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:Kettleonwater reported by User:Throast (Result: Warned)

Page: Donda (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kettleonwater (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:

1. [6]
2. [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [8]
2. [9]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

Comments:
The dispute is regarding poorly sourced and unconstructive edits. The user reported has admitted adding original research in their first edit, yet persists that it should remain. Consensus seeking was taking place at the article talk, during which the user reverted for a fourth time. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said, it is useless to do a scrutinizing consensus vote for two small lines of text at the moment considering the page is still under construction and information changes all the time. However, since you are so hung up about two small important pieces of information, and have gone to the length to report me here over information and explaining the purpose of a review (which possibly indicates YOU have bias), I will humor you and create a consensus vote in the talk page. You also said that my source was secondary, not original, but you seem to be a trigger-happy bureau for targeting an edit consisting of 25 words. Here is my reasoning as before:

"I even agree with you that the first source whether primary or secondary is not fully reliable, but there is a important reason for keeping it to improve the article (because the album's content has changed), and it can be easily independently verified ("A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", and this can be easily done by anyone by listening and comparing the former edit with the new edit, for example, it is easy to tell the fadeout of 24 is now completely removed comparing the earlier version). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I am not saying "Donda will release on [DATE HERE]", I am saying "There will most likely be a better source to replace this one soon" - even if self-published, the existing source IS verifiable by the listener. Ignoring the rules here for the meantime will add important information to the article, and as information about the album grows over the next few weeks (since this source proves a post-release edit) there will be significantly better sources for most information already present on the page.

As for the second source, I removed the initial bias, leaving only the remark about the reasoning for the zero star. No unnecessary weight is given, as the reason is directly in the headline: "Marilyn Manson’s inexcusable presence leaves a sour taste that no amount of gospel can cleanse". I do not think opening a consensus poll for this is necessary as these two points comprise only two sentences of the page. A section talking about the Independent review above starts mentioning "criticism of Manson and DaBaby's appearance", as a reason to deny it from the table, and while I no longer think it should ("a review is a review"), it remains it was the reason the topic was brought up, so I don't think people will disagree with it being cited as the reason for the zero stars (again, read the article). I noticed the article's headline does not mention DaBaby, however, so I will remove him." Kettleonwater (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Kettleonwater is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Donda (album) unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I appreciate the review, but in what way exactly has the user been warned? At least I don't see a new message on their talk page. Or are you referencing my warnings? I'm only concerned about this because I believe that, without a proper warning, the user might be persuaded to continue their behavior. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Just stop lol. I already know from this warning what I should have done - call direct consensus instead of wasting my time with you like I did, I just thought my edits were too small for someone to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I guess not for your type. I am fine with the other editors views, because they gave reasonable evaluations and compromises, instead of a patronising shut down. All your behavior does is disincentivize new edits by new users. Kettleonwater (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how you being so openly hostile towards me does anyone any good. In my first revert, I pointed to specific policies which you could and should have addressed on the talk right then and there. You chose to edit-war and avoid consensus-seeking because you deemed it useless. I hope that, in the future, if someone reverts your edits, you don't view it as a "patronizing shut down" but as an attempt to do what's right and an invitation to initiate a productive discussion. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:93.138.142.12 reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: Semi)

Page: List of military disasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.138.142.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: IP is attempting to add the Battle of Maritsa to the list article per the diffs below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 07:39, 31 August 2021 93.142.95.48 (talk) (→‎Medieval era) Initial addition that was challenged per list inclusion criteria.
2. Revision as of 09:03, 31 August 2021 93.142.95.48 (talk) (Add other source)
3. Revision as of 19:38, 31 August 2021 93.142.95.48 (talk) (Stop deleting sources from reliable books, all three sources say it was a military disaster.)
4. Revision as of 03:52, 1 September 2021 93.138.142.12 (talk) (See talk page. That no additional sources are put here.)
5. Revision as of 04:17, 1 September 2021 93.138.142.12 (talk) (You say this not historians and sources, see talk page)
6. Revision as of 06:55, 1 September 2021 93.138.142.12 (talk) (Let's go to edit war so let the administrator decide. Don't act like a dictator here. Not to acknowledge reliable sources and reliable historians and to scold what will be written here. You have no consensus to delete reliable sources.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (see current and previous for both)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page discussion opened at Talk:List of military disasters#Possible inclusion of Battle of Maritsa initiated here [12]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:

The list inclusion criteria are given in the article lead per consensus at Talk:List of military disasters#Proposal for list criteria. Talk was initiated by Cinderella157. There are also matters of conduct that have been raised at Talk:List of military disasters#Possible inclusion of Battle of Maritsa by another edit and the edit comment made in diff 6. The IP opened this thread: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Battle of Maritsa. The IP appears to be partisan WRT the topic/geography. I believe that the topic of the edits is probably subject to ARCOM DS. The IP appears to have a knowledge beyond a novice editor that raises concerns as to the legitimacy of the IP. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Cinderella157 I think you should report yourself here for violating wikipedia's rule, not me. Let the administrators see that you are acting like a dictator and that it is just your editing page. User:Cinderella157 It does not acknowledge reliable historians who write as they are Caroline Finkel, John Julius Norwich, Richard C. Hall, Sedlar Jean W. And it wants to determine what will be written on wikipedia and what will not. Ignoring what is written in the sources of reliable historians 93.138.142.12 (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:editwar, you did violate it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

All right, Slatersteven, I broke that rule, so let him punish me. But what about those who do not acknowledge reliable sources and these historians? Their only goal is to erase what is written and to write only what suits them.93.138.142.12 (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See wp:npa, you need to show they are breaking the rules (wp:ani is the place to do it, note I advise against it, but this is not the place to say why).Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

And with this [[14]] you have just blown through 3RR and come out other side. Its time for sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The IP made this edit summary "Let's go to edit war so let the administrator decide" so they knew full well they were edit warring and didn't care. Notfrompedro (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

And they are still at it [[15]], they need a block to stop the disruption, as it is clear they will continue until they get one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping edit warrior. The Battle of Maritsa falls under discretionary sanctions, though it would be impractical to invoke those sanctions against a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:93.138.63.81 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned)

Page: Siege of Szigetvár (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.138.63.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

Comments:

• Result: User:93.138.63.81 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they try to add the term 'Pyrrhic victory' to the infobox of the article on a battle unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. The current wording of WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX advises against the use of the 'Pyrrhic' terminology in infoboxes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:95.69.125.28 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Block, Protection)

Page: Wizards of the Coast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 95.69.125.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042007964 by CodeTalker (talk) What's happening?"
2. 19:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042006793 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) At least give a valid reason, That's just unlawful ahd undemocratic."
3. 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042005211 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) It is reliable if the user only had that platform to expose it. Imagine if it was like this, then it would be erased in a matter of a second. It's legitimate if you actually read it."
4. 19:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042004372 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) i've put a legitimate source yet was denied because it was an external link... What I am supposed to do?"
5. 18:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "it shouldn't be allowed for people associated with Wotc to edit important information about their company."
6. 19:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "At least give a valid reason, That's just unlawful ahd undemocratic."
7. 19:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "What's happening?"
8. 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "This isn't something that belongs to a talk page, belongs to the public. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Public information, not private. The consumers need to know, end of discussion,"
9. 19:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "No reason, no nothing, just like your masters, alienated dogs who steal from the working force. You're a disgusting piece of s."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Stale revert-warring of unsourced negative claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The IP account has continued to edit war. I added the latest examples since they've slipped into incivility. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked, but I protected the page for a few hours in case they try another IP or created a throwaway account. BOZ (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring by User:GeneralNotability. Page semiprotected three hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Mirrored7 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)

Page: Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mirrored7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Swift&diff=1039437573&oldid=1039435340

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042001494 by Amaury (talk) Please don't revert, until there has been reached consent"
2. 02:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1041853883 by Bettydaisies (talk) Can't you stop with your edit war? Don't add it the part, until there's an consent"
3. 03:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1041531952 by KyleJoan (talk) I don't agree to this. I'm very open to discuss it in the talk page too"
4. 01:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1041503329 by Bettydaisies (talk) It's still ONE perspective from ONE critic, so it shouldn't be included, because it's misleading. Like I said, Swift didn't invent writing about personal and vulnerable experiences"
5. 22:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC) "This is a critic's perspective and not a common narrative. Female artists sang about their exes long before Swift even was an artist."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Taylor Swift."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also [24] and [25]. Has been reverted by three different editors, including myself, and yet continues to edit war. Amaury • 08:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This slow moving edit war has been ongoing for several days now. I believe in total, Mirrored7 has tried to implement their edit five times in the last four days and although there has been no 3RR violation, this has still been disruptive. Mirrored7 was given three warnings about edit warring for their behavior on the Taylor Swift article in the past few days: [26][27][28], including an express warning that even edit wars that do not violate 3RR can still violate the edit warring policy. Mirrored7 responded to all three warnings by removing them from their talk page and continuing to revert, showing that they are going to do whatever they can to maintain their preferred version of the page no matter what anyone else says.

I also note that Mirrored7 should be well aware of the edit war policy: they've been blocked for edit warring five times in the last 18 months and have received two other edit warring notices besides the three noted here since their last block in April. I do believe this editor is editing in good faith and have told them so in the past, but if 5 prior blocks and dozens (I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that) of edit warring warnings won't stop them from edit warring, I'm not sure what will (a topic ban from music-related articles maybe?). Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amaury: I added the older diffs to the report. I hope that's OK with you, please feel free to revert me if you disagree. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 1 month. Mirrored7 has engaged in a long term pattern of edit warring about popular music. This is now the sixth time they have been blocked for edit warring since March 2020. The last block was for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Koikefan reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)

Page: Brillante Mendoza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koikefan (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: diff Request that the user finds the sources for the additions they are making. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, I removed the unsourced content on a BLP. The only reply I got was on my talkpage suggesting I should Google this info myself!

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:

The information I added to the article is basic information (in fact, I have now provided the references). In fact, the awards information I "added" was already in the article, in the Notes section of the director's filmography; I simply created a new section collecting the information (so an interesting question: why did this editor not remove that information from the Filmography section as well?).

They want references for the information I added? Please take a look at the Recognition section of the article. That section has references for the Best Director win at Cannes, the nomination of Captive at Berlin, and the nomination of Thy Womb for the Golden Lion. So that basically means half of the information I "added" (which, again, was information already contained in the article before I even started editing it) already had references. How can this editor justify deleting information that already has references? Could the only justification be that they did not read the very article they have decided to revert and simply had a bout of trigger-happiness with the revert button?

Consider the following contained in the link this user sent me: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Was I given time to add these references or was the information simply removed because the editor 1) is incapable of waiting 2) unable to realize that the information added was already in the article (fully referenced in half of the cases) and what I was doing was simply adding a new section (suggesting they don't even read the articles whose edits they choose to revert) and 3) can't do a simple Google search? I find it funny how I am accused of edit warring—shouldn't this editor have exercised good judgment and stopped reverting the content after the first 1 or 2 times they did so? They reverted the content 4 times! How is that not an escalation of edit warring? If I am guilty of edit warring, then so are they.

To summarize: this editor reverted information 100% of which was already in the article (so it's arguable whether they can be described as additions) and 50% of which already had references. Koikefan (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Without comment to the edit warring report itself, an editor's response to a request for sources should never, ever, be "just Google it". The burden is on the individual adding or changing the content to ensure it is reliably sourced, and this is especially critical for BLPs.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. I will now take back my counsel for them to do a Google search. Instead, I will direct them to read the article and realize that I neither changed content nor added anything to it that wasn't already in it. Thanks. Koikefan (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Nosferattus (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:29, 3 September 2021: [30]
2. 14:45, 3 September 2021: [31]
3. 15:52, 3 September 2021: [32]
4. 21:35, 3 September 2021: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments:
Zefr reverted 3 different editors (Cerebral726 once, myself twice, and Pyrrho the Skeptic once) within the span of 7 hours, despite no one else supporting his arguments in the talk page discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Two editors ignoring WP:MEDRS do not make a consensus over a dispute of just a few hours, with plentiful unanswered discussion on the article talk page. Editor Cerebral726 withdrew, indicating no consensus. More time is needed for editor review, and other medical editors have been requested to assess the article content, proposed source, and talk page discussion. I will make no further changes for now. The editor filing this notice was also warned of 24 hour WP:3RR on their talk page earlier today. Zefr (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Zefr is the only person who has been ignoring WP:MEDRS, in favor of their own invented interpretation of it. You can read the talk page discussion to verify this for yourself. Regardless, they violated 3RR which they are well aware of (as they have been blocked for edit warring 3 times previously). Nosferattus (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

And now Zefr is canvassing specific editors to join the dispute[37][38][39][40] (rather than inviting participation from WT:MED or WT:PLANT which would be acceptable). This sort of battleground behavior needs to end. Nosferattus (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I just want to add that Zefr appears to be canvassing from a handful of editors who often take the same extreme POV in these types of disputes. This closely resembles WP:VOTESTACKING "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. " Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Defending the page from demonstrably new editors who dont appear to understand how medical sourcing gets done here on wikipedia should not be sanctionable, and I do not expect admins to take any action here. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I object to that statement. There is nothing in WP:MEDRS to back up Zefr's argument, much less justify unilaterally reverting 3 different editors (who are all extended confirmed, not newbies) and violate 3RR. Your argument is basically "Zefr's been here longer so the rules don't apply to them." Nosferattus (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User:PMP1301 reported by User:DEFCON5 (Result: Blocked indefinite)

Page: Prakash Mehra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PMP1301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: tried to discuss the issue here

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

Comments:

The said user claims to be working for a company related to the subject of the article. I tried to explain the said user about guidelines like MOS:PUFFERY and WP:CITE. Even Yappy2bhere tried to explain the user about editing guidelines but he claims us to be working in nexus. defcon5 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite for UPE as well as edit warring. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Hjk1106 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: 2021–22 Manchester United W.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hjk1106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042320478 by Flix11 (talk) blatant lack of ASG is incredibly rude, you've just shown unable to reason with. This format best suits women's football as transfer means and contract lengths are less transparent. Released can be added to notes without comprehensively trying to detail it for each which isn't possible"
2. 10:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042319696 by Flix11 (talk) citing usage in a different article is not a reason to worsen another"
3. 10:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042319311 by Flix11 (talk) not an improvement"
4. 10:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042281870 by Flix11 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Pot kettle, you've engaged in the exact same behaviour yet shown no attempt to provide reason for your actions other than "this is the way it should be" whereas I have repeatedly expanded on reasons for my edits. Try actually being collaborative with your editing rather than attempting to immediately block anyone who has a different pov. It's thinnly veiled overlitigation and intimidation at best. Hjk1106 10:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Warned Consider both of you to be warned. Further disruption could lead to either or both of you being blocked. Use the talk page to discuss your edits. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not the first time for Flixx11: User_talk:Flix11#Abuse_of_process
    • Could someone take a look at these contributions and seek an opinion on the suspicion there may be block evading going on? What I've seen on User talk:Flix11 on the block review is about updating Paralympics related articles (which is exactly what happened to four articles) and then updating the 2021–22 FA WSL six times, page history on the league competition page and Liu Yutong suggests I am suspicious about this new account being a block evading type.

This is a turn-up for the books. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:442:4600:8f20:3d62:9619:3ead:9121/ User:2601:442:4600:8f20:6d64:f7db:2380:e3a6 reported by wolf (Result: Partially blocked and semi-protected)

Page: Longest recorded sniper kills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:442:4600:8f20:6d64:f7db:2380:e3a6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/ 2601:442:4600:8f20:3d62:9619:3ead:9121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48] (9121)
2. [49] (9121)
3. [50] (E3A6)
4. [51] (E3A6)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [52] (initial notice of policy - E3A6)
2. [53] (actual warning template - 9121)
3. [54] (cross-notification to E3A6)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

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

• [55] (E3A6)
• [56] (9121)

Comments:
Straight 4RR vio (in less than 24hrs), with a clear intent to continue reverting to their preferred version. User, initially with IP ending with E3A6, then with 9121, was hostile on the article talk from the outset, refusing to engage in any meaningful dialog while using repeated personal attacks. After their 4th revert, they stated their intention to not discuss any further. They have refused to respond to posts to either IP-user talk pages and haven't acknowledged the possibility of an alternative solution to the issue or WP:DR. - wolf 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours (partially, from Longest recorded sniper kills) and article semi-protected for six months. This has been going on for a while now. I have no views on the CSA/USA business, but edit wars over flag decorations are among WP's most tiresome afflictions. I realize that the semi-protection effectively is the same outcome as the partial block, but with the straight-up 3RR violation, the sanction should be made. Acroterion (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

40.133.142.193 reported by User:Twixister (Result: Warned)

Page: Baby, Get It On (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 40.133.142.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Acid Queen
2. Goodbye to the Island
3. Bonnie Tyler
4. Neon Hitch

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user doesn't communicate on talk pages

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User_talk:40.133.142.193

Comments:
This user from this IP address consistently makes unsourced edits on numerous pages. They usually don't provide source, but when they do it's from websites like Genius or they say refer to iTunes. They've been warned by various users on their talk page about disruptive editing, but there is no response. Instead of providing proof of edits from just one page, I listed the revision history page for a few articles which this IP address has made edits that other users have reverted. Twixister (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor is warned. They may be blocked the next time they make an unsourced edit on an article about music or musicians. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Iylaq reported by User:Cwmhiraeth (Result: Two editors blocked)

Page: Qutayba ibn Muslim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iylaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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]
7. [64]
8. [65]

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

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

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

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours to User:Iylaq and to Special:Contributions/2A04:4A43:4D7E:6C97::/64. This dispute was also reported at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr. Oreki Sama reported by User:Miracusaurs (Result: Both warned)

Page: List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr. Oreki Sama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [71]

Comments:

Originally posted at WP:ANI.

Since he joined at the beginning of September, user Mr. Oreki Sama has attempted to remove a list of Miraculous movies from the show's list of episodes, against consensus for their inclusion on lists of episodes (e.g. List of Sid the Science Kid episodes#Movie and List of Steven Universe episodes#Film (2019)). His reasoning: It's a place to add episodes not movies and Movies are part of Miraculous not part of Episodes, so logically no need to add them here (I believe he means that because they're "movies" and not "episodes", they shouldn't belong on a "List of episodes") But as I pointed out, other TV show episode lists add specials and movies (using the aforementioned Sid the Science Kid as an example) but he only reverted me again (his fifth revert in four days) with the summary Don't compare to others (sic) pages, films aren't episodes Don't add them here. I and another editor have restored the movies several times, but he keeps removing them. I don't know what to do anymore. Please help. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Miracusaurs and User:Mr. Oreki Sama are warned. Either may be blocked if they add or remove any films from List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes without getting a prior consensus on the talk page for their change. The question of whether to include films in the episode list can be taken to WP:Dispute resolution. For example, WP:DRN or WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  EdJohnston, Mr. Oreki Sama is continuing to edit war. Woodroar (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr. Oreki Sama has now been blocked by another admin after removing a report at ANI about the same dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Medyawatch reported by User:Kevo327 (Result: Medyawatch and IP blocked 36 hours)

Page: Misak Torlakian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Medyawatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]
5. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no diffs, user repeatedly ignores calls to discuss per WP:BRD or calls to reach consensus in edit summaries.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [78]

Comments:

User also edited while loged out to try to circumvent 3RR. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Medyawatch and IP blocked 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User:TheGr8Scorpio reported by User:AnM2002 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Panjshir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheGr8Scorpio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First edit which was a revert: [80] 11:52, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,310 bytes −1,079‎ Citations from Indian Media on Pakistan, should be dismissed especially concerning Politics/geopolitics
2. [81] 11:58, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,326‎ Not taking it - Discuss it on Talk page | revision 1042719462 by Georgethedragonslayer (talk)
3. [82] 12:06, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,326‎ Only Indian Media is reporting on this - that in itself should be suspicious - replied on Talk page | Undid revision 1042720068 by TolWol56 (talk)
4. [83] 12:09, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,326‎ You call that trolling? Bring an Admin - or talk on talk page | revision 1042720839 by TolWol56 (talk)
5. [84] 12:16, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,326‎ Talk page, still fake news, until u bring a reliable source | Undid revision 1042721112 by Applodion (talk)
6. [85] 12:31, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,260‎ "Intended Disruption" - what is this, ganging up? Undid revision 1042723329 by AnM2002 (talk)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [88]

Comments:

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. AnM2002 (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@AnM2002: And being ganged up by various other users who's purpose it is to further propaganda, that's all fine, I assume yes? I said, bring a reliable source, that isn't Indian Media which is consistently spreading fake news, and seems to be having a field day in regards to Panjshir and Pakistan. Yet no other reliable source was cited and it seems that Indian hyper nationalists just want to ensure that (fake) news by Indian newspapers are endorsed. Notice how quickly the edit regarding India's involvement was reverted, and no one questioned it. Yet when it came to Pakistan ... :••TheGr8Scorpio ^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 12:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CIR. Just because India Today happened to cover the event, and you don't like it, it does not mean that fake news is being peddled. Playing a victim won't justify your disruption but only prove that you are WP:NOTHERE.

@El C: Can you take a look into this since you moderated this page recently?AnM2002 (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@AnM2002: It's not solely due to India Today, it's the fact that Indian Media is solely covering it. Republic India, had been showing footage from a video game, claiming "Airstrikes in Panjshir", and the fact that images of old fighter jets are being spread as "Pakistan Air Jets knocked out of the sky". You know well it's not verifiable and only want to endorse Indian Media, but not verify the actual news. Don't try and turn this on me, when I'm trying to verify the news. :••TheGr8Scorpio ^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 13:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about IFCN certified "India Today", not your imaginary and non-existing "Republic India". Have a better understanding of WP:RS when you are back from the block. AnM2002 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User:ADOS Pride reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)

Page: Head tie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Doug Weller has started an edit war"
2. 19:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Someone keeps removing the content relevant to African American women. Please investigate."
3. 17:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
4. 17:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
5. 17:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Add content"
6. 17:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "added content"
7. Consecutive edits made from 20:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC) to 20:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
   3. 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Added and corrected content"
   4. 20:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo fix"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Head tie"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "‎Discussion: new section"

Comments:

They have been edit warring against multiple editors from the moment they joined the project, ignoring all warnings on their talk page and the latest invite to join a discussion about their edit. The link between their username and the content that they keep adding to the lead section (about ADOS) is also worth noting. M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, ADOS stands for American Descendants of Slavery and a number of edits by this person add this term, which of course excludes black Americans not descendants of slaves. They don't understand our sourcing policy, isinglass unreliable sources at times, sources that don't mention ADOS, or no sources. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. This user doesn't seem to understand our sourcing policy. They have now been reverted by four different editors at Head tie. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Bubishist reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Siege of Plevna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042805843 by Njd-de (talk) second parapgraph of this article, "king Carol of Romania" etc. it's a Russo-Romanian victory, it had this result for almost 10 years."
2. 21:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "citation to a reliable source"
3. 20:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "It's written even in this article, King Carol of Romania took the command of the Russo-Romanian troops, ergo a Russo-Romanian victory hence the king of Romania was the general."
4. 18:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Sources cite King Carol was put as the chief commander of the Russo-Romanian troops, ergo it's a Russo-Romanian victory."
5. 17:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Source says it was a Russo-Romanian victory, half of the generals were Romanians."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
2. 21:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Siege of Plevna."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No attempt at non-edit-warring by reported user despite some comments (beyond the warnings) left on their talk page (such as mine). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note the similarly disruptive edits on Toto Wolff, and the I-don't-hear-it-is on my talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)