Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (WP:AN3)

Page: 2022 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to:  Diffs of the user's reverts:  01:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1146407892 by WikiEdits2003 (talk) MOS:ICONS / MOS:TOOMANY, do not argue with MOS" 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1146392100 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) WP:ICONS, MOS:TOOMANY, same to many MSE, but doesn't mean it obey MOS" 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1146383198 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) WP:ICONS, MOS:TOOMANY" 14:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "rv, redundant"Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:  17:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2022 Asian Games."Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments: This user has a past history of edit warring and has reverted four times (and two editors) without discussing their edits and claiming they are right. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  It should be mirror yourself too. --Aleenf1 02:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)The last edit appears to be "gaming the system" Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)It you said I'm gaming the system, so it will better you say you are not discuss anything from, even that's MOS, rather than just claims it was disruptive or 3RR. --Aleenf1 02:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reporter also failed to discuss why the failure to obey the WP:ICONS, despite being raised on personal talk page. --Aleenf1 01:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)"Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable." Clearly reporter also unable to discuss while the clear MOS is there. --Aleenf1 01:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)So are the reporter also gaming the disruptive or 3RR system without needed to discuss, with the MOS available? --Aleenf1 02:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. This died down two days ago. I am further moved towards inaction by the big yawning blank space above underneath: "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", where, indeed, one finds that no one has made any edits since last August. Please, before renewing this dispute, go there and hash out amongst yourselves what would be the right amount of icons. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Adobe Photoshop Elements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Sharmavikas2k (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] [2] [3] [4] [5]Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Sharmavikas2k and [6] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7] Comments:  Began using this account after having edited the page and taken part in the discussion as an ip.  The comments on my talk page mirror the comments of the ip who took part in the AfD, as well as the ip who reverted the first redirect.  COI/UPE editor, who on my talk page admitted to being an employee of Adobe.Onel5969 TT me 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  One5969 is continuously redirecting page with no valid reason. Request Admins to resolve the conflict. Requesting admins to have this discussion around relevance of the page once again and do invite me for the discussion. Feel free to contact me for any official information related to Adobe Photoshop Elements. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure what you want admins to do: WP:Articles for deletion/Adobe Photoshop Elements closed as a merge six months ago. The Adobe Photoshop Elements title should exist as a redirect only, barring consensus from the community to split the article (back) off as stand-alone. The only appropriate administrative action would be to protect the title in redirect form. —C.Fred (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) I was even on Wikipedia 6 months ago. I joined just because this was brought to my notice by users of Adobe Photoshop Elements. Decision of merging Adobe Photoshop Elements and Adobe Photoshop is not correct as these are two different products designed for different type of users and are sold differently. If there is a possibility of having AFD discussion once again, please let`s have it so that wrong information is not given to the users. Sharmavikas2k (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC) There is not. Your best option would be discussion at Talk:Adobe Photoshop to see if there is consensus to split the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Courtesy ping. @Liz: This regards an AfD you closed in September. —C.Fred (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Come to think of it, that's a good idea, given the history of the page and the AfD: Page protected indefinitely in light of AfD closure. —C.Fred (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC) that's generous. Hopefully @Sharmavikas2k can now avoid the WP:OWN behavior that was heading toward a block. Star Mississippi 17:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Page: I Should Have Known Better (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Yeah!210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [8] Diffs of the user's reverts:  [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15] Comments: Sundayclose (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Cambial_Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [16] Diffs of the user's reverts:  18:05, 27 March 2023 [17] not how article subject is defined in the preponderance of RS 18:15, 27 March 2023 [18] Reverted 1 edit by Softlemonades: Unsupported characterisation of living person.Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Affirmative Conensus warning [19] edit warring [20] [21] see comments Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Long discussion at Talk:Julian_Assange#Is_a_hacker_in_lead [22] [23] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24] Comments:  Page has 1RR and Consensus Required restrictrions Cambial Yellowing has a history of edit warring on the related page WikiLeaks and was temporary edit blocked on it WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive463#User:Cambial_Yellowing_reported_by_User:VQuakr_(Result:_1-month_partial_block)The Unsupported characterisation of living person. comment for the second revert doesnt make sense. I used Rollback to restore it to before my edit that Cambial Yellowing objected to so there could be more discussion, because Cambial Yellows edit restored things that other editors objected to.Cambial Yellowing denied violating the 1RR and Consensus Required restriction, saying the charge is simply made up [25] and accusing me of breaking 1RR for reverting an IP editor who was violating 1RR and several other editors reverted 22 hours before the Rollback. Denying it is why I think its going to continueThis isnt about the content. The edit I restored with Rollback wasnt my preferred version. I think it should be what Cambial Yellow edited it to, but another editor has a problem with the wording and Ive been trying to find something theyll accept like [26] [27]Softlemonades (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  The longstanding behavioural problems with user Softlemonades on this page and closely related topics could fill many pages. The Assange page has both 1rr and Consensus Required restrictions, of which Softlemonades is aware. The latter sanction in particular initially had the effect of greatly reducing the disruption and massive size of the article talk page. Had done so - until Softlemonades decided to simply ignore it. Some earlier clear examples:  [28] violates "Consensus Required"; adds new material to the page a second time that had been challenged without gaining consensus [29]  violates "Consensus Required" and 1RR, re-adding the same material [30] violates "Consensus Required" and 1RR, re-adding different material without discussion and without establishing consensus [31] reverts and then [32] violates 1RR four minutes laterWhat's a little surprising in this instance is that they would bring here two ostensibly improper diffs by another editor. The first of my two recent edits to the page is not a revert. Yet in the edit immediately between those two edits Softlemonades breaches 1rr yet again, making an unfounded accusation of edit warring while doing so:  [33] [34]Their edit warring has been a problem at other pages:  [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]and within the next four hours after that[41] [42] [43]It's long past time that administrator action with Softlemonades is needed to effect a change in their problematic behaviour, ready breaches of sanctions, and unwillingness to collaborate in a collegiate way. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  diffs 41 and 42 were separate reverts of separate additions by the same editor. I reverted them separately so I could respond in the edit summaries. Thats not edit warring Their edit warring has been a problem at other pages: and within the next four hours after that Cambial seems to be referring to edits related to the edit war report that I linked to resulted in them being blocked from the page. I didnt file that reportunwillingness to collaborate in a collegiate way Unlike Cambial I participated in long discussions on the Talk page and have tried to find something acceptable to everyone. Cambial didnt join the latest discussion until after being named and reverting twice, restoring text that a third editor objects to.The claim that 2] is not a revert. doesnt pass the recent history check. The effect of it was a revert, most importantly it reverted the text that was being contested and that was highlighteed in the edit summary Cambial complained about me before and has nothing new to say Softlemonades (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Diffs numbered 41 and 42 above are separated by another editor here (not coincidentally the one whom you were reverting). Your regular breaches of 1RR are edit warring regardless of whether they are the same or different material (in your case you've breached 1RR with both the same and with different material, as shown above). You're right on one small point, there's nothing new to add here: merely more of the same inappropriate behaviour and clear breaches of page edit warring sanction on your part. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Diffs numbered 41 and 42 above are separated by another editor here You proved my memory wrong and why I couldnt have done it in a single revert and had to do the edits separately (not coincidentally the one whom you were reverting) Burrobert and I actually get along well User_talk:Burrobert#Useful_edits [44] and have been working together on a series of edits on WikiLeaks Softlemonades (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Softlemonades, please refrain from editing your comments after they've received a reply. Your claim that the first of my two edits "reverted the text" is false, whether you put it in bold or not. I reworded the opening. Your Pointy edit in which you changed the opening phrase, long having read as "Assange is an Australian editor, publisher...." to "Assange is a prisoner" is yet another example of your inability to edit appropriately and in a collaborative way on this page. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I didnt see the reply until after the edit was made. I reworded the opening. to restore a version that people objected to. that my edit summary said was a problem. update beginning of lead to include prisoner in Belmarsh, fix "is" hacker dispute There was nothing disruptive about the edit, as I said. I did not remove the editor, publisher... content from the first sentence even though you left out ... from your second quote. I changed it to has been because the other editor,  NadVolum, said they objected to is a hacker even though RSes call him that. You could have just removed is a prisoner which is what you said you objected to, and not restored the content that NadVolum said they objected to since they hadnt said yet that they also had problems with has been, but you restored what they objected to on BLP grounds. Then you restored it again. What is an example of your inability to edit appropriately and in a collaborative way is your reverting my Rollback to before either of our edits with the edit summary Unsupported characterisation of living person. If you dont have other accusations to make, the admins should review Softlemonades (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Unlike your original post here, the facts supported by diffs that I posted above about your problematic behaviour are not mere accusations, but factually accurate observation of your regular breach of the 1RR sanction which you've made quite clear you are perfectly aware of. I made one edit, you immediately broke 1rr and accused me of imaginary "edit warring", then I made a revert. This isn't the first time you've breached 1rr or the other sanction on the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  I have not read this except to see the CT restrictions cited. It should be removed and copied to the AE board. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Comment As an uninvovled admin, I am thinking this should be taken to WP:AE for a analysis by a team of uninvolved admins and a more structured discussion.  Courcelles (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Courcelles@SPECIFICO I agree. This isn't the place to handle the problem. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)per the two admins above and myself making three. When I saw the page being under 1RR and consensus in the discussion (itself long enough to suggest it should be somewhere else), I immediately wondered if this was the right place for it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users being reported:Bzzzing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: Roughly this version: [45] Diffs of the user's reverts:  [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [54] Comments: One user (Bzzzing) has repeatedly reverted while ignoring the substantive objections to their edits, including a revert after being warned.  The other has also been reverting repeatedly but has at least made substantive comments (in edit summaries and on the talk-page). --128.164.177.55 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  I was the one who first attempted to have a dialogue with User:JayBeeEll.  There are no "substantive" comments or reasons given by User:JayBeeEll for their constant reversions.  On the talk page of the said article here: [55], I tried to ask User:JayBeeEll for their reasons for reverting, and tried to reach some compromise.  I was the first to reach out. Their answers were vague, confrontational, and dismissive.  Throughout this entire process, I've tried to find some reason for their reverts.  None were given.  I would appreciate some insight from outside parties.  Thank you. Bzzzing (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Bzzzing and JayBeeEll, you are both warned that any more reverts (in the broadest sense) to the article may trigger a block for edit-warring without further notice. I suggest that neither of you edit the article for any reason, although you are welcome to discuss the dispute on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) There is a warning on my talk page... and that happened yesterday, after everything.  I don't think either of us edited or reverted after that.  I know I didn't. Bzzzing (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) That's unambiguously false: you reverted almost two hours after being warned (see the diffs included above). --128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Shikimori's Not Just a Cutie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Oozora Subaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [56] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:   In the series, the two main characters do not reveal their full given names until the end of the manga series.  Throughout the manga and the anime television adaptation, they are referred to and listed in the character profiles by their last name and an honorific, implying this is their most common name. MOS:TVCHAR, MOS:ANIME The editor is insisting that the character name gets changed to their full name. I've been trying to put in information that explains this discrepancy but each of my attempts to do so have been reverted by the editor without any reasons or explanation. I have left notes on the talk page for the series as well as their talk page, and I have changed the way the information is presented, first by putting in  (full name) / (common name)   and then later changing to full name with common name as a footnote.  Both have been reverted without explanation.  My attempt to use full name / common name: [57] reverted: [58] My undoing of that with more explanation on the comments: [59] reverted: [60] My rewriting it with the full name and the common name as a footnote: [61] reverted: [62]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:   Talk:Shikimori's Not Just a Cutie#honorifics and character names User_talk:Oozora_Subaru#Shikimori's_Not_Just_a_Cutie_character_namesDiff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:   [63]Comments:  Reported user has attempted to remove this multiple times, which to me suggests they are WP:NOTHERE. If you are actually innocent then let it play out and nothing will happen. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)I blocked Oozora Subaru for 72 hours for disruptive editing for repeatedly blanking this report. If any admin reviewing the report believes a longer block is necessary, there's no need to consult me.-- Ponyobons mots 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Rodd Thompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: 04:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Referenced in article." Diffs of the user's reverts:  05:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "REFUSAL TO COLLABORATE WITH GAY EDITOR." 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "REFUSAL TO COLLABORATE WITH GAY EDITOR." 04:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Is there a blood test for political affiliation? No, it requires journalistic OPINION. Did you even read what you just wrote? Revert bullying/WP:OWN bollocks yet AGAIN." 04:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147151371 by Gadfium (talk) Consensus for what, exactly? Content that is already referenced in the body? The lede is supposed to summarised. Please drop the bullying and WP:OWN bollocks." 04:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Revert continuous WP:OWN bollocks. Obviously determining someone's political affiliation requires a degree of journalist opinion!" Consecutive edits made from 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) to 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Restoring referenced content per WP:OWN. You were wrong in saying my addition was unreferenced, admit your mistake instead of trying to "win"." 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "" 04:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1147149227 by Beccaynr (talk) 100% supported. Try reading the body of the article."Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:  04:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull."Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull#Factually incorrect to suggest Keen is supported by neo-Nazis - Recent discussion on this content prior to Rodd's edits this evening.Comments: Rodd has made no fewer than 5 reverts in the last hour on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, restoring content in contravention to WP:BLPRESTORE despite being warned by multiple editors on their talk page and in edit summaries. Rodd has also accused multiple editors of bullying during the process of these reverts and warnings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  I made a duplicate report. The only thing I have to add is that the article is covered by a contentious topic "consensus required restriction". RT is formally aware of the CT area and still breached the restriction repeatedly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Sideswipe9th and Firefangledfeathers, the unsourced/poorly sourced content that appears to be contrary to BLP policy is still in the article at the moment. Beccaynr (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I've removed it again on WP:BLPRESTORE grounds. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC) And Rodd restored it again. As much as I would love to invoke WP:3RRNO#7 I think it's going to be more straightforward for this to be actioned, as Rodd clearly does not care about violating the edit warring policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I added the most recent revert to the list of diffs and moved the earliest diff to the "previous version reverted to", because I think that is the section where it goes (but please move if not). Beccaynr (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)I ask that the bullying/WP:OWN of a gay editor on display here be taken seriously. Rodd Thompson (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)  Support a 24 hour block so they can cool down and discuss this on the talk page. They're reverting editors on sight, so the closing admin should check the page to make sure their potential BLP violation is not kept. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I reverted my own edit before FormalBully posted this. Rodd Thompson (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Given this comment and their self-victimization in edit summaries and on their user page, I support a WP:NOTHERE indef. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I agree. Bzzzing (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Indefinitely blocked. See block log for details.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Page: Kavita Krishnamurti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Aamirbinshafi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to:  Diffs of the user's reverts:  22:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC) "" 20:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) "" 15:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC) ""Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:  16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material." 21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule." 08:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) "Only warning: Harassment of other users on User:Technopat."Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments: