva Conventions" - the content supported by Siver. Five of your comments are about Geneva Conventions and mention that content by name. 3. It’s unfortunate that you feel saddened. Suggest that if you refrain from misrepresenting other editor’s actions by claiming edits are reverts when they plainly are not - in fact they introduce utterly different text to fit with your expressed concerns - this may reduce the chance of causing such negative emotions in yourself in future. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Responding because of the assertion of disingenuity, I'm not sure why this matters, but the sources were not all used in a completely different section. Newsinger was (and still is) used even earlier in the lead! They are of course no longer used where they were inserted as fake references, barring the one exception I covered in an earlier comment. Siver was, again, was not used to support the Geneva Convention text. For reference the edit is here, and Siver is being used to support the Orang Asli sentence. Again, the issue is the usage in this specific edit, rather than the existing uses on the page, or the subsequent uses you have found. There has not been any misrepresentation on my end, and given my concerns are continually misrepresented, here they are expressed explicitly: I opened a talkpage discussion on a specific topic, with a title to reflect that topic. Please kindly refrain from altering this. CMD (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If, as you claim to have done, you determined that the sources did not support the text, you must have read their content in order to achieve this. It would take quite some effort to miss the fact that Siver entirely focused - the entire article - on substantiating exactly the claim made one sentence earlier than where it was placed - content you removed claiming it was original research. Not a “fake reference” but a misplaced citation; misplaced by exactly 23 words in one sentence. I’ve quoted you accurately about your claimed concerns; not clear how you imagine that to be misrepresented.

On the other hand, and to again get back to the topic, your misrepresentation of my edits on this noticeboard is entirely clear. Refraining from doing so in future will save a great deal of time and, according to your claim above, self-inflicted sadness. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Cambial Yellowing and User:Chipmunkdavis are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you try to change the disputed heading to anything else without first getting consensus to do so on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  @EdJohnston I was just closing this and got an edit conflict. Here was by close:

  * Partially blocked – for a period of 3 week This has to be one of the dumbest thing I've seen in a bit. Cambial Yellowing, you've been edit-warring over that section header for months, starting February 22, 2022. And, to be clear, you are in the wrong here... that section header is just fine as well as the fact the account was a sockpuppet. Honestly a site block might be better but for now a p-block it is. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  EvergreenFir (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• User:EvergreenFir, if you want to impose a partial block, go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  The warning is fine. I just had that all typed up and wanted to at least post it as part of the warning to the users. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

User:24.80.117.27 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Stale)

Page: Star Trek: Discovery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.80.117.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Initial revert at 00:59, 25 June 2022
2. 01:12, 25 June 2022
3. 01:18, 25 June 2022
4. 01:26, 25 June 2022
5. 01:32, 25 June 2022
6. 01:39, 25 June 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Edit war notice delivered at 01:29, 25 June 2022 which was reverted less than 1 minute later at 01:29, 25 June 2022
• 3RR notice delivered at 01:30, 25 June 2022 which was reverted two minutes later at 01:32, 25 June 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm an uninvolved editor reporting this issue. User Chip3004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to address this on IP editor's talk page but was reverted with the edit summary "LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!"

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

Comments:

Note I'm an uninvolved editor reporting this issue, as the article is on my watchlist. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry for screaming to Sideswipe9th. I already talk to and apologizing to Chip3004 and Oknazevad. I hope my comments on its talk page to sent to this one by it respective talk pages. I also don't want to go too far on the 3RR. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Dr.AndrewBamford reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked)

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

User being reported: Dr.AndrewBamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC) to 12:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 12:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094573848 by Jonathan A Jones (talk)"
   2. 12:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 11:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Rankings and reputation */Restored university rankings table following an unhelpful edit, where important information was omitted."
4. 16:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC) "Oxford remains 1st in the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2022 publication"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith."
2. 14:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
3. 14:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is edit warring on a range of UK university articles and refuses to discuss Spike 'em (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. The user's last 50 edits are mostly reverts on various UK universities. They have never posted to a talk page. This behavior probably won't continue much longer. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

213.205.198.9 has started making the same edits as the above user. Spike 'em (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct, edits to 16 university pages so far in one night with the exact same edit pattern. Given that the user seems to be trying to evade the ban, does this need to be escalated? — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 07:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

User:185.104.136.29 and User:213.205.198.9 are now blocked. This guy is industrious in finding new IPs. Rangeblock not possible, but a lot of semiprotections might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Helwr reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Doug Mastriano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095022023 by Praxidicae (talk) biased sources"
2. 23:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "removed biased intro"
3. 19:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094809359 by Ser! (talk) gain consensus at talk page before adding biased sources"
4. 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094745633 by Ser! (talk) vandalism"
5. 04:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "removed biased hullabaloo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

this has been a long term edit war that they've been warned about and I suspect there may be some sock puppetry as well. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

User:ForcedAnonymity reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [99]
2. [100]
3. [101]
4. [102]
5. [103]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [106]

Comments:
Page has now been protected for a week.[107] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:ForcedAnonymity is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

User:JohnPaos reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [108]. More or less stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]

This is an edit-warring issue, not 3RR, though I have no doubt they'll go on if I reverted again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

JohnPaos (talk · contribs) really doesn't like Keith Olbermann, and wants to add a laundry list of perceived and sketchily-sourced malapropisms or criticisms to their article. There is a historyt of BLP violations, politics-realted vproblems, and socking. I would block indef at this point, but it's not clear-cut enough for me to not consider myself involved. There are other issues Ken Penders that go back to their very first edit, and which they appear intent on revisiting. I don't think this editor can be trusted to edit any biographies or anything to do with politics, and I think a topic ban is futile. Acroterion (talk)

The articles are verified and backed up. This is not a violation and I have no bone to pick with mr olbermann. The articles are all fact and verified.JohnPaos (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

They're up to five or six reverts now. Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

And another, bringing it to 7RR today by my count. The editor quite clearly has refused to read any of the policy or guidelines shared with them on their Talk page and others, including WP:3RR, and is simply insisting that they are "right". General Ization ^Talk 00:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Now veering off into NPA, NLT, and demands that they be "banned". General Ization ^Talk 00:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that’s right do it! JohnPaos (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Now at 8RR. Clearly neither stable nor competent enough to be trusted to edit further here. General Ization ^Talk 00:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Blocked)

Page: 1988 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094881694 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) why other Olympics no need, why this needed? rv, dun mind 3RR, consistency across Olympics article"
2. 03:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Drmargi (talk) to last version by Aleenf1"
3. 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1094823922 by Drmargi (talk) host "city", if want to keep that, Paris also got province"
4. 15:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Kapieli2017 (talk) to last version by Orenburg1"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1988 Winter Olympics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC) on Talk:2028 Summer Olympics "/* Host city */"

Comments:

This user is also edit warring at the 2028 Summer Olympics article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You can block me if you want, but at the same time, you should block those people who are, indeed not discuss, inconsistent throughout the revert verdict, if that it to be it done, it should be done consistently across the multi-sports event, not one and not for another, indeed that's nobody come for discussion and just keep biting another person, WP:OVERLINK also stated those are already overlinking, so why need to put the redundancy things. Good luck --Aleenf1 04:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

While i'm see also somebody reverted the edits as of me, so what is the point, User talk:Kapieli2017, Wikipedian biting back and forth. This is getting stupid, the person who reported never have it to be discuss and the person who keep consistency been bited. Unfortunately. --Aleenf1 04:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I should say also every people above has been edit, reverted across the Olympics article, consistently/involvement about the same things, without being discuss. --Aleenf1 04:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You can see also the people above revert without even trying to discuss (Talk:2028 Summer Olympics), so that's the key, as they mean, is the reversion means they gains consensus? --Aleenf1 07:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours for edit warring. User:Aleenf1 has recently been disputing in a similar way on other articles. They disagree about the style to be used for place names. E.g. 'Calgary, Alberta Canada' versus 'Calgary, Canada'. See this diff. It is not easy to find a recent edit which is not a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

User:107.142.100.87 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lauren Witzke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 107.142.100.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095032058 by MaxnaCarta (talk) removed first line meant to slander, clarified other parts"
2. 00:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095031852 by LizardJr8 (talk) if you were acting in good faith you'd make individual edits or debate certain points, but you're not so you're not acting in good faith. you're acting as a political activist"
3. 00:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095031445 by LizardJr8 (talk) sorry for the personal attack but you can't allow such a poorly written article to stand, it is against Wikipedia rules"
4. 00:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095031151 by Isabelle Belato (talk) I fixed it by removing your leftist propaganda and actually speaking about why Witzke was in the news, for being a Republican Senate candidate. Go cry about abortions, cat lady."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Given the personal attacks, this is a siteblock rather than a partial block. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [120]

Comments: Editor with a handful of edits [121] both edit-warring against multiple editors, as well as resorting to personal attacks [122]. Ravenswing 00:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours siteblocked since they resorted to personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

User:BiasReverter reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095118139 by Shadow4dark (talk) As somebody in the Turkish military, I can tell you that's not true. Turkey was involved in RSM from 2015-2021, which was a non-combat security providing mission. The source is literally right there after the bullet point mentioning RSM. Again, you can edit specific parts instead of reverting the whole thing."
2. 13:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095117487 by Shadow4dark (talk) Vandalism. Read what I wrote."
3. 13:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095116681 by Shadow4dark (talk) Turkish involvement in the war itself ended in 2014. That section mentions only ISAF, not RSM. Don't vandalize my edits. You can change the specific part you that disagree with and update it to make sense."
4. 12:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Added codes, changed Rojava to the actual belligerent SDF, cleaned up timeline."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on List of wars involving Turkey."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They ignoring talk page consensus and adding WP:OR also not the first time edit wars [[123]] Shadow4dark (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States/Archive_3#Afganistan_war

Another consensus was reached. You need to learn the difference between a war and an occupation, also the difference in providing arms/security and providing actual combat troops. Otherwise, let's include the Ukraine war and Azerbaijan war on Turkey's page, since technically they supported them considerably more than Afghanistan. BiasReverter (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

are you editing logged out? Shadow4dark (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

War ended in 2014. Occupation ended in 2021. BiasReverter (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for edit-warring and block evasion/editing logged out with Special:contributions/5.151.88.4.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BiasReverter Shadow4dark (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

User:67.164.162.32 reported by User:Alexcalamaro (Result: Blocked)

Page: Bob Dorough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.164.162.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 18:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 21:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Bob Dorough."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Comments made in the edit descriptions by multiple users

Comments:

Subtle vandalism constantly removing a link to a TV show. It started a year ago (dif), again in February 2022 (dif), and now again. A temporary block may serve as a warning to avoid this behaviour in the future. Alexcalamaro (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

User:162.156.22.32 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

Page: Martin Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 162.156.22.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); also Hisachi Aloychi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [124] [As Hisachi Aloychi]
2. [125] [As Hisachi Aloychi]
3. [126] [As Hisachi Aloychi]
4. [127] [As Hisachi Aloychi]
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 20:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 20:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
7. Consecutive edits made from 20:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 20:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
8. 18:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
9. Consecutive edits made from 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 18:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Martin Bryant."
2. 20:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Martin Bryant."
3. 20:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Martin Bryant."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP edit wars over attempts to insert false death date into article and other unconstructive changes. After 3RR warning, resumes EW as Hisachi Aloychi. General Ization ^Talk 21:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Both blocked—IP for 72 hours, account indefinitely—for vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

User:J2337 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Warned)

Page: The Walking Dead (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: J2337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "YouTube is blacklisted"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 14:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Nothing wrong with linking stuff mate"
3. 14:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) to 14:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 09:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "/* The Walking Dead (2010–2022) */"
   2. 09:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "/* The Walking Dead (2010–2022) */"
   3. 09:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   4. 13:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   5. 13:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   6. 13:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   7. 14:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 14:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Walking Dead (franchise)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

repeatedly adding fan cruft and overlinking, asekd to stop and was told "linking is fine" and they don't appear to be willing to engage in any discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:J2337 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Pictureperfect2 (Result: Malformed)

Constantly violating WP:3RR (not necessarily within a 24-hour period) and WP:BRD. The user regularly goes on a comma-removing spree for no apparent reason. And when confronted or reverted, they dismiss it as something insignificant. It's one thing forgetting to add punctuation when adding content, it's a whole another removing them persistently despite being repeatedly explained to them why it's wrong. Not once have they justified their removal.

• Here, you can see three different users reverting them for adding orphan </ref> tag and copy-pasting references for no apparent reason. And yet, they still continue and straight-up deny having duplicated them.
• Another example of their disruptive behavior.
• Look at their reckless behavior here. When I removed a source that didn't support the claim it made, they reverted me first but said they'll check the source later.

I have tried to reason with them, but this behavior continues on several articles. I'm not sure what action is necessary, but this seriously needs to stop. I'm just sick and tired of having to explain basic grammar to someone who refuses to listen. FrB.TG (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the sort of answer I get every time I explain why the commas need to be placed where they are. Continuing with their spree here after only an hour I explained to them why they shouldn’t do it. FrB.TG (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pictureperfect2 has now started threads on WP:AN and WP:ANI - neither of which provide any substantive evidence for anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

And the user has done this again! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:3seepio reported by User:Throast (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3seepio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [128]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131]
4. [132]
5. [133]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Tried bullying 3seepio in his talk page, didnt work:' WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [135]

Comments:

Apparently wont let me(Throast) bully them (3seepio)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Pictureperfect2 reported by User:FrB.TG (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Julianne Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Oscar Isaac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jennifer Lawrence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pictureperfect2 (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. [136]
2. [137]
3. [138]
4. [139]
5. [140]
6. [141]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not done by me personally but they have been warned multiple times on their talk page, which they always dismiss.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Oscar Isaac#Proceed, User talk:FrB.TG#Not correct

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

Comments: (Copy-pasting my report filed above)

Constantly violating WP:3RR (not necessarily within a 24-hour period) and WP:BRD. The user regularly goes on a comma-removing spree for no apparent reason. And when confronted or reverted, they dismiss it as something insignificant. It's one thing forgetting to add punctuation when adding content, it's a whole another removing them persistently despite being repeatedly explained to them why it's wrong. Not once have they justified their removal.

• Here, you can see three different users reverting them for adding orphan </ref> tag and copy-pasting references for no apparent reason. And yet, they still continue and straight-up deny having duplicated them.
• Another example of their disruptive behavior.
• Look at their reckless behavior here. When I removed a source that didn't support the claim it made, they reverted me first but said they'll check the source later.

I have tried to reason with them, but this behavior continues on several articles. I'm not sure what action is necessary, but this seriously needs to stop. I'm just sick and tired of having to explain basic grammar to someone who refuses to listen.

This is the sort of answer I get every time I explain why the commas need to be placed where they are. Continuing with their spree here after only an hour I explained to them why they shouldn’t do it. FrB.TG (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: the user has been indefinitely blocked after reporting me at ANI [142]. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:7080:301:A358:8580:23C0:B5B9:90EC reported by User: 86.141.92.195 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Tunisian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Tunisian Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2603:7080:301:A358:8580:23C0:B5B9:90EC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1095406976]
2. [1095464522]
3. [1095464850]
4. [1095481302]

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

1. [1095481302]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1095478705]

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

Comments:

I have edited these two pages to improve them by adding sourced content to the unsourced parts but this IP seemed to have disliked my edits and persisted in reverting them, despite me adding several sources. I even warned the IP on their talk page to stop edit warring but they responded with reverting me once again, breaking the three-revert rule. The IP even accused me of making "political changes" and ignoring the sources when there weren't any in the first place. 86.141.92.195 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Warrior4just reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Abd al-Mu'min (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Warrior4just (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "Added {{Expert needed}}, {{COI}}, {{Disputed}}, {{POV}}, and {{Unreliable sources}} tags"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC) to 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "Added {{Unreliable sources}} tag: Early life section. References are dubious"
   2. 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "Added {{Disputed}}, {{POV}}, and {{Unreliable sources}} tags"
3. 15:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095447624 by M.Bitton (talk) The issue is raised three times in the talk section, and the fact it is outstanding is all the reason why this must remain disputed. References are provided."
4. 23:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
5. 21:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Early life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Harassment */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Warrior4just (talk): I suggets you read WP:REDACT"
2. 15:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Warrior4just (talk): Read WP:REDACT or find yourself another hobby"

Comments:

Attempts at making Warrior4just understand that they cannot use OR to dispute sourced content were in vain, so after mistagging the article using any tag they could find (including this), they now resorted to tag bombing just to make a point.

Unfortunately, given the editor's history of disruption (see this) and making baseless assertions, such as (this, this, this), it's impossible to discuss anything with them as they're only interested in their own view (based on their misinterpretation of the WP policies). Even something as simple as asking them to read WP:REDACT seems beyond their understanding or willingness to do so. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:72.90.255.156 reported by User:GabberFlasted (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Nicholas Leonicus Thomaeus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.90.255.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 27 June 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 28 June 2022
2. 28 June 2022‎
3. 28 June 2022
4. 28 June 2022
5. 28 June 2022‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 28 June 2022‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 28 June 2022

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 28 June 2022‎

Comments:
3RR warn was late, as I mistook the 5th revert as the user's 4th, and was drafting a soft warning when this revert was made. War is over 5 new sources which user wishes removed. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Princeofpeacex reported by User:Venezia Friulano (Result: Blocked)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [143]
• [144]
• [145]

This user has been warned multiple times by me, and other users, that he must get a consensus or third party opinion in Talk before continuing his non-civil POV pushing and Edit Wars.

However, the Italians article has had to be protected several times due to its behavior and the use of multi-accounts for its activity, having been temporarily blocked, and despite everything, it continues insistently to start Edit Wars violating the WP:3RR

His uncivil attitude shows that he wont stop starting other Edit Wars and again violating the 3RR. Venezia Friulano (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – Indefinite block for long term edit warring. This user began editing around June 1 and has been constantly reverting at Italians since that time. Lots of different people have reverted his changes over that period. His edit summaries include such compliments as "Reverted vandalism by troll who can't argue with sources and shows massive ignorance of genetics.." He was previously blocked 72 hours on June 23 for the same thing by User:Muboshgu. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that the user will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Semsûrî reported by User:B9Xyz (Result: Nominator blocked)

Page: Kurdification of Yazidis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Semsûrî (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [146]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [147]
2. [148]
3. [149]
4. [150]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [152]

Comments:

Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring first of all (the same article you've been linking to in the edit summary). Secondly, this is a sock.[153] Semsûrî (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG OP also appears to have violated 3RR:

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

— Czello 19:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Czello: Note that I have not breached the 3RR as the first link is from the 22nd. Semsûrî (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, deleted the "also" from my comment. — Czello 19:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked. The reporting editor has been checkuser blocked by Materialscientist. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:FellowMellow (Result: No edit warring)

Page: 2022 United States Senate election in Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 28 June 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 28 June 2022‎
2. 28 June 2022

Diff of edit warring: 28 June 2022‎

Comments:
User started edit warring before results were called and I explained that there needs to be evidence that there was a runoff. It took a while, for the user to provide a source to provide evidence that there was a runoff. First edit made by user was no report of a runoff, as I had explained to user, who failed to understand and decided to revert. Edit summary directed to me "girl, tf do you mean unsourced?" (Even though I’m not a girl) and a personal attack by calling me "Asinine", which is unacceptable. - FellowMellow (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Only two rvs not three and the matter is settled, so this should be a moot point. It was blatantly obvious while looking at any source and using math that not only would there be a runoff but that Horn was obviously not winning the nomination outright, as OP's own rvs were falsely indicating. The date for the runoff was already laid out by the SOS and the fact a runoff would occur was already being stated by any live results feed, as was indicated to the Op in the edit history and they refused to search for themselves. They're just pissy they were wrong and got a blunt response back to their own blunt, imperious requests. Therequiembellishere (talk)

Other user made a similar revert, which began an edit war. The user is not fully informed about the Wikipedia editing policy and guidelines. This is not about math, this is what the results say. It took the user a while to provide a reliable source to where it shows that there is a runoff. User didn’t like the fact, that a source was requested. I had provided a source on NYT, when the edit was made by me to where only Horn had a check mark, next to her name. User made edits, that were false due to the fact the race being not called and decided to assume that the race was over. As the OP said this, "The date for the runoff was already laid out by the SOS and the fact a runoff would occur was already being stated by any live results feed." The OP is responsible for providing the source that supports their claims, it’s no one else’s responsibility. It’s not my responsibility to search for a source to back a claim made of someone else. The user felt that they could do any edit they wished, sourced or unsourced, but that’s not what we do here. Making statements like "They're just pissy they were wrong and got a blunt response back to their own blunt, imperious requests." This doesn’t make the situation better and doesn’t resolve the issue. This is an example of childish behavior. The OP talks of giving a "blunt" response, I wouldn’t say blunt. I would use the word, "childish". My request for a source also is not imperious. The user clearly is not educated on Wikipedia editing guidelines, which say that there must be sources to prove a point. I asked for a source of the results because what I saw didn’t add up to what the OP claimed. The OP instead chose to act irrational. - FellowMellow (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple people rving you when you're wrong is not an "Edit war", nor did it "take a while" I got the notification and responded. It was false of OP to state Horn was the winner of the primary when (at the time of the original rv) she was 30% short of the 50% statutory minimum to clear the primary outright while avoiding the runoff. They were failing CRYSTAL to say she'd won, and demonstrating a clear lack of familiarity with the subject matter. It was being restored to "TBD" because 1) votes were in progress and 2) reliable sources like the NYT and AP were unequivocally stating there would be a runoff. This is a case of myself an other editors restoring the status quo during a current event and a relatively new editor putting up false information claiming the others were edit warring when in correcting that error. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You and one other OP making edits, based on same claims is edit warring, when you add constantly to your preferred method and yes it did "take you a while" to provide a source of where your information was coming from. When I made the edit, I said my source was NYT and that Horn was the only candidate, that had the check mark. What the OP did is made an allegation about there being a runoff, without proof, furthermore, the race wasn’t even called yet to make any edits about a runoff. There’s nothing false about that. The OP failed to support their claims through a source, which was rightfully requested. The problem with the OP’s edit is that they rushed to declare that there is a runoff, when the race wasn’t declared yet. The NYT reported that Horn had a check mark, which means victor. However, that edit was about to be changed by me, when a runoff was declared. The OP’s issue is that they made an edit, ultimately assuming that a runoff has been declared. An edit should be made, when a declaration has been made, not what an OP assumes. It surprises me, how a user, who was created 16 years ago, doesn’t understand this simple detail. This wasn’t false information. The OP’s allegations are ridiculous. The OP and one other user decided to rush and edit that there was a runoff, when no such declaration had been made. The user wasn’t correcting any error, they were the cause of this editing error.- FellowMellow (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

1) There were four minutes between your direct rv and my response. 2) It's not my fault you don't know how to read the NYT and know that the bright, clear colored shading they give to indicate a winner is distinct from gray shading for runoffs and the fact that they reinforce this and the existence of a runoff throughout their results pages. 3) No, I didn't have to provide a source that a runoff existed in the race when "Runoff elections where no candidate receives over 50% of the vote are scheduled for August 23 if necessary.[154]" has been in the lede for months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Though you are at 3 reverts, FellowMellow. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

So you’re going to normalize a personal attack against me by the OP calling me "Asinine"? Bravo! - FellowMellow (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@FellowMellow you reported this as edit warring. It is not edit warring. Please read WP:EW.

Petty slights and incivility are improper and uncivil but this does not rise to any actionable behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you can deny it was edited warring, but what I am disappointed in, is in your decision, which you failed to tell the user that it’s unacceptable to use this kind of inappropriate response. You are enabling the OP to use this kind of childish behavioral responses, in the future. - FellowMellow (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Next time don't report it as edit warring when it clearly isn't. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe you should be doing what your supposed to be doing and help sustain a friendly working environment on Wikipedia rather than enable OPs to be uncivil and let them off the hook without warning. - FellowMellow (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to report the matter to WP:ANI if you really think that administrator action should be taken against the personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

User:TechnophilicHippie reported by User:HAL333 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155], but partial reverts are involved

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. They make the original bold edit

● Ergzay makes a partial revert

2. TechnophilicHippie reverts them

● I make partial revert

3. TechnophilicHippie reverts me

● I tell them to discuss this on the talk page

4. TechnophilicHippie reverts again

● Return to status quo by me

● Discussions fail to result in consensus for returning content. The onus is on them.

5. TechnophilicHippie reverts again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[157]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [158]

TechnophilicHippie has been engaging in edit warring at Musk for months now. Despite requests, they completely disregard requests to follow the Bold, Revert, Discusss, Cycle. To date, I have given them three 3RR warnings. CNMall41 asked them to stop their disruptive edit warring back in May.

TechnophilicHippie has already violated the three-revert rule earlier this month, but I gave them another chance. Here are five reverts on Elon Musk within two hours:

1. [159]
2. [160]
3. [161]
4. [162]
5. [163]

Their edit warring extends to other Elon Musk articles. On Talk:Elon Musk, TechnophilicHippie moved my comment into a different talk page section. I reverted that and asked them not to. They reverted me and moved my comment again. Their move warring of the title at Views of Elon Musk led to an admin protecting it.

On a page already as divisive as Musk's, TechnophilicHippie’s disruptive editing is completely egregious. It's getting old. Please rectify this. Thanks, ~ HAL333 01:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am in the process of opening a WP:BLPN report for HAL333, as per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I left a warning on their Talk Page about this, and it looks like they jumped the gun to report me first. Please wait while I finish the WP:BLPN report.

For the bottom 1, 3, 4, 5 are reverting vandalism. As per Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_13#Canada_convoy_protest, another editor deleted the "Canada convoy protest" section, arguing undue weight, but the majority consensus in May 2022 was to keep the "Canada convoy protest" section. In June 2022, HAL333 came and kept deleting the "Canada convoy protest" section. For each revert edit summary, I referred them to the Talk Page's majority consensus, when the Talk Page section was not archived at the time. The Talk page section was called "Canada convoy protest", the same name as the section called "Canada convoy protest" HAL333 kept deleting. As an experienced editor, they should be able to find the Talk Page section and respect the majority consensus. However, they left messages on my Talk Page on 3RR without acknowledging that discussion and already taken place with majority consensus. It looks like WP:GAME to me, where they invoke some rules but ignore others for their advantage (WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:GASLIGHT). Later on, after, my repeated criticisms, they finally acknowledged the existing discussion and added to it in June 2022, about 3 weeks later after the May 2022 consensus.. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC); edited TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Notify that there is a thread opened in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard by TechnophilicHippie here, seemingly as a retaliation of this thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

HAL333 already made repeated WP:BLP violations, I gave him a warning on his Talk Page which he reverted, and this looks like a retaliation for my WP:BLP violation warnings (including in my edit summaries). Any way, the 3RR rule without discussing the priority of WP:BLP/WP:V over 3RR is just WP:PLAYPOLICY. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPN report: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elon_Musk's_comments_on_employees

@HAL333: For your first group of diffs, edit 2 is not a revert. Ergzay deleted a paragraph and reduced it to a sentence to include in an existing paragraph. I merely expanded on Ergzay's sentence and did not restore the paragraph. Everything after that is discussed in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elon_Musk's_comments_on_employees. Basically, I removed your content because it was a WP:BLP violation, but you are invoking 3RR for this, which looks like WP:PLAYPOLICY. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Return to the status quo by me This is one of the main problems with HAL333's understanding of the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle. They call their own edits the "status quo", even when it's a new change or contentious, and in their example above, "Return to the status quo by me", they are referring specifically to their WP:BLP violation being the "status quo".

TechnophilicHippie has been engaging in edit warring at Musk for months now. Despite requests, they completely disregard requests to follow the Bold, Revert, Discusss, Cycle. They have a warped view of what edit warring is, or they are doing WP:GAME. In their examples above for "edit warring", one is me removing their BLP violation, and the other is me reverting their vandalism (deletion) given the Talk Page majority consensus in May 2022 for keeping "Canada convoy protest". For "Canada convoy protest", they tried to open a new discussion to reboot BRD as if there wasn't an existing discussion, and considered their deletion of "Canada convoy protest" to be the "status quo", while my restoration of it being the "bold" edit. Looks like WP:GAME.

CNMall41 asked them to stop their disruptive edit warring back in May. As I replied on my Talk Page, they reverted multiple times and I reverted once, but they got me confused with another editor who also reverted them. Multiple editors warned you for edit warring on your Talk Page but you revert all criticisms on your Talk Page while keeping the positive messages.

On Talk:Elon Musk, TechnophilicHippie moved my comment into a different talk page section. I reverted that and asked them not to. They reverted me and moved my comment again. You replied to my BLP violation accusation in the discussion "Greater weight given to hypothetical Martian colonists than real, living humans on Earth". My first edit was adding the new discussion title "Misinformation from editorializing the suspension of remote work at Tesla and SpaceX" above your reply, and adding my reply to you underneath, which properly created a new discussion. You moved your reply from the "Misinformation" section back to the Mars/Earth section, trying to characterize a WP:V issue as a WP:DUE issue, and also implying that the "status quo" is that Earthling issues need consensus before being considered due weight relative to Martian issues. I tried one more time to organize the misinformation/BLP violation discussion properly by moving your comment, but you moved it back.

Their move warring of the title at Views of Elon Musk led to an admin protecting it. The admin protected it because I moved "Views of Elon Musk" to "Opinions of Elon Musk", and you reverted it, saying that it sounds like it's about other people's opinions of Musk. I took this feedback and the next day moved "Views of Elon Musk" to "Views and opinions of Elon Musk", which doesn't sound like it's others' views/opinions on Musk, and you reverted it with the summary "Concision, status quo in article formatting". (What does "status quo in article formatting" mean?) The admin protected it because of your moving as well. I wasn't doing the same thing twice, but doing something different the second time based on your feedback. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you refused to recognize that there was no consensus to readd that content. You made a bold edit, and, for the sake of concision and clarity, let me call the substantive meat of that addition (a concise summary of the sources) "A", and the fluffy redundant text that no one wants "B". Erzgay made a partial revert, keeping A and removing B. You reverted them and readded B. I removed B twice and you readded it twice. Note that you were reverted by two different editors: no one else expressed support for adding B. After this, we discussed it on the talk page. The onus was on you to gain consensus and you failed. You refused to acknowledge that there was no consensus for B and made a fourth revert and readded B. That is edit warring. ~ HAL333 03:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is ridiculously inaccurate, and so are your variables. Let's call the original paragraph added W, Erzgay's edit to one sentence X, my elaboration of Erzgay's edit Y, and your misinformation Z.

1. First I added W, which was a paragraph. (Bold edit)
2. Ergzay reduced it to a sentence X and merged it into the preceding paragraph. You call it a "partial revert" only to construct the narrative of an edit war, when trimming down a paragraph to a sentence and merging it into a preceding paragraphy is in no way a "partial revert".
3. I agreed mostly with Ergzay's edit for concision but expanded it as Y, to only include information directly relevant to "Managerial style and treatment of employees". Note that Musk's view that companies allowing remote work can't ship products wasn't restored, and neither was the information on employees needing to be in office 40 hours per week. Factory workers working overtime was added to make it precisely relevant. This is no way a "revert" of Ergzay's edit, but building on top of their edit, and agreeing that a paragraph was unnecessary.
4. You made some copy edits, Y', including changing the passive voice to the active voice, but it resulted in slightly misleading wording that suggested Musk only started asking factory workers to come in more than 40 hours per week in June 2022.
5. The next day, you then replaced your Y' with misinformation Z. You said above this was a "partial revert", but this is in no way a revert; it's brand new misinformation.
6. I replaced your misinformation with Y'', keeping your active voice fix but with minor copy edits to fix the misleading wording in Y'.
7. You replaced it with the exact misinformation Z, and then accuse me of edit warring.
8. I replaced it with Y'', because Z is misinformation and a BLP violation.
9. You replaced it with Z' removing the word "factory" and with a ridiculous edit summary calling this version the "status quo".
10. You edited it to add the word "and". Z''
11. I replaced it with a Y''', because Z'' is still a BLP violation. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333 @TechnophilicHippie I would appreciate if you at least both spelled my name correctly when talking about me. Ergzay (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, your claims of BLP are ridiculous and entirely unfounded. Your retaliatory BLP report isn't looking too hot either. Also, the admin protected the page from your move warring because you refuse to follow the BRD cycle. The onus was on you: and the consensus was strongly against your petty move warring. ~ HAL333 03:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought I did do BRD, because I didn't revert your revert. It was a different bold change with different text. Only you reverted twice. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Both of you stop and wait for an admin with more patience than i to review this. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I will note I support HAL333's actions here and TechnophilicHippie has a single purpose account of wanting to defame Elon Musk as stated in their user bio.

> Recently, my edits have been focused on countering misinformation that Elon Musk is apolitical, objective, and a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject.

Just something to take in when considering this ANI. Ergzay (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think both HAL333 and TechnophilicHippie should stop sling mud to each other and let an uninvolved admin to do their job. More drama would make the assessment more difficult and may result in more severe sanctions for both of you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane and Ergzay both appear to be Elon Musk superfans who think all/most criticisms of Musk is biased. HAL333 claims he isn't a fan, but has accused me of SPA and biased editing, when I have been adding controversies covered by mainstream newspapers to Elon Musk in a neutral voice, to try to balance editors who censor criticisms of Musk. I'm not SPA. I only started editing Elon Musk in 2022.

Edit: It is unfair for me to group CactiStaccingCrane together with Ergzay, because CactiStaccingCrane is aware of their biases, and seeks out and responds to feedback. However, their self-insertion into this discussion isn't unbiased. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC); edited TechnophilicHippie (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a reason I've opened this thread on SpaceX Starship and actively asking you in order to garner more criticisms. You are just going full ad hominem at this point. I think it would be more productive if you tell me what is bad about the Starship program and discuss about it on the talk page, as it would reflect better at you and reduce the drama considerably. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:TechnophilicHippie is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Wingzs reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: Sock indef blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095685656 by Semsûrî (talk) Rv vandal"
2. 18:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095685169 by Semsûrî (talk) Rv vandal"
3. 18:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095684905 by Semsûrî (talk) Rv vandal"
4. 18:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "talk page should be used"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "/* 3rr */ 3rr warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

1) a sock who has been disrupting the page for days now + also the creator back in 2018, 2) SPI case is open, 3) 3RR is breached + warning given Semsûrî (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have only made 3 reverts not 4 within 24 hours (look at the history[164]) Wingzs (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Techinally I counted 4 edits to Êzîdxan, the first one at 18:53, june 29 (Counts as the first revert), 18:55, june 29 (Counts as the Second revert), 18:57, june 29 (Counts as the third revert), and 19:02, june 29 (Counts as the fourth revert), that stil makes it as a violation of the three Revert Rule and it is considered as Edit Warring. Chip3004 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Wingzs indefinitely for edit warring and socking.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

User:HelenHIL reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Ancient Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC) to 02:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Vandalism by Greek nationalist Khirurg and Sockpuppet Demetrios1993"
   2. 02:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Classification */ Reverting to more objective article after years of vandalism by Greek nationalist Khirurg and Sockpuppet Demetrios1993"
2. 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 21:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Classification */"
4. 20:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 17:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "Have just written what the citation says. Please do not make changes before you read the reference"
6. 14:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "There is no general agreement about the ancient Macedonian language."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm counting 6 non-consecutive reverts in less than 12 hours. The edits are moreover highly POV and unencyclopedic, and laced with hostility. Similar situation at Alexander I of Macedon [165], [166], [167] (removal of sources, POV editing, hostile edit summaries). Also very hostile on their own talkpage, where they responded to my 3RR warning with threats and insults [168] [169]. Clearly a block is needed because this user will not stop reverting. Khirurg (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Have done this because of vandalism by Greek nationalist Khirurg and Sockpuppet Demetrios1993. They are under investigation. HelenHIL (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

HelenHIL did not Violate WP:3RR, Rule # 4 Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language are exempt from the edit-warring policy. No Violation at all. Chip3004 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism? Page blanking? Like where? Can you give an example? The only thing that's obvious is the strong POV of their edits. As for offensive language, the only place I see that is in their edit summaries. Khirurg (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs provided, the only POV pushing I see is by the OP. Wikipedia is not the place for the Greek/Macedonian culture wars. Oh, and you latched onto the page blanking part of the 3RR rule #4, you missed the "such as" part. HelenHIL has no case to answer here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Care to explain how my edits are POV-pushing? Because they aren't. These articles are watched by a large number of users and were stable and quiet until HelenHIL barged in today and massively POV-pushed, the crudest examples of which are [170] [171] [172]. His edits were reverted by at least 4 different users. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the topic anyway, since I have never seen you edit these topics (whereas I have been editing them for the last 15 years or so), but among other things, HelenHIL removed sources, altered wording that had been reached after long standing discussions and consensus, inserted POV and unencyclopedic wording, was reverted by many users, all the while hurling wild accusations of "vandalism" and making personal attacks such as the edit summaries above and stuff like this [173]. This editor has barely 100 contribs and made massive changes to relatively quiet articles that had been stable for a long time. As for "latching on", can you point to examples of "obvious vandalism" that HelenHIL supposedly reverted (instead of just taking their accusations at face value)? concrete examples, please. But most importantly, HelenHIL clearly violated 3RR, with 6 reverts in less than 12 hours, as well as edit-warring on other articles. Which, from all indications, looks set to continue. Khirurg (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to see how the boomerang card is being played here. The last stable version of the lede has been built by consensus without any "culture wars", and it is definitely edit-warring if an editor tries to force their own preferred version of the lede without consensus, paired with inflammatory edit summaries ("sockpuppet", "vandalism"). –Austronesier (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It's incredible isn't it? All we do is revert to the status quo ante, the other party reverts a whopping SIX times in 12 hours while shouting "vandalism", and this is then taken at face value. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Khirurg (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I really find the comments about "page blanking" etc. as utter and complete arguments from ignorance, that surely demonstrate that these users did not care to read the diffs because there is no such thing and made thin air statements in defense of user that personally attacks other users. Maybe they might need to gain a better understanding about the scope of ANI because it seems that they are not so knowledgeable. Best Othon I (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked HelenHIL for 48 hours for violating 3RR and for her personal attacks. As for some comments by others, I see no vandalism by Khirurg that would permit HelenHIL's reverts to be exempt. Indeed, I am puzzled by those allegations, particularly those of "page blanking" and similar.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

User:AlsoWukai reported by User:TrottieTrue (Result: Not the proper forum)

Page: Katzenberger Trial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AlsoWukai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is just the most significant example of the edit warring behaviour by this user. It actually seems to have stopped at the Katzenberger Trial article where it was recently a problem, but AlsoWukai appears to be reverting my edits just for the sake of it now (see below).

Previous version reverted to: [174]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [175]
2. [176]
3. [177]
4. [178]

I raised this at AlsoWukai's talk page here. Two other editors reverted their edits, yet they continued to revert back.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As noted above, AlsoWukai appears to have started reverting my edits with no reason given. The one thing both these reverted edits (below) have in common is that they were both undoing changes I made to the articles the day before. [179] [180] There has also been similar recent behaviour by this editor at [181], see [182] and [183].

Previously, I raised this editor's behaviour at their talk page here, and at ANI here - in fact I note that the outcome of the ANI case I filed was "FINAL WARNING" for AlsoWukai. There are several examples of warnings at their https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlsoWukai Usertalk page] for edit warring since that warning. Their language in the edit summaries is also contentious: "smh" (shaking my head), referring to me as a "troll" etc.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [185]

Comments:
This editor appears to be engaging in edit warring, and their general behaviour shows signs of incivility. Their general attitude is that they are right, to the exclusion of others. User:Futurix pointed out in the Katzenberger Trial talk page that AlsoWukai seems to be replacing "however" with "but" in their edits. There is no mention of preference at WP:MOS, but most articles appear to use "however" rather than "but" to start sentences. My edits have simply been to comply with what I perceive to be the norm, but in any case, their actions are disruptive and unhelpful.--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• This is not the proper forum for this report. If you wish, you can take this to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  OK, thanks - done. TrottieTrue (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:149.97.134.93 reported by User:Unbh (Result: Protected)

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

User being reported: 149.97.134.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095776633 by Nythar (talk) - Disruptive editing"
2. 08:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095774175 by Nythar (talk) - Disruptive undoing - the original change was good and appropriate"
3. 08:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095768788 by Unbh (talk)"
4. 07:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095661275 by Unbh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Aspartame."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Jumped IP since yesterday - but still pushing unsourced changes Unbh (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected by Favonian. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Colinmcdermott reported by User:ScottishFinnishRadish (Result: 1 week)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Consensus on talk page. 3v2. Reverted by Russian paid editors."
2. 11:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Reported user to COI noticeboard"
3. 10:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Vandalism of this page by a suspected paid editor. Will be reporting to COI."
4. 09:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism, agreed by consensus on talk page, comrade."
5. 11:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "This is discussed in the Talk section. Please feel free to discuss but do not revert."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"
2. Earlier EW warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Russia#Add_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine,_2022,_to_the_lead

Comments:

Extensive on-going discussion on the talk page, an ill fated COIN thread and personal attacks/aspersions galore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I was just in the process of typing this. I would also mention this comment left on Aircorn's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Fairly standard edit-warring but the edit summaries are not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User: 67.183.248.210 reported by User:2601:84:4501:5B21:3852:A649:D43D:7558 (Result: referred to AN/I)

Page: Boston's Finest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being Report: 67.183.248.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [186]
2. [187]
3. [188]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This User and All of the Users I have Posted here are All Sockpuppets of WorldwideBallcaps. Please Block all of these Accounts, they are the Same Person. All Sockpuppets of this User:

• User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.125.92.203
• User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/8.48.5.197
• User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.12.231.154
• User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.66.243.217
• User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.125.92.203
• User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.169.245.98
• User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.56.113.238
• User: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.92.235.185

This report is incomplete, this the wrong noticeboard for this report, take it to WP:AVI or WP:ANI if it is seriosu enough. Chip3004 (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It is Serious. 2601:84:4501:5B21:88B9:1E8B:5395:4298 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WorldwideBallcaps originally was Blocked and is now a Sockpuppet, using these accounts. 2601:84:4501:5B21:88B9:1E8B:5395:4298 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This is notice board for Edit Warring/3RR issues only, This kind of report does not belong at WP:AN3, Take your report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. No action will be taken by any admin because this is not the proper venue for this report, this report should be archived immediately by an admin. Chip3004 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Regulov reported by User:GenuineArt (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190] - 29 June
2. [191] - 30 June
3. [192] - 30 June
4. [193] - 30 June

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [196]

Comments:

Edit warring on this article even more than what he did last time on 6 June[197][198] after which the page got fully protected for 2 weeks.

If this was only about edit warring on this article then it would be one thing, but this user has so many WP:DE issues.

• Makes false claims of BLP violation[199][200] despite warning.[201]
• false claims of "no consensus"[202] and "stonewalling"[203] despite another user retaining RfC version.[204]
• rampant bludgeoning all over against everyone who is not agreeing with him,[205][206][[207]
• writing WP:TEXTWALL with new sections even after same content being discussed at the RfC,[208][209]
• is too concerned about WP:WINNING; "I am going to win this argument"[210]
• casting nationality-based WP:ASPERSIONS; "the unspoken lemma is: "Filipino national dignity demands redress for this grievous and everlasting insult"[211]
• inability to comply with WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and is also violating WP:NOTTRUTH; "Genuinely reliable sources will never correct this",[212] "They googled it, and repeated what Google turned up, and now we are repeating them."[213]
• calling any reliable source ("The List" this time) a "tabloid" [214]

While his recent edit warring justifies a block for edit war, I would still recommend that a WP:TOPICBAN from this subject will be more helpful to stop this disruption. He was already alerted of BLP DS before the cited violations happened.[215] GenuineArt (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am genuinely saddened it has come to this. Every one of GenuineArt's accusations is spurious, except perhaps that I write walls of text, for which I suppose I must apologize. I have worked hard to discuss the many substantive problems raised in the RfC at Claire Danes, and I feel I have been very patient. GenuineArt and TolWol56, the principal defenders of the status quo, threaten sanctions, link essays and guidelines, and repeat "already told you" and "it's been this way for a long time", in preference to discussing the many, detailed problems I and others have identified. The page as it stands is in violation of WP:BLP. The claim that Claire Danes is or has ever been banned entry into the Philippines or the city of Manila, and that distribution or exhibition of her film or television credits is prohibited in the Philippines or in the city of Manila, is contentious: there is real reason to believe it is not true, and I am not the only editor convinced by the arguments made at Talk:Claire Danes that the sources cited are inadequate. Certainly GenuineArt et al. have failed to demonstrate there is currently consensus supporting their preferred version. Until such consensus can be arrived at, the contentious claims must be removed per the BLP policy. I have been told over and over that there is no such violation, and threatened with sanctions (which, lo and behold) for believing otherwise; but detailed arguments to that effect have never been made. I stand by everything I have written, and I encourage everyone who is interested in determining whether I deserve to be sanctioned to read through the entire, admittedly long, dispute, beginning here. Regulov (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you are pulling me here. Your false claims like "violation of WP:BLP", "arguments to that effect have never been made", show you won't stop problematic editing and you are not gonna listen. I agree that you need a topic ban from this article and talk page. Ping EdJohnston. TolWol56 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – User:Regulov is blocked 31 hours for long term edit warring. People (at ANI) say that an argument on this article has been running since 2019. The version to which Regulov is reverting seems to enjoy little support on the talk page. I don't share Regulov's opinion that the existing article violates BLP. (In the context of 3RR, articles may be reverted without penalty only in the case of unsourced defamation, which this is not). EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:50.45.170.185 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Lavender oil (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: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [216]
2. [217]
3. [218]
4. [219]
5. [220]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [222]

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

Comments:
Part of this on-going issue[224] where Zefr refuses the community's consensus to include reliable secondary sources in articles related to lavender.

Page protected for a week, before it reached the point where someone, probably multiple someones, were going to get blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:50.45.170.185 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Page protected)

Page: Lavender oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 50.45.170.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "The change was made because 3 users agree it is good in the talk page, 2 users involved in the talk pages raised no issues against it, the RSN linking to this discussion raised no issues against it and only commented that "it seems editors have found PMID 33638614 to be an acceptable current review". Please take your individual dissent to the talk page."
2. 17:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC) "Stop edit warring"
3. 18:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC) "In accordance with Alex's and Pyrrho's views on this journal, adding it back. Please add to the talk page if you think this meta-analysis in this peer-reviewed journal is not a good source and explain why."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lavandula."
2. 18:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Single-purpose account */ new section"
3. 19:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:SPA IP user obsessively edit-wars on articles, talk pages, and discussions in defense of a suboptimal source supporting dubious use of lavender oil for treating anxiety. History of this user's edits show SPA. PP in effect against this IP at Lavandula; PP requested at Lavender oil. Zefr (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Pyrrho the Skipper has also reverted your disruptive edits.

I am not a single-purpose account. I have only been editing for 4 days and I've already participated in other things besides lavender discussion. I do not hold strong personal opinion about lavender oil, a substance that until less than a week ago I didn't even know you could eat.

The RfC[225] that I made is *not* to determine if the current source should stay in, it's to determine if *more* source should be added. Consensus was already reached on the current source that you keep removing.

This report is part of Zefr's on-going questionable behavior[226] trying to defend his stance using questionable sources[227] or deleting when all else fails.[228]

Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule WP:3RR Applies to Everyone and every article, besides that if you look at the edit history you will see that you made four reverts (Which is considered a violation of 3RR) on June 26th, witheen june 28th and today, it appears that you are continuing to Edit war which is now edit warring. Chip3004 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Zefr made 4 reverts today today against WP:3RR, are you suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG? 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In addition, Zefr even did copy-editing for the change after consensus was reached, showing that he clearly also acknowledged the consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavender_oil&diff=prev&oldid=1095463391 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protected for a week (see below for comment). Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:50.45.170.185 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Page protected)

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

User being reported: 50.45.170.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "move research about oil to the oil section for now"
2. 16:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Research section about effects of the plant and its oil existed before and should continue existing whether or not this study exists. You've edited this section before without removing it so I'm not sure why you did just now."
3. 07:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "changed to match the "Research" section"
4. 06:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Update to match change on the "Lavender oil" page, new source is more recent and more reliable than the non-peer-reviewed ones currently used here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lavandula."
2. 18:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Single-purpose account */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1095684467 by 50.45.170.185 (talk) the talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article, supported by a WP:RS source; it is not a forum for airing out your personal grievances, WP:NOTFORUM"

Comments:

User is a WP:SPA with aggressive editing/warring to establish their own position on use of lavender oil. Excessive opionating on Talk:Lavender oil and Talk:Lavandula. Zefr (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have also opened a noticeboard section for Zefr here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment/Hounding

As for the edit warring claims against me, perhaps I misunderstand but this was how I viewed the situation:

1. Similar content was shared between two articles, after changing one article I went to the second article to update it as well.

2. After this, Zefr reverted my changes by removing the long-standing "Research" section and lede medical information that has been there for years. So I added back the "Research" section.

3. After this, Zefr reverted again and said that the "Research" section should only contain research about the plant and not its oil. So I opened a discussion on the talk page about that and advocating for adding the section back.

4. Finally, I added the information to the oil section of the article since it is more relevant there. He reverted this too.

Apologies if this was not the right way to go about this. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the talk page section about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lavandula#Add_back_%22Research%22_section 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Additional background:

• Talk page where original discussion happened.[229]
• DRN discussion.[230][231]
• Me explaining that changes were already discussed, I wasn't just trying to push this out of nowhere.[232]

Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The IP has been clearly edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Considering that Zefr and I were the only two involved in this, wouldn't a block be more appropriate than page protection? (assuming that your conclusion was that I am the source of "persistent disruptive editing"). I'm not requesting to be blocked, I'm just curious. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  A different admin decided to protect the page. Take it up with him. And try working on either a consensus wording or another article for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:86.141.92.244 reported by User:2603:7080:301:A358:3427:8DD7:1CB4:CA2F (Result: Semi)

Page: Tunisian Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Tunisian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.141.92.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [233]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [234]
2. [235]
3. [236]
4. [237]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] The pre-edited versions of the articles were written as part of a compromise. The user is attempting to change the article to fit their views. They have been asked to use the talk page to discuss their edits when their edits were undid.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [242][243]

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

Comments:

2603:7080:301:A358:3427:8DD7:1CB4:CA2F (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I previously reported the user 2603:7080:301:A358:3427:8DD7:1CB4:CA2F here [245] for removing the sources I added just because they disagree with them and even warned them on their talk page, but they continue to edit war. 86.141.92.244 (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. There is nothing on the talk page from either of you. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Barefoot through the chollas reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Spanish language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Barefoot through the chollas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [246]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [247]
2. [248]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [249]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [250]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [251]

Comments:

The talk page link links to Help talk:IPA/Spanish as that is the appropriate place to solve all issues regarding IPA transcriptions of Spanish. Furthermore, at the time I started the thread nobody was edit warring yet. At the top of the Help:IPA/Spanish guide, it says Integrity must be maintained between the key and the transcriptions that link here; do not change any symbol or value without establishing consensus on the talk page first. and below that it says For terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo (where words such as haya and halla are pronounced the same), words spelled with ⟨ll⟩ can be transcribed with [ʝ]. At no point in the guide does it say that we need to duplicate the transcriptions. The reason I consider their behavior to be edit warring is that they refused to reply to my reply to their first message in the thread after I moved it back where it belongs (they moved, or rather copied and pasted the thread to another talk page without my permission). At that point I was done and just reverted them back as I've just wasted about 30 minutes on writing a response to them only to get ignored. Then, predictably, they revert me back, now falsely citing For terms that are more relevant to regions... quoted above (Castellano is clearly not that, I mean look at this). As of now, there still has not been any meaningful response to my lengthy reply to them. Sol505000 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Warned both users. You are both edit warring; I was tempted to block you both, but since you are currently discussing the issue, I have decided to cut you some slack and only issue warnings. Please, both of you, stop reverting each other until a consensus has been reached. Salvio 20:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Salvio:, thanks for making the effort to try to help out. I've tried to conduct a civil conversation with Sol505000, but it turns out to be impossible. Please review thoroughly his multiple rv tactics, as well as his record of "contribs". The issue regards the Spanish language page, not Help talk:IPA/Spanish, beginning with his deletion of text (accurate text, not placed there by me) on 26 June, for no expressed reason other than "IPA spam", which the transcription that he removed obviously was not. I restored the deletion, as it's uncontroversial useful information for readers. From there we were off to the races, attempts at civil discussion to arrive at consensus failing miserably. It seems to me that the solution is to restore the text to what it was before he started this incident with the mysterious "IPA spam" deletion. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That is what is known as a content dispute and which should be solve through discussion first between the two of you, but also involving neutral editors. Administrators do not solve content disputes, but only tackle behavioural issues, such as edit warring or vandalism. They can contribute to discussions in their capacity as editors, if they are knowledgeable enough on the subject matter – and I confess that is is an issue I'm not really familiar with. So, I can't really help you that much. The edit war has stopped and I urge you both not to revert each other again, until a consensus has been reached. It may take a while, but, then again, there is no rush. Salvio 14:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Salvio, thanks for the clarifications of the understandable limitations. Level-headed consensus was what I was shooting for, to no avail. Pace e bene. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:84:4501:5B21:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:12.145.98.24 (Result: No violation)

Page: Big Rig Bounty Hunters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:84:4501:5B21:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [252]
2. [253]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Can't seem to come up with one

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Nothing, really.

Comments: Let's try this again: There goes StealthForce again. He's also editing under SportsSucks55 now. He's also been continously rude and abrasive since at least 2015. 12.145.98.24 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

No violation It sounds like sockpuppetry is the true allegation here, and that's not our department. The reported range has indeed been making the same revert regularly over the past couple of months, never coming near 3RR. That could have been enough to justify a block, but with such an indifferent attitude to initiating a discussion and warning the user reported I cannot consider this to have reached an actionable level. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

User:2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:94FA:AA89:547C:C365 reported by User:Lol1VNIO (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: Ana Marcela Cunha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:94FA:AA89:547C:C365 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [254]
2. [255]
3. [256]
4. [257]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [258][259][260]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [261]

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

Comments:
I tried discussing on my talk page but user continued with really disruptive edit summaries. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 13:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours by NJA ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 13:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)