Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive478

Page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babylon_Bee%7CThe Babylon Bee
User being reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Margen74%7CMargen74

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&oldid=1197987911

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=1199233040&oldid=1197987911
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=next&oldid=1199321184

I'd also point out that this user has engaged in unconstructive editing recently on this page (sorry I'm not sure how to do diffs): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=1196423488&oldid=1190100943 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=next&oldid=1196454685

This isn't quite relevant here, but I'd also point out that he appears to have mimicked another user's profile page, including some access abilities I don't think are correct. His page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Margen74 Page he copied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seawolf35

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASquatch347&diff=1199321689&oldid=1199233624

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

Post on Margen's page for this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Margen74#Edit_Waring

Discussion on Seawolf's page about profile being stolen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seawolf35#Margen74

Squatch347 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit of this report, they are WP:NOTHERE given their behavior thus far and should most likely be indeffed. I have notified them of this discussion. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

They now attempted to remove the section on my talk concerning them. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

•   Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Concealed carry in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neutrality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

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

Comments:

I am a Wikipedia editor and have attempted to add information to the above-linked Wikipedia article regarding recent studies on firearm usage and a correlation to crime rates in the United States. I have cited objective, governmentally-approved studies and set of conclusions to my edit in order to prove what has been found through research, however, the above-mentioned user has taken it upon themselves to revert my useful edits to the page while claiming that I derive my statistics from a supposed election-denying extremist and hyperlinking me to partisan webpages regarding the personal political opinions of this individual. I am requesting that an administrator or another Wikipedia moderator of sorts looks into this situation and resolves it promptly, as I do not appreciate having my fact-checked, cited, and verifiable work removed at the prompt desire of a random, partisan individual. UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Being new to leaving reports, I seem to have made an error and neglected to insert the link to the Wikipedia article in question. Here is the article: Concealed carry in the United States, and the name of the user being reported is "Neutrality." UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No discussion on the article's talk page. No edit warring notification to other user. Only two reverts by user:Neutrality. OP has now made the same edit a third time (and been reverted by a different editor. There is no edit warring here by Neutrality. UnregisteredSkeptic, discuss the edit on the article's talk page as has been requested, and don't restore the edit again. Meters (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

•   Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Comparison of EM simulation software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Banner (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. 27 January 2024 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
2. 27 November 2023 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
3. 18 August 2023 Removed edits because there was no Wikipedia article related to that software package
4. 20 September 2020 Added requirement to list that they must have 'their own article on Wikipedia'. He labeled this 'Clarified criteria for inclusion of software on the page.'
5. 17 Jun 2020 Removed edits because they were 'without a Wikipedia article' on them.
6. 17 November 2019 Removed edits because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
7. 10 September 2019 Removed programs 'without article, deemed not notable.'
8. 2 September 2019 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
9. 20 December 2018 He removed edits 'without own article' that he deemed 'not notable'.
10. 5 December 2018 Removed edits because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
11. 23 October 2018 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
12. 9 June 2018 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
13. 10 October 2014 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [5]

Comments: It is possible The Banner believes that the Wikipedia definition of 'notable' means that something has to have an article on Wikipedia. This is not the definition of notable which I found on Wikipedia.

The repeated behavior of deleting others contributions, and telling them to 'write an article' doesn't achieve the goals of Wikipedia. It seems they are trying to control the content of that page, whether it is an innocent misunderstanding or not. And it certainly isn't helping increase the value of information on that page.Re34646 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSC. But IMHO, this is retaliating for this removal of a non-notable package, added by Re34646. The Banner talk 00:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

•   No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199946313 by Soetermans (talk) Your messing with the 2022 census results and combining it with a 2015 survey which soesn't even talk mention tge 86% figure and this is being discussed join the discusstion and stop reverting."
2. 09:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199917903 by Yung Yohan (talk) Stop messing with the census the survey doesnt even talk abpit irreligion as not religious is not about irreligion and tge survey is from gallup is older then the census."
3. 00:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199785140 by Yung Yohan (talk) Your removing the census results with a older survey stop that."
4. 21:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199712866 by Yung Yohan (talk) The 2022 census is more credible then a 2015 census and not religious is not linked to" irreligion""
5. 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199595094 by Soetermans (talk) The gallup survey doesn't state that it says 0% or less than 1% said they were atheist while the 2022 census said 91% of the country is muslim not 86%"
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) to 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199338520 by Yung Yohan (talk)"
   2. 12:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199336553 by Yung Yohan (talk) The survey doesn't state that"
   3. 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 18:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "BRD"
3. 09:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
4. 09:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All I did was revert the edits the other user made as they used a 2015 survey and removed the 2022 census results for only Islam as the 2022 census 91% said they were muslim while the gallup survey mentions no religion by name as just says 93% said they were religious, 5 said they were not religious and 0% said they were atheist and 1% did not reply. The user then changed the figure of the 91% from the 2022 census and changed it to 86% which is not mentioned in the survey and no religion was mentioned by name.

When I corrected it you reverted those changes and now the other user has done the same a discussion was started on their userpage which they did reply to but still made the edit and you didn't even leave a warning for them.

I read the rules now I wasn't aware if I get punished I see its my fault I should have discussed it but I did leave edit summaries I thought that was discussing the issue if not I get it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteqaam (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) 

You just keep on going though. Perhaps you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, but Competence is required. Stop reverting. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You choose not to engage in the talk pages of yung yohan or the talk page they clearly are leaving disruptive edits by removing the 2022 census results and using 2015 survey which doesn't mention islam or any other religion. Inteqaam (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for a period of 72 hours. Continuing to revert after being reported to this board is rarely an optimal idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of Pokémon anime characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Master106 (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. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:

Can you please work with me instead of just reporting me? Master106 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked – for a period of two weeks Master, I don't see how anyone can work with you. After reviewing the lengthy, infuriatingly formatted talk page discussion I could not block you fast enough—no, wait a minute, I didn't even get finished before I'd had enough of your IDHT, tendentious behavior to make me want to scream at my monitor. Your constant "logic" that just because a source does not explicitly include Chloe as a supporting character does not mean we can't say she's a protgaonist (and as Sergecross73 accurately points out, anyone who claims a work has 19 protagonists clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word "protagonist") is, well, some kind of clearly identified and named logical fallacy that I can't be bothered (because your editing bothers me enough already) to look up right now. And as Serge further points out, if you were right, you would have found a reliable source proving your point long ago.

However, your handling of your own conduct is even worse. There's this disingenuous non-apology apology for what you concede was edit warring (and for someone already blocked twice for edit warring, there can be no claim to having done so "accidentally"), your repeatedly stated longing for "a consensus we can all agree on together" (redundant wording in any event) when it is as plain as day that consensus is against you and that what you really want behind all that polite, civil language is everyone to see things your way, and the edit summary behind your most recent revert: "Please don't revert it and instead make it better". You do not make it better by consistently reverting to your preferred version ... an edit summary like that is practically a guilty-as-charged confession to edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Deaths in 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */"
2. 14:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199623449 by Alsoriano97 (talk)"
3. 09:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */"
4. 00:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */ It is NOT a modified description, it is the EXACT job title (where "of State" is optional)"
5. 12:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people"
6. 11:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199198324 by Renewal6 (talk) "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names""
7. 10:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */ /* 25 */ Sanath Nishantha ... "Minister of State for Water Supply" is the NAME of the office. It is not "self-aggrandisement" to capitalise it, most of all because he is dead so anything done here cannot be self-anything."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user made an eighth ([12]) and ninth ([13]) revert after being reported here. Renewal6 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

•   Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from editing Deaths in 2024. The filer and respondent both participated in Talk:Deaths in 2024#Capitalization or non-capitalization of job titles, where there was clear pushback against capitalizing the title. Even after this attempt to resolve on talk, and pushback against capitalizing had been made clear by multiple editors, respondent continued to twice revert to respondent's own preferred version on 28 January (i.e. the eighth and ninth reverts given by Renewal6 in their comment above). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Category:Redirects to an article without mention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: C. A. Russell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:56, 28 January 2024 – good thing this abomination is a category page and not actual policy; it's now clear why RFD has turned into a gamified mess over the last year or so...
2. 02:42, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200203580 by Tavix (talk) revert #1
3. 12:08, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200234996 by Tavix (talk) revert #2 of unexplained revert for page not in alignment wrt actual redirect policy and guidelines
4. 01:51, 30 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200615340 by Hey man im josh (talk) this page is not a policy page, and this change is not a policy change; this edit is descriptive, and what's described here is already "implemented"—not a proposal or a wouldn't-it-be-nice prescription

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They actually issued me an edit warring warning. I felt if I issued it back it would come as retaliatory. I only noticed they were edit warring after receiving their warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They were told to discuss the changes three times. Once by Tavix here and twice by me here and here.

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

Comments:

This is an erroneous report. The first edit listed here is not a revert. (There is no 3RR violation here on my part.) Please correct/amend the report. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, please don't leave the Previous version reverted to: parameter blank, Hey man im josh. El_C 03:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C: To be clear, this report is focused on edit warring by re-adding their preferred version four times. I will update to a dif of the original version in a second. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's still not clear whether it's a revert, though, without that parameter filled. El_C 03:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be related to an ongoing ANI thread, though the AN3 thread was opened one minute before the ANI thread was opened. I'm not sure if we should merge this conversation to the discussion at the more central venue (WP:ANI), but doing so would keep us from splitting the conversation across two pages. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that to be honest, it makes more sense at this point in time. Though the user did not revert more than 3 times, I do believe they're been edit warring by re-adding the text four times. It seems as though their intention was to WP:GAME the system and hinted at that by calling out the number of reverts they were doing. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  No violation: yeah, let's attend to the matter there. El_C 03:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Subsequently indefinitely blocked by Daniel. There is a discussion at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Cassyette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jonmeid555 (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. 13 Jan
2. 26 Jan
3. 28 Jan
4. 30 Jan
5. 30 Jan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 28 Jan and edit summary on 26 Jan

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a, but it had seemingly been discussed before and the subject of the report replaced other user’s comments on talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:
Editor has been slow edit-warring on this topic for a long period, before even the first date in this report, and engaging in WP:IDHT behaviour. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Beyond the long-term edit warring, there is clearly WP:COI editing going on here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of kings of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ezana of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Adal Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Endubis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
GDRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wazeba of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ousanas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Amhara people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kingdom of Aksum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Agazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JUMPp1harm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KallebTigray (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. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]
7. [21]
8. [22]
9. [23]
10. [24]
11. [25]
12. [26]
13. [27]
14. [28]
15. [29]

etc

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

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

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

Comments: I have no idea who's in the wrong or who started this but I've noticed these two users reverting each other's edits on Kingdom of Askum-related articles in the past few days. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

•   Declined This is too complicated to handle here and should be filed at WP:ANI. I will note that in reviewing some of the two editors' edits, JUMPp1harm vandalized two pages created by KallebTigray by blanking them, one draft and one article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  yeah, he keeps on reverting my edits which are correct, i even sent him a source proving my point but he still does not accept the truth. KallebTigray (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  These pages are either useless or incorrect. I have removed the page for Adal kingdom, as there is already a page called Adal Sultanate. There is no need for two separate pages. This guy has no clue what he's talking about. JUMPp1harm (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  there is MULTIPLE SOURCES, stating about the Kingdom of Adal. The Adal Sultanate literally isnt the same as the Adal Kingdom? Are you ok? maybe actually look at my sources instead of just pointing out shit and not looking at the evidence in the draft. you literally plagiarized MY DRAFT. It wasn't even an article. KallebTigray (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would add to what Bbb said that some sort of discussion and enforcement at a forum other than this one is desirable since all these pages come under a contentious topic, the Horn of Africa. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum. Kalleb has been blocked for 31 hours by EvergreenFir for harassment. I have also put CTOPS alerts on both users' talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Specifically for these two edit summaries: [30] and [31] EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd warned both users about WP:NPA ([32], [33]), but a day or so apart from each other, as I hadn't immediately noticed the edits from KallebTigray. This seems as good a place as any to note that I've also warned KallebTigray about WP:NOR (more than once; [34], [35]) which was met (I believe) with WP:IDHT ([36], [37]). Other editors have moved a few of this user's new pages into Draft space (which I'd considered doing with Agʿazi People‎), to an extent that (combined with the WP:NOR) I'm wondering about WP:CIR. I guess it's all a non-issue for the next 31 hours, but otherwise I don't know whether I am too WP:INVOLVED in the topic area to do anything about it. Feel free to disabuse me of that notion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Graham Coxon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.98.159.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 18:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 18:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
6. 18:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
7. 18:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
8. 18:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
9. 18:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) "added a little extra praise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC) "Final Warning: Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Adding WP:PUFFERY and reverting removals Luke10.27 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours by HJ Mitchell.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ShirtNShoesPls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]

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: [43]

Comments:

Looks to be heavy edit-warring on article for Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League, demanding people go to talk page and accept their included material in contravention of WP:ONUS. From quick glance there looks to be potential WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE issues. Multiple existing recent warnings of editor warning on their talk page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no attempt to resolve the dispute on either the article's talk page or mine. Others, including an admin, also wanted at least part of the material to remain. Therefore the WP:ONUS is on the people who want to remove multiple RS's from the article. That is why I believe the edits do not fall under WP: 3RR, as I made them to "enforce certain overriding policies". ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You linked to WP:ONUS, but it seems you didn't read it: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Your understanding of the policy is incorrect, and even if it were correct, it does not meet the steep requirements of 3RR exemption. Grandpallama (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia administrator and several other contributors sided with me. That's why I believed that the WP: ONUS was upon those attempting to remove the information. There was no attempt to resolve the matter on talk. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Again: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Grandpallama (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest this report needs to include editor Rakewater, too. There's a lot of edit warring going on, and too many reversions, by both. Grandpallama (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia administrator (who I'm not sure if I'm permitted to tag) also believed that my edits should remain. Since multiple, credible RS's and an admin wanted to material to stay: I saw the WP: ONUS as falling upon the editors attempting to remove it.

It was never my intention to edit war, this seemed to be a rare case where WP: 3RR doesn't apply (although I concede that this is somewhat subjective), and no editor either contacted me on my talk or attempted to resolve the dispute on the article's discussion page, despite my appeals for them to do so.

That's why I acted the way I did. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:3RRNO. The exemptions are clear, and they do not apply in this case, or to your edits, regardless of whom agreed with you. There's nothing subjective about it. Grandpallama (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I should've have tagged the sources needing verifications much earlier, so I'm willing to take responsibility. Rakewater (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours To be clear, "both" means the reported user, who demonstrates an IDHT problem when, in talk page discussions and discussions above, they simply restate their argument even when it's pointed out to them (repeatedly) that they're wrong both on the facts and on policy (for one thing, WP:ONUS is not reversible ... it does not mean that if a putative consensus favors inclusion, those opposing it have to prove why it shouldn't be included). And, yes, Shirt, your interpretation of 3RR is "somewhat subjective" ... in fact I would characterize that as a rather generous term, since it's obvious from the following discussion you aren't familiar with the linked 3RRNO, which is very narrowly written and very bright-line and does not in any way cover your edits. If you had made only one questionable revert, I might forgive you on ignorance-of-the-law grounds, but you didn't, and frankly your conduct has been so egregious that that really doesn't matter.

I have also blocked Rakewater, per Grandpallama's suggestion above, because it takes two to edit war (Shirt's protestations of lack of intent notwithstanding, that is never a defense outside of 3RRNO) outside of team reverts, and in this case without Rake it's entirely possible things might not have gotten so far out of hand. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Rambling Rambler doesn’t appear to be blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. I blocked Rakewater, per Grandpallama's suggestion. They were warring with Shirt regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Joely Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202059569 by Geraldo Perez (talk)Stop it. You’re not the boss here!"
2. 23:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202058503 by Geraldo Perez (talk)Stop acting line the owner of these articles. You are wrong. Stop your disruptive editing."
3. 23:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202057055 by Geraldo Perez (talk) STOP IT. Read your talk page. You are WRONG!!"
4. 23:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202050013 by Geraldo Perez (talk)STOP REVERTING!!! You clearly don’t understand what you’re talking talking about!"
5. 23:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202047729 by Geraldo Perez (talk)No. Stop reverting! You clearly don’t understand this subject. Adoption does not create biological relationship. Adoption does not change who physically fathered Joely."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Joely Collins."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Geraldo Perez "/* Relationship */ Reply"

Comments:

Even after a warning and the filing of this report, the user continues to edit war and be disruptive. Amaury • 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I see the same reverts from Geraldo Perez; is there a reason why he's not reported as well Amaury?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking myself the question the same question here? Geraldo Perez is acting like the owner of these articles. They actually reverted any editor who changed that content on Joely Collins for months now. I have tried to carefully explain the situation on their talk page but they're just not listening. I'm at loss how to resolve this here.Tvx1 23:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk. If that fails, WP:3O or WP:RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

But Geraldo Perez has reverted fivefour other users besides me in months on Joely Collins alone on this subject. What would give me more chance to get through to them that they are incorrect? I mean I put a Wikipedia link that carefully explains all sorts of sibling relationships and still they refuse to even entertain a different view than theirs. I'm really at a loss here.Tvx1 23:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

•   Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Both @Tvx1 and Geraldo Perez: pblocked for one week ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, it's the same story at Simon Collins and Lily Collins.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess the question is multiple pblocks or just standard blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll defer to you, but adding the additional p-blocks while allowing the editors to hash out their disagreement on the talk might be a first step, assuming civility can prevail.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to start a discussion on the talk page of Phil Collins seeing as it concerns al his children. If someone not blocked from editing this children's articles could please at the correct templates to them advertising this discussion? Tvx1 23:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

So you blocked us from one article for a week now (meanwhile Geraldo Perez continued to revert on another). So what's your suggestion on how to best to proceed here?Tvx1 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• SFR's pretty generous here, I was about to block site-wide. I've extended both users' blocks to all three articles. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I noticed that as I was trying to add those articles to the pblock. If I had noticed it was multiple articles to begin with I likely would have settled on a full block as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ok, to all involved, the discussions belong on the individual article talk pages, not on user talk pages. You all have enough combined edits and and years of editing to know this.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I started a talk page discussion here. If someone could please add templates advertising this discussion on the articles I was blocked from? I hope this shows a token of my good faith here. Tvx1 00:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone willing to help here with advertising the discussion on the relevant articles here? {{Ponyo, ScottishFinnishRadish, Amaury, Ingenuity?Tvx1 01:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  You can place a note on the talk pages. You're not blocked from those. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Capture of Gagron (1444) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rawn3012 (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. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

Comments:

•   Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. While not strictly a 3RR violation (the fourth diff does not appear to be a revert to any previous version and should go where the "Previous version reverted to" diff would go) it is still clearly edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1195446695

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1198232352
2. Special:Diff/1201135139
3. Special:Diff/1201151235
4. Special:Diff/1202199580
5. Special:Diff/1202331730
6. Special:Diff/1202334251

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sun#Addressing_Changes_to_the_Lede_by_XiounuX and other stuff at User_talk:XiounuX

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1202335364

Comments: There is evidence that XiounuX has a combative behavior and refused to collaborate with other editors. There are multiple warnings at User_talk:XiounuX to stop the reverts and communicate, but it seems that they would need a block to do so. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You can try entrap me into violating the 3-reversal rule all you want, but all I did was I simply added a peer reviewed scientific reference. The fact remains that you do not get to discuss established facts like peer reviewed scientific literature, and you can only counter with another such reference. This report is a joke trying to establish a dangerous precedent: defend the nonexistent right to promote one's own point of view (that even counters established facts like peer reviewed science). XiounuX (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just made an additional revert, placing them at 4 for the day. Also attempting to chill discussion on the talk page with talk about libel cases. - MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Using entrapment to justify entrapment. XiounuX (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:Don't be high maintenance might be useful here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

And now Revert #5. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

•   Blocked – for a period of indefinitely by User:ScottishFinnishRadish per this discussion at ANI. Aoidh (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [51] This is a link to my first revert (edit: first and only revert)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [55]

Comments:

I reverted his new edit that was deleting previous content. I did so once explaining my revert and thinking my explanation was solid enough. The reported user on the other hand continued to revert two more times. Once to my revert, and another to another user who edited in the same thing I was trying to maintain. On his most recent revert, he goes "if someone want's to revert, go to the talk page" instead of going to the talk page himself, clearly being aware of the talk page rule but deciding to revert two more times anyway. LeenchaOromia (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(My Personal impute) I am at reason to believe that there is a high chance (User:LeenchaOromia) account was solely created for the reason of political agenda whether it be mainstream or not, and may disrupt Wikipedia, my edits technically did not violate the 3 revert rule due to the fact exemption exist, the exemption be it is that the being (User:LeenchaOromia) edits are ambiguous, which i feel and have strong beliefs of due to the fact, i gave a backlog on the language on two separate occasions (1) of them i explained there needs to be a talk page discussion on the Infobox, [1]. My edits are not of bad faith, it is simply a reason to belief any of (User:LeenchaOromia) edits which include [2] needs to be discussed first, and my [3] was based on the fact you can get inspiration from FA status since "They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." Since FA Articles passed an extensive test. CtasACT (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The above is incoherent.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

They have gotten better .... but they've had this problem for a long time.[56] Moxy-  03:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked – for a period of one week Also combined with not assuming good faith, not discussing on the article talk page as asked, and doing this in an article clearly within a contentious topic (WP:ARBHORN, on an issue at the heart of what makes it contentious). Since their edits over the past year showed that they had not yet been made aware of CTOPS, I took care of that as well. The block is thus a regular administrative action. (They also, as noted implicitly above, seem to have competence issues). Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: 1919 Soviet invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 45.132.93.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 19:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 11:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 20:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 18:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1919 Soviet invasion of Ukraine."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an ongoing edit war between this IP and User:Olek Novy. Please see the edit logs for the article. IanDBeacon (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Page protected for two weeks by Euryalus. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of highest-grossing Philippine films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.91.209.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

List of highest-grossing Philippine films:

[57]

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines:

[58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

List of highest-grossing Philippine films:

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines:

[66] [67] [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines:

[69] [70]

List of highest-grossing Philippine films:

[71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [80]

Comments:

This user keeps reverting the two stated articles to include the film Maid in Malacañang. He claimed that the film grossed P700 million in the box office. However, he cannot provide reliable sources. He keeps citing IlokaKnows and Politiko, which are blog sites. The sites don't even have a working About Us page to verify that they are trusted organizations. Another "source" he provides is the tabloid named Bandera. It was discussed on Talk:List of highest-grossing Philippine films that 'Bandera is an editorial tabloid, which is clearly an unreliable source. Bandera mentioned Darryl Yap (the director) as a source, and Yap himself, mentioned Wikipedia as his own source. This is a clear example of circular reporting.' However, this user noted in his latest edits that 'we should accept the truth'. [81] He has been doing it since January 18, 2024.Kenquenito (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• I do want to point out a few things with this report: first is that the diffs shown are largely duplicates of your own edit. Secondly, per WP:3RR A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. With that in mind the edits on the List of highest-grossing Philippine films article on February 3 are a single revert, the same with February 2 and the next revert is from January 28, a week ago. Compounding this is that when filing a report it provides a line for "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" which you did not retain, as they were given no such warning. There's no bright-line 3RR violation and while they have made a few reverts over the space of a week or two, they were not warned that this was edit warring and so reasonably would not be aware of the edit warring policy, so a warning at most seems reasonable at this time. I'll warn them on their talk page now, but I'll leave it for another administrator to decide if anything additional is appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Page history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1

Comments:
Hopefully being resolved. Finally started engaging on the talk page as I was typing this. Still, let's get this on record since there were threats in the edit note of the 3rd revert discussing accusing me of a violation despite repeated attempts at engagement. Editor could definitely use a friendly admin/2nd admin (if they are one) stopping by to explain how "more cites needed" tag isn't the same thing as a notability contest. — LlywelynII 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

•   Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.; any comments you wish to make you can do so on the report below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [83]

Comments:
LlywelynII repeatedly removed a tag I had added to the article as it lacked sufficient sourcing. This continued after I had noted further sourced on the talk page. LlywelynII also claimed to be an administrator; I was unable to find them on the list of administrators, active or general. Cortador (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, you and LlywelynII are edit-warring over a tag for more citations. You added it, and LlywelynII removed it (multiple times). Both of you are guilty of edit-warring, but I don't understand your position. You created the article and then added maintenance tags to it? If you didn't think it was ready for mainspace, you should have created a draft and worked on it until it was. Also, I don't see where LlywelynII claimed to be an administrator - please provide a diff.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 I did not create the article. Llywelynll did, and I added the tag.

Here they mentioned "(other) admins", which I can only interpret as they referring to themselves as an admin, as no admins were involved otherwise. In their report above, they further request a "2nd admin". Cortador (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador: You're right about who created the article. Not sure how I screwed that up, but my bad. I'm not sure what LlywelynII means by that edit summary. Perhaps they can explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hiya. I can redo the entire application again but it's clear in every part of the posts submitted by Cortador above:

They initiated a contentious edit; it was reverted; they warred over it, although currently stopping short of 3rr. At every point in the process, I attempted to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page and on the other user's own page, which was ignored until this process began. That's not edit warring on my part but I'm fine with the page being locked at the moment. It should be locked without the contested change pending any consensus to the contrary or some further discussion between us, though.

We're both editors in good standing for over a decade. It's only that they're misapplying policy and refusing to stop and discuss it. They just need someone (ideally you since you're here) to remind them to take a breath and do so. — LlywelynII 20:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

•   Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of wars involving Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nysreti1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */It's in everybody wiki so I'm gonna put it back"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) to 14:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
   2. 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   3. 14:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
   4. 14:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   5. 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
   6. 14:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
3. 14:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"