Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive447

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: Lunar New Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.174.147.237 (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. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]
7. [34]
8. [35]
9. [36]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: Dominic Raab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jambutty12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]
5. [44]
6. [45]
7. [46]
8. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48][49]

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

Comments:
Repeated reinsertion of poorly sourced material on a BLP. I reverted the bold insertions more than 3 times (maintaing the status quo) but that is allowed under

• WP:REFBOMB, and thankfully did remove the word "paedophile" from their reverts. Either way, this edit war was prolonged and the user did not attempt to engage in discussion except via edit summaries (haphazardly). --PerpetuityGrat (talk
  ) 16:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked by another administrator for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BhagyaMani (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengal_tiger&type=revision&diff=1069022592&oldid=1069012221
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengal_tiger&type=revision&diff=1068883741&oldid=1068856767
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siberian_tiger&type=revision&diff=1065212696&oldid=1065212158
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bengal_tiger&type=revision&diff=1068822615&oldid=1068811779
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siberian_tiger&type=revision&diff=1065032876&oldid=1065030562
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bengal_tiger [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comments:
He or she constantly reverts my work. At least five times. Once, deleting a referenced source. Have tried discussing on their talk page and article talk pages, but there is no real response. I would like him/her to be strongly cautioned, and to leave me alone on Wikipedia. Possibly even a temporary ban.

• Comment one of those diffs is on a different page (
  WP:BURDEN rather than continuously reinserting them. AlexEng^(TALK
  ) 11:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

May I ask in what way you are connected or know of BhagyaMani? BrightOrion (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. We interacted briefly while working on improving

Manul, which is when I learned of their work. AlexEng^(TALK

) 18:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Link 1 above. My edit deleted for no valid reason. This was/is being discussed on the talk page of Bengal tiger but he doesn't seem to understand the reasoning for my text. Link 2, a similar edit again reverted for no valid reason. Link 3, changed my wording for no valid reason. Link 4, he removed the duplicate reference. Fair enough, but at the same time he deleted my text about Pakistan, as was shown in that reference. Link 5, there was a distribution map on the Siberian tiger article. The caption said "Distribution of the tiger". It showed the distribution of ALL subspecies and not just the Siberian, which was misleading. I changed it to clear that confusion up. He reverted that edit because I had used the word "species" instead of "subspecies." Again, fair enough but why did he delete the text completely? Link 6, I started a good faith discussion on his talk page. He dismissed me as saying "you are a minor editor". We don't need that attitude on Wikipedia. At the very least, he must learn to communicate better because multiple reverts to the same user does tend to annoy them, and this is not just me. I am also somewhat active on Wikipedia and have created 84 articles. BrightOrion (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BRD). Wretchskull (talk

) 12:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, which Link are you talking about? I have discussed matters with him on the talk page of Siberian tiger and Bengal tiger and his talk page. BrightOrion (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(

consensus has been reached. BhagyaMani, the main contributor of the article, disagrees, and so you will have to come up with a solution with them rather than edit war back and forth. Wretchskull (talk

) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

A valid point. But I have asked him questions on his talk page and he hasn't responded even though he has been active on Wikipedia at that time. I have pinged him as well. Here is an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_13 A talk called "Bengal tiger" I made a proposal and he didn't respond to it. My complaint is his constant editing/changing of my work often for no valid reason. I don't revert it back. BrightOrion (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

They did respond: "What for? Not necessary as countries are ALREADY mentioned with int links in the lead". The last comment ignoring your suggestion is rather justified, as you kept replying with the same question when they have already answered it. Also, they're right. There is no need to mention the number of countries if the actual countries are already mentioned ("Today, it occurs in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and southern Tibet"). Wikipedia articles never have to redundantly mention something already implied. Wretchskull (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the article mentioned four (and only four) countries in detail, when actually the tiger is found in other countries as well. It gave the impression the tiger was found ONLY there. Therefore, mentioning where it actually is found is helpful. That is how the article stands today. I did a "request for comment" and that was agreed. BrightOrion (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

He has been in edit wars or threatened edit wars before. (You can search "edit war" on the pages below.)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_12
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_11
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_9
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_3
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani/Archive_1

This number of conflicts definitely suggests a communication issue on his part. Full disclosure: I was too, once. But I was a victim of a sock puppet. BrightOrion (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue this discussion as nothing of substance is materializing. My intention isn't to put any editor on a pedestal, but BhagyaMani may be "edit-warring" due to the incompetence of the other editors. Most of them are people reverting back to their problematic edits when they should take it to the talk page. This whole discussion boils down to me trying to tell you that you didn't abide by

WP:BRD. And by the way, I don't see one instance of "threatened edit wars". Wretchskull (talk

) 13:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The other party's comments on BhagyaMani's talk page:

"I don't want an edit war"

"you are currently engaged in an edit war;"

"Both of you: Do not edit war. Disengage."

"will have to report you for edit warring."

"Please don't start edit warring,"

That's what I mean by threatened. I don't feel you have made a fair decision--he is being put on a pedestal, in my view. But I suppose there is no choice but to live with it? This whole issue could have been avoided with communication from him. What about his edit removing my wording of Pakistan? Why is that OK? BrightOrion (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

BhagyaMani is also mentioned here

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1060

There is definitely some issue with his edits. A mild warning to him for better communication would suffice, but it is warranted due to the number of conflicts he has been involved in. BrightOrion (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that User:BhagyaMani was properly notified of this AN3 complaint, so I have left a notice for them. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? You accuse him of edit-warring? As a semi-regular editor focused on cats, I would say that you are the one edit-warring to add variously redundant material- and in the RfC on Bengal tiger, you want to add something for which you give no good reference, and which I have found reliable sources against. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, EdJohnston! This dispute came up in regards to the question whether it is justified to add a population number of 10-12 for the Bengal tiger in Tibet to the lead of this page. And my argument was and is still that it is not justified. I explained my reasons on the talk page, see 1) Talk:Bengal_tiger#Stating_the_number_of_countries_in_which_the_tiger_is_found: There has never been any systematic survey for identifying individuals and estimating the tiger population in Tibet. So it is INCORRECT to state a population number here that is a guesstimate at best. xx tigers photographed is NOT equal to population size.; and 2) User_talk:BhagyaMani#Edit_warring 1-3 non-residents guesstimated during the 2013-18 survey is NOT a dozen!. See also Bengal_tiger#Tibet, where I contributed content based on 4 of the 5 references, all providing evidence that a population estimate has not been carried out to date. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action. If there is still a dispute, consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: Sex differences in human physiology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.71.190.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [59]

Comments:

It would be great if the article could also be protected, as non-confirmed users have rarely made any constructive edits in the last few months/years. Wretchskull (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP has actually made his edit nine times in slightly over 24 hours, including twice after being informed of this 3RR report. There has been no article talk page thread started because the IP was being undone initially for replacing reliable journal references with non-MEDRS references (including a blog). Later edits were simple blankings of the entire section in question. The IP is not just edit warring, but is edit warring disruptive edits. Meters (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

So, initial edit [60] at 5:22 Feb 1

and eight reverts and counting in 24 hours:

1. [61] 10:22 Feb 1
2. [62] 13:01 Feb 1
3. [63] 6:40 Feb 2
4. [64] 6:49 Feb 2
5. [65] 7:23 Feb 2
6. [66] 7:38 Feb 2
7. [67] 8:58 Feb 2
8. [68] 9:36 Feb 2

Meters (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

And now [69] 9:59 Feb 2 Meters (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

And [70] 10:04 Feb 2 Meters (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours given the over-the-top edit warring and the mass removal of references. Meanwhile the page has been semiprotected indefinitely by another administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]
5. [76]
6. [77]
7. [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]
5. [84]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [85]

Comments: Continued disruptive editing and removing sourced/referenced content after repeated reverts. User does not respond to Talk page messages and warnings. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR violation, but a block for disruptive editing might be imminent. When warned on their user talk, the user responds with 'removed vandalism'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Jemimahtrump is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Opera (company) unless they obtain a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The irony of this matter is that Heartmusic678 is defending an unsubstantiated point of view with regards to this subject matter. I will also note that Heartmusic678 has reported me three separate times which I consider intimidating, bullying and quite appalling behaviour.

I would have been willing to collaborate with Heartmusic678 but I don't really care for this gatekeeping and hateful conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemimahtrump (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: Gasoline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.43.74.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]
5. [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92],[93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [95]

Comments:

• Appears to be edit warring on other pages (Belinda Carlisle) with warning [96]
• Routinely deletes talk-page warnings from others (five different editors in the last 2 weeks)
• Engages in otherwise beligerant content removal [97] and edit comments

_signed, Willondon (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2010 Antipolo local elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JKLlamera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [99]
2. [100]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [102]

Comments:
The issue here is the edit warring of the user in

• Comment- There has been no attempt by either user to engage in useful discussion Newmanilla's only attempt to discuss content has been to slap a warning template on JKLlamera's talkpage. The talk page of the article in question has not even been created. JKL, has admittingly did more to explain their change, even though it was through edit summaries instead of talkpage discussion, then NewManila has. I believe both probably need a short block and reminder of
  WP:AN. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib
  ) 14:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: İdil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Username432124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [109]

Comments:
Possibly a sock of Aramean81.Shmayo (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: Muslim world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Radak-ledba (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 23:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC) to 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 23:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Islamic schools and branches */"
   2. 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC) to 23:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Politics */"
   2. 23:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC) to 23:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 23:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 23:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 22:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Muslim world."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This a non-communicative edit warrior who is on a mission to replace svg maps with png ones that they edited to remove the border between Morocco and Western Sahara (on this and other articles). M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This user is doing the same edits in the spanish version. Albo Andrés R (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Note: This edit should tell you everything there is to know about this "new" editor. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: Could you please have a look at this case? Best, M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Since this appears to be a war about images, can you explain what's being changed in each case? Is this nationalist warring? What does this edit mean about 'arm Morocco'? Is he advocating for the cause of some country or territory? EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: In each case, they are generating a png image from an established svg image, deleting the border between Morocco and Western Sahara and replacing the svg image with the png image. Yes, it's nationalist warring and that edit summary is advocating arming Morocco (as if it needs it). They also broke the 3r rule. M.Bitton (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Also worth noting is the fact that they were also quickly blocked on fr.wp and have been reported for vandalism on es.wp. M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Radak-ledba is warned. They may be blocked the next time they appear to change a map or article text with nationalist motivations. In particular, this edit raises questions: "You will remain like this until you arm Morocco". EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: They just did it again. M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef. The user continued to make strange edits without giving any response. Any admin can lift this block if the user will respond to the complaint and agree to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: Dick Powell's Zane Grey Theatre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 146.90.0.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "If you do not want it reverted, perhaps you should actually reply to me as I have left messages in the talk here and on your profiles. A copyright notice cannot be added to the page for no reason.Sorry"
2. 11:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "Sorry I am undoing your edit. READ YOUR PROFILE AND THE CHAT. The user who added a copyright notice gave no reason to why he did which ISN'T valid. It is simply vandalism to do so."
3. 11:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "Restoring article. Lets have some sanity."
4. 11:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "Nonsensical. Restoring as there is nothing copyrighted in the article. Everything is fair use for an encyclopedia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC) "Message related to your edit (level 1)"
2. 11:38, 3 February 2022 (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:

Persistent removal of copyvio template, from an article created by a serial copyright violator. I suspect that this is actually that same user, as they have a history of sockpuppetry as an IP. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I asked them why they added the notice and no real answer was given. In fact there doesn't seem to be a real reason except for a rather vague claim that the original creator of the article is a plagiarist. My reverts were done with the good of wikipedia in mind because it seems to me that the user who added the notice is engaging in a strange form of vandalism rather than a rational regard for copyright.

I think if someone is going to just add a copyright notice they should at least put a reason into their edit summary and probably a discussion in the page's talk. The user who added the copyright notice did NONE of these things which isn't at all helpful.

I am not at all the same user this Mako is accusing me of being. I am in fact a member of this wiki with a lot of edits of good standing called The Mummy. I have just forgotten my password. I have no interest in this obvious feud between Mako001 and the person who created the article, who is a copyright offender allegedly, what I care about is the show that now doesn't have an easily readable article on wikipedia due to a copyright notice added for seemingly no reason.

It sets a bad precedent for anyone to just come along and make an article unreadable by adding a copyright without giving a good reason for doing so. If this is acceptable anyone can do it? A troll could do it about literally any media article on the site. _ The user reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.0.73 (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Addendum. On investigation it seems that the creator of the article has uploaded copyright images elsewhere. My question is, why wasn't this reason given when the copyright notice was added and why not just remove the images? It is sad seeing an article about such an iconic show in such a fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.0.73 (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't make an off-topic comment about this users claim to be another user who has forgotten their password. But if true, you should know about 3RR by now, and have just shot yourself in the foot (so to speak) by making that claim. Either way, you have dug yourself into a hole now. Now might be a good time to stop digging? You still haven't addressed why you blatantly ignored the templates message not to remove it until the issue was resolved, and ignoring that, edit warred to keep the template off because you didn't want it there. Mako001 (C)  (T)  12:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, anyone can pretty much add a notice like that for no reason. I ignored it because no reason was given as to why it was added, which I took to be vandalism. Both the user who added it and you yourself should have given an actual reason to why it was added. Even now I am not sure why it was but I presume you two think that the photos are copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mummy (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The notice very clearly states that it is not to be removed until the issue is resolved. There was a credible link to a serial copyright violator, and the article had to be hidden until it could be cleared of any copyvios. I don't see how this isn't a good enough explanation. Quite simply, you have been edit warring. The "vandalism" exception to 3RR doesn't apply here, since this is not obvious vandalism, if it was obvious vandalism, you wouldn't be here now, as neither myself nor the other user who reverted you would have reverted you in the first place. Also, assuming that the user added it as "silly vandalism" as you said on my talkpage is definitely not assuming good faith. The reason it was added was that the article was created by a serial copyright violator, so needed to be checked for copyvios before it was allowed to be visible again. Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

However, I am starting to wonder if there is any point continuing this any further. The immediate issue has been resolved, The Mummy has stopped edit warring and presumably won't be doing so again, so this report is getting stale. Would that be a valid observation? Mako001 (C)  (T)  11:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Declined No violation, since the IPs four reverts were made before they got the 3RR warning. They made no further reverts after they were warned. Bishonen | tålk 11:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: Ed and Lorraine Warren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a02:2f0a:c310:4900:9440:9465:8fc5:5363 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]
5. [115]

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: [116]

Comments:

Most of this seems to be links to none existent articles or changing the names of links to articles. None of it looks constructive, and in fact, some of it seems pretty disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And with this [[117]] this looms like some kind of vandalism account.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

And still at it [[118]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – The IP's /64 range has been blocked one year for disruption by User:Jauerback. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: SkyWay Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bkissin Free (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]
5. [124]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [127]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [128]

Comments:

• There is no 3RR violation. It is, however, possible, that some of the IPs editing the article before the article was semi-protected belong to Bkissin Free. I've blocked Bkissin Free, though, for egregious personal attacks against Wan Shi Tong.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2022 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CurryCity (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. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131]
4. [132] (revert of [133])
5. [134]
6. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2022 Winter Olympics#Lead changes

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [137]

Comments:
User is also edit warring over the same content at Boycott and are over 3rr there as well [138][139][140][141] and they were also warned there before getting to four User talk:CurryCity#Edit warring at Boycott. User has also been informed of discretionary sanctions in place in the topic area Uyghur genocide [142]. User seems well are of 3rr, see their comment at User talk:Xoltered "3rr gets everyone sometimes it seems." [143]. If more is required or any questions are had give me a ping, but I think this should be more than enough. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There are also pretty clear indicators of

• Arguing that the fourth revert within 17 hours was a not a revert because of a minor variation in the parameters of the reinserted template (just 11 minutes after having described that edit as a revert themselves)
• Obfuscatory
  WP:HUH? arguments ("If you are saying removing is revert, adding is also revert, that just makes everything into reverts???" [144], "in substance it wasn't a revert, because your reason for reverting me was false" [145]
  )

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My edits were consistent with show of good faith, completely omitted from Horse Eye's Back's version of events:

Diff 1: Not only were there 3 editors vs HorseEB on that issue in Talk:2022 Winter Olympics#Rounding up, I pinged HorseEB (Diff 0a) on 01:25, 2 February 2022, waited 24h to write my position after inputs from Xoltered and HiLo48 (Diff 0b), before making my edit on 20:28, 3 February 2022‎ (Diff 1), almost 30h after pinging, a duration that took into consideration HorseEB's active hours.

Diff 2: Right after this, I made a consecutive edit (Diff 2b) incorporating HorseEB's input, showing willingness to compromise. In essence, I had reverted part of my own edit as well.

Diff 3: I had no idea who Sportsfan 1234 was, who had never engaged in our discussion section on this issue before, and gave no actual reason for reverting my already modified edit incorporating HorseEB's input.

Horse Eye's Back's lumping everything together obfuscates what was going on:

Diff 4: Tagging is used to hint that the reader should be aware of certain things. It is atrocious to lump this together with the editing of content. Also notice that nothing else was touched by me. Diff 4 was not a reversion at all.

Diff 5: I added material from source without changing previous meaning, and some copyediting, so that the text about Qi Fabao is supported by the source. I was going to add a more reliable source as well before getting sidetracked by HorseEB. It's a BLP matter for the most part, and again not a reversion of anything before.

Diff 6: I added the wording of "allegation" from the source itself; this point had never been raised by other editors. Again, not a reversion. (in retrospect that might have been a revert CurryCity (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC))

Discussion about HaeB and Horse Eye's Back:

Tagging has been discussed above already. As for the template describing a reversion that wasn't, it was

five pillars

, effectively thwarting good faith efforts from other editors who might hold different opinions.

Is the unique rendering of my handle as "HorseEB" meant to imply that HaeB and I have some sort of inappropriate relationship? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

No I don't believe you are. CurryCity (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about "Boycott" article:

Again, Sportsfan 1234 came to the rescue on HorseEB's side, despite never engaging in or never going to engage in Talk. We've already discussed taggin, so I won't repeat here. After Mhawk10 provided new source, it was over. CurryCity (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Not sure who is the one edit warring here, Horse Eye or CurryCity. My suggestion for the article was stated as: "Suggestion that one of the editors on the Talk page discussion start a formal RFC for this, and no edits on Controversies issues in the lead section until completion of the RFC." Horse Eye rejected this offer and removed it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't really do "offers" in edit summaries, your edit removed the entirety of the section from the lead [146]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is a good approach in many dispute situations. Why do you reject it here? My own edit on the page removed one sentence dealing with the Controversy issue while suggesting the RFC as a better course to take; your calling it "the entirety of the section", is inaccurate. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You removed the entirety of the disputed section. Its not BLP so why remove it during discussion if the discussion is primarily about what it should say not about whether or not it should exist (its the largest single section so there isn't really much question about it being summarized in the lead to some extent)? You also didn't remove it in your first revert [147] (you just restored a tag, scrubbed Uyghur genocide, and scrubbed human rights in China) so what changed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, somebody use the talk page. If User:ErnestKrause favors an RfC, why not make a proposal on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have used the talk page exhaustively... More than 30 edits in the last week, if User:ErnestKrause makes an RfC I will of course participate (more eyes and opinions is always better and for that reason I encourage ErnestKrause to participate on the talk page, even if they don't open an RfC I look forward to hearing what they have to say). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding a synthesis tag is not the same thing as changing the content the tag is applied to, currycity did not break 3rr. Horse Eye's has been edit warring extensively on the page they have reported currycity on and should probably have considered

WP:BOOMERANG before making this report. Xoltered (talk

) 19:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of Boomerang are you aware that these two edits [148][149] could be construed as

WP:GAMING your week long block from reverting at 2022 Winter Olympics [150] especially in the context of the diffs provided above? @EdJohnston: what say you? Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 22:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Those are not reverts, the block prevented me from reverting on that page for 1 week and i have not done so, you seem to be engaged in a bad faith attempt to get me blocked. Please stop. Xoltered (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Also note, one of those isn't even on the page in discussion, and so is irrelevant, (the other, is entirely new content which i added (not a revert)). Xoltered (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's very clear that CurryCity violated 3RR with their edits:

• Per
  WP:3RR
  , An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert.
• At 07:32 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit that removed reference to the
  Uyghur genocide
  as a reason for countries engaging in diplomatic boycott from the lead.
• At 17:43 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit which reverted
  Uyghur genocide
  as a reason for countries engaging in diplomatic boycott from the lead. This was CurryCity's first revert.
• At 18:24 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit which has a summary indicating that it was intended to revert an edit made by Sportsfan 1234. CurryCity's restoration completely undid this edit by Ironman1104, which was a copyedit. The edit also changed due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and human rights abuses in China to due to human rights violations in China amidst allegations of atrocities against Uyghurs This was CurryCity's second revert.
• At 20:28 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit to insert a tag to dispute whether or not due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and human rights abuses in China is
  novel synthesis
  .
• At 21:59 on 3 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit to restore a disputed synthesis tag after it was disputed by HaeB. This was CurryCity's third revert.
• At 03:49 on 4 February 2022, CurryCity made an edit. The edit changes due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide and human rights abuses in China to amidst human rights abuses in China and allegations of Uyghur genocide. This was CurryCity's fourth revert. It was also the fourth time in that time that the editor removed the clause due to the ongoing Uyghur genocide from the lead within a 24 hour period.

It's also extremely clear that Horse Eye's Back has not violated the three revert rule this month on 2022 Winter Olympics based off of looking at the user's edit history. Looking through the past 1000 edits on the page (which stretches into October of last year), I can't find any point where Horse Eye's Back has violated the 3RR here. CurryCity (talk · contribs · count), however, has violated 3RR within the past day. There is a real difference here between the appropriateness of the actions of the two editors. —

According the reasoning of

User:Mhawk10, this adds up to five reverts by CurryCity in a 24 hour period. (I am excluding the 20:28 edit of 3 February, because that time CurryCity was adding a synthesis tag which had not been in the article before, so it was not a revert). EdJohnston (talk

) 03:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

To be charitable (and in line with how deleting longstanding content that's been in the article since December is counted with respect to 3RR), I would imagine that the

talk

) 03:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Mhawk10 pointed out a third revert (21:59 on 3 February 2022); that was not a revert. The tag I had inserted was [improper synthesis] with the code {{Synthesis inline|date=February 2022|sure=yes|reason=see Talk}}. After HaeB gave their revert reason "Cf. talk page - well-supported by cited ref; concerns about the current naming of the linked article are not a justification for deleting the link here", which by the way was untrue regarding any deletion of links, I removed the "sure=yes" so that the new tag [improper synthesis?] would reflect HaeB's objection. Scrolling through the Talk sections, it is factual that there were heated debates going on. Why would HaeB, assuming good faith, want to remove ANY indication of discussion going on regarding synthesis? I pinged HaeB asking which version they wanted to revert back to, whether they wanted to remove any indication whatsoever, but they replied without addressing it. CurryCity (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A minor point, Mhawk10 is looking at my 3RR right after an incident (namely this one). If you were to do so right after an incident involving HorseEB, you might find something as well. The comparison wasn't even-handed. CurryCity (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It was unfair for Sportsfan 1234 to suddenly come in and revert on HorseEB's side not only once but twice, even though they had never engaged in the respective discussions. Amidst all this spamming of 'edit war', flooding relevant pages with that label, trying to count as many reverts against me as possible, throwing accusations at me instead of making even the tiniest compromise or constructive edit, involving other editors whose only contributions were reverts, etc., what HorseEB and HaeB really wanted was to apply

• Result: User:CurryCity is warned for violating 3RR on Feb. 3rd and 4th per the above. They may be blocked if they revert again at 2022 Winter Olympics in the next seven days. I take note that CurryCity has participated on Talk but that does not excuse the reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: College of Policing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Telanian7790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_of_Policing&oldid=1062609055

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:06, 5 February 2022
2. 00:28, 5 February 2022
3. 01:44, 5 February 2022
4. 16:24, 5 February 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [151]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:College of Policing#Non-crime hate incidents. Telanian7790 has not responded

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Telanian7790&type=revision&diff=1070094263&oldid=1070094198&diffmode=source

Comments:
As content disputes go, a rather trivial one. The source is poorly written. It could have been resolved via the BRD had Telanian7790 bothered to engage.

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Page: User talk:Horse Eye's Back (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xoltered (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]

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: [157]

Comments:

Thank you @Arkon: for that last revert. This is my talk page. This is not OK. This is well over the line into harassment along with the edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Read my edit summary for an explanation, you made a lie about my actions and then repeatedly deleted my response. As stated, i have no intention of continuing any discussion on your talk page as requested. Please move on with your life instead of lying about me deleting messages and deleting my response in which i show it is simply me correcting my own incorrect dating on my own messages. You are aware people can see deleted diffs right? This isn't even an article, and it is simply my own comment, you should also note i stopped before this report was made. Not sure why you feel the need to undo me fixing my own dating on my own message beyond a bad faith attempt to get action taken against me. Xoltered (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, (correct if mistaken) it appears Xoltered was only correcting a date tag [158] to their own comment not anything else, so Diff 1 was not a reversion. Neither was Diff 2 where Xoltered added a comment (additional note below). Diff 3 was actually Xoltered first reversion, following HorseEB's revert immediately prior. And after that was reverted by HorseEB for the second time, Xoltered reverted for a second time as well.

I'm not against Horse Eye's Back having most control over their Talk page, but also want to add that respect goes both ways, in light of their openings of high-level warning sections on mine. CurryCity (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken, they did not just correct the date tag they removed my note about the date being wrong " Note that despite being dated "23:49, 29 January 2022" this comment was actually made 18:45, 3 February 2022 [159]" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, i thought that was automated, in any case it's obviously justified to remove the note about the date being wrong when correcting the date. Xoltered (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not a justification for removing an editor's comment on their own page... Correcting an error doesn't mean that you get to remove the comments which pointed out the error. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That was not a comment? Just a note about the incorrect time. What? So you think i should have left the note about the incorrect time while it now had a now correct time? Also as stated above i thought the note was automated. Furthermore, what issue do you have with me correcting the time, or providing an explanation for me doing so after you misleadingly claimed that i deleted another user's comment? Xoltered (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Notes and comments are the same thing here, they're both my additions to my talk page. You also did delete my comment so I'm not sure whats misleading about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

When you say i deleted another user's comment, people will not think i deleted a simple note about an incorrect time while correcting it, but instead believe i deleted an actual comment in discussion from another user. Even so, what issue do you have my reply existing, why did you feel the need to delete it twice, or make this ridiculous report about me reverting 2 (not 4) times my own message being deleted, which already had justification provided for me doing so in the edit summary. Xoltered (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What exactly in

WP:TPO do you feel justified your editing a talk page after being asked not to? And not just editing but edit warring your edit back onto the page after it had been removed... Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 00:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The link you provided addresses editing other user's comments, in any case Signature cleanup seems to fit this situation quite well. Xoltered (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Also note, another section in the page you linked "Behavior that is unacceptable" mentions "Misrepresentation of other people", something that i believe you have done for reasons discussed above. Perhaps you should read that page and acknowledge your mistake and then move on. Xoltered (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Further note: This discussion about action on your user page, that page is about talk page guidelines, further proving you did not bother to read the article at all before linking it. Xoltered (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Context: Xoltered had already received an administrative warning about edit-warring just this Monday. It's also not the first time that they disagree with their opponents in a China-related controversy about the definition of edit-warring, see [160] (reaction to a warning about edit-warring from Snooganssnoogans), [161] (by Adoring nanny). Similar to CurryCity (thread one above), there also seems to be a pattern of throwing all kinds of counter-accusations at their adversaries, including factually inaccurate ones, which caused to Shibbolethink to advise Xoltered about

This is completely irrelevant, what happened is I corrected my incorrect dating in a message, Horse Eye's reverted it and falsely claimed I deleted another user's message, i replied explaining the reality and then they repeatedly deleted my reply while keeping their lies about my action. Xoltered (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

But you did delete another user's message... Mine (as you acknowledge in your response above, even if you blame it on the mistaken belief that my message was automated and then claim that the deletion of my comment was "obviously justified"). So not a lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It was not a comment, just a note about the incorrect time, as stated above (please do not duplicate discussion) it is ridiculous to keep the simple note about the incorrect time while correcting the time. Considering your past action however, and the unjustified issue with me correcting it in the first place, i doubt this is a good faith discussion. Xoltered (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't remove notes either. Its not ridiculous, its what you need to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

So you think it should have been: "Message (signature with correct time) note: this says (incorrect time) but was actually posted at (correct time)"? This is ridiculous, and again not actually what this discussion is about, rather it is claiming I "edit warred" due to reverting back my own reply to what i believe is an incredibly misleading statement about my action 2 (not 4) times. I still do not understand why you take issue with me correcting the time or making the reply. Xoltered (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to encourage edit warring. That said, HaeB's disclosure of information again could have been more complete and balanced, namely that the revert warning Xoltered received was specific to 1 article: "Result: User:Xoltered is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they make any further reverts to 2022 Winter Olympics within the next seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)". CurryCity (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed i think horseeye's might have been dissapointed by the result of that report and wishes to use this report to have action taken against me despite my clear lack of edit warring. Xoltered (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Jumping in here, since I commented on the talk page of Horse Eye's Back: I really don't understand this edit, which falsely backdated an edit warring notice to January 29, making it appear as if it were issued at a different point in time than it was actually given. The edit notice was actually given on February 3, not January 29. This happened well after I questioned why the edit warring notice was given to Horse Eye's Back on February 3 despite there not being anything this month on

That happened because i copied the notice from another user's page, however i accidentally copied the date too, It should be noted this discussion is primarily about me fixing the incorrect date (some of the diffs above which horseeye falsely claims are revision show this) which should make it clear it was a genuine mistake. Xoltered (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Infact, it was your mentioning of the incorrect date that alerted me that it was incorrect and so i fixed it. Xoltered (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, the "incorrect date" I was mentioning was with respect to the heading. I also pushed back on substantial grounds, since the notice didn't appear to address issues that were ongoing. —

talk

) 02:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware, i also fixed that and that was also undone by Horse Eye. Xoltered (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion should end. Simply put, i removed a note about an incorrect dating after my own comment which i believed was automated but was actually from HorseEye, while correcting the time. HorseEye then said i should not reply on their talk page and reverted my correction of the dating and i replied to that clarifying the situation and saying i would no longer do so. They reverted my reply and i reverted my reply back two (not four) times as i believe it is important people understand the reason i did the original edit, however after a revision by another unrelated editor i decided not to continue doing so. This report is ridiculous, this discussion is ridiculous. The list of diffs even falsely claims two diffs of entirely new content are revisions, and given that i clearly stated my intention not to continue making replies and did not revert the most recent revision before this was made I don't think HorseEye is genuinely concerned about my action but rather is not engaging in good faith and wishes action to be taken against me due to unrelated disputes on other pages. Either way i hope this report will be closed soon. Xoltered (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a reasonable case for the edit-warring noticeboard. Rather than bickering over comments on a user talk page it would be better to focus on the underlying issue which seems to be 2022 Winter Olympics and probably other articles judging by the intensity. @Horse Eye's Back: Sorry but whatever Xoltered's sins on other pages may or may not be, it is not reasonable to object to them correcting their timestamp blunder and it would be unreasonable to insist that your assertion about the date being wrong be retained after the date was corrected. I suppose if you really wanted to win the battle you could add a new note saying that originally Xoltered posted an incorrect date, then fixed it when their mistake was pointed out. The edit warring concerns Xoltered reposting a comment which, in their mind, sets the record straight regarding an assertion you made about them. I would agree that Xoltered's templated notice was badly implemented and very inadequately explained when you reasonably asked what the concern was. However, my recommendation would be to delete the section from your talk and save energy for articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you are correct in pointing out that an edit war on a widely read mainspace article is more consequential than an edit war on a user's talk page. However,

WP:3RR

still applies to both, and we can't tell editors they must refrain from bringing policy violations to this noticeboard if they "only" occurred on a user talk page.

it is not reasonable to object to them correcting their timestamp blunder - what edit does that refer to? I though the objection was rather about trying to delete Horse Eye's Back's note that that comment had originally been posted with a misleading timestamp. I realize how insisting to document such an issue could seem to appear a bit petty when viewed in isolation, but take the possibility into account that editors who have had the opportunity to observe patterns in Xoltered's editing a bit more may take a different view - see also Mhawk10's comment above about how that "blunder" may not have been such a small matter.

There also seems to be a tension between

WP:NOBAN and the insinuation that Xoltered might have been justified in edit-warring about reposting a comment which, in their mind, sets the record straight ... way after the recipient's formal request

to cease editing that user talk page.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The page linked specifies "without good reason" the good reason is provided both when they were made and above in this discussion. Furthermore, even if I were violating that it would not be edit warring. Xoltered (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action taken. The level of concern expressed in the posts here seems out of proportion to the original issue. Be aware that users can revert on their own talk page without penalty under the
  exceptions to 3RR. Admin User:Johnuniq has given a more detailed assessment of the issue above, concluding that "This is not a reasonable case for the edit-warring noticeboard." This whole thing seems to be a spillover from a dispute at 2022 Winter Olympics. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 18:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)