Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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

User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:WordSilent (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] (11:40, 16 May 2024)
2. [3] [4] [5] (16:04, 16 May 2024‎ - 16:05, 16 May 2024‎)
3. [6] (00:46, 17 May 2024‎)
4. [7] (18:14, 18 May 2024‎)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (none, it has been discussed on the article's talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:

There was a content dispute between me and the user as whether the Donald Tusk article should include pronunciation guide (see the article's talk page). As our discussion came to the stalemate, a WP:3O was requested to help settle down the content dispute. When the third opinion turned out to be unfavorable for the user, they continued to delete the pronunciation guide from the article.

They justify their reverts in a seemingly WP:OWN way as I have a feeling that because of you now the article looks bad and Right now the article is simply not what a proper, normal world leader's article should ever look like, in my opinion. The user appears to have no desire to solve the dispute constructively, but rather keep on pushing their changes so the article is formatted the way they like.

As far as I'm aware, it's not the first time the user has engaged in a dispute like this. Their similar disputes include those at Czech Republic (talk, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Lex Fridman (AN thread, user talk 1, user talk 2, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4), and a previous one at Donald Tusk (AN thread, talk, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3).

There is also an investigation open about whether the user is someone else's sock account. WordSilent (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Declined FG's most recent edit suggests they are trying to compromise. I think also that, barring any extremely egregious conduct, we should defer to the still-open SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Gajlsi reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: User (has already been) warned)

Page: Great Famine (Ireland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gajlsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff
2. Diff
3. Diff

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Diff

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

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

Comments:

Please note that there is a one-revert rule restriction applied to the page. Besides the warning that is linked above, the user should have known about it, considering that there is also an editnotice visible to anyone who has tried to edit the page. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Demetrios1993, the user has been informed with Special:Diff/1224420782 about the restrictions in this area after their last revert, and after their latest Wikipedia edit so far.

As described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions, formal "aware"ness about such restrictions is required before they can lead to a block or other sanction. And as described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics, the edit notice itself isn't sufficient to cause such awareness. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• The user has now been Warned; please re-report if they continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ToBeFree; I find this reasonable. By the way, I had already noticed that DrKay's warning was posted after Gajlsi's last revert, but I also wanted to show that the latter was given the opportunity to revert themselves. I reported the user only after almost a day had elapsed since their warning, and they still hadn't reverted themselves. To be fair, maybe they didn't read DrKay's warning in time to act; though, both the edit war and aforementioned warning occurred within a short span of time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Demetrios1993, I think requiring someone to revert and taking action simply because no further edits came from the account would be hard to justify as "preventative" (the user has stopped editing; anyone else can revert if needed). Also, in most other cases (not this one here, where a revert would just remove material), requiring someone to revert may require them to add something to an article. In that case, I personally believe that such a requirement would conflict with the Terms of Use: "You are legally responsible for your edits" doesn't work if people are forced to add content against their will. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2A01:CB14:11E1:400:E942:5C64:90DC:CF65 reported by User:NoWikiNoLife (Result: Blocked 1 year)

Page: Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 3x3 qualification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 3x3 qualification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A01:CB14:11E1:400:E942:5C64:90DC:CF65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
This non-login user keeps reverting the bracket (at the very bottom of the page), even though I have asked him not to. Can someone please do something about this user? Thanks.

• 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) 20:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly why Wikipedia is the way it is. Just like all other systems that slowly get destroyed by its own overbearing administration. Everything has to be done in a uniform way and following exact steps. Some things in life should be simple. I already used the template and provided the most important into. I have no idea what these 'Diffs' are and I don't care to learn. If I did, I would, and would then apply to be an admin myself. Admins are supposed to be helpful and work as mediators between common users and professionals. But in Wikipedia admins are often keyboard warriors who need 'great admiration' and want to be 'respected' just because they are Wikipedia admins. I don't care much for that. I reported a non-login user with a three-day history who is clearly vandalizing a page because they don't understand how brackets in sports works. If you can deal with them - great. And if you refuse to deal with the issue because I clicked on the wrong button in the process, then so be it. Maybe one day, upon reflection, you will realize how very ridiculous all of that is. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Police"

"Sir, someone's robbing a house near me and brutalizing the residents"

"OK, what's your location?"

"Sir, I reported a crime in progress. I have no idea what these 'addresses' are and I don't care to learn. You have my location from caller ID, figure it out. Good-bye!"

Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have provided both pages where vandalism occurred and in my comment mentioned the section in question is at the bottom of each page. I have also reported the ID of the perpetrator of this vandalism. I think that is sufficient to take action. The user has since also become abusive with his rude comments (using swear words), which is a further reason to a ban him.. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 year ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! NoWikiNoLife (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Thehamid reported by User:Goldenarrow9 (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Ajuran Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Stop edit warring you’re vandalising the page"
2. 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "His sources are not even genuine"
3. 19:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Stop edit warring you’re vandalising the page"
4. 19:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Blatant vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 20:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on Talk:Ajuran Sultanate."
3. 20:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ajuran Sultanate."
4. 20:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "/* May 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Ajuran established in the 13th century */ Reply"
2. 20:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Ajuran established in the 13th century */ Comment"
3. 20:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Ajuran established in the 13th century */ Reply"

Comments:

Heated argument over the reliability of certain sources. I have asked the user to undo their last edit as it violates 3RR. I had also requested for temporary page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week in the hope that the editor will not resume their disruption and personal attacks after expiration of the block. Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick action. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:94.73.32.9 reported by User:Fdom5997 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Chibcha language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.73.32.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User did not use talk page. Just kept reverting

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User did not use talk page. Just kept reverting

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User did not use talk page. Just kept reverting

Comments:

Hello Fdom5997, would you mind joining the discussions at Talk:Chibcha language? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Between us and User:94.73.32.9? Fdom5997 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Fdom5997, I'm not sure who "us" refers to as you haven't edited the talk page yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Yeah let’s just go to the talk page. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello user:ToBeFree. I disagree with the blocking, I have participated in the discussion page Talk:Chibcha_language#About_Phonology to express my arguments and show that the user Fdom5997 is the one who has vandalized the article. DavidElche (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello DavidElche, thank you very much for describing your concerns at Talk:Chibcha language, which is exactly where a consensus about this issue needs to be found. Fdom5997 can address your concerns there. I don't believe "vandalism" (intentional damage) was involved from either side; please avoid making such accusations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I should have written was "altered". DavidElche (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Cowabunga101 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Rebekah Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Cowabunga101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1224857749 by Err a Parrot (talk) You're the one who's undoing my changes. Besides, "informative" is not a noun so your "rationale" is invalid."
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC) to 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "New edits broke the sequence of events, referred to the FCHR letter to Jones as a "dismissal letter", a number of other problems, please see my talk page"
   2. 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Restored mention of insubordination"
3. 06:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Restored some of the previous wording. Also note the investigation was chiefly carried out by the OIG, the FCHR forwarded her complaint to the OIG. The previous version didn't explain what the FHCR was."
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) to 01:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 00:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1224545034 by Muboshgu (talk) Absolutely we do, everywhere. Check "Alex Jones", for instance. Also, before the recent changes, the wording was "she was fired (...) which she claimed was retaliation for (...)". We had this wording for about half a year, so I don't understand your reasoning here.."
   2. 01:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "2017 charge -> 2019 charge. And yes, the revenge porn charge was dropped, which is insane given that she admitted to sending the nudes herself (but supposedly only to the victim) and hosting the website, according to an affidavit which has been publicly accessible since at least early 2020. It also presents clear evidence tying her to the crime. The only explanation that comes to mind is that she sucked SA Jack Campbell off and he decided to let her go free. Nevertheless, if it's not notable, ok"
5. 00:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1224465535. You changed claimed to alleged (also the purportedly doesn't sound right). Neither "alleged" or "claimed" implies that she presented any evidence, but "alleged" sounds more elevated and serious. I think "claim" is more appropriate, given that her employer had valid and well-documented reasons to fire her, which she tried to deflect from by making unsubstantiated claims. As for the note - I said what I said."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Rebekah Jones */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. See User talk:Cowabunga101#Rebekah Jones, especially 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:KaiWoodBCB reported by User:Remsense (Result: Reporter blocked 24h)

Page: Russian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 00:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
2. 01:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "/* May 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Result in infobox */ Reply" — thread did not directly involve them, but was about the same subject.

Comments:

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kept restoring while discussion was ongoing, and did it four times in 24 hours as opposed to twice by the reported editor. They may be right, but this is not covered by 3RRNO.

This issue is a contentious topic (infoboxes) within an article already designated as a contentious topic in the whole (ARBEE), which the article history shows Remsense to have been on about for some time. Their user talk page indicates that they are aware of all contentious topics, and they made the report, so we can presume they were fully aware of the policies and rules around edit warring. Thus they don't have any excuse for it on this article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Khirurg reported by User:Illegally (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:06, 19 May 2024
2. 23:53, 19 May 2024
3. 23:53, 19 May 2024
4. 15:59, 20 May 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (none, I warned the user on his comment on my talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk on the article but user has been asked several times to provide explanations and talk, which he has ignored

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 11:53, 21 May 2024‎

Comments:

The user is involved in several disruptions and edit wars specifically in topics regarding Albania. Based on his contribution history, it seems he is pushing nationalistic Greek agenda on Albanian articles.

You can see multiple reverts and edit warring throughout his history. As seen on these example discussions I picked up: User_talk:Khirurg#Gjirokastër, Talk:Dhërmi, Talk:Cham_Albanians, Talk:Himarë, Talk:Vurg#Lefter_Talo, User_talk:Khirurg#Epirus, Talk:Greeks_in_Albania, Talk:Origin_of_the_Albanians, and a lot more like this.

User has clearly shown a disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

I also want to note that I've noticed that the user is always supported on the same topics by User:Alexikoua (i.e. participating in the same edit wars & commenting on same discussions), which has made me suspicious of a duplicate account (or "Sockpuppetry" in Wikipedia terms). Either that or they could be a part of a group of people working together on nationalistic interests (look at this reddit discussion 9 years ago where the above users are mentioned).

I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, and I've always been appreciative of editors, but I was concerned recently by the amount of people from other nations controlling the history narrative of different nations on their favour.

Who are these people? They have been editing and reverting on articles about cities and geographical locations of Albania, origins of Albania, Albanian people, Albanian history, notable persons, etc. Isn't it weird that a person from another nation puts so much effort in editing information on all topics of another nation and focuses on including foreign references everywhere? I think Albanian historians would be more qualified for that.

They seem to be old Wikipedia users and seem to know their ways around Wikipedia rules and using that to threaten and intimidate other users. I think that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, open to edit for everyone, free of nationalistic interests, and open to have intellectual discussions instead of edit wars, but they seem to have forgotten that.

• Reporter indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Bolatio reported by User:BalaM314 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Dance in Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Vandalism, these thai nationalists be desperate... removed a book by James Rodger Brandon to add an ebook by sketchy author Hseham Amrahs (the same book that Bokator was inscribed in the Unesco in 2016 instead of 2022), lakon kbach boran isn't khmer classical dance, cherrypick the bits of Buppha Devi's inteview she proceeded to say that her grandmother removed all Thai influence to adopt the pure Khmer style. In line citations are welcomed the book's very unlikely to describe it as "sensual""
2. 16:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Vandalism, these thai nationalists be desperate... adding a book by Hseham Amrahs (sketchy author, says in the same book that Bokator was inscribed in the Unesco in 2016 instead of 2022), lakon kbach boran isn't khmer classical dance, cherrypick the bits of Buppha Devi's inteview she proceeded to say that her grandmother removed all Thai influence to adopt the pure Khmer style, wonder how would they know the dancers swinged their hips based on sculptures? In line citations are welcomed"
3. 16:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Vandalism, these thai nationalists be desperate... adding a book by Mahesh Dutt Sharma (sketchy author, says in the same book that Bokator was inscribed in the Unesco in 2016 instead of 2022), lakon kbach boran isn't khmer classical dance, cherrypick the bits of Buppha Devi's inteview she proceeded to say that her grandmother removed all Thai influence to adopte the pure Khmer style, wonder how would they know the dancers swinged their hips based on sculptures? In line citations are welcomed"
4. 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "reverting vandalism, thai nationalists can't just cherry pick what they like lol, there were references sorry not sorry, that's history"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dance_in_Thailand."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit war with User:Quantplinus, seems to be a content dispute, edit summaries suggest this user has assumed bad faith and made personal attacks 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Merzostin reported by User:Obsidian Soul (Result: Page protected, user partially blocked)

Page: Junk (ship) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Djong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Merzostin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15], [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Junk (ship)

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Djong

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (I guess this would count too)

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

Comments:
I am WP:INVOLVED. User's removals and reverts are based on vague claims of "disinformation", "vandalism", and "disruptive edits", of which my changes are definitely not (link, link) apparently motivated by nationalism in complete disregard to the fact that the text he is removing are sourced. He has similarly slapped a vague hoax template on the Djong article. He has engaged in a similar edit war with User:Nitekuzee in the past. OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This editors have stalked and been reverting all my edits on various pages based on intense nationalism in complete disregard to the fact that the information although reliably sourced was a disinformation, since the information was quotes about Chinese ship but used for Javanese ships, the editors also removed all the template seeking expert assitance on Djong article. Also he admitted he was mistaken about only one revert after proven wrong, but adamant about other reverts plainly because the editors have not check the sources or talk page to see the blatant disinformation Merzostin (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"the information although reliably sourced was a disinformation". That does not make sense.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

you literally admitted that you were wrong about the Zhou's quote because you didn't do basic research, that quote was reliably referenced, but it didn't belong on Djong page since it was a description of Chinese ship not Javanese ship as the reference had said Merzostin (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

this user edits were obvious vandalism and wanting to present a cohesive propaganda, this user had also been blocked in the past for engaging in similar disruptive edits before Merzostin (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

sigh. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

El C has fully protected Junk (ship) for a week, and I have partially blocked Merzostin from continuing to dedicate a large portion of their editing towards edit warring about Djong and Junk (ship). Merzostin will need to convince others to implement changes on their behalf using {{edit partially-blocked}}, which is less likely to be successful if accusations of "vandalism" and "propaganda" are thrown around. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Tuhinsarkarproti reported by User:Rahio1234 (Result: Already indefinitely blocked)

Page: Draft:Tuhin Sarkar Proti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "Tuhinsarkarproti moved page Draft:Tuhin Sarkar Proti to Tuhin Sarkar Proti over redirect"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Wikipedia:Sandbox."
2. 08:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Vandalism (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Move warring Rahio1234 08:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Editor has been indefinitely blocked by User:Seraphimblade for operating an advertising only account, so this complaint is now moot.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Headtothestripe reported by User:Wikishovel (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Abi Carter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision"
2. 07:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision"
3. 07:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision, it is not improper to list a city or two which is nearby. Many Wikipedia articles have this. You are difficult and uncommunictative."
4. 22:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision"
5. 22:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision"
6. 22:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision, you need consensus"
7. 22:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "STOP, make suggestions on the talk page"
8. 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision, please take up this topic on the talk section"
9. 21:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "please stop with the deletion of information which pertains, however you are an individual who doesn't see a connection"
10. 06:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision, setting poll"
11. 22:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision, prv."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:43, 06 March 2024 (UTC) "Edit warring on Abi Carter:"
2. 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Abi Carter."
3. 21:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Abi Carter."
4. 08:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Abi Carter."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Violation of WP:COATRACK: new section"
2. 07:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Violation of WP:COATRACK: Reply"
3. 22:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Violation of WP:COATRACK */ r"
4. 22:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "/* Violation of WP:COATRACK */ r"

Comments:

Editor is a SPA created in March, and nearly all their edits have been to create Abi Carter, and then attempting to recreate it twice following AFD, to the point that it had to be protected admin-only until Carter had won the contest. Strong WP:OWNER issues, with angry posts to the user talk pages of every editor she's reverted, including mine, User:Valjean, User:Manticore, User:Philomathes2357, User:Amakuru, and User:HypeBoy. User:Valjean, I and others have been repeatedly explaining the policy reasons for our edits, but it all bounces off, and warnings about 3RR at their user talk are simply deleted without comment. At Talk:Abi Carter they pointedly refused to answer my questions about COI, and I suspect UPE about an unrelated venue they keep adding to the article, despite reverts by other editors. The account was confirmed to another user in an earlier SPI, but not blocked, on behavioural evidence. Wikishovel (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense! An admin has already stepped in so ANI isn't necessary. The users that Wikishovel mentions and Wikishovel, themselves are incapable supposedly of being reasonable. Let's go back to when I created the Abi Carter article... No one, of the paltry less than 8 people objecting to the article existing would engage in even slightly substantial discourse. Just as I was right at the time, same now. Further, even the helpful admin who is assisting isn't correct. Almost no one knows where Indio is and at least four of the users I have mentioned can't figure out that it is beneficial even necessary to put that into the article as EVERY news media outlet does. The things that these people argue are kind of absurd.

Very obviously Abi Carter has been a busker and she brings it up in discussions about how she became a performer. TB (Tommy Bahama) and Village StreetFest are key places. The golf course may have some relevance as either a place Carter worked or performed or something else.

Wikishovel has been a nuisance first in trying to have the Carter article redirected to Season 22 then deleting it. Ask yourself, why would they even want to edit the article now? Is this normal behavior?

Two of the editors were acting as a defacto tag team, even if they didn't realize it. Philomathes357 followed Valjean to the Carter article and performed the edit they were pushing for or making themselves. Then each of them denied it or any collusion. It still looks fishy and goes to supporting that this little band of editors isn't really improving the article. They make minor changes and create hullabaloos.

Policy is cited, let's take one example where they don't know what is really policy. As I have said Indio is not big, it's not irrational to follow the lead of other media and say it is near Palm Springs or a certain distance from LA. Amakuru is an admin; they're doing a good job in trying to solve some of the disagreements here. To repeat, there aren't many things in dispute. I am saying this tiny number of people are making a big thing out of not much and they won't even really engage in a discussion as to why they could be wrong. Is this fuss over merely three subjects? The couple of venues, the city itself, something similarly minor in addition to those? Seriously? I asked Valjean to list each change they wanted to see implemented or made in the article. Seems like a pretty average request. Then we could have talked about each one or even put up a poll. In truth these people want to be troublemakers, more than likely. Lastly we did agree on a reference system so we were making a little progress. Headtothestripe (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the group of users are predisposed to not using their own talk pages and wanting all communication done on the Carter talk page. Which leans towards they don't really want to make constructive changes. I may add there is a slide in American Idol coverage overall. Very few editors cover the topic here. Notice how the number of performers on the show have fewer and fewer articles. Some people think that AI is less relevant, that doesn't explain the biases here. It's overboard. Headtothestripe (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Ravenofpoe1 reported by Anonymous user of a registered user active (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Aaron Frenkel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ravenofpoe1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I want to draw your attention to what has been happening in recent days on the page Aaron Frenkel. A user has arrived who seems to be trying to smear the face of the subject of the article (he describes him as an 'arms dealer' because of his holdings in a few drone and missile manufacturing companies, part of a very broad holding portfolio. And in order to seemingly maintain NPOV, he 'contributed' to the article information about an honor he received from... Vladimir Putin. In short, someone should go in there and see for themselves. I assume only anonymous users are defending the article because of their fear of identifying themselves in such a situation. But the recurring bullying reverts by user:Ravenofpoe1 should end in him being blocked and the article being reverted to its original state. Any further change will be allowed after a discussion on the talk page as usual and based on recognized and authoritative sources. Thank you for handling this. 2A01:6500:A048:2A2E:510:9F22:2958:2140 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to add context to this, so as my position can be understood. I came across the Wikipedia page of Aaron Frenkel, and noticed that the subject matter bared no resemblance to what the listed sources were claiming. It seemed likely that it was written by PR Agents (as other members of the "talk" page had been concerned about, going back years). I added additional context, using reliable industry sources, to ensure a full view of his business activities was presented. These business activities are widely reported; by sources who had interviewed Frenkel, and his own companies, yet weren't presented in the article. I do not understand why they should be excluded. The "talk" page was used to debate certain points - and we came to an agreement surrounding his nationality, and his affiliation with Putin. Any admin support would be much appreciated to reach an agreement and ensure the page is balanced and fully representative. Ravenofpoe1 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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) 12:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's really a shame, pedantic technicalities will ruin our encyclopedia. Closing the discussion with technical excuses will allow Nilon (Ravenofpoe1) to continue being naive and ruin the article, and perhaps other articles too (if he were interested in them...). Administrators are expected not to hide behind technical justifications, but rather to go to the page in question and see what's happening there. It's very, very simple, and what Nilon is doing is very, very transparent. Come on - this is why we chose you! 2A01:6500:A049:4891:84A0:9E22:2927:B59C (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)