Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

Feed-icon.svg 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.
  • 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.

User:Bythere reported by User:Quorra Rinzler (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bythere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bythere has several times reverted my version of the article on Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This new text is based on a version that was published in ru-Wiki two weeks ago. As seen from its edit history, some typos were fixed and some stylistic corrections were made, but in general, there was no hard criticism. And that's in Ru-Wiki, where battles over war-related articles are the hottest! As most sources were in English, I've decided to make a translation for en-Wiki. Unfortunately, user Bythere considers this text to be of 'unacceptably poor' quality. His revisions were twice undone by @JoaquimCebuano:, however, with no success. I do agree that I'm no native speaker and my grammar can be poor, but how can one deny the quality of official sources and respectable publications I've cited? Where's the bias he talks about? I'm in Wiki for more than 10 years and I know how to write, it's just I can't reveal my main account because the editors from Belarus and Russia are officially hunted by law enforcement since February 24. In the meantime, no contribution has been done by Bythere. That is why I ask my colleagues to help me with this issue. His repetitive revisions do not improve the quality of the article and in no way help to improve it. Thank you all in advance. --Quorra Rinzler (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Report was malformed, but 3RR was clearly violated and user was warned. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Daniel Case, this was a case of forum shopping after I had declined an AIV report and warned everyone involved for edit warring. I'm dissatisfied to see that Quorra Rinzler is now even, in bold formatting, using the block as an argument on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just gave context for all those who will join the discussion. Quorra Rinzler (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quorra Rinzler, you have provided an irrelevant argument that has nothing to do with the article's content. Please remove it from your comment, just as I had removed unnecessarily personal content from the original message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've edited, but I still think you're being too soft on the "newbie" editor with this pattern of behavior as Bythere demonstrate. Quorra Rinzler (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forum shopping or not (and yes, I see this happen here and at AIV too), there was a clear violation. 3RR IMO leaves less room for judgement calls. It needs to be seen as strictly enforced. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Cosmoid reported by User:HappyMcSlappy (Result: Partial block)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. An identical revert from August 5th
  2. Today
  3. Today
  4. Today
  5. Today
  6. Today
  7. Today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on talk page, also warned by Dumuzid.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2] Section was opened by jps on the 6th, Cosmoid did not post to it until around the time of their first threat to edit war over this (see below).

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [3]


The user has repeatedly stated their intention to continue edit warring, here, here and here. Happy (Slap me) 14:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition: Two more reverts in the time between me noticing the 4th and finishing this report. Happy (Slap me) 14:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indef partial block from Kevin Knuth. Despite having less than 200 edits, this is not Cosmoid's first block for edit warring. A site-wide block may be necessary if they are not able to adapt and adhere to our policies and guidelines regarding content disputes and collaboration.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha ha ha! Firstly, I did not start the 'edit war' - in fact, if you bothered to review the logs, you'd see that I was the person repeatedly asking that this did not occur. The tag was repeatedly replaced after I had removed it, having stated explicitly why the tag was inaccurate and inappropriate. Yet there was no discussion before revert after revert (I was not even the first user to breach the 3 revert rule!).
Secondly, get your facts straight. I have not been blocked for 'edit warring'. I was blocked for an untrue accusation of 'meat puppetry' (I didn't even know what it was!).
Thirdly, the notability of the article was discussed on the AfD. It was not found that the article lacked notability - otherwise, it would have been deleted. To then tag my article regarding notability within days of the AfD discussion closing - despite there being no consensus that there is any notability issue - is quite clearly trolling. Hence, I removed the tag. I also demonstrated my willingness to compromise, by adding the Primary Sources tag back myself, absent the reference to 'notability'.
Yet, despite the evidence of what occurred here - including interaction by other users who appear obsessed with 'policing' any pages they deem as 'fringe' - I am the one who gets blocked? You refer to "collaboration"; where was collegial behaviour and collaborative mindset that sought to discuss any perceived notability issue on the article's talk page before plastering the tag on the article just days after the AfD discussion? Of course, there was none. It was, I believe, simply placed there to be provocative, since the article was not deleted as had been argued for. There has been collaborative 'pile-on' behaviour by those motivated to devote a quite bizarre level attention to this article. I wonder why ... oh so mysterious. A check of the some of the usernames involved and a studious review of their own edit history might prove enlightening.
In summary: The facts of what occurred here ever since I first published the article are clearly logged for all to see. However, it's obvious to me that a certain subset of Wikipedia editors are not interested in actually adhering in practice to the stated Wikipedia principles to which they pay lip service (and, of course, weaponise to further their own agendas).
I note the ban on this account is indefinite. Please don't bother lifting it. Apply the perma-ban hammer, I implore you. I'm done with Wikipedia. I've far better better things to do with my time than play these ridiculous games.
P.S.: As for your "site-wide block" ... you do realise how trivial it is to fire up a new account under fresh & totally unrelated residential IP, don't you? Luckily for you, I've neither the time nor the inclination to bother. Do your worst. Ta-ta. Cosmoid (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Lemonbisi reported by User:Zaian (Result: Blocked indef as SOA)[edit]

Page: Independent Online (South Africa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lemonbisi (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. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]
  5. [8]
  6. [9]
  7. [10]
  8. [11]
  9. [12]
  10. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]


Lemonbisi (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia 2 weeks ago and has continuously tried to edit the opening sentence of the article Independent Online (South Africa) and has not responded to multiple attempts to discuss this on their talk page and on the article talk page. The edit itself is questionable because it is poorly cited and is also part of a pattern of probable conflict of interest editing of this and related pages which I have raised separately at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Independent_Online_(South_Africa). Zaian (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: reported by User:S.G ReDark (Result: Blocked 48h)[edit]

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

Previous version related to [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [18]
  2. [19]
  3. [20]
  4. [21]
  5. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23][24] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments: I trimmed the page and removed content that actually exists in the page but is down below in different sections (Early life and career, Political career 1999-2015, Prime Minister) and also in more detail, basically an almost copy of what is written later in the page. Because the content I removed as I said still IS in the page I made a small summary while keeping important information and as for result became easier to navigate (it was too long). The user started reverting my edits without explanation, even another editor restored my version and still got reverted. The user didn't respond to my message and the editor i mentioned sent a warning which both messages where removed by the user.

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours since he continued edit warring and has refused to discuss, even deleting a message to that effect on their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: )[edit]

Page: Lion Capital of Ashoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Start at 09:07, 10 August 2022

  1. 1st series of reverts (continuous)
  • [27] (Revert of a photograph I added 2 days before [28]
  • [29] (Revert of a new sourced sentence from 3 hours before [30]) ES: "removing shameless Hindu nationalist anti-Islamic promotion."
  • [31] (Revert of images added 2 days before [32]) ES: "please don't replace these images with ugly cutouts to make some dubious point."
  • [33] (Revert of text added 2 days before [34]) ES: "removing silly promotion; no text please, especially not one promoting your monumental cottage industry adn where did the satvahana 24 spoked go?"
  1. 2nd series of reverts (continuous)
  • [35] (Revert of image size change from 10 minutes before [36]. Tag: Manual revert) ES: "please don't play this silly game"
  • [37] (Revert of text added 15 minutes before [38])
  1. 3rd series of reverts (continuous)
  • [39] [40] (Revert of new text and image added 1 hour before [41]) ES: "Please don't dicker around with the pictures such a blatant fashion and then go to ANI crying 3RR"
  1. 4th revert
  • [42] (Revert of text with reference and quote added 10 minutes before [43], Tag: Reverted) ES: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): I will revert this because this is blatant anti-Islamism. I know you are baiting me to take me to ANI cring 3RR. Please dont play with fire. You are unable to understand his irony and are implicating a recently deceased art historian your islamophobia. Utterly shameful."

End at 15:32, 10 August 2022

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]


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

1) "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly" [47]
2) " "Let us keep the article in its current state at the time of this post", a state in which "all have been added by me (...) and all have been paraphrased by me" [48]
3) "Here is an article that I have written from start to finish. You have done nothing user:Patiliputra but be disruptive." [49]

Outrageous and abusive edit summaries. Irrational, mistaken arguments and major abusive language on the Talk Page of the article [50]. Fowler&fowler apparently thinks he is above Wikipedia rules and civility standards. Something has to be done. Fowler&fowler was already Warned 2 times previously for similar behaviour [51] (by Admin User:EdJohnston) and [52], to no avail. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@पाटलिपुत्र: I'm not much concerned about the warning from 2021, but the warning from last month is I think relevant. It took me a while to figure out, but the warning was given by Bishonen, not by EdJohnston. F&f in one of their edit summaries refers to User:Patiliputra; do you know to whom they're referring (there is no such user)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bbb23: "Pataliputra" is the reading of my Hindi user name (User:पाटलिपुत्र) पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Fowler&fowler[edit]

  • I have just finished rewriting Darjeeling and received this appreciation from some FAR regulars. The article will appear as TFA on India's independence day on 15th August. I collaborated there with the nominator of the original FA back in 2006. There was never any issue over the more than 1100 edits I made in the last several months.
  • This is not my first encounter with user:Pat, or पाटलिपुत्र—which I was told was the Sanskrit spelling of Patliputra.
  • They have engaged in WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA, and persisted despite my revert in order to bait me.
  • The last time user:Pat and I had such an encounter was in August 2020, on the talk India page when user:Pat had engaged in unapologetic Xenophobia. India is another FA that I had revised in plain sight of dozens, including administrators over a three-months period before its TFA on Gandhi's 150 birthday on October 2 2019. A year later, in a thread begun by a a Hindu-nationalist-POV promoting editor who is now ARBIPA topic banned (but to whom I still showed empathy in that link), user:Pat objected to a picture of a church and proposed something Hindu should replace it; they objected to a picture of a mosque, and proposed something Hindu should replace it and then they objected to a picture of our son who had turned 30 just then and whose pictures modeling the Kurta had been in Wikipedia since 2007 when he was a teenager, and proposed that someone who is "an actual Indian" should replace him, and guess who the proposed candidates were? All three Hindus. (Hmm. I thought India was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society; I wrote the India FA's lead which proclaims it) I immediately received emails from administrators to withdraw the picture, that it was obvious instance of baiting me to take a misstep, and that in viciously Hindu nationalist India of today, you don't know what it might lead to. So I took the picture out.
  • This time they have engaged in gratuitous WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA—low-grade it might have been, but it was unmistakeable in the manner in which it was accomplshede—by selectively picking a sentence from a recent book that says many things over many pages in many shades of nuance, and then misinterpreting it. Again the MO is the same: bait someone by speaking politely, making edits that technically don't fall under reverts but have the same effect, quote rules and regulations loftily and sanctimoniously, but edge more and more into forms of hatred that all principles of Wikipedia anathematize, and wait for your opponent to blow up.
  • What is user:Pat's MO? They appear immediately after and introduce the same pseudo-Hindu-nationalist or Hindu-sub nationalist twists (i.e favoring the region Bihar and its ancient glory in which their avatar name Patliputra lies) They do so politely and wait for me to revert their edits. When I do, they get their edits, or a second-cousin third-removed of their edit back in, and wait for me to take a misstep. I am aware of this of course; I noted it in my edit summary yesterday.
  • First they restored to full-size an image whose increased dimension makes the infobox stick half-way through section 1. I had made a special note of it in the previous edits.
  • To the sentence "The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried." they [added the old Hindu nationalist excuse, "or may have been overthrown by Muslim invaders in the 10-12th century CE." edit in the lead, when there was no mention of it anywhere else in the article; they cited it, moreover, when there are no citations in the lead. Worse yet, they maligned a fine recently decease art historian at the the University of Minnesota, Frederick Asher, by including them by implication in this unholy obsession.
  • When I reverted them, they inserted the edit back in with this poor paraphrase of Rick Asher from page 74.
  • Why am I sure this is Hindu-nationalist POV promotion and baiting besides? Because Asher says many things, with great nuance throughout the book. On page 3 (yes right in the beginning) he says,

    "Something happened that brought premodern construction at Sarnath to an end after the twelfth century and, in all probability, caused the resident monks to desert the monastery. That was about the same time that other monasteries in India seem to have been abandoned. Generally, the blame is placed on invaders, almost invariably identified by their religion, Islam, rather than their geographic or cultural identity, Afghans. But Sarnath may have also suffered devastation by Hindus, not just by invading Afghan armies. An intriguing explanation for this, and also for possible interruptions in the long life of the site, is offered by Giovanni Verardi and, at greater length, by Federica Barba in an appendix to Verardi’s book.19 They make a strong case, based on both literature and archaeology, that Brahmanical hostility toward Buddhists resulted in the destruction of Sarnath and other sites.

    And then he goes on to mention many other explanations, including Muslim.
  • So what is the bottom line here? If the powers-that-be want to block me or permanently ban me, that is their prerogative, but I refuse to brook forms of hatred, blatant or insouciant, on Wikipedia, against any religion, gender, or form of life. I have warned user:Pat numerous times to stop this promotion, and that I will take them to AN asking for a topic ban, at the very least from the mainstream India-related articles, but as it is, I am the one who is being dragged to AN/I in carefully planned baiting trips. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS Please do not clog this section with long posts. Do so, in whatever way you want in the sections below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk)[edit]

1) For the record, I have no interest at all in promoting "Hindu nationalism" (the fact that I chose a user name after an ancient Indian city, पाटलिपुत्र-Pataliputra is irrelevant), and have no inclination whatsoever towards "Islamophobia" (here invoked repeatedly and grandiloquently simply because I quoted and paraphrased closely a reliable source on what "writers generally assume" to be the cause of the destruction of the Lion Capital of Ashoka [53], in light of the well-known and not so peaceful Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent).
2) The bottom line is that User:Fowler&fowler is a rather competent content creator, but a highly WP:OWN one (see User:Johnbod's mention of "F&F's imperial claims of ownership" [54]) with a battleground mentality, wielding constant disruption (see User:Snow Rise's comment to him: "looking at the conduct in this thread, I have to say that yours is looking like the much, much more WP:Disruptive conduct at the moment." [55]), who will systematically vilify ("You know nothing about Indian history. Nothing" [56], "You have no idea at all how much I despise your POV." [57]), delete and revert (overt breaches of 3RR) the contents of any perceived opponent until he can contentedly brag that "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly" [58][59][60] or "I have rewritten this article, rewritten its every word, found its every reference." [61]. If interested, just look at the level of verbal abuse other editors have to endure everyday when dealing with him [62] (and it is just one example among many...), to be contrasted with the "rigorously cold civility" he reluctantly acknowledges in me [63].
3) I know there is not much I can do about it, but I don't mind lengthy Talk Page discussions and receiving imput from other users to debate a point, although this process is rendered rather ineffectual since Fowler&fowler is not actually interested in genuine exchanges on Talk Pages ("I hadn't noticed that because I don't read your data dumps." [64]). At least I would like basic Wikipedia rules to be rigorously upheld in the process: no verbal abuse or personal attacks, and no edit-warring (with particular respect for the 3RR rule). If, through Administrator intervention, Fowler&fowler can be made to respect these basic tenets of collaborative editing, the editorial environment would be much better for everyone. After several administrative warnings already [65][66] I believe a symbolic, temporary block is in order at this point, so that Fowler&fowler receives the message that editing should be civil and collaborative, and that refraining from edit-warring and observing the 3RR rule is a red line that has to be respected. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


user:Pat, I've been around on WP for 16 years. I have maintained the FA India for just as long. I have collaborated with hundreds of editors, not just only India (where I have collaborated with dozens of people including many administrators), but on FAC, FAR, and lord knows what else. You have the nerve to say you are not racist (when you say, "An actual Indian," thereby implying that someone who does not look Indian does not have the right to model Indian clothes, especially for a Wikipedia article. No one has as yet in the 15 years since produced better examples at Kurta. Ten years ago you would have been banned from WP for such racism. I am being gentle with you by calling you xenophobic. It is the same as your other remarks here
You object to a picture of a mosque that has been in the FA India since 2004, with the comment,
"The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."
You object to a WP:FP of a church with the remark, "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."
What else is Hindu nationalism and majoritarianism? Admin Vanamonde93 who replied to you later in that thread said pretty clearly, "The argument that "society" and "religion" ought not to be illustrated with images of Islam or Christianity is the sort of sectarian nonsense that I would almost recommend sanctions for."
I let you off lightly that time and a few times since warning you that I would take you to AN for a topic ban, but never actually did. But you don't seem to listen. You are religion baiting in your edits, some the worst kind I have seen on my 16 years on WP. The worst. You think it is not obvious that you appear on a page that you have edited ten times in the last ten years, and then suddenly begin to hover over it in hundreds of little edits soon after I appear? How strange is that? I just collaborated with user:Dwaipayanc another WP veteran on Darjeeling and received this barnstar from them. There are a handful of people on Wikipedia, all Hindu nationalist warriors user:Highpeaks35 (now permabanned), user:LearnIndology (now topic banned) with whom I have experienced such unpleasantness as I have with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case you are looking to deny that you only occasionally edited that article, here is your own disclaimer: "I have only contributed to this article in a rather patchy fashion, most of the content has never been my own. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)" So why have you been hovering after I appeared? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally, I have nothing personal against you, but as long as you do prolific original research on images, cutting out snippets from here, pasting them there, endlessly, ever and anon, to overburden pages with boosterism of Hindu nationalism or Hindu sub-nationalism, not to mention baiting of Islam, Christianity, you will find an implacable foe in me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Chrisanthusjohn reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )[edit]

Page: Winston Sterzel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Chrisanthusjohn (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 19:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC) to 19:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    1. 19:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "source does not mention German heritage"
    2. 19:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "grammar"
    3. 19:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "removed people who appear to have no connection with Sterzel from "see also" section, added Matthew Tye who is indeed an associated YouTuber"
    4. 19:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "Removed information from potentially unreliable source - it appears that interested parties can actually buy advertising or marketing packages that may include articles, meaning that the source would not be truly independent of the subject of the article - from that's mags about page: "We provide an array of digital advertising solutions, with a commitment to establishing the most productive and efficient way to ensure maximum exposure""
  2. 18:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1103706014 by Praxidicae (talk) Please read my edit summaries below - I have indicated exact reasons for removal of each piece of informatoin"
  3. 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1103690335 by Praxidicae (talk) reverted wholesale reversion of unreliable information per WP:RS and otherwise unsourced promotional material per WP:NOT soapbox/means of promotion"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 16:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC) to 17:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    1. 16:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "the people listed under "See Also" appear to have no affiliation with Sterzel, apart from being Chinese internet celebrities of which there are many"
    2. 16:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "edited for grammar"
    3. 16:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "removed unsourced information - source failed to load"
    4. 16:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "removed unsourced information - source failed to load"
    5. 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "neither source mentions German heritage"
    6. 16:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "removed unsourced information - source failed to load"
    7. 17:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "neither source mentions him "moving to China in his mid-twenties" - could be worked out based on date of article and other contextual information I suppose but that would be WP:OR and WP:SYN"
    8. 17:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "Removed information from potentially unreliable source - it appears that interested parties can actually buy advertising or marketing packages that may include articles, meaning that the source would not be truly independent of the subject of the article - from that's mags about page: "We provide an array of digital advertising solutions, with a commitment to establishing the most productive and efficient way to ensure maximum exposure""
    9. 17:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "removed information from unreliable source - per WP:RSP "Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons.""
    10. 17:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "removed unsourced information"
    11. 17:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "added Tye to See also section"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC) to 16:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    1. 16:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "removed original research & uncited information, edited text to match information given in source"
    2. 16:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "added back info that was mistakenly deleted"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 18:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Censorship of material on Winston Sterzel."
  2. 18:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Winston Sterzel."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 18:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "/* sources */ new section"
  2. 19:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC) "/* sources */"


Despite discussions on my talk page, their talk page and the articles talk page, they are still removing sourced content and not engaging in consensus building at the actual talk page, instead removing sourced information because they are dead links (which I've linked to the archived version on the talk page) that support the statements. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And even in the process of filing this, they've continued removing information that was also discussed at the AFD(s). PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further clarification:
Per WP:STATUSQUO - "Exceptions to this recommendation include living persons – Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious."
Regarding my most recent edits:
I was trying to re-insert my contributions that were caught up in the mass revert without removing the materials sourced only by dead links (which I agree were my mistake) per WP:REVONLY. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not removing sourced content any longer, only trying to revert the page to a position where the information from dead links are restored (I misunderstood the policy on dead links and am no longer removing information from sourced but dead links), only removing information that is not in the sources given. Please read the sources and my edits - I am only removing information that is not in the source given as well as removing information from one unreliable-looking source. That's it. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was initially under the impression that information sourced with dead links counted as unsourced information and should be removed. Honest mistake. As soon as that was pointed out to me, I stopped removing information from dead links and only removed information that was either not in the source given or in one case from an unreliable source. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I was editing in good faith removing what I (incorrectly) thought counted as unsourced information. I was accused of censorship on my talk page, which I didn't take seriously as a warning because I wasn't trying to censor anything. I was also under the impression that the 3RR did not apply as stringently for BLP articles. I was trying to follow the rule "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" per WP:BLP Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The material isn't contentious and isn't an exemption. I suggest you revert yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Revert which edits specifically? None of my most recent edits have been removing information from dead links (what I initially got accused of "censorship" for). The other edits are trying to reconcile the information in the article with the information in the source given. Please read the sources and the information to check for yourself. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me the material appeared as soap-boxing/self-promotional material and therefore seemed contentious. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: reported by User:2603:8080:F600:27A2:6C94:8FC0:CC79:265A (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72] [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74] [75] [76]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [77]


The user's edit summary for their most recent edit [78] as well as their accusations on the page's talk page [79] are a bit odd honestly. I don't want to make accusations without more happening but take a look at them if you're stumped please 2603:8080:F600:27A2:6C94:8FC0:CC79:265A (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note IP has not specifically been warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least, until I just did. [80]C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: reported by User:Spaully (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Original addition
  2. Revert 1
  3. Revert 2
  4. Revert 3
  5. Revert 4 - Note this is by a different IP, with no other previous edits, however with the same edit summary style and continuing the same discussion, and at the same time as a reply on the talk page.

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]


This is a little difficult as I obviously do not have the tools to prove whether the second IP is the same person, but on face value this seems likely. Thank you for looking into this and happy to talk any advice on this, hopefully the IP user will engage properly in the talk page discussion. |→ Spaully ~talk~  12:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both IPs blocked for a week for edit-warring and generally bizarre edits. They're clearly the same person. What on earth is this "blood ritual" business? Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've siteblocked because of the tendentious nature of their behavior on the talkpage and the generally strange nature of their repeated edits, which do not lend me much confidence that they're going to contribute collegially. If it had been more potentially helpful edits, I would have done a partial block, but their behavior is veering into disruption. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]