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:Santasa99 reported by User:Manticore (Result: Warned)

Page: LGBT in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:
User continued to revert to their preferred version of the article, despite an ongoing talk page discussion and an edit warring warning on their talk page. On the article talk page they state "I was well inside my prerogatives" (sic) [10]. — Manticore 06:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I made my first edit on 06:40, 9 February 2022, two days earlier not on 12 February 2022, 00:02:12 as presented here. That single edit of mine was reverted by User:GenoV84 on 23:52, 11 February 2022 with an unprovoked accusation via edit-summary that I am engaging in no less than censoring and disrupting, so I used undo. Immediately afterward a barrage of warnings was attached on my Talk page by GenoV84 and Manticore, in, what appears to be an attempt to distract me from engaging the article. It started from there.

No, diff about "Attempt to resolve dispute" is my attempt - I was the one who initiated discussion, I am the one who made a significant effort to resolve this situation by initiating discussion and participating a whole time, I was pinging all around, and no, Manticore parachuted into dispute only with a revert without attempt to participate in ongoing discussion (when they reverted, discussion initiated by me was already ongoing for at least an hour or more, so i undid their revert and ping them to argue their sudden rv - that would be the reason behind my remark, having in mind WP:BRD - in any case, the only thing from them in entire first two-three hours of discussion was their reply on my ping with one line question why am I engaging in edit-warring - well, it takes at least two for any kind of warring)

Not that it matters, but I asked for reasons for the reverts and for some RS for something practically invented by editor(s) and extremely controversial, and during the long discussion, in which Manticore never participated, no other editor provided any.

Unfortunately, I was drawn into this situation despite whole a lot of experience. GenoV84 and my self stopped after I initiated discussion, which happened one revert each earlier and before thing escalated. However, Manticore and one other editor (all three editors appear to be members of the same article's wiki project) came later and started reverting again without even giving a one word of argument at already considerable discussion (which I initiated), pouring a gasoline on fire which I foolishly caught. Interestingly, they didn't mind that GenoV84 reverting themselves them self, they were concerned only with my edit on that page.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

One more thing - curiously Manticore chose a very particular diff to show "Attempt to resolve dispute", should I say, chose unfairly(?), because it should present me in a bad light I suppose, as at that point I was already annoyed of being subjected to various pressures and discussions unfitting decorum preservation. But here's how I tried to resolve the issue few lines or paragraphs earlier, or here's from the beginning, my effort to initiate a discussion goes like this, followed with this, followed with this, and this, this, and so on.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Then Manticore parachuted with a revert and I ping them with a constructive argument, to which they responded (their only respond) with question, to which I replied with as per diff they offered in report.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

1. decorum preservation.... Are you serious? Explain what is your definition of decorum preservation, because you have demonstrated to be unable to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, yet you also pretend to have the high ground to judge other users' conduct while claiming to have discussed with them respectfully because of decorum preservation, which can't be found anywhere in the article's Talk page, since you have repeatedly attempted to censor and disrupt sourced, encyclopedic content supported by multiple academic and reliable references in the article through many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries with a presumptuous attitude both towards me and other users (@VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore:), despite the fact that in my first reply I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, because there's absolutely no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially considering the fact that this entire discussion and edit war that you started is about something so innocuous as a wikilink.
2. In my very first reply, I also suggested you to get familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including Behavioral guidelines and Content guidelines, in order to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, and to check out the cited sources before accusing other users of ill intent both through your many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries and messages on the article's Talk page, which is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. You did neither of those things, apparently.
3. You're lucky that the aforementioned editors didn't report you to WP:ANI due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion and suggestions on the article's Talk page, denigrating him for being a non-native English speaker: I am really struggling to understand what you are writing - I am sorry but, really, I am having a hard time to catch your drift. My English is barely usable, but, boy, to my abilities yours is even worse. But, that being said, I think that my intentions were more than clear, and series of explaining, which I provided in my posts here from the beginning, should suffice for even the weakest user of English, or the finest connoisseur of literary English, if we are to consider both extremes.
4. So far, I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for. Furthermore, he/she didn't even try to properly cooperate with other users by providing this source in the first place, and continues to avoid doing so. Instead, he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, resorted to insult and denigrate other users multiple times, and continued to dismiss my explanations for the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty and related Sharia-based legal prescriptions for capital punishments and modes of execution in Sharia-compliant Muslim-majority countries (including crucifixion, beheading, stoning, burning people alive, throwing people off buildings, etc.) paired with citations of multiple academic and reliable references, which he/she asked for (But I am curious still, so please, do tell - what is "Islamic death penalty"? How that thing differs from any other "death penalty", is there a "Western death penalty" or "American death penalty or "Vatican death penalty" or "Atheist death penalty"?) and can be found in the very first paragraph of the article's lead section, by stating the same phrase over and over again: I am not interested in lecturing. GenoV84 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

First you need evidence with links and possibly with quotes, and depending of what kind, placed them in ANI board, not here, but relying on sheer volume of text isn't enough, you need substance.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(Can't resist) I am curious to learn how is throwing people off buildings proper pipe for the wikilink and intrinsically Islamic, hence the "Islamic death penalty"; where in the sources the phrase "Islamic death penalty" is used by academic(s), thus, giving us the reason to re-use it? Also, please, try not use blocks of texts taken out of context, preserve the context and provide a link; all my discussions, everything I ever wrote is linked in my previous post, putting my fiery "attacks" and "insults" on display, except last exchange with VenusFeuerFalle which happened 6-7 hours ago, their post is almost impossible to discern and I had to say that. Just saw your block log, if you feel compelled to reply, please use my TP or better yet yours.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes, then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users, is starting to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly. Meanwhile, user Santasa99 has continued to denigrate the user VenusFeuerFalle on the article's Talk page for being a non-native speaker of English, regardless of good manners and civility: as an additional reason, you are the last editor I would be willing to take her/his word on grammar issues, after this exchange! (the text is highlighted in bold in the original comment on the article's Talk page, not my addition). Moreover, there's obviously no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policy WP:EASTEREGG. It's depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view, without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users instead of collaborating with them respectfully. GenoV84 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not bagging for anything - you have accused me of wide array of transgressions, without evidence and links. This kind of pressure I rarely felt in my 14 years on the project, and it starts to affect me. It started from the very first encounter when you directed "censoring and disruption" accusations at me on my first edit on the article in question, and continued throughout with these same lengthy passionate expressions filled with the same accusations even before I started to feel effects of it. You really need to hit the brakes a little bit--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Evidence with reliable sources and diffs that directly indicate your disruptive edits on the article LGBT in Islam, along with your reiterated violation of WP:3RR, have already been provided by me and the user @Manticore:, both here and in the article's Talk page. And no, responding to your incessant, passive-aggressive comments and offensive remarks about me and the editors @VenusFeuerFalle: and @Manticore: in the most polite way possible is not harassment: it's called manners. Did you manage to behave that way and treat other users like trash for 14 years without ever getting blocked or reprimanded by an admin? Impressive.... and depressing. Despite your attempts to repeatedly inflame the dispute resolution with uncivil comments and personal attacks by inciting me and the aforementioned users to push the boundaries even further, as you just did with your latest comment (You really need to hit the brakes a little bit), I'm pretty sure that I have already expressed my opinion far too well, both here and on the article's Talk page, and there's no need for me to restate my argument ad infinitum. I also took the initiative to request a third opinion from users that weren't involved in the dispute resolution in order to find a constructive way to reach consensus together, but so far nothing seems to work. Other users and editors are welcome to join the discussion and express their own viewpoint both here and on the article's Talk page, if they wish. GenoV84 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

To any of the resident admins, please, advise on the current situation, if it could be resolved right here or is it required that if new report should be created then be moved to ANI board. Editor's relentless pressure here and on the articles TP, copy pasted here from there (or the other way around) with unsubstantiated accusations and complete disregard for reality and facts, shows no signs of relaxation. Editors' block log shows pattern of edit-warring and similar dispute resolution discussion's MO, with at least four blocks in the last two years of active editing (apparently on the same topic area), while just several weeks ago editor barely escaped without much substantial community sanctions for refusing to accept community decision to delete the questionable userbox, so they recreated, what community referred as, Islamophobic userbox(es) three times until it was finally reported Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#User:GenoV84_and_the_"Kafir_Lives_Matter"_userbox. recreation(s). Editor seemingly escaped without sanctions because of supposed demonstrative retirement from English Wikipedia.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not. Your edits were reverted by multiple editors in accordance with policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED, you attempted to apply those changes without consensus in the midst of an ongoing discussion, and you violated the WP:3RR rule multiple times, as user Manticore demonstrated both on the article's Talk page and WP:AN3 ([11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]). There is still no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED. Me and user VenusFeuerFalle have proposed new solutions by providing and citing multiple verified, neutral, academic, reliable references that contain more encyclopedic, formal, and specific legal terminology that could be used to replace the wikilink without incurring in a violation of the aforementioned WP policies. Unfortunately, user Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times, all of which meet the requirements Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. GenoV84 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals regarding the appropriate terminology and solution, by explicitly stating that he doesn't care and will continue to do exactly the same thing that he did before, i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content without consensus:

1. Ok, here's what I intend to do, based on our core content policies and guidelines: I intend to remove any usage of the phrase "Islamic death penalty" [...] I intend to do this removal by rephrasing two sentences/statements which expressing exactly the same information, using exactly the same wiki-links, and exactly the same references, and are both inserted in the WP:LEDE, only few lines apart. By amending this repetitiveness, I intend to remove usage of constructed controversial phrase "Islamic death penalty";
2. I am not intending anything differently from what I tried earlier - if anything, this intention is much more substantial in comparison with my earlier edit, which was reduced to removing only one word.

How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, especially if you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made? GenoV84 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Click to expand the references
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Result: User:Santasa99 is warned for breaking 3RR at LGBT in Islam on 12 February. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Santasa99 is convinced that the phrase 'Islamic death penalty' should not be used in Wikipedia, and has made a detailed proposal at Talk:LGBT in Islam#Amending deficiencies in LEDE for removing it from articles. If they embark on this plan without prior consensus there will be consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @EdJohnston:, I am well aware of what I shouldn't do, but now with this new wind beneath their wings, recreated same old circumstances, and under such pressure of GenoV84's bludgeoning discussions with wikilayering and blatant aspersions from my first edit on 9 Feb. to theirs last here which, seemingly, invoked your close look into my "intention" post and closure, turning all discussions into battleground, evidence of which can be seen and read here, on closer look, in GenoV84's unsubstantiated accusations and personal attacks directed at me in these long diatribes (even outright lying - if you can't see it, ask and I will provide evidence) from the start and at display both at article's TP and on this very Admin board. They also broke 3RR in the process before this report was filed against me alone, and all the while I was, apparently, up against two editors editing in concert, which I suspect from this short but worrisome exchange User_talk:GenoV84#Discord? between 2 and 3 Feb 2022, and manner in which they took turn in reverting me. Further, GenoV84 was blocked almost annually for edit-warring on the same topic area (1 week on 24 January 2022, 1 month on 17 January 2021, 60 hours on 13 November 2018, 48 hours on 25 September 2018), exhibiting same pattern in editing and discussions as well as signs of ownership on certain articles - shouldn't some consequences befall editor as well per boomerang, and is there a new provision in verifiability policy that allow unreferenced content to be kept and shouldn't be removed as long as there is a consensus over it?.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:Jungkook1996 (Result: No action)

User: Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page in dispute: Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Issue; one editor gaming the system and ignoring sources that are given to him.

First case - he falsely claimed a skater fell down and nobody bumped into him. But such facts are proven wrong because reliable sources and even the Canadian skater stated that he accidentally bumped into a Chinese kid.

I gave him sources that disproves his edits as being wrong. He willfully ignores it and removed my edit.

My edit that he removed;

(China's Li Wenlong's skate blade had collided with Canada's Pascal Dion's and the Chinese skater fell down. According to Dion, there was no reason for disqualification as he said the two accidentally bumped into each other and "it happens sometimes" and that he believed the judge made a "good, fair call for the Chinese".)

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/short-track-star-hamelin-course-142210057.html

But this information above in bubble is very correct and currently missing. And why I added it in. He also knows I am not able to revert him today and he deletes my edit.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]

Second case - Prior to all that, in another section, the editor is using an unreliable community newspaper source to insist that a replay shows no false start and all a conspiracy. If such info was even true, then the major news channels will likely be raving about such a controversial event and won't shut up about it. Currently I see zero major news channels saying that and probably because it's not true. So I told him to please use a better source as Wikipedia cannot rely on poor sources. I put the discussion on talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1071516299

But he kept reverting me on that, and finally after a while stop doing that in that section. However he had also made me use up my 3 revert limit. Then he put a notice of the 3RR rule and this noticeboard, on my Talk page. And afterwards when he knows I am not able to revert him anymore. He then quickly vandalised the article again by removing my edit that he simply dislikes. There's no excuses for his deleting and his spiteful labelling of my edit as "Disruptive". His latest edit shown below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]

Even if I rightfully revert his edit above again. I will be just be penalised for the 3RR rule I think and why I believe he should not be pushing me like this to correct him like this. He claims the Chinese skater never bumped into anyone. That is just false. A Canadian skater had admitted to bumping into him. But he doesn't let anyone add that correct info in, and it feels like he is edit warring in bad faith. Jungkook1996 (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a content issue that is being discussed on the user's talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No it's not. Currently he tried to push an outdated claim that the Chinese skater didn't bump into anyone. Newer sources show that is wrong. But he willfully ignores my sources and claims my edits are Disruptive. He knows well that it is correct and reasonably important information yet he keeps reverting and refused to be reasonable. If once, it's okay. He does this constantly. And don't wish to continue this edit war and want admin to tell me if my edit adding such information in, was Disruptive or not.Jungkook1996 (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action. – The filer has cleared their talk page (where they were negotiating about this matter) with the comment 'All issues resolved'. Per that edit summary I assume that the dispute is over. If not, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to all. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:LordParsifal reported by User:Buidhe (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff No response

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

Comments:
It's depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote an antisemitic conspiracy theory, without providing any verifiable sources that support their viewpoint. The article already contradicts the claims made, citing various sources that the participation of Jews in the Soviet communist party was in the single digits and not the "plurality" or "majority" as claimed. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation. The antisemitic conspiracy theory is about the Jewish members of the Bolshevik Party forming a (Jewish) conspiration—an old trope. The fact of Jews being overrepresented in the Bolshevik Party is a fact, not the conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory pertains to the motives, not the ethnic makeup. 5 out of 21 members of the Central Committee being Jewish is 24%, and that counts as a high proportion compared to the overall proportion of 4% of Jews in the general population (Russian census of 1897). LordParsifal (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Uninvolved user comment I agree with User:buidhe that this was unacceptable WP:EW by User:LordParsifal. However, I do not think this series of edits, by itself, constitutes promotion of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. To quote the Jerusalem Post[21]

A hundred years after the Bolsheviks swept to power, historians and contemporaries still struggle to understand the prominent role played by Jews.

If the JPost can say it, I don't see why User:LordParsifal can't. That said, he should have gone to the talk page, rather than continuing to revert. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That's ignorant, Jewish academia/media/culture is as subject to political polemics as any other. After all, the alt-right had two founders, one was Richard Spencer, the other was a Jewish man, Paul Gottfried. LordParsifal shouldn't be "saying" anything in wikivoice, even a quote from Jewish media should be explicitly attributed as such. We're not here to do Original Research. --60.240.148.170 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Back Bay Barry reported by User:Nemov (Result: No action)

Page: Baseball park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Back Bay Barry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071708748 by Nemov (talk) I'm really trying to be patient with you but you know that 7 other editors disagree with you and you're still trying to have it your way, that's not right"
2. 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071708024 by Nemov (talk) stop ignoring the 7 editors who disagree with you"
3. 23:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071706738 by Nemov (talk) you already know there is support for this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball"
4. 23:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071697262 by Nemov (talk) you used the definition of "ballpark", not "baseball park". This article is called "baseball park""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Baseball Park Definition */reply"
2. 23:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Baseball Park Definition */ reply"

Comments:

I'm not gonna engage with user any further. I've attempted to steer towards consensus, but to no avail. I warned the user about edit warring and the 3 revert rule. It was ignored. The user has continue to make make changes after objection and reverts good faith edits. Now the user it changing the redirects to the page as well. Thanks Nemov (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Park_vs._Stadium is that my changes were proper, and Nemov's many many reversions of my changes were not. 7 editors agreed with me and 1 with him. That didn't stop him, though - he's still trying to bully me and threaten me into accepting that "his" version is the right one. I have asked for help. Back Bay Barry (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: That would not give you an exception to 3RR, though. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I've been talking with Wgullyn at Teahouse. As I told him, I only just read 3RR after he alerted me to it. So that is my fault. But what I don't understand is how Nemov is allowed to do that if I'm not. Back Bay Barry (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Back Bay Barry: They stopped at three reverts. You didn't. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I see. So there was definitely a method to his madness. I get it. All I can say is I'm sorry, and I've learned from this. Back Bay Barry (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action, per the discussion above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:TheXuitts reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Feb 13, 11:20 UTC – [23] TheXuitts reverts back to a long list of disputed genres.
2. Feb 13, 16:10 UTC – [24] TheXuitts reverts fact tags added to challenge long list of disputed genres.
3. Feb 13, 18:55 UTC – [25] TheXuitts restores long list of disputed genres.
4. Feb 14, 02:20 UTC – [26] TheXuitts re-adds long list of disputed genres, this time with references

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and section: Talk:XXXTentacion#Genres

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:
TheXuitts was already edit warring prior to this sequence of 4RR in the space of 24 hours. Two days earlier, I delivered a standard warning against 3RR on the user talk page, and then I added a personalized message about WP:ONUS.[29] TheXuitts deleted these messages without responding. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The guy in general is completely obsessed with the article XXXTentacion and barely allows any changes to the page. Definitely a case of WP:OWNERSHIP --FMSky (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected. Normally I would set an expiration of a week or so to allow the edit war to blow over, but this article is already on permanent semi-protection and if I set an expiration, it would then drop back to zero protection at the end, which is undesirable. As such, I have set indefinite protection, but that is explicitly not intended to be permanent; any admin can unprotect of their own motion or pursuant to a request at WP:RFPU once a consensus is reached. I am sure I have protected m:the Wrong Version but such is the life of a sysop. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:198.48.174.124 reported by User:109.79.68.165 (Result: Semi)

Page: Masters of the Universe: Revelation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.48.174.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

• Special:Contributions/198.48.174.124

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments: anon IP has repeated the same edit over and over again for several days despite being reverted by me and another editor. Anon has not made an effort to discuss the matter in edit summaries, or on their talk page, or on the article talk page. The sour response to the show by some has been discussed at length already, and the larger point has been addressed using a reliable source[30] but the anon IP insists on ignoring MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC and adding Rotten Tomatoes audience scores anyway. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Adding user scores to this page against policy is apparently a cause for a small number of dedicated idiots, meaning a lot of busywork having to deal with nuisance edits from the IP mentioned and what seem like associated IPs/accounts a number of times, they should probably all be identified and blocked. Very much doubt anything of value would be lost. Artw (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The vandalism continues diff. Please do not reward the vandal and punish everyone else by locking the article, even very short sanctions (24 hour block for starters) against the user would be preferable. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned, there was previously some discussion about this, and I suppose admins might want to also check to see if the user who made related complaints User:Kronnang_Dunn is connected to the IP address that is currently edit warring over the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores. Not to accuse anyone, but rather to rule them out. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. Note that User:Kronang Dunn has not edited in the last 30 days and it's unclear why he would need attention from admins. The page already has a hidden comment that the *audience* scores from Rotten Tomatoes should not be used. Even with the semiprotection in place, IP editors can still present their arguments on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You are rewarding disruptive anon IP editors with the power to get pages locked. That is a bad policy. (It also discourages any other anon IP editors from engaging with this reporting process.) Please reconsider and direct the sanctions at the person responsible, not the encyclopedia article page. Even if you truly believe locking the article is appropriate a 30 day page lock seems excessive, 7 days would have been more than enough. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You also failed to revert the latest vandalism before imposing the lock[31]. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

1) that's not vandalism, it appears to be completely accurate on Rotten Tomatoes. 2) see WP:WRONGVERSION 3) that's clearly WP:NOTVANDALISM. Canterbury Tail talk 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello 109.79.68.165. Consider making an argument on the talk page about why the last edit should be reverted. That will give others the chance to respond. Multiple IPs seem to be making similar reverts so there is a case for semiprotection. We definitely would not want individual user comments on Rotten Tomatos to be used as sources on Wikipedia, but it unclear whether the overall audience percentage is considered a reliable index of response to a movie. The hidden comment in the article (under 'Reception') currently states (backed up on Talk with a link to WP:USERGEN).

AUDIENCE RECEPTION AND RATINGS: Do not include them! Wikipedia does not support user-generated content in its articles, and thus audience ratings cannot be included. Please refer to the talk page before proceeding to edit this section, and view the multiple discussions raised on the topic. No consensus has been formed to allow this article to differ from Wikipedia's guidelines and policies by including such content. Additions of audience ratings will be reverted.

Okay then "Disruptive editing" if you insist on making the distinction. It was an edit that continued to do the same thing that was reported, it continued to ignore MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC again including the same Audience scores that are not allowed. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The latest discussion I could find on RSN is this one from 2019, where the commenters seem to reject all usage of the audience ratings unless *the ratings themselves* are commented on in actual reliable sources. So that view would allow mention of the user ratings if other RSs quoted them. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

There are occasional exceptions, but this is not one of them. User voted web polls are fundamentally not a reliable source, but sometimes we include the audience scores anyway if they have been reported by a reliable WP:SECONDARY source, and they have not been. The audience scores were inserted before an existing reference to Variety that does not mention them at all, only that fans were displeased and showing it on RT and IMDB. The scores themselves are never even the point anyway, the difference in opinion between audiences and professional critics is the point and that was already expressed. (I too was displeased by the show but unlike the other anon IP editor I am going to stick to what the reliable sources actually say, and try not to give undue weight to the criticism.) Also that isn't the even point of why we are here on this noticeboard specifically, this is WP:BRD, the anon editor fails to discuss and edit wars instead. -- 109.79.68.165 (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Agin would re-iterate that regardless of what you call this, this is disruptive editing by an editor or editors that are making no good faith efforts to improve wikipedia or work within policy, so a lack of meaningful admin action here is disappointing. Artw (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:216.246.144.248 reported by User:Verbcatcher (Result: Blocked)

Pages: Ed Roland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Dean Roland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.246.144.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to:

• Ed Roland:[32]
• Dean Roland:[33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Ed Roland:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]
7. [40]
8. [41]
9. [42]
10. [43]

• Dean Roland:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page and user talk page:

• Talk:Ed Roland#Deletion of photographs: [50]
• Talk:Dean Roland#Deletion of photographs: [51]
• User talk:216.246.144.248: [52][53]

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

Comments:
The user has repeatedly removed images from Ed Roland and from Dean Roland without giving clear reasons, over several weeks. The user has failed to respond to questions on the article talk pages and on their user talk page. The edits have been reverted by four different users: User:RetroSoulGirl, User:WaddlesJP13, User:TaurusEmerald and me. I disclose my discussion with an involved editor at c:User talk:RetroSoulGirl#File tagging File:Dean Roland.jpg. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. The discussion over at Commons about these images seems very thorough and the IP editor is continuing to delete them with no rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Adoring nanny, User:Slatersteven reported by User:Hcoder3104 (Result: filer page-blocked for one month)

Page: Elections in Cuba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Snooganssnoogans, User:Adoring nanny, User:Slatersteven

Previous version reverted to: [55] (Note: Systemic Bias tag was changed to Political Neutrality)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]
5. [60]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:Snooganssnoogans#Edit-warring on Elections in Cuba, User talk:Adoring nanny#Edit Warring on Elections in Cuba, User talk:Slatersteven#Edit Warring on Elections in Cuba

Comments:

• Bold move, we'll see if it pays off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll take it to the Supreme Court, or whatever the Wikipedia equivalent is. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Hcoder3104: Have you read WP:BOOMERANG? This report was, uhh, bold to say the least. — Czello 15:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I have. Honestly, I don't care if I don't win the case. And I have made the case for my revisions multiple times. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  Starting an RFC is generally better than edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  When you are arguing against multiple other people, we usually call that "consensus" rather than "edit warring." Can you explain why you think this is the latter? Dumuzid (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  See above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Working on a case for the Political Neutrallity tag.Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• I suggest you close this before it's too late, because all the passing admins will see is you edit warring against multiple editors over a tag that you failed to justify (even after another editor started a discussion on the talk page). M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the prior section on that page, there is definitely room for discussion related to a POV or neutrality tag (and my own quick read of the lead suggests a more thorough discussion is absolutely needed about the lede), but I agree that this report is unactionable. --Masem (t) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

They however have edit warred (and this does not require false accusations of tag-teaming [[61]]. So I am requesting a boomerang.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really then place for this but the false accusations of Meat Puppetry and the tit for tat edit war warnings (aimed at users with 1 revert) mean this user needs (at the very least) a very stern warning.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The tag teaming part is curious. Other than this article, I can't remember the last time I was in agreement with USER:Snooganssnoogans about something. I'm sure it's happened somewhere. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• The filer has been page-blocked from Elections in Cuba for one month for edit warring against multiple users. Bishonen | tålk 16:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

User:Eifygjjgd reported by User:McSly (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Expansion of the universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 18:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 15:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "Plagiarism is use without attribution"
4. 14:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "The copyright term has expired, so the material is in public domain"
5. 05:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "The copyright term has expired, so the material in in public domain"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Expansion of the universe."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also edit warring on other articles like Negative temperature with same account and under IP. User made no attempt to discuss after being reverted by multiple users. McSly (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:YouTube12345678 reported by User:Politanvm (Result: Indef)

Pages:

• Syed Pir Nazim Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Pir Nazim Hussain Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: YouTube12345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "YouTube12345678 moved page Draft:Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah to Syed Pir Nazim Hussain"
2. 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "YouTube12345678 moved page Draft:Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah to Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah"
3. 03:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "←Created page with '{{Use Pakistani English|date=February 2022}} {{Use dmy dates|date=December 2019}} {{Pakistani name|Nazim|Hussain}} {{Infobox person | name = Nazim Hussain | native_name ={{small|{{Nastaliq|سید پیر ناظم حسین}}}} | image = Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah Pic.jpg | caption = Nazim Hussian in 2020 | birth_date = {{birth date and age|df=y|1950|03|03}} | birth_place = [[Lahore]], Paki...'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Pir Nazim Hussain Shah moved to draftspace */ new section"
2. 04:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah moved to draftspace */ new section"
3. 22:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah moved to draftspace */ new section"
4. 22:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Draft:Syed Pir Nazim Hussain Shah."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is move-warring to keep an unsourced BLP draft in mainspace. It was initially declined under a different name (Draft:Pir Nazim Hussain Shah), which the user then moved to mainspace, and was subsequently draftified. The user also created this version (Syed Pir Nazim Hussain) directly in mainspace, and has moved it back to mainspace after it being draftified multiple times.

User hasn't responded to any messages on their talk page. I haven't posted on either article's talk page. Politanvm ^talk 22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:174.86.19.26 reported by User:Mhawk10 (Result: 1 week)

Page: Steve Roberts (Missouri politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 174.86.19.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071950019 by Mhawk10 (talk)"
2. 05:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071949430 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
3. 05:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071949337 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
4. 05:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071949206 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
5. 05:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071948824 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
6. 05:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071948038 by Andrew nyr (talk)"
7. 05:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Removed allegations that were proven to be false."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Steve Roberts (Missouri politician)."

Comments:

IP is edit warring on a politician's page to remove unflattering information. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week from the article only. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:CJ337 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)

Page: Draft:Trevor Tordjman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: CJ337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
2. 01:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
3. 21:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
4. 19:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
5. 22:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
6. 21:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
7. 20:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
8. 16:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"
9. 15:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Draft:Trevor Tordjman."
2. 02:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Draft:Trevor Tordjman."
3. 21:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Draft:Trevor Tordjman."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to submit the article in question for review. It has been submitted nine times as of writing this, and on the instances it was reviewed, it was declined each time. The user changes nothing each time they submit it. All they are doing is wasting Wikipedia resources—in this case, other users' time. User has received a plethora of warnings, to which they refuse to acknowledge or respond to. Amaury • 23:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• A appropriate sanction in this case may well just be blocking this editor from editing this Draft, and nothing else. I'm not sure they've done anything objectionable, outside of this one Draft. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support a block for that page alone as well, but it should be a long one. Amaury • 01:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Any admin who thinks a partial block would be better is free to change this. An inability to understand warnings or respond to comments is clearly a handicap for someone who wants to edit Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:United States Man reported by User:Elijahandskip (Result: )

Page: Tornado outbreak of April 19–20, 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: United States Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Elijahandskip#Tornado outbreak (User talk page, not article talk page)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [68]

Comments:

The user is simply upset with me for trying to perform routine merges on articles on events that were previously deemed as not meeting notability for an article because of some project article creating drive said user has undertaken for the 2022 calendar year. United States Man (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reporter - United States Man messaged me on my talk page[69] stating "I have been doing this for over a decade, so I'm familiar with the policy." after violating the 3RR rule, which was reminded to them in the edit summary from me before the 4th revert (the violation revert).

The policy of article notability within our project, as I was referring to there. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"The outbreak is not article worthy. If it was so, an article would've been created at the time. I have been doing this for over a decade, so I'm familiar with the policy." Posting half my comment here takes it out of context, so I posted the whole thing. United States Man (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I also attempted to reason with the user via talk page but was continually reverted. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note from Reporter - The user being reported has removed the talk page notification from me [70] with the edit summary of "Rvt spam". Elijahandskip (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." I did not perform more than three reverts, merely stopping at three. I do realize it was edit warring, although, as I said, I tried to explain to the user on their talk page and this is a routine move that I have done many times with other non-notable articles. I think this "report" here may not be valid. United States Man (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that I have previously challenged the notability of some of the user's article creations (which had nothing to do with the user and entirely due to the content), and it is possible that said user holds a grudge for that. United States Man (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I will comment here since I am familiar with both editors here and the project. First, United States Man did not actually violate 3RR. There was the initial redirect and then three reverts from him after Elijahandskip reverted the redirect. Both editors are at exactly three reverts as of this writing. That being said, this case still constitutes an edit war, since 3RR is not the definition of edit warring. While the redirect may have started out as "routine," it stopped being that as soon as the reversions began. Both editors failed to follow WP:BRD and should have stopped reverting and kept this to a talk page as soon as the first revert occurred. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Was alerted to this discussion off-wiki. I would like to note that this was not a "merge" since no content was ever pushed into the target article (Tornadoes of 2020). This is rather tantamount to bold article deletion. Quoting Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Redirection, "If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion." Such actions should be discussed first through AfD, not through bold merges.Chlod (say hi!) 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing could be merged because the article was essentially a copy of what was already on other articles. Hence why I thought this was just a routine task. I didn't think anyone would have a problem with me trying to improve the quality of articles in our project (which includes removing the non-notable tornado events). United States Man (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if you "didn't think anyone would have a problem", you should have stopped at the first revert by Elijahandskip because as the person who started the blanking, the burden of proof is on you to prove (a) that the article is not notable (through AfD for example), or (b) there is an existing consensus that such an article should not be made (of which I found none in Talk:Tornadoes of 2020, feel free to link to a discussion if you know where), especially when your blanking was challenged by another editor. I personally think that this "delete without discussing" mindset is rather unproductive to the project, because look where that got us now. We shouldn't perform out-of-process article deletions with the excuse of "[improving] the quality of articles in our project", especially since perfection is not required. Chlod (say hi!) 00:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reporter - Update I have discovered that United States Man "boldly merged" 2020 Dalton, Minnesota tornado [71] with an ongoing discussion on the talk page about notability Talk:2020 Dalton, Minnesota tornado#Notability saying "This isn't notable. Merging." [72] I believe this behavior is a problem, especially since both articles now involved in this discussion had editors disagreeing and the user "Boldly merged" both. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that no edit warring occurred there and the relevance to this discussion is not apparent. It should also be noted that bold behavior is encouraged on here per WP:BEBOLD. United States Man (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Reporter - Update A discussion has been taking place on User talk:Elijahandskip#my talk page between Chlod, United States Man, and myself. One of United States Mans's comments [73] was "There's literally no information of notability that can be added to improve those articles. Hence why they didn't have articles to begin with.". Chlod and myself attempted to explain how that logic is flawed, in short, saying if an article was not created during/just after the event, it has no notability. But, that discussion showed United State Man does not understand that, so can an administrator explain that to them? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My comment was to try to explain that marginal tornado events receive no news coverage weeks, months, or years after the fact, so the later in time you go, the less notable information can be found to put into an article. Any article created on a marginal tornado event such as this one will be doomed to be a rehash of the "Tornadoes of XXXX" page and the monthly list page. That is my reasoning for removal. I don't need to have anything explained to me. United States Man (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Admins – I will say that I get the impression the reporter is trying to get someone to "teach me a lesson", likely because of past issues we've had over article notability elsewhere. I've tried to explain my reasoning on the user's talk page, but my comments get taken out of context and I am given links to "policy." United States Man (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Assurance from the reporter (myself) this has nothing to do with past interactions. As I stated on my talk page[74], I had been considering withdrawing the noticeboard, thinking United States Man and myself were coming to an agreement after [75] United States man asked me to see their reasoning, which I did. I then asked them to not do a repeat of what occurred today[76], namely not following the proper procedure of merge proposals/AfD's once a bold redirect/merge was challenged. The issue did not stop there and that was part of the message after the request to follow procedure. I feel like United States Man is attempting to use our past encounters as a way to get out of this situation, though, a simple request from now two people to just follow the proper process has been met with arguments. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the process. I'm more concerned with notability in the first place. If you wanna do AfD instead of a merge/redirect, we can go that route. I was just trying to explain why I merged that page because I've been doing that same thing for years (i.e. merging articles that fail WP:SEVERE notability guidelines) and never been met with anyone who didn't agree. So, yes, I may have gotten heated and got into an edit war, but so did you, so I'm not the only one at fault here. You reverted me and I reached out to you first on your talk page to explain, so yes I got heated and reverted you back; that was a mistake. I am aware of how the process works, and my comments trying to explain the notability issue of these marginal outbreaks have been construed as me being completely ignorant of policy. I'm not sure why I'm coming off in that way. United States Man (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Amigao reported by User:Sunderland Renaissance (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

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

Comments:

Amigao is a politically motivated user who has a long and extensive history of aggressively policing China related topics to fit his own agenda. This includes removing the content of others arbitrarily without discussion, but in addition shaping his own work into the article without consensus and preventing change. The following diffs show he has violated 3RR on the Genocide denial page, an article subject to a general sanctions regime, by constantly reverting my changes arbitrarily and making no efforts at discussion whatsoever--Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I just warned [82] Sunderland Renaissance about using misleading edit summaries like they did at Genocide Denial (primarily claiming that there was consensus for their actions on the talk page when there wasn't, theres not even a discussion on the talk page). In their edit summary they also accused me of being politically motivated: "remove false warning by politically motivated user"[83]. I think a swift WP:BOOMERANG is in order given the personal attacks and because, surprise, they're at four reverts [84][85][86][87]. Given the nature of the edits I think we can excuse Amigao as reverting vandalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• After checking the history of the page, that page may have an active sock puppet. The four proxy IP or sock puppet accounts have the same edit.

1. Special:Log/block&page=User%3A102.38.159.75 Proxy IP
2. Special:Log?type=gblblock&page=User:88.166.58.158 Proxy IP
3. Special:Log?type=gblblock&page=User:141.134.226.127 Proxy IP
4. Special:Log/block&page=User%3Aאברהסה+בו Sock puppet account

Through WP:duck, 5.38.218.103,PlanespotterA320 or Sunderland Renaissance may also be one of them,like 141.134.226.127 or אברהסה בו.--Rastinition (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I just put the link and don't make any comments. 103.217.166.98 ,Conyeetol,HanKim20 ,PlanespotterA320 ,Sunderland Renaissance. It should have been started by Sunderland Renaissance at the earliest.. --Rastinition (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I am in full and total agreement. I don't normally get into these, (the politics of Wikipedia) but User:Amigao in my own personal experience consistently removes references to claim later information is "unsourced" oe as they call it or "redundant" or "refspam" to then have pretext later to return and delate it as "unsourced". Point is it was sourced before. If that is how Wikipedia operates on a regular, soon there would be no content at all if the point was remove anything not inline with your agenda. The point of articles isn't supposed to be one-sided and slanted on purpose by removing long time referenced material on purpose. I hardly see how this helps keep Wikipedia open and credible. I would think without an agenda, more emphasis would be on taking things to talk page in such a dispute to seek if the community can find better sources. Also, it's not just me saying so, there's at least one articles online that I know about User:Amigao's tactics. Such as here, on reddit which I have nothing to do with mind you. CaribDigita (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Is that really the reddit hate post you wanted to link to? Gems like "Amigao ironically accuses China of being racist against Africans." (Amigao didn't do that, WP:RS did) really make me question both the intentions and competencies of the poster. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Rastinition: just FYI PlanespotterA320 was indeffed on the 15th, just before Sunderland Renaissance decided to come back out of hibernation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Rastinition: If you allegations of socking, take them to WP:SPI. This is not the venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Matias_Affolter reported by User:ClockworkChemist (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: 22:36, 10 February 2022‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88] (First time the user edited the article)
2. [89] (Revert 1)
3. [90] (Revert 2)
4. [91] (Revert 3)
5. [92] (Revert 4)
6. [93] (Revert 5)
7. [94] (Revert 6)
8. [95] (Revert 7)
9. [96] (Revert 8, this is where this user started to compare this edit war with watergate, calling it "pixagate" among other irrational juvenile comments)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [99]

Comments:

• The user {Matias_Affolter:an3-notice} Matias_Affolter (talk) has been adding a self-promoting (possibly dangerous) unknown software called "Pixa.pics" to the software list in the Pixel Art article. This is not a notable software, it doesn't even appear in most search engines (Less than 800 results in google, all going back to the author): It's a GitHub project developed by this user that is trying to use wikipedia as publicity stunt. There's no mentions of this website anywhere except in this person's own blog. I am also sure that this is part of a bigger scam related to NFTs, and here's proof of that connection. The user has even admitted a bias in their own page (This person also created their wikipedia account for this sole purpose, and have no contributions before this incident).

The user is now calling the situation "pixgate" and calling me "pixel mafia", so it seems like it has boiled down to classic trolling/vandalism ClockworkChemist (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for advertising and disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Z4i3r7tg6j reported by User:Unbh (Result: indef partial block)

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

User being reported: Z4i3r7tg6j (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC) "See the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */"

Comments:

SPA was warned and then blocked after ignoring warning by @user:EdJohnston for edit warring per this

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=1071051567&oldid=1071042948

has been reverted by multiple users, but continually reverts without discussion or useful edit summaries. Is now back reverting and refusing to seek consensus on talk beyond issuing personal attacks. EG "You are not qualified to edit this page" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephemeralization&diff=prev&oldid=1072171151 aand "Your failure to keep in mind the definitive first sentence of the article is indicative of a severe deficit of working memory, which is innate and incurable. There is no point in further talking to you, because you will make the same judgemental errors over and over again." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ephemeralization&diff=1072152770&oldid=1071566791 Unbh (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm feeling kind, and have blocked the editor only from editing the article. Note my warning on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)