Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR Update this page 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. Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Interlake Maritime Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scope creep (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:
I've also had some talk page warnings from Scope creep. We had a disagreement the previous day in which they accused me of edit warring, however I don't believe this to be the case. They have also reverted my edits without any explanation (example).

I didn't accuse you of edit warring at any time while I have been in here, until you edit warred. These are the reason why we are here: Yesterday, two articles were deprodded for no reason that I can see and an article was reverted after being reviewed by two new page reviewers in good standing. The subject started to edit war to restore the article and I reverted at back to the redirect. I reviewed the articles and the references looked atrocious. This is the article: Victory Brinker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The subject has no existance outwith the show, there was no secondary sources, but somehow had be reverted back to the article, which was never explained, really. The prod's he took off were Wondernet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and SuperSonic (ISP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There was seven of these ISP articles originally created and four of them were deleted by A7, created by by mix of UPE/Paid/WP editors. Wondernet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been sent to Afd and will be deleted as will the other one, as they're generic, but they had to go to Afd as well. They're was no work by the editor to determine, why they were prodded in the first place, no work to determine anything really, it had to go to Afd. No attempt to build consensus. No mention of the guidelines.

I had a conversation with NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yesterday, trying to find out why they deprodded the articles without any reason. The conversation didn't go anywhere really, even though I attempted to determine why, but there was no reason behind it. In the conversation, the editor states I wrote in the history "add ref, decline PROD. Has had more than one appearance on different programs, so I feel she may be notable". I'm sorry, I don't need to provide any more reasoning than that. No attempt to build consensus.

The reference I reviewed on Victory Brinker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was about the show. They're is no secondary links on this WP:BLP. The article was reverted back to redirect. The editor seemed to think that prod was somehow outside consensus. I reviewed on NPP was [Interlake Maritime Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), twice. It is now at Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interlake Maritime Services. The article is a brochure article, it was at prodd, but it was deprodded by editor Kablammo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), even though the four references were routine coverage. It was sent to Afd. NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who voted to keep in the discussion:

Regardless of the level of sourcing on Interlake Maritime Services specifically, the company has been active for a while as Interlake Steamship Company[4] and appears to have recently restructured after taking over the operation of the Lake Michigan Carferry Service..

That was their rationale and that is when I had an epiphany. This whole insn't about deprod, although that is part of it. The whole is WP:ARS at work. Here is another editor complaining about NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big John (dinosaur) stating they are WP:ARS and that is when it clicked. The editor is stating of the Afd:

The Article Rescue Squadron is essentially organised canvassing for inclusionists, which explains the sloppy reasoning of the keep votes so far. On here, NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is part of the group. Here something insightful, that I noticed today. On NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he is getting a Dobos Torte from 7&6=thirteen. Which brings it today.

Yesterday, Interlake Maritime Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was sent to Afd. I participated due to doing the review, it came on the watchlist. After I did review of the three routine annoucement references and 1 primary ref to the company, NemesisAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to vote take part, stating:

Regardless of the level of sourcing on Interlake Maritime Services specifically, the company has been active for a while as Interlake Steamship Company[4] and appears to have recently restructured after taking over the operation of the Lake Michigan Carferry Service.

which to me, looked like a UPE. I asked him about, he no, I said fine. Later, he started updating the article. One part of the update was adding a sentence to the end of the Interlake Maritime Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Subsidiaries section, for article that had previously been deleted. References were put on them:

• Interlake Logistics Services - this division formerly operated a chartered cargo ship Montville[5]
• Interlake Port Services

None of that exists on Wikipedia. There is no context here. I took it off, they put it back on. I issued disruptive warning x 2. He went to the talk page, stating Please can you explain your motivation? , we talked. I stated:

There is no context for those links He stated:

Sorry, I don't follow this reasoning at all.

There is no links, no information of Wikipedia on it at all. No attempt to build consensus. No mention of the guidelines, in the past three days. No mention of WP:V, WP:NCORP or WP:SIGCOV. Nothing, no mention of any guidelines. It was just another ARS attempt to save the article from AFD. It went back and forward several times and here we are. I am really tired of this bunch. I have identified about 13 of them. They work with their own ideology and no interest in building consensus, discussing guidelines or making the thing fair. I intend to make a complaint to the WMF about them after Christmas. I came across this Afd today, and I took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesey Alfred Davoren. Look at the pile on at the end. NOTE: It is not all the ARS there though. It is important to state that. After the relist. scope_creep^Talk 20:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I heard about them was from another editor complaining about them. Since then, I've been alerted to a few AfD discussions through the project page which I followed. That is the limit of my involvement with ARS, though I'm not sure how that is relevant here. 7&6=thirteen left a message at mine and Jamesallain85's talk page after we both voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesey Alfred Davoren.

Regarding Victory Brinker, your first edit summary claimed the PROD hadn't been contested. It had, by myself, so I reverted what appeared to be an edit made in error. You reverted me without reason. I don't believe I was edit warring here, and I object to having my edits reverted without even an attempt at an explanation. Per WP:BLAR, if the redirect was restored, the next step should be discussion or AfD.

Scope creep nominated Interlake Maritime Services for deletion apparently in retaliation to me deprodding two articles (see our discussion on their talk page). Scope creep removed these bullet points (which I didn't add, btw) four times with differing reasons each time and sent me two warning templates again with different reasoning each time. Scope creep's summary above is incomplete. They actually wrote There is no context for those links, not in a see also section. See also sections entries, usually point to something internally to Wikipedia. to which I replied Sorry, I don't follow this reasoning at all. The links weren't in a "See also" section, the section is titled "Subsidiaries". Scope creep then accused me of adding a reference with no context merely to win an Afd and keep that article. That was the reason it was added.

I think that's enough for now. NemesisAT (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope that User:Scope creep will respond and explain why they should not be blocked for violating the 3RR at Interlake Maritime Services. All this stuff about WP:ARS is interesting but not germane to the edit warring charge. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there is always an underlying cause and that is it. It was a clear violation of edit warring as its defined. We were both edit warring that day, not because I normally do that because the process was followed. The editor was edit warring on the Victory Brinker article for the same reason. I removed the links with different reasons edit summaries because he wasn't willing believe me, to trust me what I was saying. I don't think the editor was interested in the reason. I've worked with 100's of editor's on articles hoping to meet WP:HEY and if the article was updated to a decent quality, I would have given them help. I've helped in articles that I considered absolutly rank, no use to wikipedia, man nor beast and still, but I've still helped folk when they made a really good argument for it. Here there was no logic to it. Regarding the prod, usually there was a decent argument left in edit summary. When you see that and it makes sense, it is natural just to move on and forget about it. There was nothing there, apart from a message about references. Regarding the Victory Brinker that was reviewed by myself and another editor. It was badly referenced. He wanted it to taken to Afd, without suppyling any kind of rational reason, for it. It is within process to redirect badly written and very poor quality articled, so I restored as it was on my watchlist. I sent the Interlake article to Afd as it is the process. Not because of retaliation. I sent the other deprodded for the exact same reason. I have done with 100's of articles It is an advert article with no place on wikipedia. The editors additions of those list entities would have made it more brochure article. The reference on the text could have went anywhere on the article, it didn't need there. All in all, it has been a crap experience. scope_creep^Talk 15:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD suggests AfD as an alternative if a PROD is contested. WP:BLAR suggests the next step after a redirect is objected to is AfD. I don't have strong feelings about that article itself and I also understand that WP:BLAR is a valid alternative to deletion. I don't particularly like articles being redirected without discussion as it can easily be done without other potentially interested editors noticing and in this case I felt my objection to the PROD should be enough to suggest I didn't want the article turned into a redirect either. Hence why I restored it, per WP:BLAR. What I really object to is editors using their NPP privileges as an excuse to revert me without any explanation whatsoever, as you did.

I removed the links with different reasons edit summaries because he wasn't willing believe me, to trust me what I was saying. This sounds like edit warring to me. How can I trust you when your reasoning varies each time, and you send me warning templates for daring to disagree? NemesisAT (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reason never varies, it is based on the policies and nothing else. That is all there is. If you knew the policies you wouldn't say that. I write a lot of articles and I know what needs to go into them. I varied the edit summary a bit because you don't seem to trust what I'm saying. That is breaking the WP:AGF], what I'm saying is the truth. What else am I doing. All my work can be checked. All I want to see is high quality articles, that it is. If come after Afd, per heymann, then it's the same process. If you don't understand policy, then why going around deproding article and not even looking at the history around them. There is a consusens in NPP that a good redirect is better than taking Afd or proding. That was a good redirect. It accurate and helpful. Trying to save and expand absolutly junk when there is nothing there, is wrong and wasteful of everytime time. The ref you put was woeful. Putting a ref doesn't fix the original problem. BLP's need secondary sources every time, real susbstance, otherwife how supposed to trust the fact. It's them rabbitting on about themselves. This Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Starks (2nd nomination). You stated you think it passes the GNG. Did you look for secondary sources. You say you don't have strong feelings about about it. That Steve Starks article was created by a covert UPE sockfarm. It is worst piece of crap on Wikipedia. Why did you even vote on it. Do you not want to support Spam group, coin and admin corps? Do you care about them. They do vital work, without them we would sunk in 4 weeks, like a sinking ship. There is no secondary sources, nobody is talking about him. A quick search would have shown that. Lastly you fixated on WP:BLAR policy. I use when it needed, but there there is other guidelines and consensus that are equally valud, are in there as well and they take equal consideration, like how coverage the article is. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: London Action Resource Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paki.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

Comments:

It's a long running dispute as shown on the talkpage. The latest section for that is Talk:London_Action_Resource_Centre#Continued_adding_of_disputed_text which includes my recent attempts to engage, with no response in the last 24 hours Mujinga (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So since reporting this I've been called a liar and the adding of disputed text by Paki.tv continues. I'm then accused of vandalism for removing it. Mujinga (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:Paki.tv is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at London Action Resource Centre unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Some of the issues in the current revert war appear similar to the material mentioned by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry in a comment in the 2009 WP:Articles for deletion/London Action Resource Centre. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well thanks for giving Paki.tv a clear warning on their talkpage but it unfortunately hasn't helped, they are still adding the disputed text. Mujinga (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Page: LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Serols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need a second opinion about the current page history of "LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates" in the context of an earlier report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, it's not even unsourced. If Serols was at least correct about removing unsourced material, but no, the source says "for attempting to resemble women", and the reverted contributor tried to add "because they were cross-dressing". Serols reverts them for adding "unsourced content" and requests page protection for "persistent vandalism". I'm really out of hope here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source says: The two Singaporeans, Muhammed Fadli Abdul Rahman and Nur Qistina Fitriah Ibrahim, told Human Rights Watch they were wearing jeans, sneakers, and long-sleeved button-down shirts at the time of their arrest. Fadli, a cisgender male fashion photographer, said he wore a chain around his neck and has an ear piercing and a nose piercing, while Ibrahim, a transgender woman who works as a model, had long hair. Police told them their arrest was on the grounds of "looking feminine." But it's not just that edit that's being disputed, it's also the one about "In September 2016, the Government passed Federal Decree No 4"...? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When someone uses the edit summary "not providing a reliable source" (sorry, I accidentally misquoted that from mind above), I expect it to primarily refer to addition, not removal, of material. Anyway: WP:3RR, WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Three unexplained reverts of good-faith contributions, one additional incorrectly explained revert, a protection request for "persistent vandalism". Add five incorrect warnings for things that didn't happen. One, two, three, four, five. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At 18:21, 8 December 2021‎ Serols reverted the addition of "because they were cross-dressing", and gave as a reason: not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS). The cited source did not mention the words "cross-dressing". Serols did the same thing at 18:17, 8 December 2021 and 18:15, 8 December 2021, but with no edit summary. In each case Serols placed warning templates on the talk page of the editors reverted. In two out of three cases the warnings mentioned that the problem was that the edits reverted were not supported by reliable sources, which was both correct and helpful. Though Serols was probably right to make those reverts, he/she was not reverting clear cut vandalism so the three reverts count towards the three-revert rule.

The reverts at 18:13 and 18:14 count as one revert because there were no edits by other users between them.‎ Serols was reverting vandalism, and the warning messages Serols left on the editor's talk pages were appropriate.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would wholly support this analysis. Editing, particularly by anon IPs, who are based in the region, can often get a bit fraught. I have encountered a series of crusading WP:SPAs, on this and similar articles, over the years. Not always easy to "police." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Toddy1 and Martinevans123, thank you for your comments. The fact is, that I have read this editing and accepted it. For me, this edit was the only one, that complied with the rules. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a short additional discussion at Serols's talk page, and it does resolve my concerns. Thanks to everyone! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: The page at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates has been semiprotected for one year by User:ToBeFree under WP:ARBGS, which looks to be a reasonable step. I've discussed with ToBeFree and Serols on their talk pages whether any further action is needed, though I have none to propose at this time. Serols is getting close to the point where loss of his rollback flag should be considered. If you believe something is unsourced and your response is to get into an edit war, that's not advisable. In this particular case the material really *was* sourced and some discussion might have helped realize that. Neither the IP nor Serols used the talk page, which is the place where this could have been worked out. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: 49.178.80.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "But it is. It is an example."
2. 06:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059218244 by MrOllie (talk) What photo would you like then?"
3. 04:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059202807 by MrOllie (talk) This is an example. Mugshot"
4. 01:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059098841 by MrOllie (talk) Unexplained."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19] after this report was started, but prior to the IP's 8th addition of the material.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] by a third party after the fact

Comments:

Pattern of unconstructive editing and argumentative - pretty sure it's the same person who got blocked the other day under another IP. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also tendentious edit warring at Patty Hearst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FDW777 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP was not warned for edit warring, but this is egregious. IP has actually made the identical edit 7 times since December 7, including [21] and [22] on December 7 (neither is included in the original report) and [23] on December 10, 'after the user had been informed of this edit warring report. Meters (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP has now made the edit an 8th time [24], after having been given an edit warring warning, and after the talk page thread was started. Meters (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now a 9th time [25], albeit in a different place in the article. Meters (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe that shoehorning this image into the lead instead is a goodfaith edit. Meters (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the last 4 reverts took place in less than 24 hours and thus broke the bright-line 3RR rule, with two after the edit warring warning: [26] 06:51, December 9, 2021; [27] 03:15, December 10; [28] 04:26, December 10, 2021; [29] 04:35, December 10, 2021 Meters (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP has also added the image to Mug shot. Politanvm ^talk 05:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 3 days. This IP's edits form a pattern. In addition to their 3RR violation here, a large fraction of their last 50 edits have been reverted by others. This suggests either that they have trouble perceiving the consensus, or they don't care. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: CBN (AM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 142.68.17.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059441584 by Aloha27 (talk)"
2. 12:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059376287 by Aloha27 (talk) Ramona Dearing no longer does Cross Talk"
3. 02:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1059335740 by Aloha27 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Block evasion Again. IP JUST came off a two week block by Jezebel's Ponyo. SPI case exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/47.55.50.49   Aloha27  talk  13:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – 3 months for evasion per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/47.55.50.49. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Dhu al-Qarnayn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A04:4A43:4D7E:8961:611C:579A:C33A:C141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]
5. [35]
6. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

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

1. Comment in warning
2. Section in talk (both linked in edit summaries: [38] [39])

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [40]

Comments:

Dynamic IP is replacing long-standing sourced content with poorly-sourced personal opinion. They use specious edit summaries to claim that "sources were given" even though they failed verification (the IP sources do not mentioned early Muslim commentators). They also ignored my requests for quotes (e.g., [41]) and on their talkpage ([42], [43]). I had asked for page protection to force the IP to talk, I was advised to warn the user and report them to AIV or ANI. It's been a while since I've been in a dispute so I hope this is the right forum. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. User:Wiqi55 you could be more credible if you had explained the issue on the article talk page. As it happens, this IP is editing from a range that is already covered by a partial block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Patty Hearst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.178.80.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Criminal as per article."
2. 06:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Criminal, as per the article. These are not my words."
3. 06:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "How about criminal."
4. 04:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "It says she was a member of Symbionese"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 06:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Modern history of Saudi Arabia."
3. 06:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Patty Hearst."
4. 06:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
5. 22:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Patty Hearst."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Same behaviour on Patty Hearst article Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: The IP is already blocked per Laterthanyouthink's prior report.

Page: Bipin Rawat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49] [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51] [52]

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

Comments:

The user not only made more than three reverts in less than 24 hours. He also lied in his edit summary, he said earlier user who removed this also considered this source as dubious which wasn't the case. The earlier user wasn't aware of the rules and he thought such caste names are not permitted on wiki hence he removed not for dubious source like @Venkat TL claimed. He tried to give me warning and intimidate me as I am new user but he himself removed many warning given to him minutes after it was given. I gave almost seven different sources in the talk page. This user made fourth revert within less than 24 hours and that too when discussion on talk page was open. He also tried to change the language of BLP policy saying it applies here when I showed it him that it only applies when there is consensus for the same and there isn't but he is being adamant.Shanusar (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on the Wikipedia Mainpage and Shanusar is adding controversial BLP material without consensus.

I am following WP:3RRBLP. My reverts are Removal of BLP Violation and not violation of 3RR ( Specifically Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, lists, and navigation templates).

Someone added the disputed content in violation of BLP. Arunib had removed this caste info, once already. Once removed, instead of making consensus about the disputed content. User:RS6784 started edit warring. The onus to get consensus is on the person adding the disputed content. But here immediately after my first revert I started the discussion thread Talk:Bipin_Rawat#Rawat's_caste After User:RS6784 completed 3 reverts [53] [54], [55], User:RS6784 stopped and another Shanusar appeared to continue the edit war. Instead of discussing, Shanusar made 2 reverts, [56] [57].

For the sake of not continuing the edit war, I left the BLP violation content in the article for a day and waited for them to reply on the discussion page. Neither of the 2 users replied to my comment. So today removed the controversial BLP content once again. I advised Shanusar to approach the WP:BLPN for this, but he posted on this noticeboard. Sigh. Venkat TL (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#General Bipin Rawat's caste Venkat TL (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Page is EC protected two months under WP:ARBIPA. I am concerned about the revert war over caste membership which raises a BLP issue. See also WP:GS/CASTE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Islamic calendar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Salman khan 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]
5. [63]
6. [64]
7. [65]
8. [66]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [73]

Comments:

User is removing image of Islamic Propet Muhammad on ‘religious grounds’, contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED. DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Indefinitely blocked for general disruptive editing across many articles. The user has made no constructive contributions since they started editing on December 5.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Talk:List of presidents of the United States#Discussion 2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (RfC)
User being reported: Tol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74] (version just prior to the problem comment)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75] - first post of problematic comment
2. [76] - despite my request to strike, they reply but the comment remains (for a 2nd time)
3. [77] - has again restored the comment after I struck the text (3rd time)
4. [78] - has again restored the comment after I struck the text, (4th time)
5. [79] - has again restored the comment after I struck the text, (5th time) - only this time they have 'doubled down' and repeated the comment (6th time) in their reply.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - did not have an opportunity, but if the object of the warning is to ensure the user is aware of the prohibition against edit warring, this user has filed at least 2 reports to this board, noted here;

• [80] & [81]

And they have posted several EW/3RR warnings to users;

• [82], [83], [84], [85] & [86]

Which would all strongly indicate that they are aware of the of the EW policy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - as it was, we were already in a discussion. I didn't think that this user would repeatedly repost that accusation, especially after I pointed out the issues with it and they admitted it was wrong. I suggested the simple and obvious solution of striking it, then we could disengage and move on.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [87]

Comments:
They posted a factually incorrect comment in the RfC, that was irrelevant to the RfC. They have even acknowledged this. As the comment is in response to a question about the need for the RfC, and in the section where several editors appear somewhat outraged at the perceived opposition to adding text for access to assist disabled readers, I was accused of being part of that opposition. I asked the accusation be struck, but it remained. I struck it, it they reposted a second time. This went around again and it was reposted a third time, then another go around and it reposted a fourth time, and then a fifth and sixth time with the same edit. The disingenuous accusation is a personal attack, the repeated posting of it is trolling, perhaps even vandalism. As such I attempted to strike, per TPG and the associated P&G, but for some reason unknown to me, they insist on keeping this accusation posted. And along with all this, they repeatedly become upset that I altered their comments", yet ironically they alter my comments to make minor corrections each and every time.

I realize this is atypical. I'm not seeking a block or even a partial block. I'm just asking that the accusations (both) be struck, that the entire sub-thread be collapsed as off-topic, with the exception of the portion of their first reply that follows the accusation, and perhaps a warning. And then we all carry on with with more worthwhile editing. Thanks (sorry about the length). - wolf 08:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Please don't call me "they"; "she" or "he" works. I try to not edit the content of comments (with the exception of grammar/spelling fixes or clarification in the minute after I post them). Striking part of my comment with no sign that the comment was edited was particularly annoying. Is this a suitable compromise? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also moved and collapsed the discussion as requested. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Jussie Smollett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Added to be consistent with other similar pages."
2. 05:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Added to be consistent with other similar pages listing felon status in first sentence. Admit the truth."
3. 05:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Added to be consistent with other similar pages."
4. 05:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC) "Added to be consistent with other similar pages."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned repeatedly by General Ization.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Issue is under discussion but no actionable proposals have actually been made.

Comments: Naked attempt to right great wrongs by edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]