Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive452

Page: Jamie Collins (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheKinkdomMan (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. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:
Editor has been repeatedly removing reference to the

• Result: User:TheKinkdomMan has been blocked indefinitely by User:RickinBaltimore for making legal threats, per a complaint at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Pachelbel's Canon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "per article talk page"
2. 15:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "should be discuss on the article talk page as suggested"
3. 15:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "
   WP:BRD
   - discuss on the talk page - appears to be synthesized with 3 extra harps doubling the single violins, which is improbable"
4. 05:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "emulating baroque style & tempi per
   London Philharmonia Orchestra, Trevor Pinnock
   , et al"

1. 15:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
2. 15:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Pachelbel's Canon."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Synthesized no authentic scoring */ Reply"

Comments:

Mathsci seems to think that they can leave a comment on talk page and that others are then forced to accept their version (not the case, despite me leaving two very clear and unambiguous warnings on their talk page and them being here for far long enough that they should know better). Not only that, but here they've clearly violated

I cannot see four reverts. I can see one edit where I changed an audio file, having created it from scratch on Commons (it was in fact the second attempt to create such an audio file). Then RC made three reverts.[23][24][25] During that period, after discussion on the article talk page, I had decided to add the brand new audio file in a completely different place where it was relevant (see below). Thus here[26], RC issued a template warning on my user talk page when there were only three edits concerning audio files. At that stage, I made a fourth edit to add new content, not related to any of RC's edits, but instead to correct one Oxford University Press source and add the brand new audio file next to Pachelbel's Canon#Analysis, as outlined on the article talk page. That is the normal way editing is done. However, RC appended a further comment to my talk page[27] writing This is unambiguously a fourth "revert" (since you are re-inserting disputed content) and you should do everyone the courtesy of stopping the silly edit-warring. You leaving a message on the talk page, and me not immediately responding to it, does not mean that there is suddenly a consensus for it; it just means I haven't yet responded to it. You behaving otherwise leaves an impression that you don't think much of the opinion of others, which is frankly disrespectful.

General context for creating music audio files since 2007. My edits concerning audio files show a long record of creating Commons audio files, which have not received criticism, starting from

The gall of the post above is unbelievable. After asking me to follow BRD (despite you being the one who keeps edit warring and stubbornly disrespecting me), you not only A) did not follow it but B) edit-warred your preferred version back in very literal spite of the discussion happening on the talk page (the same discussion where you have, like here, been trying to make everything off-topic with

WP:GAMING and I'll have none of it. Please A) self-revert B) apologise and stop-edit warring C) stop stalking me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 01:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion was about audio files and their educational usefulness for general lay readers; that seems straightforward and something where there is universal consensus. Here this concerned one audio file and its placement. That seems a very neutral and anodyne matter—completely uncontentious. Mathsci (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What little "educational usefulness for general lay readers" a terrible MIDI-generated audio file has escapes me, but you again seem to be refusing to acknowledge the problem here: it's not "completely uncontentious" if somebody objects to it; and you behaving like this (which is essentially total disrespect towards me) in the face of very obvious evidence that it is, in fact, contentious, and edit-warring despite a talk page discussion on the topic, is deeply unsettling. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think regular admins on this noticeboard evaluate audio files, but I could be wrong. Mathsci (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That part of the discussion should continue on the article talk page (you obviously know your way there). As for the rest, you clearly edit-warred by reinserting your preferred version despite being very clearly warned about it and despite an ongoing talk page discussion. This is either an attempt by you at

WP:STALKING pattern here; and AGF isn't a suicide pact, so I beg you to stop these silly shenanigans. Or you face the music; your choice. In either case, it clearly requires admin attention of some form. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 03:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Further evidence of stalking: [31] [32] [33] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• 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. But this seems like it might be better discussed at AN/I or something before it escalates. Daniel Case (talk
  ) 04:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Operating system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User:Chatul is not contributing to Operating_system#Interrupts using reliable sources. Instead, he is hindering my attempts to do so. I rewrote the Interrupts section because it had this deficient legacy version. Whereas each sentence in the legacy version was technically correct, the section suffered these deficiencies:

1. The sentences didn't form a narrative.
2. The section was entirely original research.
3. The section lacked a thesis: An operating system has an interrupt module, and its core function is to efficiently and effectively switch between running computer programs. In computer jargon, an interrupt module will likely perform a context switch. (For more information, visit Context_switch#Interrupt_handling.) If an operating system's interrupt module and context switching module are ineffective, then your computer will periodically be sluggish or freeze.

Judge for yourself if the current version alleviates these deficiencies. See Operating_system#Interrupts.

Unfortunately, improving Operating system is hindered by the unwarranted improvement tags posted by User:Chatul. His common complaint is I'm inaccurately paraphrasing the sentences in textbooks; he's being fastidiously semantic. In the Interrupts section, notice citation "[43] [44] [45] [c]"? This is citation overkill, and it's a consequence of him being fastidiously semantic.

Unwarranted Improvement tags and condescending talks are causing me stress. Maybe he doesn't realize the stress he is causing. Or maybe he wants me to go away. Anyway, I've had enough. Here are, in reverse order, his edits and talks that cause my stresses:

1. With this talk entry on May 12, 2022, User:Chatul agreed that an interrupt service routine may cause a context switch. I then added back context switch to the section's lead resulting in this version. Then he moved my newly added sentence from the article to the citation's quote section. So, I started this talk thread: Talk:Operating_system#Unethically_misquoting_a_textbook.
   
   
2. With this edit on May 11, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "The control flow change is known as a context switch." The sentence had two citations from a textbook by Abraham Silberschatz. Silberschatz explains in two different sections that an interrupt will likely cause a control flow change which is known as a context switch.
   
   
3. With this edit on May 10, 2022, User:Chatul tagged this sentence as disputed, "Interrupts cause the central processing unit (CPU) to have a control flow change away from the currently running process." The sentence had a citation referencing page 308 in
   Andrew Tanenbaum
   's textbook. User:Chatul's tag justification was, "The cited text does not mention context switches." However, the sentence he disputed didn't have context switches in it either.
   
   
4. With this edit on April 20, 2022, User:Chatul tag bombed the subsection I/O channel. The subsection was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook and was well cited. Moreover, each citation had a link to the specific page in an online version of Tanenbaum's textbook, like page 55. However, User:Chatul was not pleased. Instead of improving the subsection using his own reliable sources, he generated this talk thread. I was disturbed that he accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. This talk thread caused me to run out of energy. The talk thread was 2,063 words, but the subsection had only 134 words. I deleted the subsection.
   
   
5. With this edit on April 19, 2022, User:Chatul accused me of violating the neutral point of view requirement. Again, I/O Channel was entirely paraphrased from Tanenbaum's textbook.
   
   

I'm a student of computer technology; I have no bias. Different technologies have different strengths and weaknesses. User:Chatul's NPOV accusation is an unsupported denigration. Moreover, it's not just me he's denigrating. With his talk section titled NPOV: undue emphasis on microprocessors, he's denigrating all of the editors. If I were pretending to be Sigmund Freud, I would say he's projecting his IBM System/360 bias.

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources says, "There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner." * The Interrupts section has multiple textbooks as sources. It's been stressful to be denigrated while studiously performing secondary research.

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Attempts_to_evade_detection says, "Bad-faith disruptive editors attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways: Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit is disruptive but the overall pattern clearly is. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it." * After a long period of time, I now get stressed feelings making edits to the Operating System article. User:Chatul doesn't improve the article using reliable sources. Instead, he questions my edits in the talk page and posts improvement tags in the article.

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing says, "A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: Engages in 'disruptive cite-tagging'; adds unjustified citation needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable." * See here.

Generally speaking, User:Chatul is more concerned with nuance than writing an encyclopedia. He finds a flaw in everything. Here is one example. Well, maybe technology is so vast, that flaws in sentences are unavoidable. Put another way: for a technology sentence to be flawless, it must be overly qualified. The Wikipedia principle that comes to mind is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. It says, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." * If there's a rule saying that paraphrasing a source must contain every word in the source, then ignore that rule. Otherwise, very little will get paraphrased.

Operating System is an important article in computer science. Moreover, there's a lot of reliable sources available to make it a good article. To become good, it needs to attract editors stimulated by secondary research. Please help provide a non-hostile environment by blocking User:Chatul from editing it for one year. Don't get me wrong — User:Chatul does know about operating systems. However, he needs to gain experience in secondary research to appreciate its benefits. Timhowardriley (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NPA, e.g., describing an editing error as unethical, inventing motives out of the whole cloth. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk

) 16:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I reject this ad hominem. Timhowardriley (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• No violation I am not sure that this report even belongs at this noticeboard as it does not seem like any clear pattern of reverting the same edit is in the evidence submitted. It seems to me it got lost on the way to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Siege of Oricum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [34] 14:24, 8 May 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35] 14:37, 8 May
2. [36] 14:39, 8 May
3. [37] 15:02, 8 May
4. [38] 18:29, 9 May
5. [39] 20:30, 14 May
6. [40] 02:09, 15 May

Further reverts have only been prevented by full page protection.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] 22:22, 14 May

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Siege of Oricum#Reverted edits, May 8, 2022

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:
I would like to add that Avlich has repeatedly tried to close down discussion of his reverts on the talk page by claiming the article should not be changed during an ongoing AFD, and telling users to shut up. SpinningSpark 08:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• I trust that whichever administrator looks at this will realize that, 1, diffs [52] and [53] are the same revert; and 2, "claiming the article should not be changed during an ongoing AFD" is not the extent of all grievances outlined in that diff, and thus cherrypicking and misrepresentation. The filer assumed bad faith from the start and had nothing to say about several alternatives I suggested in the talk page. In any case there's no 3RR violation and there's a
  Avilich (talk
  ) 13:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Result: The page in dispute,
    User:Avilich is in the minority position on many of these disagreements. I suggest he try to get consensus on the talk page before making further changes. Avilich opened a deletion discussion about the article but it has now been closed as Keep. EdJohnston (talk
    ) 01:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=1087586853&oldid=1087207120 Ordinary edit made a short time ago, and not by me if any admin wants to check.

PeeJay's actions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087586853 First revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087589147 Second revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087589292 Third revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087589454 4th revert and violation of 3RR - and a false claim that they are reverting vandalism which they are not. The summaries show that I am engaged in content dispute based on how they interpret the article's purpose against the rest of the community.

Invitation for discussion and opportunity to correct themselves

followed by

refusal to withdraw false claim of vandalism which I maintain the edits were not, and also a refusal to conform to wiki.policy. --Marching on Leeds (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If anyone wants to check the article talk page, it was decided not to include the Sheriff of London Shield in Liverpool's list of honours. User:Marching on Leeds' edits are in direct contravention of that, and they are not assuming good faith on my part, accusing me of bias that does not exist. – PeeJay 11:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

One obvious point of concern is that the statement in dispute (either Manchester United and Liverpool are joint most successful sides in English football with 66 trophies or Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 65) has four references, none of which actually either of the figures being claimed:

• The first gives a 64/60 split
• The second gives a 64/60 split
• The third gives a 60/59 split
• The fourth gives a 62/59 split.

My question is why anyone is editing a sourced sentence and inserting numbers that are different to the sources? Number 57 11:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

A clear case of personal interpretation. Obviously one is welcome to take the matter to An/I but I see not one case of "vandalism" as claimed, and this project page is about 3RR violations coupled with a stiff-necked reluctance to self-immoderate, and only one editor on this thread is guilty of that. --Ramos Ovenready (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If one editor acts in direct contravention of a talk page discussion, that is vandalism, and reverting acts of vandalism does not count against 3RR. – PeeJay 12:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not

WP:VANDALISM, which has a specific meaning. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 12:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so. However, given User:Marching on Leeds' history of adding controversial content to articles ([43], [44]), one has to question their motives here. – PeeJay 13:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't say so, it's in the policy I linked above. Questioning motives is not exempt from 3rr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Except as you pointed out,

WP:VANDALISM says "any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism", but we have reason to question whether User:Marching on Leeds' contributions were indeed in good faith. – PeeJay

13:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

One edit is good faith. Being directed to talk page after revert and continuing with antagonising edit summaries is no longer good faith. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No such thing as "vandalism in good faith". The explanation of what

WP:VANDALISM is, is crystal clear, and not open to redefinition by editors pushing their pro-Man Utd POVs on the pretext of "rvv". Not gonna happen mate. --Marching on Leeds (talk

) 16:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article for 3 days. If after that time expires, any editor currently involved in the edit war resumes the dispute on the article, they risk being blocked without warning. Also, any discussion on the article Talk page should not contain personal attacks, or editors may find themselves blocked for that reason. I have not posted the result in the header as the report is malformed, and I don't intend to fix it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  It seems to have started again. I think PeeJay's self-declared Man U support means they are violating

  WP:COI. I have tried to put in something that clarifies it depends on what you count as a significant trophy but that doesn't seem to matter.There is a dispute in RL that dispute should be mentioned but the dispute should not be continued here.--Kitchen Knife (talk

  ) 13:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:VANDALISM). --Marching on Leeds (talk

  ) 16:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Rather than log a separate complaint, the contested user PeeJay keeps on removing perfectly good content from the Liverpool FC article without consent from talk page users. He is disruptive and keeps removing Sher of Lon Shield details. Don't care if it's classed as a minor award, there's no rule to say it cannot remain on the LFC article Koppite1 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Did you even look at my most recent edit? I did exactly what you said you would agree to! – PeeJay 15:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

      Now perhaps you should revert your actions on the Aston Villa or any other article you saw fit to remove the content without talk page consent Koppite1 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Trophy count

Regarding the trophy count, the issue is very few articles actually discuss the relevant trophy counts until / as / when they are in parallel or close. Many often split the trophies up, excluding specific competitions based on their own criteria (such as Major vs Minor competitions). The sources are the most recent discussions of the trophy count that are complete (otherwise we get into POV articles specifically supporting one interpretation). The conclusion was to report the total count of trophies as presented in reliable sources (which all universally exclude the Sheriff of London) when discussing the rivalries. The lede has then been updated to match subsequent trophy gains as non-controversial statements of fact. This hasn't been problematic until Liverpool began to become closer to equalling the total. As a result we are running into a broader issue:

1. Our List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won decided to use criteria that includes ALL trophies involving the FA. It's a big piece of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as each individual element can be sourced but nobody ever really counts the trophies in such a way.
2. Sites (less reputable user created ones in particular) are picking up on the wikipedia article and starting to duplicate the SoL inclusion. This clashes with then the reliable sources that exclude it (even exhaustive paper resources, or those such as the Clubs websites) as a historic irrelevance from a not fully professional era.
3. Unreliability of trophy counts from reliable sources. For example Talksport state Major honours counted as season-long competitions (Charity/Community Shield and UEFA Super Cup not included), and no one-off competitions tallied towards total. European trophies include: European Cup/Champions League, Cup Winners’ Cup, UEFA Cup/Europa League and Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. Only top flight league titles are counted as major honours. while SkySports definition of Major differs Major trophies include Division One/ Premier League titles, FA Cup, League Cup, European Cup/ Champions League, UEFA Cup/ Europa Cup, Cup Winners' Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, UEFA Super Cup, Club World Cup and Inter-Continental Cup. Neither include the Charity Shield for whatever reason based on their own definitions of "major" which results in further conflict. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2022 Buffalo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Love of Corey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2022-05-16T04:02:46
2. 2022-05-16T04:20:20
3. 2022-05-16T04:35:57
4. 2022-05-16T04:38:38

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2022-05-16T04:31:26 (which they promptly reverted off their talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [46] (which was also reverted without response on their talk page)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

Comments:

Attempted to discuss with editor on their talk page. Behavior is disruptive as victim lists are fairly standard for mass shooting articles like this.

WP:NOTBURO, editor wants to re-hash the debate again rather than accept that the victims are central to the article. —Locke Cole • t • c

04:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Evidently not as central given there's always a discussion on whether to include victims' names in every significant mass shooting article I see. Love of Corey (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Which, by the way, I've started, so please participate in it. Love of Corey (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Always a discussion which leads to them being included most of the time. And there's only a discussion because a die-hard few editors want to bog down any editing in endless debate about something they know they're likely to lose at. It's bad faith bureaucracy abuse for the sake of stonewalling. And I'm FED UP with it. It's obvious disruption at this point. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• The only viable alternative is blocking both editors to prevent further edit warring ([48] [49] [50] [51]), which appears to be unnecessary at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Your first diff was where I added the text initially. It would be refreshing if we didn't see obvious disruption rewarded, but I guess I was holding out too much hope here. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Original Six (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.49.162.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57][58][59]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [60]

Comments:

• Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Gyanvapi Mosque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Gyanvapi Mosque */ removed false, misinformation, unvarified claim"
2. 10:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Gyanvapi Mosque */ removed false, misinformation, unvarified claima"
3. 09:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Gyanvapi Mosque */ removed false, misinformation, unvarified claim"
4. 09:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Gyanvapi Mosque */ removed false, misinformation, unvarified claim"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

AIV-level vandalism. Warned multiple times. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days Abecedare (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Center for Autism and Related Disorders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarsTrombone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert #1 on 04:20, 21 March 2022 has been blanked for copyright violation.
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [[69]
2. [[70]]
3. [[71]]
4. [[72]]
5. [[73]]
6. I also left extensive edit summaries. He never responded to anything I said, and none of his reverts include any real content explanation.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [74]

Comments:
This is the page for an autism treatment provider that claims to cure autism in children. This editor has inserted promotional language with irrelevant or misleading citations six separate times, even knowing other editors object and having been repeatedly warned. They claimed on the talk page they would stop, waited ten days, and then put it back. I was off-wiki for a while and when I returned I saw their message, reverted them, and warned them again, but they have now re-inserted the same content into the article six times. They refused to engage with the content of critiques on their talk page, in edit summaries, and on talk until today after their fourth revert. They have now reverted again, while arguing on talk that "Why didn't I engage with you previously? Because I have a day job and other commitments and I don't spend all my time on Wikipedia" which I will leave to another editor to fix.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonGlottal (talk • contribs) 04:20, May 17, 2022 (UTC)

• Note Not a technical
  WP:3rr violation but clearly edit-warring. Have partially blocked them from Center for Autism and Related Disorders for 1 month, so that they can use the time to establish consensus for any of the changes they wish to make. Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Abecedare (talk
  ) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Flavan-3-ol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1087647443
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1087859311
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1087969558

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zefr&oldid=1087974469

Comments:

There is an ongoing discussion about the structure and content of flavan-3-ol. RfCs have taken place with inconclusive outcomes - but Zefr has reverted edits regularly. The latest set of reversals were based on assumptions that were factually but could probably have been resolved on the Talk page. Ggux (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ggux is under

WP:COIN) for pushing an unconventional concept about non-nutrient chemicals in food being nutrients, and for pushing a preliminary study ("COSMOS") with which Ggux appears to be associated professionally. There has been no consensus established on Talk:Flavan-3-ol for the changes Ggux wishes to make. Zefr (talk

) 15:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I have never claimed

flavan-3-ols were nutrients - I would appreciate for User:Zefr not to make false statements. Ggux (talk

) 15:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears that User:Ggux and User:Zefr have been reverting one another on this article since May, 2021 regarding the claimed health benefits of cocoa flavanols. Ggux wants the COSMOS study to be mentioned and Zefr usually opposes this. The time may have come for an administrator to warn both of them against reverting the article again without a consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Zefr and User:Ggux are both warned for edit warring at Flavan-3-ol. My comment above explains the history of this dispute, which has been going on since 2021. Either editor may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus on the article talk page in favor of their change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you - this sounds like a very sensible solution. Ggux (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TRHmTivl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: prior to reversions

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]
5. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1, 2 (Grayfell)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [82]

Comments: The user was contacted repeatedly about their edits and edit warring around an image on the article Saint Thomas Christians. After examining their edit history, I discovered several instances of copyright violations (along with several other issue) on their draft page Draft:Kizhaketheruvu, where they are similarly engaging in edit-war tactics without responding to requests for comment or clarification in diffs and talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbritti (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

TRHmTivl's comments at Commons:User talk:TRHmTivl suggest this is in part a language fluency issue. I'm sympathetic to that, especially for edits about images and geography. However, those comments also show that this editor knows how to communicate on talk pages, but is choosing not to. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring and copyright violations. Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [90]

Comments:
I have provided many, many sources that demonstrate my point. Each time, the user has ploughed on regardless. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• My response would be that I have performed only one revert on that page, the following:

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Pimblett&type=revision&diff=1088127985&oldid=1088117269

The first edit is not a revert, it is a bold edit. The text of the second edit is substantially different from the first, and is not therefore a revert but a bold edit which preserves the text introduced by User:NEDOCHAN. The fourth edit is not a revert, it adds a source, in response to an edit-summary which states that the text was unsourced, it again preserves the text added by User:NEDOCHAN.

On the other hand, User:NEDOCHAN has reverted three times:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Pimblett&type=revision&diff=1088133125&oldid=1088127985
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Pimblett&type=revision&diff=1088117269&oldid=1088103886
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paddy_Pimblett&type=revision&diff=1088000824&oldid=1087975675

I would suggest this is a case of

WP:BOOMERANG. Boynamedsue (talk

) 12:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The bold edit was on 12 May, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1087396094&oldid=1087396040&title=Paddy_Pimblett

The rest are restoring your preferred version, which has happened 4 times in 24 hours.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That is simply not true, your text is preserved in the current version. Even if we class the first edit as a reversion (which it isn't), the second version includes your preferred text, and therefore can not be classed as a revert.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not 'my text' by the way, it's what is stated in the infobox source, as well as these, which are all the main MMA fighter record pages.

https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/fighter/_/id/4008549/paddy-pimblett

https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/36807-paddy-pimblett

https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Paddy-Pimblett-84902

https://www.ufc.com/athlete/paddy-pimblett

https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/fighters/paddy-pimblett

NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is the preferred venue for content disputes. But I would state that you specifically stated there were no sources on the article as a reason to revert, then reported me for edit-warring when I added one. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I reported you for violating 3rr and restoring your preferred version against consensus (as to the sources used in - non compulsory - MMA infoboxes) and while a discussion was taking place. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Boynamedsue and User:NEDOCHAN are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: article version of 23:13, 17 May 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 23:28, 17 May 2022
2. diff 23:48, 17 May 2022
3. diff 23:51, 17 May 2022
4. diff 00:01, 18 May 2022
5. diff 00:59, 18 May 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link 00:25, 18 May 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 16:25, 17 May 2022

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff 01:20, 18 May 2022

Comments:
This opinionated editor has repeatedly removed reliably sourced content and has been reverted by five different editors (which have not included me), and inappropriately reported one of those editors twice at

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Korean beauty standards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Korean idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dochi6090 (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:

• On Korean idol

1. 18 May 2022 "Please write "Fect""
2. 11:07, 18 May 2022 "Just write down the facts"
3. 10:04, 18 May 2022 "Write the facts and Identify the source. This is the best version"
4. 03:51, 18 May 2022 "In Korea, underage plastic surgery is definitely illegal and normal idol agencies do not enforce it. The agencies that enforce illegal activities are illegal companies, and most agencies do not enforce them. If company force plastic surgery in Korea, the company's representative can go to jail under the Child Abuse Act. Illegality can never be referred and should never be justified in any case"
5. 00:25, 18 May 2022 "Delete Unnecessary Parts"

On Korean beauty standards

• About six reverts

For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary Warn the user if you have not already done so. }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

• 3RR 11:25, 18 May 2022
• 3RR 11:08, 18 May 2022

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

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

• ANEW notice

Comments:

A number of users have said this is a sock. Adakiko (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional three reverts at K-Beauty. The Banner talk 11:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dochi6090.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Policynerd3212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [98]

Comments:
This editor was edit warring a few months back on the same article, pushing the same type of content about crime and immigration in Sweden. They were reported to ANI at the time, then went away for several months. They have now come back pushing the same content, when the consensus that was reached was that they should instead focus the edits on the

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Amphibia (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beanieshark22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]
5. [104]
6. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106] [107] [108] [109]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [110]

Comments:

• Normally I'd do a timed block, but Beanieshark22's history of edit warring and stunts like this demonstrate some significant
  WP:CIR issues that will need to be addressed before an appeal can be considered.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}
  18:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Noting that a new user joined six minutes after the above block, to restore one of Beanieshark's recent edits. SPI is at
  talk
  ) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Justin Trudeau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well-versed in 3RR, having been the both the target and initiator of many Administrator's noticeboard/edit warring edits.

The User in question reverted varied material, within the same article, four (4) times within the span of a few hours, in violation of 3RR.

Attempted resolution via talk: Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Trudeau&oldid=1088461558 User claims "lede (sic) not the place for a list of minor points", and repeatedly deletes material. I kindly request that admins review diffs to determine if the deleted material is reasonable or not. Four straight reverts by the User, of well-sourced, relevant, and succinct material, in violation of 3RR, is not reasonable.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [116]

Comments:
User appears to have a history of edit warring and warnings, including the article in question: Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moxy&diff=1079273985&oldid=1079273146 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1055948051#User:Moxy_reported_by_User:Trackratte_(Result:_) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&oldid=607972275#User:Moxy_reported_by_User:FelixRosch_(Result:_)

Again, four straight reverts of well-sourced and relevant material puts a little strain on the assumption of good-faith, and is not reasonable.

I have no opinion of the reverts. The material is, in my opinion, not relevant or appropriately placed, and from what Moxy is saying (I am taking his word for it) this is a repeat instance of trying to add this content-disruptive. I'd take this back to the talk page and work through this there. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Without having looked at a diff (no time): the lead really is not the place to add sourced material however good the sources. Reverting such things is clean-up, and not understanding it, ... I don't know how to call it. The material might go to the body, if there's consensus to include it, and then further consensus should be reached if any of it is lead-worthy. The whole thing is for the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

They are welcome to get a third opinion on the matter. Talk:Justin Trudeau#Lede from years ago...as for the content all is in the article...just not the lead....as the lead is not the place for list(s) that was removed in 2019.Moxy- 11:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Not blocked It seems from the above that it would be better being discussed. Reverts were different material each time that doesn't quite rise to the level of edit warring Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Execution of Nathaniel Woods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088576122 by
   WP:STATUSQUO
   "
2. 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088567696 by Inexpiable (talk) The status quo, before TheXuitts changed it because he doesn't like the source's wording, was ":crack house". Stay with status quo until discussion is finished. That's clear policy."
3. 20:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC) "this censorship of the exact words used in the sources is getting ridiculous"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference
   (RW 16.1)
   "
2. 21:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
3. 21:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording
   (RW 16.1)
   "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* "Crack house" or "drug house"? */"
2. 20:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* "Crack house" or "drug house"? */"
3. 20:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* "Crack house" or "drug house"? */"

Comments:

User keeps reverting edits on the article and is refusing to gain consensus from the talk page. The entire article history shows he has kept doing this with another user. Inexpiable (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment

WP:STATUSQUO clearly says "leave the status quo up." On the article in question, the status quo before Inexpiable's ally, TheXuitts, changed it was the use of the phrase "crack house", which is the term overwhelmingly used in reliable sources cited in the article. TheXuitts changed it because he feels it's a "derogatory term" - as I explained on the talk page, we don't get to make that call. Reliable sources say "crack house", so the article says "crack house." Nevertheless, Inexpiable opened an edit war and began reverting back to their preferred verbiage of "drug house" despite almost no sources using that term to describe the events in the article. Wes sideman (talk

) 22:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the original wording was "drug house" PROOF in this revision: [117], until Wes changed it: [118] Inexpiable (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wes sideman has been in an ongoing dispute on the page Execution of Nathaniel Woods. Since 2020 he has been reverting TheXuitts edits on the article. Example here: [119] TheXuitts has been changing the content back and every time Wes has been changing the wording. I joined the discussion today and tried to gain a compromise. However, Wes has reverted my edits and is refusing to discuss the matter at Talk:Execution of Nathaniel Woods. Inexpiable (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

More examples, it clearly said drug house until he changed it AGAIN yesterday: [120] Inexpiable (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Check Inexpiable's reverts to my changes and then Gabrielle103's contributions. That second account is 7 days old and inexplicably appeared to revert changes on two pages that I edited - making the exact same reverts that Inexpiable made, mere minutes later. Seems extremely likely that they're connected and being used to avoid breaking 3RR by tag-teaming. Wes sideman (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed it again here in March 2022: [121], again in September 2021: [122] Inexpiable (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheXuitts: So he can explain his side. This edit war has gone on since end of 2020, and Wes has kept reverting his work constantly without gaining any consensus. Inexpiable (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet account. I was patrolling the recent edits and saw that Wes has been edit warring, so I reverted their changes back to Inexpiable's (I say their because I'm not sure what Wes' pronouns are, if they have them that is). This is clearly visible from my recent contributions, in which I have edited multiple articles on or around the same minute as the previous edit (such as Dangerfield Newby, 2022 Lebanese general election and Population displacements in Israel after 1948). I'm just some rando woman lol Gabrielle103 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Gabrielle103 has been blocked as a sock. Nil Einne (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It is important to point out they were not a sock of mine though or connected to me in any way, as Wes falsely claimed and made baseless accusations against me without proof. Inexpiable (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Wes sideman and User:Inexpiable are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Execution of Nathaniel Woods without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: Kay Mellor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.127.39.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123] This was the first introduction of some phrasing along these lines.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [124]
2. [125]
3. [126]
4. [127]
5. [128]
6. [129]
7. [130]
8. [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [134] and also notified at their new IP here

Comments:

• Considering their dynamic IP has already changed to User:107.123.5.51, a range block may be called for. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 01:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• I didn't even notice, but they also had another IP during this whole thing, at User:107.127.39.16, fwiw. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 01:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Kay Mellor has been semiprotected one month due to edit warring by multiple IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Page: List of current world boxing champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:8802:E01:3AA0:C805:2678:5C48:2667 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [135]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [136]
2. [137]
3. [138]
4. [139]

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:
IP broke 3rr while refusing to use edit summaries (because there's no valid argument to give). 3rr warning was left at User talk:2600:8802:E01:3AA0:C5FE:964:92CB:731A. – ².O.^Boxing 09:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Fifth revert. – ².O.^Boxing 11:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)