Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel Case (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 6 November 2022 (→User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: ): refer to AN/I). 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:38.108.133.36 reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Decline)

Page: Hyperion (tree) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 38.108.133.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC) "Removed note regarding what can and cannot be found using a Google search. Added note regarding possible fines for being caught in the vicinity."
2. 17:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC) "No need to tell the world what they can and cannot find on on Google. If they want to find the location, let them do so themselves."
3. 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC) "Info added on fines"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hyperion (tree)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continued edit-warring after warning JBL (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing them at three reverts, still, not four. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not 4RR. I came here to report this user. A topic ban from Hyperion (tree) may be more ideal. - Floydian  _¢ 21:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

They don't need a topic ban, they need to discuss on the talk page. Even a partial block from the article (to get them to raise the issue on the talk-page) would be fine. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: That's right, it is unambiguous edit-warring but not a violation of 3RR (unless one considers the initial deletion

16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC) as a reversion, I never remember how that's supposed to work). JBL (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait, sorry, I must have messed something up filing the report, because that one's included and ths one 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC) (that you've reverted already) is not. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Declined User has stopped editing since this discussion was started. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User:BilledMammal reported by User:KoA (Result: See WP:ANI)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Bothriospila

1. 22:53, October 30, 2022
2. 14:45, November 2, 2022
3. 15:00, November 2, 2022
4. 15:07, November 2, 2022

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adalbus

1. 18:59, October 31, 2022
2. 14:45, November 2, 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:
This involves edit warring at two AfDs BilledMammal started, but focusing primarily on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bothriospila for now. Even though BilledMammal is at 3 reverts there right now, WP:3RR is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times, and there's some urgency for disruption of a wiki-process instead of "normal" content edit warring. Normally I would have held back on filing when it looks like they have stopped reverting for now, but their WP:NOTTHEM response on their talk page is not encouraging (and a continued issue for days now). I'm hoping an admin can at least get across to them even with a warning in a WP:PREVENTATIVE fashion as they tend to only start using relevant talk pages once someone tries to hold the line on their edit warring.

The short of it is that they are modifying the target of the AfD nomination by edit warring in the above diffs partway through the process when editors had already commented. Multiple editors have tried to fix this as it's a huge no-no to modify RfCs, AfDs, etc. part-way through, even as the nom, and it is a much bigger deal than a violation of WP:TALK#REVISE at an article talk page. The same has happened over at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adalbus, so running up reverts in multiple places.

For background, this is part of a larger dispute they're continuing first reported at ANI related to edit warring at Bothriospilini. There the page had to be protected by El_C due to BM edit warring (it took 3 reverts to get them to the talk page finally), but was lifted when BM said they would stop. There, editors complained when they realized BM was misleading them at AfD. Plantdrew summarized the issue well in reference to BM's AfD actions: It is disrupting the AfD, in that the AfD is predicated only on WP:CONTENTFORK. But I've never seen another AfD predicated on CONTENTFORK, where the content forking was performed by the AfD nominator shortly before opening the AfD. Nobody in the AfD has yet brought up the fact that the nominator did the forking (I plan to do so; I had started writing my !vote, but it referred to BilledMammal's version of this article, so now I need to rework it (but I don't mind the disruption)). Performing a content fork and then arguing for AfD based on the content being forked is an...interesting tactic. In short, BilledMammal tried to edit war in a content fork version immediately before the AfD that wasn't caught until a bit later, tried to claim the page had to stay at their new version and didn't need talk page consensus because they started the AfD, and that resulted in the initial protection. I see Bishonen also blocked BM for disrupting wiki-process awhile back, so maybe they have more experience with handling BM than I do from just the past few days.

For this report, they continued that edit warring at the AfDs now by trying to change the target Bothriospilini at AfD to their preferred version rather than what actually exists at the page, resulting in continuing to mislead/confuse readers as Plantdrew described above. This is longer than I'd prefer for an AN3 report, but that WP:GAMING folks are complaining about + edit warring at an AfD is why I'm asking for a response here instead of ANI on the recent round of acute edit warring BM started up again. It's a mess to sort through and I'm out of non-admin tool ideas. Edit warring is at the center of the actionable issues here, so I'm hoping for a more focused look even after things (hopefully) took yet another break to keep it from spreading even more. If admins think it's better to just tack this on at the end of the long ANI thread instead, I can do that too. KoA (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

KoA has misrepresented the situation. First, they say I reverted three times at Bothriospilini; I reverted twice, across several days, with the first of these being due to the provided rollback summary not applying to that article and in the consequent belief that the editor was not objecting to that edit. They reverted twice, across one hour. They also imply that I was not willing to discuss at the talk page, but neglect to mention that I did try to open a discussion on their talk page and that rather than engage with it they removed it.

In regards to this report, after their somewhat pointy reverts (see the ANI discussion for that assessment from independent editors) at Bothriospilini and Adalbus, I modified the link in my nomination to ensure it continued pointing at the same content, thus ensuring the context remained consistent. They insisted on reverting this, in violation of WP:TPO, multiple times (Adalbus 1, Adalbus 2, Bothriospilini 1, Bothriospilini 2). BilledMammal (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• This is now running in parallel with the discussion at WP:ANI. Anything that needs to be added - or elaborated on - may be done so there. Please consider the discussion here closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Helptottt reported by User:Iaof2017 (Result: Referred to AN/I)

Page: Rita Ora discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helptottt (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:

Helptottt is extremely tendentious and is persistently removing sourced content as well as ignoring the references given in the article within 24 hours, despite notifying him several times. He is terming every single opposing edit as "badly written", "false" and "senseless". Edit warring is happening for a while and it seems that the user do not want to end it. The article was even protected for a week, while two other blocked disrupting users have even turned out to be sockpuppets. Iaof2017 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User is going on with his removing attempts of sourced content without consensus on the talkpage . Iaof2017 (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The reason there was an edit war in the first place was because the user laof2017 made shocking edits across the entire article. That's why his version of the article was reverted by another editor as well. Please, read through the talk page of the article to get a better sense of what actually happened. The user went as far as falsifying chart positions and violated several guidelines re: record charts, yet accused other editors of "not reading the sources" and "not knowing the guidelines". Yesterday I started editing the article, issue by issue, and laof2017 undid my edits again, within minutes, just repeating that there was "no improvement". Even though it was agreed upon on the talk page of the article that a multitude of issues need to be solved. I have never had such an unpleasant experience while editing on Misplaced Pages, the user constantly uses demeaning and accusatory language towards me, to basically stop me from editing.--Helptottt (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Why should I engage with your accusations and your attempts to discourage me from editing this article? The things I edited were already agreed on, by two other editors on the article's talk page. When you altered the article, which resulted in numerous mistakes, you removed sourced content and now you're accusing me of removing content that you transferred from another section (that you inexplicably removed altogether). Can users have "ownership" over articles? I am basically being hounded by laof2017 for editing an article he seems to think to "own." Helptottt (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Your accusations (wikihounding and ownership) seem to have gone beyond the scope of this noticeboard and as the talk page seems to be offering more heat than light, I think you should go to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

User:The Drover's Wife reported by User:George Ho (Result: Page fully protected for one week)

Page: Ruby Tandoh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff of starting RFC after initial discussion was made.

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

Comments:
The user reverted my redirecting the article to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7) amidst ongoing discussion, claiming that the redirect had "no consensus". After sending the user a warning, the user also sent me a warning but then accused me of abusing the process. George Ho (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• User:George Ho unilaterally WP:BOLD merged the long-existent Ruby Tandoh article a year ago. He was reverted, but revert-warred to keep the redirect in place. On 29 October, User:GRuban noticed the stealth merger and objected, and I supported him in doing that (which was the first time I'd noticed it either). User:George Ho then, in a desperate attempt to retain his unilateral merger, started an WP:RFC with his unilateral merger as the default position, rather than the article that existed for many years, so that if it deadlocked due to low turnout (which it has, currently, at 2-2) it would default to retention, despite the fact it was a unilateral decision in the first place. He's subsequently acknowledged on the talk place that he concedes she may be independently notable as per Misplaced Pages notability guidelines but staunchly opposes the article being restored regardless because of his own personal viewpoints. It amounts to one editor trying to abuse process to eliminate a longstanding article without consensus because he couldn't get one: this would never have succeeded if he'd gone through WP:AFD or otherwise proposed a merger somewhere where it might have been more widely noticed at the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  Suggestion to merge the Tandoh page was made a year ago at Talk:The Great British Bake Off/Archive 2#Individual articles about Bake Off winners. George Ho (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

  She was barely mentioned in that discussion and there was no notification that any merger was being discussed at Talk:Ruby Tandoh. Why would people following her for her subsequent career be assumed to be following a low-turnout proposal at Talk:The Great British Bake Off that originally didn't refer to her, and then was only brought up as an afterthought in later discussion? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected in full for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  It's one week, actually. George Ho (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  What I get for doing this while I'm nearly asleep ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Bedivere (Result:Blocked for three months)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
As I have just expressed on the talk page of Camila Vallejo, user Dentren has been consistently and repeatedly trying to add contentious and controversial material to articles about people related to the Gabriel Boric administration (including Boric himself). This behavior is the same they've had in the Spanish Misplaced Pages, where they were first blocked from editing Gabriel Boric's article and then indefinitely blocked as a sole-purpose account, for the aforementioned reasons. While Dentren has not made three reverts (neither have I) it is obvious they won't stop their relentless efforts to reinstate controversial content on Misplaced Pages. Such disruptive behavior needs to be stopped for once and for all. Bedivere (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of three months Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:173.212.124.217 reported by User:Normchou (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 173.212.124.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "I'm calling for a lock on this article and for a higher authority to mediate this dispute, as changes are being made with little to no justification, resulting in a pointless edit war that will not resolve on its own."
2. 11:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "Again, highly debatable relevancy; please see talk page."
3. 17:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1119816767 by Amigao (talk) - WP:REL ?"
4. 11:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC) "it shocks me that a single typo-filled banner placed by one unknown human being is so significant as both a single event as well as supposed relevancy to the 20th congress that it would get an entire section on this page. justify its inclusion otherwise it seems needlessly shoehorned in to the average viewer."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "/* 'Protest' Section */"

Comments:

IP user was warned by multiple seasoned editors about their edit-warring behavior but defiantly chose to continue their disruption to the page. Normchou  16:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I notice you decided to leave out the part where an edit war was already acknowledged and consensus was attempted to be built, but you instead decided to dive in and revert it yet again before a final conclusion could be reached. I'm not sure why I'm being reported, when I was the one perfectly fine with stopping the back-and-forth edits. 173.212.124.217 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Davide King reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: Warned)

Page: 2022 Israeli legislative election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC) "that's just a way to avoid same verbatim from the source but let me attempt to change it to what the source says; as for relevant, we have the Israeli-occupied territories article, NPR is considered a reliable source, and this is cited as fact in an article discussing the election, how it's not at least somewhoat relevant, considering the campaign (discussed in the same article) is beyond me"
2. 22:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Electoral system */ not irrelevant if we describe this as 'Israeli-occupied territories' and the reliable source related to the election mentioned this as relevant"
3. 18:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Electoral system */ not a valid reason to delete, this article is about the election and is from a reliable source"
4. 14:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "edit conflict; ce with refs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Palestinians in occupied territories */ new section"

Comments:

A technical remark. As soon as we are discussing a possible 3RR violation, I am wondering if the edit made at 14:38, 4 November can be considered as a revert. Whose edit was reverted by DK when he added "<ref name="Haaretz results">" instead of "<ref>"?

A general remark. My formal analysis of the talk page discussion shows that DK said that one reliable source say "X", but his opponents argue that that source is irrelevant. However, I was unable to understand why they believe that NPR statement is irrelevant. It is also necessary to note that DR's opponents cite no sources their opinion is based upon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Davide King is warned for edit warring at 2022 Israeli legislative election. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. The 'war' in this case was their serial re-addition of 'While Palestinians living in Israel..'. (For example, in the 14:38 4 November diff above — scroll all the way to the bottom to see those words being added). This addition was well-sourced but it was judged to be unnecessary by several other editors. In other words, inclusion of these words was a pure judgment call for the editors but Davide chose *not* to wait for consensus after their change was initially reverted. Luckily Davide did participate on talk and they stopped just before hitting the 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: Referred to AN/I)

Page: Portal:Current events/2022 November 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User edits in portal namespace:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

While 3RR has not been reached in this case, given that it has been less then a week since Alsoriano97's last block for edit warring, and taking into account Alsoriano97's egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF in connection with the edit warring conduct in this case, I feel that it is worth further examining Alsoriano97's conduct and considering further sanctions.

1. Uhm….
2. A "deputy minister" is certainly unnotable.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of user removal 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:

• Alsoriano97 was blocked less then a week ago for edit warring and violating 3RR as a result of this discussion.

• On 4 Nov, Alsoriano97 reverted a entry relating to the 2022 FIFA World Cup . No reason was provided, with the nonsensical edit summary Uhm….

• The removal is reverted by the original editor . Given that no reason was given for the removal of a legitimate entry, this seemed to be reasonable. Subsequently, the entry is removed again , with no edit summary.

• Given the nonsensical and unjustified removals, I re-added the entry, while amending the wording of the entry .

• Afterwards, the entry is edited by a number of editors to further correct wording and content. Despite the subsequent edits by many editors, Alsoriano97 removes the entry again , claiming A "deputy minister" is certainly unnotable.

• I reverted this removal , and told Alsoriano97 to gain consensus on the talk page, creating a new entry for the discussion .

Clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again.

I further issued a warning relating to edit warring on Alsoriano97's talk page relating to the removals.

Please stop removing a clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again. You may gain consensus at Portal talk:Current events/2022 November 4.

• In response to the edit warring warning, Alsoriano97 removed the warning with the following edit summary.

Ridiculous your tear down mania against me lol. No lessons you can give.

In response to the talk page discussion, Alsoriano97 wrote the below.

do you really think that a boycott by a deputy minister is a "clearly notable event"? Do you know what a "deputy minister" is? Do you know that the World Cup has not even started? Do you know that people don't come to Misplaced Pages to "play"?

Both replies contain egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF against not only myself, but the previous blocking administrator and this noticeboard in general.

• A further reply by Alsoriano97 on the talk page has shown he is not willing to discuss or compromise relating to the subject-matter of the entry.

It's still irrelevant. "Announce"? Come on, I'm sure it can wait until the day of the game, right? That's what can be remarkable. Everyone announces many things and Misplaced Pages is a serious place. It's just that the boycott is still being done by a deputy minister from a subnational (although sovereigb) entity. Do you know what rank that is.

Alsoriano97's tone again breaches WP:CIVIL.

• While 3RR has not been reached in this case, given that it has been less then a week since Alsoriano97's last block for edit warring, and taking into account Alsoriano97's egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF in connection with the edit warring conduct in this case, I feel that it is worth further examining Alsoriano97's conduct and considering further sanctions.

• Alsoriano97 has also directly challenged and dismissed the legitimacy of his last block, claiming it to be a tear down mania against him and that there were No lessons that could be given. Given this dismissal, and his pattern of behavior before and after the block, I believe that the previous block has not had the intended effect and will not be sufficient to stop his disruptive conduct and edit warring activities.

Background:

• Alsoriano97 has a history of edit warring, civility issues and tendentious editing on Portal:Current Events going back many years.
• A search by an administrator returned 66 potential violations of 3RR over a 3 year period.
• An AN/I filing was previously opened against Alsoriano97, where Alsoriano97 was warned to not further engage in the above issues.
• Alsoriano97 has been previously blocked for 3RR violations on Portal:Current Events.
• The majority of Alsoriano97’s removals relate to news on Anglophone countries, with a specific emphasis on the USA. These removals frequently relate to news that, while occurring in the US, are widely reported globally in many RS's.
• Alsoriano97 frequently removes or makes uncivil comments for entries which do not include the country of where the event occurred.

Previous Discussions & Warnings:

Recent

1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive460#User:Alsoriano97_reported_by_User:Carter00000_(Result:_Blocked_for_48_hours)
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User:Alsoriano97 (Long Term Violations of Edit Warring, WP:CIVIL & Tedentious_Editing)
3. Portal_talk:Current_events/2022_November_4
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97#"Too_local"_attempted_assassination_on_Nancy
5. Misplaced Pages:Current_events_noticeboard#Do we really have to place countries all the time?

Significant

1. Portal_talk:Current_events/Archive_12#Multi-Revert_Issue_with_Alsoriano97
2. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Warning
3. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Use the summary box before making an edit!
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#May 2021
5. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Your use of the word "Domestic"
6. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_2#Revert of Current Events
7. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Your revert about Dwayne Haskins
8. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Matt Gaetz
9. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: No action)

Routine

1. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_2#Vandalism
2. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Artemi Panarin
3. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#NYC Mandate
4. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Personal comments at ITNC
5. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Exclusion of Harry Reid from 2021 Deaths List
6. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
7. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#About Buccaneers
8. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Explanation wanted
9. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Question on notability
10. User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1#Removal of Current Event.

Carter00000 (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Alsoriano97's comment: I have not committed a violation of the 3RR. This proposal is already flawed. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Noting that this is the edit warring noticeboard, where edit warring is defined as behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute". 3RR is not strictly required to bring a filing, but recommended. Carter00000 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Something this long is getting way out of scope for this noticeboard. Since the last AN/I was rather long and complex, I think it should go back there. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Lauriswift911 reported by User:Dylnuge (Result: )

Page: 2022 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Lauriswift911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC) on Talk:2022 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes "/* Edit Warring over Casualties */ new section"

Comments:

This article has had back and forth edit warring between various users and anonymous IPs since September, primarily over the number of casualties to list in the infobox. The situation appears to be that various numbers have been provided for casualties on the Tajikistan side of the conflict, from both governments involved as well as a third source. Since edit warring was disrupting the page (breaking existing citations, adding citations with things like a bare link to bbc.com, etc) and the sources seemed to genuinely be in conflict, I proposed listing multiple on the infobox with clear indication of which party was claiming them—this was also the state of the page before the edit warring began (e.g. at ).

That said, I don't want to get into an edit war myself here; I have no stake in this beyond wanting to repair information that doesn't match what's written in the cited sources. I have attempted to bring editors involved in the conflict to the talk page, but no one is engaging there. The height of the conflict seems to have died down, but User:Lauriswift911 continues to change the number listed as "per Tajikistan" to 84 despite the fact that that contradicts the source and isn't listed elsewhere. Nothing here is WP:3RR (it's more of a slow-revert war than a fast one), but I don't personally want to be involved in a revert war (and I think adding uncited material doesn't rise to the level of obvious vandalism), so I'd appreciate another editor's eyes on it. Thanks! Dylnuge 17:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:185.123.53.37 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)

Page: Algiers expedition (1541) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 185.123.53.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120199197 by M.Bitton (talk)"
2. 18:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120198426 by M.Bitton (talk)"
3. 17:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120194603 by عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) You already admitted that some of the numbers were wrong so you changed them, but the numbers you added are made up as well so the tags should remain."
4. 17:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC) "Exaggerated claims of "300 officers killed" and "12,000 massacred" are not backed by the unreliable web source"
5. Consecutive edits made from 06:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC) to 06:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
   1. 06:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Continuing an edit war after your block expired */ new section"
2. 18:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Algiers expedition (1541)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After their block from last week expired, they are now back to continue. When I reminded them that it's not a good idea, they blanked my comment with an edit summary that says Go cry about it again. So here I am, crying about it again. M.Bitton (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Here's the previous AN3 report, showing when they were blocked by EdJohnston. Also, please note that they are edit warring on two articles, including the one they were reported for last week. M.Bitton (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The IP user doesn't even debate with us in the talk page and just keep throwing its reverting edits with no clear explanations. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Already blocked – 1 month by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Halbared reported by User:MapReader (Result: )

Page: Tim Roth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Halbared (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:
A clear breach of 3RR, reverting edits by me and User:Beatlemania2002, four reverts over less than 14 hours MapReader (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:2C0:8E80:7A80:F8EF:32C4:4FA0:D1A7 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: )

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

User being reported: 2601:2C0:8E80:7A80:F8EF:32C4:4FA0:D1A7 (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 01:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC) to 01:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC) "Hello! The page lists its definition in a very convulted way. The clearest translation I have found is simply "maiden, damsel". It is also how the word is translated in many instances in Biblical texts. I tried adding this into the page."
   2. 01:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Etymology and social context */This says scholars but then only cites one scholar. Wouldn't certain scholars or a description of the scholar be more precise?"
2. 01:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 01:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Biblical usage */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC) to 01:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 01:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC) ""
   4. 01:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC) ""
   5. 01:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Etymology and social context */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Listen to the pedantic sockpuppet */ new section"

Comments:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring