Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:26, 10 February 2022

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:JimmyCrow reported by User:RossButsy (Result: Indef)

Page: Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JimmyCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Diff/1069864778:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Diff/1070261615
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Diff/1070261370
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Diff/1070246348

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Diff/1070260937:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Diff/1070260937

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing before and is seemingly unwilling to engage in discussion.

User has also engaged in edit warring on Sergio Busquets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Updated the diffs. This user is risking an indefinite block for long term warring. I am leaving them a note to see if they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me. It was not my intention to get into an edit war; It will not happen again. In the case of Sergio Busquets, he was following what the source says. If you notice, it was an anonymous user of changed. I put it right and this user who denounces me went and reversed it just because it was me. In the case of Auba, you don't use Spanish La Liga, it's just La Liga... that's a consensus, I think. JimmyCrow (talk) 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If nobody else supports your removal of the word 'Spanish' I don't see how there is a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – Jimmy Crow has been blocked four times previously for as long as one month. They have reverted other editors about fifteen times since 1 February on a variety of articles. It does not appear that the idea of 'consensus' registers with them. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Loverofediting reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: Warned)

Page: Dhu al-Qarnayn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Loverofediting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User was blocked for edit warring on the same page before. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Loverofediting is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:DudeFromTheBaltics reported by User:Moxy (Result: EC protection)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "I still don't understand why do you all want Latvia look like a Russian state. I bet, add this also to Estonia, since they also have a lot of Russian speakers. This literally makes me angry by knowing how biased some of the editors are."
2. 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Excuse me, are you threatening me to ban, because I said this one guy to stop posting in Latvia's wikipedia page that Latvia's minority language is Russian? Latvian constitutional law doesn't put Russian as the minority language and by that I will stand. Also, you should put this exact sentence to Estonia and Lithuania, not only Latvia. Don't threaten me, this is 💕 after all, and I will work to put it as neutral as possible."
3. 20:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070312450 by Denis tarasov This source doesn't show Russian is a minority language. Stop this or I'll have to report this as vandalism(talk)"
4. 20:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070307023 by Denis tarasov Why you're adding this to only Latvia? There are more than one language. Also your sources doesn't say about Russian language. (talk)"
5. 19:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070269734 by Denis tarasov Unsourced data (talk)"
6. 16:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070125027 by Denis tarasov Unsourced data (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Latvia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Russian language in infobox */ new section"

Comments:

Having no luck in getting editors to talk about edits. Moxy- 02:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: The Latvia article is EC protected indefinitely under authority of WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Cedar777 reported by User:Hemantha (Result: Self-revert)

Page: Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cedar777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1070050132 by Sriramk750

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Context:
05-Feb-2022, 11:44 - Sriramk750 adds allopathic to IMA sentence in lead (while removing some other text)
05-Feb-2022, 11:49 - Black Kite reverts

User's reverts:
06-Feb-2022, 06:46 - Cedar777 adds "allopathic" back in the lead sentence while moving it down, along with other minor (ce,ref titles) edits
06-Feb-2022, 10:47 - I revert the "allopathic" addition and the lead sentence move
06-Feb-2022, 18:33 - Cedar777 repeats their edit (including the word allopathic), but in the body. They don't touch the lead sentence.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Page subject to 1RR. Notice at the top of edit window and talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There was a talk page discussion on the same day where multiple editors explained the consensus about this issue to a new editor. Cedar777 hasn't participated in that discussion, but has commented upon others in the same time.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1070377315

Comments:
Page subject to 1RR. There's longstanding consensus about the sentence in lead - IMA describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks. Occasionally, IPs and new editors wish to change it to - practice allopathic medicine as quacks. hemantha (brief) 05:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action due to a self-revert. Cedar777 undid their last change after my request on their talk page. This edit broke the 1RR restriction on the page which had been applied due to WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for leaving a note on my talk page. My job is intermittent and it can completely interfere with any opportunities for screen time (sometimes this is for very long periods of time). I appreciate the opportunity to self-revert. Cedar777 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: It is clear that the reporting user and I have different views. This was a content dispute. The reporting user left an edit summary stating "there is clear and longstanding consensus against these changes - specifically against allopathic - in talk. Reverting to previous version of the lead". However there is NO RELEVANT RFC (open or closed) at Ayurveda that forbids the use of "allopathic", in the lede or in the article body. Please note that the reporting user did not limit their revert to removing the term "allopathic" - they also removed reliable sources without explanation. User Hemantha did not address the matter in any capacity at Talk:Cedar777, at Talk:Ayurveda, nor did they provide the date for a closed RfC or a direct link to a open RfC for discussion related to "allopathic" prior to coming to this noticeboard to escalate the content dispute; their sole communication was an edit summary when reverting. Cedar777 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:Twsabin (Result: Warned)

Page: 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Axxxion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: revision (4 Feb revision immediately preceding the addition that is being reverted); alternatively construed: diff of 6 Feb revert (being reverted back to)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st
2. 2nd
3. 3rd
4. 4th

     Earlier reverts (not within 24h):

1. 6 Feb

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd (link to talk section)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (link to talk section)

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

Comments:

The discussion involving multiple editors is ongoing, the removed section is both praised and scrutinized, and incremental improvement is being considered. twabin 22:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The objection (not only mine) is that the recently introduced subsection is off-topic and therefore should not be in the article pending the ongoing discussion. The matter is quite plain. Instead of participating on the TalkPage, Twsabin keeps re-introducing the dubious material under discussion.Axxxion (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There had been no consensus that the table should be removed pending discussion. Your edit warring is egregious. twabin 23:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that you were both edit-warring but are now participating in a discussion at the article talk page. I'm not a regular admin at this noticeboard so I'm not going to respond with any penalties, just commenting after looking over this article. Liz 00:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not breach 3RR and my intent was to maintain the discussed section, so that it may be discussed and improved further, while the here reported editor tried to impose their preferred state of the article (and enforce it by edit warring), bypassing discussion, based on a defective reasoning that something that is undergoing discussion can't also be included in the article at the same time. Seeing how their removal was disruptive in the context of an ongoing discussion, I consider my three reverts to be helpful and generally consistent with policy. I can't accept the conclusion that our conduct was roughly the same. I request preventative action, so that the reported editor understands their error. twabin 01:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Axxxion made four reverts starting with 20:53 on 7 February, each time removing a section called 'International treaties and negotiation structures'. All four of the diffs listed at the head of this report are reverts, since the disputed section was added only recently. A discussion of whether to include the table has occurred at Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis#Structure of table on structures though so far with no clear result. There is nothing in WP:EW that says whether disputed material should be kept or excluded during a discussion. Axxxion's belief that his removals were 'generally consistent with policy' has no basis that I can see. Oops! Corrected my comment in the light of Twsabin below. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: you replied to the above comment as if it had been made by the reported editor, Axxxion, but it was made by myself, the filer, in response to a suggestion of WP:BOOMERANG made by Liz (when "penalties" were mentioned). Sorry if my last comment made this section harder to parse (it does at a first glance seem like a generic defense of someone accused of edit warring, making it inherently ascribable to the reported party...) My claim to policy-correctness rests on WP:EDITCON: as long as multiple editors have been discussing the section days prior, and have been editing it, instead of removing it, their dispute around specific points did not equal a consensus to remove the section. Axxxion, and only them, tried removing the section once on Feb. 6 and was reverted, then again in proximity to 24hrs, four times in sequence, and was reverted by other two editors, so in total their (Axxxion's) attempts at removal were undone by three different editors. The section is still in the article, and is still being edited and discussed, making it obvious that these attempts were nothing but a disruption. twabin 17:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Axxxion is warned for violating 3RR on 7 February (see my calculation above). They are risking a block if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:184.185.133.150 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sing 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.185.133.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1070681124

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On main article

1. Special:Diff/1070692457
2. Special:Diff/1070676590
3. Special:Diff/1069516827

On Sing (franchise)

1. Special:Diff/1070676457
2. Special:Diff/1069517034
3. Special:Diff/1069310253
4. Special:Diff/1069128088

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion and advice over this addition

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1070699217

Comments:

IPs from Louisiana making the same addition of unfounded content about a sequel, most of them citing a Cinemablend article but most recent incident is now citing a YouTube video. Editing also spills over to Sing (franchise). An IP range block possibly? -Gouleg🛋️ /_hound 20:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Special:Contributions/184.185.133.0/24 blocked one month. Addition of badly-sourced material by a variety of IPs. This range has been blocked for as long as three years in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:CheckersBoard reported by User:Tunakanski (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:31 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
2. 18:47 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
3. 19:29 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
4. 19:34 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
5. 23:34 Feb 8 (different material but another revert on the same article, including a personal attack in summary) Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:From looking at their talk page and messages they have sent on other article talk pages, it seems as if CheckersBoard has been extremely antagonistic and passive aggressive over the past 7 years. Furthermore, they have countless warnings on their userpage for a variety of things, some of which are even for edit warring in the past. Simply looking at the version history of Ice hockey or at the latest posts on the ice hockey talk page should provide all remaining necessary context. Thank you. ― Tuna _SurprisesPlease 00:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User: Khan Bababa reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: EC protection)

Page: Bajaur Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khan Bababa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User Khan Bababa has been disruptively editing the page, they also continue editing the page when the talk page discussion isn't over, claiming I am repeating my points when I am continuing to bring more and new sources to prove my point, but he still ignores such. Claims I am also POV pushing.

User Khan Bababa has also made rude comments, including calling me a "typical ignorant", and "nationalist". "stop being a typical ignorant." "please tell him that this is a neutral area not some nationalist playzone." Noorullah21 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This user completely disregarded my source at first, then started using it after claiming the "1,000" figure was wrong, etc. Then continued to now use the source. The User continues to claim I am being ignorant and am POV pushing/doing vandalism, while I am trying to lead a civilized discussion on the talk page, however, after reverting some of his edits for not continuing to go on the talk page, I decided to now lead a edit warring report. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall, the user has been leading a long term edit war spreading over a sporadic period of months. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Bajaur Campaign is EC protected indefinitely under the authority of WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:66.8.166.218 reported by User:93 (Result: Semi)

Page: Fan Kexin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.8.166.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Reverting multiple users' additions to Fan Kexin mentioning allegations of cheating in a recent Olympic event, both sourced and unsourced. 9 (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. Any negative claims about a BLP subject need to be well sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:0rionQC reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Stale)

Page: Bret Weinstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 0rionQC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070756694 by FormalDude (talk)"
2. 03:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "removing the description of Odysee as "fringe" to maintain neutrality. "Fringe" is not an objective or neutral description. "Alternative" by itself is both an objective and neutral description of Odysee."
3. 19:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC) "/* COVID-19 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:0rionQC#February_2022

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Stale No activity for about 24 hours. If disruption starts up again, ping me and I'll look into it. Ritchie333 14:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Skyerise (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 16:27, 26 January 2022‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:57, 8 February 2022 - with misleading edit summary (rv. content deletion) when actually he was deleting my content additions, note article size reduction
2. 04:20, 9 February 2022
3. 04:26, 9 February 2022
4. 21:26, 9 February 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

• Another bad-faith ANI filing, claiming consensus because I *didn't* edit war: Last week Skyerise starting making edits against consensus, such as deleting RS's that 3nd parties found convincing, and objected to me reverting them immediately. So I told them to tag it as 'under construction' and gave them some time to finish what they were doing. I procrastinated a week to review their edits, because dealing with bad-faith editors like this is quite unpleasant. They now claim that because I didn't edit-war over them, they now have "concensus" for their changes. 3rd-party opinion is against them with one exception: they tried to strike a deal with an editor who's been pushing pseudoscholarship on an unrelated article for years, that Skyerise would support their edits if they'd support Skyerise's. At the last 3RR that Skyerise filed, ANI called Skyerise out on that as inappropriate behaviour. Skyerise has no consensus to change the name of the language against all RS's, to delete RS's, or to try to water down RS's by suggesting they're unreliable. The only support they have is against reordering the sections of the article to conform with the standard layout at Wikiproject Languages, where the offer for mutual support (the one that ANI objected to) came to their support. Since that's a change of mine, I'm happy to revert it pending discussion. But per BOLD, Skyerise's new edits should stay reverted unless they get consensus for them.

BTW, I did apologize for my inaccurate edit summary mentioned above. I mistakenly thought I saw a repeat of earlier content-blanking, but I was wrong. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I request that the editor above agree to make incremental changes rather than large-scale reverts. He keeps removing major work I have done before moving forward. Nowhere has he discussed, other than two specific issues ("per Laycock" in tables, and section order), just why he thinks all my changes must be reverted before moving forward. His changes in section order are particularly disruptive and against a clear two-to-one consensus on the talk page. I've requested that he open RfCs on any specific issues he has, but so far he hasn't done so. Skyerise (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Per BOLD, the onus is on you to get consensus for your edits. We don't need consensus to revert them. E.g., it's up to you to get consensus to change the name of the language; it's up to you to get consensus to delete RS's that 3rd parties have found convincing. (Just claiming you have consensus is not enough: you actually need to get agreement from other editors that the source does not belong.) The reason for whole-scale reverts is that the little changes get all bound together. I did make an attempt to restore your beneficial edits after reverting the POV ones, but I may have missed some. If you make just the uncontroversial improvements, we'll have a new reset point if further edits are rejected. We've done that before, after all. If you like, I'll even make an empty edit with the summary "I agree to Skyerise's edits up to this point" so it's clear that you have consensus at least from me. (Of course, others may disagree, but they aren't as active.) — kwami (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Eff your "pers". Just proceed incrementally from where I left off. It's the polite way to edit. And you just can't say that new developments are "against consensus" unless you can point to the discussion that formed the consensus that the edit violates. Which you can't, because there is no previous discussion of my new additions. You're just bullying with multiple repetitive reverts and premature edit-warring notices. You have to wait for my third revert before you post a notice. Just stop being so pushy. It's obnoxious. Skyerise (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, I've asked you many times, read WP:BOLD. You don't get to make whatever edits you want and then demand that others get consensus to revert them. If you're reverted, you need to get consensus to restore them. You seem to think that the rules only apply to others. E.g. "there is no previous discussion of my new additions." That means that you don't have consensus to make those additions, which is what BOLD requires when your edits are contested. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Skyerise, you've been here for over 12 years. You can't possibly not understand the basic conventions for editing, like BOLD, after that much time, and your response of fuck WP guidelines suggests that you do understand. I'm forced to conclude that, once again, you're arguing in bad faith, with the idea that you can get your way if you just obfuscate enough. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You have to wait for my third revert before you post a notice. - not necessarily. Edit warring itself is defined by WP:3RR, but noticing is not as defined. Maybe Kwami jumped the gun, but you're both experienced editors, so none of this should be occurring at all. You both probably need to WP:DISENGAGE and then involve neutral editors through WP:CONTENTDISPUTE or an RfC. Canvassing is bad form, and it would be better for all involved to look for neutral third party input. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Z4i3r7tg6j reported by User:Opencooper (Result: Warned)

Page: Ephemeralization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Z4i3r7tg6j (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A – User already reverted 4 times and continued after being warned; does not show signs of being communicative such as using edit summaries

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

Comments:
Reported user already edit warred with User:Unbh. I only reverted them once and decided to report here since they're clearly not interested in desisting even after being warned. Opencooper (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The edits took place over five days, so it's hard to see a brightline 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I decided to leave this until the user is fine. There are so many edits, all without summaries, and no attempt to engage in discussion that it seemed best to wait for whatever they consider to be finished and then see where we are. Anything else will be and edit warrior since they revert rapidly and automaticallyUnbh (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Z4i3r7tg6j is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jasper800 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Weequahic High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jasper800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071035200 by M.Bitton (talk) Undoing since no reason given under Misplaced Pages's rules and regulations. Thank you!"
2. 14:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071034145 by M.Bitton (talk) Per linked information, COI was disclosed. Edit is a statement of fact. Per Misplaced Pages, "A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." All edits are above board and within Wikiepedia S&P."
3. 14:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071025640 by M.Bitton (talk)The officially published Weequahic High School Class of 1946 yearbook is a reliable source. COI does not apply in this instance, as the inclusion is statement of fact."
4. 13:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070822272 by Alansohn (talk) Per Misplaced Pages, "A primary source may be used on Misplaced Pages only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Anyone with access to the primary source can confirm, as statement of fact, that Donald S. Kornfeld went to Weequahic High School, class of 1946."
5. 04:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070753373 by Alansohn (talk) I am a direct descendent of Donald S. Kornfeld. I have the 1946 Weequahic High School Yearbook. The cited link is to page 27 of the 1946 Weequahic High School yearbook which features Donald S. Kornfeld."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Weequahic High School."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "/* February 2022 */ new section"

Comments:

In good faith I can confirm I am not engaging in what is being deemed an edit war. I have a statement of fact I wish to have included in a page, and per all of the linked reasons for undoing this inclusion, there are verifiable reasons for why the edit should remain in the page as I have outlined. Thanks! Jasper800 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dissecting a primary source published by an unreliable source such as "classmates.com" is anything but factual. Also, you continued to edit war over your change despite the fact that you've been made aware of the 3R rule and what to do when you have a conflict of interest. M.Bitton (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

That is an edit war. There is an edit you want to make, and you are reverting multiple other users to make it. I suggest you discuss the edit you'd like to make on the article talk page, and see if you can convince others that it is an improvement, or perhaps come to a compromise version. It is also possible that the consensus will be that your edit is not an improvement, or lack sufficient sourcing, as seems to be the case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Venkat TL reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: )

Page: 2022 hijab row in Karnataka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071066251 by Abirtel (talk) deprecated source"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) to 16:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Background is relevant and sourced reliably discuss on the talk page"
   2. 16:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Remove reference from lead. See WP:LEADREF"
3. 14:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Remove current template: inappropriate use. This is several days old now. The template is used when dozens of editors are editing at the same time. Does not apply now."
4. 14:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071033345 by Rockcodder (talk) Third WP:CLOP violation."
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC) to 14:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 14:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071032563 by CapnJackSp (talk) Discuss this on talk page. Banning of Hijab is the meat of the matter. Dont dilute this in the boilerplate notices"
   2. 14:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071032029 by CapnJackSp (talk) WP:CLOP violation. This is the final warning. Another violation will be reported to admins."
6. 14:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by CapnJackSp (talk) to rev. 1071025890 by Venkat TL: Reverting good faith edits. WP:CLOP violation (RW 16.1)"
7. 13:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by Rockcodder (talk) to rev. 1071023714 by Venkat TL: Quote: "The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India.... " (RW 16.1)"
8. 12:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1071013740 by La lopi (talk) lots of people have said lots of things. WP:UNDUE"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2022 hijab row in Karnataka."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Background */ Reply"
2. 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Government order */ new section"

Comments:

The user is single-handedly edit-warring without multiple editors and assuming an unlimited concession to reverts. Even a POV template has been removed without any attempt at CONSENSUS. Many more of the edits not listed here were also partly reverting other editors. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC) amended Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

More than 4-5 unrelated content disputes are inappropriately bundled in this malicious report, in an attempt to show multiple diffs and get the user blocked instead of working for consensus on the talk page. In every dispute WP:BRD was followed and content was discussed on the talk page leading to consensus. No content was reverted more than twice. Please check the content in each diff. The template this user is referring to was removed only 'once' after adding relevant sources. Tag was only removed once. There is no ongoing revert war. The only purpose of this report is to snipe the opponent of a dispute. Venkat TL (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Just noted that 3 out of total 5 discussion threads on the talk page on different disputes, have already been resolved after discussion and consensus. Rest 2 are being discussed. This further highlights the maliciousness of this report. Venkat TL (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Could you cut out the personal attacks? It doesn't help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring