Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Systematic reverting to own preferred version, this version evolving with time (documented below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Start at 09:07, 10 August 2022

1st series of reverts (continuous)

[1] (Revert of a photograph I added 2 days before [2]
[3] (Revert of a new sourced sentence from 3 hours before [4]) ES: "removing shameless Hindu nationalist anti-Islamic promotion."
[5] (Revert of images added 2 days before [6]) ES: "please don't replace these images with ugly cutouts to make some dubious point."
[7] (Revert of text added 2 days before [8]) ES: "removing silly promotion; no text please, especially not one promoting your monumental cottage industry adn where did the satvahana 24 spoked go?"

2nd series of reverts (continuous)

[9] (Revert of image size change from 10 minutes before [10]. Tag: Manual revert) ES: "please don't play this silly game"
[11] (Revert of text added 15 minutes before [12])

3rd series of reverts (continuous)

[13] [14] (Revert of new text and image added 1 hour before [15]) ES: "Please don't dicker around with the pictures such a blatant fashion and then go to ANI crying 3RR"

4th revert

[16] (Revert of text with reference and quote added 10 minutes before [17], Tag: Reverted) ES: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): I will revert this because this is blatant anti-Islamism. I know you are baiting me to take me to ANI cring 3RR. Please dont play with fire. You are unable to understand his irony and are implicating a recently deceased art historian your islamophobia. Utterly shameful."

End at 15:32, 10 August 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

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

Comments:

Systematic reverts of my contributions and unrelenting battleground mentality, major WP:OWN. Utterly disrespectful of collaborative editing:

1) "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly" [21]

2) " "Let us keep the article in its current state at the time of this post", a state in which "all have been added by me (...) and all have been paraphrased by me" [22]

3) "Here is an article that I have written from start to finish. You have done nothing user:Patiliputra but be disruptive." [23]

Outrageous and abusive edit summaries. Irrational, mistaken arguments and major abusive language on the Talk Page of the article [24]. Fowler&fowler apparently thinks he is above Wikipedia rules and civility standards. Something has to be done. Fowler&fowler was already Warned 2 times previously for similar behaviour [25] (by Admin User:EdJohnston) and [26], to no avail. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@पाटलिपुत्र: I'm not much concerned about the warning from 2021, but the warning from last month is I think relevant. It took me a while to figure out, but the warning was given by Bishonen, not by EdJohnston. F&f in one of their edit summaries refers to User:Patiliputra; do you know to whom they're referring (there is no such user)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: "Pataliputra" is the reading of my Hindi user name (User:पाटलिपुत्र) पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fowler&fowler

I have just finished rewriting Darjeeling and received this appreciation from some FAR regulars. The article will appear as TFA on India's independence day on 15th August. I collaborated there with the nominator of the original FA back in 2006. There was never any issue over the more than 1100 edits I made in the last several months.

This is not my first encounter with user:Pat, or पाटलिपुत्र—which I was told was the Sanskrit spelling of Patliputra.

They have engaged in WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA, and persisted despite my revert in order to bait me.

The last time user:Pat and I had such an encounter was in August 2020, on the talk India page when user:Pat had engaged in unapologetic Xenophobia. India is another FA that I had revised in plain sight of dozens, including administrators over a three-months period before its TFA on Gandhi's 150 birthday on October 2 2019. A year later, in a thread begun by a a Hindu-nationalist-POV promoting editor who is now ARBIPA topic banned (but to whom I still showed empathy in that link), user:Pat objected to a picture of a church and proposed something Hindu should replace it; they objected to a picture of a mosque, and proposed something Hindu should replace it and then they objected to a picture of our son who had turned 30 just then and whose pictures modeling the Kurta had been in Wikipedia since 2007 when he was a teenager, and proposed that someone who is "an actual Indian" should replace him, and guess who the proposed candidates were? All three Hindus. (Hmm. I thought India was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society; I wrote the India FA's lead which proclaims it) I immediately received emails from administrators to withdraw the picture, that it was obvious instance of baiting me to take a misstep, and that in viciously Hindu nationalist India of today, you don't know what it might lead to. So I took the picture out.

This time they have engaged in gratuitous WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA—low-grade it might have been, but it was unmistakeable in the manner in which it was accomplshede—by selectively picking a sentence from a recent book that says many things over many pages in many shades of nuance, and then misinterpreting it. Again the MO is the same: bait someone by speaking politely, making edits that technically don't fall under reverts but have the same effect, quote rules and regulations loftily and sanctimoniously, but edge more and more into forms of hatred that all principles of Wikipedia anathematize, and wait for your opponent to blow up.

The article is Lion Capital of Ashoka, which was in this state of disrepair before I began to edit it on July 14, 2022. I have turned it into this state of improvement as of early this morning when took out the "in use." Over 90% of the text, the paraphrasing, and the turns of phrase, are mine. Over 90% of the sources are the ones I have added.

What is user:Pat's MO? They appear immediately after and introduce the same pseudo-Hindu-nationalist or Hindu-sub nationalist twists (i.e favoring the region Bihar and its ancient glory in which their avatar name Patliputra lies) They do so politely and wait for me to revert their edits. When I do, they get their edits, or a second-cousin third-removed of their edit back in, and wait for me to take a misstep. I am aware of this of course; I noted it in my edit summary yesterday.

First they restored to full-size an image whose increased dimension makes the infobox stick half-way through section 1. I had made a special note of it in the previous edits.
To the sentence "The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried." they [added the old Hindu nationalist excuse, "or may have been overthrown by Muslim invaders in the 10-12th century CE." edit in the lead, when there was no mention of it anywhere else in the article; they cited it, moreover, when there are no citations in the lead. Worse yet, they maligned a fine recently decease art historian at the the University of Minnesota, Frederick Asher, by including them by implication in this unholy obsession.
When I reverted them, they inserted the edit back in with this poor paraphrase of Rick Asher from page 74.

Why am I sure this is Hindu-nationalist POV promotion and baiting besides? Because Asher says many things, with great nuance throughout the book. On page 3 (yes right in the beginning) he says,
"Something happened that brought premodern construction at Sarnath to an end after the twelfth century and, in all probability, caused the resident monks to desert the monastery. That was about the same time that other monasteries in India seem to have been abandoned. Generally, the blame is placed on invaders, almost invariably identified by their religion, Islam, rather than their geographic or cultural identity, Afghans. But Sarnath may have also suffered devastation by Hindus, not just by invading Afghan armies. An intriguing explanation for this, and also for possible interruptions in the long life of the site, is offered by Giovanni Verardi and, at greater length, by Federica Barba in an appendix to Verardi’s book.19 They make a strong case, based on both literature and archaeology, that Brahmanical hostility toward Buddhists resulted in the destruction of Sarnath and other sites.
And then he goes on to mention many other explanations, including Muslim.
So what is the bottom line here? If the powers-that-be want to block me or permanently ban me, that is their prerogative, but I refuse to brook forms of hatred, blatant or insouciant, on Wikipedia, against any religion, gender, or form of life. I have warned user:Pat numerous times to stop this promotion, and that I will take them to AN asking for a topic ban, at the very least from the mainstream India-related articles, but as it is, I am the one who is being dragged to AN/I in carefully planned baiting trips. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please do not clog this section with long posts. Do so, in whatever way you want in the sections below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added later: As I said, to an editor on the article's talk page, "I'm not proud of my long replies. And certainly in any future vote I'll be pithy. All I can say in defense is that this had been going on for a long time before the RfC. I was being asked again and again to point out the problems with the sources. I responded several times that it property belonged to RS/N. I was told: RS/N requires exhaustive and inconclusive discussion on the talk page first. In the end, out of frustration, I opened: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#Mauryan_Art_(unpublished,_1952)_and_Flickr_picture. The answer by SamuelRiv (very articulate fellow; made me a little jealous) was good enough for me, but the exchange there kept being prolonged. Eventually they posted on the article's talk page, and told my interlocutor,

'@पाटलिपुत्र: none of your photo-style "reconstitutions" are appropriate for WP, including the one you did of Sanchi. The Sanchi capital has more than enough surviving structure that the reader can infer the size and composition of the crowning wheel, in my opinion. Also, all such images need to be labeled as "illustrations" or "photoillustrations" (there might be a new term, but those are the terms I learned) -- the Commons "retouched" template is not sufficient, nor is the non-standard term "reconstitution". ...SamuelRiv (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I jumped for joy, thinking it was the end. But the next thing I knew, this RfC began, and I groaned."

Proposal for the closer/admins

If you feel I have been overly rude to other editors and would like to teach me an object lesson, please block me for the amount of time you think is appropriate.
If you feel I have violated 3RR (which I never keep track of) and need punishing, please add on that punishment as well. I'm a big boy, I can take it. However, please impose the blocks after the Darjeeling TFA on 15 August.
However, if you want to this conflict between user:Pat and me to end, please impose a no fault two way interaction ban on us. (The conflict has been going for three years from the time I posted on Talk:Neolithic/Archive_1#PLOS_citation_and_image_spamming Despite Johnbod, Drmies, and AD Monroe III generally agreeing with me, there was no budging my interlocutor from copying and pasting text from PLOS journals.) We belong to vastly different gene-pools of ideologies, outlooks, and worldviews, and I don't see any hope for resolution.

I know AN is the proper venue for this proposal, but I am exhausted. I don't have the time nor the patience for further back-and-forth. Please humor me this once. Please. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a real-time example.

I may not know all the WP rules, or have them down to a T, but there is a certain form of honesty I abide by. It includes not continuously changing an initial RfC statement long after many editors have replied to it and already weighed in with a vote.

I woke up this morning to view the nominator having done just that. When I attempted to refactor the addition, a 17th reference, I became stuck as there was no new signature of the nominator with a time stamp with which to post the addition at the end. In this time the nominator had reverted me. When I attempted to use that time stamp and signature to refactor that addition at the end, they still reverted me. In the end I have posted this comment at the end, which shows that the nominator has been less than forthcoming in what the source says. In my way of thinking, this is a form of dishonesty. Perhaps I get more riled up about these things than others do, but if I don't intervene unencyclopedic information will go into Wikipedia. What is the best solution here? I am no longer sure. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk)

1) For the record, I have no interest at all in promoting "Hindu nationalism" (the fact that I chose a user name after an ancient Indian city, पाटलिपुत्र-Pataliputra is irrelevant), and have no inclination whatsoever towards "Islamophobia" (here invoked repeatedly and grandiloquently simply because I quoted and paraphrased closely a reliable source (Asher 2020, p.74) on what "writers generally assume" to be the cause of the destruction of the Lion Capital of Ashoka [27], in light of the well-known and not so peaceful Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. See Asher 2020, p.11 for specifics on major Islamic destructions at Sarnath, especially under Qutb-ud-din Aibek in 1193. Of course, Hindus may also have participated to the decline, especially in the form of temple conversions under the Gahadavala dynasty, per Asher).

2) The bottom line is that User:Fowler&fowler is a rather competent content creator, but a highly WP:OWN one (see User:Johnbod's mention of "F&F's imperial claims of ownership" [28]) with a battleground mentality, wielding constant disruption (see User:Snow Rise's comment to him: "looking at the conduct in this thread, I have to say that yours is looking like the much, much more WP:Disruptive conduct at the moment." [29]), who will systematically vilify ("You know nothing about Indian history. Nothing" [30], "You have no idea at all how much I despise your POV." [31]), delete and revert (overt breaches of 3RR) the contents of any perceived opponent until he can contentedly brag that "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly" [32][33][34] or "I have rewritten this article, rewritten its every word, found its every reference." [35]. If interested, just look at the level of verbal abuse other editors have to endure everyday when dealing with him [36] (and it is just one example among many...), to be contrasted with the "rigorously cold civility" he reluctantly acknowledges in me [37].

3) I know there is not much I can do about it, but I don't mind lengthy Talk Page discussions and receiving imput from other users to debate a point [38], although this process is rendered rather ineffectual since Fowler&fowler is not actually interested in genuine exchanges on Talk Pages ("I hadn't noticed that because I don't read your data dumps." [39]). At least I would like basic Wikipedia rules to be rigorously upheld in the process: no verbal abuse or personal attacks, and no edit-warring (with particular respect for the 3RR rule). If, through Administrator intervention, Fowler&fowler can be made to respect these basic tenets of collaborative editing, the editorial environment would be much better for everyone. After several administrative warnings already [40][41] I believe a symbolic, temporary block is in order at this point, so that Fowler&fowler receives the message that editing should be civil and collaborative, and that refraining from edit-warring and observing the 3RR rule is a red line that has to be respected on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

user:Pat, I've been around on WP for 16 years. I have maintained the FA India for just as long. I have collaborated with hundreds of editors, not just only India (where I have collaborated with dozens of people including many administrators), but on FAC, FAR, and lord knows what else. You have the nerve to say you are not racist (when you say, "An actual Indian," thereby implying that someone who does not look Indian does not have the right to model Indian clothes, especially for a Wikipedia article. No one has as yet in the 15 years since produced better examples at Kurta. Ten years ago you would have been banned from WP for such racism. I am being gentle with you by calling you xenophobic. It is the same as your other remarks here

You object to a picture of a mosque that has been in the FA India since 2004, with the comment,

"The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."

You object to a WP:FP of a church with the remark, "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."

What else is Hindu nationalism and majoritarianism? Admin Vanamonde93 who replied to you later in that thread said pretty clearly, "The argument that "society" and "religion" ought not to be illustrated with images of Islam or Christianity is the sort of sectarian nonsense that I would almost recommend sanctions for."

I let you off lightly that time and a few times since warning you that I would take you to AN for a topic ban, but never actually did. But you don't seem to listen. You are religion baiting in your edits, some the worst kind I have seen on my 16 years on WP. The worst. You think it is not obvious that you appear on a page that you have edited ten times in the last ten years, and then suddenly begin to hover over it in hundreds of little edits soon after I appear? How strange is that? I just collaborated with user:Dwaipayanc another WP veteran on Darjeeling and received this barnstar from them. There are a handful of people on Wikipedia, all Hindu nationalist warriors user:Highpeaks35 (now permabanned), user:LearnIndology (now topic banned) with whom I have experienced such unpleasantness as I have with you. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are looking to deny that you only occasionally edited that article, here is your own disclaimer: "I have only contributed to this article in a rather patchy fashion, most of the content has never been my own. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)" So why have you been hovering after I appeared? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I have nothing personal against you, but as long as you do prolific original research on images, cutting out snippets from here, pasting them there, endlessly, ever and anon, to overburden pages with boosterism of Hindu nationalism or Hindu sub-nationalism, not to mention baiting of Islam, Christianity, you will find an implacable foe in me. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A new Wikipedia normal seems to be appearing. I'm seeing it on other pages. It proceeds in these steps. 1) Bone up on the basic rules so you can quote them. 2) Introduce POV edits in mainstream pages. 3) Concurrently, start a talk page discussion. Find a long list of fringe sources that support your edits and rigorously dump the same in each reply without really saying anything. 4) When your edit is reverted do not revert, but make a new edit that has 3/4 of your original POV combined with 1/4 of some other POV 5) When that gets reverted, make a new edit with 1/2 your original POV and 1/2 of some new POV content. Start also a 3RR clock now for your opponent. ... Continue in this fashion until you think you can start ANI discussions.

The letter of the law will prevail. The spirit of the law will take a severe beating. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That user:Pat is a serial abuser of fringe sources is not just my observation, it is that of others as well. Here is what Ms Sarah Welch said in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/पाटलिपुत्र/Archive about user:Pat and their sockpuppet: " both have used inscriptions and artwork to create POV-y history in a range of articles, pushing fringe and discredited theories". That was in 2017. And I said above on 11 August 2022, "prolific original research on images, cutting out snippets from here, pasting them there, endlessly, ever and anon, to overburden pages with boosterism of Hindu nationalism or Hindu sub-nationalism, not to mention baiting of Islam, Christianity." On the other hand the last time I was blocked was in 2008 for an hour and the admin said, "Not all Fowler's fault." So, why is it that user:Pat is the first (a few weeks ago) and second (now) to bring me to ANI? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short summary reply to Fowler&fowler

@Fowler&fowler: I am afraid this litany is all far-fetched and totally irrelevant to the matter at hand: I too could list, in a period of 5 years, pages of instances of mistakes, editorial conflicts, and inappropriate behaviour on your part (which I think a few Administrators are well aware of). The matter here is only related to your daily editorial behaviour: edit-warring, breach of the 3RR rule, in addition to the constant incivility and verbal abuse (documented above, in just a single article). We can discuss about sources whenever your want (if at least you actually use Talk pages for discussion rather than just vilifying: cf "I hadn't noticed that because I don't read your data dumps." [42]) The point of this thread is simply that every interaction on Wikipedia has to be made in a civil manner, without personal attacks, without edit-warring and without repeatedly breaching the 3RR rule. At Wikipedia too the Law is the Law, that's all, nobody is above it, and nothing can justify constant abusive language against other editors and wanton editorial methods... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But values are above the laws instituted to uphold them. By making fringe edits, you are violate WP values of reliability and neutrality. In other words, there are plenty loopholes in the law to be exploited (such as #4 in my new rulebook above). They can be couched in the most respectful edit summaries. Whatever I do, reliability and neutrality are never violated. Whatever you do, at least on mainstream South Asia-related topics where are interaction has usually taken place, you almost always violate reliability and neutrality. I am talking about the ladder that you are damaging disastrously. You are accusing me of not polishing the rungs of the ladder enough when I set it right. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have given the facts to the best of my ability, and I do not intend to respond further until closure by User:Bbb23.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for this post, you are only confirming the new POV-pushing pattern I have seen: 1) Bone up on Wikipedia rules and quote them compulsively even to old hands 2) Clog the talk page with long lists of fringe sources in every reply of yours, i.e. data dumps. ... Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User Pat has accused me of OWNERSHIP on account of my "bragging" about having written it, the page statistics of the article says it all.

Authorship attribution

Rank Username Characters Percentage

1 Fowler&fowler 27,215 84.3%

2 पाटलिपुत्र 2,916 9%

Their own disclaimer for bearing any responsibility for the pathetic state the article was in when I began to edit it on July 14, was that they had only patchily edited it. But since I began to edit it, they have done nothing but edit the article or the talk page. Just astounding. See here. What encyclopedic content have they created? Nothing as far as I can tell. On the other hand, I seem to have done quite a few other things. See here Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer: Please examine: Talk:Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka#A_note_for_the_closer and user:Pat's "Temporary tally" above it. Although the note is for a different closer, do you see the kinds of subtle shifts of narrative between below and above? Similar shifts, but more POV-ridden, accompany the edits that people such as I have to counter. If we make a misstep, or become frustrated, the lord above help us. It is relentless. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally? Although F&F's comment above is again irrelevant to the subject at hand (3RR), please note that Fowler&fowler's alternative characterizations of the opinions of others in the linked RfC (Talk:Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka#A_note_for_the_closer) have already been strongly rebutted by the interested party: see User:Johnbod's "F&F has been blatently misrepresenting my comments" [43], accompanied by a description of F&F's recurrent and problematic conflict-ridden approach in several other articles such as Talk:Priest-King_(sculpture), Talk:Buddha_Preaching_his_First_Sermon_(Sarnath), and Talk:Pashupati seal. At the very least a strong message has to be sent that Fowler&fowler's systematic edit-warring and repetitive breach of 3RR are not acceptable editorial behaviour. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Closer/Admins: Please see my proposal added to my statement above. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tytygh55 reported by User:gsblo (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [1102763958]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1104030061
1103864501

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1104170043

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1104171962

Comments:

This user is inventing reasons for undoing my contributions on the "Apple Wallet" wiki page. The first undo was claimed as an “unnecessary section” with no discussion. The second undo, in less than 24 hours, was claimed because my contribution “lacks citations”. Before I restored (undo'ed the user's undo) my contributions I double checked each time to make sure my contributions were not against Wikipedia's policies.

I also noticed that in the article's Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apple_Wallet#%22Common_Wallet_Passes%22_should_not_be_on_this_page), I have not been able to substantiate the user's claims on Wikipedia content policy (bias, all or none required).

Upon further investigation, I noticed that this user appears to have a history of unconstructive editing going back to the account's creation in 2016, if I refer to the history of this user's Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tytygh55&action=history. Given the number of unconstructive editing, editing without consensus, and vandalism reports, I am bringing this user's activity and behavior to your attention. Gsblo (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have only provided evidence of two reverts. This, doesn't really qualify as edit warring and certainly won't lead to any admin action. You also appear to have accused the user of vandalism, which this is not. I suggest you discuss with the user to resolve you content dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. all content on Wikipedia must be cited. Uncited content can be removed by any user anytime. I have added an uncited section tag to the disputed content.Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:4me689 reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: No action)

User being reported: 4me689 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104163889 by 2806:105E:14:DAD2:7DAF:BACB:3005:3A57 (talk)"
04:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104162214 by Polyamorph (talk)"
02:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104156383 by 2806:105E:14:DAD2:E54D:A95F:7D1:DDF8 (talk) then go to talk section"
00:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104143612 by 2806:105E:14:DAD2:E54D:A95F:7D1:DDF8 (talk) can we open our talk page section to talk about this"
23:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "come on stop changing it"
19:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1104022787 by Stephen (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:

User reverted multiple editors to include their favoured image. User continued reverting on the page after opposing views were expressed on the article talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action, since the user agreed to stop reverting the article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lllll0tss7 reported by User:GianluSport (Result: Declined – malformed report)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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:

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just requested semi-protection, take a look at 2022 European Championships, I think you could just hand both of em a straight timeout without a new report. Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now semiprotected three days by User:Ymblanter. There is some dispute about medal totals. (See Talk:2022 European Championships#Rowing silver Germany's medal). I'm leaving a note for User:Lllll0tss7 that they may be blocked if they revert again, unless they have received a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally fully protected this article for three days earlier today. Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:NewThere reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Sock blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [52]

Comments:
Already put sources on article's talk page and asked for the user to justify the reason they consider my sources as unreliable, which they never did. NewThere (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources the user added to the talk page after the fourth revert are not reliable and would never pass a RS evaluation. In addition, this edit repeats the pattern of edits of blocked users on that article. Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:OVERLINK, countries are not linked. That's why I reverted this edit. Plus, WP:BANREVERT says Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor. This specific edit was subsequently right, per the guideline Wikipedia sets. NewThere (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid for a user with 60 edits you have too much knowledge of the policies and too little desire to comply with them. Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere a guideline saying only users with a minimum edit of ... are bound to know the policies of Wikipedia? NewThere (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's called WP:CIR. Ignorance is not an excuse, especially when you've been warned on your talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the other user which was repeatedly asked to justify about the verifiability of my sources and they just referred generally, without any clear evidence or linked guidelines, like I did. NewThere (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't ymblanter or anyone else's job to spoonfeed you step by step why a source isn't reliable. The idea that some random blog or sites like famousbirthdays can be used is ridiculous and I think you should probably READ what peoples edit summaries say and also WP:RS. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were the one doubting my sources though, thus their responsibility to justify their claims. Plus, I didn't only provide famousbirthdays as you can clearly see. NewThere (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, when someone tells you xyz isn't a reliable source, they don't need to spoon feed you why. Go read WP:RS and WP:RSN. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, no need to present it as a general matter of fact. NewThere (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sources aren't reliable so the point is moot. You've now got at least 2 experienced editors explaining why. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thought you wouldn't be able to "spoonfeed" me, per your above sayings. Thanks for the disposability. NewThere (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the sock (LTA).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chimney Sweepa reported by User:Smartse (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

This user has been edit warring for weeks to include what could be a phishing link to the article, including 4 reverts today. If I wasn't involved, I'd probably indef, but a long or indef block on Alphabay would have the same effect. JimmenyCricketttt is a blatant sock too (currently blocked by Tamzin for 7 days). SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed, with the caveat that they may be unblocked if they leave this article alone. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:反撥 reported by User:Hobomok (Result: Indeffed)

Previous version reverted to: [diff]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff at User's talk page

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

Comments:
User continues to add information to lead in violation of WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:MOSLEAD, and WP:OR despite multiple reversions by two editors. As this is a new user, I attempted to reach out to them at their own talk page rather than the article in question, but I was met with user refusal to familiarize themselves with relevant policy. In the meantime, Nettless (talk · contribs) also attempted to discuss with this user, although they continued to edit war.Hobomok (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely under WP:NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indef doesn't mean forever, but they clearly have a mission for being here, and until an admin is convinced they get it, indef it is, as there is no period of time that is guaranteed to get the point across. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Au1001 reported by User:Suonii180 (Result: Blocked 24h for disruptive editing)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

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

Comments:
Incorrect formatting for years_active infobox parameter. I left links in my edit summary and on their talk page to Template:Infobox musical artist so the editor could see what formatting should be used, to WP:3RR to let them know about the three revert rule and asked them to take it to the talk page. The fourth revert was an IP address but it was soon after their last revert. I reverted a fourth time as the edit summary had an inappropriate personal attack and I began a discussion on the talk page with a notification to Au1001 and it was again reverted by the same IP address and I have left it at the current version. Suonii180 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing. On a pure EW standard, they didn't break 3RR, but their attitude more than made up for that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A00:A040:194:C4AF:14AF:E794:171E:E381 reported by User:YonasJH (Result: Range blocked two weeks)

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

[61]
[62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [68]

Comments:

I don't have reliable internet, so my request is delayed. YonasJH (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

/64 range blocked for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:AidepikiwIV reported by User:Aspects (Result: No violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[69] with no edit summary
[70] with no edit summary
[71] with no edit summary
[72] with no edit summary forty minutes after edit warring notice

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73] that was [74] that was removed forty minutes after edit warring notice.

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [75]

Comments:
This user has four times in the past month and a half removed a file from the character's infobox without an edit summary. They rarely use any edit summaries, so there is no way to know why the file should be removed. I have reverted each of these with edit summaries of "rv unexplained file deletion", which usually the other editor if they still feel it should be removed explains with an edit summary, talk page message or starting a WP:FFD. After leaving the edit warring notice, they reverted again without an edit summary and removed the warning. Without explaining their actions to other editors, it looks like this editor is WP:NOTHERE to work collaboratively with other editors. Aspects (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. This is not the right venue for this. If you want the user blocked as NOTHERE, use WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:RaySmall88 and Special:Contributions/204.16.94.194 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Both blocked 48h)

Page: Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RaySmall88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 204.16.94.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

IP adds sentence on pre-print study
IP reverts a revision of mine from 3 August 2022
IP adds ~~the same pre-print study~~ a citation to a criticism of an earlier paper by Turban, ~~but~~ and this time with text that is a BLP violation
After I revert the previous diff, the RaySmall88 account is created and restores the BLP violation
RaySmall88 restored the removed text after contributing below
RaySmall88 restores the removed text again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I tried to address this on the editor talk page, however RaySmall88 was created during this time.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notice to IP editor, Notice to RaySmall88

Comments:
This is a slightly weird filing, sorry for that. Also I recognise that this is not a 3RR issue, instead it is an edit war and scrutiny evasion issue. I have reason to believe the IP editor created RaySmall88 to avoid scrutiny and the 3RR limit. User RaySmall88 was created one minute after the edit that introduced the BLP violating text, and the account's first action was to restore it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The post is not a BLP issue. The post cites to Archives of Sexual Behavior, a peer reviewed article and it does not criticize personally. The cited article points to flaws in the methodology, wikipedia readers should be apprised that there are potential issues with the cited study. If this is a BLP violation, millions of other posts would have to come down. RaySmall88 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP issue is in how you were describing Turban. There is also another issue with the edit; the paper you cited was in response to 2019 paper by Turban and not the 2022 paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Em apple reported by User:HLGallon (Result: Blocked 48h)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Imphal&type=revision&diff=1104514375&oldid=1101737777]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Em_apple&oldid=1104517611

Comments:

User:Em Apple has repeatedly inserted tendentious edits, all designed to inflate the undue inportance of Korean involvement. The only references provided are tertiary Korean-langauge publications, which the user claims are the only sources available. User has made no attempt to discuss on the article's talk page. HLGallon (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new user should have been warned about their edit-warring. I have nonetheless blocked the user for 48h because they also edit-warred while logged out.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hey man im josh reported by User:Glordimes (Result: )

Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Hello, Administrators, I am reporting disruptive behavior on the article (Poaching in Mayotte) by the user ( Hey man im josh several times since its creation and despite reliable sources and does not take into account the remarks that have been made on several occasions, I think it is better to look at the Neutral point of view and (Paid-contribution disclosure if that is the case.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[Diff/1104078011]
[Diff/1104507735]
[Diff/1104520953]
[Diff/1104078006]

Glordimes (talk)

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:

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards