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:Skyerise reported by User:Netanya9 (Result: Declined Diffs fail to show edit warring.)

Page: Marc Gafni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Please review several edit wars in editing history.

Core are diffs 4-6 above, where editor copy-pastes several paragraphs from the article and puts them in the lead. Leaving big paragraphs in the article twice.

The talk page has lots of discussion on the lead, this is a controversial page and the lead can not be edited in this big way without consensus.

I have warned the editor both in my reverting notes and on his/her talk page.

He/she has reported me on this page, please help.

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

See several 3RR warnings in my edits.

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

Discussions on NPOV and the WP:BLP lead over long period of time. Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just joining this long-term conversation.

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

[11]

Comments:
Thank you for reviewing these edits.

Netanya9 (talk)@Netanya

Please note that this is an intentionally falsified reported. Not all the listed edits are from the same day, not all the listed edits are reverts. Supposed revert #2 is not a revert, and it is from May 3. #3 is not a revert, and it is from May 2. Edit #5 is not a revert, it is an initial addition of text to the lead. Edit #6 is not a revert, it is an addition. On the other hand Netanya9 has 6 clear reverts obvious as reverts in their edit history. I only listed four of the 6 in the report above. Skyerise (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) They are continuing to revert even after being reported and are now at 8 reverts. Skyerise (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

(Comment) @Netanya9, this is a friendly reminder to place subst:An3-notice when making reports. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Declined Diffs fail to show edit warring. Netanya9, you appear to have only edited on this one article for the past 2.5 years and have a habit of trying to block changes. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir, your review seems biased according to your previous communications on @Skyerise talk page here: [12]

  I've contributed value to discussions on Marc Gafni's talk page here for many years. @Skyerise is a new (apparently) biased account that only exists since April 2024 possibly a sockpuppet to vandalize this page (as has happened many times over the years.

Bbb23 Daniel Case User:Daniel Quinlan EdJohnston

Could you please help and review this 'decline'?

• Posting all diff links below, these are all not marked as reverts as user has redone these same edits several times:

  Edit 1: adding controversial content copy/pasted from article, as duplicate, to the lead.

  Edit 2: changing 'author' to 'writer' without clarifying on talk page. (Gafni is bestselling author, not a writer).

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. {[16]
  5. [17]
  6. [18]

  Thank you so much for reviewing. Netanya9 (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

An editor does not have to clear minor edits on the talk page. Our categories use "writer", not "author". "Writer" is correct usage, "author" is generally used with a following "of": a writer may be the author of such-and-such a book. Writers should be identified as writers in the lead, not authors. Skyerise (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Please cite wikipedia source that says professional best seller authors should be listed as 'writers'.

Here's some general knowledge of use of these words:

"Both author and writer refer to a person who writes. In general, the word author is used to refer to a person who writes professionally, especially someone who writes published books. The word writer is typically used more generally to refer to someone who writes anything, including works besides books."

But I don't think we should use the #3RR report board to discuss these detailed matters. Netanya9 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Might I point out that it was you who brought it up here? Skyerise (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, please review WP:OWN. You seem to be asserting ownership over the article. You also have not addressed your obvious COI at WP:COIN. Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Netanya9 Your diff did not work and Skyerise is neither a new account nor a sockpuppet given that their account was created in 2009 and has over 130,000 edits. You, on the other hand, have 278 edits total, the last 196 from the past 2.5 years of which were all related to this one article. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: 2024 Nairobi mid-air collision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1223801945 by CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk): See ur talk page dude."
2. 13:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1223801194 by CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk): Looks like u don't know what preliminary means. ASN and planespotters are two of these largest aviation sources and usually don't get things wrong"
3. 13:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Fadedreality556 (talk): Having two sources means that I am more accurate. Both sources agree with each other"
4. 17:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by KcalcNoraa (talk): Preliminary reports are usually unreliable. Besides, there are two cites indicating that the age of the aircraft is 23 years old and that the collision took place at 0945 not 0934. Its literally cited"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC) on User talk:CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine "/* 2024 Nairobi Mid-Air Collision */ new section"

Comments:

Over 3rr and slow burning edit warring across several pages. I recognize I did just warn them but this has been a persistent problem. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Of all the LAME reasons to get blocked for 3RR—a hyphen! Is there such a thing as a valley to die in? Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Love that comment! — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Capitals00 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Declined)

Page: Stateless nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24]
7. [25]
8. [26]
9. [27]
10. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30]

Comments:

This is not a 3RR violation report; this is a report of a user's protracted edit warring in one article, Stateless nation, spannig a longer period. Their edit warring in other articles was a subject of several noticeboard discussions elsewhere, and user has been made aware of our edit warring policies multiple times in the course of these (see their Talk page history as they routinely remove warnings).

Here in Stateless nation, the user has been repeatedly censoring any mention of Tamils as a stateless nation. All their edits were consistently reverted by multiple independent editors.

Given that the Tamils have been fighting for independence against both India and Sri Lanka, this can only be seen as an unambiguous POV-pushing, and so one wonders whether this disruption is not a substantial breach of the user's topic ban on India–Pakistan conflict broadly construed (Special:Permalink/841340595#Capitals00), where they were given an explicit warning by GoldenRing: You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.[31] — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Those routine reverts for removing disruption cannot be considered as "edit warring". However, I reverted Kashmiri only after he failed to justify his revert as visible from this discussion. He is now misusing this noticeboard since he failed to find any valid basis for his restoring a misleading edit.

It is ironic that Kashmiri is accusing me of POV pushing while at the same time he is falsifying history over the POV edits which he cannot support with a proper source. No Tamils are "fighting for independence against both India and Sri Lanka", contrary to his false claims.

His falsification does not stop here. He is talking about an unrelated topic ban to enrich this frivolous report which was already overturned more than 5 years ago.[32] Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, no info was there on your Talk. It may be good to revisit the measure, as it apparently worked so well as long as it was in place. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Pathetic of you to dream of ways to get rid of me only because you lost a content dispute and your frivolous report also got debunked.With this outright disruptive restoration (with misleading edit summary) by you despite evident failure on talk page, it is clear that you are causing disruption and misusing this noticeboard to win content dispute. See WP:BATTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

These were no "routine reverts". This was POV pushing only by you that was reverted by several independent editors. You've brought significant disruption to the article. Combined with all the warnings about your behavious in other articles – warnings that you've been always immediately removing from your Talk – I honestly believe the level of disruption you cause is reaching a point where a sanction is necessary. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is ironic that you are falsely accusing me of POV pushing while at the same time you are falsifying history over your POV edits which you cannot support with a proper source. No Tamils are "fighting for independence against both India and Sri Lanka", contrary to your false claims. If anyone is being disruptive then that is you as evident from your frivolous report, this outright disruptive restoration (with misleading edit summary), and now your meaningless rants. Capitals00 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Declined So much edit warring is going on that it really seems wrong to just single out one editor. Maybe we'd benefit from full protection. As to the instant dispute, it seems like the relevant talk page discussion only involved the two of you, so it can't really be called consensus particularly when neither of you changed your minds. And really, the issues here are clearly greater than this one article. Maybe it should go to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Apoel4 reported by User:Shahin (Result: Blocked)

Page: Persepolis F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Apoel4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]

Comments:
Hi. he was banned for WP:DISRUPTIVE. after ban is lifted he is back and doing again. he vandalised the article after warning. and insist to doing it again and again.Shahin (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello . Why should I be banned for deleting invalid content?

A false claim is made in this article.

The Asian Football Confederation has never said anything like that. Apoel4 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I won't step on Jake's toes, but @Shahin:, you could easily have been blocked too, in fact you had more reverts than the blocked editor. Apoel4 seems, at least on first look, to have a point. The sentence they are removing doesn't appear to be supported by the sources (which all seem to be dead links). They provided an explanation in the edit summary, while you just reverted. I won't do anything myself because this could be obvious vandalism that I just don't understand, but the appearance is that you just weaponized WP:EW to win an edit war. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Shahin has posted on my talk page that edits on Persian WP make it clear that Apoel4 was trying to be disruptive, even if they stumbled onto an actual issue in this particular case. The problem was fixed by Shahin here. So in case it isn't clear, even tho 3RR was probably broken by Shahin, this is apples and oranges, and they've been reminded, and so I no longer think Shahin could legit be blocked for edit warring too. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:98A:4000:3660:8454:F20B:C62D:1228/32 reported by User:Czello (Result: blocked the /64 for three months for persistent trolling)

Page: Carbonated milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:98A:4000:3660:8454:F20B:C62D:1228/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]
6. 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1223869413 by XabqEfdg (talk) I don't actually think you read the so-called "unreliable source". Having read that article, it is research based, and you need to stop deleting it."
7. 21:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1223868461 by XabqEfdg (talk) (vandalism)"
8. [41]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Carbonated milk."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Weatherextremes reported by User:Farell37 (Result: No violation)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Hello! This user is editing the El Ejido weather station. The users and keeps adding that the station is a secondary weather station (without source telling it's a secondary station), because it's not present on WMO Oscar. Not all weather stations are present on WMO Oscar. The national heat record in Spain was recorded at La Rambla. This weather station (also Montoro station too) is not present at WMO, but is an official AEMET station, which is RS for climate data. Portugal happens the same: the national heat record was recorded at Amareleja and that weather station is not present on WMO. If the weather station is operated and functional by AEMET, which is the most reliable source for climate data in Spain, then it is an official weather station. Farell37 (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Farell37: You are required to notify the other user of this report (see top of page). I've also left you a warning against personal attacks on your Talk page. Accusing other users of vandalism when it's wholly unsubstantiated, as here, is a personal attack. Don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. Not even close. Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

References

User:Arbe21 21 reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Epirus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arbe21 21 (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
4. Diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff; note that it was posted about three weeks ago in April, but they cannot claim that they didn't see it, because just today they removed it from their talk page (diff).

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

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

Comments:
They're also making personal attacks (see diff). This is very immature and unconstructive. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Jordi reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

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

Comments:
User made multiple reversions of my and Trakking (talk · contribs)'s edits to restore sourced content that was removed under the guise of only removing unsourced information. Both of us tried to resolve this situation on the talk page, but to no avail. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material is not allowed. I initially deleted these materials. There is no consensus needed for that. On the contrary, the other user(s) need(s) consensus (and valid sources) in order to restore it. They continue to revert me and to restore unsourced content without justification, this is not allowed (see first sentence). I have appealed several times to "WP:INACCURATE: "Information that is inaccurate beyond reasonable doubt and not attributed to a reliable source should be removed immediately."

So the edit war is basically theirs, restoring repeatedly inaccurate statements without a reliable source. This is very disappointing, because I explained the issue the best I could to @Willthacheerleader18, and she is an expert on this subject and should easily understand my point. But she does not engage in a substantive discussion by acknowledging and answering to my arguments, but instead tries to intimidate me with administrative threats.--Jordi (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. Jordi has reverted only twice in the last 24 hours.Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:KNIM123 reported by User:D.S. Lioness (Result: Warnings, Semi)

Page: Anna Panagiotopoulou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KNIM123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 2A02:587:CC10:3400:BD65:F432:14B2:BE04 (talk · contribs)

• 2A02:587:CC10:3400:9FA:10C7:4ADB:9657 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: 1

2

3

Diffs of the user's KNIM123 reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]

Comments: The conversation in his talk page is in Greek because we are both Greeks. With Google translate i think you can read it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:KNIM123 wants the actress to be older (born in 1945), User:D.S. Lioness (who filed this report) wants the actress to be younger, born in 1947. The sources vary. I can't figure out what the IP editors want, but one of them is blanking part of the article. It appears that the two registered accounts have been reverting about the actress's birth year since about May 9, so this is a long-term edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit war involving several IPs is going on for weeks. The page can be semi-protected for now. Capitals00 (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Result: Both D.S. Lioness and KNIM123 are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Meanwhile I've semiprotected the article for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  The difference between us is that i add sourced information from reliable sources, KNIM123 unsourced information. Furthermore, User talk:KNIM123 - Wikipedia trefuse to talk with me. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  You can see the real problem here Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard - Wikipedia D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:CaptainCommonSense reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]
6. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

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

Comments:
Persistent POV-pushing, OR-oriented editing even after various users explained why this is inappropriate. KyleJoan^talk 05:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring on Ana Navarro. Even after being alerted to 3RR on their talk page the user continued to revert the article . EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Дејан2021 reported by User:DerbyCountyinNZ (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Oldest people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Дејан2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Page has been returned to consensus version. [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts: See the page history for full edit war: [67]

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]

Resuming the above war after expiry of their block: [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User blocked for edit warring: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74] [75]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [76]

Comments:
Page protection was requested resulting instead in both parties to the edit war being blocked, 1 for a week (due to previous EW block) and the above user for 24 hours. That user resumed the edit war within a day of their block expiring. Brought here as directed on resumption of EW. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by [[User:{{subst:Wikieditor969}}]] (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page:  
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1211797731

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&action=history#:~:text=15%3A37%2C%2025%20March%202024
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1219662957
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1220631242
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1222362720

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) 23:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:BoldGnome reported by User:Daniel Case (Result: )

Page: Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BoldGnome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [84]

Comments:

I am involved in this one, so for once I'm the reporting user because this user is acting way too much like so many other editors reported here and eventually blocked, i.e., evincing a battleground mentality, editing tendentiously and refusing to seriously discuss edits while continuing to revert.

The roots of this go back to January, when the article attracted a lot of views and editing following Gypsy-Rose Blanchard's release from prison. I had done most of the research and writing on the article back in 2017, and as a review of the talk page and archive would show, some people have come by to criticize the way the article was written (when the crime was fresher in everyone's mind and neither defendant had been tried) often in disparaging tones and not really offering specific constructive criticisms when prompted to do so, although I did eventually come to see the points some of them made).

One of them then went by the name Cjhard, and after one such discussion where after expressing some of the same criticism of much of this criticism as rather drive-by in nature, I nevertheless some appreciation for the issues raised and willingness to work with anyone who would constructively address them in rewriting the article intro. Apparently, Cjhard considered this an expression of ownership, and then left the discussion and the page.

The "version reverted to" above is the version of the intro they recently wrote. Unaware that they had changed their username in the interim, I edited it mainly for grammar and MOS issues, explained my edits on the talk page while generally expressing approval of its overall structure (in talk page diff above), only for BG to brusquely revert me as linked above. I reverted again, and in their ensuing revert they directed me to this curt response on the talk page, which as I have noted in my response misinterprets consensus ... also, since when have we ever needed consensus to correct grammar or improve wording as long as it doesn't have any bearing on the facts?

I have since then made only minor edits to the intro addressing some of the purely technical problems with their language, but apparently that's been too much for Cj/BG, who clearly believes that the article intro must be worded THEIR WAY and only their way (See, for instance, the redundant phrasing restored here, the needless repetition of a name restored where a pronoun would do, and similarly here), regardless of whether in the process as much violence is done to the English language as Nicholas Godejohn did to Dee Dee Blanchard.

In perusing BG's talk page, I also found this discussion interesting and relevant to this report. Here, they are asked nicely about having made a revert which also went beyond the scope of the problem addressed and (at least in the other editor's opinion) introduced greater issues in the process. When pressed with specifics about this, they again refused to discuss. Although the other editor was properly blocked for violating ARBECR by initiating the discussion, to me that does not make the issue, and Cj/BG's behavior, any less pertinent here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:The Kazanchis reported by User:GSS (Result: )

Page: Draft:David Merriman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "The Kazanchis moved page Draft:David Merriman to David Merriman"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC) "General note: Disclosure requirements for paid editing under the Wikimedia Terms of Use."
2. 08:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is definitely an undisclosed paid editor who is desperate to get their work restored. I asked them multiple times not to move the drafts to the main namespace and to submit them for review, but all requests were ignored. They denied any conflict of interest but failed to answer my questions about the images. On top of that, there is a very strong case of proxy/meatpuppetry. I have already filed the case and am waiting for an admin to look at it. The SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Kazanchis. GSS ^💬 09:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who is reading this, I have declared multiple times that I do not have any COI with my contributions. But, I am not understanding why the user GSS keeps saying I am paid for my edits. He has no single evidence for doing so and I believe it is him who is violating the Wikipedia terms. If GSS has evidence than belief show it and then I will get blocked. But, his false claim hits nerve. Rather, I feel like, because he do it, he thinks any other editor also do it. The Kazanchis (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't provided an explanation on how on earth you managed to find File:Panduka Mahendra Jayasekera.jpg and File:Panduka Mahendra Jayasekera.jpg on Flickr just after they were uploaded by "Chinthaka DG," and then surprisingly user Chinthaka1701 was registered the same day Mahendra Jayasekera was created by you. I asked you the same question on your talk page, and you completely ignored it. GSS ^💬 09:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)