Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined)

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.

---

Pages: See below
User being reported: Graywalls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few days ago, User:Graywalls started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:

• White Stag Leadership Development Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Stag Leadership Development Program
• Béla H. Bánáthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally removing large swaths of content
• Boy Scouts of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page
• COPE (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
• Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion
• National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
• Philmont Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
• Scouting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unhelpful editing

Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds, and moved the discussion to: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America.

It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:

• American Heritage Girls - tagging the article with multiple tags
• COPE (Boy Scouts of America) - Nominated for deletion
• Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) - tagging the article with multiple tags
• National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience - tagging the article with multiple tags
• Philmont Training Center - tagging the article with multiple tags
• Philmont Scout Ranch - tagging the article with multiple tags

Did I catch it all? I'm not sure I did, It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents, here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy, and then there is this personal attack in the edit summary. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [2]

Comments:
I'd like something to be done to make this all stop an allow for a more civil way to deal with this. I myself am travelling right now, and don't have easy access to a computer, so I don't expect to be available again until next week. The following users may be able to help:@Jergen, Btphelps, North8000, and Erp:

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: 'I'd like something to be done to make this all stop and allow for a more civil way to deal with this'...

Evidence that neither you nor I have seen has been provided behind closed doors about a possible COI. What could be more civil than simply to allow the investigation into that evidence to take its own course behind closed doors and to trust that due process will prevail one way or the other?

By comparison, starting up some kind of counter action here, based on the unproven assumption that the COI evidence was provided in bad faith, seems rather questionable. Axad12 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12:, as I'm sure you've noticed in other discussions at COI/N, there's a strict policy on Wikipedia about posting anything that would reveal user's personal information. So, posting any kind of evidence that would reveal their personal information that they have not already shared publicly is a serious violation. For example, posting link to social media is out of question, unless that person has publicly shared it on Wikipedia themselves. Graywalls (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. I was saying that evidence has quite correctly been provided through confidential channels and it is reasonable to assume that the evidence was given in good faith. Axad12 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Once I realized one user was inserting much of primary source website of a website they're associated with (whitestag.org) and what appears to be personal research (pinetreeweb) I removed them based on not being based on reliable sources. The ones I re-directed as I did not find it merited stand alone article, I put them threw AfD to seek consensus for re-direct. I believe that's a pretty typical procedure when re-direct is objected and a proper way to do so rather than repeatedly creating re-direct. What you are saying is "personal attack" is a quotation from the material found within the information page of the source I removed. I then captioned that it was inserted by a co-director of Whitestag, based on btphelps' self-disclosure at one point in their user page. Now, for anyone to extensively start inserting contents based on sources they're associated with and written within is a COI. I would say the same thing if a NY Times journalist was going around inserting articles they've written into numerous articles. The edit summary just explains the nature, it was not an "attack" on anybody. It was found that a swath of information was added by one editor into numerous articles citing sources they have a clear COI with and sources that are not exactly WP:RS. I removed those personal website/blog based contents as I locate them through insource: search for whitestag.org and Pinetreeweb. Graywalls (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Declined This report does not belong here. It is not really about edit-warring, although some edit-warring (mostly stale as far as I can tell) has taken place. Consider WP:ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls has been on an "axe to grind" type quest and related rough treatment of editors. Also note that the possible-COI diversion does not even involve any of the articles in question. The edit warring being a concrete violation is a way to bring it up. I think that any possible help with the requested "I'd like something to be done to make this all stop an allow for a more civil way to deal with this." would be appreciated.....even if just some thoughts/recommendations/advice for Graywalls rather than opening something bigger at wP:ANI as noted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary and personal attack by Graywalls which states' "His research was supported by Bela Banathy, the originator of the program and Joe St. Clair, one of White Stag's founders", whatever it's source, is not proof that either Bela Banathy nor Joe St Clair provided renumeration (NPE) to me of any kind. In fact, both were deceased at the time I wrote the article about Banathy. Graywalls must immediately cease and desist with this vendetta against me and my contributions. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:41, 25 March 2024 (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:62.73.123.23 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Sofia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.73.123.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments:

I have also tried to request a semi-protection of the article Sofia, but failed. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of one week by HJ Mitchell Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Wt2024 reported by User:Tehonk (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canuck Eats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wt2024 (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. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]

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: [7]

Comments:
There's some pretty disruptive behavior on this AfD by the user like spamming keep votes, bludgeoning, adding user talk page templates to the AfD page and reverting everyone who removes it, personal attacks like "SOMEONE CAN'T COUNT" and others etc. since reverts reached four already, this looked like the best place to report.Tehonk (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:D291:4D0:90C8:C09B:56A1:9D58 reported by User:Classicwiki (Result: Page protected)

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

User being reported: 2600:1700:D291:4D0:90C8:C09B:56A1:9D58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. The material has been repeatedly inserted despite being inaccurate. The information also contains links that are no longer active, adding to the inaccuracy of this section."
2. 22:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. The material has been repeatedly inserted despite being inaccurate."
3. 21:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced (including removed article from Kotaku) must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, please report the issue."
4. 21:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "Kotaku is a tabloid as it is owned by Gawker Media. The article has been taken down by Kotaku. The article is inaccurate and based on hearsay from an accusation made by Lawhead with no evidence. There was no investigation, charges or civil proceedings made against Soule. The other "multiple sources" are based on the Kotaku article that has since been taken down. The subject of this article is clearly being defamed by a repeat contributor and wikipedia should take serious note of this."
5. 21:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism (in this case Kotaku) Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject. Contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if libellous. The material has been repeatedly inserted, and the inserter MUST be reported"
6. 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "The original article accusing Soule has been taken by the original journalist with the following explanation - (https://web.archive.org/web/20200603181625/https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr4erf?new_posdown) Furthermore no investigation, charges or civili proceedings were made against Soule. This section is therefore in violation of a living person's biography and unnecessarily defaming the subject of this wiki article without a qualifying source."
7. Consecutive edits made from 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) to 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
   1. 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "The company was not subjected to a class action lawsuit (see the footnote someone previous attached to this piece of information) and is therefor not accurate."
   2. 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "The sexual misconduct accusations were taken down by the original blog kotaku (see that sources cited are archived, and not live), no evidence was presented and no charges were filed by the accuser. This section of this wikipedia article therefore is based purely on hearsay and not based on any factual evidence."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Jeremy Soule."
2. 22:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Jeremy Soule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) on User talk:2600:1700:D291:4D0:90C8:C09B:56A1:9D58 "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Jeremy Soule."

Comments:

3rr/edit warring. States issue is with a single media outlet, but there is other sourced reporting as pointed out by other user on talk page. Asked user to take it to the talk page of article. Continues to blank. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Reaper1945 reported by User:Buidhe (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks Both parties agreed to cease)

Page: German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reaper1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:
I made this report earlier today, but withdrew it when Reaper did engage on the talk page. Unfortunately, we have exhausted the discussion and Reaper has continued to add content that is not supported by consensus in violation of WP:ONUS. (t · c) buidhe 02:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe claims all of the sources provided are WP:FRINGE, including work by Boris Sokolov, Viktor Zemskov, and Peter Calvocoressi, all three as respected historians, and whose works are cited on other pages of Wikipedia, yet when it comes to a somehow contenious topic of Soviet POWs death toll, they are unreliable. Reaper1945 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Not to rehash content arguments, but I'm increasingly worried that Reaper's insistence that being cited on Wikipedia is an indication of reliability is becoming disruptive. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe continued to change the page despite the discussion still ongoing, and when I kept on stating that the input of others would be needed, they go ahead and change the page again and disregard all sources or other input. Reaper1945 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly, per the ONUS policy, it's your responsibility to obtain consensus before adding content you know is disputed.

Because there is a lot of back and forth regarding several different sources, now I'm worried it will be more difficult to engage outside editors. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The page had been left alone for a week, with no further additions between 19 March to 26 March, and you did not respond to my comments until after you made the edits a week later, which is confusing and does not help the dispute. Furthermore, citing those above and scholars such as Adam Jones or Daniel Goldhagen as unreliable without explaining why is contentious, beyond the apparent citation count argument. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks This is a partial block from the article. you both have been edit warring for months on this article.EvergreenFir (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  EvergreenFir Can you explain what you mean by "edit warring for months" so I can avoid it in the future? As you can see from the edit history, I made only one edit to the article between 4 January 2024‎ and 19 March 2024‎. I see there was a brief dispute between Reaper and myself in August 2023 (which I did not remember) but it looks like we resolved it without edit warring. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I do not remember any prior incidents on the page besides the current one with Buidhe which has now involved others to help achieve a resolution to the dispute, giving the examples to both of us would better to help understand what wrong was done. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  You are both correct and I will edit my language. You both edited back and forth back in August 2023. I saw the current edit was as an extension of that time. The content edited in August was partially related to the current dispute (total casualties). I did not see any 3RR violations, however. My intent with the partial block (as opposed to a site block or page protection) is to give you both time to work on the talk page about seek outside opinions.

  If you both agree to a moratorium in editing until this is resolved, I'll revert my blocks. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree to a moratorium. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree as well to a moratorium. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you both. I'll unblock EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Justanothersgwikieditor reported by User:Unknown152438 (Result: )

Page: Star Awards 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Star Awards 2023 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Justanothersgwikieditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[14]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [15] [16] [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:
This user has been making disruptive and aggressive edits on both of these pages.(Unknown152438 (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

Hi Unknown152438, when I removed this from WP:AIV, I had hoped for discussion instead of another report. However, this noticeboard here is indeed more suitable for discussing the behavior for a moment, so it's okay.

Unknown152438 and Justanothersgwikieditor, the last discussion at Talk:Star Awards 2023 is from 11 months ago; the last discussion at Talk:Star Awards 2019 is non-existent. Is there a reason why none has been used yet? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello ToBeFree, everyone is in agreement with the template used in Star Awards 2019, which has been established without the need for discussion and has remained in place for years until recent changes. However, Justanothersgwikieditor has expressed concerns regarding the template for Star Awards 2024, noting that it lacks consistency with previous templates and has resulted in a cluttered appearance. (Unknown152438 (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

Unknown152438, I can't find that agreement at Talk:Star Awards 2019. Was it formally reached somewhere else? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The template for "Top 10 Most Popular Artistes" has been consistently utilized since the previous events, namely 2017 and 2018. I am confident that these templates already uphold a standard of consistency. (Unknown152438 (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

No, Unknown152438, other Wikipedia articles are usually not a suitable justification. If there was a central discussion somewhere, that could be helpful, but even Talk:Star_Awards_2017 and Talk:Star_Awards_2018 are empty. There's nothing so far that could be described as "everyone is in agreement". Please start a discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We previously discussed this matter via Talk:Star Awards 2024, but no agreement was reached with this user. I had informed about the recent changes to the template. However, I noticed alterations made to Star Awards 2023 and Star Awards 2019 without any prior discussion or approval.(Unknown152438 (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

The newly created template was intended for use starting from Star Awards 2024. However, I propose reverting back to the previous template used in Star Awards 2023, as it was not created by this user. (Unknown152438 (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

Meanwhile, I have received the user's suggestions, but there has been no response to my comments regarding my perspective. Furthermore, changes have been implemented on these two pages without any prior discussion or notification. (Unknown152438 (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

The user's template suggestion is just bidding for the current year's template and has not garnered approval or intention to be used with the format from previous years. (Unknown152438 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

@ToBeFree, I took the time to thoroughly examine the paragraph written by @Justanothersgwikieditor. It appears that the user has discerned a sense of culpability, evident in their assertion, "I believe we can close this report as it is now." This suggests a nuanced assessment of the situation and a readiness to bring the matter to a resolution. (Unknown152438 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

Unknown152438, if I understand correctly, you believe that:

• the report can be closed if Justanothersgwikieditor admits fault, as Justanothersgwikieditor's edits have been the only problem in this edit war, and
• Special:Diff/1215808191 and Special:Diff/1215651447 are justified by previous attempts to discuss the issue?

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I believe WP:CIR is applicable here when Unknown152438 seems to fail to comprehend 1) what constitutes a revert 2) what this board is trying to address (like what Unknown152438 failed to understand what AIV is for) and we have not reached this stage (2R for me but 3R for Unknown152438) yet. ~ JASWE (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

All I'm currently looking for is a clarification if the two points above are Unknown152438's opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, I am rather busy during this period IRL and I am not able to be on Wikipedia proper till the next Monday. Note I am on GMT+8 timeline. Unknown152438 reported me here for edit warring but I have not exceeded the 3RR, I had only reverted twice and edited subsequently based on Wikipedia's policies and he had reverted three times. The only two reverts by me are [20] with edit summary of Revert to last good version, editor claims any of his suggested template to be applied from 2024 version onwards.. also reverting for accessibility issues (if you see the prior version at [21], the tables at the section Popularity Awards has colours and markup which I believe violates accessibility guidelines, I do not even know there are wiki links in the names.... ) and the second revert by me at [22] with edit summary revert due to accessibility access. Also, i asked you replied, now flipping say it might not be. Be consistent.. How is this edit claimed by Unknown152438 a revert? Based on 3RR and this noticeboard's requirement, I believe we can close this report as it is now.

For Star Awards 2023, as I have per my edit summaries, I have reverted due to accessibility issues that any reader will not know there is a wiki link to the artiste's wiki articles.

A history of past interaction with Unknown152438 can be seen on various talkpages with the most documented at Talk:Star Awards. At Talk:Star Awards 2024#Proposed changes of format, I asked Unknown152438 if the template he proposed will be applicable to all previous Star Awards also or just going from this year onwards? which he answered It will be applicable this year onwards. I did not reply as I personally do not agree nor come to a consensus with the design choices. If you read both the talkpages at Talk:Star Awards and Talk:Star Awards 2024 and his edit summaries for Star Awards 2023, it is rather clear that Unknown152438 has WP:OWN issues and threaten to report me for vandalism Have you even get permission to change the template of Star Awards 2023? Or this is only your own preferences? If you are agree with the changes you shall not change it back again, if you are talking about consistency, please have a look with previously done Star Awards, all with colors. If this happened again you will be awarded vandalism..

I believe WP:BOOMERANG might apply here. ~ JASWE (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

However, I previously mentioned that @Justanothersgwikieditor disagreed with the changes. I observed significant alterations from the user that I personally consider should be undone. (I refrained from replying as I neither agreed with nor reached a consensus on the design choices.) @Justanothersgwikieditor, have you reached a conclusion regarding your personal preferences for change? Why should I report you when you have the right to inquire about the applicability of your template to previous years' versions? I'm not concerned about any threats as opinions about the appearance of the Star Awards template will naturally vary. Therefore, I would prefer to invite @Sculture65 in a more thorough discussion regarding the designs. (Unknown152438 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

@ToBeFree @Justanothersgwikieditor, currently, my focus is on removing the evident clutter from the template we've created, rather than addressing accessibility concerns and colors. Upon examination, I've noticed that the Top 10 Most Popular Artistes template uses color indicators similar to previous years, which I believe should maintain consistency. Addressing accessibility issues will be prioritized in this year's template, as it may require time to link each and every artistes to their respective pages. (Unknown152438 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC))

User:Faizanalivarya reported by User:Saqib (Result: Declined)

Page: Abdul Qadir Patel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Saqib (talk) to last revision by BattyBot"
2. 21:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edit by Saqib (talk) to last version by Faizanalivarya"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Abdul Qadir Patel."
2. 08:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Abdul Qadir Patel."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) "/* RS and COI */ new section"

Comments:

This user, despite their experience, continues to add unreliable references to a BLP, indicating a potential COI. When I raised concerns on the BLPs talk page and requested them to avoid such additions and declare any COI, they didn't respond. Furthermore, they repeatedly deleted unreliable source tags, which seems like engaging in edit warring. Given the topic is WP:CTOP, I believe a clear warning is warranted, if not a block. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Faizanalivarya, would you mind explaining your apparent misuse of the rollback permission at Special:Diff/1215741720 and your apparently unexplained, at least edit-summary-lacking revert at Special:Diff/1215816780? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(I'm not much impressed by [23], which just raises more questions such as "which policy defines the addition of {{Unreliable sources}} as vandalism?".) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Well. It appears they perceives himself as the owner of this BLP. Interestingly, he is the same individual who created the BLP and is its major contributor, as evident from the BLP's history. Concerns regarding references have been raised since 2012 but remain unresolved. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I am writing the reply, please read my reply @Saqib has given totally wrong statement about the article, this article belong to public office holder and I keep my all articles very clean with valid citations, @Saqib did not helped to improve rather just complained he did not comply with the policy of warning you may check he just added the citation needed and did not wait for my reply, as we all here working as volunteer to improve the Wikipedia clean thus you as administrator should listen to my opinion as well I also left a message on his talk page he did not respond, lets work together to make the Wikipedia better place to work. If you see his all articles and contributions, every user should be respect equally, its very sad to see you didnt even listen to my opinon and you may view the article each edit has been provided with proper citation and edit summary. I hope you see the edit history you will understand that he didnt improve or wait just reported. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 09:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, accept my honest apologies, you are correct its not, it was an error,

I have undid and providing correct sources and improving article the after that i will update article as per policies. Thanks

however Mr @Saqib has been unreasonable to many things, as recently I declarer to self deletion of an article and he is being very disrespectful and answer to previous thread is that I think every contributor should take a responsibility or article which they are creating and am I wrong? as contributors its our responsibility to provide valid citations and make keep improving the articles so it can help people as much as possible.

And the way of Mr @Saqib is very authoritative we should be working as team, I agree I should not remove the citation need template I did not remove without providing edit summary.

He declared an article for delectation without putting any citation needed tag or improvement require, it clearly shows he has some issue with me which I really do not understand he gave a reference of 2012 I dont even know what edit he is referring, meaning he has been having this negativity against my edits since 2012 its very sad to hear.

Now please lets conclude this topic as we all know our time is very previous and we are here to edit main articles, to do the justice you may see @Saqib has been much active on talk pages instead of doing a constructive work on main pages. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 10:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just found out that Faizanalivarya (talk · contribs) has created some questionable BLPs as well. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annelise Coste and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ovais Mangalwala. And their justification doesn't make sense to me. I'm unsure how they obtained autopatrolled or pending changes review rights. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, its very disrespectful sir you are being very very unreasonable as per policy an author can declarer an article for self deletion and you are lying to administrator Ovais Mangalwala is very well respect and quite notable journalist form Pakistan as you are also from Pakistan you know very well. Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 10:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacking WP:NPA is really not good thing to do, you allege me for creating paid articles on deletion request, its really not good to put a blame on someone without proper evidence. Please do not do this with any other contributor every person is important here in Wikipedia and we contribute our time to improve this place and such comments from fellow Wikipedia is really not appreciated, quite sad to hear. Lets respect each other and lets work to improve Wikipedia WP:Pakistan project together, if you have any personal grudge against me please remove it I am very peaceful person.

Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 11:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of your existence until today, so your comments don't make sense to me. Regardless, since you're persistently adding original research and puffery material, I've re-added the tags. Please refrain from removing them. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Declined. This is not really about edit-warring but about general problems with Faizanalivarya. I strongly recommend that Saqib take this to WP:ANI. Having looked at Faizanalivarya's comments in various places and glanced at the articles he's created (although the ones I looked at were created many years ago), I struggle to understand how he's gotten this far without any sanctions. His userpage is an advertisement for himself. The articles he's created are a combination of poor English and peacock language, although, AFAICT, the subjects are notable. His attacks on Saqib are unacceptable, not to mention his weird idea that just because two editors are from the same country, they should work as a team. I agree with ToBeFree about the rollback privilege. Indeed, I don't think Faizanalivarya should have any advanced privileges.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't recall ever interacting with this user before today, so I'm not sure why they're suggesting I'm personally attacking them or holding a grudge. It sounds very strange, and they seem to be trying to play the victim. and well the last time I went to ANI, they questioned why I reported it, so I'm hesitant about going to ANI again. Could you perhaps take it there? I'm also concerned about this user, especially since they have autopatrolled and pending changes review rights. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib: Nothing requires you to go to ANI, but it won't be handled here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:149.62.207.134 reported by User:Personhumanperson (Result: Declined – malformed report)

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

User being reported: 149.62.207.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• 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) 13:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:MateuszCOMPANY reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: FSO Polonez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MateuszCOMPANY (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 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) to 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215905618 by Ybsone (talk)"
   2. 21:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215905539 by Ybsone (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) to 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215905103 by Ybsone (talk)"
   2. 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215905036 by Ybsone (talk)"
   3. 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215905000 by Ybsone (talk)"
   4. 21:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215904945 by Ybsone (talk)"
3. 21:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215904551 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
4. 20:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215900875 by Ybsone (talk)"
5. 19:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215891527 by Ybsone (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 08:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC) to 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
   1. 08:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1215785242 by Mr.choppers (talk)"
   2. 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Restore Dongfanghong corrections"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on FSO Polonez."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Far too many photos */ Reply"

Comments:

It seems that this user is edit warring on FSO Polonez Untamed1910 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Peter L Griffin reported by User:Beccaynr (Result: Page fully protected for 72 hours, placed under 1RR as a WP:CTOP action)

Page: Death of Nex Benedict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter L Griffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24] 0:34, 28 March 2024 (and similar unsupported versions, contrary to sources and WP:BDP, and while discussion is underway on the article talk page) (I also just noticed that this was the second removal of the reliably-sourced content in the Also section below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 0:34, 28 March 2024 [25] "There is not consensus to remove it. Get consensus first, then remove. Follow the rules." (this is not what the source or WP:BLPUNDEL states)
2. 00:11, 28 March 2024 [26] "explaining what the notes said in lead" (this is not what the source states) This is developing news and reports are continuing to update; the quote from the Oklahoma medical examiners report is "Handwritten notes that are suggestive of self- harm were found in the decedent’s room by family and provided to law enforcement" e.g. [27]; it appears the source used as a reference in the article has updated since being added and needs to be replaced; overstatement of the finding and POV by saying more than the primary source says appears to be a BDP issue.
3. 19:57, 27 March 2024 [28] "adding back relevant information to lead" (this is not what the source states)

Also:

1. 00:24, 28 March 2024 [29] removal of reliably-sourced information I had added about the family's dispute with the Oklahoma medical examiner suicide finding, and also quoted [30] and referenced in several places on the article talk page; Peter L Griffin's edit summary states "moving sentence to appropriate subsection and making it factual" - they also moved content away from the chronological section it is sourced to. Before the removal and move, I had updated my !vote in the discussion about a proposed move to reflect the article update [31], and mentioned the update in an article talk discussion with Peter L Griffin [32].
2. 00:27, 28 March 2024 [33] "undue to mention that family released a statement and not elaborate more." (elaboration was removed in the previous diff by Peter L Griffin, and moved out of chronological order, despite the emphasis on chronology by sources; I had recently added this content to the lead and was assessing the new developing sources for weight and considering how to summarize in a neutral and due manner)
3. 01:00, 28 March 2024‎ Peter L Griffin opened a requested move discussion, stating the family does not dispute the finding [34] - Peter L Griffin seeks to change the article title to "Suicide of Nex Benedict." This has been discussed at the article talk page in previous sections: Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Page_move and Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Criteria_for_page_move

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Recent_lead_addition_-_undue_detail? I raised a BLP/BDP objection at 22:43, 27 March 2024; see also Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#"caused_by_a_drug_overdose", e.g. my 00:23, 28 March 2024 comment discussing the challenges related to rapidly developing the lead with breaking news, lead development generally, and a reminder of the 3 CTOPs that apply to this article.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments:
I have not covered myself in glory as I have tried to rapidly and carefully respond to breaking news and contentious content in an article covered by 3 CTOPs being rapidly added (and removed). I was previously referred to as "obtuse" by Peter L Griffin [37], and I am now exhausted by trying to keep up with the developing news, and what I think are changes happening to the article that do not seem supported by sources, BDP and NPOV policy. Beccaynr (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As further context, Page statistics indicate that I have added approximately 52.8% of the article text; I mention this to indicate my familiarity with the sources. Also, Peter L Griffin was alerted to the 3 applicable CTOPs on 17 March 2024 [38] (in two edits, due to an initial typo). And I discussed WP:BLPUNDEL at Peter L Griffin's user talk at 20:31, 27 March 2024 [39]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• My understanding is that when multiple edits are performed by one editor uninterrupted, that we tend to count it as 1 edit towards the WP:3RR (let's call one or more consecutive edits by the same user a "chunk"). Looking at edits by respondent in the page history, I'm seeing:
  1. a first chunk ending at 19:27, 27 March 2024
  2. a second chunk ending at 19:58, 27 March 2024
  3. a third chunk at 20:12, 27 March 2024
  4. a fourth chunk ending at 00:27, 28 March 2024
  5. a fifth chunk ending at 00:40, 28 March 2024

The second, third, fourth, and fifth chunk are each clearly (partial) reverts in some way; the second restores a reference to self-harm in the lead that had been removed here, the third restores reference to a drug overdose in the lead that had been removed here, the fourth restores a reference to self-harm in the lead that had been removed here, and the fifth restores the same reference to self-harm in the lead. As such, respondent is over the 3RR.

Now looking at the same lens through edits by complainant, I'm seeing:

1. One chunk that ends at 19:53, 27 March 2024;
2. a second chunk that ends at 20:07, 27 March 2024;
3. a third chunk that ends at 20:46, 27 March 2024;
4. a fourth chunk that ends at 23:58, 27 March 2024
5. a fifth chunk at 00:33, 28 March 2024
6. a sixth chunk that ends at at 03:34, 28 March 2024

The sixth chunk doesn't look like a revert. Basically every other chunk (with perhaps the exception of the second one), however, does: the first chunk removed content that had been added to the lead here, the second chunk removed reference to a drug overdose from the lead that had been added here, the third chunk again removed reference to a drug overdose, and both the fourth and fifth chunk remove reference to self-harm from the lead that had been added here and here by respondent.

In the end, I could either block both complainant and respondent for edit warring with each other, or I could fully protect the page for a short amount of time to allow some discussion on the talk page to sort this out (ECP won't work here because the edit warring involves an XC editor). I don't feel in a blocking mood at the moment, and I think talk page discussion is going to be needed anyway to resolve the underlying content dispute anyway, so I'm just going to fully protect the page for 72 hours as a CTOP action. To deter future edit warring and encourage talk page discussion going forward, I will also be placing the page under a 1RR as a CTOP restriction. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

User:DonFB reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )

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

4RR over a little more than 1 day in order to remove the term 'tachymetric' (tachometric is also a synonym here) and the link explaining it. This is a complex article, a complex term, and the tachymetric feature was novel and innovative for this generation of bombsights. It's crucial to the article, to the level that absolutely deserves to be in the lede. Their explanation, "Inclusion of "tachometric" offers not insight but confusion for the ordinary reader, who is unlikely to know the term and will simply waste their time following the link. " makes no sense: we do use complex terms, even jargon terms, and the way we make them accessible is to link them like this.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

Andy Dingley (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Now they've finally started trying to justify this: Talk:Norden_bombsight#Tachy Andy Dingley (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)