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:Viennese Waltz reported by 91.125.11.18 (Result: Declined)

Page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Viennese Waltz (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 09:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) to 10:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
   1. 09:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1014829201 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"
   2. 09:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1014829901 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"

1. 09:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1014831692 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"

1. 10:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1014833493 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Editor has received repeated warnings from administrators and other editors over the past three years

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See edit summary 17:07, 26 March 2021

Comments:

This editor seems like he can only talk in edit summaries of reverts. 91.125.11.18 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

146.199.206.3 and 91.125.11.18 are both the banned user Vote (X) for Change. His contributions can be reverted on sight. He should not even be bringing this case. See WP:LTA/VXFC. --Viennese Waltz 12:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I read the cited page, which seems to consist of a lot of allegations unsupported by diffs and nothing relating to me. For example, the last report is this [1]. I checked the science desk archive around the time of the report and found this [2], this [3] and this User talk:90.192.119.245. There are two IPs involved 200 miles apart. 91.125.11.18 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not edit warring to revert the posts of a banned user. --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Declined, too much likelihood that the filer of this report is a banned user. Note that the reverts listed above are reverts of an editor, 146.199.206.3 (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked by User:Newslinger. This 149.* IP is suspected to be WP:LTA/VXFC, who is known to edit at the reference desks. It is plausible that the IP who filed this report, 91.*, is also VXFC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  Confirming that 91.125.11.18 (talk · contribs) is likely a community-banned user. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I see that at 19:54, 3 April 2021 Newslinger blocked 91.125.11.18 for 48 hours. It's last edit was on 29 March. So why did Newslinger show up to block it five days later? He claimed it is "likely a community-banned user" but gave no reasoning. On 29 March Viennese Waltz claimed it was a "banned user" but gave no reasoning. Newslinger rejected Viennese Waltz's claim on 29 March so it was not open to him to block subsequently without going to ANI to seek Community sanction for his proposed action. On 31 March EdJohnston claimed it was "plausible" that the IP" is [a named registered user]. That was wheelwarring, no reasoning was given, and more seriously since it is not permitted to link IPs to accounts it was WP:OUTING which attracts a permanent Foundation ban. EdJohnston also claimed 149.XX.XX.XX "is suspected to be" this registered user but no report for this IP was submitted. No reasoning was provided, so where was he getting his information?

Viennese Waltz also claimed (without giving any reason) that 146.199.206.3 was the same editor as 91.125.11.18. As Newslinger had already ruled that 91.125.11.18 was not banned, that means that 146.199.206.3 is not banned either. Checking 146.199.206.3's block log you will see that on 29 March Newslinger blocked it for "disruptive editing". If it had been a sockpuppet or an LTA he would have said so and would have had to give reasons. Again, at 19:41, 3 April Newslinger blocked 91.125.11.49 for one month claiming it was evading a block without giving reasons. It last edited on 1 April and was not blocked. So why did Newslinger show up two days later to block it? 146.199.206.72 also edited this section on 1 April. It was not blocked, so why did Newslinger show up two days later to block it? On 3 April Newslinger also claimed 91.125.11.18 had been engaged in "block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry" despite having given it a clean bill of health five days before. It's obvious he had no evidence, because if he did have evidence he would have been able to say which (of block evasion/ban evasion/sockpuppetry) it was alleged to be.

Newslinger has also linked numerous IPs to the named registered user without giving any reason, but this is not permitted under any circumstances. EdJohnston's sole argument is that IPs who edit the reference desk are ipso facto this named user. 146.200.241.113 edited this section at 17:50, 2 April and has a clean block log yet Newslinger claimed it was a block-evading IP without giving any reason. At 19:41 on 3 April Newslinger blocked 91.125.11.49 for one month claiming it was evading a block. It had edited this section on 1 April and was not blocked, so why did Newslinger show up two days later to block it without giving any reason?

Newslinger added a number of IPs to a page linking IP numbers to a registered editor. Although this is illegal, anyone can do it without giving any reason. For example, Jayron32 did this last year (IPs who ask reasonable questions on the reference desk and provide useful answers are never accused of being sockpuppets of any other editor). Jayron removed questions and answers claiming the IPs he linked to this registered editor had asked "provocative and leading questions." Provocative of what? Our article "leading question" says it "is a question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed." One question was "Is everything in construction designed, even minor works? For example, filling a pot hole or making good after doing work (whether that's ramping off edges or filling gaps between the road and hoarding etc." None of the information in the answer given was in the question.

Jayron removed another question with the comment "apologies for good faith answer". Why is he apologising for other editors' work in providing helpful answers to questions? The IP submitted an unblock request and was told (s)he could register an account, which (s)he wouldn't have been told if (s)he) was a "block-evading LTA". 89.240.119.163 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Knottinghill (Result: No violation)

Page Philosophy of physics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2 April 2021‎ (UTC) "‎Leibniz: this is all a bit trashy, but at least rm the "for instance", since it isn't an instance"

Comments: Insisting on deleting new information on Asian philosophy, which was added after conducting serious academic research and providing all its credible citations. Since the page only discusses European philosophical history and not ideas from other countries in the sciences, these edits were introduced. User has not given a proper reason for his actions but insists these pieces of information are "trashy" and "irrelevant". Has also been demeaning and not providing reasons for his explicit disruptive behavior on this page. This disruption has gone on for a few days already. Requesting for assistance in this matter. Just trying to use the page to teach my students. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knottinghill (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have only three reverts there. Which is the same number as K. The most recent edit [4] by Czello also re-removes K's stuff. Notice K's Just trying to use the page to teach my students - that's not what wiki is for William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – Nobody broke WP:3RR. This is a content dispute about Philosophy of physics which needs to be resolved in the usual way. That is, by seeking WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached there, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mirrored7 reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ariana Grande (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mirrored7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]

Update: 6 and 7 have both been made not only since this thread has been opened, but also after the user discovered this thread.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None. The user's talk page has had plenty of sections opened on their talk page in the past six months (tomorrow is the six-month anniversary of their third edit warring block) regarding edit warring, including a December 2020 ANI case regarding their edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ariana Grande#Demi Lovato "Met Him Last Night" in the career section covers most of the edits, and Talk:Ariana Grande#Doja Cat covers the last edits.

Comments:

This has been going on for six months. I'm tired of their edit wars. It's obvious they are still doing this. If you look at their contributions list, there have been consistent instances of edit warring since October 2020, and they show no intention of stopping anytime soon. Their December ANI case put them on thin ice, and that didn't do anything as they're still edit warring. I feel no need to warn them as it won't do anything, as demonstrated in the past. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 02:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply) (updated 03:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC))

@Doggy54321: There you go again. As you can see there are still on going discussions on the talk page. I'm very open to discuss, and of course it's not to go always my way, I'm pretty aware of that. But if the discussion not finished, then why reverting it back? You, and BawinV are doing the most on all of Ariana Grande's pages, for months now. Always trying to start pity arguments whetever she's should be considered a "real songwriter", or not, but add puffery on Taylor Swift pages. I even agreed to remove 'songwriter' from her description, just that you give rest, but you always find somwthing new to nag about. Admin, maybe it would be interesting to take a look on BawinV and Doggy54321's history of obsession on Ariana Grande and Taylor Swift pages. There you can see that their edits are hardly objective. I really have enough of this. Mirrored7 03:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@Mirrored7: The fact that you participated in a discussion after you made four out of five of those edits doesn't change the fact that you made those four edits. From what I've seen, you are not open to discuss. You responded one time to the various messages I sent you. I do not get how you don't get the message yet. You have been contacted by various editors over multiple months, you have been told to pretend the undo button doesn't even exist by an admin, you have been advised to talk before reverting, and you have not done anything about it. I can bring up every page you have edit warred on over the past several months if I want to, but I don't think that's going to be very helpful here. Now, I would love to have anyone sift through my contributions and find times that I have shown a bias, as that would allow me to determine exactly what edits I have made in the past that are not acceptable, which would allow me to, moving forward, immediately halt this type of behaviour, and I know Bawin feels the same. But, no diffs have been provided through your multiple claims that Bawin and I have shown a bias, so please put your money where your mouth is and show us some examples. I'm pinging BawinV so that they can add their two cents as well. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 03:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I almost took Mirrored7 to ANI out of frustration a couple of weeks ago when they continued to hit the undo button at the Ariana Grande article while completely ignoring my multiple pleas to them to please explain their edits on the talk page. The editor then completely deleted the part of the lead that I was disputing, again without acknowledging my discussion, and finally deleted the entire talk page discussion that I opened without ever acknowledging my question. While other users editing this page have been far from perfect, the fact that Mirrored7 is continuing to revert even after this report was filed seems to indicate that they may not be able to edit in this topic area without being disruptive. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: I told you that I'm not always on here, but I'm very open to discuss. I'm now on a discussion on the Ariana Grande talk page, but you and versacespace are reverting my edits, without even acknowledging my replies. And please don't start with BawinV. His edits has been distruptive, and he was reported because his edits multiple times. Your edits are very passive aggressive, and not as clear to read. You both seem to be a team what concerns the bias towards Taylor Swift and against Ariana Grande.

@Aoi: I'm sorry that I don't reply to you. But I'm not always in here. I took the "fashion" thing out of Grande's lead in the last days, agreeing to your edit, and even thanked you for your help on your talk page Mirrored7 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if my bit wasn’t clear, I was just trying to point out the Tu quoque I was seeing. If you aren’t always on here, then take some time after the fact to follow up. You not being active but always being willing to discuss isn’t a valid argument as it can be disproven with the kind of edits that Aoi showed above, where you completely ignored and then deleted a thread in which you were pinged four separate times, or the edits to your talk where you removed sections without adding a reply. I’ll have you know that I am a massive Swiftie and a massive Arianator, and neither of those seem to be affecting my editing. Bawin and I aren’t a team that tries to puff Swift articles and deflate Grande articles, as that would be WP:NOTHERE and would result in blocks for the both of us. Again, Tu quoque... D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 03:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Mirrored7 is doing the most to spurn tales about how Doggy and myself are some kind of a team (LOL). We both have multiple topics of interest on Wikipedia, where the common factor is TS. That's all about it. And for Mirrored's statement about me editing for "months" on Ariana Grande, I think he should do a quick fact-check. I haven't edited on Grande for MONTHS despite spectating all the rule-breaking happening in that article; why? because the whole atmosphere of that article made me feel so uncomfortable. It's extremely hard when one rogue editor takes control of an article and simply disrupts everything you contribute, and never wants to communicate (they simply delete my talk initiation from their user talk page). Therefore, I simply stopped editing on that article. I don't need that energy in my work. I'd rather put my effort in improving the quality of other better articles. Ariana Grande is nowhere near good quality (according to Wiki standards for biography, especially popular personalities), and we know why. I feel only bad for Doggy; their efforts to communicate with Mirrored7 was completely futile..Mirrored7 doesn't reply unless an admin is involved in the talk, LOL. That's why I think this discussion on Admins' noticeboard is very necessary for the good of Grande and related articles. BawinV (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! I'm a kitten and it doesn't affect my editing of Doja Cat related pages (other than the fact that I regularly update them). versacespacetalk to me 03:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 2 weeks. Since March 2020 Mirrored7 has been blocked for edit warring by four different admins. They've also been reported at ANI. It appears that Mirrored7 is not getting the message. If they can't work with others they may have a limited future on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:Heartfox (Result: Warned)

Page: Doja Cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Comments:
This editor has justified imposing their personal style preferences on an article by citing it as the "standard format", despite the fact alphabetical order for awards and nominations tables is widely used across featured lists and elsewhere. They have made these changes without consulting other editors on the talk page, despite the fact the table has been sorted alphabetically since June 2020. Heartfox (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As an affected party, this was not necessary. versacespacetalk to me 03:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Years first format has been widely used and accepted for years - I don't know why we have such a problem with this ?, Awards should never be done in alphabetical order as it means when they recieved the award would be all jumbled whereas in a Year format it's going from Years ago > Most recent .....,

I also don't understand why VersaceSpace felt they need to join in and tag team as that doesn't help anyone.

Anyway this is a mountain not worth dying on. –Davey2010^Talk 11:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010: you misunderstood me. i don't think you needed to be reported. versacespacetalk to me 12:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi VersaceSpace, Ah sorry I misread you - I thought you said it was necessary so apologies for that, At the end of the day I edit warred without going to the talkpage so Heartfox cannot be faulted, (They did what any editor would do). I've been here long enough to know edit warring is never acceptable but I chose to edit war anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Davey2010 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Doja Cat without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. Davey2010's statement above suggests that they won't continue to revert so no block is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Claus st margarita reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: )

Page: New Hollywood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Claus st margarita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015729190 by StjepanHR (talk)"
2. 05:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015728917 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
3. 05:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015728870 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
4. 05:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015728777 by StjepanHR (talk)"
5. 05:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015728662 by StjepanHR (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on New Hollywood."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is edit-warring on the page and is removing "better source needed" maintenance tag repeatedly. They have been asked to discuss on the talk page, warned about 3RR. But they have continued with this. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:BulgeUwU reported by User:VideoGamePlaya (Result: Both partial blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1011267684&oldid=1011267659

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] section: Possible issue with article pertaining to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in lead section

Comments:
This is a controversial subject, and by default disagreements like this are unavoidable. The information the reported user found objectionable has existed on wikipedia, without objection, for some time. Upon the user's first removal of the contentious information, I tried to resolve the issue by restoring and rephrasing it into something perhaps we could both agree on. This was folly on my part as a short time later this too was deleted, with no reciprocative attempt at compromise. I again restored the information, creating a relevant section on the article's talk page, inviting the user to clearly explain his objections, and then, after a conclusion is reached, shall we decide how to proceed. Again, this seems to have been folly on my part, as all the sources I had unearthed (highly respected mainstream newspapers, see talk) were dismissed by him as "fringe conspiracy theories" claiming everything they asserted was ahistorical, whilst offering none of his own to backup such a wildly inaccurate allegation. Before even giving me a chance to respond (to the extant one can respond to something like that), he'd already re-deleted the information in question. I again restored it, citing the BRD cycle and called for a cease fire, asking for patience until the talk page discussion is concluded, ideally with the input of others. I even asked him to personally suggest a reword-- something we could agree on-- anything we could do to resolve this, but it landed on deaf ears. Didn't even acknowledge it. Again, he re-deleted the information, this time on the pretext of the sources used being WP:Bare URLs. I made it clear the guideline blatantly states that while bare URLs are not ideal, they are permissible. I then asked him to provide some sources to prove that he was correct. This was ignored, completely, and he again proceeded to delete the information in question, this time not even leaving an edit summary. Despite my best efforts, I'm of the firm belief this individual cannot be reasoned with, which is a shame. As such I feel it is necessary to report the situation here, else there will be no end to it. It is odd, as this person is clearly at the least a somewhat experienced user and must know how unacceptable this is. As it stands, the information is no longer present on the page. I would restore it again, but it would not be long before Mr Bulge yet again decides to arrogate himself to the position of arbiter of what should and shouldn't be included on this website.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours I've partially blocked you both from the article itself, so you can both discuss on the talk page. You've both had a few reversions. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

My friend, I literally just made it perfectly clear I have no intention of making any further edits to the article, so this action achieves absolutely nothing in the way of resolving this problem, which, obviously, is the reason I'm here. I wasn't seeking to have anyone "blocked", me or the user I reported. I simply want this issue resolved. The line "so you can both discuss on the talk page" baffles me slightly. This tells me you didn't properly read (or at the very least misunderstood) what I wrote, as, again, I thought I'd just made this clear-- I have attempted-- to the best of my ability, to resolve this in a sensible, grown-up fashion via discussion on the talk page. I instigated said discussion-- Proof of which can be seen here in this edit summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1015346533&oldid=1015300071 "This information has existed on Rhodes' page in some form since this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1009897511&oldid=1009850248 over a month ago. It's removal should therefore be discussed on the talk page as per 3 revert rule-- which i have created a relevant section for."

As stated in my previous comment, however, these talks have been fruitless-- my attempts at compromise utterly (and quite rudely) ignored, and the user I've reported has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information based on nothing more than his own personal opinion, completely dismissive of said discussion on the talk page, not even giving me chance to respond. I do not believe any further dialogue will resolve this issue which is the entire point of my being here. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place? As stated, as it currently stands, reliably sourced information has been removed, and remains removed, based on someone's own personal objection to it. Further discussion is pointless and I refuse to waste any more of my time in doing so. What do we do to have this matter resolved? Is there a formal process?VideoGamePlaya (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:AntiSemanticCanard reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: )

Page: Post-finasteride syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "It's already been discussed in talk. Nobody has provided a source for the claim that Trueb et al are scientists. It's been shown several times they are dermatologists with a COI."
2. 07:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Cause */ The article cited was [not] authored by scientists, rather dermatologists expressing an opinion."
3. 06:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Cause */ This has been litigated in the talk. Trueb et al are NOT scientists. You were unable to provide a counter-argument. It explicitly states they expressed an OPINION. Opinions from non-scientists carry no weight."
4. 03:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Cause */ The source does not match the claim. S"
5. 00:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "No scientist says PFS is caused by mass psychosis"
6. 18:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "This claim was made by dermatologists, not scientists. Dermatologists are not qualified to discuss the field of psychiatry."
7. 18:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: see User Talk:AntiSemanticCanard

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Post-finasteride syndrome

Comments: This could be resolved if User:Alexbrn weren't so biased in his approach. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Trueb et al are not scientists but dermatologists. They explicitly state they are expressing an opinion. Opinions from non-scientists are not valid. This is a cut and dry case. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• You were previously linked to WP:EW where it plainly says that "being right" is not a defense (and you're wrong in any case). You have been warring against multiple editors. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Source of the claim says: 'More recently, Rezende et al. (65) and Trueb et al. (66) published an article, Post-Finasteride Syndrome: An Induced Delusional Disorder with the Potential of a Mass Psychogenic Illness? The authors labeled patients with PFS as psychotic and delusional, as stated in their discussion, “In our opinion, PFS demonstrates some analogies to such controversial “mystery syndromes” as amalgam illness, multiple chemical sensitivity, Morgellons disease, and Koro for the following reasons: patients complain of symptoms that cannot be adequately explained biologically, and the frequency of consultations for the conditions parallels the respective media coverage, which points to a high degree of suggestibility.' No where does it suggest Trueb et al are scientists but merely dermatologists with a COI expressing an opinion. Moreso, the lead author has a history of quackery, writing papers such as "Saint rita of cascia: Patron saint for women with frontal fibrosing alopecia?" and "Minoxidil for endocrine therapy-induced alopecia in women with breast cancer-saint Agatha's blessing?" and having them published in "peer-reviewed" journals. So not only is this 'scientist' not a scientist, he's a bizarre quack with a history writing strange papers with a veneer of scientific integrity.

My conclusion is Alexbrn shares the same religious beliefs as Trueb and is therefore unqualified to edit the controversial topic. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• If you have an issue with the content and are in a minority, you need to discuss that issue on the article's Talk page rather than repeatedly reverting everybody. An admin may wish to erase the potentially libellous BLP violation in the above (and there's similar at the article Talk page too). Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• I already did. Nobody, including you, has provided a source for the claim that Trueb at al are scientists. It's been shown they merely run a dermatologist practice and have a COI and a history of authoring papers about Catholic saints performing miracles. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

RM Trüeb is an ex-professor in the University of Zürich, and credited author of articles and some books. Dermatologists are scientists and, indeed, medical doctors. NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Dermatologists are not scientists. And even if he were, he is not qualified to discuss "mass psychosis" or "histrionic personality disorders" as he is a clinician (not a scientist) of skin disorders. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

AntiSemanticCanard is continuing to edit war while commenting on this report. - MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• The rule explicitly state: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." Dermatologists (with a history of writing quack papers) making claims of "mass psychosis and delusions" is an extraordinary claim. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:IAmPushpak reported by User:36.68.161.33 (Result: )

Page: Mohun Bagan A.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IAmPushpak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

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

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

Comments: This user has conducted edit warring and vandalism with ArnabSaha over addition of materials against the discussion/consensus related to the article and reliable sources and without following NPOV. 36.68.161.33 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:180.252.247.184 reported by User:Assem Khidhr (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 180.252.247.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 06:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 05:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 02:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 22:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1015899304

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was given multiple warnings by multiple editors, including a final warning (none of which issued by me). Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP in question has been blocked for 31 hours for vandalism... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:185.46.78.5 reported reported by User:Harizotoh9 (Result: )

Page: Andre Rush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 185.46.78.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]
7. [34]
8. [35]

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

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

Comments: Edit warring over last few days, plus BLP violations by inserting a controversy section sourced to Youtube vlogs. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Started discussion on article talk, though with 2 warnings ignored and at least 7 reverts over two days, I'm not expecting 185.46.78.5 to engage there. POLITANVM ^talk 23:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:107.10.140.224 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: )

Page: Stand and Deliver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 107.10.140.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Removed irrelevant content. An obscure 8 year old speech is not pertinent to the film Stand and Deliver and its legacy. It is incumbent on the individual who referenced the speech to show that it is an impactful aspect of Stand and Deliver's legacy. If someone says this edit is invalid, the burden of proof is on you to explain what about it is invalid."
2. 18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Removed irrelevant content.

An obscure 8 year old speech is not pertinent to the film Stand and Deliver and its legacy. It is imcumbent on the individual who referenced the speech to show that it is an impactful aspect of Stand and Deliver's legacy. I submit that it isn't."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "Final Warning: Removal of content blanking (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been blocked twice for edit warring, recent blocked expired and user has gone back to removing content, also attacking other users Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 19:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Avgeekamfot (Result: )

Page: American Airlines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blissfield101 (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=American_Airlines&oldid=1015856867
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines&oldid=1016000837
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines&oldid=1016002728
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines&oldid=1016003539

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

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

Comments:

He warned me about no more than 3 revisions but then I saw he did it too. Hope I'm doing this right

[[User:Blissfield101 reported by User:Avgeekamfot (Result: )

Page: Seattle Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Blissfield101 (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=Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport&oldid=1015856905
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport&oldid=1016000986
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport&oldid=1016002528
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport&oldid=1016003482

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

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

Comments:
Same as the one above. He warned me about making more than 3 edits but he already did? Also I started discussion on the discussion page of both.

This user made a factually incorrect statement about Seattle/Tacoma being a hub for American Airlines. He cites a Bloomberg article that uses the term hub in a general sense, not referring to a specific . Seattle/Tacoma is a hub for American's partner, Alaska Airlines, but it was never declared by AA itself. What this user doesn't understand is that kind of language is used in airport articles all the time when referring to this kind of stuff. That does not mean it passes the WP:V test. Where is the statement from American Airlines announcing Seattle/Tacoma as an American hub? I tried explaining, but he keeps insisting on reverting my edits. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You sent me a rule that says it's a "bright-line rule" not to undo another editors work more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. You've clearly done so and therefore you seem to be in violation of the rule you told me about. I await your block.

User:Klaysaurus reported by User:Wjemather (Result: )

Pages: 2020–21 PGA Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Klaysaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a. Previously discussed policy on user talk page.

Comments:
User readding content in clear violation of policy. Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE, only edits are to preempt golf tournament results. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

userlinks:Wjemather --> This user was the one edit-warring by inputting incorrect information. If you go to the section in question mentioned, you can verify that my edits were correct while the undos by the user in question were incorrect and intended to be disruptive. We have gone over this issue numerous times before and he keeps repeating his ludicrous and questionable behaviour even when other admins have stated that I am not under any violation. At this point, I have accepted this user to be an insecure clown trying to cause disruption and chaos over and over again. As for me, I will continue to be a valuable contributor to the Wiki community here. Thanks again! Klaysaurus (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that some of your predictions have turned out does not stop them being in violation of WP:V and WP:NOT. Several editors have reverted these predictions and you have edit-warred over them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: user also edit-warred at Jordan Spieth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); diff, diff, diff, diff. Has previously edit-warred over their policy-violating predictions at several other articles, as can be seen from their contribution history. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment A review of the reported editor's edit history shows a flurry of activity on Sundays—and a pattern of WP:CRYSTAL edits. I am also deeply troubled by the personal attack in the message here. I suggest that Klaysaurus make sure to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines about sporting events, especially about not forecasting the winner of an event still underway. Otherwise, there may be a Sunday in the near future where the administrators are discussing at the incidents noticeboard whether to topic-ban Klaysaurus from golf tournaments currently underway and their participants, broadly construed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Isento reported by User:Mo Billings (Result: )

Page: New York Dolls (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Isento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [42] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

The above is not a diff of edit warring, but a diff of their talk page comment. isento (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

That is a talk page post I started (and largely led) in order to resolve the dispute. isento (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments:
The article was on my watchlist from when I made an attempt to clean up the wording of one sentence back in February. Isento edit-warred then, too, and I just gave up. The edit in this 3RR report was originally made by a fairly new user, but reverted by Isento with an edit summary of "not important". That seemed like a very poor way to deal with a new user making a reasonable edit. Isento seems to have WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Mo Billings (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This guy has been hounding me ever since that first content dispute at New York Dolls (album), which mind you I tried to discuss at the talk page but the editor responded aloofly and without much civility or intellectual responsiveness and accused me of ownership, which offended me. Then they occasionally followed my edits elsewhere: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] (another bad faith assumption) ... As for this recent dispute, I thoroughly explained my reasoning for undoing at their talk page (including the fact that the "fairly new user" had cited self-published content to this featured article), but they are too slow to understand that they continuously were introducing inconsistent and badly formatted sourcing and still apparently do not understand that the content they are accusing me of removing already exists in footnote form beside the sentence they are badly rewording. I brought up WP:BOLD and WP:3RR as reasons why the discussion ought to be continued at the article talk page, but they once again chose a measure most severe to me and opened this report. Maybe this is an issue of competence, but I am doubting it. isento (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have had a busy stressful day and made one of those reverts in haste on my phone at work, and I didn't properly explain in the first edit summary. But this report is unnecessary, after I clearly was willing to discuss this with them. I don't understand this obsession they seem to have with me. isento (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Their attitude at the first talk page discussion made it clear they didn't care about engaging with anything I had to say and they even said they don't care about the article ([53]). That they returned to it in this manner, after following my activity elsewhere, tells me they're hounding and/or being pointy. isento (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As the comments above demonstrate, this editor is aggressive and hostile, which does not make me want to engage in long discussions with them over small changes to an article. Mo Billings (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to be held accountable for the things you do and say, why should you have any expectation that others ought to be? isento (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: I see no reason to change the format of the references in that article. I agreed with isento, your edit was sloppy. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't edit war back then, the time they are referring to of our first encounter. I reverted once, opened a discussion at the talk page, offered a compromise phrasing in another edit, and notified them of WP:BRD ([54]). This person seems more interested in annoying me than in any compromise. I even expressed an openness to their ideas in this current dispute so long as they discuss their point of view properly at the talk page instead of just reverting to their preferred revision. isento (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I was hoping to take a break from this site when this happened. If you're gonna block me for however long, you ought to ban this person from interacting with me. The earlier encounters, especially his nomination of some subpage I had for deletion, in retrospect are creepy. I don't understand his continued interest in me or my activities. And I don't want to. I had a strong interest and passion for this article because I had devoted much energy and care to getting it to FA-level a while back (and preserving that quality), and this person's interest seems to just be disruptive and petty and not about the article. isento (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Passani reported by User:Modulato (Result: )

Page: La Voce di New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1016044859 : Vandalism (Modulato is a hater and has undisclosed WP:COI). See Talk page"
2. 01:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC) "I removed the word "Italian" to avoid nitpicking."
3. 21:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1016007339 Vaccara is a US journalist. Italian OdG has nothing to do with it."
4. 21:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1016002761. Added total legit reference!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Voce di New York "/* La Voce di New York */"

Comments:

This user, creator of the article, went berserk after I nominated it for PROD (objected by him) and later for AfD, claiming I am a "hater". Opening a discussion in the Talk page has only had the effect of attracting new anonymous meatpuppets. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 12:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Can a senior editor take a look at this? Modulato has an undisclosed WP:COI and (Personal attack removed) to bring La Voce di New York to disrepute and kill its WP article. Thanks Passani (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Passani: Based on what do you assert an undisclosed COI? —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I have asked Modulato to affirm he/she has no WP:COI and he/she always refused/word around the request. Plus the amount of work Modulato is placing in repeating false claims that have already been shown wrong without showing any good faith in the discussion. He also makes modifications at the speed of light (meant at triggering some less known rules that relative beginners like me may not be aware of) to cry foul. Passani (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Passani: Having a page on one's watch list, where they can see as soon as an edit is made, is not evidence of a COI. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I invite you to take a look at how the discussion has unfolded in Talk:La Voce di New York to see what I mean. Modulato states that a journalist is not a journalist citing lack of references. I add (more) references to reputable sources and he'll remove them claiming that it is not reputable. Same goes for VNY address (they have an office inside the UN building and provide that address. Modulato uses this info to imply that VNY is representing affiliation with the UN, which they are not). Something fishy is going on here. Passani (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like nominating an article means you are a "vandal", "hater", and "COI editor". Oh well. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 13:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)