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:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: )

Page: Lion Capital of Ashoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Systematic reverting to own preferred version, this version evolving with time (documented below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Start at 09:07, 10 August 2022

1. 1st series of reverts (continuous)

• [1] (Revert of a photograph I added 2 days before [2]
• [3] (Revert of a new sourced sentence from 3 hours before [4]) ES: "removing shameless Hindu nationalist anti-Islamic promotion."
• [5] (Revert of images added 2 days before [6]) ES: "please don't replace these images with ugly cutouts to make some dubious point."
• [7] (Revert of text added 2 days before [8]) ES: "removing silly promotion; no text please, especially not one promoting your monumental cottage industry adn where did the satvahana 24 spoked go?"

1. 2nd series of reverts (continuous)

• [9] (Revert of image size change from 10 minutes before [10]. Tag: Manual revert) ES: "please don't play this silly game"
• [11] (Revert of text added 15 minutes before [12])

1. 3rd series of reverts (continuous)

• [13] [14] (Revert of new text and image added 1 hour before [15]) ES: "Please don't dicker around with the pictures such a blatant fashion and then go to ANI crying 3RR"

1. 4th revert

• [16] (Revert of text with reference and quote added 10 minutes before [17], Tag: Reverted) ES: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): I will revert this because this is blatant anti-Islamism. I know you are baiting me to take me to ANI cring 3RR. Please dont play with fire. You are unable to understand his irony and are implicating a recently deceased art historian your islamophobia. Utterly shameful."

End at 15:32, 10 August 2022

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

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

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

Comments:

Systematic reverts of my contributions and unrelenting battleground mentality, major WP:OWN. Utterly disrespectful of collaborative editing:

1) "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly" [21]

2) " "Let us keep the article in its current state at the time of this post", a state in which "all have been added by me (...) and all have been paraphrased by me" [22]

3) "Here is an article that I have written from start to finish. You have done nothing user:Patiliputra but be disruptive." [23]

Outrageous and abusive edit summaries. Irrational, mistaken arguments and major abusive language on the Talk Page of the article [24]. Fowler&fowler apparently thinks he is above Wikipedia rules and civility standards. Something has to be done. Fowler&fowler was already Warned 2 times previously for similar behaviour [25] (by Admin User:EdJohnston) and [26], to no avail. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I'm not much concerned about the warning from 2021, but the warning from last month is I think relevant. It took me a while to figure out, but the warning was given by Bishonen, not by EdJohnston. F&f in one of their edit summaries refers to User:Patiliputra; do you know to whom they're referring (there is no such user)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: "Pataliputra" is the reading of my Hindi user name (User:पाटलिपुत्र) पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowler

• I have just finished rewriting Darjeeling and received this appreciation from some FAR regulars. The article will appear as TFA on India's independence day on 15th August. I collaborated there with the nominator of the original FA back in 2006. There was never any issue over the more than 1100 edits I made in the last several months.

• This is not my first encounter with user:Pat, or पाटलिपुत्र—which I was told was the Sanskrit spelling of Patliputra.

• They have engaged in WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA, and persisted despite my revert in order to bait me.

• The last time user:Pat and I had such an encounter was in August 2020, on the talk India page when user:Pat had engaged in unapologetic Xenophobia. India is another FA that I had revised in plain sight of dozens, including administrators over a three-months period before its TFA on Gandhi's 150 birthday on October 2 2019. A year later, in a thread begun by a a Hindu-nationalist-POV promoting editor who is now ARBIPA topic banned (but to whom I still showed empathy in that link), user:Pat objected to a picture of a church and proposed something Hindu should replace it; they objected to a picture of a mosque, and proposed something Hindu should replace it and then they objected to a picture of our son who had turned 30 just then and whose pictures modeling the Kurta had been in Wikipedia since 2007 when he was a teenager, and proposed that someone who is "an actual Indian" should replace him, and guess who the proposed candidates were? All three Hindus. (Hmm. I thought India was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society; I wrote the India FA's lead which proclaims it) I immediately received emails from administrators to withdraw the picture, that it was obvious instance of baiting me to take a misstep, and that in viciously Hindu nationalist India of today, you don't know what it might lead to. So I took the picture out.

• This time they have engaged in gratuitous WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA—low-grade it might have been, but it was unmistakeable in the manner in which it was accomplshede—by selectively picking a sentence from a recent book that says many things over many pages in many shades of nuance, and then misinterpreting it. Again the MO is the same: bait someone by speaking politely, making edits that technically don't fall under reverts but have the same effect, quote rules and regulations loftily and sanctimoniously, but edge more and more into forms of hatred that all principles of Wikipedia anathematize, and wait for your opponent to blow up.

• The article is Lion Capital of Ashoka, which was in this state of disrepair before I began to edit it on July 14, 2022. I have turned it into this state of improvement as of early this morning when took out the "in use." Over 90% of the text, the paraphrasing, and the turns of phrase, are mine. Over 90% of the sources are the ones I have added.

• What is user:Pat's MO? They appear immediately after and introduce the same pseudo-Hindu-nationalist or Hindu-sub nationalist twists (i.e favoring the region Bihar and its ancient glory in which their avatar name Patliputra lies) They do so politely and wait for me to revert their edits. When I do, they get their edits, or a second-cousin third-removed of their edit back in, and wait for me to take a misstep. I am aware of this of course; I noted it in my edit summary yesterday.

• First they restored to full-size an image whose increased dimension makes the infobox stick half-way through section 1. I had made a special note of it in the previous edits.
• To the sentence "The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried." they [added the old Hindu nationalist excuse, "or may have been overthrown by Muslim invaders in the 10-12th century CE." edit in the lead, when there was no mention of it anywhere else in the article; they cited it, moreover, when there are no citations in the lead. Worse yet, they maligned a fine recently decease art historian at the the University of Minnesota, Frederick Asher, by including them by implication in this unholy obsession.
• When I reverted them, they inserted the edit back in with this poor paraphrase of Rick Asher from page 74.

• Why am I sure this is Hindu-nationalist POV promotion and baiting besides? Because Asher says many things, with great nuance throughout the book. On page 3 (yes right in the beginning) he says,

  "Something happened that brought premodern construction at Sarnath to an end after the twelfth century and, in all probability, caused the resident monks to desert the monastery. That was about the same time that other monasteries in India seem to have been abandoned. Generally, the blame is placed on invaders, almost invariably identified by their religion, Islam, rather than their geographic or cultural identity, Afghans. But Sarnath may have also suffered devastation by Hindus, not just by invading Afghan armies. An intriguing explanation for this, and also for possible interruptions in the long life of the site, is offered by Giovanni Verardi and, at greater length, by Federica Barba in an appendix to Verardi’s book.19 They make a strong case, based on both literature and archaeology, that Brahmanical hostility toward Buddhists resulted in the destruction of Sarnath and other sites.

  And then he goes on to mention many other explanations, including Muslim.
• So what is the bottom line here? If the powers-that-be want to block me or permanently ban me, that is their prerogative, but I refuse to brook forms of hatred, blatant or insouciant, on Wikipedia, against any religion, gender, or form of life. I have warned user:Pat numerous times to stop this promotion, and that I will take them to AN asking for a topic ban, at the very least from the mainstream India-related articles, but as it is, I am the one who is being dragged to AN/I in carefully planned baiting trips. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

PS Please do not clog this section with long posts. Do so, in whatever way you want in the sections below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment by पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk)

1) For the record, I have no interest at all in promoting "Hindu nationalism" (the fact that I chose a user name after an ancient Indian city, पाटलिपुत्र-Pataliputra is irrelevant), and have no inclination whatsoever towards "Islamophobia" (here invoked repeatedly and grandiloquently simply because I quoted and paraphrased closely a reliable source (Asher 2020, p.74) on what "writers generally assume" to be the cause of the destruction of the Lion Capital of Ashoka [27], in light of the well-known and not so peaceful Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. See Asher 2020, p.11 for specifics on major Islamic destructions at Sarnath, especially under Qutb-ud-din Aibek in 1193. Of course, Hindus may also have participated to the decline, especially in the form of temple conversions under the Gahadavala dynasty, per Asher).

2) The bottom line is that User:Fowler&fowler is a rather competent content creator, but a highly WP:OWN one (see User:Johnbod's mention of "F&F's imperial claims of ownership" [28]) with a battleground mentality, wielding constant disruption (see User:Snow Rise's comment to him: "looking at the conduct in this thread, I have to say that yours is looking like the much, much more WP:Disruptive conduct at the moment." [29]), who will systematically vilify ("You know nothing about Indian history. Nothing" [30], "You have no idea at all how much I despise your POV." [31]), delete and revert (overt breaches of 3RR) the contents of any perceived opponent until he can contentedly brag that "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly" [32][33][34] or "I have rewritten this article, rewritten its every word, found its every reference." [35]. If interested, just look at the level of verbal abuse other editors have to endure everyday when dealing with him [36] (and it is just one example among many...), to be contrasted with the "rigorously cold civility" he reluctantly acknowledges in me [37].

3) I know there is not much I can do about it, but I don't mind lengthy Talk Page discussions and receiving imput from other users to debate a point [38], although this process is rendered rather ineffectual since Fowler&fowler is not actually interested in genuine exchanges on Talk Pages ("I hadn't noticed that because I don't read your data dumps." [39]). At least I would like basic Wikipedia rules to be rigorously upheld in the process: no verbal abuse or personal attacks, and no edit-warring (with particular respect for the 3RR rule). If, through Administrator intervention, Fowler&fowler can be made to respect these basic tenets of collaborative editing, the editorial environment would be much better for everyone. After several administrative warnings already [40][41] I believe a symbolic, temporary block is in order at this point, so that Fowler&fowler receives the message that editing should be civil and collaborative, and that refraining from edit-warring and observing the 3RR rule is a red line that has to be respected on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Replies

user:Pat, I've been around on WP for 16 years. I have maintained the FA India for just as long. I have collaborated with hundreds of editors, not just only India (where I have collaborated with dozens of people including many administrators), but on FAC, FAR, and lord knows what else. You have the nerve to say you are not racist (when you say, "An actual Indian," thereby implying that someone who does not look Indian does not have the right to model Indian clothes, especially for a Wikipedia article. No one has as yet in the 15 years since produced better examples at Kurta. Ten years ago you would have been banned from WP for such racism. I am being gentle with you by calling you xenophobic. It is the same as your other remarks here

You object to a picture of a mosque that has been in the FA India since 2004, with the comment,

"The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."

You object to a WP:FP of a church with the remark, "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."

What else is Hindu nationalism and majoritarianism? Admin Vanamonde93 who replied to you later in that thread said pretty clearly, "The argument that "society" and "religion" ought not to be illustrated with images of Islam or Christianity is the sort of sectarian nonsense that I would almost recommend sanctions for."

I let you off lightly that time and a few times since warning you that I would take you to AN for a topic ban, but never actually did. But you don't seem to listen. You are religion baiting in your edits, some the worst kind I have seen on my 16 years on WP. The worst. You think it is not obvious that you appear on a page that you have edited ten times in the last ten years, and then suddenly begin to hover over it in hundreds of little edits soon after I appear? How strange is that? I just collaborated with user:Dwaipayanc another WP veteran on Darjeeling and received this barnstar from them. There are a handful of people on Wikipedia, all Hindu nationalist warriors user:Highpeaks35 (now permabanned), user:LearnIndology (now topic banned) with whom I have experienced such unpleasantness as I have with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

In case you are looking to deny that you only occasionally edited that article, here is your own disclaimer: "I have only contributed to this article in a rather patchy fashion, most of the content has never been my own. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)" So why have you been hovering after I appeared? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Finally, I have nothing personal against you, but as long as you do prolific original research on images, cutting out snippets from here, pasting them there, endlessly, ever and anon, to overburden pages with boosterism of Hindu nationalism or Hindu sub-nationalism, not to mention baiting of Islam, Christianity, you will find an implacable foe in me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

A new Wikipedia normal seems to be appearing. I'm seeing it on other pages. It proceeds in these steps. 1) Bone up on the basic rules so you can quote them. 2) Introduce POV edits in mainstream pages. 3) Concurrently, start a talk page discussion. Find a long list of fringe sources that support your edits and rigorously dump the same in each reply without really saying anything. 4) When your edit is reverted do not revert, but make a new edit that has 3/4 of your original POV combined with 1/4 of some other POV 5) When that gets reverted, make a new edit with 1/2 your original POV and 1/2 of some new POV content. Start also a 3RR clock now for your opponent. ... Continue in this fashion until you think you can start ANI discussions.

The letter of the law will prevail. The spirit of the law will take a severe beating. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

That user:Pat is a serial abuser of fringe sources is not just my observation, it is that of others as well. Here is what Ms Sarah Welch said in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/पाटलिपुत्र/Archive about user:Pat and their sockpuppet: " both have used inscriptions and artwork to create POV-y history in a range of articles, pushing fringe and discredited theories". That was in 2017. And I said above on 11 August 2022, "prolific original research on images, cutting out snippets from here, pasting them there, endlessly, ever and anon, to overburden pages with boosterism of Hindu nationalism or Hindu sub-nationalism, not to mention baiting of Islam, Christianity." On the other hand the last time I was blocked was in 2008 for an hour and the admin said, "Not all Fowler's fault." So, why is it that user:Pat is the first (a few weeks ago) and second (now) to bring me to ANI? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Short summary reply to Fowler&fowler

@Fowler&fowler: I am afraid this litany is all far-fetched and totally irrelevant to the matter at hand: I too could list, in a period of 5 years, pages of instances of mistakes, editorial conflicts, and inappropriate behaviour on your part (which I think a few Administrators are well aware of). The matter here is only related to your daily editorial behaviour: edit-warring, breach of the 3RR rule, in addition to the constant incivility and verbal abuse (documented above, in just a single article). We can discuss about sources whenever your want (if at least you actually use Talk pages for discussion rather than just vilifying: cf "I hadn't noticed that because I don't read your data dumps." [42]) The point of this thread is simply that every interaction on Wikipedia has to be made in a civil manner, without personal attacks, without edit-warring and without repeatedly breaching the 3RR rule. At Wikipedia too the Law is the Law, that's all, nobody is above it, and nothing can justify constant abusive language against other editors and wanton editorial methods... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

But values are above the laws instituted to uphold them. By making fringe edits, you are violate WP values of reliability and neutrality. In other words, there are plenty loopholes in the law to be exploited (such as #4 in my new rulebook above). They can be couched in the most respectful edit summaries. Whatever I do, reliability and neutrality are never violated. Whatever you do, at least on mainstream South Asia-related topics where are interaction has usually taken place, you almost always violate reliability and neutrality. I am talking about the ladder that you are damaging disastrously. You are accusing me of not polishing the rungs of the ladder enough when I set it right. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: I have given the facts to the best of my ability, and I do not intend to respond further until closure by User:Bbb23.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

As for this post, you are only confirming the new POV-pushing pattern I have seen: 1) Bone up on Wikipedia rules and quote them compulsively even to old hands 2) Clog the talk page with long lists of fringe sources in every reply of yours, i.e. data dumps. ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User Pat has accused me of OWNERSHIP on account of my "bragging" about having written it, the page statistics of the article says it all.

Authorship attribution

Rank     Username     Characters     Percentage

1      Fowler&fowler       27,215         84.3%

2      पाटलिपुत्र                2,916           9%

Their own disclaimer for bearing any responsibility for the pathetic state the article was in when I began to edit it on July 14, was that they had only patchily edited it. But since I began to edit it, they have done nothing but edit the article or the talk page. Just astounding. See here. What encyclopedic content have they created? Nothing as far as I can tell. On the other hand, I seem to have done quite a few other things. See here Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

To the closer: Please examine: Talk:Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka#A_note_for_the_closer and user:Pat's "Temporary tally" above it. Although the note is for a different closer, do you see the kinds of subtle shifts of narrative between below and above? Similar shifts, but more POV-ridden, accompany the edits that people such as I have to counter. If we make a misstep, or become frustrated, the lord above help us. It is relentless. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:176.46.113.248 reported by User:Spaully (Result: Blocked)

Page: Psychiatry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 176.46.113.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Original addition
2. Revert 1
3. Revert 2
4. Revert 3
5. Revert 4 - Note this is by a different IP, with no other previous edits, however with the same edit summary style and continuing the same discussion, and at the same time as a reply on the talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

Comments:

This is a little difficult as I obviously do not have the tools to prove whether the second IP is the same person, but on face value this seems likely. Thank you for looking into this and happy to talk any advice on this, hopefully the IP user will engage properly in the talk page discussion. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  12:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked for a week for edit-warring and generally bizarre edits. They're clearly the same person. What on earth is this "blood ritual" business? Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I've siteblocked because of the tendentious nature of their behavior on the talkpage and the generally strange nature of their repeated edits, which do not lend me much confidence that they're going to contribute collegially. If it had been more potentially helpful edits, I would have done a partial block, but their behavior is veering into disruption. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey. I'm quite aware of the danger of throwing around mental health diagnoses, particularly when used to dismiss people's arguments, but it's worth bearing in mind some of the the symptoms of mania, hypomania include things like loose associations of ideas, overconfidence and "pressure of speech". These symptoms can be one-off, episodic or reduced through medication, or caused by drugs (whether prescribed as medication or obtained illicitly). People who are experiencing such symptoms are likely to be more interested in topics surrounding psychiatry. The effect of this is that judgments of character of those who are exhibiting such behaviours may be valid for shorter periods of time than is true in general, so there is potentially an argument for month-long rather than year-ong or permanent blocks should issues continue. (Note that I reverted some the edits are raised the issue on the medicine project). Talpedia (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:47.40.118.147 reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: Semi-protected 3 months; subsequently blocked the IP for 48 hours for disruption)

Page: List of recessions in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 47.40.118.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC) "User was warned for Edit waring. Please use the talk page to discuss changing the commonly accepted definition by NBER that other banks use to announce a recession. Please do not continue to edit war thank you."
2. 15:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC) "The Bank of England Also uses the NBER definition, which most modern banks are based on. it is the commonly accepted definition. User is edit waring and politically motivated to remove NBER as the commonly accepted definition"
3. 15:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC) "100% Commonly accepted, It only wasn't commonly accepted when a certain US president before midterm elections spun inflation out of control, please use the discussion page to change it any further thank you. Reverting edits will result in a edit war warning."
4. 15:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC) "Commonly accepted definition of a recession."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on User talk:Hey man im josh."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 10:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC) to 15:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC) on Talk:List of recessions in the United States

Comments:

User is WP:POVPUSHING, quick to lash out and accuse anybody of disagreeing with them as doing so for political reasons, and has violated WP:3RR while threatening to warn users for edit warring if their preferred version is reverted. They also did not want to wait until a talk page discussion had been completed to make their preferred change. WP:NOTHERE. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"Attempts to resolve" more like you didn't use the talk page when presented with evidence that supports my claim and instead went on attacking me directly. You have STILL yet to present a single shred of evidence to support your claim its not commonly accepted. 47.40.118.147 (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Please be clear on how I attacked you directly, as I don't see that. I reverted your original edit and said I didn't think it was necessarily commonly accepted. You responded by threatening to issue an edit war warning against me. You've repeatedly accused me of edit warring but the onus and you're repeatedly accusing me of being politically motivated. Whether you're correct in your edit is up for discussion (one link does not make something "commonly accepted"), but fact of the matter is you've violated the WP:3RR. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The user has posted an edit warring warning to my page four times now, each time I've removed it (as it was issued inappropriately and while not using the template properly). 1, 2, 3, 4

They've also left a message I'd call harassment on my talk page, calling me a whiney little libtard and more and they're also politically ranting on another user's talk page here. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• I now have blocked the IP for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:202.63.71.241 reported by User:Tamzin (Result: Semiprotections)

Pages:

• Puberty blocker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Chemical castration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 202.63.71.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously 125.253.107.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Previous version reverted to:

• At Puberty blocker: [47]
• At Chemical castration: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At Puberty blocker:

1. [no ES]
2. [generic ES]
3. [generic ES]
4. This does not require consensus of wiki contributors. As per the provided source these drugs are used for chemical castration of sex offenders. This is a simple statement of fact listed alongside other standard medical uses (e.g. endometriosis, prostate cancer)

At Chemical castration:

1. [generic ES]
2. [generic ES] (also rvs an unrelated intervening edit)
3. [generic ES]
4. This is not a contentious issue. It is a basic statement of fact - as per the provided source (see Table 2 - Anti-androgens). It is normal medical practice to use these drugs as puberty blockers, and chemical castratants..

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• EW warning from me
• 3RR warning from Sideswipe9th

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [49]

Comments:
Two related edit wars, so I'm reporting both together. The IP is at (but not past) 3RR on both, but has been warned twice now and is expressly rejecting the idea that they must get consensus for their edits. I think at least some form of their edit to the Puberty blocker article is probably reasonable, but no editor is exempt from having to discuss proposed changes when another editor objects in good faith. And multiple editors have objected in good faith to these POV-tinted edits in a sensitive topic area.

125 and 202 are clearly the same person based on geolocation and behavior. 198.30.180.98 made the same edit once, but based on geolocation I think they're someone else. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both articles indefinitely semiprotected under authority of WP:GENSEX. I'm logging this result in WP:DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Unbh reported by User:MaxBrowne2 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]

Comments:Purely diruptive edit warring based on misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL to past events, and IDHT behaviour when explained that the point of the example is to illustrate a chess theme, not to keep a historical record. Has invented a non-existent rule that only moves that were physically played on a chess board are valid examples.

No I'm asking you to cite sources for your OR. Not inventing rules. Your edits about what could have happened in these games are entirely speculative and your are not providing sources. You can illustrate with examples of something that happened, with sources, but not with your own projections of how a game could have played out that didn't happen and without providing any sources that support this analysis.

This editor seems to suffer from WP:OWN issues when asked toprovide sources and has also been exceedingly rude in edit summaries https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxBrowne2&diff=prev&oldid=1103755472 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Promotion_(chess)&diff=prev&oldid=1103579102 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxBrowne2&diff=prev&oldid=1103612258 among many others

Bottom line is you blatantly violated WP:3RR which is a bright line. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

So have you if you want bright lines, and in fact before I did. And I haven't been outrageously rude along the wayUnbh (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

If I get a boomerang for rudeness so be it. It's also extremely rude to repeatedly template people who ask you not to, instead of using your own words. You are an extremely disruptive editor who edit wars on multiple articles and removes a lot of good content for spurious reasons. As for WP:OWN, I don't feel any particular attachment to this article, but I will defend it from editors like you who clearly have little understanding of the subject matter. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Fully protected and I have put the article back to what appears to be the last semi-stable version before the edit-war. You've got two weeks to discuss it. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User:FlantasyFlan reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 72h)

Page: Anne Heche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:40, 12 August 2022 "Undid revision 1104115137 by Ccbls001 (talk) Second warning: Discuss in talk page before vandalizing"
2. 19:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104114756 by Ccbls001 (talk) Discuss in talk page before vandalizing page."
3. 19:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104114364 by KD0710 (talk) Discuss in talk page before making major edit."
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC) to 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104113517 by EvergreenFir (talk) Please stop vandalizing. Discuss on talk page."
   2. 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104113480 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
5. 19:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "legally dead should be relegated as a detail, not used to say she's dead. nyt, cnn, npr still haven't said she's dead"
6. 19:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "Do not say she's dead until reliable sources (like AP, Reuters, CNN, etc.) clearly say she's dead."
7. 18:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "The Guardian relies on an Instagram post by a friend. Not sufficiently reliable. NYT, AP, Reuters haven't independently verified the claim yet."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "/* NOT dead as of 11 AM PDT Aug 12 */ Reply"
2. 19:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022 (2) */ Reply"
3. 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "/* Footnote */ Reply"

Comments:

Hey. User EvergreenFir keeps vandalizing Anne Heche's page. They're trying to make the edit she's dead. The issue though is all the articles they're linking to are citing a single Instagram post by Heche's friend who alleges she's brain dead. Then EvergreenFir synthesizes that because under California's law brain death is death, they make the edit. I let them know SEVERAL times that they can't do this, as multiple reliable orgs (AP, CNN, NYT) still haven't declared Heche dead. EvergreenFir continued anyway in vandalizing the page. It's sad to see them resorting here, but I can't let them keep vandalizing all based on an unreliable claim. Thanks. FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I will direct you to WP:NPA regarding your repeated accusations of vandalism, which this is not. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't attack you personally. I merely stated that you vandalized the page, as you kept changing the content of the page without regards to verifiability and despite multiple warnings. Multiple news orgs (ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Fox News, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, BBC, CBC, etc.) have not declared Heche dead. At all. So to cite The Guardian's article, which relies on a single Instagram post that is an allegation by a friend that Heche is brain dead, does not meet W:RS. FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I should have linked WP:ASPERSIONS, not NPA though repeated accusations of vandalism can count as personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. This block would have been shorter (and maybe partial) if the edit-warring wasn't compounded by repeated baseless accusations of vandalism against fellow editors ([57][58][59][60] etc.) and a complete refusal to back down. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Tytygh55 reported by User:gsblo (Result: )

Page: Apple Wallet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tytygh55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1102763958]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1104030061
2. 1103864501

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1104170043

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1104171962

Comments:

This user is inventing reasons for undoing my contributions on the "Apple Wallet" wiki page. The first undo was claimed as an “unnecessary section” with no discussion. The second undo, in less than 24 hours, was claimed because my contribution “lacks citations”. Before I restored (undo'ed the user's undo) my contributions I double checked each time to make sure my contributions were not against Wikipedia's policies.

I also noticed that in the article's Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apple_Wallet#%22Common_Wallet_Passes%22_should_not_be_on_this_page), I have not been able to substantiate the user's claims on Wikipedia content policy (bias, all or none required).

Upon further investigation, I noticed that this user appears to have a history of unconstructive editing going back to the account's creation in 2016, if I refer to the history of this user's Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tytygh55&action=history. Given the number of unconstructive editing, editing without consensus, and vandalism reports, I am bringing this user's activity and behavior to your attention. Gsblo (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)