Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Favonian (talk | contribs) at 11:19, 14 February 2022 (Reverted edits by 110.22.161.212 (talk) to last version by FMSky). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:Kwamikagami reported by User:Skyerise (Result: No action)

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)

I'm a talk page stalker of Kwami's due to our overlapping contributions in Writing Systems and have certainly had run-ins with them in the past, but this is just getting ridiculous. Skyrise has been pointed to the WP:BRD cycle as a means of deescalating this dispute and moving forward constructively, but insists on a pattern of tendentious editing that they keep trying to legalese into a technical violation by Kwami. At this point, with a now third trip to 3RR in the last couple weeks, each time presenting evidence that has just completely fallen flat eliciting anyone to ever agree with them, this is starting to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Kwami can certainly come across as pushy when engaged in content disputes, and would do well to skirt a bit more wide of Misplaced Pages behavioral lines, especially around 3RR and Civility. But Skyrise seems to be actively dismissive of Misplaced Pages practices and the suggestions of editors on how to resolve this dispute. At what point do we cut bait on someone who refuses to respect editing guidelines and is dismissive of the advice given to them for moving forward? VanIsaac, MPLL_WpWS 05:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

WHAT? I've been posting my concerns on the talk page all along, as they arise, but kwami only responds to that discussion after I file a report. Otherwise he ignores it. There was plenty of discussion today, but only because this report is still open. If kwami's usual pattern continues, as soon as this is closed he'll just continue to revert while ignoring attempts to discuss. All you have to do to verify this is look at the timing of his article talk page posts. Skyerise (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Skyerise reverted the article again but this time has justified his changes on the talk page. Most of the changes are fine; I think we have only 2 or 3 outstanding disagreements. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop referring to me as male. I'm a woman. I believe I've mentioned this before so I have to wonder why you are intentionally misgendering me. Skyerise (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Skyerise has started edit-warring again. I thought we had moved to the talk page for consensus, but they've twice restored a rejected change in just a few minutes, with the spurious justifications that (1st BOLD violation) there was a capitalization error in the reverted version, which I then fixed (though per WP:QUOTE it wasn't an error), and then (2nd BOLD violation) with the false claim that they'd fixed that error. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Two reverts is not an edit-war. At least you don't think it is when you do it, as shown above in this report. When I hit four, feel free to submit a report. I haven't yet and I won't. But complaining about my doing exactly what you do on a regular basis, don't you think it's a little whiny? Skyerise (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I fixed it fine. There are two ways to fix a missing ellipsis; one is by restoring the elided material. Skyerise (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action, in lieu of blocking both parties for edit warring. If the war continues and the two editors are not inclined to follow WP:Dispute resolution it might be justifiable to apply a long period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Venkat TL reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: No action)

Page: 2022 Karnataka hijab row (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)

@Bbb23 Alright. See below points for every diff.

A deprecated and un unreliable source WP:REPUBLICTV was wrongly added and reverted. Not counted as 3RR

.1 (Unrelated to other diff) Discussed at Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Background and Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka.

.2 (Unrelated to other diff) Explained at MOS:LEADCITE

(Unrelated to other diff) see Template:Current/doc#Guidelines

(Unrelated to other diff) Revert of clear copyright violation. WP:NOT3RR, Not counted as 3RR . Discussed at three places. Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Line_from_CNN, User_talk:CapnJackSp#February_2022 and also at User_talk:Diannaa#CLOP_review

.1 (Unrelated to other diff) discussed at Talk:2022_hijab_row_in_Karnataka#Banning_of_Hijab_by_Karnataka_BJP_Government

.2 (related to diff ) Revert of clear copyright violation. WP:NOT3RR. Discussed at three places.

(related to diff ) Revert of copyright violation. WP:NOT3RR. Discussed at three places.

(related to diff ) Revert of copyright violation. WP:NOT3RR. Discussed at three places.

(Unrelated to other diff)

So 4 out of 8 diffs are reverts of clear Copyright violation, WP:NOT3RR. And rest are different content dispute, MOS Violation, etc. For content disputes, The talkpage shows my genuine efforts for generating consensus and 3/5 threads were closed with resolution. So I questioned this report. Venkat TL (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You are citing MOS:LEADCITE as an excuse, but it says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Placing "citation needed" tag is a challenge, which can only be satisfied by adding a relevant citation, not by citing policy.

For the diff 2.1, you claim it was "discussed". But a more correct description would be "discussion was ongoing", where two other editors other than me disagreed with you. You are preempting all other editors and claiming a divine right to do so. This won't do. And, why on earth did you remove the POV template?

You also did an additional revert after recieving a 3RR warning, within half an hour. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

so you filed this 3RR violation report because I removed the POV template "once" (after I added several mroe reliable source as references for it to resolve the concern of the template). Venkat TL (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile admin Diannaa has also confirmed that content I had removed in Diff was copyright violation Hence my reverts related to diff were appropriate per WP:NOT3RR. Venkat TL (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• The page in dispute has a new title. It has been moved to 2022 Karnataka hijab row, so I have updated the header of this report. There does not seem to be an ongoing edit war so I recommend that the complaint be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with no action since there does not seem to be a continuing edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Rogeman123 reported by User:Dawit S Gondaria (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Amda Seyon I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rogeman123 (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 last 3 reverts are just beyond the limit of 24 hours. User at first started with removing Amharic characters, and replaced them with romanized ones. I reverted him and notified him of WP:BRD twice in edit summary, he continued to ignore the bold-revert-discussion cycle. Now he is claiming (at least thats what user is suggesting from the talkpage discussion i have started) that Amharic/Geez derived characters which is exactly the same is the only way to write Amda Seyon. I asked for sources here in wikipedia, not recommendations in edit summaries. Discussion is not over, user is trying to edit war his way to his version. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Dawit S Gondaria Note that you cannot edit war to counteract their edit warring. I blocked them as they were previously blocked for disruptive editing. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Username142857 reported by User:Jroberson108 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Body mass index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Username142857 (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: (moved from Woodstone's talk page )

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

Comments:

User has violated the 3RR and continues disruptive editing. @Woodstone and Zefr: and myself have tried to stop the disruptive editing. User continues to force changes without reaching consensus through discussion. User reverted with edit summary containing similar edit warring warnings I gave. After adding a warning to user's talk page, user retorted by adding the same warning to my user talk page twice: and . It also appears the user was previously engaged in the same disruptive editing on the Scratch (programming language) page, which a warning was added to the user's talk page. Jroberson108 (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

No I haven't. My most recent revert was 8:31 pm on 11th of Feb. 24 hours before that is 8:31 pm on the 10th. In that time period, I have made exactly 3 reverts. The Misplaced Pages article for 3RR states that you can't make more than three reverts, which I clearly didn't. Also, you didn't respond to my posts. How am I supposed to reach a consensus if no-one replies to me? Username142857 (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed the timestamps that are based on my settings. They aren't needed anyway. Jroberson108 (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Because they clearly prove that I didn't violate 3RR Username142857 (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

69, nice! Username142857 (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I notice that Username142857 just attempted to close this thread deceptively without an admin's input. I would also remind this user that WP:WIKILAWYERING isn't helpful. You don't need to have violated 3RR in order to be guilty of edit warring. — Czello 12:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours This was also not a good idea. After I blocked them, I noticed an extra bit of disruption. Sorely tempted to indef. Favonian (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jroberson108 reported by User:Username142857 (Result: No violation)

Page: Body mass index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jroberson108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (moved from Woodstone's talk page )

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

Don't edit war to counteract edit warring Username142857 (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to provide information? And isn't Jroberson108 removing information from an 'encyclopedia'? Username142857 (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation 3 reverts each, but Username142857 is adding content that is disputed, so should not be re-adding it. Use the talkpage. User:Black Kite, 11:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:Jungkook1996 (Result: )

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

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

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

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

My edit that he removed;

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

User:2a02:85f:f800::/40 reported by Chip3004 (Result: )

Page: List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a02:85f:f800::/40 (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:
I told those ip's that they cannot Edit War and the ip's did not learn it's lesson at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip3004 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 Feb 2022 (UTC)

• IP range has also been reported at WP:ANI. —C.Fred (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Block is at the /64 range level. If it needs escalated to /40, another admin please feel free. —C.Fred (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ChazMclopez reported by User:SunDawn (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Charley McMillan-Lopez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 13:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* References */This is false information with no sources"
   2. 13:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fasle information from unreliable sources"
   3. 13:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Correct information that has been given from reliable sources"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 13:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fasle information"
   2. 13:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fixed fasle information"
3. 13:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fixed fasle information"
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 13:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* References */Fixed fasle information"
   2. 13:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fixed fasle information"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "False information"
   2. 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Correct information provided"
6. Consecutive edits made from 11:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 12:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 11:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "False information"
   2. 12:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Correct information of the player. That shows the clubs the player has played for and represented."
7. Consecutive edits made from 10:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) to 10:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 10:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fake information"
   2. 10:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Fake information fan option"
   3. 10:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Information has been sourced and verified."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Charley McMillan-Lopez."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC) "/* ChazMclopez */ new section"

Comments:

User started with deleting content without explanation, which is reverted by Zanoni, EchetusXe, and by myself. While the user engaged in attempts to resolve the problem, the user keeps reverting, which has violated WP:3RR. User has been warned on his talk page and on my talk page, but the user keeps reverting. Thanks. SunDawntalk 13:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Back Bay Barry reported by User:Nemov (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring