Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive463

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._P._Hill&oldid=1127824042
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._P._Hill&oldid=1127819570
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._P._Hill&oldid=1127819570
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._P._Hill&oldid=1127815885

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A._P._Hill#Hey_IP_address [diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:18C:8000:A5FD:358E:7D0E:AEA7:609A [diff]

Comments:This user is a clear political view, I have warned and tried but they are on the what, 6th revert? Thank you Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The big issue is the user has a political agenda, and is not using

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, the entire /64 range included. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

Joaziela has clearly violated Wikipedia edit warring policy by persisting through the efforts of two established editors (myself and User:Kpalion) to remove the name "Ukraine" from the article. Despite repeated efforts to tell Joaiela to take the discussion to the Talk Page without edit warring, they have not done so. In their last edit summary, they overtly state that they are pushing an anti-Ukrainian agenda (through the use of "Bandera" and pushing the russian propaganda that Ukraine was an invention of the 20th century throughout every one of their preceding edit summaries). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, as much for OR and combativeness as for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: List of examples of convergent evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Special:Contributions/193.119.116.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

It hasn't really blown up to be a full scale war yet, but the editor is being entirely uncommunicative. The edits that have been made by myself and another editor have listed the criteria as to why they were necessary. On both occassions there has been essentially a revert with no explanation provided at all. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from the article for a week. Editor seems to have backed off from it; perhaps this will give them room to reflect and make more productive edits as they seem to have started to. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, I noticed that a new IP, 124.168.229.4, has re-added the disputed content previously added by 193.119.116.137. The new IP just started editing today. There seems to be some, but not a lot, of overlap between the other articles edited by the two IPs. I'm not sure if this is block evasion or something else, but it seems peculiar. CodeTalker (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@CodeTalker: Considering that over the past several months this has been one of several IPs to show interest in making these edits about marsupials, another of which is also interested in the Spot (franchise) and all of which are also interested in genera and geolocate to the same area of southeastern Australia (though not always in the same state), I think we have some sort of LTA going on, and appropriately I have now semi-protected the page for six months. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Iptesh Kumar Meher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127920251 by Belbury (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC) to 10:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 10:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127906050 by Sumanuil (talk)"
   2. 10:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127905703 by Sumanuil (talk)"
   3. 10:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127905877 by Sumanuil (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gandabahali."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Iptesh Kumar Meher "/* Gandabahali */ new section"

Comments:

Ongoing

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock, although even without the socking, I would have indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: Lena Raine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TSAR1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]
6. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments: Editor is trying to remove all the instances of "she" on an article about a trans woman. They've reverted back to their version six times in the past two hours, despite multiple editors telling them not to. Silverseren^C 18:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Salvio 19:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: Kessler, Dallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC) "adding more content and references"
2. 19:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128168297 by Roxy the dog (talk) which part is real estate agent material? The quoted sources are government websites like dallas city hall and national register of historic places"
3. 19:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC) "adding more content and references"
4. 16:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128134209 by MrOllie (talk)not a copy and paste, selected certain info to be merged to an existing page and added new info."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC) "/* Added New Content */"

Comments:

4 reverts today - removing the notability tag and repeatedly adding text. Continuation of editing starting from the 16th.

• Blocked Salvio 21:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: Socialist Workers Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cobalt47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: most recent

Diffs of the user's reverts:
1st set of reversions:
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
2nd set:
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
Final large reversion:
• [37]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39]

Comments:

Two years ago, this user

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Husesein07101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 23:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC) to 19:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 13:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Somalia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC) "/* Infobox */ new section"

Comments:

Report filed. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

...and they're still at it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: LGB Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Void if removed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:14, 19 December 2022
2. 11:10, 19 December 2022
3. 14:10, 19 December 2022
4. 19:36, 19 December 2022

User has also broken 3RR at 55 Tufton Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [40]

Comments:

• Blocked Salvio 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: Nina Lobkovskaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Gorgon Slayer (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 17:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC) to 08:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC) "What do you mean by " Reliable " Source ? Source that suits your opinion ? Who decided that "Proza.ru" is unreliable and those random articles in the page is reliable ? You ? Or those soviet communists ? Kindly use the Talk Page to clarify and provide refutations ( which is not available in this case ) before suppressing the truth."
   2. 18:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC) "And for your information, " Proza.ru " is way reliable and logical than those " sources " in this page as It's solely based on logic and history rather than copying and pasting the same misinformation over and over again. Proza.ru is A Russian Source which points out self-contradictory claims in those articles that is cited as " source " here. Kindly read it before suppressing the truth and reverting the edit ."
   3. 08:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC) "Source has been provided. Before removing any source, provide refutation (which is not available in this case) against information in the source rather than suppressing it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User_talk:Gorgon_Slayer Shows multiple previous warnings for both disruptive editing and edit warring.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Other users asked them to go to talk,[[41]][[42]] but they decided not to.

Comments:

User has previously been blocked for edit warring, so I don't know if a 'warning' is required in this instance. In the above article and multiple others in the same subject area[[43]],[[44]] [[45]] , User made a change, it was reverted, then they edit-warred that change back in, were asked by multiple editors to discuss changes on the talk page, but instead reported the other editor for vandalism [[46]]; this is disruptive. JeffUK (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked Salvio 11:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: Tiger I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gun Nut perk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]
5. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]
5. [61]
6. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [65]

Comments:

6 reverts in the past 24 hours. Accusing unregistered editors of being "IP editors". Accused me of having bad faith and called my changes "not an improvement". Ecrusized (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Also has been previously blocked for a week for personal attacks and has been warned by at least 5 other editors on their talk page for edit warring. [66], [67], [68], [69] , [70]. 09:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrusized (talk • contribs)

• I didn't do 6 reverts, only these two [71], [72] are my reverts in 24 hrs while the rest are my own edits mixed with partially removing IP edits. I didn't accuse OP of bad faith which they show no proof of,
  casting aspersions. I did explain in detail why their edit wasn't an improvement on the article and my talk. With their no consensus edits and edit-warring over them, they also hinder the current long ongoing discussion which tries to achieve consensus. Additionally, OP tried to AfD the article unsuccessfully and with subpar argumentation, and they're the one currently edit-warring over their own no consensus edit [73], [74] while hindering the long discussion on talk that they haven't even commented on single time. ZaniGiovanni (talk
  ) 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Read

WP:3RR. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. You have been warned by 5 other editors besides myself about this but still seem to go on with battle ground behavior. Your reverts, whether involving the same or different material count as a revert. Ecrusized (talk

) 09:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You're showing warnings from random users from 2021 and completely irrelevant, unrelated to this article. And as I said, I reverted 2 times in the article in the past 24hrs [75], [76]. My own edits aren't reverts as 4 of the diffs you show aren't even reverts [77], [78], [79], [80] and the IP didn't re-revert me for there to be an edit-war.

Also you haven't participated once in the extensive discussion which directly touched on and tries to achieve consensus regarding parts of your own edits as well (where you were making factual errors and wrong attributions), which you edit-warred over with no consensus or the discussion participation. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni twice removed a reference to Jamnews, claiming it was an Azerbaijani source, which it is not. [81] [82] He made many other reverts on this same article. He was previously banned for 2 months from Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics. [83] [84] He was also formally warned to refrain from edit warring: [85] Probably

The

WP:ONUS, and not providing any non Baku published third party in its place when kindly asked to do so. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish Baku claims in Wiki voice no less, especially for exceptional claims of "humanitarian aid" while the whole world condems Azerbaijan for blocking the corridor for a week now [87]. And you were banned for 6 months from Armenia/Azerbaijan topic area this year, what's your point? What does you bringing up and browbeating me with the 2-month topic ban has to do with this report? ZaniGiovanni (talk

) 10:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Jamnews is an international publication. If it has reporters in Baku, that does not make it Azerbaijani, or unreliable. You cannot simply remove a source because you disagree with it. If you have objections to Jamnews as a source, the best is to bring it up at talk, not to remove it repeatedly. And that is not your only revert on that article within the last few days. You have been formally warned against edit warning in this topic area. Grandmaster 10:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It's an exceptional article published in Baku. Nobody else makes such claim of "humanitarian aid" and no

WP:EXCEPTIONAL). And as I said, I reverted 2 times in the past 24 hours, my own edits aren't reverts. ZaniGiovanni (talk

) 10:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, Jamnews is not published in Baku, it is an international publication. You have clearly violated the 3RR by these 4 reverts on 21 December (not counting previous ones): [90] [91] [92] [93]. And that is despite previous warnings against edit warring and sanction for battleground behavior. Grandmaster 13:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Only these [94], [95] are my reverts in 24hrs, and the Baku edition of an article from "Jamnews" which it clearly indicates [96] you used adding the exceptional claim contrary to what most RS say. This is my own edit removing the source along with other source denying it, as the claim is UNDUE/Exceptional to begin with per most RS [97], [98] clearly stating supplies are lost or are running short because of the blockade. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Stale. I am closing this report as stale, only because you both seem to have stopped reverting this morning. If not for that reason, I'd have p-blocked both ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs) and Ecrusized (talk · contribs) for edit warring. Please, take this to the talk page or blocks will become necessary. Salvio 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC) "Pktlaurence moved page
   Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss
   over redirect: Unexplained revert"
2. 19:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC) "Pktlaurence moved page
   Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss
   : His name should stay German but the title prince should be anglicised per convention, as this is English Wikipeidia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Within a few days after their last one-month block for edit-warring, this user is now move-warring on a page with an ongoing RM discussion. JBL (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That's bullshit, I didn't know what happened at all as you did not explain the reason of your revert, and you did not attempt to notify or communicate with me either. Now as I am notified I will not revert it again. BTW I have not breached the 3RR principle either so stop wasting the administrators' time.Pktlaurence (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary could not have been clearer. If you revert yourself I will be happy to withdraw this request. -- JBL (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I note that (1) Pktlaurence did not self-revert, and (2) instead endeavored to follow me to a different page I recently moved and to move it without discussion or explanation. It would be super convenient for me if any passing administrator could deal appropriately with that behavior; otherwise I can relocate ANI instead I guess -- JBL (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And again I did explain. I cannot self-revert, but if you or some admin revert it I would be happy to see it stay the way it is. And again, 3RR. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And again, you didn't make any notifications or even explanation in your summary. 'JayBeeEll moved page Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss to Heinrich Reuss over redirect: revert. Pktlaurence' That's all I can see on the page move log. (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The RM discussion has concluded that the page title should be "Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss". That's where the page is now. It seems possible that User:Pktlaurence was not aware of the RM discussion at the time they did the move. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah he didn't even explain in his summary. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts: First round:

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

Second round: [106]

Third: [107]

Fourth: [108]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1st: [110] 2nd: [111]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [112]

Comments:

The user has also twice moved the page with no consensus. At this point its obvious this is edit warring so I'm not going to keep rolling back changes because I don't want to engage in this behaviour. But the page moves are: 1. [113] 2. [114]

Alcibiades979 (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The talk page shows the article name is in bad taste. The discussion also shows that there is no consensus on where "self-coup" comes from, or why it is decidedly a self-coup. All sources agree either side views the actions of congress as a coup or the actions of the former president as a coup. Heads of state overwhelmingly say the acts of congress are beatant coup behavior. No source mentions self-coup (and it's a ridiculous term to apply to a sitting president). Article 134 was lawfully invoked, courts decided it was improperly used and they were obeyed.

I would like to point out other than showing unexplained reversions, this user has absolutely no critique of the content. This user is the one hitting revert and undo.

If it's not clear, this user has two complaints: the title changing, and the lead changes. Despite using three sources across a sentence, they were inexplicably reverted, requesting consensus for basic facts such as Article 134 being invoked, hostility between congress and the president, a quote used as commentary on the fact that this is not a new phenomenon (actually, the previous articles use "constitutional crisis") is not normal or how to police.

Regarding the title, the talk page shows it was biased and used invented language. It had to be changed. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 07:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

After being reported User: Louis Waweru took to the talk page to call the WP:Consensus edits "bullshit" which is further edit warring behaviour and a violation of WP:Civility. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It's clear no edits on the talk page have read the definition of a self-coup: "An autogolpe (“self-coup”) occurs when a president closes the courts and the legislature, suspends the constitution, and rules by decree until a referendum and new legislative elections are held to approve broader executive powers." I'll point out that I did not remove "self-coup" from the reference to the 1992 incident which is is in every way different from the 2022 topic.

Bullshit is a synonym for nonsense, deception, etc. Again, the "consensus" edits in favor of "self-coup" don't actually support its usage with references, and are just deceptive nonsense. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 15:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The word as I used it isn't vulgar; see the definitions and synonyms on Wiktionary. The appropriate one's are not labeled as vulgarities:

1. (rhetoric) Statements that are intentionally misleading, whether true or not.
2. (philosophy) Statements made without regard for their truth value. quotations ▲
   • 2005, Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit

     Respect for the truth and a concern for the truth are among the foundations for civilization. I was for a long time disturbed by the lack of respect for the truth that I observed... bullshit is one of the deformities of these values.

Talk⁄Louis Waweru 15:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

4RR: [115] The user is continuing to edit war on the page. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The user continues to have no explanation for why my credibly source facts are a war on the article. User is abusing this process. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 17:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No he's not,

2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis, besides that you went pass the 3RR Rule. Chip3004 (talk

) 17:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Undoing acts of vandalism exempts reverts from the rule. Removing joint statements between Mexico, Columbia, Argentina, Bolivia, that they do not recognize the new government, that invoking Article 134 is what Castillo did to violate the constitution, are all just facts.

There is no reason to revert my edits. And again, no reason has been given. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 17:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to add in what I wrote in the talk page of the Peruvian self coup article, as I am trying to discuss it, but as 3RR was broken, I will add in my opinion here. The user Louis Waweru is radically trying to change this article from, a self coup to his own intepretation of all of this being a "constitutional crisis" as per his comment. [116] The article has long been fine, without any edit wars, and backed up by reliable sources and posted on the news page. Now Louis Waweru is trying to convince everyone that it was lawful. He has been warned by me, @

WP:3RR, which he again did here, [117]. He has reverted more than 6 times in a day. He rejects seeking a consensus, only stating that his edits is right to everyone, that all scholars, reliable media that have branded it as a coup are wrong, and he is right, stating he knows more.[118] Although scholars repeatedly say it was unlawful, just as the constitutional court said, as no vote ever occured.[119] Therefore, I do support this report, his basis on a edit war and his 6 times revert, as well as trying to seek to radically change an important article with whatsoever no consesus concerns me. BastianMAT (talk

) 17:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not trying to convince the invocation was proper, but Castillo behaved lawfully, and was ousted for improperly dissolving congress. His actions, failure, and submission is not what a self-coup looks like.

It is undeniable that reliable media are reporting both sides are claiming a coup. Therefore choosing to name this as a self-coup is cherry picking.

None of my edits are my interpretations, and are all sourced. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 18:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Partially blocked for a day Salvio 18:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Tomorrow, can I add 2–4 back without obtaining consensus?

  1. Congress
     , which twice failed to impeach him within eight months and was retrying a third time as an Associated Press journalist would observe "president and Congress appeared to exercise their constitutional powers to do away with each other." The Constitution grants presidents power to to dissolve Congress if it successively motions for no confidence in a government.
  2. The regional powers of Mexico, Bolivia, Columbia and Argentina issued a joint statement recording their view that Castillo is "a victim of undemocratic harassment" and pleaded for maintaining his human and legal rights.
  3. The crisis led to Mexico placing relations with Peru on pause while continuing to recognize Castillo as Peru's leader.
  4. Voice of America (a U.S diplomatic media arm considered to be propaganda) said...

  If yes, why is reverting their blankings a violation 3RR? And how is blanking them not vandalism? Talk⁄Louis Waweru 18:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  No. If you do, the perception will be you've started edit warring again and you'll probably be blocked again (reasonably, for a longer period of time). What you are supposed to do is follow

  WP:DISPUTE. This is not vandalism, this is a good-faith content dispute. Continuing to revert to your preferred version is the very definition of edit warring and will always lead to blocks. Salvio

  19:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks. (Someone has added those basic facts back.) Talk⁄Louis Waweru 19:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: FIFA World Cup records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rudy Zoma 1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "I have corrected the number of overall assists in World Cup history"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC) to 02:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 02:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Why are you using an article about most assists from 1966 to 2018? What about previous world cups when Pelé had more assists? Why don't use web.archive.org which it has all world cup tournaments?"
   2. 02:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Why are you using an article about most assists from 1966 to 2018? What about previous world cups when Pelé had more assists? Why don't use web.archive.org which it has all world cup tournaments? Same source is claiming that Pelé has 6 assists in one World Cup, is this done on purpose to reduce the Legendary number of Pelé in favor of Messi and Maradona? Why don't you use web.archive.org which it includes all world cup tournaments?"
   3. 02:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "If FIFA only started recording assists since 1994 then how come you have an article as a source where it shows all assists from 1966 to 2018? How come you don't use web.archive.org which it has all world cup tournaments?"
3. 02:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "I have corrected the number of assists provided by Pelé in World Cup history web.archive.org"
4. 01:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "I have corrected the number of assists provided by Pelé in the world cup web.archive.org"
5. 18:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC) "I have corrected the number of assists provided by Pelé in the world cup. Check web.archive.org"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Comments:

Have given warning on users talk page, but not being picked up by reporting tool, and discussion active on article talk page Spike 'em (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to add, Rudy Zoma 1980 has made these changes 15 times in the last nine days despite a reliable source being provided and a footnote being added as a compromise. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of one week Salvio 13:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: Hellraiser (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2604:3D09:2287:E600:CDD5:67B7:5AF6:977B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [122]
   
2. [123]
   
3. [124]
   
4. [125]
   

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [127]

Comments:
Since October, I've been dealing with this IP user rewording the opening paragraph on Hellraiser (2022 film), and later overriding the reliable source I provided. I don't know why they've kept on coming back and specifically reverting my own edits, no matter what I do. Additonally, the IP user has never responded to their talk pages, and has been ignoring any warnings they've recieved. As of recently, they've reverted my edits exactly three times within 24 hours. I attempted to do a semi-protection request on the article to stop this edit war, but to no avail. Their IP always changes, too.

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP editor reverts a lot but does not discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Hopefully, this will stop the IP user from reverting my edits without discussing it with me. Edwordo13 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: University of Science and Technology (Yemen) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alwardamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [128]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [129]
2. [130]
3. [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on the talkpage

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [132]

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

Comments:
Blocked indefinitely as a promotional-only account due to admitted employment by article subject and editing on its behalf. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: Klete Keller (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: before last revert
Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. [136]
5. [137] completely disregarded Secretname101 hard work on lead
   

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [140] [141] [142]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
title=User_talk:Wes_sideman&diff=1126897476&oldid=1126495563#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion
Comments: in addition to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1127118124#Wes_Sideman_Abuse_of_Power Ironically, in a completely unrelated matter, Please be informed that wes sideman is again causing problems and edit warring another article about Klete Keller. (@Wes sideman: You need to stop now. When you point a finger at another, you point four at yourself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)) - It seems to be a pattern. He was warned by another admin @Deepfriedokra: and he recommended to block him (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&diff=next&oldid=1120943837) , As the previous complaint here states he falsified information to his liking and monitors and harasses. As he did with the Chad Johnson page, he becomes obsessed and does not want any remotely good press, even edit warring over the simple order in the lead of Klete Keller's impressive USA Olympic gold medal accomplishments BEFORE his minor participation in Jan 6. Another respected editor (SecretName101) clearly stated her case of the correct order in which the lead should be: "This being said, as far as the lead sentence, it seems pretty clear to me that it should mention that he is a swimmer first, then that he committed a crime. SecretName101 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)" --But he caviled into getting his way and reverted it AGAIN without any input from secretname101. Secretname101 still does not feel the lead is correct, and for good reason. sideman "acts" like he's a moderator/admin and that's why the person who reported wes sideman on admin EdJohnstons talk page was confused. Thank You. 170.55.61.26 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [143]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146]
4. [147]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [150]

Comments:

This user is edit warring on other pages as well. Ignores editors objections to his edits. Magherbin (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Partially blocked along with Limegreencoral (talk · contribs). Salvio 23:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jawid Safi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 00:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128974662 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
3. 23:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128973398 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
4. 23:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128973139 by LilianaUwU (talk)"
5. 23:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128972577 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
6. 23:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128972269 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
7. 23:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128971541 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
8. 23:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128971033 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
9. 23:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1128969984 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
10. 23:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "add image"
11. 22:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC) "Restore vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC) "Reverted edits by NoToFakeEdit (talk) to last version by LilianaUwU"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Their team want to make wikis under another persons name, this is Hijack articles. You revert the Jawid Safi article to MehrabNabi edit version (Just chek the username who edit that version)!!!!!! Who is another fake person and you just deleted his article 30 minutes ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrab_Hossain_(Mehrab_Naabi) Please chek the article dates! on 15 december they try to hijack this article and change the name of Jawad Safi to javad safaee: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi&action=history&offset=20221210013727%7C1126568275 The true version is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi&oldid=97918824 They are meddelin team (as their username), if you search medellin and javad safaee in youtube, you can find they are SAME, this fake news website is for them: https://forbes.zone/2021/01/afghan-iranian-musician-and-athlete-left-the-cricket-team/ and they write these news for wikipedia articles as sources, you can chek the WHOIS of this website. Jawid safi is just and only Jawid safi, he dont have another nickname like javad safaee, please edit the article at this true version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi&oldid=979188247 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoToFakeEdit (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours from editing the article by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: Wankel engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wisdom-inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1127477870 (15 December 2022, 00:22)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1127477870/1128185377, 18 December 2022, 22:52
2. Special:Diff/1127477870/1128349515, 19 December 2022, 18:46
3. Special:Diff/1127477870/1128894592, 22 December 2022, 15:45
4. Special:Diff/1127477870/1128977269, 23 December 2022, 01:19

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1128355042, 19 December 2022 19:25, after the second revert; (rather me asking the editor to join the talk page instead of making disruptive edits; he responded with the promotion of the conspiracy theory that Diesel didn't invent the Diesel engine[151])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1128088802/1128329415, 19 December 2022, 16:33, after the first revert

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1129063506

Comments:

A week ago I began making edits to the

On 18 December, User:Wisom-inc reverted my previous edits with a weird reason: "Reverted predoninately POVs".[152] This didn't make a lot of sense to me (since I had removed POVs, and every addition I make is well referenced with good secondary sources). So I reverted this[153] and began explaining my edits in detail on the talk page.[154] Anyone may challenge unreferenced material, and that's what I have done. Basically, what I'm saying is that Wikipedia should rely on reliable, secondary, scholary sources whenever possible, and it should not promote claims that are contradictory to these sources.

I asked Wisdom-inc to join the discussion at the talk page,Special:Diff/1128355042 which he responded to by promoting a conspiracy theory.[155]

Instead of joining the discussion at the talk page, the editor started reverting again[156] and began making disruptive edits on the talk page; he promoted yet another conspiracy theory that I am a "crackpot" and "nut job" on Youtube.[157] This is obviously against

I dislike NPA editing which is why – as a de-ecsalating measure – I decided to just ignore this, and after making some additional edits (mainly adding additional sources), Wisdom-inc again introduced all of the unreferenced material that I had previously removed.[158] So I again deleted the unreferenced content, now with a very clear edit summary: "Stop adding poorly written, unrefenrenced, and outright false content to the article. I have explained why I made these edits and there is absolutely no reason for reintroducing this content, especially when it is known that this is contradictory to known reliable sources"[159] and began making additional edits to the article (mainly citing additional sources and removing misleading content).[160]

Earlier this morning, this was again reverted by said editor with the exact same meaningless reason as before.[161] While I think that this is an obvious violation of Wikipedia's

There's also been other edits that I find very concerning, for instance these edits[162][163] which Wisdom-inc uses to promote the theory that "Japan is moving to a hydrogen society", and that "Just about all the negative aspects of the engine have been solved", which is contradictory to all reliable sources that discuss the Wankel engine. He also made very concerning edits to the Diesel engine article talk page,[164] which he uses to promote the conspiracy theory that the Diesel engine was invented by Akroyd Stuart. The editor's talk page also reveals that this is not the first time that he's been making disruptive edits.[165] Frankly, this editor needs to be stopped. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Post Scriptum: I have briefly browsed through this editor's editing history and the edit-warring pattern can be found in several other articles that he has edited…[166][167][168] There's also been a previous discussion here at ANI.[169] --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I spent a number weeks restructuring the Wankel engine article and also giving easier to understand explanations as appropriate. There was still a lot of work to do to eliminate duplicated explanations scattered in sections. Johannes Maximilian stripped away, disruptively, huge parts of the Wankel Engine article with mainly POV. He even has outdated POV references. He added no value whatsoever.

His comment on the Diesel engine vs Akroyd is nonsense, as "facts" prove the Akroyd superseded the Diesel by a number of years. I mentioned this in the Diesel Talk page, not in the Diesel article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The speculation about certain YouTube users is nonsense and speaks for itself; it doesn't need repeating. Regarding the article: I removed unreferenced sections or sections which cited sources that failed to verify the article's claims. I have also made additions to the article, for which I used a variety of books, of which I have always used the latest editions, (e. g., footnotes 18–26[170]), and I have even checked the Dubbel's 26th edition (from 2019) against its 14th edition (from 1981) to see whether or not the part describing Wankel engines has had major changes since then (and there weren't any significant changes). Wisdom-inc has not cited any sources at all! What he mentions in his 13:18 comment (""facts" prove the Akroyd superseded the Diesel by a number of years") is a conspiracy theory that (in a different context though) is described by reliable sources as "falsification of history",^[1] i. e., this is not my personal opinion or POV, but what reliable sources say about this. This is a perfect illustration of why the reported editor's behaviour is so problematic and causing huge damage to Wikipedia. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2022 Indianapolis Colts–Minnesota Vikings game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PeeJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [171]

• Please Note that the article is about a recent sporting event, so there have been several other constructive edits in addition to the subject edit-warring.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [172]
2. [173]
3. [174]
4. [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [176].

• Within two minutes, PeeJay reverted this edit with the comment "Don't template the regulars."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [177].

• PeeJay had a somewhat uncivil response.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [178]

• Should be noted that PeeJay removed this warning from his talk page with the comment "rvv" (revert vandalism)

Comments:

PeeJay has violated the three-revert rule as shown by the diffs above. These reverts all have to do with semantics and language of the pages, despite multiple other users disgreeing with him. For example, two of the reverts listed had to do with changing "the Vikings" to "the hosts" when it is not obvious that the Vikings were hosting the game (for example, to a reader who is only looking at the game summary section). Also, language involving the Vikings needing a win or a tie to clinch the division title (while PeeJay insists on the less straightforward "needed to avoid defeat" language rather than needed to win or tie, while baselessly accusing me of being

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a minor participant in this edit war, having made one revert during this time [179] and a partial revert [180] (and a self-revert that would not count toward edit warring). PeeJay has also made a few other reverts during this time that I consider constructive and that do not count toward the 3RR.

Also should be noted that PeeJay has a long history of edit warring. Frank Anchor 18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This is unnecessary escalation. The content of the article is under discussion on the talk page, and Frank's assessment of my responses has been grossly exaggerated. I'm happy to discuss the content, but it's hard to do so when instead of continuing the discussion they started, other editors would prefer to go straight to 3RR. I have no particular attachment to my own contributions, but when the alternative offered is inferior (at least in the opinion of this professional sports writer), there's no reason to stick with it. – PeeJay 18:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not go straight to 3RR, as evidenced by the reminder template on PeeJay's talk page and the discussion I opened on the article talk page, both of which were dismissed by PeeJay as shown on the above diff links. Frank Anchor 18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Standard practice is to interpret the deletion of talk page messages as acknowledgement. Didn’t you know that? – PeeJay 19:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the notices is obviously fine, but PeeJay, "we're discussing" is not really a sufficient reason to breach 3RR, whatever the merits of the language. I promise the site will survive even if it has some subpar verbiage on it from time to time! Happy Holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I never said there was an issue with PeeJay deleting the notices on his talk page. That is one accepted practice to show acknowledgement. However, PeeJay falsely claimed that I went "straight to 3RR," while I was attempting to refute that claim by showing I (a) warned him with the standard edit-war template and (b) posted in the talk page attempting to discuss rather than continue edit warring, but PeeJay responded with an uncivil response that had a tone of "My version is better than yours because I get paid to write sports content" and then added a baseless accusation of me being vindictive for suggesting "need to win or tie" as an alternative to "need to avoid defeat" Frank Anchor 20:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

(

tendentious tendency one sees throughout his edit history, is hardly adequate to make that claim.

All the same, I have limited the block to 24 hours, the standard sanction for a 3RR violation, despite the editor's lengthy history of longer blocks, because while he violated the rule he is not the only one responsible for this situation. Not just he, but Frank and the other editors involved, could have availed themselves of other dispute resolution mechanisms for this.(Redacted)

I also find that PeeJay's edits were, on their own terms, entirely defensible choices of wording that Wikipedia's collaborative processes deserved a chance to work out without getting here, another reason I only went with the standard block. Daniel Case (talk

) 20:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BLANKING and I respectfully request that you strike that part of your comment. Frank Anchor

20:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Frank Anchor:  Done. However, two straight templated notices within 20 minutes with the same general theme ... can you really blame him for feeling harassed and thinking they were the same exact notice? Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. And I will keep that in mind for the future. Frank Anchor 23:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I appreciate your comments. However, I still find it wholly inappropriate that the process was allowed to escalate to a 3RR report so quickly. This is not the first interaction between myself and User:Frank Anchor, and the last one didn't go very well either, hence my defensive response on the talk page. But regardless of the tone of my response, that was no excuse for Frank to avoid the discussion in favour of continuing the edit war and filing a report here. I'll be honest with you, I'm the sort of editor who just likes to go about his business with a minimum of fuss. I make good contributions and I'll defend them vehemently, but I know my contributions aren't perfect and one thing no other editor could say about me is that I'm unwilling to attempt to reach a compromise. That was not allowed to happen before this report was filed, and I find that quite distateful. – PeeJay 03:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@

the established exceptions, a strict liability situation, I do not believe an admin needs to wait for a response from the reported editor (Similarly with situations where an editor has been reverting at least once a day for several days without really discussing).

Perhaps there should be some requirement that some time be allowed to lapse from the notification in less clear cases, or that an editor wait some time after the last revert (I have had to tell people that what they thought was the fourth revert was actually the third, since the first one was the original edit and not a revert). But that's better taken up at the talk page. Daniel Case (talk

) 19:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks again for being fair minded about things. – PeeJay 21:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for continuing to

beat a dead horse, but to I felt I had to respond in order to prevent this from being a one-sided discussion. I reasonably considered PeeJay’s blanking of the page as acknowledgment of the template, and his uncivil edit summary “don’t template the regulars,” along with his comment on the article talk page “Which of us in here is actually someone who gets paid to write sports content?” to mean that he had no interest in discussing rather than continuing to revert. I apologize if I got that wrong. Frank Anchor

23:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

When I said “don't template the regulars”, I was quoting

Wikipedia policy. Sorry if that got lost in the mix. – PeeJay

12:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I was unaware this policy existed. Thanks for sharing! Frank Anchor 13:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually an

policy. - David Biddulph (talk

) 13:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair distinction, although the fact that it is in the WP namespace suggests a level of legitimacy not shared by its sister essay "Template the regulars". – PeeJay 16:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)