Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[140]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[141]
Comments: The page used to have 40 BC as the start date [142]. @Catjacket: made some edits, and the user's edits quickly followed. I don't know whether their first edit counts as a revert, although their second one changes the start date back to 40 BC (they mistakenly put AD) and has the edit summary "Reverted vandalism". In my reverts I was asking them to come to the talk page [143][144]. They've also cast aspersions [145]Kowal2701 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
15:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - It works like that and has been confirmed, please confirm source has not been confirmed, this will be reported."
14:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - The Source is everywhere, check TFL, Please stop removing fact"
12:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - Still Deleting fact! - If you read everywhere, even this article it clearly shows what lines this will operating on.. Use your Head!"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warriors in this dispute haven't made any attempts to resolve it on the talk page
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[175][176][177]
Comments: I'm not involved with this dispute, but I came across it while reading this page and it looked very severe and like it had been going on for a long time now with nothing happening 128.193.8.42 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Please make this person stop. An IP user continuously attempts to add an endorsement on the page cited to social media posts, in violation of WP:ENDORSE, which states that "lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources." Despite being told this over and over again, they refuse to listen. Here's a quote from one of their edit summaries: "WP:ENDORSE requires endorsements to be 'verifiable by reliable sources' but does not mandate that they be covered solely by independent sources." This was after I sent them the aforementioned quote. At a certain point they started trying to claim that my quote is not actually on WP:ENDORSE even though it clearly is. Eventually they dropped that claim, but still refuse to admit they're wrong. I don't know how to reason with someone so detached from reality. I requested for the page to be protected to stop their vandalism, but nobody responded to the request. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
They have continued to edit war after this post [178][179][180]. The BottleOfChocolateMilk has also been reminded many times on their user talk page that American Politics is a contentious topic. 128.193.8.40 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
There's nothing that could really be "worked out" on talk. You can see from the revision history that I've tried to explain to this IP editor numerous times that they're breaking Wikipedia's rules and yet they continue to deny reality. I seriously doubt that a talk page discussion would go any differently. This is why I don't do talk page "discussions." Two editors argue for a bit, nobody else participates, and thus nothing is resolved. Given that WP:ENDORSE blatantly prohibits what this IP editor is doing, it seems like this could be resolved by having other editors step in and tell them that they're wrong, but it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in doing that. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
All your arguments have been made in edit summaries, which, while granted they appear to have been reading and responding to, are not the ideal format for this sort of thing due to the character limit and indeed aren't supposed to be used for this sort of continued discussion.
I note that one of the IPs themselves invited you, very nicely, to take it to the talk page, which as of this post has not been used since it was created six months ago.
And I agree with the IPs that the wording of ENDORSE is not as clear-cut as you would like it to be. That's why things like this happen, and that's why we have talk pages to clear things like this up at least as far as it applies to particular articles.
Given all this, if you persist in all this, I would see no remaining choice but to not only semi-protect the page for some time, but block you from it for the equivalent since you are EC. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[197]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[198]
Comments:
The consensus was already established in third opinion a few weeks ago. The user claimed that "It is not REAL third opinion", but third opinions are to resolve disputes so an edit war wouldn't happen again. It is regrettable that the user is not respecting it and wants to intensify conflict. User:Guotaian (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Guotaian insists on a consensus that doesn't exist. Neither party should be edit warring but I would suggest they, especially, need to stop pursuing this across multiple pages. Simonm223 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Your edits have already extended far beyond the scope of that 3O and there are other consensus mechanisms including a few AfDs that have been created since and that supersede a 3O. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 Merging the Neoauthoritarianism article had nothing to do with my edits as I had just deleted the sections which included Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. I had never deleted the Neoauthoritarianism section at all. Guotaian (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion, at that AfD, which you participated in, made it very clear that Conservatism in China would cover all parts of China and not just those currently administered by the People's Republic of China. That also led to the move from Conservatism in Greater China back to Conservatism in China - which your edits are now undoing. Again, this is disruptive now and has to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 The third opinion was established before the AFD discussion made a decision. The Third opinion provided a solution for the exact dispute we are currently having and should be respected. Guotaian (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The 3O was before the AfD that overrode it on the basis of a lot more than three opinions being considered. You can't claim you have carte-blanche to override consensus on the basis of one person agreeing with you in a limited subset of cases. I'd rather not have to bother the person who gave the 3O but I think they'd likely agree that their opinion doesn't override consensus at AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 I started the AFD but it was only discussed between you and Pro-KMT. This does not provide the basis for the AFD having authority to decide the ongoing dispute. Guotaian (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 The AFD you referenced agreed to restore the article to its original title, "Conservatism in China". However, the original version focused solely on the PRC, excluding other regions such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. The AFD did not specify the scope of the reverted page. Therefore, the most accurate approach is to return to its original form follow third opinion's interpretation. Guotaian (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
No. You are, again, incorrect. And you don't have to keep tagging me here. I've presented my evidence. I've nothing further to say here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for tagging you, and I appreciate that you've shared your evidence. However, saying that my point above was " again, incorrect" is not constructive if you do not explain how. If you ever want to revisit the discussion, I'm happy to continue the conversation. Guotaian (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week. Both editors were recently blocked for 24 hours after a previous ANEW report about the same edit warring between these two on the same articles. - Aoidh (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Guotaian reported by User:ProKMT (Result: Both blocked 1 week)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[209]
Comments: Guotaian constantly creates unnecessary editing wars and repeats destructive editing. Guotaian cannot even accept pages from the source or the original version. ProKMT (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week. Both editors were recently blocked for 24 hours after a previous ANEW report about the same edit warring between these two on the same articles. - Aoidh (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
User:86.160.247.245 reported by User:Ybsone (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Diffs of the user's reverts: It is around 13 reverts together only today only on one page. He is constantly removing pictures of a concept car just because he does have an opinion on the ownership of the company. He is a repeating offender.
Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Their previous edit warring block for these same articles (TVR Griffith]] and TVR) expired on Friday, and blanking the ANEW report isn't an effective or appropriate method of addressing the issue of edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
User:109.124.199.29 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[219]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[220]
Comments:
IP editor edit warring over the demographic of this novel series, changing it to "Women" as per their opinion, in breach of the consensus that the publication which the novel is serialized in is officially targeted to a male demographic. Made personal attacks against me on their talk page and in one of their inflammatory edit summaries when I attempted to correct their behavior. silviaASH(inquire within)16:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Since this report, they have posted a rant about their opinion on the article's talk page. They clearly do not understand the issues with their edits and it does not seem as if they have any interest in doing so. silviaASH(inquire within)16:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Page protected for a week. I considered blocking Williow as well, but ... since so far they have not started reverting on the other articles where their content removals have been reverted, there is as yet no damage to the encyclopedia in need of prevention. But, they are strongly advised, that could change. It's up to them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
17:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "please find a source for the claim '1,200 pakistani civillians killed' also this should not be stated with military casualties, rather underneath them."
I undid the reversions of Pax98 who is consistently making disruptive edits and reverting work of others without consensus or explanation. He also appears to be false claiming sockpuppetry on me and other editors. Taeyab (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one week This is really not the best noticeboard for this sort of thing, as strictly speaking this wasn't edit warring by the reported IP. But with the admitted block evasion action was necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
23:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281367361 by Technopat (talk) I have reviewed my improvement and are happy with them but you have give no reason why you were not; instead you just offer threaths and warnings? Are you meant to discuss your issues on the Talk Page?"
22:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281363342 by Technopat (talk) You are reverting good edits and improvements without any reason at all save for the assumption that because it is an IP, they must be poor ? Please stop doing this and give proper reasons for your revertions or stop them."
22:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281362762 by Technopat (talk) you are edit warring and reverting content for no reason; please stop the improvements that have been made to this article unless you have a specific content issue for discussion, Don't assume every IP is a vandal."
User:P Aculeius reported by User:209.204.20.98 (Result: filer blocked 24 hours)
Page:Page-multi error: no page detected. Romani ite domum User being reported:User-multi error: no username detected (help).P Aculeius
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I've been reverting what I consider to be repeated vandalism by this IP editor to the article in question—two other editors have done the same. The article in question has been the subject of repeated vandalism over the last two years, always focused on the same paragraph: a statement that a notable author has used a particular film scene to illustrate an issue in arguments over LGBT issues. I started a discussion on the article's talk page, attempting to explain why it was there, and documenting the instances of vandalism. If it is vandalism, my understanding is that the 3RR does not apply. However, I did ask for clarification on this point from the editor who most recently reverted the same edits and posted a warning on the IP editor's talk page. P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Boomerang block or warn here seems appropriate - beside the malformed report, the reported editor has been reverting vandalism in demonstrable good faith based on an admittedly loose interpretation of WP:3RRNO, and the reporter has been the main initiator of the edit war. A proper AN3 notice was not lodged. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 14:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
No violation, filer blocked 24 hours. I came across this from WP:RFPP. If someone would like to correct the malformed report please go ahead, but I don't think it's necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
[[User:]] reported by User:KitoMaxi (Result: Declined as reporting user already blocked.)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[270]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[271]
Comments: edit war past 3rd warning, user is mass undoing edits across several articles 12345..etc, the user is doing this before a verdict is issued on an open case accusation of sockpuppetry, which violates wikipedia WP:DISRUPT, users cannot mass undo sourced edits based on suspicion alone and without justification KitoMaxi (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potymkin, where Skitash has accused the original creator of this of sockpuppetry in this case. Departure– (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for attaching a link to the investigation. It's very obvious that it's a block-evading sock, and I'm not surprised they're denying it, considering they've consistently done the same with every other sockpuppet account of theirs.[272][273][274] I reverted their edits per WP:BLOCKEVADE (including restoring editsmade by their prior sock account). As for the one article where I've made four edits within 24 hours without realizing, I've self-reverted my edit until the sock gets blocked. Skitash (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Sock or not, your assumptions have not yet been verified, and you repeatedly used the rollback tool to revert changes @Skitash. There was no imminent need to be doing so instead of allowing the SPI to play out. Instead, you misused rollback across a number of articles while you both engaged in entirely unnecessary edit warring. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
While I don't participate at this board typically, I think both of those involves should be blocked based on the WP:3RR violations at Massylii. Obviously both have behaved entirely inappropriate and were engaged in edit wars across multiple articles, but the linked one is a clear violation from both. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Again, neither was imminently necessary, and it clearly spread to other articles as well (or spread here from elsewhere). Either way, clear inappropriate behaviour by both editors with a clear and defined line being crossed at this article. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for edit warring and violating WP:3RR. I was trying to uphold WP:BLOCKEVADE against a sock, but I see now I should've held off until the investigation was over. It won't happen again and I'll use my rollback permissions carefully and more appropriately next time. Skitash (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[291]] [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[292]] [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[293]] [diff]
Comments:User is a rogue admim
The user apparently has administrator power and he apparently has been doing this on multiple pages. I urge that you intervene quickly, so that he is stopped, or that his adminship is revoked. 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:583F:397:5F08:7637 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, Mike should be aware, if he is not already, that even though his edits may be in line with policy they are not covered by WP:3RRNO. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Note that this user failed to notify me on my talk page about their bringing this issue up here. Instead, I discovered this when reviewing their contribution history.
Further, note that the "attempt to resolve issue on talk page" links to a section that I added, not this user.
This user has accused me of being arogue admin and[vandalizing] multiple pages and violating WP:3RR when I am not and have not.
At the moment declining their report as not a violation is the most we should do. As you pointed out, they left a lot to be desired in their report.
Nonetheless, as an admin you are presumed to know what 3RR is so the absence of a warning would not be a reason not to enforce it—if you had violated it, which you didn't, and to be fair I think that's because you are aware of where the line is. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Marvel2406 reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Both editors blocked 72 hours and alerted to CTOPS)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours and alerted to WP:CT/CID. While Marvel clearly indicated on their talk page that they intended to disregard MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS because "it looks prettier that way", that attitude did not give Vestrian the right to revert endlessly as while policy was on their side that kind of reverting is not allowed under WP:3RRNO. Protection should have been requested, at least. I have also alerted both of to WP:CT/CID, which this comes under. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
User:81.31.65.89 reported by User:Speederzzz (Result: Blocked one month)
11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "That debate has already been settled - the name is in the article already. I'm simply pointing out that it should be right at the start."
11:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "His real name is a matter of public record - and is already in the article anyway."
Blocked – for a period of one month due to not only their edit warring, but their incivility, general bad attitude, and BLP violations requiring multiple RevDels. On top of that I had to put project banners, CTOPS, and other notices on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Real estate investment professional reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked indef as a SOA)
16:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "No Mr Ollie, you are the one making the changes to perfectly neutral information, so until you get consensus from a user unrelated to you, the text remains."
16:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Strongly disagree with MrOllie and want to initiate larger discussion on this."
17:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "I noticed this was reverted by MrOllie - Please note this is not promotional material, this is clearly describing the company's investment profile as per the cited sources."
I simply updated introductory paragraph as per more recent information and Mr. Ollie is dubbing as 'forcing promotional language' and is deleting all content of introductory paragraph bringing to a much pooper state than the previous version. Real estate investment professional (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Guys, with all due respect again, I don't.. I work in the industry and I've been fixing or updating information on real estate articles every now and then when I see it. I just only recently decided to create an account. I feel like I've been attacked this time and just taking it a bit personally now.
Can we please look at this in an unbiased manner and just look at the information I updated/contributed to judge if it is promotional? Again I know there is a whole thread about "what about article X", but all company wikipedia articles outline what the business does in the opening paragraph (which by the way was also the case in this article - I simply just updated it to the latest information..)
Please let's not turn this into a personal thing, I come with the kindest intentions and my apologies for starting this edit war, but can we please just objectively look at the text in the context of all real estate related articles? Real estate investment professional (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
First, broadly, see WP:YESPROMO. Second, they insisted on adding in the lede more specific information about what their firm does that is, on Wikipedia, usually left to the body of the article. Third, apart from all this they promoted nothing so much as complete disregard for our edit-warring policy. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
This user has violated the 3RR rule, claiming that he represents the consensus. The consensus on the page is: do not include charges in the first sentence but display them prominently. The user reverts to a lede that violates MOS (breaking the chronology of Polanski's biography). Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I originally altered an edit by User:Binksternet on Whomp That Sucker that cited a source that I saw as unfit for direct inclusion on a music review infobox because the rating that has no justification in the source material; I also later removed, as part of my another source added by User:Binksternet that had the same problem. I moved the first citation to the dedicated notes section for historical context, but didn't remove it, and I removed the second citation (starting with my first reversion) because it sorely lacks coverage.
He has now reverted my edit 3 times, and I have reverted twice. He now accuses me instead of reverting three times while we refuses to wait for concensus in the talk page, violating WP:ONUS. I am also accussed of WP:NPOV because the reviews I moved/removed coincidentally have lower reviews, despite that I have history of adding less-than-favorable reviews to albums I like better than the one in question (e.g. In Outer Space Sounds review). Davejfudge (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of the time frame, I have not reverted your additions three times. The first edit you consider a revert was not a revert because I did not remove what you added. Davejfudge (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
User:2A00:23C7:8EED:4D00:64F3:8AE7:96A0:33F1 reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
19:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281993755 by Pigsonthewing (talk) Undone as disruptive evidence. Not 'advertisement' - Previous editor referenced their source where they should. These are standard festival facts as seen on other festival Wiki pages - please visit for reference"
19:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281993089 by Pigsonthewing (talk) Undone as disruptive evidence. Not 'advertisement' - Previous editor referenced their source where they should. These are standard festival facts as seen on other festival Wiki pages - please visit for reference"
17:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281978059 by Insanityclown1 (talk) I have undone this revision as these points about the event are more than reasonable and backed up with references. They are similar to information listed on other event pages"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Pretty sure that this is the user simply patience 405 editing while logged out. The user has been taken to ANI, but the behavior is continuing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for a clear 3RR violation. All parties need to resolve this on the talk page, however. — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[diff] 03:41, 23 March 2025 "restoring All Music Guide rating. This rating was given by the book's editors, not Ned Raggett""
[diff] 16:31, 23 March 2025 Reverted 2 edits by Davejfudge (talk): Rv... The 2-star book rating came from the editors Woodstra, Erlewine and Bogdanov. The 3.5 star review came from the later website, with no attribution. They are two different ratings and are both valid.
[diff] 16:34, 23 March 2025 Reverted 1 edit by Davejfudge (talk): Rv per WP:NPOV
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: Binksternet added two sources to the music review infobox. Both ratings linked to sources that never discussed the album in any length, where the All Music book reference was context for how the current AllMusic website had a different rating. I moved the first one to the notes section without removing the citation, and updated both sources to have more properly cited credits (e.g. wrong publisher), writing in the edit comments that I was unsure of the validity of the second source's inclusion. No reversion up to that point. I additionally mention my skepticism of the inclusion of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music source on the talk page, waiting for concensus instead of removing it for the time being.
Two days later (important), Binksternet reverts the All Music Guide book rating back to the table, giving a justification that my previous edit addressed already.
I restored my previous edit and removed the Encyclopedia reference since Binksternet didn't reply in the talk page, but still inviting him to reply.
Binksternet reverts this, then going to the talk page to accuse me of bias (specifically WP:NPOV), assuming I acted out of bad faith, of "jumping through hoops" because the ratings in question coincidentally happen to be lower, despite the justifications I gave (See my addition of the Sounds review for In Outer Space, the same artist). I really don't care about listing a bad review. I just care about not including sources that give less than a passing mention to the material unless, in the case of the first AllMusic rating, it is a small piece of context for the modern review that just needs a tweak to how it's incorporated.
I revert this, then Binksternet makes his third reversion.
Sorry for the long explanation, but it feels so demoralizing because I thought that I tried everything I could to get concensus or a dialogue, but my reversions were met with accusations and assumptions that I acted purely out of bad faith, and that the music rating template's lack of specificity on what constitutes a reasonable source, rather than a policy, was justification enough for everything. On my talk page, Binksternet also told me I could be banned. To be clear, I don't know if I technically violated the rule myself, because by the time by last reversion came, although Binksternet reverted three times within 24 hours at that point, my penultimate reversion was done in two smaller chunks. I'll accept whatever decision comes my way and I apologize if I've done any wrong here myself. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Davejfudge (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Davejfudge, you may be looking for WP:ANI in case talking to the user on their talk page doesn't help. Make sure to include diff links of the specific behavior you're discussing there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
23:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Listen, you greens and whites. Chinese is the local language of Penang. Before the Anglos and Muslims, the Hans had already lived here."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Persistent UCR of "Controversy" section past final warning. User:Instainkllc is also involved and has been reported at AIV but did not receive sufficient warning for an EW report beforehand. Anerdw (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked + User:Instainkllc, who is another recent sock/meat puppet. There are others, and I may start an SPI, but for the moment I've put the article on my watchlist and will protect it if needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Objectiveanalysis reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Blocked from article 48 hours)
00:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282045621 by McSly (talk) The pseudoscience claim is from old books that are several years behind the current state of evidence and directly in conflict with the requirements of WP:MEDRS on 'Books'. No reliable evidence from recent secondary peer-reviewed sources supports this claim."
22:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Add peer-reviewed sources that not in WP:CITEWATCH and are WP:FRIND. Add secondary sources including systematic reviews as well."
12:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Added peer-reviewed journal articles and randomized clinical trials on the effects of chromotherapy."
10:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282093605 by Belbury (talk) it's properly source and Tesla Takedown is mentioned by name. Talk page did not include polocy based reason to exclude."
23:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Mobilization */ Source directly mentions Tesla Takedown in the same paragraph."
Myself and another editor are reverting each other over whether it is correct to suggest that the peaceful Tesla Takedown protests "took a violent turn" in late March, on the basis of a single disputed source. I myself have reverted or rewritten this multiple times under WP:EXCEPTIONAL for it making a very surprising-if-true claim about a group that has prominent, named supporters and organisers. (I also reverted User:Sjö who restored Ratgomery's paragraph, but from their edit summary ofnot at all a fringe theory or exceptional claim that damage has happened and that people are charged they misunderstood my underexplained objection: that the damage happened is not an exceptional claim; that it was a result of the named Tesla Takedown movement taking a "violent turn" very much is.)
Stale The edit warring has died down (and is less than over 3 reverts per 24 hours), plus talk page discussion is ongoing. So this doesn't need immediate administrator attention at this time. Also, Ratgomery specifically asserted he was "trying very hard to avoid an edit war here". Similarly, I don't think a boomerang is relevant as your edits are citing apparent consensus from the talk page. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
User:NinosDg reported by User:User623921 (Result: No violation)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[307]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: NinosDg has a history of having changed articles for POV liking it seems, see this with multiple warnings. --User623921 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[313]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[314]
Comments:
That's not even including the personal attacks [315][316][317], silly accusations of sockpuppetry [318][319][320] and very poor attempt at WP:GAMING[321][322][323] (basically accusing others of the violations they are doing). Back in November 2024 they were already warned to stop randomly throwing the word "vandalism" [324]. This should really be taken to WP:ANI, but I am very bit busy/tired, so I guess this will do. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
19:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282331982 by Soetermans (talk) Correct, but that was before I provided the source, which is understandable, I should've have provided here in the first place, but that doesn't take the fact that the nature of the edits are constructive non-controversial and most importantly, supported by sources or some known fact. You are quoting rules that doesn't take into consideration the context"
19:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282326689 by Remsense (talk) All of those edits are constructive non-controversial ones, therefore discussions are not needed, the only edits that were made was ortographic corrections and added some important info about the concept of sovereignty at the time, nothing controversial about that. What you are proposing goes well beyond the rules currently in place and is over zealous"
13:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "It is not a redundant acronym. Try going to the talk page and explaining how I'm wrong. If you can't then you're tacitly admitting I'm right and you don't care about factual accuracy."
13:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "There are also 'sources' that say the earth is flat. DC comics is not a redundant acronym, period. Go to the talk page before reverting my edit and I'll explain it to you"
13:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "But it's NOT a redundant acronym. Jesus Christ, stop read and let it sink in. DC is the company. Comics are a product they sell. Therefore DC comics are the product 'comics' from the company 'DC'. Just go to the talk page before reverting again"
13:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "DC comics is STILL not a redundant acronym. 'Detective Comics' is the company name while 'comics' are a product they sell."
I am not getting into a edit war, nor do I want to.Let’s work together to find a solution that respects Wikipedia’s guidelines and maintains a collaborative editing environment. Looking forward to your input. How right is it that you came here after this message? Leotalk15:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Declined I see no effort to discuss the content dispute, which should take place on the article Talk page. Both of you are edit-warring; neither has violated 3RR. Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Remsense reported by IP for Edit Warring (Result: No violation)
No violation IP, if you'd used the standard report and filled in the links as required, you'd have noticed that 3RR was not broken. Hammer it out on the talk page please.Ponyobons mots19:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
User:U was0 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Partial block)
Previous version reverted to:This was the version before the user got started: it was pretty stable, though another user, Ahmed al joami (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), had made similar edits (though more amateurish); running CU on the editor I'm reporting wouldn't be a bad idea.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User talk:U was0 is full of warnings, including the block notice by PhilKnight--yes, the user was blocked, and went right back to edit warring.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Ja'alin tribe is full of discussion, where the user keeps repeating the same arguments and has nothing of substance to say, except to link one single book, which could never counter the half dozen or dozen academic sources cited in the article. The conflict is quite complex and I won't bore you with the details, and the editor is not completely wrong, but they are adopting a view not borne out by scholarship in the way they expressed it. Editors who have reverted them and/or discussed matters on the talk page include User:DervotNum4, User:Discospinster, User:Applodion--and me. If I weren't involved I'd have p-blocked them indefinitely already. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[336] (In reference to a different page where similar behavior is occurring)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[337] (Again a different page, but the IP in question does not appear to engage in Talk page discussions, regardless)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[338]
Comments: They don't seem to have ever engaged in discussion (despite numerous warnings) and rarely include an edit summary. But are very diligent in watching, reverting and tweaking the handful of pages they are focused on, which also appears to include the following pages:
Comments: The edit warring has been going on for three days (four if we include Yadomii's edits), and the latest IP is particularly disruptive. To reduce further disruption, we should block all three IPs for a couple of days. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Looks like both EW (involving multiple IPs) and also LOUTSOCK of the named account, which had previously been blocked for EW. IPs blocked 3 days each, account blocked 1 week (also CIR-fail on their talkpage).
While doing this paperwork after setting the blocks, up popped:
18:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "This article incorrectly suggested that my game, Rubber Hose Rampage, violated copyright, which is 100% incorrect."
15:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* List */ This article incorrectly suggested that my game, Rubber Hose Rampage, violated copyright, which is 100% incorrect."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I'd like to point out that this user is making legal threats by email. I was sent one that reads:
What are you doing? Twice now you reverted my changes which change the following page so it accuses me of committing a crime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_based_on_a_copyright-free_Mickey_Mouse
You can't publicly accuse somebody of committing a crime without any kind of evidence. That is slander and that is a crime.
My name is Kevin Revie. I am the owner of Revie Studios LLC, the company that makes Rubber Hose Rampage. I have NOT infringed on ANY copyrights, nor have I been accused of infringing on any copyrights in court, so why does that page say that I did?
I will sue, if you force me to.
User:Kevin L Revie, this is not how we handle disputes here. You are blocked indefinitely from editing that article directly; you may use the article talk page to discuss the matter--but you should do so in a courteous manner. As a side note, in one of your edit summaries you said, "This article incorrectly suggested that my game...etc". Our article does not do that: the EarlyGame article puts it up for question. You can take it up with them. As for the legal threat, Bedivere, that's interesting: if Revie would confirm they sent that email, I suppose we could block for WP:NLT--as it stands, the threat wasn't on Wikipedia. BusterD, weren't we discussing legal threats the other day? What do you think?Finally, Bedivere, one more thing: why should I not block you? You never even explained in an edit summary what was wrong with the edit, not until the last one. You left warnings, sure, and that's your saving grace here, but I urge you to not bring yourself into a situation like this again. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
My bad, at first I just reverted as I thought it was vandalism, then checked out some details and turned out it was just a COI editor. Bedivere (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I can confirm I sent that email. I sent it through Wikipedia's send email function. I would assume you would have a copy. Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
I welcome an Administrative review. it is ridiculous that I had to change the page three times before someone who knows what they are doing can look at the problem. Three times now, you have changed that page so that it publicly accuses me of committing a crime. There is no way Wikipedia would allow that. This page has been live for a year now. Nobody ever told me this was up and my contact information has always been publicly available.. That is slander, it never should have been allowed on this website. Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry, I wasn't aware of protocol. All I want, is for that page not to accuse me of copyright infringement. Are you saying that isn't possible to do? I was made aware of the EarlyGame article and that Wikipedia page last night. I commented on the EarlyGame article this morning. If you view that page now, you can see my comment:
Kevin L Revie, "protocol"? Adults don't go around threatening other people with law suits. Again, "the page" does not accuse you of anything: it says "alleged use of still-copyrighted characters". Alleged. If I were you, I'd have a cold drink and step away, and then I would go back and argue, on the talk page, that "and character designs from Silly Symphony films" is sourced to the YouTube trailer for the game or whatever it is, and that's not acceptable: it needs a secondary source, and the claim is original research. Then I would ask for the last sentence to be removed because it is completely unverified and thus also original research. Finally, I would argue that EarlyGame is just another zine with no authority, whose editorial page claims that the "team diligently fact-checks information before publishing it to ensure accuracy", but that this is a hollow claim because no editorial team or standards are identified, and the person who wrote it does not seem to have any kind of established authority. And maybe I'd argue that non-notable games/works/whatever shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia in the first place, per convention, unless they have strong secondary sourcing, which this entry does not. Oh, there is a thing I would not do: rant on the EarlyGame page. Nothing good can come out of that. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
How is "alleged use of still-copyrighted characters", not accusing me of a crime? You are arguing semantics. This Bedivere person changed the page in question three times, so it accuses me of a crime. Or "alleges" I committed a crime, if you prefer.
I have every right to file a lawsuit, US law says: falsely alleging someone committed a crime, can constitute slander, which is a form of defamation, if it injures their reputation
That is exactly what is happening here. Every time I explained why I was making the change and the article was again changed to slander me. I don't want to file a lawsuit. I just want the Wikipedia page updated. Kevin L Revie (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Can I just point out that the idiot who wrote the EarlyGame article is NOT a copyright lawyer? If anyone accuses anyone of anything on a website, you have to include it on Wikipedia? Is that how this site works? Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
No, that is not how Wikipedia works. That the writer is not a copyright lawyer is something you can bring up on the talk page. Not here. Here we are only discussing your behavior. If you want to do something positive here, you can apologize for that email, to the editor. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Hey, so, the problem is solved, they deleted me from that stupid fuckin' list. The gloves are off now, so fuck you! Asshole, that is my game and you let some random person repeat an obviously stupid rumor about my game. Please ban me, I want nothing to do with your stupid idiotic elitist Wikipedia system. How is that random person allowed to decide what is real about my game. That is MY fuckin' game, once I told them who I was, they should have shut the fuck up. Seriously, my game was the only one they talked shit about in that in entire fuckin' list. I tried to be cool. I just wanted to remove some obviously fake rumors. That was all I did. Fuck you dude, You could have easily solved the problem, but you choose to fight me Kevin L Revie (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Given these comments and the confirmation that he sent the email containing legal threats, I think a p-block isn't enough. The user should be blocked fully and indef. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
22:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282667508 by TarnishedPath (talk) taken out recent coverage until more balanced section expansion is agreed on. Otherwise kept policy-aligned edits until consensus can be had to change, based on policy incl. WP:IAR (IAR is directly opposed to the principle of wikibureaucracy that harmful behavior should be prevented by forcing users to strictly adhere to a set of regulations.)"
20:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282658617 by Pbritti (talk) removing what I think you were referring to as original research; as I could be mistaken this was that. Otherwise hoping to improve article with the constructive edits that aren't original research. Happy to discuss specific issues."
20:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Media reporting in 2021 */ expanded last section with more recent notable coverage and context for the NYT article."
This editor has a history of political bias and has repeatedly inserted their poorly sourced, undue original research despite multiple editors reverting, warning, and explaining these issues to them. Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Please see our discussions in full the user initiated on my talk page, as well as the article. We've made some constructive progress, but accusations of bad faith, political bias, text walling, etc. has ended up raising this to others when we can and should resolve our disagreements ourselves as mature and experienced (although they much more than I) adults and editors.
Mistakes such as what I now know to be original research were reverted by myself upon helpful feedback from this user and others. Any remaining minor edits should be supported by the sources and policy, but again I'm not the most experienced editor, and as has been demonstrated, happy to revert and improve where specifics are engaged on (as opposed to blanket accusations of bias and not willing to engage unless a editor gets their way with a edit).
Not sure if I should report Pbritti for similar reasons to why he is reporting me, but I figure not helpful to clog up the process when I think they are able to work with me and others to form consensus and work out the specific minor edits, as we've proven before.
Worth noting that the editor being reported is attempting to insert content supporting a conspiracy theory linked to denialism of Indigenous Canadian genocide. This is classic civil POV pushing, and the claims of inexperience are directly contradicted by their previous references to policies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
You can see I'm not as experienced as Pbritti given even a cursory glance at my edit history and probably improper formatting, policy citing, etc.
This isn't about political theories or politics. Let's stick to encyclopedic policy and work, not assuming bad faith, political bias, us vs. them, etc. AnExtraEditor (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
genocide & conspiracy theory are loaded terms, let's keep our discussion neutral and not appeal to emotion or use loaded language to make our case.
It is also a fallacy that if someone cites Wiki policies that they are therefore not inexperienced.
again, we've worked constructively before, no need to add further work for others when we can work out minor edits as mature and capable editors. AnExtraEditor (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)