Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:ThesariusQ reported by User:Hemiauchenia (Result: EC protection)

Page: Socionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ThesariusQ: ThesariusQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute [7] (No response)

Comments:
User is part of a collection of SPA's reverting edits to the Socionics page on Wikipedia including Sounderk, Igor RD and 2806:10a6:19:5b4a:f1bb:23d7:efe2:aef5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sounderk Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Sorry, but the article has been in consensus for many years. After that, there was a non-consensual edit at the beginning [8] which I canceled [9]. After that, they began to cancel my cancellation.--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I clearly asked you to use the articles talk page instead of just reverting the edit, which you didn't do. The involvement of multiple possible socketpuppets is making it even worse. --Johannnes89 (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: This is not clearly a 3RR violation since two of the listed edits were consecutive. Page has been EC protected for one week by User:Cwmhiraeth, which ought to help with the socking. In my opinion a longer protection may eventually become necessary. There is an open sockpuppet case about User:ThesariusQ. The tone of the discussion at Talk:Socionics indicates that one or more editors might be violating WP:ASPERSIONS. An admin with more patience might consider if an SPI block is due, or if any personal attack blocks are indicated. The page on Socionics ought to fall under the WP:ARBPS case. See also WP:ANI#Socionics. A related dispute has been taking place on the Russian Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:A Simple Human reported by User:KSAWikipedian (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

2021 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

A Simple Human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* 2021 Pakistan Super League */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Refuses to discuss. Keeps unilaterally blanking a page that multiple editors have contributed it. It is the next itteration of tournament that meets WP:N. It has multiple WP:RS. He refuses to discuss prior to unilaterally reverting my edits. KSAWikipedian (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• No. I havent violated WP:3RR. Among one of the edits, I simply restored a previously edition. And we are still under discussion. You reported me without I get to say anything properly. Human (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• A Simple Human did agree to discuss. We had a very productive and passionate discussion and were able to reach a consensus. Since the reasons for the complaint have been rectified, I now withdraw report. KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Drevolt reported by User:PurpleDeskChair (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Even after the report continues to edit war. He claims that one source allows him to edit the text. However there has been a several year long consensus that it is top ten. He has been called out on several article talks about his vandalism. The Talk has already built a consensus. I want to be civil but his constant hijacking of the article is clearly not in good faith: [11]
2. Drevolt deletes the more detailed USNews source which affirms the lead text: [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleDeskChair (talk • contribs) 00:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Same as the two cases below-- plain and simple edit warring: [13]
4. Re-adds his 'top 15' to the lead: [14]
5. Re-adds his 'top 15' to the lead despite regular and sustained objections by other contributors, sources, and the talk: [15]
6. Historical-- undoes contribution to rankings tab. I only include this example to illustrate his past history with this theme and how it is continuing. It does not relate to the present edit war: [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:
I am a new Wikipedia editor so please forgive me if not using the correct terminology. For the past few weeks, Drevolt has been editing the University of Chicago wikipedia page to include that it is among the top 15 world universities in the lead paragraph. For several years the lead paragraph was that it was top ten in the world-- and all sources provided substantiate that. Nothing has changed and regular contributors all have a consensus around the former lead paragraph. However, for the past week Drevolt has been warring to have it phrased as top fifteen and has frequently undone other users edits to maintain its status. He refuses to use the chat feature and only undos other users edits. He is regularly called out for this. I am aware that he is also warring on the University of California, Berkeley page as well and has already been disciplined for a similar offense. In the UChicago article talk section, he has already been admonished for edit warring by several other contributors in past instances-- this is not a novel occurrence. I have attached a link from March of this year where (for several years leading up to this past week or so) the lead paragraph has been 'top ten on various national and international publications'-- Drevolt has not accepted this reality. I did not attach all links! There are many other cases of Drevolt edit warring on this article from past weeks. Please put a stop to this user's edit warring. As mentioned before, I am new to reporting users. Please let me know if I can update anything to conform to your guidelines.

PurpleDeskChair is the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation for several previous accounts that engaged in disruptive editing on the University of Chicago page that were blocked several months ago. However, I'd also like to point out that prior to a recent change (and to PurpleDeskChair's disruptive editing), I hadn't edited the page in "the past few weeks", and my recent activity doesn't meet the 3RR definition of edit warring. My previous edits came two months ago in response to a sockpuppet campaign on the page from User:WildlyAccurate, who has since been permanently blocked for sockpuppeting after I reported it. Given the fact that User:PurpleDeskChair created this account yesterday and yet seems to already know a suspicious amount about the page history (and has a similar editing pattern to that of User:WildlyAccurate), I'm at least suspicious that this is the same user. Also, as a side note, I have not been "disciplined" for anything on the Berkeley page, whatever that means. --Drevolt (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I first would like to note that I do not know that other user. I am an independent person with his first Wikipedia account. You have made two undoes in 24 hours and an edit all related to rankings. As well, you have made similar edits regarding rankings in the past. So much so that the talk is dominated by user complaints of your harassment of the page. You have a pattern on several university articles to mention rankings in a way which is unnecessarily negative. I do not believe you are acting in good faith when editing this article. Earlier today the UCBerkeley page got protected because of your continual edit warring on the exact same topic. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User PurpleDeskChair is the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation for several previous accounts that engaged in disruptive editing on the University of Chicago page that were blocked several months ago. The user's recent disruptive behavior closely resembles the wave of disruptive editing by sockpuppet accounts that occurred on the page in May 2020. Please see the sockpuppet investigation here for more information. --Drevolt (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This sockpuppet report launched by you falls under the Wikipedia Harassment Policy as Drevolt is retaliating against me for reporting their edit warring:[19] PurpleDeskChair (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am pleased to share that his frivolous report of me as a sockpuppet has come out negative. Meanwhile, Drevolt continued weaponizing Wikipedia's editing into a personal battle on several University Wikipedia articles to adjust their rankings. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting at this point Drevolt has violated the 3RR rule. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, still haven't. --Drevolt (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

While it does not pass the 24 hr threshold-- you have continuously and repeatedly done the same action well above the '3' minimum within 48 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleDeskChair (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's one of the exceptions to the 3RR policy: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." Given your various connections to the many sockpuppet accounts that have been blocked for editing on that page, I expect the final decision in the ongoing sockpuppet investigation to provide pretty clear vindication on this point. --Drevolt (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What evidence do you speak of? Your only claim is that we 'sound similar'. I do not know these users and have not engaged with them and the fact is no admin/CU has found ANY EVIDENCE to support your allegations. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I might as well just address these point by point. Of the six diffs you have linked:

1. This one is reverting an edit by a confirmed sockpuppet of WildlyAccurate who is now blocked.
2. This one is reverting an obviously non-constructive change to a cited source (the sentence is about global rankings, so replacing a source about global rankings with one about domestic rankings was not appropriate there).
3. Another was a revert of your edit which directly contradicted one of the cited sources and so uncontroversially did not belong there.
4. Another was to revert your edit warring with Contributor 321, who had rightly reverted an anonymous IP edit with no edit summary.
5. Another is from several months ago and is not relevant to your present report.

Even if these edits were not spread out over a longer period than is covered by 3RR (which they were), they were also good faith edits made in in order to combat persistent problems with sock puppetry on this article. You don't have a case here. --Drevolt (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Drevolt, these claims have been debunked. SEVERAL admins and CUs said they found no evidence I am a sock puppet. Cut it out with these personal attacks and let’s instead try to be productive about this all. I’ve invited every user to participate in the talk discussion on the article. You constantly resort to attacking my existence instead of responding to my ideas. Clear ad hominem attacks: [20] PurpleDeskChair (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Where did I call you a sock puppet in any of that? Please reread it and click through to the linked pages, I was referring to an edit by a confirmed sockpuppet account. Please point out a single claim that I just made that was "debunked". --Drevolt (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You called me a sock puppet here and here: [21] [22]. Even after admins said I likely wasn’t one, you insisted on it. They defended that it is highly unlikely I am one and your report that I am a sock puppet was closed without any disciplinary action against me. Stop harassing me— it isn’t a healthy hobby. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You replied to my comment and said that 1) I was calling you a sock puppet in that comment, which I wasn't, and 2) that any of those claims have been "debunked", which they haven't. Do you have anything to say about either of those things? And regarding everything else you're saying, I reported you as a suspected sockpuppet because your behavior was consistent with a recurring sockpuppet user on that page, and I stand by that move. Reporting suspicious behavior does not constitute a personal attack, no matter how much you might think it does. --Drevolt (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t mind a good faith report. What I mind and find personal is when you go to the admins afterwards and ask “is there anything else you can do about this” after they declined the sock puppet case. And then make a point of informing every talk I am in that I am “under investigation” for being a sockpuppet. You have gone out of your way to delegitimize me. Your defamation scheme has failed. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior can and should be labeled as such. Again, everything I did was in line with policy, not once did I say that you were a confirmed sockpuppet. I'm going to take your refusal to engage with the substance of my original comment as an acknowledgement that everything I said was correct. If that's the case, I'd like to ask you to withdraw this report. If not, I'm going to stop replying here and let the admins come to their own conclusions. --Drevolt (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest in the future you admit to it instead of lying about your actions. Thanks. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Jack Shukla reported by User:SerChevalerie (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sushant Singh Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack Shukla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

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

Comments:

Informed user of edit warring, still reverted edits. The actor's death has been listed as a suicide by the final post mortem report, but user refuses to believe it saying that the police could have been bribed. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Textbook POV-pushing. I protected the Sushant Singh Rajput article and talk page because there has been a flood of conspiracy theory edits and talk page comments. It's a high profile subject that has been getting a lot of media attention, and that has unfortunately attracted a lot of editors ignorant of Wikipedia policies and goals, many of them I'm sure are fans. I don't know/care what Shukla's fan status is, but he seems oblivious to the fact that we don't care what he personally thinks about the subject's death cause. Rather than accepting the police ruling that it was a suicide, he is pushing an agenda that the death is a "mystery". From my count, he has inserted this content five times in the biography,[29][30][31][32][33] which is sufficient for sanctions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F reported by User:JlACEer (Result: Semi)

Page

User talk:JlACEer (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:JlACEer. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point 150 years */"
2. 23:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point 150 years */"
3. 23:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point 150 years */"
4. 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""

Comments:

I know blocks are not supposed to be punitive but I think this user needs a short block as a cool-down period and perhaps to learn some manners. I'm tired of being harassed. —JlACEer (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Cedar Point one month. User:JlACEer, if you don't want this dispute conducted on your user talk, why not open a thread on Talk:Cedar Point? I don't see any personal attacks by the IP or any vandalism, though they removed references here, perhaps inadvertently. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I tried to encourage the user to take the discussion to talk:Cedar Point but he kept posting to my personal page. I don't think you read the comments made by the user on my personal talk page, he was most certainly out of line, even making snide comments about my previous posts. This type of stalking is almost frightening. Semi-protecting one page may fix the problem for that particular page, but I would like to have seen a little bit of hand slapping of the abusive IP user. I had hoped that at least one person other than me would let him know that such behavior is not acceptable on Wikipedia.—JlACEer (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think that the IP made personal attacks, please link to one of them. Criticism of your edits is not the same as criticism of you as a person. In your response above you call him an 'abusive IP user'. Unless you can document their abuse, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS on the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:37.251.220.233 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Flushed Away (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

37.251.220.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC) to 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC) to 15:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Flushed Away. (TW)"
2. 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio 17:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Ktrimi991 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: )

Page: Kosovo Myth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36] (rv of this [37])

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

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

Comments:
While the above is technically not a 3RR vio, Ktrimi991 has been maxing out 3RR a lot lately. This is a highly experienced user who knows not to violate 3RR, but is clearly gaming it. In addition to the above diffs, he has recently:
Maxed out 3RR at Kosovo Myth on July 31: [38] [39] [40]

Maxed out 3RR at Great Retreat (Serbian) on July 18: [41] [42] [43]

Maxed out 3RR at Albanian nationalism on July 10: [44] [45] [46]

And again on July 2: [47] [48] [49]

That’s 5 times in the last month, with only ~100 mainspace edit in that period. Out of those mainspace edits, a clear majority (I'd say ~60% are reverts). At Albanian nationalism (Albania), the article was page protected on July 2 due to Ktrimi’s edit-warring, and he immediately racked up 3 reverts on July 10 as soon as the page protection expired. The reasons for edit-warring are two-fold: One is to prevent addition of material he does not like, such as at Albanian nationalism (Albania) (typically using "no consensus" as an excuse), the other is to revert removal of material he has added, for example at Kosovo Serbs. In other words, he can add material as he sees fit, but no one else can. He knowingly games 3RR because he often writes “this is my last revert” in edit summaries [50], indicating that he knows what he’s doing is blockable, and is writing “this is my last revert” so as to avoid a block. This is nothing new, he has done it several times before [51] [52]. The edit-warring diffs are only from the past month, but the pattern of behavior has been going on for a long time. For example, in June he maxed out 3RR in quick succession at Battle of Manzikert, in an article to which he clearly stalked me or Dr.K. [53] [54] [55]. What is especially disruptive is that while this article falls clearly outside the topics he edits (which are almost exclusively Albanian), he knows just enough history to know that Battle of Manzikert is a sensitive topic for Greek editors. He had never shown the slightest interest in that article or any related articles before, and I can only surmise that he followed me or Dr. K. there and reverted out of spite.

In addition to edit-warring, he frequently uses abusive edit-summaries, laced with contempt, aggression, and condescension, as demonstrated in the diffs above. He also uses WP:BULLY tactics, frequently posting threatening messages on other user’s talkpages, threatening to report them or out them: [56] [57] Talkpage posts, which are far fewer than reverts, are similarly laced with insults, threats, or both: [58] [59] He even said he found COVID-19 pandemic in Greece "entertaining" [60]. That alone should be santionable. Recently, he posted threats on his talkpage were so outrageous they had to be redacted [61], and he was warned by Primefac [62]. He has also repeatedly threatened me in the past [63] [64]. In 13 years of editing wikipedia, I have never seen such threats.

In summary, Ktrimi displays strong WP:BATTLE behavior on Balkan topics and is clearly very comfortable gaming 3RR. This behavior has been going on for a long time and I am certain the edit-warring, threats, and incivility will continue, unless restrictions are imposed. If anything, the edit-warring is increasing in frequency in the last month rather than decreasing. All of his edits fall within the WP:ARBMAC topic area, and are as such subject to sanction, something which he is aware of: [65]. Khirurg (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• This editor, who has a very long history of frivolous reports (closed without action or with boomerang) on apparently perceived opponents, in the last month or so, has "maxed out", whatever it means, 3RR on Lukovë, Albanian nationalism (Albania), Origin of the Albanians and Dimale. He is practically reporting me for sth he has done himself. he knows just enough history to know that Battle of Manzikert is a sensitive topic for Greek editors. He had never shown the slightest interest in that or any related articles before, and I can only surmise that followed me or Dr. K. there and reverted out of spite What an aspersion and personal attack, and btw do not edit articles if you are very "sensitive" to them. But not a surprise; you have been warned and sanctioned (including a topic ban, "revert restrictions", interaction bans, blocks) several times for your behaviour and inapropriate comments on other editors. It is common for you to accuse other editors of "following around"; you even took the Manzikert thing to Wiki Commons where you accused of the same thing other editors [66][67][68]. During your latest edit warring session you again used your common personal attacks and aspersions for edit summaries (e.g. [69]). the article was page protected on July 2 due to Ktrimi’s edit-warring The edit warring between several editors there happened because you made several reverts there to add questionable (read: false) information on living people without consensus. The article got protected after I asked an admin about personal attacks that were being made there through edit summaries. On my tp, the edit that was deleted by Primefac discussed how you involved me in your off-Wiki conflicts with User:Sulmues. However, I thanked Primefac for the deletion; as I said at the time, in tense situations one might give more details than intended (your previous username, that was all). On Kosovo Serbs you went as far as to make 3 reverts that counter with what the given sources say on the Arnautasi theory (you denied that the source says what it actually says!): a theory that has been described as fringe, nationalistic and racist -- the theory says that the Kosovo Albanians as a community have Serbian origin. I have always fought against nationalistic editing on Wikipedia, and I have reported many editors for disruptive editing regardless of their apparent ethnicity: Albanian, Serbian, Croatian, Greek or whatever. You, what have you done so far in that regard? But why here? Take your concerns about my behaviour at AE; there everthing can be discussed more carefully and in greater detail, I can prepare more diffs and you can get a boomerang. You have said you will report me there for years; why not? Of course, that you are heavily involved in disruptive editing should not serve as a justification for me, or anyone else for that matter, to make more reverts. Indeed, the Balkan area is difficult, with many tense situations and disruptive editing. Hence sometimes I, as everyone else editing the topic, should be more careful and reflect on some cases, and maybe even leave a dispute for a few days. The most important thing is to not resort to infamous fringe theories, like you are doing. Ktrimi991 (talk)

Check your facts. Virtually everything you wrote above is an outright falsehood. I did not reach 3RR at Dimale or Origin of the Albanians. Not even close. Doubtless this is why you have not included diffs with your accusations. And while edit-wars happen in the Balkans, you are by far the worst offender. And no, I have not been sanctioned, in fact I have a clean block log since 2010 (unlike you). Regarding the history of filing frivolous reports, I believe that honor goes to you [70] (how many contribs is that? 100?). In fact you have more edits to AN3 than any other page on wikipedia, bar your own talkpage [71]. You were even warned by an admin [72] against filing frivolous reports. Regarding the edits oversighted by Primefac, we both know you did much more than reveal my old username. In fact, why don't we ping Primfac to see what they think? Yes, let's do that: @Primefac:. This wasn't the first time you were warned about attempted outing by an admin. Remember this [73]? And you shouldn't misuse words like "fringe theory". Your documented history of gaming WP:3RR is not a fringe theory; it is a documented fact. What is a fringe theory, are your wild allegations about off-wiki nonsense (or more accurately, a conspiracy theory). So in addition to your edit-warring, threats, and incivility, we can add one more reason for why you should be sanctioned: Intellectual dishonesty. Khirurg (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If an admin is willing to see the evidence and evaluate it, I am very willing to pass it to them. You and Sulmues had off-Wiki conflicts, and I was involved without my permission and desire. The rest of your claims can be very easily verified by anyone interested. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment I don't get the nature of this report as far as 3RR is concerned. There is no violation of 3RR and Ktrimi991 didn't even need a 3RR warning to make him think about the revert disputes and he didn't "game" the 24-hour-revert cycle by making a fourth revert just outside the "revert clock". He's also very consistently using the talkpage and dispute resolution is indeed moving forward by those who are involved in the discussion. As a side comment, Khirurg who filed the report and has been involved in the reverting in that article, has not been involved in the consequent dispute resolution, so it's a problem that an editor filed a report against another editor about a dispute in which he has too been involved in the reverting, but has not been involved in any part of the dispute resolution. This admin oversight noticeboard is not the place to report someone about 3 reverts they made on July 2 - more than a month ago - with the accusation that they have been "maxing out 3R lately". The report looks very disjointed and tries to force a narrative that just doesn't work in terms of policy. It's also riddled with personal comments that Ktrimi991 is making edits in "topics that are sensitive to Greek editors" "out of spite" or material that seems to have to do with a dispute Khirurg has with Ktrimi991 - which really doesn't concern wikipedia, its community of editors, the editing process and this board in particular. Recently a similar report was made at AE which also involved two editors from the Balkans and its result was logged (Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Eastern_Europe). The closing admin warned the filing editor to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes.. This sort of use of reporting has become a major problem in disputes in the Balkan area. I think that this report goes even further than that one, which at least was filed at AE - the appropriate oversight board - while this one is being filed at AN3 and includes diffs from more than a month ago. Surely the filing editor knows that AN3 can't be used to file such reports. If this was AE, I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG warning to be logged, but as it is not, the best thing to do is to focus on how to improve communication between editors.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This board is for reporting edit-warring, which is exactly what Ktrimi has been doing for quite some time now (among other things). Familiarize yourself with whataboutism and red herring (I had nothing to do with the AE report you mentioned). And if you don't see what's wrong with Ktrimi's behavior (let's pretend), read WP:GAME, WP:BULLY, WP:BATTLE, and WP:CIVIL for a start. Oh, and WP:NOTTHEM while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You use accusations as a way to deal with those who disagree with you. You even accuse editors you disagree with as "sock" (some of the many examples [74][75][76]) without providing any evidence but just as a justification to revert them. Look at your talk page history: it is full of edit warring warnings.. You judge editors by their nationality [77] and group them as some kind of "pro-Greek" and "anti-Greek" [78]. Those who warn you "don't have much to be thankful for" [79]. As I said, if behaviour is to be discussed, I want that to take place at AE where more diffs, context and input by more admins can be ensured. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring that involves multiple articles and editors or some of form of 3RR violation or "gaming" in order to make 4+ reverts outside of the 24-hour-cycle is what this board is about. This report is about none of those things. Also, a small example of how collaboration can work when editors actually communicate with each other: One particular sub-dispute between Ktrimi991, and other editors - myself included - was solved eventually because I combined elements of both versions and then we all moved past that [80]. Nobody felt the need to write large reports or try to get other editors blocked and that happened because despite the disputes, the reverts and all the "wiki-drama", it was discussed and a solution was worked into the article. In fact, none of the involved editors who have participated in the talkpage of Kosovo Myth reported anyone in the past days. But Khirurg decided to use a dispute - which has seen no edit-warring for the last 2 days - in order to launch this report. Why?

The larger point here is that going through a cycle of reports based on forced narratives and not engaging in the talkpage only exarcebates problems in collaboration and communication like when Khirurg approaches disputes by calling other positions and editors some of the most odious POV-pushing I have ever seen, stop it with the intellectual dishonesty etc. In the first instance, a solution can emerge. In Khirurg's interaction with other editors in disputes though the steady stream of accusations that often reach the level of WP:ASPERSIONs and now this sort of reporting, create a difficult situation. Khirurg, you should take a step back and reflect on how you can improve communication with other editors instead of writing reports that ultimately create unneeded tension. It doesn't mean that you should bear sole responsibility for bettering communication, but we all bear our personal responsibility and should do our bit.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This habitual tour de brute force of edit-warring by Ktrimi991 has to stop. If this noticeboard has any teeth at all, Ktrimi991 should exit this report either as blocked or under 1RR restrictions in a variety of topics. His obvious longterm gaming of 3RR is obvious to all, except the usual supporting suspects who engage in the usual obvious attempts at filibustering and trying to derail any report blaming the one they continuously and unabashedly support. Dr. K. 03:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What "tour de brute force"? There's not even any ongoing dispute or edit-warring by anyone involved that warrants any sort of blocking to stop disruption in the editing process - which is the reason why blocks are handed out, not to show that "the noticeboard has any teeth at all" and certainly not to satisfy the attempts of editors who ask for editors with whom they've been into disputes in the past to get blocked. Longterm gaming 3RR means that an editor makes 4+ reverts just outside the 3RR cycle for a long-term period. Nowhere in this report has any such instance been shown - let alone long-term abuse. Dr.K. who has been in disputes with Ktrimi991 in the past but hasn't had the slightest interaction with him lately shouldn't join this report just to put forward accusations that can't be backed up. And he certainly shouldn't ask admin oversight to show that it is valid by imposing blocks that can't be argued for in terms of policy and the principles that guide wikipedia. Our project "shows its teeth" by encouraging cooperation in the context of policy and not following the demands of those seem to think that you can casually ask for blocks and sanctions against other editors without the report having to fulfill even rudimentary criteria.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:GAME, WP:FILIBUSTER. Knock it off already. Khirurg (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dr.K., others, not me, have accused you of tag teaming with Khirurg. In any case, it is undeniable that you tend to revert editors who revert Khirurg, and in some cases you have done so with not a single post on the talk page. Just reverts (blind reverts?). Examples include [81] and [82][83]. And you often, as seen in the diffs, make personal attack or aspersions against other editors. So it is best to reflect on your behaviour too. Yes, I have made reverts, but I have not been alone. Otherwise I would not even need to make reverts. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg, you have accused other editors of "bullying" too (eg [84][85]).. You keep making threats while edit warring (eg [86] you can revert, the rest can not?). You have claimed other editors have done things that they have clearly not done (eg [87] one of the strangest claims I have seen throughout these years on Wiki) or have some certain intention without providing evidence (eg [88][89][90][91]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I expected you to come here guns blazing and WP:FILIBUSTER in an attempt to deflect WP:SCRUTINY from your WP:GAMING of 3RR. And you have not disappointed, what with 10 KB of attacks and a load of irrelevant, out-of-context diffs. But no amount of filibuster will deflect from your disruptive behavior, which is documented with evidence. And the evidence shows a user who knowingly games the system, edit-wars, threatens fellow editors in edit summaries and on talkpages, tries to out response below for your claim. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: A quick look at user Ktrimi's contribs can confirm the filler's claims. On the other hand, by looking at the link which Maleschreiber gave here, I wouldnt find anything related to the filler. I understand that Maleschreiber's bias in favor of Ktrimi here, may be owned to shared views and positions in various disputes in the past, but Ktrimi's disruptive behavior remains a serious issue regardless and is affecting multiple editors who disagree with his methods, including me. I have talked about Ktrimi's behavior in the Talk:Albanian nationalism (Albania), already and was considering even an AE report against him. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No, all we have here is some editors who have supported very specific views and who have been in disputes in the past with Ktrimi991 , but mostly don't even have any contact with him lately and now are asking for that editor to be blocked without actually presenting any policy he violated. If you have other issues with him, go to AE - don't misuse AN3. When getting subjected to criticism about filing a report, responding with "knock it off already" is a major problem in itself. A report is a very serious thing which editors shouldn't file in such a way and for reasons other than improving the project - certainly not in the context of personal disputes. An admin should involve himself/herself with this so it reaches its natural conclusion - the editing one was over three days ago.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding us? He was edit-warring just hours ago, gaming 3RR in the process. The edit-warring is supplemented by threats, incivility, and outing attempts. In addition to WP:FILIBUSTER, you are deep within WP:IDHT territory at this point. Stop it. Khirurg (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Look at your talk page history. It is full of edit warring warnings. And your responses to them include I guess some people don't have much to be thankful forget lost, and don't come backrv WP:BULLYget lost. Making reverts is not prohibited, and the edit warring you are referring to did not include me only, but you and the rest of the editors here too. Personal attacks, edit warring and reports doomed to fail are tools you keep trying to make use of to solve your disputes. Balkan topics are difficult to edit and solve disputes on, and editors often do not act the best way possible, though some become way beyond anything acceptable like you have done already long ago. Ktrimi991 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, look at how many articles we created in the last 3 years. I created 24 articles, you created nothing. You only revert. Anyone can see your editing history. Of course, writing articles does not give me the right to revert, and indeed in some cases I should be more careful. But I can demonstrate that I edit Balkan article for more than just reverting. On the other hand, you have reverts and heated discussions only. Ktrimi991 (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the Kosovo Myth discussion on which you focused in your report, Khirurg. About the Kosovo Serbs discussion (I assume you're referring to that), there's no 3RR gaming by (unless you can show a 4th revert outside the 24-hour cycle, but making 3 reverts is not gaming) or 3R violation and he was reverting back to BRD while adding more sources. Nobody even reverted him there eventually after his 3R is because the position you were pushing forward couldn't be held in terms of bibliography - which he expanded. About the rest (civility, outing etc.) that to me as an external observer of the situation seems like an old personal dispute that has been getting out of proportion in its aftermath and a report at AN3 is not the best way to deal with it- certainly doesn't help the project when noticeboards are used like that. The best thing is to just take a break, a step back or whatever works for you because there is no violation of any policy here in terms of An3 IMO. Anyway, it's getting late where I am - so I'm off. Have a good day/evening. Also, self-limiting to no new comments to make assessment easier. My overall advise - everyone included - is to calm down, focus on the content and not get involved into reports and comments that don't improve cooperation.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, writing and improving articles is a better way to pass the time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note Anyone can verify (and I can give diffs if needed) that I often, when my limited time permits, participate at areas not linked with the Balkans. Such as AfDs, patrolling recent changes, reporting vandalism, RfCs and RSN discussions. Khirurg does not do so. In the last 3 years I created 24 new articles, while Khirurg created zero articles. Khirurg only reverts and participates at, usually heated, Balkan-linked discussions. Anyone can verify this. Hence the questions that should arise in one's mind is how can Khirurg report me while he himself is only involved in Balkan-linked conflicts. Yes, I accept that in some cases I am not exactly who I should be, but the topic of the Balkans is very difficult as there are disputes and controversies on a daily basis, and sometimes even editor burnouts can happen. Khirurg has been for years accusing me of pushing "Albanian POV" (how is he sure that I am Albanian, btw?) or "anti-Greek POV", but diffs such as the following show that I have always warned and reported editors pushing "Albanian POV", just as I have done to editors showing POVs linked with certain ideas of other Balkan nations [92][93][94][95]. Due to my desire for neutrality, in my early days on Wikipedia I received threats and insults on my talk page by an Albanian editor because I supported a Serb editor's edit. I also have welcomed and guided several newbies. What has Khirurg done in that regard? Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, behavioural concerns such as these should be discussed at AE. There a more detailed discussion can be made, more diffs provided, and more admins can give their input. This place is good just for breaches of the 3RR, but not so for the kind of the discussion prepared by Khirurg. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Editor Ktrimi991 is an excellent editor and this is indisputable. All my mistakes(Balkan articles, former Yugoslavia) as a new editor he neutrally corrected ie he told me what should be done and what should not be done(and now I have no more problems). How much I follow him he is always fair and well-intentioned, all with the aim of making Wikipedia as accurate and better as possible. Some editors or editor started mentioning him that they will revealed some private things about him(I think that this editor is Khirurg?) so they are probably going with bad intentions towards him. Nowhere did I see bad intent in his edits. In any case if 3RR is violate or not, for the editor Ktrimi991 we can say that this is not in bad intention. I think he has a similar problem as me ie certain team of editors is not working in good faith, it seems to me that they are on Wikipedia to keep some things ie informations as they are or do not like adding new ones. I personally don't mind, but we are here to make Wikipedia better (that's my view, from my case). Mikola22 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Hi everybody. I think everyone needs to calm down a bit and count to 10 before write anything. I do not see any violations of the rules by User:Ktrimi991. It is simply necessary User:Ktrimi991 to remember in the future that these topics are sensitive for each of the parties and there should be written with more caution and less emotion. I know it from my own experience. Also remember that no one is absolutely sinless. In fact he is an experienced editor with excellent knowledge and this is very important for our community. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Jingiby. Please don't defend champions of such brute-force editing methods. With five 3RR max-outs this month alone, this is clearly an edit-warring champion par excellence. Unfortunately, he is also a very bad example for his defenders and admirers. If you had the slightest respect for 3RR you would not be putting meaningless good words for such a repeat gamer of one of the most important rules this wiki depends on for its normal functioning. This goes for all the other defenders of said transgressor. Dr. K. 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment To respect this board means to use it for what is intended. The filer has come up with an entire new "offence" of "3RR max-out" in order to ask for Ktrimi's block. All of this looks like a report that was largely filed not because of disruption, but because of personal issues they have with Ktrimi. No reverts have happened by anyone in that article so even to continue this report is pointless because of a WP:SILENT consensus that seems to have emerged. N.Hoxha (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The report has entered a very weird and derailed phase. Khirurg is now accusing Ktrimi991 of "mocking COVID-19" in his country [96]. I couldn't verify anything of the sort from the diff he provided (March) because Ktrimi991's comment is obviously about the talkpage dispute in that article, not the pandemic in Greece - an issue which he immediately clarified. Why has a report in AN3 of all places gone at this very bad level of noticeboard misuse? I'm appalled that such a serious accusation would ever be made against another editor without having 100% clear evidence - let alone using diffs in such a way. Also, why is this discussion being brought up five months later in AN3? Khirurg's attempt to put forward this false narrative is disruptive and needs to be dealt with proper admin oversight in itself.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The only "derailing" has been by you and other members of usual tag team, who have rushed in to filibuster the report in massive attempt at derailing it. I wonder how you would react if I had described COVID-19 pandemic in Albania as "entertaining"? It doesn't get more disruptive than that. Ktrimi should have been topic banned for that alone, but I held off at the time. Now stop trying to derail the report by filibustering. Khirurg (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

But he didn't describe it as such - he even clarified that he didn't do so for a second time in the talkpage after you asked him about it. Do you realize how serious it is to accuse another editor of something like this? Why did you bring this up only after the report had gone past its original purpose as an AN3 report? This to me shows that it has derailed into unsubstantiated personal accusations that don't belong in an environment like wikipedia. Editors who file reports, also come under scrutiny. Instead of accusing as part of the "usual tag team" those editors who don't subscribe to the narrative you're attempting to put forward against Ktrimi you should withdraw unsubstantiated accusations.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

He "clarified it" after I called him on it, by doubling down, saying he finds the article entertaining, which is almost as bad. Even so, it is the most despicable comment I have ever seen in my 13 years of editing wikipedia. That comment alone should disqualify him from the topic area. Never mind the threats, doxing attempts, edit-warring, and the rest of the disruption. It's simply incredible what this guy has been getting away with all this time. Khirurg (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait, you again misrepresented my words and gave "the wrong diff". You certainly saw [97], but that did not suit your discussion here. As I said at the time, I found the article entertaining, not the pandemic or because of the pandemic. Indeed, the talk page and the article itself became the usual Balkan mess you reverting and opposing everyone who was expanding the article with new content that did not suit your POV ("wrong content"). You found the time to resort to POV pushing once again in the middle of a pandemic. I see you keep accusing people who do not agree with you of "tag teaming". You have been doing so for years, poisoning almost every single discussion where you participate. Not surprising this coming from an editor who judges editors from their perceived nationality [98] and sees anti-Greek conspiracies among editors because As for those Balkan countries you named, you may think that's very clever, but everyone knows Bosnia and Croatia have a history of hostility with Serbia (and by extension Greece), while Bulgaria does too though to a lesser extent[99]. You also see anti-Serb conspiracies that, as an admin noted at the time, are not constructive. The conspiracies go not only to nationality level but to editor level too: if an editor changes their mind in a discussion, you say they do so because years ago I gave them them barnstars [100] or they have ego and personal prejudices or Straw men, taunting, and trolling, as per the usual M.O. Your combination of breaches of WP:Civility and edit warring has been noted many times, even at this noticeboard by admins (eg [101]). You have not been writing new articles at all for years: your editing history shows that you are making only reverts and posts on talk pages to oppose other editors. Yes, I have my own mistakes due to the very nature of the process of editing Balkan topics, but unlike you I also write new articles and contribute to areas entirely not linked with the Balkans. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I do not plan to post here anymore. Admins or experienced editors might want to give their input, and that is not helped by the typical long Balkan debates. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Admins or experienced editors might want to give their input, and that is not helped by the typical long Balkan debates. What input can these people give regarding this new phenomenon of repeatedly and consistently maxing-out 3RR, then withdrawing in feigned grace. If I had any input to give to you it would be for you to try to shake off this addiction. As any risky pursuit, it may provide a temporary rush. But it doesn't last long and may backfire in the long term. Dr. K. 12:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• The filer has come up with an entire new "offence" of "3RR max-out"... Yes, true, NHoxha. It is an entirely new offence, a real offence, not in scare quotes. Hitherto unknown to normal wiki editors this new WP:GAME of the 3RR rule is being advanced by a new edit-warring champion who uses this brute-force tactic to impose his POV on contested articles. You seem to blithely celebrate this new brutal tactic by trying to dismiss its grave consequences on igniting edit-warring conflicts in contested areas. You are eager to support your comrade at edit-warring arms. However, if I were you, I would not bring out the champagne just yet. Dr. K. 12:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly did I "celebrate" anything? Please refrain from making aspersions. The user Ktrimi didn't breach the 3RR, this is not how it works, otherwise the limit would have been at 2RR and a warning would not be required when another editor reaches three reverts, admins would just block them. What you're calling gaming is actually someone respecting the 3RR rule. What I would consider gaming would be someone that makes four reverts outside the 24h cycle for example. There's no contested area either. Khirurg pushed for a FRINGE view, Ktrimi made 3 reverts in the course of which he improved the sources and the overall content and then.... the dispute ended because the sources Ktrimi added, clarified the issue. A normal editing process with some dispute and nothing extraordinary to see here. It's been three days since then, there is no "contested area". The fact that Khirurg and you are so vehemently pushing for Ktrimi to be blocked for not a violating policy and you're coming up with all kinds of misleading accusations, can been seen as a disruption and should be looked into. Even more so, considering you have once described Ktrimi to be "a known adversarial editor to you" [102]. You can't just demand for someone to be blocked because you disagree with them Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's disruptive to abuse the noticeboard like that and a reason for WP:BOOMERANG regarding Khirurg. You also previously wrote to the editor @Jingiby: If you had the slightest respect for 3RR you would not be putting meaningless good words for such a repeat gamer of one of the most important rules this wiki depends on for its normal functioning..., I can't help myself but to point out clear inconsistencies with your own editing behavior, which can be perceived as a sign of disruptive application of double standards. Dr.K, you yourself have not so long ago "maxed out 3RR" [103][104][105] [106] Maybe you should reflect on your own editing behavior instead of ramping up accusations about a non-incident, the kind of which you yourself have engaged in. And for what concerns your last remark: However, if I were you, I would not bring out the champagne just yet, please refrain from making comments that can be perceived as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Reports are not about "winning" or "losing", but about finding what's the best approach in order to improve interaction between editors and Wikipedia as a whole.N.Hoxha (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Coming on this noticeboard and trying to justify by irrelevant arguments the strategic maxing out of 3RR is disruptive and this type of unabashed support for such persistent, strategic, and intentional near-breach of the 3RR rule is a type of triumphalism for your side of the POV, ergo celebration of such behaviour. All the other aspersions, acronyms and links you have directed at me are irrelevant to this discussion and I will not honour them by replying. Your faithful siding in all fronts with the reported user is well known. Your partisan attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS are expected and irrelevant and don't impress me. Dr. K. 16:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:152.32.106.116 reported by User:Nkon21 (Result: )

Page

Global K-pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

152.32.106.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 01:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 19:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Global K-pop. (TW)"
2. 05:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Global K-pop. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I reverted the edits this IP had made to this article regarding the claim that a certain company was the one responsible for the creation of the term, however the only source given was the website of the company itself. I told the IP that the claims must be verified by reliable secondary sources in order to adequately verify the seemingly promotional-like claims. However this IP refuses to engage in any discussion whatsoever and continues to re-add their changes with no adjustments to the point of edit warring. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:71.212.13.9 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Partial block)

Page: Jenny Durkan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.212.13.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]
5. [112]
6. [113]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: The IP has been partial-blocked from the Jenny Durkan article for 36 hours by User:Deepfriedokra. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• User:Sjö, if the tendentiousness and other problems continue, even on the talk, might want to report at WP:COIN, or if possible libelous, WP:ANI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Hello. This is User:71.212.13.9. My internet provider must have changed the IP, I assure you its a coincidence. Question: Is User:Deepfriedokra attempting to weaponize WP:COIN in the real world in an attempt to dox an editor? Can someone explain to me how this is appropriate or acceptable or warranted?--174.21.174.34 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Sapah3 reported by User:MistyfelSR (Result: )

Page: Template:East Asian topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sapah3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [118]

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

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

Comments:

Even though they haven't reverted the current version just yet, they mostly likely would based on their revision history. For some reason, this specific user has a thing for removing countries from cultural regions when it doesn't agree with their views. (This user was edit warring with other users on the Asia-Pacific for similar reasons, reverting 8 times) [here] It seems like it's been going on for a while now. User has also made many other reverts, this time in Culture of Thailand and Genetic history of East Asians, with a misleading edit summary on the guise of "fixing errors" or claiming "it's not in the source" when it's really just another POV. – [119] [120] MistyfelSR (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at the talk page at Asia-Pacific. We do not change anything until we reach consensus. Secondly, there are no credible sources to support your claim that Singapore is part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. Just because Singapore has a Chinese majority does not mean it is part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. Do you have any understanding of Singaporean culture? Do you what Singlish is? Do you understand what Singaporean cuisine is? Do you know what basic Singaporean culture entails? I have explained myself at the template's talk page. This is the second attempt you have made to report me, the first under an IP address which you were subsequently blocked because you attacked me and harassed me. It seems like you have not learned anything since that incident. (Sapah3 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC))

I'm not that IP, dude. By the way, your statement of "We do not change anything until we reach consensus." is ironic considering your behaviour. And are you actually gatekeeping Singaporean culture by telling me if I have "any understanding" of it? What about your edit wars with 4 distinct users (@Kenwick:, @Xindeho:, @120.16.215.123: and @2001:8003:9008:1301:581d:97a:efae:363b:) about Afghanistan being South Asian or not? MistyfelSR (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you honestly expect me to believe that you are not the same person as that IP user? You have made the exact same edits as the IP user, you speak in the same manner as the IP user and you reported me just like the IP user. I was not born yesterday. It is very clear to me that you are the same user as the IP user (who was banned). The fact that you are stalking me on a newly registered account is all the proof I need to prove that you are the same user as the IP user. It is quite ironic of you to claim I'm edit warring when you have been doing the exactly what you claim to disapprove of. Also, FYI two of the diffs (1 and 2) you included above aren't "reverts" so they don't constitute edit warring. (Sapah3 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC))

I'm not gate keeping anything. I'm merely asking you to provide sources to support your claims and engage in discussion. However, you are not intersted in that and you are now hell bent on attacking me with this vendetta you have against me. It is clear to see that you aren't interested in editing Wikipedia like a responsible user, you are here just to attack and argue with people when things don't go your way. (Sapah3 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC))

User:SLBedit reported by User:Flix11 (Result: No action)

Page: S.L. Benfica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Because I've seen pictures of it at a store, unlike you. Also, the away kit isn't black, it's gray. Please don't add it back until you are sure."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC) to 22:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970813741 by Flix11 (talk) Aways socks are mostly white."
   2. 22:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Restored "Benfica" new home kit."
   3. 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 22:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Drought and return to titles */ +"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on S.L. Benfica. (TW)"
2. 03:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "General note: Ownership of articles on S.L. Benfica. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This and this are not reverts. Flix11 shouldn't have added kits with logos because it violates consensus at WT:FOOTY. Flix11 shouldn't have added away socks without being sure of their actual colours. I partially restored one of his edits. We reached a consensus on his talk page, and currently there isn't more edit warring at S.L. Benfica page. SLBedit (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

My reverts were: [121], [122], [123] (with the latter being a partial revert). SLBedit (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears the war is not continuing. I tried to confirm this with User:Flix11, but they didn't respond to my query. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Swmpshield2 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Chinese espionage in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Swmpshield2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970990160 by Havsjö (talk) Please learn the distinction between the country of China and the Chinese government/ruling party."
2. 12:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970919573 by Yeungkahchun (talk)"
3. 03:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970914519 by Yeungkahchun (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Reverting (edit warring) across multiple articles on Party vs Govt */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Template warning given here and reverting over same issue occurring elsewhere 2. Pinging @Havsjö and Yeungkahchun: as being involved in this non-dispute. Also five series of reverts in 16 hours at China: 1 2 3 4 5. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I was going to leave a warning on their page for hitting 3 reverts in a few hours at Xinjiang re-education camps and then saw that you and other editors had already warned them for similar behavior elsewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Kalevipoiss reported by User:Jonesey95 (Result: EC protected)

Page

Peacekeeping Operations Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kalevipoiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 6 March 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970509302 by Jonesey95 (talk)reverting vandalism, restoring sources"
2. 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970508436 by Jonesey95 (talk)"
3. 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "expanding previously deleted content regarding sections Background and Task, restoring sources I added that back up new content, minor grammar fixes, users complaining on talk page should check what are they deleting before actually doing it"
4. 09:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 21:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Three-revert rule warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Unexplained reversions */ please work from the current revision"
2. 18:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Unexplained reversions */ 3RR"

Comments:

Sorry to bother everyone here with this minor matter, but this new(?) editor has been unwilling to engage on talk pages and has continually restored a previous version, including outdated tags and pre-copy-editing prose. Possible sock of VJ-Yugo? I don't spend much time at WP:AN*, so I don't know how these things are generally investigated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Reposting this. It was archived without action, apparently by a bot. This disruption continues at the same page. I have issued second- and third-level warnings to the editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: I have EC protected the page for two years under WP:ARBEE due to possibly sock- or meatpuppetry. Reviewing the last 100 edits in the history, six of those people are currently blocked. It is not obvious why this article might have significance to nationalists, but it apparently does. Hard to understand why somebody would be indignantly reverting a copyedit from last March (thus restoring the 'copy edit' tag) with unconvincing explanations. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Drewwesley reported by User:GPinkerton (Result: )

Page: Book of Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "This lead section entry seeks to attack the authenticity of the Book of Exodus based off the findings of a single professor (of Old Testament Criticism), and does not represent a sufficient pool of scholars."
2. 21:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "This lead section entry seeks to attack the authenticity of the Book of Exodus based off the findings of a single professor (of Old Testament Criticism), and does not represent a sufficient pool of scholars."
3. 21:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "This lead section entry seeks to attack the authenticity of the Book of Exodus based off the findings of a single professor (of Old Testament Criticism), and does not represent a sufficient pool of scholars."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Book of Exodus. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apparently motivated by a position of scriptural inerrancy. Similar deletions were made by IPs in the edits preceding. Numerous other editors are engaged in discussion on the talk page, but the user has ignored this and gone straight to the lead. GPinkerton (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This is drewwesley. If you want to maintain a viewpoint that the Book of Exodus is a myth, keep that in your historicity section and leave the lead section alone. You don't determine what's fact and what's myth. I can also report you GPinkerton for reverting my edits 3 times within 24 hours and perpetuating this edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewwesley (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

He reverted you twice, you were reverted by two other editors after that, making that 4 reverts by you in 24 hours.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The reported user is still edit warring and has since made several more reverts. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is drewwesley. I omitted a highly-debatable statement from the lead section that's already mentioned in the historicity section. By concluding that the events recorded in the Book of Exodus are mythical, you're asserting the book is mere fiction. Why do many scholars and even atheists rely on the Bible as a reliable historical source, and what contradiction is there with archeological and anthropological findings. This is not edit warring, this is a war on the tenets of Christianity, Judaism, and Islamism. You're using the reference of one Ivy League professor to assert that the events recorded never occurred the way they're recorded. There will always be people who dismiss the Bible as truth, and those who support it. It's not up to you to determine for the world what's fact and what's myth. Let people figure that out for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewwesley (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Drewwesley made 8 reverts at Book of Exodus in less than 3 hours, without editing the talk page at all. Zero^talk 01:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:80.47.137.128 reported by User:Green Dragon Pride (Result: )

Page: Matthew Goodwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 80.47.137.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 971074902 by Green Dragon Pride (talk) Wikipedia works by gaining consensus. If an addition is disputed it doesn't stay up until there is consensus that it should not be there, it is not added until there is consensus it should be there. That is how wikipedia works. If you wish to discuss this please do so in the Talk Page rather than Edit Warring"
2. 01:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 971074140 by Green Dragon Pride (talk) there is no consensus for the addition of this information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps taking down content saying there is no consensus for it to be up when it was there before until the IP just came and took it down Green Dragon Pride (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Joseph Nicolosi and Dean Hamer page

I seek attention about this and this changes by User:Sxologist. 116.58.201.111 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You've mentioned me on two administrator noticeboards for this. One revert is not edit warring. First, you removed the required WP:FRINGE notices from Medical Associations, made drastic edits to a page that are not required, used primary/original sources instead of reputable secondary ones, added a fringe source (Joseph Nicolosi) and now you're disruptively wasting peoples time by tagging me here under an anonymous IP. Learn how to use Wikipedia. For making such baseless accusations and disruptive fringe edits, I hope you get banned. Don't call me "bias" because I actually happen to work in this field and can see how you're trying to spin things. Sxologist (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Max3218 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: )

Page: Montlake, Seattle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Max3218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 971056108 by SounderBruce (talk). I am returning page to how the user eightyearsbreak left it as it does not simply use outdated 2013 information/data. The user SounderBruce continues to undo edits by all recent users in what seems to me to qualify as vandalism to this page."
2. 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970942609 by SounderBruce (talk). Dude, seriously cut it out. The page has been just fine for years, go fiddle with a page somewhere else."
3. 06:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970594399 by SounderBruce (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Montlake, Seattle. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Household income */ Replying to EightYearBreak (using reply-link)"

Comments:

This user wishes to keep using a real estate broker's blog rather than city statistics (sourced from the U.S Census's American Community Survey) and is not responsive to messages left in multiple areas. SounderBruce 04:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:45.52.233.3 reported by User:Prauls901 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Patrick Deneen (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 45.52.233.3 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [970783511]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [971144619]
2. [971148576]
3. [971149326]
4. [971150086]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

The only contributions that user 45.52.233.3 has ever made to any Wikipedia page began today, and those are reverting my changes to this article

Prauls901 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments: User has already been blocked by Glen. See log. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Glen (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)