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:BarrelProof reported by User:SFBB (Result: )

Page: Technical University of Berlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BarrelProof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Comments:
Moves of the article's title have been requested four times. Every time, the result has been no consensus (neither for the current nor for the proposed name), and the current name has been maintained just because it was the status quo. A constant is that BarrelProof (talk · contribs) has vehemently led the opposition to every move request over the years. The reason for the request is that the current title of the article Technical University of Berlin is a free translation not accepted by the university.

After the last requested move in 2020 (the fourth one), whose result was too close to tell, a new section called name was added to reflect the fact that the university considers the name Technical University of Berlin as inappropriate (which is obviously relevant for the readers, as they deserve to know that using the name Technical University of Berlin in considered impolite).

The section was repeatedly edited by me and BarrelProof (talk · contribs) [4] [5] up until a version arisen we both could live with. Surprisingly, however, BarrelProof (talk · contribs) let a couple of month passed by, just to delete it when no one noticed (as it was). I know I've got to Wikipedia:Assume good faith but the user is making it very hard for me. Now after undoing the deletion, the user insists on deleting it. I know, that 3R within a day have not occurred, but it's a clear case of edit warring by an experienced user, who knows how to go around the rules. It's behavior in this article over the years has shown the every discussion is futile.

I'm open to more opinions, but any discussion cannot start from the version that BarrelProof (talk · contribs) has been trying to impose by force. So I request that the consensus version including the section be kept up until further notice SFBB (talk)

— Above comment submitted at 00:51, 5 January 2022‎ (UTC)

I welcome this discussion and I'm looking forward to hearing how others feel about the content dispute and the article naming issue, which have been repeatedly disputed (although they are really rather minor matters in the grand scheme of things). Just to correct the record, it looks like I did not participate in the first two RMs, and I believe there have been five of them. And the most recent disputed matter had been stable for the last year and three months until a couple of days ago. My view, of course, is that Wikipedia does not need to really worry much about what name for it is "accepted by the university" (to use the complainant's phrase, if indeed the university's view is being properly interpreted by the complainant) – e.g., per WP:OFFICIALNAME. Since things like WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:IRS are part of Wikipedia's well-supported guidelines/policies, I feel pretty confident of my opinion. I also believe that the so-called "consensus version" of the article was not really supported by any evident consensus. Concerning 3RR, there have been only two reverts in two days on my side (and three reverts in two days by the complainant), and this content dispute just arose a couple of days ago after more than a year of stability, but it would be nice to get input from others to help resolve it. Please note that the first of the three reverts by me that were shown in the complaint was from more than a year ago, so this has not an especially heated recent battle. More commentary can be found on the article Talk page, so I will try to avoid repeating everything I have said here. I also somewhat have the impression that there's been a bit of attempting to prevail by insistence, and recently a threat to report the incident here; that's really not much of a threat, of course, as I welcome opening such a discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

SFBB, you have not demonstrated any WP:3RR violation, and it is you who are editwarring to restore your BOLD edit, when instead per WP:BRD you need to go to the talkpage and make your case and establish WP:CONSENSUS before attempting to restore your BOLD reverted edit. ANEW is therefore not the correct venue for this, unless you want to be blocked for edit-warring. I therefore suggest you withdraw this report. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Addendum:
Despite of the open report the user insists on imposing his version by force and kept the edit warring [6]. SFBB (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there some rule that people are supposed to stop editing once a discussion starts here and retain the version most recently edited by the complaining party? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

To answer your questions: This noticeboard is about edit-warring only, never about content. Do not edit war even though you may be right. Discuss content on the talkpage of the article and reach WP:CONSENSUS. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've had a quick look and I don't think blocks or any sanctions are helpful at this stage. I think it would be useful for one of you to get a third opinion or suggest dispute resolution. I admit I haven't read the talk page discussion, but from a quick look at the recent history, might I suggest a compromise that the policy about the name goes in a footnote rather than the body of the article. It does seem a shame that such an important article about one of the most prominent universities in Europe is quite small in relation to its German Wikipedia counterpart and you seem to be getting involved with relatively minor details. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: I frankly do no understand at all why you say I'm the one editwarring. I guess, you just checked the history of the article and observed that in the last three days I was the one reverting first. If so, you're completely missing the point:

1.- The section name was established after continuous editions between me and BarrelProof (talk · contribs). For instance, [7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]. Note that the last one, which I accepted as a consensus was written by BarrelProof himself.

2.- As I accepted the consensus version (again written by BarrelProof) and I operate assuming good faith, I stopped watching the page. Obviously I did not expect than a couple of months later BarrelProof would come back to delete the very consensus version he himself had proposed. This is the BOLD edition.

3.- When I discovered the BOLD edition by BarrelProof I reverted it ([14]). That's precisely what WP:BRD suggests.

4.- I want to stress that a BOLD edition going against a consensus version doesn't stop being a BOLD edition, because no one discovers it in months. Otherwise, you'd be creating a perverse incentive to hide editions by faking the acceptance of consensus just to delete them after the other users stop watching the article.we already went though a WP:BRD process; what would be the incentive to go through that again if in the very moment I stopped looking, everything will be deleted again

Finally, I'm very much aware what this noticeboard is for and I'm only requesting that the consensus version of the section of 31 May 2020 (again written by BarrelProof) be upheld and not the BOLD edition by the same user once I stopped watching the page. As I said before I'm open for a WP:DRN, but I'm not willing to start that while the status quo is the BOLD edition. That's not how WP:BRD works. SFBB (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: @Ritchie333: The name issue is not WP:BIKESHED. Anyone who knows the university well, knows how important it is (see e.g. the Affiliation Policy, among many documents that stress the importance of the issue). I comes as no surprise that dozens of users have discussed the issue in the Talk Page and the so many Move Requests have been made personally, myself I worked for the university in the past - although because of WP:COI I did not edit up until I had already moved to another institution - and I vividly remember colleagues threatening to leave conferences if the batches were not corrected o speakers boldly interrupting the presenters, because the name was wrong SFBB (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, that referenced document has not previously been mentioned during discussion of this content dispute. It is interesting new information, and I encourage further discussion of it on the article's Talk page. Thank you also for confirming your previous affiliation with the university – I had wondered previously if you had some sort of special connection with this matter. Please note that the the version of the article of 31 May 2020 was not written by me (it was a minor edit of two sentences that had last been edited by you, I believe), and I never said I supported that version of the article, which obviously was from more than a year and a half ago anyway. The fact that I edited something to improve it does not indicate that I agree with it. My edit of that version was just to correct an obvious falsehood, but was not an indication that I supported what remained in those two sentences. From your anecdote about outbursts at conferences based on the affiliation printed on people's badges (presumably based on how they had listed their affiliation when registering for the conference), it seems clear that the dispute on this matter may exist outside of Wikipedia as well as here. If you can find any independent reliable sources that discuss it, that would be especially interesting. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User:43.247.159.35 reported again by User:Softlavender (Result: Page protected)

Page: Parag Agrawal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 43.247.159.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

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

1. [23]
2. [24]

Comments:

User keeps adding the meaningless and unhelpful phrase "Schooling and Intermediate" to this article. Usertalk and analysis of contribs shows that with few exceptions this user has a blatant history of trolling and vandalism. Has already been blocked for three months for vandalism in June 2021 despite sparse edit history.

The user was reported here at ANEW five days ago [25]. The applied sanction obviously did not work, as the editor is back at it. Softlavender (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected for a month, as there seem to be a regular stream of IPs making questionable or BLP violating edits, and the page has been protected similarly not that long ago. A sample of the IP's edits gives me the impression they are at school and thus this looks to be an issue with WP:COMPETENCE. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Macktheknifeau (Result: Both blocked)

Page: History policy of the Law and Justice party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063940557 by Macktheknifeau (talk) per prev; SYN, bias, the obvious"
2. 18:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063933661 by Macktheknifeau (talk) rv personal bias, as before"
3. 16:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063700679 by Macktheknifeau (talk) don't spam in your opinion as a see-also"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Chasing me around the site */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

William, after disagreeing with me on edits to a different article (which I'm no longer interested in wasting any time on so if he'd left it alone I'd have moved on), chased my edits on a completely unrelated page (adding a link & summary in the "see also" section for a similar event in another country), reverted them three times claiming this very short section which is effectively a summary from the lead of the newly linked page is somehow "personal syn bias"). 2:25 Jan 6, 4:02 Jan 6, 20:22 Jan 6 (from the time as I see it on the contributions). Breaching 3RR unless I'm sorely mistaken. Do I have to be worried now about someone with a major history of incivility chasing all of my edits and reverting them for no reason? Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

First, William M. Connolley, didn't exceed 3 reverts in a 24hr period thus isn't defacto edit warring. Second, per ONUS, once the edit was challenged the burden is on you to get consensus for this new content. Take it to the talk page. If the content is good it shouldn't be hard to get others to support it. You can always use the various noticeboards or a RfC if no one joins the discussion. Springee (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I don't know who's right and who's wrong, but can you just ignore each other and work on something else for a bit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Barisionechicago reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Speaking Out movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "/* All Elite Wrestling */ Fixed typo"
2. 02:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "/* All Elite Wrestling */ Fixed typo"
3. 19:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "/* All Elite Wrestling */ Fixed typo"
4. 09:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "/* All Elite Wrestling */ Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, Added links, darby allin was cleared of the allegations a while ago after he provided evidence that the girl lied about everything" (NOTE from filer: this wasn't a revert, just the first addition of unsourced controversial content)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Speaking out movement."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not a 3RR complaint, but this user added unsourced controversial info related to a living person and has reverted its removal 3 times using misleading edit summaries. They declared at their talk page that they intend to keep reverting. Firefangledfeathers 16:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:202.186.83.151 reported by User:Bobherry (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Teh tarik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 202.186.83.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC) to 01:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064178865 by Seloloving (talk) nah it's malaysia"
   2. 01:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064178696 by Seloloving (talk) singapore also never existed back then so apply same logic .make ur mind first."
   3. 01:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 00:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "look at source :))"
3. 00:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "i never remove anything. i follow what it says. can tell me what i do wrong?"
4. 00:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 00:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC) to 00:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
   1. 00:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "fix"
   2. 00:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
2. 01:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Already blocked KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Easternmagic reported by User:Pmbma (Result: Warned)

Page: Niš Constantine the Great Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Easternmagic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&oldid=1059365063

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1059365063&oldid=1057082937
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1061492602&oldid=1061428481
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1061785608&oldid=1061694967
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1062055957&oldid=1061987976
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1062358702&oldid=1062326134
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1063791637&oldid=1063764031
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1064178525&oldid=1064108807
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ni%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1064187090&oldid=1064183633

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

Tried to raise for discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANi%C5%A1_Constantine_the_Great_Airport&type=revision&diff=1063799767&oldid=814242669 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEasternmagic&type=revision&diff=1063799150&oldid=1056665427 [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEasternmagic&type=revision&diff=1064185616&oldid=1063799150

Comments:
After Covid-19 became serious in early 2020, airlines around the world suspended flying certain routes from pretty much all airports, including Niš Constantine the Great Airport. On other airport pages - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports - the convention is that routes which are not currently flown, are not bookable for a future date (e.g. 6 months in advance), and have no specific date for a resumption of flights are considered to be terminated and thus removed from an airport wiki page. Airlines however typically issue press releases saying the flying is temporarily suspended, but do not bother to say later that a temporary suspension has become permanent. Thus, when should Wikipedia remove a route from an airport page ? There seems to be quite a few people on this wiki page who propose removal of these suspended air routes, but Easternmagic has a different opinion. Can an admin take a look please ? Pmbma (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Easternmagic is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Niš Constantine the Great Airport without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User:95.0.32.95 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

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

User being reported: 95.0.32.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "It was sourced"
2. 15:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Made it relevant"
3. 15:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Separate section"
4. 15:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Added without removing"
5. 15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Ok I accept but a modern one should be used for the lead. This article has too many old telescope images"
6. 15:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "It should be added to the history section. Modern perception of telescope have changed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 15:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• 14:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments: I’m puzzled how is adding sources a violation of Wikipedia’s policy.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your source doesn't support your content, and edit warring is always against Wikipedia's policies, unless reverting copyright violations of WP:BLP concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok I understand now I’m only here to do good faith editing sorry for any inconvenience.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So you say, then you went back to the page to revert again. - MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred beat me to it. Can't say we didn't try the talk nicely and explain route. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not revert it again just added the image of the modern telescope. I have gone to the talk page to discuss and waiting for any editors their.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverting back to your preferred image is also reverting. - MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok now I am not but we need to make a consensus on the talk page of that article.95.0.32.95 (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The reported user appears to have moved on to a different issue on the talk page and not even mentioned the image. On the plus side, they haven't tried to change the image again. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Temax reported by User:Eric (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Patrick O'Brian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Spanish means a person associated with Spain. Irish with Irland. Both are countries, and is accurate, see Talk page and various links in that post"
2. 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064331300 by Eric (talk)"
3. 19:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064324898 by Prairieplant (talk)"
4. 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064323414 by Prairieplant (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "/* "Irish-Catalan" vs "Irish-Spanish" to describe Stephen Maturin */ fix Temax's post and reply"

Comments:

Editor is on campaign of tendentious editing on Patrick O'Brian and related articles. Eric ^talk 21:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that after I posted a warning on the editor's talkpage, the editor made a copycat post on my userpage with the edit summary "Stop vandalizing Wikipedia". Eric ^talk 21:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This is totally untrue. I have modified the article just by adding the country of origin and explained in the [[26]] page that we can also add the regional origins. To sum up, I am ok with both national and regional origins being explained, but Eric is continuously deleting the country of Spain, and any reference to Spanish. That is the definition of vandalism, especially when the person we are referring to was Spanish. I posted a warning on the editor's talkpage about his vandalism, and he claims that I just did it in the user page. But that was just an honest mistake. It is now in the Talk page. Temax (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Temax for one week for disruptive editing, including including edit-warring at multiple articles and personal attacks (calling other editors vandals).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with using Spanish, instead of Catalan. As Catalonia is still a part of Spain. When your block expires, perhaps a less combative approach would be best. Consider opening up an RFC on whether or not to use Spanish or Catalan, for example. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Eric reported by User:Temax (Result: No violation)

Page: Stephen Maturin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by Temax (talk) to rev. 1064332794 by Eric: rv unhelpful edits by editor on campaign"
2. 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064325038 by Temax (talk)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "/* "Irish-Catalan" vs "Irish-Spanish" to describe Stephen Maturin */"

Comments:

The editor is on a campaign of ideological editing on Patrick O'Brian, Stephen Maturin, and related articles removing "Spain" and "Spanish", which are the actual true country and nationality of origin of Stephen Maturin. Temax

Why is Spanish being replaced with Catalan? Last time I checked, Catalonia wasn't independent, but rather a part of Spain. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The editor, Eric, is on a campaign of ideological editing on Patrick O'Brian, Stephen Maturin, and related articles removing "Spain" and "Spanish", which are the actual true country and nationality of origin of Stephen Maturin. I explained to the editor that we can accommodate for both national and regional on the Talk page. There is no need to delete any information that is a fact. The editor, instead, decided to create a warning on this page, instead of using the Talk page to debate it. He has not responded on the Talk page at all to any of my messages. However, he came here to post a warning, directly. He did not try to debate anything. He just used the Talk pager to put a comment, and right afterward came directly here. Again, as the Talk page says, I am more than happy to put both national origin and regional origin. However, the editor decided to just remove my changes, which added the national origins. Irland and Spain are countries and Irish and Spanish nationalities. Catalonia is a region of Spain, and Catalan is not a nationality. I suggested to the editor to, after the national origins, add also the regional origins. The editor did not respond and he just created a warning (the one above) accusing me of a campaign and went ahead to removing Spain and Spanish without any explanation whatsoever. That is the definition of ideological vandalism. Temax (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is not clear. No violation to have an actual factual truth, which is keeping Spanish, or no violation to remove it without reason? Temax (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay and all, I think if you look at Temax's contribution history, you will see that this report is a retaliatory expedition by the user in response to the above report by me, and to a couple messages I left the user. This section may also shed some light on the issue: Talk:Patrick_O'Brian#"Irish-Catalan"_vs_"Irish-Spanish"_to_describe_Stephen_Maturin. Eric ^talk 23:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In that Talk page we are still waiting for you to tell us why are you removing Spain and Spanish from the articles. What is the reason behind it, when it is the actual truth? Temax (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Temax. Would you please put your signage at the end of your posts, rather then the beginning. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. I just fixed it.

User:Penepi reported by User:ItsKesha (Result: )

Page: 2022 PDC World Darts Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064354517 by Drmies (talk) Contributors have spent a lot of time on this, "good god, no" is definitely not a valid argument for arbitrarily deleting extensive text. Thank you for understanding."
2. 21:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064338892 by ItsKesha (talk) Perhaps you should read that yourself. Thank you."
3. 21:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1064337110 by ItsKesha (talk)The rationale is quite obvious - to see how individual players performed in the tournament; in-depth stats."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 2022 PDC World Darts Championship."
2. 21:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on 2022 PDC World Darts Championship."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Statistics */"
2. 21:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Statistics */"
3. 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Statistics */"

Comments:

Ignoring requests for discussion, ignoring warnings, repeatedly reverting against consensus and policy All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I definitely haven't ignored requests for discussion, you can see my contributions on the Talk page. There is no consensus. The article has thousands of readers and dozens of authors, and 4 - four (sic!) - of you agreed upon deleting the section. That is not what I call a consensus, so stop misleading. I have stated quite clearly that the given statistics have their justification and significance. No one has convinced me otherwise. Likewise, I can argue that you ignore warnings and keep reverting. Thanks. Penepi (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Your contributions on the talk page were: "Are player statistics not part of the tournament?" (nobody was arguing for or against this), "the list as such is, in my view, useful and readable" (there's no context or explanation to the statistics whatsoever), and "it looks like you haven't really looked at the statistics. Otherwise, you wouldn't write that it has no context" (hint, there is no context to the statistics and, when asked, you have failed to provide any). Four people citing policy versus one edit-warrior saying there is context without describing it, is not misleading, but a highly accurate view of proceedings. "I said this thing quite clearly but offered no explanation as to why and with no sources" yeah I'm sure that'll help people reading the article understand the context. Your non-explanation on the talk page. Also, well done on completely misusing "sic". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I won't block em cause I reverted once, and it's not obviously vandalism or something like that, so I guess I'm involved--but they certainly deserve to be blocked. On the other hand, they stopped--but I think it would be good for an admin to at least slap em on the wrist. The whole "there's thousands of readers and only four supported deletion" (and they are the ONLY ONE in favor), with that silly "sic" in there, shows that they completely misunderstand, intentionally perhaps, what consensus is. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Darren-M (Result: )

Page: Ariel Fernandez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1064093879 by Roxy the dog (talk): Return to good following BLPN stupidity, issue settled years ago, good grief"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Ping pong */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Roxy the dog "/* Ping pong */"

Comments:

There is ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN on this topic. This page was fully protected off the back of an ongoing edit war for 2 days. A minute(!) after that protection lapsed, this user has re-inserted the content under discussion at BLPN (with an, albeit weak, inflammatory edit summary) and has refused to self-revert. Darren-M talk 16:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)