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:Epwikieditor reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: No violation, should go to AN/I)

Page: Carlos Pérez (radiation oncologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Previous editor insists on reverting to inaccurate versions with false facts. Correcting for accuracy. Undid revision 1174682629 by Bbb23 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) to 01:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
   1. 01:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "BBB23 is behaving like an egotistical, unprofessional troll who insists on reverting to versions with factual errors. See Talk for details. Undid revision 1174674008 by Bbb23 (talk)"
   2. 01:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Minor stylistic changes."
   3. 01:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Correct typographic error."
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) to 00:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
   1. 22:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "To BBB23: The most recent edits to Dr. Perez's page have been made by Dr. Perez's family, on the occasion of his recent passing. Respectfully, I am undoing your removal of my most recent edits because I respectfully disagree that the updated edits are "not constructive." There are numerous changes that correct previous errors, add context, and correct broken hyperlinks. Please do not revert. Undid revision 1174654310 by Bbb23 (talk)"
   2. 22:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Fixed typographic error in name of ASTRO organization."
   3. 23:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
   4. 00:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Moved external websites from hyperlinks in body to "External Links," at bottom of page."
   5. 00:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Correction to Radiation Oncology departmental status"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) to 21:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
   1. 20:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected place of birth, from Medellin to Pereira, Colombia; updated information regarding publications; clarified biographical information and department status at MIR from 1976 to 2001; added detail regarding professional awards; added numerous supporting hyperlinks."
   2. 20:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected broken hyperlink for Academy of Science in St. Louis."
   3. 20:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected broken hyperlink for TomoTherapy reference."
   4. 20:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected broken hyperlink for TomoTherapy reference."
   5. 20:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   6. 21:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
   7. 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
   8. 21:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
   9. 21:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""
   10. 21:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Corrected hyperlink for M.D. Anderson Cancer Center."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Carlos Pérez (radiation oncologist)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is a member of the Perez family. I have left a WP:COI on their Talk page. I have warned them for their disruptive edits, which are replete with promotion and significant stylistic errors. They have not only insisted on reinstating their poor edits but have attacked me in an edit summaries (I'm apparently a troll) and declared their intention to continue reverting ("I will not rest"). I have reverted 3x, which, tbh, is one more than I prefer to do. I am also obviously WP:INVOLVED. Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrator should provide examples of "disruptive edits" which he claims, without substantiation, are "replete with promotion" and contain "significant stylistic errors."

Administrator have never provided a single example or reference on which such claims are based.

If administrator provides examples and explanation of content believed to be problematic or "promotional", we can have a civil conversation and try to agree on modifications. Instead, the administrator is simply reverting to factually inaccurate articles without explanation. Epwikieditor (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No violation There have been only three reverts so far.But everything else is a problem: civility, POV, COI, sourcing or the lack thereof. This really should be discussed at AN/I; it’s outside the scope of this page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:103.171.44.94 reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: Already blocked)

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

User being reported: 103.171.44.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174731772 by Semsûrî (talk) The uploader Allice Hunter stated Information available on page Basques and Basque diaspora on the English Wikipedia with UploadWizard in the file history."
2. 09:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174731422 by Semsûrî (talk) Basque people live in those highlighted countries. See the Basque diaspora article."
3. 09:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174730815 by Semsûrî (talk) It’s a good image for the infobox. It highlights the Basque diaspora."
4. 08:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174465921 by Semsûrî (talk) Other articles about ethnic groups such as Catalans uses the same map."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

3RR breaches and has a lack of understanding in regards to not adding unsourced information (map in this case) to Wikipedia. Semsûrî (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Pirate of the High Seas reported by User:Thewikizoomer (Result: Page protected)

Page: 2023 G20 New Delhi summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pirate of the High Seas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Same goes for you. take it to the talkpage for consensus"
2. 12:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "restoring mass content removal without consensus"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) to 12:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
   1. 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "disputed by whom?"
   2. 12:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Preparations */"
4. 04:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "moved Background section"
5. 09:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "moved to Preparations"
6. 07:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2023 G20 New Delhi summit."
2. 12:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on 2023 G20 New Delhi summit."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user (Pirate of the High Seas) has added non-neutral material to this article. A user later (Shaan Sengupta) has reverted and disputed with this edit. This user (Pirate of the High Seas) is resorting to edit warring. Requesting administrators direction. Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Not vandalism. Edit warring between @Shaan Sengupta and @Pirate of the High Seas Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Admins, please note that User:Thewikizoomer is involved in removal of sourced content, edit warring and helping his pal User:Shaan Sengupta evade 3RR by tag-teaming.

See:

(1) 15:34, 9 September 2023,

(2) 12:44, 10 September 2023

(3) 12:57, 10 September 2023 Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pirate of the High Seas, @Thewikizoomer has reported me here. So how is he my pal. I am first time interacting with him here. Be a little professional with your reports. Don't make baseless claims. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thewikizoomer Editwarring is when someone does 3RR. I have reverted only once. The first one was a content removal with cleanup not a revert. Even if we take that into account its still two. So it doesn't come under Editwarring. I left that thing after I got a clue that this is going to be disputed. Its @you who has reverted twice or thrice consecutively. Besides @Pirate of the High Seas there are multiple users who want that content removed but only you who wants it there. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not report you @Shaan Sengupta, just mentioned that @Pirate of the High SeasPirate of the High Seas and you were involved in an incident. and yeah, @Shaan Sengupta not my pal @Pirate of the High Seas Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thewikizoomer you clearly said edit warring between me and @Pirate of the High Seas. Since you have not reported me then please struck it to take it back. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pirate of the High Seas resorted to warring and your involvement of correcting that was mentioned. You are not reported. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Understand that mentioning your username name doesn't equal to reporting. further administrators will anyways understand it when they have a look at the developments Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no point in prefixing user names with "@" unless you're directly addressing the person, and even then it has no technical meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Got it Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have extended-confirmed protected the page because of generally noticeable disruption not limited to Pirate of the High Seas's reverts. As Pirate of the High Seas isn't extended-confirmed, they can't edit the page anymore and the report lost its necessity. Closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Shaan Sengupta reported by User:Pirate of the High Seas (Result: Declined for now)

Page: 2023 G20 New Delhi summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shaan Sengupta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:57, 9 September 2023
2. 16:07, 9 September 2023
3. 22:12, 9 September 2023
4. 06:13, 10 September 2023
5. 10:58, 10 September 2023
6. 12:31, 10 September 2023 (misuse of Twinkle)

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: [2]

Comments:

There's a possible 3RR violation and edit warring in a deliberate attempt at censoring the Preparations section on the article even when the content was restored by multiple editors. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pirate of the High Seas its you who is desperatly adding that. If I have removed it you too have readded it. So if its a violation its from both sides. I removed the content because it was clearly marked disputed. And that is the sole reason why it was removed every time after it. Besides there are multiple users who want to remove it. And just you who wants to add it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pirate of the High Seas is removing notice served by another user which is related to this dispute.

• Revision as of 20:04, 10 September 2023 Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Declined I'll decline this for now. The page is extended-confirmed protected now and I'd like to see how that works out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree Thanks for it. Was much needed. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 15:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Thewikizoomer reported by User:Pirate of the High Seas (Result: Nominator blocked a week for sockpuppetry)

Page: 2023 G20 New Delhi summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thewikizoomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:34, 9 September 2023 Edit Summary: "Preparations were written like a news essay. editors are advised to stick to neutral point of view"
2. 12:44, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: "refrain from unconstructive edits"
3. 12:57, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: n/a
4. 15:10, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: "unsourced content removed"
5. 15:16, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: "appropriate citation added"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:

This User reported me above, kept leaving multiple warnings on my talkpage, requested page protection and then used false edit summary (see diff #4) to censor and continue edit-warring that too without engaging on the article talkpage. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Appears like retaliatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=1174753805&oldid=1174732481) filing. Administrators requested to look through this. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Diff link related to the dicussion of removal of unsourced content can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikishovel&diff=1174771606&oldid=1174753993 Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of one week by Firefly for using IP addresses to sock. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I should add here that I also warned User:Thewikizoomer twice about their blatant edit-warring at the same article today: [7],[8]. Their response: [9] and [10]. Wikishovel (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Foxbro69 reported by User:Skywatcher68 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Interstate 20 in South Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foxbro69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 22:31, 10 September 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 00:36, 11 September 2023
2. Revision as of 00:42, 11 September 2023
3. Revision as of 01:55, 11 September 2023
4. Revision as of 01:59, 11 September 2023
5. Revision as of 02:02, 11 September 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 01:59, 11 September 2023

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Latest revision as of 02:06, 11 September 2023

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Latest revision as of 02:38, 11 September 2023

Comments:
I'm guessing Foxbro69 also edited while logged out to add support for themselves.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

And now we have someone whose very first edit is to support Foxbro69.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The possible socking can be dealt with at SPI or through a checkuser. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Diogenhty reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: Declined)

Page: Ashurst Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 10:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ashurst Australia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Similar actions at Big Six (law firms) also. Not willing to communicate on the user talk page/ edit summary or on the article talk page. New account with prior knowledge of using Wikipedia tools. Looks like a sock of someone! Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Declined, two reverts from a new editor over a couple of days (and they have been given no warning concerning edit warring) doesn't rise to the level of actionable edit warring. I don't see anything that jumps out as prior knowledge of using Wikipedia tools but if you suspect sockpuppetry the correct venue is WP:SPI, not here. - Aoidh (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:CrashLandingNew reported by User:Sutyarashi (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Jat Muslim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CrashLandingNew (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]

[16]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

• [18]

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

Comments:
User:CrashLandingNew has long history of edit warring at article, going back atleast to March when he blanked the article while accusing me of sockpuppetry, all without any trace of evidence.[20] The user has not also bothered to engage at talk page. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Aoidh (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Both user talk pages received the {{GS/Alert}} annotated for South Asian social groups.

• Sutyarashi received theirs at 14:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC) in this edit
• CrashLandingNew received theirs at 14:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC) in this edit

Those analysing this report may wish to remind each editor of their obligations 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Timtrent yes, I kept that in mind and even tried to engage the user at talk page[21][22], but they didn't replied. Thanks for the standard alert though. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Plus there was hardly any content dispute, as User kept removing large parts of article backed with reliable references without any talk page discussion. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Forgive me for pointing out the blindingly obvious, but the editor you reported has been given a short, preventative block. There is no need to keep selling this idea. Indeed, it is not always to one's advantage to keep doing so. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, my apologies. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Drew1830 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: 2012 Major League Soccer season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Drew1830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174857170 by Oknazevad (talk)"
2. 02:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174792133 by PeeJay (talk)"
3. 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174787184 by PeeJay (talk)"
4. 17:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174494820 by PeeJay (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football "/* Disruptive editing on MLS season articles */ Reply"

Comments:

Reverting more than a few editors to add an uncited section in place of a cited list (which, admittedly, does need cleanup but has citations) against project consensus and with no attempt to explain their edits nor engage in civil conversation. This has also happened recently at 2011 Major League Soccer season and previously at other MLS season articles, where some WP:OWN-like behavior has been displayed. An attempt to reach out was made at WT:FOOTY and the response was a personal attack on myself and other editors. SounderBruce 17:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• High time for a block for Drew. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  You revert my edits without cause then I'll revert them back. Your rules are arbitrary and you offer nothing regarding the actual substance of the article. Drew1830 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

SounderClown started whatever "war" this is by undoing my edits without cause. His whining has no merit. Drew1830 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am going to make this simple, Drew. You are in the wrong here. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the reverts of others. There is a protocol in place where, after being reverted, you use the article discussion pag eto find a consensus for your edits. Do not ever think that edit summaries are efficient in resolving disagreements in editing. They don't. There is no hurry to get the material into the article, and if discussion fails, there is Third Opinion or further escalation. Bypassing that process is an absolute, sure way to get you blocked for a lengthy amount of time. The rules aren't arbitrary; you revert 3 times, you almost always get blocked.

If none of what I am saying resonates within you, it might be time to think about whether Wikipedia is the place for you. If you can't edit collaboratively, you can't edit here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:PeeJay and User:Drew1830 reported by User:67.149.160.101 (Result: closed, reverted, closed again)

Page: 2012 Major League Soccer season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: PeeJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Drew1830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23] - version before edit warring

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Peejay

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

• Drew1830

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

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

• PeeJay

This user has requested not to receive templates

• Drew1830

The user was not notified by me, as I am a third party.

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

Discussion not initiated by myself as I am a third party to this edit war.

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

• User talk:PeeJay#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion
• User talk:Drew1830#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:
This is getting ridiculous. The reporting user seems to have some sort of vendetta against me. User:Drew1830 has been blocked for making disruptive edits. The reverts I made that are listed here were attempts to curb Drew1830's disruption. Can I file some sort of appeal for vexatious reporting by User:67.149.160.101? – PeeJay 17:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It takes at least 2 users to edit war. I also note you did not attempt to engage in discussions with Drew and dismissed Drew as a ccontributor outright in an edit summary.

Edit Summary Diffs:

1. this is not an improvement, and given that the user appears to be WP:NOTHERE, I think we can disregard their contribution
2. please discuss major changes on the article talk page, or a wider community page such as WT:FOOTY

67.149.160.101 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The user's conduct had been reported at WT:FOOTY as being disruptive by User:SounderBruce. Their conduct was clearly disruptive. Of course, at least they made some sort of contribution to the discussion at WT:FOOTY, whereas you have yet to do so at WT:RU regarding the disagreement that precipitated this witch hunt. – PeeJay 17:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What are the wikiproject going to do? give a stern telling off and not let them in to their club house?...WT:Footy does not control or own football articles. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In fact, WP:FOOTY does have some level of control over football articles. It's important to maintain consistency across the encyclopaedia, and WikiProjects are responsible for making sure their articles are both consistent with each other and the MOS. – PeeJay 19:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

PeeJay, your behavior was atrocious. You have been editing in Wikipedia for almost two decades, and - after a cursory glance at your lengthy block log - seem to have failed to wrap your head around how edit summaries are not a replacement for actual article page discussion. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. If you're lucky enough to avoid a lengthy block - and there is no reason to suggest you should not be blocked - you better start accepting that you must discuss. If you can't do that, we can certainly see to it that Wikipedia doesn't let you edit here anymore. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am fully aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. This is not an example of me ignoring that. User:Drew1830's conduct was reported by User:SounderBruce at WT:FOOTY, and I acted appropriately based on that reported conduct. If a user refuses attempts to get them to discuss their edits and then calls other editors "clowns", they've exhausted any patience they might otherwise have deserved at the start of their editing journey. – PeeJay 18:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Closed "I am a third party". Yeah, right. Posted by an IP that judging by their behaviour, is either Drew1830 or continuing their disruption - look at the number of reverts of PeeJay by them. Not happening. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Please do not make such a ridiculous statement...please look more closely before you make such wild attacks. Please with draw the above personal attack I am NOT Drew1830. You need much more than a feeling to make such an attack. I strongly suggest you apologise and think before launching a personal attack. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• CLOSED. The next person to reopen this discussion gets blocked for tendentious editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is one of the worst cases of admin abuse I have encountered. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Bon courage reported by User:Curran919 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Biological effects of high-energy visible light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bon courage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33] Sept 11
2. [34] Sept 11
3. [35] Sept 11
4. [36] Sept 6
5. [37] Sept 6
6. [38] Sept 4
7. [39] Aug 28 (later self revert)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: original:[40]; later:[41], also:[42], request for mediation:[43]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

Comments:

User is reverting anyone else who makes changes and has a clear WP:TE for WP:SKEP. User even asked for content within a pay-walled source to supercede already-reverted source, then when given the content of the paywalled source, decided it did not suit their narrative and found older source that did. User's talk page shows long history of edit warring with similar WP:SKEP articles.Curran919 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

1 is not a "revert", just normal editing to clear out unsourced content (I've done a lot of work on the article). But even so there's no violation. The rest is just fantasy. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected. There's a lot of reverting on that article but no 3RR violations, and if blocking editors was the answer it would be multiple editors that would be blocked, so I've protected the page for 3 days instead so that discussion can continue. Please use the talk page and come to some kind of consensus for the material, using WP:DR if necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:WakayamaY reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Japan Air Lines Flight 123 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."
2. 16:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) to 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
   1. 16:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "This is my life story and the summary I have removed is factually incorrect! And the media article cited is based on misinformation I will report this."
   2. 16:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "This is my life story and the summary I have removed is factually incorrect! And the media article cited is based on misinformation I will report this."
   3. 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "This is my life story and the summary I have removed is factually incorrect! And the media article cited is based on misinformation I will report this."
4. 15:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."
5. 15:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC) "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Warned. This is a new editor who wasn't warned and was likely unaware of the edit warring policy, so I have left a message on their talk page encouraging them to use the article's talk page instead of making further reverts. Further reverts may result in a block of some kind. Aoidh (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Socratead reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: )

Page: Billie Jean King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1175015972 by Fyunck(click) (talk) All the ranking and tournament wins are reported SEPARATELY for years from single and doubles. There is no counting together of wins in single and double tournament in a year and there is no sense to make it for a career because they are 2 different stats."
2. 06:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC) "No one with a bit of brain puts all the Grand Slam together. I understand some people don't like Djokovic has the most so they are now trying to rewrite the rules of tenis."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Billie Jean King."
2. 07:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC) "/* September 2023 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is also going by anon IP 99.225.155.30 in removing long-standing content. I explained that the WTA uses this totaling ((www.wtatennis.com/players/110100/billie-jean-king#bio) as do many other sources. That's why it's been here so long. I asked to bring to talk and you see the response. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• note - I see they are also removing this type of total at Serena Williams article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• and now this garbage on Serena Williams. Now 2x. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Garbage from tennis.com? Socratead (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There is separate ranking and separate counting YEAR over YEAR for Singles and Doubles in Tennis. There is no STAT that counts as "number one" player in a year by counting tournament wins in BOTH, singles and doubles. There is no END OF YEAR title that counts tournament wins single and double together. There are separate pages for the same player for SINGLE and DOUBLES. It makes ZERO sense to put together a sum for a CAREER when these are not connected in any way. I understand why some would like to count them together for their advantage because they are behind now in single, however, if they are not related in a year there is NO REASON to lump them together in a career? Socratead (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Counting DOUBLE and SINGLE result together and creating all time list is a flawed statistic. A flawed statistic is one that DOESN'T reflect any reality at a certain moment in time, it is just lumping together things that at any moment DO NOT CORELATE. Let us take the year 2023. If Alcaraz wins a US Open in Doubles this will not make him numbber 1 in singles because SINGLES and DOUBLES are not counting together during the career of any individual. If you count them together in the end of the career you are actually altering the reality because you are creating an all time list that is not reflective of ANY SPECIFIC MOMENT OF TIME during the career. There is no moment in a tennis career when a player by winning a SINGLE tournament will receive any recognition in the DOUBLE rankings. Same applies and there is no moment in a tennis career when a player by winning a DOUBLE tournament will receive any recognition in the SINGLE rankings. These are completely separate career paths and lumping them together creates the impression that a player who played only singles or only doubles was a less important player than another one that played both. Socratead (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Whoever creates FAKE "end of career" statistics that lump together SINGLE and DOUBLE results would have to explain how Siniakova with 7 "majors" is a better and more respected tennis player than Ash Barty with 4 "majors". It's a no brainer that this is completely FAKE! Socratead (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:2C3:8380:1780:3940:3472:FE62:F0CC reported by User:Cinemaniac86 (Result: )

Page: Main source of drama: Academy Award for Best Actress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Academy Award for Best Actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (pending; nothing yet, but potentially inevitable at this rate)

User being reported: 2601:2C3:8380:1780:3940:3472:FE62:F0CC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]
6. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [54]

Comments:
This is not the first occurrence. And it mostly seems to occur with the Best Actress page. I've been making constructive edits. First as simple as just cleaning-up some of the excess. The infoboxes of the sidebar thumbnails, refining what they say, at first got wordy, but then I caught my own self, and kept it simple on all four acting pages. Just the actor and the film, unless it was a notable first, and kept it minor with a link to the superlative wiki page. (Such as black actors, or oldest winners.) Now, the sidebar had sporadic white space unnecessarily peppered in between sections, but some thumbnails spilled over from previous sections, so the best way to avoid this, was to bring all thumbnails to the top and have them all flow together, and thus avoid any whitespace. They are all even. Today, I tried to placate the troll by keeping headshots of everybody he liked, splitting the actresses who won on supporting and leading actress. It was difficult and time consuming, but I didn't mind, and it worked out. Unfortunately, that wasn't good enough, and my actions were continually undone. All of them, for that matter. Everything I've done positively for the past couple of weeks. Anything I've sourced. Any piping link I've fixed. Any images I've placed. The character names I had to fix. The incorrect character name links (where some were linked to their husbands or to a legal case, which is improper). Tried to be patient, left a message, with the 3-Revert-Warning.

One last thing to note is this. Check out these other IP addresses. These have consistently done the EXACT SAME reverts as tonight, only less aggressively. Tonight was relentless, and often within minutes or even seconds after undoing the damage.

1. 2601:2C3:8380:1780:5CFD:C8C0:21FA:3C3F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Just always revert, never explain.
2. 2601:2C3:8380:1780:EC77:2444:901A:FB23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This occurred today, right before the DIFFs above, only quite subtly.
3. 76.30.174.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Too many to count. ALSO, see their Talk Page. I left them a message about trying to reach a compromise! Never heard from them, or saw an edit..from that IP again!

Well, the user did reply to me. I did find it fairly condescending in parts. Much of it sounding arrogant and subjective, as if their way is the only correct way. I did explain to them under the guidelines of reverting that constructive edits cannot be reverted just because the other editor presumes they must be the correct one. However, they also did give me some insight. Page protection should probably be sought nevertheless. I DO think some scrutinization at those previous unregistered accounts should be taken. They seem to be all from the same user. User claimed not to know where the talk page was, but did claim to know how "painstakingly long" the effort was to select these images. Wanted to add: Just hope that this will not continue, as it is mentally and emotionally exhausting. A resolution and perhaps compromise, if they respond well, and aren't blocked for their violation. I apologize if I was too loquacious, but I just wanted to be sure I explained myself well enough. Thank you.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

User:ScavengerRx9 reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: )

Page:  
User being reported: ScavengerRx9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

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

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

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

Comments:

Please help restore the Featured Article to the last stable version with the proper team stat updates ([63]). The user vandalizing the article (changing the cited information) is gaming the system by hiding their disruptive edits within updates made to the article's team results and player data. Since the football World Cup matches are being played at the moment, lots of IP users are updating the team stats within the article. Unfortunately, the folks at WP:FOOTY instead of promoting article stability by separating current events like ongoing/upcoming fixtures, are catering to the football fans desperate to use Wikipedia as a news article of their favorite teams.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)