Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive473

Page: Green Boots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 62.121.129.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173678209 by Peaceray (talk) the article is not about the name of the body. it's about the body. you cannot rationally believe otherwise. evidently just enjoy edit warring"
2. 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173669137 by Peaceray (talk) you obviously just want to revert for the sake of it. the article is about the body, not the name of the body, so this version is correct."
3. 19:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173659727 by Peaceray (talk) not a valid reason for reverting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.4)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Removal of phrase by 62.121.129.170 */ comment"

Comments:

Possible edit warring, and this IP restored their preferred version despite possibly violating WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD. signed, 64andtim (chat) 21:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting that WP:BRD is an essay & not policy. However WP:EDITCONSENSUS & WP:EDITWAR are both policies, & both 64andtim & I have asked 62.121.129.170 to discuss the matter on the talk page with no response at this time. Peaceray (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

How strange, that an unrelated third party would see an account reverting edits made by an IP, for no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and report only the IP. 62.121.129.170 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

However, I did not revert any dispute edit(s) on the article Green Boots, and have told the editor not to revert further on said article. I think they started a discussion on the talk page. signed, 64andtim (chat) 21:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to a third opinion, however that editor may become involved. Peaceray (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Declined both Peaceray and the IP are are 3 reverts and are edit warring, and regarding WP:EDITCONSENSUSAn edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted, them removing the content disputes the presumed consensus. Being right is not an exception to edit warring, if the IP were to be blocked Peaceray would be blocked for having made the same number of reverts. I suggest you discuss the merits of the content on the talk page rather than giving a technical reason for why you believe a consensus already exists. The article has also been reported at WP:RFPP, but all involved parties should now use the talk page to resolve the dispute rather than continuing to revert each other; further edit warring will likely lead to blocks. Aoidh (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I opened a discussion at Talk:Green Boots before the discussion on this talk page, & 62.121.129.170, 64andtim, & I have all posted there. Peaceray (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Per an SPI report the IP has been blocked for LTA block evasion. - Aoidh (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: List of National Rugby League records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 220.236.126.177 (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]

I suspect this user also used the 110.175.242.146 IP address, here are similar edits from a few weeks ago:

1. [5]
2. [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:
Some things to note:

- This IP user has previously been banned for 3 months, and 2 weeks before that, for edit warring on this page (and probably based on their activity on others as well, notably the List of Manly Warringah Sea Eagles records page. They received their 3 month ban pretty much immediately after their 2 week ban ended for continuing to edit war rather than attempt good faith discussion, as their opinion was not supported by any relevant sources.

- There are two points of contention currently, both in one table on the article. One is to do with the name of a team, which I believe should remain consistent with the other entries in the table as the most recent name but the person being reported wants all 3 names to be included. The diff I posted of the article talk page was what I posted in response to another ip address, which I now suspect is the same person, changing the tables. I have provided my point, but nobody has responded to it, showing that others likely view it as a non-issue while this user is unwilling to discuss it seriously. The other point of contention is over the win percentages in the same table. I have not made a talk page entry about this mainly due to this user not engaging with my talk page point about the other issue. The percentages are also much more cut and dry; the team name dispute is a question of article style, percentages are based on simple maths. In the event that this user does not know how to calculate percentages and round them to 2 decimal places I included links to articles on rounding when I reverted their incorrect numbers, but they have refused to address the issue based on the maths and instead resort to a tired "you're making this an issue" argument. Since they don't engage seriously with the article talk page, I also tried to get them to discuss the maths on their talk page several months ago, which can be seen by going through its history, but they refused to engage with that and just deleted my comments. I suspect they will also delete my notice of this report.

- As I mentioned a few times already, I suspect that this user has also been ban evading. I am making this report about their main IP, but while it was banned the 110.175.242.146 IP has been active on the same pages (NRL records, Manly records, etc), makes the same disputed changes, and makes similar comments in their edit summaries like accusing others of vandalism for no reason. A look at this other IP's block log shows that it was previously banned for being used to ban evade by a now indefinitely blocked account called CodyCruickshank, whose edits back in 2017 were also largely focused around the NRL and Manly records articles.

PhinsUp23 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

PhinsUp23, thanks for the report. If I may nitpick, bans and blocks are not the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 year ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Pages:

Himarë (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

For Himarë: diff

For Sarandë: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

For Himarë:

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

For Sarandë:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Subverzo § September 2023

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Daewoo Matiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 82.78.75.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Chevrolet Spark"
2. 18:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Chevrolet Spark"
3. 18:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Chevrolet Spark"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Daewoo Matiz."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be pasting content which is incomplete and possibly machine translated from another language. User has not responded to warnings. ~Ryan (Talk | Contributions) 18:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Quico (El Chavo del Ocho) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MarcosLeandro2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"
2. 21:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"
3. 21:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"
4. 21:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"
5. 04:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

On user talk page.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

On user talk page.

Comments:

Going against AfD decision. Started as IP, continuing as this user. See edit history of page in question. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 1 week by User:Discospinster. Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Pitbull (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SuperSuperSonic207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitbull_(rapper)&diff=prev&oldid=1173826660

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitbull_(rapper)&diff=prev&oldid=1173819875
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitbull_(rapper)&diff=prev&oldid=1173691240
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitbull_(rapper)&diff=prev&oldid=1172829128

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuperSuperSonic207#Edit_warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuperSuperSonic207#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:
This user has been edit warring on Pitbull over a change in wording to the first sentence, where they are repeatedly trying to change "known professionally as" to "better known by his stage name". They have been reverted by several editors over this. It should be pointed out that they are not just edit warring on this page, but edit warring across a number of pages currently, such as Cocaine Bear and Doja Cat. They have also used threatening edit summaries such as "Leave it.", and have left an all-caps paragraph on my talk page including "WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET IT.". Other editors have also received similar comments such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CAMERAwMUSTACHE#Megan_Thee_Stallion and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeAllen#Explaing_Wikipedia_guidelines_before_editing .

SuperSuperSonic207 is also an alt account of User:2601:196:4a01:d770:80b1:e397:44d7:c8, as evidenced by this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjones23&diff=prev&oldid=1170012849

and this one too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trippie_Redd&diff=prev&oldid=1170038681

GraziePrego (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that the user has already been blocked twice as Special:Contributions/2601:196:4A01:D770:0:0:0:0/64. The connection between the IP range and the username is obvious in these two edits. So if a block is considered for this recent behavior, it should build upon the previous one-month block. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE, also competence issues as evidenced by their imperfect English. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Sengol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TrangaBellam (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I didn't revert 3 times, to lead to 3RR situation. I did create a edit war comment on talk page, before their final revert: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15], [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:

• The article was generally stable till 2nd of September [18].
• TB reverted the article to version from 2nd of August. [19]
• They keep undoing around 70 edits by multiple editors, including myself over a month, to this version.
• When challenged, they referred to some changes they did not like on the talk page [20]
• Most of these edits they didn't like to were done in early August (from August 4th onwards) before my many edits that have been reverted (starting August 13).
• Since these edits have remained in the page for up to a month after multiple revisions, there is a presumed consensus for them by WP: SILENCE. WP: ONUS is on TB to justify whatever content they think is important to insert, not to undo a lot of work by many editors.
• It is wrong to allow one user to bulldoze an months worth of edits.

Jagmanst (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

TB claims they reinsterted some of my edits. Most of my edits however are not reinserted. Jagmanst (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Jagmanst, seeking a third opinion or starting an RfC is not an option for you? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into those options. I am awestruck at the level of disruption they have caused, and how they keep undoing many constructive edits to force their old version, that I followed WP:EW to post it here. I also note from their contributions page, they frequently engage in similar aggressive reverts. Do you condone this behaviour? Jagmanst (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

If there is a general issue with TrangaBellam's behavior beyond the article about Sengol, you may like to start a discussion at WP:ANI with evidence in form of diffs. I'll focus on this report and this article.

The policy section WP:ONUS is about the addition of content when verifiability (there, "WP:BURDEN") is not an issue. It describes that even if something is verifiable, it does not automatically have to be included, and a consensus is still required for inclusion. Looking at your mention of "WP:ONUS" and Special:Diff/1173716364, I'm afraid you're both missing the point of the policy section and are misusing it to justify unrelated actions.

Regarding "silence", you have linked to an essay; the relevant section of the actual consensus policy is WP:EDITCON, which explains: "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." Well, it has been reverted. There is no presumed consensus about this matter anymore; please don't refer to it as if it still exists.

I'm happy to read that taking actual steps to resolve the situation is now being "looked into". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. TB's point was the old version is the consensus version and I or others will have to justify the 70 odd edits that happened over the months. Whereas my point is the version of 2nd September is the consensus version and they need to justify their revert to the old page. The question is who needs to justify their revision. I will bring the matter to a RfC when I get the time. Jagmanst (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 021120x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [27]

Comments:

They have been asked to take this to talk, as there are a number of issues with their text that can't be addressed in edit summaries (not least of which is the failure of wp:v). Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Now they have decided to take it to talk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There are only two reversions by 021120x, compared to three for Slatersteven. It should be noted that neither Slatersteven nor Wee Curry Monster have made any effort to bring the changes to the Talk page before reverting them or escalating the discussion to this notice board.021120x (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@021120x: You reverted 4x.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. In the first edit in the sequence] 021120x adds some information which is immediately removed as unsourced. Forty minutes later he comes back and adds a source, quoting generously enough from it in the cite as to make it seem pretty clear that this was a good-faith edit. I really don't think we should count a good-faith edit here that was intended to comply with sourcing policy as a revert for the purposes of 3RR (the next two, restoring it, are of course a different matter, but they have not exceeded three yet.

Yes, we can say that stronger historical consensus would be needed for this allegation, like more sources, but this did not start over someone's attempt to prevail in a content dispute through sheer force of will. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you're being overly generous there, the source doesn't verify the claim made, not even remotely close. And the editor 021120x makes a personal attack on my first revert [28] calling my revert dishonest. This also isn't their first rodeo, they were blocked for a week for POV-pushing, personal attacks, ownership of articles, and battleground behavior. Plus an editor whose been around 3 years knows 3RR and WP:BRD. I have a feeling this will end it tears. WCM_email 06:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

Editor has not achieved consensus on the talk page (only two other participants, both of whom disagree with the editor in question, not including myself, who also disagrees) yet refuses to back down or allow discussion to continue while the status quo map in question remains. Repeatedly includes unnecessary inflammatory language "lmao" "say the same thing to your daddy, pls" etc. Clearly some admin action is needed here in some capacity Aza24 (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Other people have already warned me about unnecessary profanity, and I plan to be more careful in the future.

I don't care if I get punished, but I want you to know that I'm not just fighting, but that I've changed sources many times in response to the other party's requests.

Despite such efforts, it is still stubbornly rejected. In contrast, none of the questions I raised have been meaningfully answered. Ooodjr (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Tang dynasty #Request for comments: change the map of infobox Ooodjr (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens has declared himself to be "neutral", why do you say "they are both against"?

sorry for my bad english Ooodjr (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Spanish Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Anglo-Spanish War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 185.119.90.12 (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:

In the Spanish Empire article:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]

In the Anglo-Spanish article:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]

Comments:
IP whose contributions are almost limited to systematically reverting without giving any explanation. Often deleting content with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augusti Maggori (talk • contribs) 21:41, September 5, 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked; IP for 24 hours by myself, Augusti Maggori for 48 hours by User:Drmies. Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Drmies, Aoidh, as noticed by User:Eastfarthingan, there is sockpuppetry going on here to evade blocks. Not just this temporary block however. User:Augusti Maggori and User:Giralda.Avenida are obvious socks of User:JamesOredan, a permanently blocked user for poisoning wikipedia with dozens and dozens of socks with a Spanish chauvinistic and suprematist agenda.(latest blocked user was User:Venezia Friulano) A few examples:

-This edit by AugustaMaggiori (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1174026251) has the same argumentation and content of this edit by Giralda.Avenida here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1174110260).

-This edit ((https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1173636536) by Giralda.Avenida has same content of this edit by Venezia Friulano here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1159950588). His other edits on the Spain article concerning the geography of Spain follow what Venezia asked for in the Talk:Spain article (see the section in which Venezia intervened).

-These accounts were created right after the block of Venezia; they have the same interests, edit same articles and push the same agenda of all the socks of James Oredan; they tend to cause edit wars, personal attacks, and then they accuse others of doing what they are doing in a gaslighting habit proper of the latest socks such as Venezia.

Barjimoa (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Barjimoa, thanks. Mz7, I think you are the last one to block a bunch of socks, and maybe you have thoughts. In the meantime, I am going to block these two accounts, but I am doing that with behavioral evidence. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: San Joaquin Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (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] "both I and Magnolia677 have reverted your initial reversion; you do not have a consensus to continue reverting; I have made my case on the talk, go ahead and make yours and let's see what the community decides! But if you revert again you will violate the 3 revert rule"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comments:

• Cristiano Tomás has characterized this sequence of my edits as a fourth reversion when it was actually a continuation of me working on the article to develop and improve it with book cites. Looking at the page history, there must have been an edit conflict. Note that I was the one who started the talk page discussion to dispute the major topic shift undertaken unilaterally by Cristiano Tomás. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Your "continuation" reverted the infobox added, images added, and new intro added; all of which are all at the heart of this debate. Also, 3RR states that "edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." And there is nothing wrong by making WP:Bold edits in the first place, apart from the fact they have been defended by another user. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1174272621 by NMW03 (talk)"
2. 11:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1163388936 by NMW03 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Extended-confirmed required */ new topic"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC) on User talk:Օֆելյա Հակոբյան

Comments:

This non-EC user keeps making edits to article(s) under WP:GS/AA after being warned NMW03 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• User:Օֆելյա Հակոբյան, word to the wise: stop it right now. Your unexplained removals are quite disruptive. If you have an argument, take it to the talk page. If you don't--well. Either way, stop edit warring or you will get blocked. Drmies (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • It is obvious that you keep falsifying the information, Hatsi village is in Armenia and Armenian village, my statement is confirmed by references. Մակար եպիսկոպոս Բարխուդարյանց, Արցախ. «Ամարաս» տպարան - Երևան 1996, էջ 83-84; Հակոբ Ղահրամանյան, ՏԵՂԵԿԱՏՈւ Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետության վարչատարածքային միավորների սոցիալ-տնտեսական բնութագրերի, Երևան, Ճարտարագետ, 2015 թ.; Մելքումյան Սերգեյ (1990)։ Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ։ Երևան: Լույս։ էջեր 243–245։ ISBN 5-545-00522-6. If you keep writing false and untrustworthy statements you will be blocked. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Believe me, you are mistaken. Make your case on the talk page, not here. Given that lack of understanding, I am going to block you from editing the article directly. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
      • @Drmies, please don't forget that she can't edit these articles because there is extended-confirmed restriction: WP:GS/AA NMW03 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
        • NMW03, I don't understand. You reported them for edit warring on an article you say they can't edit? Do you mean that in a dynamic or a deontic sense? Drmies (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

          I meant "shouldn't be" editing. That article is about a village in active conflict zone between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a topic that is under ECP. They should not be editing in this topic at all. I had given them a notice about it, but they ignored NMW03 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Well, User:Օֆելյա Հակոբյան, there you go--you shouldn't have been editing this article, and others that fall under WP:GS/AA. If you do, and certainly if you continue edit warring, you might find yourself sanctioned more severely than just with a partial block from one article. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: List of shows considered as Peak TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chatterleybuns958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53] (@17:13, 7 September 2023)
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]
6. [58] (@11:50, 7 September 2023)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] (final warning re: wp:or)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [61]

Comments:
This user has a history if persistenly adding unsourced content and has received numerous warnings, including a final warning and note that their behavour was heading towards a likely block. Within the same 24 hours of this notice, they've pivoted to adding questionable sources (example) and are now edit warring to push they're preferred content in, using edit summaries in place of a talk page. This page was just created by Espngeek who appears to be at their wit's end dealing with this (as seen here basically begging for assistance). - wolf 18:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• I find that article history difficult to peruse. It would be better if both editors were blocked from the article and sought the talk page. Espngeek did, but their talk page contribution is not very positive. The real problem of course is the vagueness of the definition of the article topic, and the absolute triteness of the whole thing. Destroy the article, that's progress. Editors, see the talk page and discuss individual entries, in a calm manner and producing reliable sources--if you can. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  The shows he tried to put are as follows:

  • Total Request Live
  • Kiff
  • Behind the Music
  • Corn & Peg
  • I Love the...
  • Pistol (miniseries)
  • MTV Cribs
  • I'm With Her
  • Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County
  • Rake
  • Dietland
  • Tell Me Lies

  Espngeek (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Enrique Tarrio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David O. Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1st edit user reverted from: [62]

Diffs of the user's 1st revert:

1. [63]

2st edit user reverted from: [64]

Diffs of the user's 2nd revert:

1. [65]

3rd edit user reverted from: [66]

Diffs of the user's 3rd revert:

1. [67]

4th edit user reverted from: [68]

Diffs of the user's 4th revert:

1. [69]

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

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

Comments:

The users edit warring mostly involves them disagreeing with me adding in an additional citation in different sections of the article. It is clear from edit summaries that they have a preference for exactly one citation only for each factual claim. Three of their reverts have been removing additional citations, all of which were from WP:RS. I left the notice of edit warring on their talk page three hours ago and their contributions show that they last edited an hour ago. Clearly they do not take my warning about edit warring and their need to self-revert seriously. TarnishedPath^talk 02:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: According to the user's contributions they edited 36 minutes ago, meaning that they would have ignored notice I left on their talk page of this discussion and not self-reverted. Clearly they couldn't care less. TarnishedPath^talk 04:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: The fourth revert you listed above is not a revert but a link to the revision history of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll grab it for you in a second. Sorry. TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 corrected. My apologies. Lack of sleep last night. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Montgomery Riverfront brawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173536226 by FormalDude (talk) The refernce is not a talk show, it is not science, it is not politics, the source is prohibited from being used in the specific context."
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) to 13:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
   1. 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1173442583 by FormalDude (talk) Restoring background information"
   2. 13:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Background and incident */ This is not a political issue. It is not a science issue. As it is neither political or scientific, it is a reliable source; please see the reliable source list."
3. 00:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC) "The video linked IS the video that has been in the article for many days. A secondary source is not required for the specific purpose as used."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Montgomery Riverfront brawl."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC) on Talk:Montgomery Riverfront brawl "/* Recent edits */ new section"

Comments:

Page protected in full for three days since the two of you have been the only ones editing (by which I mean edit-warring) for the last three days. I grant that the weight of fault is heavier on Agnt because a review of their talk page shows a history, particularly on Killing of Tyre Nichols, that speaks to a pattern of increasingly tendentious editing. And objectively Dude is on the right side of policy it seems to me.

But for purposes of enforcing WP:EW, right, save for some very narrowly defined exceptions, doesn’t matter. Besides, Dude’s talk page shows that he has also rubbed people the wrong way at times. If I blocked Agnt I’d have to block Dude too.

So, instead, I have full-protected the page for three days in the hope that the talk page discussion can play out such that Agnt comes to understand the issues with their edits without deciding to further edit war.

I have also a) designated the article as coming within a contentious topic area, in this case AP2, via the usual notice on the talk page. I have b) further advised Agnt about CTOPS, something I am surprised had not previously been done given all the drama they caused at the Tyre Nichols article.

I will not be logging this protection as a CTOPS action, despite having had to semi-protect this article a couple of weeks ago, but it is clear from the frequent requests for said protection at RFPP before and since that from the standpoint of the article at least, CTOPS designation was a long time coming. So I warn Agnt that, if they resume edit warring once this protection ends, I will log any sanction I take as a CTOPS action, since you have now been properly advised, and suggest any other admin take the same step. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: This is a baffling response. AgntOtrth has been a plague on this article, edit warring in the past, constantly condescending to other editors, introducing BLP violations, and generally acting like they OWN the page. When I make simple corrections they leave paragraphs on my talk page accusing me of assuming bad faith. They show a blatant lack of understanding of numerous fundamental policies. And how exactly does "Besides, Dude’s talk page shows that he has also rubbed people the wrong way at times." have any pertinence to this issue?

I have no interest in repeatedly explaining things to Agnt until they "come to understand the issues with their edits". I don't believe that is a possible outcome given the multiple talk page comments clarifying policies to them that they refuse to accept. Feel free to remove the page protection because I'm not gonna be editing there while Agnt still has access. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have “no interest” in repeatedly explaining things to him, then fine, but that still doesn’t make edit warring right. You are basically saying I should have blocked both of you, and demonstrating the pertinence of what I saw on your talk page.

Actually, you are making me rethink this. How does blocking both of you from the article for a week or so sound, instead of the protection? Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds punitive as I've already said I'm not going to edit the page further. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

So you would be fine with being blocked from the page indefinitely, then? To make sure you keep the promise and aren't tempted? Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be fine with it because it would be a grossly negligent sanction and I don't want a block on my record. I have the capability of walking away, unlike you apparently. Aren't admins supposed to be able to handle criticism of their actions without resorting to threats? ––FormalDude (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in the same way that editors are supposed to avoid edit warring most of the time. I am sorry for interpreting your report here as a good-faith attempt to minimize damage to the encyclopedia, not as the attempt to get Agnt blocked in retaliation for getting on your nerves that it is now abundantly clear that it always was.

Foe me, AGF means you file these reports with a willingness to accept the possibility of an outcome other than what you may have been be hoping for. We do not call these pages “Requests for Blocks”, after all.

I deduced, correctly I know now, that you would not take well to being blocked, even partially. This article is hardly your only contribution to the project; I did not want to stop you in the interim from doing quality work on the other articles you work on. So I endeavored to avoid that outcome while ending the edit war. Apparently (as I’ve also been advised on my talk page) that was the less preferable option. I notice, however, that except for your edits here you haven’t been editing much since the protection … although Labor Day weekend probably explains that better than any penitence would (And neither has Agnt, who at least has not contested this decision).

I am not changing my action; it’s really too late to. But I will tell you that this confrontational attitude of yours is, although not yet as tendentious as Agnt’s, is going to get you blocked by some other admin someday, and there will be less argument about it. Whether that actually comes to pass is up to you.

I will have no more to say about this except to say that your decision to step back from editing the article ought to be treated as a self-imposed topic ban to be taken into account should you edit the article again at some point in the future and conflict with other editors. I would also ask that maybe you consider a self-imposed interaction ban from Agnt as it seems to me to be possible that the two of you might collide on another article in the future (and yes, I will make the same suggestion to him). Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Minimizing damage to the encyclopedia would have looked like preventing Agnt from accessing the page as they violated 3RR, personalized the dispute immediately, and refused to accept policy-based changes that were thoroughly explained to them. I haven't done any of those things. I know I should have tried to explain things to them a little sooner, but that is no reason to act like my actions are even comparably problematic to Agnt's. You can't list anything else I could've done better in this dispute, much less anything I explicitly did wrong. It is clear that the main thing you're upset with is that I didn't lay down and accept your decision without a peep. And of course Agnt isn't contesting your decision, you fully protected the page with their preferred version.

I'm not considering any self-imposed Tban or Iban, the only reason I'm walking away is because you failed to handle this and I personally do not wish to continue interacting with Agnt at that article. If I see them somewhere else (unlikely given their less than 400 edits across mainly two articles), so be it, I don't carry grudges over disputes, and will treat them the same as any other editor.

And maybe my editing is slowed because I'm upset that when I reported a disruptive editor, instead of having it resolved properly, I got met with your bothsidesism and block threats. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

you fully protected the page with their preferred version. See here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Jumping in here as a completely uninvolved editor: while the BLP exception on edit warring does say not to rely on it, I do think that this is clearly covered by it and so FormalDude, by the letter of policy, did nothing wrong. From the history, FormalDude appears to be removing poorly sourced information about a living person. Loki (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue’s moot now, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I think your response to FormalDude is bad, separate from the BLP exception issue. Of course someone who comes to the edit warring board is here because they think someone else is edit warring. That is not unique to FormalDude. I don't know why you have a particular bee up your bonnet about him. Loki (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Yes, editors report what they perceive to be misconduct here. That does not entitle them to a particular resolution of that report. Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not, however you are clearly judging the case here based on the fact that FormalDude appears to have expected a certain result, when everyone who brings something to this board is expecting a certain result.

E.g:I am sorry for interpreting your report here as a good-faith attempt to minimize damage to the encyclopedia, not as the attempt to get Agnt blocked in retaliation for getting on your nerves that it is now abundantly clear that it always was. Those things are not mutually exclusive! Of course it is both an attempt to get someone the reporter feels is edit-warring blocked and a good-faith attempt to minimize damage to the encyclopedia! As every other report on this page is! Loki (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Expecting a result does not entitle a user to it. Sometimes reports here have been resolved without administrative action when the two parties got to talking as they really should have done before the report. Other times we decline them as having gone stale or being too old for a block to have made a difference. And still other times the edits have not constituted a violation.

People have been upset with resolutions of these reports before—that’s life; you won’t please everyone. But usually they at least have accepted them as within administrative discretion, rather than throwing their toys out of the carriage and pledging to never edit the article again. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Really, you're gonna use personal attacks now? Walking away is not "throwing toys out of the carriage".

And I did not pledge to never edit the article again. I have decided to stop editing there indefinitely, i.e. for an unspecified amount of time. Nothing else–no promise, no commitment. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That pledge did not seem to stop you from filing an appeal with ArbCom over which contentious topic area the article should have been classified under, a decision they almost immediately said wasn't an enforcement action and thus not appealable to them, and then two other Arbs added that even if it were, I was right. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It didn't stop me because 1) it's not a pledge and 2) I didn't have to edit the article or its talk page to submit it.

I'm sorry you don't like your actions being reviewed for accountability (or any feedback on your actions at all, as we've seen here), but that's part of the job. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, certainly expecting a result does not entitle a user to it, but neither should it be used as evidence against the user reporting the behavior.

I think you are taking this whole situation a lot worse than FormalDude did. You are responding to a mild challenge to your decision here as if it was some sort of attack on your honor. Loki (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"I think you are taking this whole situation a lot worse than FormalDude did." After reading his responses above, I would consider that argument to be at least debatable.

All I would ask is that he accept in good faith that I had reasons for taking my decision to protect the article rather than block him and AgntOTrth from it (or sitewide) I didn't think that was the best thing for the project.

Really, I have never seen anyone protest so hard against not getting blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I accept your decision was made in good faith, I have never said anything to suggest otherwise, but that does not mean it was a good or appropriate decision. Honestly, if you think your only options were full protection or dual blocks, you should not be patrolling here. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [78]

Comments:
This issue goes way back to March 2023 when User:WayKurat decided to resurrect deleted content from year 2020.[79] Claiming those deleted content were removed for no reason which is not true. They were removed because they were unreferenced, trivial and not encyclopedic. He claimed that he is finding sources and therefore I shouldn't remove unreferenced content and make any changes into the section of that article. Every single edit that I made recently in the section of the article were reverted by User:WayKurat and he is claiming I am edit warring for editing the article for making some changes in the article. TheHotwiki (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in my edit comment on that article, I will find sources for the removed content, but Hotwiki resorted to remove all of the content again as I am adding sources just because "24 hours has passed" since I restored the content without adding references. Immediately, I reverted back the edits, telling him that I'm in the process of adding the sources, but he keep on removing the content. I already told him that a more diplomatic approach in dealing with unsourced content is to add the "citation needed" tag. But instead, he reported me here in ANI for edit warring, while in the first place, he is the one that triggered the edit war. Again, I'm adding the sources I have found while he removed the content, resulting to an edit conflict.

Please note that Hotwiki has been reported here in ANI multiple times for edit warring; most recently with this encounter with User:FrostFleece. -WayKurat (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That issue was resolved and I no longer had any issues with User:FrostFleece as we both interacted well in other articles. That reporting incident in ANI in March 2023, was when User:WayKurat used the opportunity to resurrect deleted unreferenced/trivial content (from 2020) back into the Saksi article last March 2023. TheHotwiki (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. @Hotwiki: please be warned that stopping just shy of 3RR and then reporting another editor for making 1 more revert than you can also be edit warring, especially when the dispute hasn't been discussed; when a dispute gets to that point, use the article's talk page. TheDiff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page section of the report should not be blank. Aoidh (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Noted. I will use the talk page of the article, first should another issue arises. TheHotwiki (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Jonathan Knight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1001:B04E:EE66:A5DD:3C9C:E55:B63A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Knight&oldid=1170619217

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]
5. [84]
6. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted resolution through edit summaries and user talk page, received no response.

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

Comments:
This user is has attempted to add a spouse to this page on many occasions now, and they have never once provided a source. They also refuse to respond to any talk page messages or edit summary comments. They are far beyond 3 reverts too. GraziePrego (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for persistently edit warring to add unsourced personal information to a BLP article. Aoidh (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Justina Valentine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Patriot2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */Added birth name"
2. 04:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */Fixed birth name, incorrect ethnicity"
3. 04:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "/* Early life */Added Justina Valentine’s birth name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Justina Valentine."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All edits have been trying to add unsourced BLP information (bojo)(they/them)(talk) 05:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to school with her DICK, her dads name is Michael Cetinich, her sister is Christine Cetinich. It’s false that this page displays her stage name as her birth name https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10204484738591592&id=1626123130&mibextid=GC6XAW here’s her singing with her dad Michael Cetinich you POS Patriot2020 (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Blocked, for this and the personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Page: Black Irish (folklore) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FightinMisnformation1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]
5. [93]
6. [94]
7. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]; [98]; [99]; [100]; [101]; [102]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [103]

Comments:
FightinMisnformation1982 has persistently removed sourced content and replaced it with poorly sourced content, reverting multiple users. Through edit summaries, talk page warnings and article discussion, they've been informed of the issues of edit warring and proper sourcing, to little avail. Claims to wish to reach consensus on talk page ring empty, given the refusal to self-revert or make any substantive acknowledgments of policy. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• IP, thanks. I blocked them from the article for a week, and I am looking to see if further measures are warranted. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

See:

(1) 15:34, 9 September 2023,

(2) 12:44, 10 September 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [104]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [105]

Comments:

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

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

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

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