Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 30 June 2022 (→User:Colinmcdermott reported by User:ScottishFinnishRadish (Result: ): rp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: [1], but partial reverts are involved

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. They make the original bold edit
    ● Ergzay makes a partial revert
    2. TechnophilicHippie reverts them
    ● I make partial revert
    3. TechnophilicHippie reverts me
    ● I tell them to discuss this on the talk page
    4. TechnophilicHippie reverts again
    ● Return to status quo by me
    ● Discussions fail to result in consensus for returning content. The onus is on them.
    5. TechnophilicHippie reverts again

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[3]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [4]

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

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

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

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

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

    I am in the process of opening a WP:BLPN report for HAL333, as per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I left a warning on their Talk Page about this, and it looks like they jumped the gun to report me first. Please wait while I finish the WP:BLPN report.
    For the bottom 1, 3, 4, 5 are reverting vandalism. As per Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_13#Canada_convoy_protest, another editor deleted the "Canada convoy protest" section, arguing undue weight, but the majority consensus in May 2022 was to keep the "Canada convoy protest" section. In June 2022, HAL333 came and kept deleting the "Canada convoy protest" section. For each revert edit summary, I referred them to the Talk Page's majority consensus, when the Talk Page section was not archived at the time. The Talk page section was called "Canada convoy protest", the same name as the section called "Canada convoy protest" HAL333 kept deleting. As an experienced editor, they should be able to find the Talk Page section and respect the majority consensus. However, they left messages on my Talk Page on 3RR without acknowledging that discussion and already taken place with majority consensus. It looks like WP:GAME to me, where they invoke some rules but ignore others for their advantage (WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:GASLIGHT). Later on, after, my repeated criticisms, they finally acknowledged the existing discussion and added to it in June 2022, about 3 weeks later after the May 2022 consensus.. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC); edited TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notify that there is a thread opened in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard by TechnophilicHippie here, seemingly as a retaliation of this thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    HAL333 already made repeated WP:BLP violations, I gave him a warning on his Talk Page which he reverted, and this looks like a retaliation for my WP:BLP violation warnings (including in my edit summaries). Any way, the 3RR rule without discussing the priority of WP:BLP/WP:V over 3RR is just WP:PLAYPOLICY. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPN report: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elon_Musk's_comments_on_employees
    @HAL333: For your first group of diffs, edit 2 is not a revert. Ergzay deleted a paragraph and reduced it to a sentence to include in an existing paragraph. I merely expanded on Ergzay's sentence and did not restore the paragraph. Everything after that is discussed in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Elon_Musk's_comments_on_employees. Basically, I removed your content because it was a WP:BLP violation, but you are invoking 3RR for this, which looks like WP:PLAYPOLICY. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Return to the status quo by me This is one of the main problems with HAL333's understanding of the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle. They call their own edits the "status quo", even when it's a new change or contentious, and in their example above, "Return to the status quo by me", they are referring specifically to their WP:BLP violation being the "status quo".
    TechnophilicHippie has been engaging in edit warring at Musk for months now. Despite requests, they completely disregard requests to follow the Bold, Revert, Discusss, Cycle. They have a warped view of what edit warring is, or they are doing WP:GAME. In their examples above for "edit warring", one is me removing their BLP violation, and the other is me reverting their vandalism (deletion) given the Talk Page majority consensus in May 2022 for keeping "Canada convoy protest". For "Canada convoy protest", they tried to open a new discussion to reboot BRD as if there wasn't an existing discussion, and considered their deletion of "Canada convoy protest" to be the "status quo", while my restoration of it being the "bold" edit. Looks like WP:GAME.
    CNMall41 asked them to stop their disruptive edit warring back in May. As I replied on my Talk Page, they reverted multiple times and I reverted once, but they got me confused with another editor who also reverted them. Multiple editors warned you for edit warring on your Talk Page but you revert all criticisms on your Talk Page while keeping the positive messages.
    On Talk:Elon Musk, TechnophilicHippie moved my comment into a different talk page section. I reverted that and asked them not to. They reverted me and moved my comment again. You replied to my BLP violation accusation in the discussion "Greater weight given to hypothetical Martian colonists than real, living humans on Earth". My first edit was adding the new discussion title "Misinformation from editorializing the suspension of remote work at Tesla and SpaceX" above your reply, and adding my reply to you underneath, which properly created a new discussion. You moved your reply from the "Misinformation" section back to the Mars/Earth section, trying to characterize a WP:V issue as a WP:DUE issue, and also implying that the "status quo" is that Earthling issues need consensus before being considered due weight relative to Martian issues. I tried one more time to organize the misinformation/BLP violation discussion properly by moving your comment, but you moved it back.
    Their move warring of the title at Views of Elon Musk led to an admin protecting it. The admin protected it because I moved "Views of Elon Musk" to "Opinions of Elon Musk", and you reverted it, saying that it sounds like it's about other people's opinions of Musk. I took this feedback and the next day moved "Views of Elon Musk" to "Views and opinions of Elon Musk", which doesn't sound like it's others' views/opinions on Musk, and you reverted it with the summary "Concision, status quo in article formatting". (What does "status quo in article formatting" mean?) The admin protected it because of your moving as well. I wasn't doing the same thing twice, but doing something different the second time based on your feedback. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact of the matter is that you refused to recognize that there was no consensus to readd that content. You made a bold edit, and, for the sake of concision and clarity, let me call the substantive meat of that addition (a concise summary of the sources) "A", and the fluffy redundant text that no one wants "B". Erzgay made a partial revert, keeping A and removing B. You reverted them and readded B. I removed B twice and you readded it twice. Note that you were reverted by two different editors: no one else expressed support for adding B. After this, we discussed it on the talk page. The onus was on you to gain consensus and you failed. You refused to acknowledge that there was no consensus for B and made a fourth revert and readded B. That is edit warring. ~ HAL333 03:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculously inaccurate, and so are your variables. Let's call the original paragraph added W, Erzgay's edit to one sentence X, my elaboration of Erzgay's edit Y, and your misinformation Z.
    1. First I added W, which was a paragraph. (Bold edit)
    2. Ergzay reduced it to a sentence X and merged it into the preceding paragraph. You call it a "partial revert" only to construct the narrative of an edit war, when trimming down a paragraph to a sentence and merging it into a preceding paragraphy is in no way a "partial revert".
    3. I agreed mostly with Ergzay's edit for concision but expanded it as Y, to only include information directly relevant to "Managerial style and treatment of employees". Note that Musk's view that companies allowing remote work can't ship products wasn't restored, and neither was the information on employees needing to be in office 40 hours per week. Factory workers working overtime was added to make it precisely relevant. This is no way a "revert" of Ergzay's edit, but building on top of their edit, and agreeing that a paragraph was unnecessary.
    4. You made some copy edits, Y', including changing the passive voice to the active voice, but it resulted in slightly misleading wording that suggested Musk only started asking factory workers to come in more than 40 hours per week in June 2022.
    5. The next day, you then replaced your Y' with misinformation Z. You said above this was a "partial revert", but this is in no way a revert; it's brand new misinformation.
    6. I replaced your misinformation with Y'', keeping your active voice fix but with minor copy edits to fix the misleading wording in Y'.
    7. You replaced it with the exact misinformation Z, and then accuse me of edit warring.
    8. I replaced it with Y'', because Z is misinformation and a BLP violation.
    9. You replaced it with Z' removing the word "factory" and with a ridiculous edit summary calling this version the "status quo".
    10. You edited it to add the word "and". Z''
    11. I replaced it with a Y''', because Z'' is still a BLP violation. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HAL333 @TechnophilicHippie I would appreciate if you at least both spelled my name correctly when talking about me. Ergzay (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, your claims of BLP are ridiculous and entirely unfounded. Your retaliatory BLP report isn't looking too hot either. Also, the admin protected the page from your move warring because you refuse to follow the BRD cycle. The onus was on you: and the consensus was strongly against your petty move warring. ~ HAL333 03:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I did do BRD, because I didn't revert your revert. It was a different bold change with different text. Only you reverted twice. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you stop and wait for an admin with more patience than i to review this. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note I support HAL333's actions here and TechnophilicHippie has a single purpose account of wanting to defame Elon Musk as stated in their user bio.
    > Recently, my edits have been focused on countering misinformation that Elon Musk is apolitical, objective, and a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject.
    Just something to take in when considering this ANI. Ergzay (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    CactiStaccingCrane and Ergzay both appear to be Elon Musk superfans who think all/most criticisms of Musk is biased. HAL333 claims he isn't a fan, but has accused me of SPA and biased editing, when I have been adding controversies covered by mainstream newspapers to Elon Musk in a neutral voice, to try to balance editors who censor criticisms of Musk. I'm not SPA. I only started editing Elon Musk in 2022.
    Edit: It is unfair for me to group CactiStaccingCrane together with Ergzay, because CactiStaccingCrane is aware of their biases, and seeks out and responds to feedback. However, their self-insertion into this discussion isn't unbiased. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC); edited TechnophilicHippie (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reason I've opened this thread on SpaceX Starship and actively asking you in order to garner more criticisms. You are just going full ad hominem at this point. I think it would be more productive if you tell me what is bad about the Starship program and discuss about it on the talk page, as it would reflect better at you and reduce the drama considerably. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pictureperfect2 (Result: Malformed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: [13]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [16]
    4. [17]
    5. [18]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Page: Julianne Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Oscar Isaac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Jennifer Lawrence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pictureperfect2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [21]
    2. [22]
    3. [23]
    4. [24]
    5. [25]
    6. [26]

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

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

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

    Comments: (Copy-pasting my report filed above)

    Constantly violating WP:3RR (not necessarily within a 24-hour period) and WP:BRD. The user regularly goes on a comma-removing spree for no apparent reason. And when confronted or reverted, they dismiss it as something insignificant. It's one thing forgetting to add punctuation when adding content, it's a whole another removing them persistently despite being repeatedly explained to them why it's wrong. Not once have they justified their removal.
    • Here, you can see three different users reverting them for adding orphan </ref> tag and copy-pasting references for no apparent reason. And yet, they still continue and straight-up deny having duplicated them.
    • Another example of their disruptive behavior.
    • Look at their reckless behavior here. When I removed a source that didn't support the claim it made, they reverted me first but said they'll check the source later.
    I have tried to reason with them, but this behavior continues on several articles. I'm not sure what action is necessary, but this seriously needs to stop. I'm just sick and tired of having to explain basic grammar to someone who refuses to listen.
    This is the sort of answer I get every time I explain why the commas need to be placed where they are. Continuing with their spree here after only an hour I explained to them why they shouldn’t do it. FrB.TG (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the user has been indefinitely blocked after reporting me at ANI [27]. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    1. [1095481302]

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: 27 June 2022

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: [28]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [29]
    2. [30]
    3. [31]
    4. [32]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]

    Comments:

    Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring first of all (the same article you've been linking to in the edit summary). Secondly, this is a sock.[35] Semsûrî (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. dif
    2. dif
    3. dif
    4. dif

    — Czello 19:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Czello: Note that I have not breached the 3RR as the first link is from the 22nd. Semsûrî (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, deleted the "also" from my comment. — Czello 19:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    I'm counting 6 non-consecutive reverts in less than 12 hours. The edits are moreover highly POV and unencyclopedic, and laced with hostility. Similar situation at Alexander I of Macedon [36], [37], [38] (removal of sources, POV editing, hostile edit summaries). Also very hostile on their own talkpage, where they responded to my 3RR warning with threats and insults [39] [40]. Clearly a block is needed because this user will not stop reverting. Khirurg (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Have done this because of vandalism by Greek nationalist Khirurg and Sockpuppet Demetrios1993. They are under investigation. HelenHIL (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    HelenHIL did not Violate WP:3RR, Rule # 4 Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language are exempt from the edit-warring policy. No Violation at all. Chip3004 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious vandalism? Page blanking? Like where? Can you give an example? The only thing that's obvious is the strong POV of their edits. As for offensive language, the only place I see that is in their edit summaries. Khirurg (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the diffs provided, the only POV pushing I see is by the OP. Wikipedia is not the place for the Greek/Macedonian culture wars. Oh, and you latched onto the page blanking part of the 3RR rule #4, you missed the "such as" part. HelenHIL has no case to answer here. - Nick Thorne talk 03:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to explain how my edits are POV-pushing? Because they aren't. These articles are watched by a large number of users and were stable and quiet until HelenHIL barged in today and massively POV-pushed, the crudest examples of which are [41] [42] [43]. His edits were reverted by at least 4 different users. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the topic anyway, since I have never seen you edit these topics (whereas I have been editing them for the last 15 years or so), but among other things, HelenHIL removed sources, altered wording that had been reached after long standing discussions and consensus, inserted POV and unencyclopedic wording, was reverted by many users, all the while hurling wild accusations of "vandalism" and making personal attacks such as the edit summaries above and stuff like this [44]. This editor has barely 100 contribs and made massive changes to relatively quiet articles that had been stable for a long time. As for "latching on", can you point to examples of "obvious vandalism" that HelenHIL supposedly reverted (instead of just taking their accusations at face value)? concrete examples, please. But most importantly, HelenHIL clearly violated 3RR, with 6 reverts in less than 12 hours, as well as edit-warring on other articles. Which, from all indications, looks set to continue. Khirurg (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ridiculous to see how the boomerang card is being played here. The last stable version of the lede has been built by consensus without any "culture wars", and it is definitely edit-warring if an editor tries to force their own preferred version of the lede without consensus, paired with inflammatory edit summaries ("sockpuppet", "vandalism"). –Austronesier (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's incredible isn't it? All we do is revert to the status quo ante, the other party reverts a whopping SIX times in 12 hours while shouting "vandalism", and this is then taken at face value. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Khirurg (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I really find the comments about "page blanking" etc. as utter and complete arguments from ignorance, that surely demonstrate that these users did not care to read the diffs because there is no such thing and made thin air statements in defense of user that personally attacks other users. Maybe they might need to gain a better understanding about the scope of ANI because it seems that they are not so knowledgeable. Best Othon I (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked HelenHIL for 48 hours for violating 3RR and for her personal attacks. As for some comments by others, I see no vandalism by Khirurg that would permit HelenHIL's reverts to be exempt. Indeed, I am puzzled by those allegations, particularly those of "page blanking" and similar.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: 28 June 2022

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 28 June 2022‎
    2. 28 June 2022

    Diff of edit warring: 28 June 2022‎

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

    Only two rvs not three and the matter is settled, so this should be a moot point. It was blatantly obvious while looking at any source and using math that not only would there be a runoff but that Horn was obviously not winning the nomination outright, as OP's own rvs were falsely indicating. The date for the runoff was already laid out by the SOS and the fact a runoff would occur was already being stated by any live results feed, as was indicated to the Op in the edit history and they refused to search for themselves. They're just pissy they were wrong and got a blunt response back to their own blunt, imperious requests. Therequiembellishere (talk)
    Other user made a similar revert, which began an edit war. The user is not fully informed about the Wikipedia editing policy and guidelines. This is not about math, this is what the results say. It took the user a while to provide a reliable source to where it shows that there is a runoff. User didn’t like the fact, that a source was requested. I had provided a source on NYT, when the edit was made by me to where only Horn had a check mark, next to her name. User made edits, that were false due to the fact the race being not called and decided to assume that the race was over. As the OP said this, "The date for the runoff was already laid out by the SOS and the fact a runoff would occur was already being stated by any live results feed." The OP is responsible for providing the source that supports their claims, it’s no one else’s responsibility. It’s not my responsibility to search for a source to back a claim made of someone else. The user felt that they could do any edit they wished, sourced or unsourced, but that’s not what we do here. Making statements like "They're just pissy they were wrong and got a blunt response back to their own blunt, imperious requests." This doesn’t make the situation better and doesn’t resolve the issue. This is an example of childish behavior. The OP talks of giving a "blunt" response, I wouldn’t say blunt. I would use the word, "childish". My request for a source also is not imperious. The user clearly is not educated on Wikipedia editing guidelines, which say that there must be sources to prove a point. I asked for a source of the results because what I saw didn’t add up to what the OP claimed. The OP instead chose to act irrational. - FellowMellow (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple people rving you when you're wrong is not an "Edit war", nor did it "take a while" I got the notification and responded. It was false of OP to state Horn was the winner of the primary when (at the time of the original rv) she was 30% short of the 50% statutory minimum to clear the primary outright while avoiding the runoff. They were failing CRYSTAL to say she'd won, and demonstrating a clear lack of familiarity with the subject matter. It was being restored to "TBD" because 1) votes were in progress and 2) reliable sources like the NYT and AP were unequivocally stating there would be a runoff. This is a case of myself an other editors restoring the status quo during a current event and a relatively new editor putting up false information claiming the others were edit warring when in correcting that error. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You and one other OP making edits, based on same claims is edit warring, when you add constantly to your preferred method and yes it did "take you a while" to provide a source of where your information was coming from. When I made the edit, I said my source was NYT and that Horn was the only candidate, that had the check mark. What the OP did is made an allegation about there being a runoff, without proof, furthermore, the race wasn’t even called yet to make any edits about a runoff. There’s nothing false about that. The OP failed to support their claims through a source, which was rightfully requested. The problem with the OP’s edit is that they rushed to declare that there is a runoff, when the race wasn’t declared yet. The NYT reported that Horn had a check mark, which means victor. However, that edit was about to be changed by me, when a runoff was declared. The OP’s issue is that they made an edit, ultimately assuming that a runoff has been declared. An edit should be made, when a declaration has been made, not what an OP assumes. It surprises me, how a user, who was created 16 years ago, doesn’t understand this simple detail. This wasn’t false information. The OP’s allegations are ridiculous. The OP and one other user decided to rush and edit that there was a runoff, when no such declaration had been made. The user wasn’t correcting any error, they were the cause of this editing error.- FellowMellow (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1) There were four minutes between your direct rv and my response. 2) It's not my fault you don't know how to read the NYT and know that the bright, clear colored shading they give to indicate a winner is distinct from gray shading for runoffs and the fact that they reinforce this and the existence of a runoff throughout their results pages. 3) No, I didn't have to provide a source that a runoff existed in the race when "Runoff elections where no candidate receives over 50% of the vote are scheduled for August 23 if necessary.[45]" has been in the lede for months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you’re going to normalize a personal attack against me by the OP calling me "Asinine"? Bravo! - FellowMellow (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FellowMellow you reported this as edit warring. It is not edit warring. Please read WP:EW.
    Petty slights and incivility are improper and uncivil but this does not rise to any actionable behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you can deny it was edited warring, but what I am disappointed in, is in your decision, which you failed to tell the user that it’s unacceptable to use this kind of inappropriate response. You are enabling the OP to use this kind of childish behavioral responses, in the future. - FellowMellow (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Next time don't report it as edit warring when it clearly isn't. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe you should be doing what your supposed to be doing and help sustain a friendly working environment on Wikipedia rather than enable OPs to be uncivil and let them off the hook without warning. - FellowMellow (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to report the matter to WP:ANI if you really think that administrator action should be taken against the personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

    Full disclosure: I have also opened a noticeboard section for Zefr here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment/Hounding
    As for the edit warring claims against me, perhaps I misunderstand but this was how I viewed the situation:
    1. Similar content was shared between two articles, after changing one article I went to the second article to update it as well.
    2. After this, Zefr reverted my changes by removing the long-standing "Research" section and lede medical information that has been there for years. So I added back the "Research" section.
    3. After this, Zefr reverted again and said that the "Research" section should only contain research about the plant and not its oil. So I opened a discussion on the talk page about that and advocating for adding the section back.
    4. Finally, I added the information to the oil section of the article since it is more relevant there. He reverted this too.
    Apologies if this was not the right way to go about this. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, the talk page section about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lavandula#Add_back_%22Research%22_section 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional background:
    • Talk page where original discussion happened.[46]
    • DRN discussion.[47][48]
    • Me explaining that changes were already discussed, I wasn't just trying to push this out of nowhere.[49]
    Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

    I have only made 3 reverts not 4 within 24 hours (look at the history[50]) Wingzs (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Techinally I counted 4 edits to Êzîdxan, the first one at 18:53, june 29 (Counts as the first revert), 18:55, june 29 (Counts as the Second revert), 18:57, june 29 (Counts as the third revert), and 19:02, june 29 (Counts as the fourth revert), that stil makes it as a violation of the three Revert Rule and it is considered as Edit Warring. Chip3004 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: [51]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [52]
    2. [53]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

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

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

    Comments:

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

    • Warned both users. You are both edit warring; I was tempted to block you both, but since you are currently discussing the issue, I have decided to cut you some slack and only issue warnings. Please, both of you, stop reverting each other until a consensus has been reached. Salvio 20:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Salvio:, thanks for making the effort to try to help out. I've tried to conduct a civil conversation with Sol505000, but it turns out to be impossible. Please review thoroughly his multiple rv tactics, as well as his record of "contribs". The issue regards the Spanish language page, not Help talk:IPA/Spanish, beginning with his deletion of text (accurate text, not placed there by me) on 26 June, for no expressed reason other than "IPA spam", which the transcription that he removed obviously was not. I restored the deletion, as it's uncontroversial useful information for readers. From there we were off to the races, attempts at civil discussion to arrive at consensus failing miserably. It seems to me that the solution is to restore the text to what it was before he started this incident with the mysterious "IPA spam" deletion. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what is known as a content dispute and which should be solve through discussion first between the two of you, but also involving neutral editors. Administrators do not solve content disputes, but only tackle behavioural issues, such as edit warring or vandalism. They can contribute to discussions in their capacity as editors, if they are knowledgeable enough on the subject matter – and I confess that is is an issue I'm not really familiar with. So, I can't really help you that much. The edit war has stopped and I urge you both not to revert each other again, until a consensus has been reached. It may take a while, but, then again, there is no rush. Salvio 14:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: [60]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [61]
    2. [62]
    3. [63]
    4. [64]

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As noted above, AlsoWukai appears to have started reverting my edits with no reason given. The one thing both these reverted edits (below) have in common is that they were both undoing changes I made to the articles the day before. [65] [66] There has also been similar recent behaviour by this editor at [67], see [68] and [69].

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [71]

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to: [72]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [73] - 29 June
    2. [74] - 30 June
    3. [75] - 30 June
    4. [76] - 30 June

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [79]

    Comments:

    Edit warring on this article even more than what he did last time on 6 June[80][81] after which the page got fully protected for 2 weeks.

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

    • Makes false claims of BLP violation[82][83] despite warning.[84]
    • false claims of "no consensus"[85] and "stonewalling"[86] despite another user retaining RfC version.[87]
    • rampant bludgeoning all over against everyone who is not agreeing with him,[88][89][[90]
    • writing WP:TEXTWALL with new sections even after same content being discussed at the RfC,[91][92]
    • is too concerned about WP:WINNING; "I am going to win this argument"[93]
    • casting nationality-based WP:ASPERSIONS; "the unspoken lemma is: "Filipino national dignity demands redress for this grievous and everlasting insult"[94]
    • inability to comply with WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and is also violating WP:NOTTRUTH; "Genuinely reliable sources will never correct this",[95] "They googled it, and repeated what Google turned up, and now we are repeating them."[96]
    • calling any reliable source ("The List" this time) a "tabloid" [97]

    While his recent edit warring justifies a block for edit war, I would still recommend that a WP:TOPICBAN from this subject will be more helpful to stop this disruption. He was already alerted of BLP DS before the cited violations happened.[98] GenuineArt (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

    Comments:

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

    I was just in the process of typing this. I would also mention this comment left on Aircorn's talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1095834725"