Fort Towson

Page: Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.10.136.207 (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:

• Result: The IP editor was blocked 72 hours by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sinhalese people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gabrielasirwatham (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. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]
6. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

Comments:

The editor has also been filed for a sock puppet report here:

[16]

However, the edit warring seems to be continuing unabated, hence why I have also reported the user here. The user did 4 reverts on the 17 April 2024, and potentially much more if the sock puppet report comes back positive. Metta79 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – I've closed the sock case as  Unrelated but have put indefinite extended-confirmed protection on the article. (Neither account named in the sock case is extended-confirmed). Arbcom has just designated Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, though the templates for enacting those sanctions aren't set up yet. Let me know if this dispute spreads out to more articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• EdJohnston I've just indeffed Gabrielasirwatham for their response to my warning about casting aspersions on that talk page. I'm pretty sure we haven't lost a productive editor there. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: SpaceX Starship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redacted II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 20:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Addition of success outcome in infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts: SpaceX Starship

1. 11:17, 16 April 2024‎ (UTC) Revert of height
2. 21:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of outcome to success
3. 11:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of specific impulse
4. 11:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of outcome to success
5. 20:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of outcome to success

SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 3

1. 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Initial change of status to success
2. 20:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
3. 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table

Super heavy-lift launch vehicle

1. 12:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to partial success in table
2. 14:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
3. 21:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
4. 00:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
5. 12:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
6. 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Revert to success in table
7. 21:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of success in article's body
8. 21:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Revert of success in article's body

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super heavy-lift launch vehicle: 13:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
Multiple editors have engaged in edit warring across SpaceX Starship-related articles, but Redacted II has performed a large number of reverts with little attempt to engage in discussion or after a discussion was started. While a slow edit war and not a strict violation of 3RR, this editor is violating the spirit of the rule. Redacted II was warned of this type of violation and ownership-asserting behavior by ToBeFree after their last block. After multiple warnings for edit warring, they are well informed of the rules.

This report is for the SpaceX Starship article, but I provided diffs of two additional articles and the mention of the edit war at SpaceX Starship flight tests to provide the additional context that this editor has and continues to engage in edit warring across the SpaceX Starship topic. A temporary topic ban may be warranted. Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Revert 1: the editor who made the reverted edit was clearly vandalizing the article, given that they also added "Going to Mars in may 2024 and going to the moon in may 2024 and there will be 200 people on mars in may 2024 and 160 people on the moon in may 2024 and moon base and mars base will happen in may 2024", with the edit descript being "ben".

Starship Revert 2: An editor removed IFT-3 entirely from the infobox, so I readded it.

Starship Revert 3: An IP made a good-faith edit matching RVac ISP in Starship article to that of Raptor, Since the source they used was almost a decade out of date, I did the opposite, and corrected the value in Raptor to the more recent once.

Starship Revert 4: the edit changing outcome to Partial Failure was mentioned here by Fehér Zsigmond-3, so I reverted it.

Starship Revert 5, IFT-3 Reverts 2 and 3, Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Revert 8, : Look at the report directly above this one. The user who made the reverted edit is now indef-banned.

Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Reverts 1-6: the issue was resolved shortly after, and a misconception I had on edit warring was corrected.

Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Reverts 7: reverted to follow status quo, and reminded editor of that rule in edit descript.

The only connection between these reverts is readding sourced content, and reverting vandalism. The 3RR rule, as mentioned by RedRaider, was never violated, and for many of these reverts, there was already a discussion occurring at SpaceX Starship. Additionally, ignoring the edits by the now-banned disruptive editor, and the reverts prior to being corrected by ToBeFree, no second revert occured. Redacted II (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Me Da Wikipedian, @IlkkaP, @Andyjsmith, and @Fehér Zsigmond-03 so that they can give their opinions on this. Redacted II (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion, Redacted II was definitely active, with many of his edits being reverts. And on the outside it does look like an edit war. However, as he said, many of his reverts were of misclassifying of Ift-3, so those are justified. And if people keep on doing something that has to be reverted, he did it. The accusation mainly come from (as far as I can see) from his Bold behaviour. If he saw something, he fixed it. What im trying to say is that he had the best of intentions, but overdid it. So if he tells people about whats happening and doesnt always act immediately, it would be fine.

Thank you for reading my argument defending Redacted II, and I hope this gets resolved soon. Fehér Zsigmond-03 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redacted II didn't revert the Mars/Moon vandalism. 103.211.18.23 made that revert. (I'm using their word, but editors should assume good faith and start a discussion.) Other claims of vandalism are not substantiated.
• The rest of the explanations are not exemptions to edit warring. The other editor wasn't indefinitely blocked at the time of Redacted II's reverts, and in some instances, their edits added sources (reliable or unreliable - that could have been discussed instead of edit warring). However, Redacted II called these "unconstructive edit[s]" based on their preferred version. For example, at Starship HLS, Redacted II reverted an edit referring to IFT-3 as "the most successful [test flight] to date" with a March 2024 article from The Washington Post as the reference. Redacted II replaced that sentence in their revert with "successfully reaching orbit for the first time in March 2024." However, Redacted II's source is from January 2024 (before IFT-3 launched in March 2024) and doesn't support the claim.

21:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redacted II reverted Natg 19 twice on the SpaceX Starship talk page. Including the reverts above, this is four reverts within a 24-hour period between SpaceX Starship and its talk page.

17:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

17:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• ToBeFree warned Redacted II on 27 March, 2024, but twelve of the nineteen reverts mentioned in this discussion occurred after that warning.
• Redacted II involvement in this edit war was similar to the other editor that was indefinitely blocked (the other editor didn't appear to violate 3RR and this was their first warning), but unlike the other editor, Redacted II has been warned multiple times. Policies should apply equally.

Redraiderengineer (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The four reverts of ObsessedWithStarship II were combined with reverts by 3 other editors. When that many editors are reverting something, and no-one else is bringing it back, it isn't a stretch to say that their editing is vandalism.

By your own admission, seven of the reverts occurred before the warning, so including them is rather unfair. And given that the reverts of ObsessedWithStarship II fall under Exception 4, I'll ignore those for now.

This leaves these reverts:

Starship 1: Revert of height. No second revert was conducted, so this is clearly not part of any edit war. Other part of reverted edit was reverted by another user.

Starship 2: Revert to status Quo. Second revert was two days later (Starship 4).

Starship 3: Revert of specific impulse, reasons explained in edit descript. No second revert needed, so again, clearly not part of an edit war.

Starship 4: Revert to Status Quo, as source added by IP did not support their statement. No violation of 3RR, no additional revert conducted until ObsessedWithStarship.

Super Heavy Lift1: Revert to Status Quo, explained status quo rule. No second revert (until almost exactly two weeks later, when ObsessedWithStarship removed that statement. No 3RR violation, and since there was a 14 day gap, its a stretch to say Edit Warring occurred.

Going back to ObsessedWithStarship II's edits, before I decided to also warn them for Edit Warring, I explained why their edits were reverted. So, saying I didn't try to discuss the matter is blatantly false.

Additionally, the editor clearly knew that the success of IFT-3 was being discussed. Looking at their FIRST edit: "The consensus is clear on this". Keep in mind that the RfC was (briefly closed) roughly an hour before. And they clearly knew about this, because their second edit was to revert the closure.

The reverts on the talk page were not mine alone. @Andyjsmith also reverted ObsessedWithStarship II, but by this point I had begun trying to discuss the closer with Natg 19, and later Nemov. Note: no 3RR violation, and attempt to discuss issue on a talk page. Redacted II (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I won't judge here; I semi-protected the page for a year now, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Brendan O'Neill (columnist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "Primary sources are acceptable when they are used to cite the author's POV."
2. 19:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "I will discuss this with you, but you had no right to remove the additional sources that I added to the other sections of the article."
3. 18:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "What is the "flattery"? Describing him as pro-choice? Also, why did you remove all of my sources as well?"
4. 18:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "I didn't use any "heavy-handed promotional language". There's nothing non-neutral about it."
5. 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC) ""
6. 20:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Changing some wording to appease PC language police. As for The Oxford Student, in what possible way is it not a reliable source?"
7. 20:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219788559 by Buidhe (talk) - No, The Oxford Student is widely accepted as a reliable source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Brendan O'Neill (columnist)."
2. 19:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Brendan O'Neill (columnist)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring from LadybugStardust */ new section"

Comments:

Your complaint was regarding supposedly un-WP:NPOV language in the section that I added about O'Neill's views on abortion. However, when you reverted that edit, you also removed all of the additional sources that I had added to other parts of the article - sources which you had no business removing, as they had nothing to do with your complaints over my supposedly "flattering" language in the abortion section. In my last edit, I restored those sources, but removed the section about abortion until we can work something out regarding the language that I used.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on both your talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page, the article's talk page is the place to discuss this. You do not have consensus for those changes and you should not be edit warring even if you think you are correct. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I am discussing it on the article's talk page right now. You still haven't given any reason why you removed my additional sources from the other parts of the article, though.--LadybugStardust (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that LadybugStardust is now up to 7 reverts (the most recent shortly outside the 24-hour window), this time restoring a self-published source about a third party (Greta Thunberg) that was criticized for his negative comments about her. Woodroar (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected (already protected) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• LadybugStardust, if this continues after the protection, I'd probably block. Page protection was a very generous, optimistic response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Portal:Current events/2024 April 19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fuzheado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 15:30, 19 April 2024‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:40, 19 April 2024
2. 20:17, 19 April 2024
3. 18:04, 20 April 2024
4. 18:34, 20 April 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As an administrator who's blocked others for edit warring in the past, I'd think he wouldn't need one.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Portal talk:Current events#Dispute over Taylor Swift album in Current events page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:
Reverts 3 and 4 are just outside the 24-hour window, so I'm bringing this here for a second opinion. Normally I'd protect, but that's not really an option for recent P:CE subpages. —Cryptic 20:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether to include the Taylor Swift material is also being discussed in a thread at Portal talk. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed in this being reported when the editing cycle was stopped and a discussion was initiated at Portal_talk:Current_events#Dispute_over_Taylor_Swift_album_in_Current_events_page. My words:

"instead of undoing each other, can we please discuss this in a civil manner here."

The first editors that were removing content were either IP editors or had a very sparse/odd editing history, and were leaving non-useful two word edit summaries, including ones that gave no valid policy reasons: "not important" or "not notable." I treated them as drive-by vandalism. Only when editors such as Alsoriano97 were actually engaging in dialogue did I consider it start verging into "edit war" territory, which is why we stop editing and start a discussion. No 3RR action is warranted or needed. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The discussion was opened to talk about the inclusion or not of that content. It is disproportionate to open a report. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Using loutsock
2. 06:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
3. 06:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
4. 07:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Deleted by them.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19] On their talk page, as it concerns their violations of WP:OR and their apparent lack of comprehension of WP:SOURCE.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Template:Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TylerBurden (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. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:

• Edit warring on a Contentious Topic page. Attempts to diffuse the situation, which resulted in concerns of a CTOPIC map being unsourced were ignored or disregarded. The map in question has nearly 300 talk page discussion regarding it over the last 2 years (Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War & Talk:Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 1). User was aware of these talk page discussion and sources from this reversion of the WP:BOLD removal as they were directly linked. User is very much aware it is a contentious topic as they gave me a CTOPIC alert. User was kindly asked to gain a consensus for the removal, but ignored this request and continued to edit war to remove the map. Bringing here before a 3RR violation as the topic is a contentious topic and all attempts at reason have failed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment: Their third removal of the map in question was just reverted by Czello, an editor not previously involved in this dispute. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  TylerBurden, I have no idea why you believed it might be acceptable to start a one-vs-many edit war by making and repeatedly restoring one of the possibly most controversial changes to the RUSUKR topic area I have seen so far, removing the map of the conflict from the infobox over two years after its introduction to a highly active and visible central article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned: Logged Arbitration Enforcement warning ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Warning accepted, though I do feel the need to comment that it wasn't a "one-vs-many" edit war, the other party made the same amount of reverts as me (2) despite claiming to be attempting a "0RR" on their user page, so I find it a bit strange I am the only one affected. The "first" diff they included isn't a revert, it was my initial edit that they reverted. Not sure if you misinterpreted something.

  TylerBurden (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Vivienne Martin (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Carl Weathers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Paper-Ringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220073979 by Jkaharper (talk) revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
2. 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
3. 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."
4. 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
5. 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
6. 17:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
7. 17:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
8. 17:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
9. 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
10. 17:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
11. 17:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
12. 17:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
13. 17:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
14. 17:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
15. 17:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
16. 17:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "reverting - unsourced"
17. 16:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "revert edit-warring - as mentioned, the probate page does not give us the specifics and the user-edited page which was created today is too recent for an obituary of a person who died over a year ago and whose death was also announced over a year ago! I don't see any consensus mentioned anywhere as yet."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: 136.52.0.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 02:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 01:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Level 4 warning re. Pagoda (HG) (3.4.12)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Page: South Park: Joining the Panderverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Critical reception */ another reliable review according to this article MOS:TVRECEPTION"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) to 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
   1. 01:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1219715594 by SanAnMan (talk) content farms are not due - you have previously attempted to restore this content against a different editor. Stop edit warring."
   2. 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Reaction */ Forbes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on South Park: Joining the Panderverse."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User removing critical reviews from majorly sourced critics under claim of “content farming”. User given 3RR and removed it stating “don’t edit my talk page” then blatantly adds a WP:SELFPUB to try to prove his point SanAnMan (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. You both have 2 reverts. You're both edit warring. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Fairport, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.249.162.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220152184 by Marleeashton (talk)"
2. 03:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1220151876 by Marleeashton (talk)"
3. 03:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Fairport, New York."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week by User:Ad Orientem. - Aoidh (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crampcomes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

Comments:
Editor is restoring POV OR items not remotely supported by citations. Is also casting baseless aspersions/accusations, and other uncivil behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistamystery (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems more properly an AE matter since reporting not only a 1R breach but behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier In cases like this, do you recommend posting on ANI concurrently, or awaiting the outcome of the above action first? Mistamystery (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You started here, may as well wait and see if someone will deal with it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [33][34], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both IP and account [35] [36] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected. Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question[37]. I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals[38], but he uncivilly refused[39].Crampcomes (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is evading the central issue - which is clear violation of 1RR and complete refusal to self-revert.

Otherwise, all of the above are complete falsehoods. The content removed was POV OR and not remotely supported by any of the sources provided (which is also why *other* editors have removed it as well). Also, I did not in any way violate 1RR (my reverts were almost four days apart), and talk page discussions were initiated as per BRD.

Mistamystery (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Nick Di Paolo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Buzzy123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Updating image to a more recent 2021 image that has FULL permissions under CC license and took out the space between the I and P in last name in case that is the reason you keep reverting back to the old picture from 2017."
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) to 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "This is an updated, approved and cleared profile picture"
   2. 21:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "I changed the date of the most recent profile image to reflect the year the photo was taken."
   3. 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "I entered Nick Di Paolo's actual birthdate. I am siting this website https://thevogue.com/artists/nick-di-paolo/"
3. 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Infobox image change */ new section"
2. 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruption 3."
3. 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nick Di Paolo."
4. 21:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) "/* Nick Di Paolo image */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• User claims to be Di Paolo's wife and manager. I have therefore left a WP:COI notice on their Talk page and pblocked her indefinitely from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Black War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack4576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41], rv [42]
2. [43], rv [44]
3. [45], rv [46]
4. [47], rv [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49], Please see editors reply to warning here: [50] , editor has rejected the warning responding to @General Ization: warning with Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure. Apparently the only way to get their attention is a post to EWN.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51], see second discussion at [52] under "Your edit to Black War".

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [53]

Comments:

Editor has an unfortunate history of battleground behavior, from their response to the warning, they have no intention of stopping, re: Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure. [54] Regardless of how, this editor needs to understand what they are doing is edit warring.  // Timothy :: talk  06:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. - Aoidh (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BottleofStrawberryMilk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:805:8681:A140:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Instance 1, Instance 2

Diffs of the user's reverts: Instance 1:

1. 13:25, 20 April 2024 (NZST)
2. 15:51, 20 April 2024 (NZST)
3. 16:58, 20 April 2024 (NZST)
4. 18:05, 20 April 2024 (NZST)

Instance 2:

1. 04:01, 23 April 2024 (NZST)
2. 10:01, 23 April 2024 (NZST)
3. 13:53, 23 April 2024 (NZST)
4. 13:55, 23 April 2024 (NZST)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (has been warned previously for other edit wars)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notified User:BottleOfChocolateMilk, the IP, and User:BottleofStrawberryMilk

Comments:

Two separate instances of 3RR violation on the same article by multiple parties. No discussion at all between the users on the article talk page. The first instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP on 20 April, the second instance is between User:BottleOfChocolateMilk and the IP + User:BottleofStrawberryMilk today. Despite the username similarity I'm pretty sure it's a different user, as someone else dropped a note on User:BottleofStrawberryMilk's talk page saying that they suspect sockpuppetry by User:HeftyWizard.

Note that the page is already semi-protected currently, preventing the IP and the non-autoconfirmed User:BottleofStrawberryMilk account from editing. However though, it appears that User:BottleOfChocolateMilk has a lack of regard for the WP:EW policy here, given that they've been editing for nearly eight years with over 16k edits, and they already seem to know and even point out some Wikipedia guidelines like WP:ENDORSE.

(excuse the NZST dates I have my wiki settings set to display timestamps in my local timezone and it's a bit of a hassle to convert them to UTC.) — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've indeffed BottleofStrawberryMilk for impersonation and blocked the IP range for one week for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've dug through some history and found five prior edit warring warnings from last year: 17 April, 21 June, 7 July, 10 August and 22 August. I also found this old ANEW thread from 8 July last year, where the user and the other involved party were both warned for their edit-warring behaviour. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page: A Thousand Times Repent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rahio1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220365915 by The Herald (talk): Stop disrupt this page"
2. 10:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk) to last revision by Rahio1234"
3. 10:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk)"
4. 10:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220364686 by Rahio1234 (talk)"
5. 10:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 158.140.53.34 (talk)"
6. 09:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220361201 by Wikipedialuva (talk)"
7. 09:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk)"
8. 09:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1220359822 by Rahio1234 (talk)"
9. 08:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 158.140.53.34 (talk) to last revision by Explicit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Wikipedialuva "/* A Thousand Times Repent vandal */ formatting"

Comments:

This thing... has gotten completely out of control. No comments as I'm inexperienced at this ani. The edit war is also affecting Downthesun and Rahio1234 is seen continuing the ew after logging out. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder if the person behind the 158.140.53.34 IP is WP:LTA/BKFIP, considering the argumentative nature of the edit summaries, and the blatant disregard for the edit-warring policy of course. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong location.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did I malform my reports again? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is also worth noting that the editor in question has removed the warning and their reply on the user page. I have been seeing a lot of activity from this editor in Recent Changes and I think I seen this pattern before. CpX41 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I dont live around there, and the only reason why I was 'argumentive' was because I was genuinely trying to improve the page and the user did not get the hint that the source was not only unreliable but also said NOTHING that the sentence was claiming to. The user did stop reverting me until ABG had to step in. Reason why he obsessively kept reverting me I still dont know I tried to explain why his version of the page was wrong but he still persisted adding this fake info with a false source. Despite all this I know what I did was wrong I guess - even though id consider his edits vandalism - I will take a block if it needs to happen. I dont find myself the aggressor here though as I was just trying to edit pages for the sake of improvement and I didnt appreciate that he was just reverting me for what appears to be no real reason. Nevertheless I have since disengaged and stopped the edit wars altogether. Others can take it from here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) PS: As stated above I found it very weird that he also ended up logging out and continued to edit war with me using his IP address as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.53.34 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]