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:A.Savin reported by User:Dan arndt (Result: No violation)

Page: Central Province, Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A.Savin (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 on article talk page: [Talk:Central Province, Sri Lanka]

Comments:
This editor has previously been advised of potential edit-warring in respect to Galle Lighthouse (refer:User talk:A.Savin#February 2020) and then subsequently at Pidurutalagala (see:User talk:A.Savin#June 2020). Noting that he has removed other 3RRR warnings from his talk page [7] in May 2020 referring to issues on Ravana Falls and Demodara railway station.

He has previously been advised on a ANI that "ask that in future if you are reverted, you go directly to the talk page rather than reinstating." He has been advised of WP:BRD however has chosen to ignore this advice and repeatedly reinstates his own images on this article, despite the fact that a number of editors have posted on the talk page that they disagree with the inclusion of his images. Dan arndt (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm really sick and tired of this ongoing harassment by "Dan arndt". Why don't they just leave me alone and let me do my job? --A.Savin (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"Dan arndt" is assuming bad faith of me, is monitoring all my edits and reverting most of them for hard-to-understand reasons, or even without any explanation at all. Is there not a single admin out there, who don't find this behaviour normal? I am clearly a good-faith contributor, who has been in Wikimedia movement for 15 years, and this hostile and arrogant behaviour makes me ill. --A.Savin (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: User:A.Savin often engages in edit wars to restore his own images to articles. (See his talk page). But this time around he also restored his own picture to the article four times in 36 hours. (First time, 13:13 on the 12th, through the fourth time, 21:55 on the 13th). He might avoid a block if he will promise to make no more reverts on this article without first getting agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hoping that somethng can be worked out on A.Savin's talk page to settle the long-running dispute about images, mostly between Savin and User:Dan arndt. There have been ANI discussions here and here. These two editors continue to clash in multiple places, and admins are unlikely to allow this pattern to continue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• No violation However, there appears to be a long-term issue with A.Savin's behaviour. The suggestion that A.Savin is prohibited from reverting their own pictures back into articles seems a sensible way forward. Number 57 10:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:176.33.55.202 reported by User:CommanderWaterford (Result: Stale)

Page

Eastern Anatolia Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962509903 by CommanderWaterford (talk) It's not vandalism. It's explained in the talk page."
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC) to 13:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Population */ Links"
   2. 13:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962509484 by CommanderWaterford (talk) Feel free to add yours."
3. 13:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Substitution with Armenia */ Official name changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Removal of content, blanking (RedWarn rev14)"
2. 13:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Vandalism (RedWarn rev14)"
3. 13:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Eastern Anatolia Region. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I told the user to feel free to add their information if they did not agree with mine. The user did not write anything in the talk page nor did he/she add anything constructive. The sentence has no source either. 176.33.55.202 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Not a decline, but an observation. Looking at this I see a dispute. I am happy to see the reported user's comment here, which reflects what I saw from the edits: both editors should engage in dialogue on the article's talk page vs using “undo”., N.J.A. | talk 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Stale N.J.A. | talk 11:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:HappyWanderer15 reported by User:Охранник Леса (Result: No violation)

Page: North Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HappyWanderer15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:52, 7 June 2020

Previous version (with links, which added from the main text to the preamble) reverted to: 11:50, 11 June 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:09, 12 June 2020‎
2. 01:34, 13 June 2020‎
3. 03:51, 14 June 2020

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

Comments:
User HappyWanderer15 makes warring edits instead of reaching a consensus on the talk page of the article. Охранник Леса (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion (in which user HappyWanderer15 participates) on the talk page about the content of the article. However, user HappyWanderer15 is using an edit war to promote his version. Охранник Леса (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

User is upset that I warned him for edit warring on his talk page, so this is a retaliatory post. The talk page discussions are clear that "abuses" is the preferred wording over "allegations." Охранник Леса is the only user who disagrees. 00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• No violation However, I would strongly advise HappyWanderer15 to gain consensus for their changes on the talk page (contrary to their edit summaries and claims on talk, there does not appear to be any consensus for the proposed change) rather than force them in by edit warring. Number 57 10:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Number 57, can I cross out warning from HappyWanderer15? Охранник Леса (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    • You can delete any warnings issued on your talk page. Number 57 11:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Охранник Леса (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Qwirkle reported by User:Eddaido (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [13] Comments:

I see no attempt to discuss this before the report, nor a warning to the reported user for 3RR. Further, the reporting editor themselves is at three reverts. Finally, the reported editor has not breached the 3RR brightline. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's great, how do I persuade him to stop?.Eddaido (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: You engage in discussion on the talk page and explain why the images improve the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that's so straightforward, thank you. This editor does not notice these things. The article is about the item(s) in the image(s). How further can you go? Eddaido (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: That's a content matter. You should discuss that at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As long as we're at it, here's where Qwirkle keeps reverting my case fixes in spite of my attempts to discuss:

• 13 June
• 13 June
• 14 June

Not quite a 3RR violation, but a difficult behavior to work with, especially when tag-teaming with another reverter. See attempts to discuss at User_talk:Pi.1415926535#MOS:CAPS and Talk:Central subway (Boston)#Subway capitalization. I guess as a "semi-retired" wikipedian he only has enough time for reverts, and has no use for guidelines or serious discussion. I haven't given him a 3RR warning, as these weren't within 24 hours. He has engaged a bit at the conversation, with a few personal attacks, unlike Pi... who merely posted personal attacks and told me to go away. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. I suggest the editors might try to work through their issues one at a time on the talk page. You could use WP:DRN if no agreement can be reached. If User:Eddaido continues to make personal attacks such as using the word 'lies', in an edit summary, they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Corwin2K reported by User:JimKaatFan (Result: )

Page: Alexei Yagudin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Corwin2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]
7. [21]
8. [22]
9. [23]
10. [24]
11. [25]
12. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

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

Comments:
I stumbled onto this after four other editors - Kineolody, Deegrayve, Tomcat7, and Govnery - added sourced information to the Yagudin page and Corwin2K removed it multiple times over a period of days. I did notice that 3 of those accounts are rather new, but one of them (Tomcat7) is an experienced editor, and the information is well-sourced, so I felt it should be re-added. Just like with the other four editors, Corwin2K reverted my edits. The information is not positive info on the subject, so it appears Corwin2K wants to minimize the coverage it receives in the article (he originally wanted it wiped completely). My two posts to his talk page warning him about edit warring went unanswered. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Johndoe2230 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

Page

Polygraph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Johndoe2230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC) to 20:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 20:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"
   2. 20:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Polygraphs are incredibly accurate. Being anti polygraph is like being anti science."
   3. 20:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "/* External links */Deleted false content"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) to 13:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 20:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 20:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC) "I removed anything involving "debunking" polygraphs. They are an incredibly effective tool in lie detection and are 98% effective, which is better than most medical tests"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Polygraph. (TW)"
2. 16:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Polygraph. (TW)"
3. 16:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "discretionary sanctions"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Effective"
2. 17:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Effective */ heads or tails"
3. 17:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Effective */ define effectiveness"
4. 17:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Effective */ grammatically correct"

Comments:

User:76.246.11.142 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: )

Page

Young's Literal Translation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962947722 by Eggishorn (talk)"
2. 22:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962947485 by Eggishorn (talk)"
3. 22:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962946393 by Veverve (talk)"
4. 21:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962917975 by Eggishorn (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Young's Literal Translation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Young's_Literal_Translation Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Ivan Santell reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: )

Page

Pedro Julio Serrano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ivan Santell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962961071 by Morbidthoughts (talk)"
2. 23:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962954018 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk)"
3. 23:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962953072 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk)"
4. 22:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962951063 by XLinkBot (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pedro Julio Serrano. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[30][31]

Comments:

Edit warring and inserting BLP violations Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Continuing to edit war after 3RR warning[32][33] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't so much edit warring as vandalism. The editor simply is NOTHERE. Springee (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Arglebargle79 reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: )

Pages:

• 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

User being reported: Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to (first page this change was made on): [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]
7. [41]
8. [42]
9. [43]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: [46]

Comments:

This editor changed Biden's portrait, which there is a consensus for, on all four of these pages repeatedly, despite reverts from multiple editors. This editor did engage with me some on the article talk page, their talk page, and my talk page, on which I calmly explained the present consensus, complete with links to relevant past discussions. However, they ignored my warnings and continued to make the change repeatedly across multiple days. They also repeatedly used hostile language, including calling the consensus picture "FUGLY," referring to me as "the kid," and leaving a profane message on my talk page stating that "The picture was changed from a deliberately F*ng uglly picture to make him look bad." The consensus picture had stood for quite some time, so it's unclear what the editor is referring to. The editor first reverted my revert of their edit on June 12th. It is now the 16th and they have not stopped. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ON the contrary, it was User talk:Tartan357 who was doing the edit warring, as there was no consensus for the picture in question, and in fact, I have been trying to revert that ugly picture for months now. In other words it's TARTAN357 who is at fault here and it is he who should be sanctioned. Calmly explaining something that clearly isn't true is true doesn't help matters, in fact, just shows arrogance on his/her part. i had in fact, first reverted the picture to a better one well before that, in March, IIRC. An apology to myself would be nice.

I am doing nothing but trying to improve the articles in question. Many of which I myself created. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Tartan357 reported by User:Arglebargle79 (Result: )

please see immediately aboveArglebargle79 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:190.148.209.95 reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: )

Page

Éowyn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Éowyn */ it's irrelevant"
2. 19:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 18:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 15:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Éowyn. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has immediately returned from block to continue removal of cited content.

History shows the same edits being made by similar IPs GimliDotNet (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:113.197.13.138 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked)

Page

Sumatra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "It is relevant."
2. 05:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962140014 by Austronesier (talk) Not irrelevant. You are the warring party."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

No violation of 3RR, but persistent edit warring in Sumatra (earlier diffs: [47], [48], [49]), Java, Andaman and Nicobar Islands ([50], [51], [52]). No vandalism, IP looks like acting in good faith, but multiple editors disagree and revert.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Warning was given here: User talk:113.197.13.138#Java and Sumatra. – Austronesier (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Most likely the same editor as 2001:44B8:802:1100:BD39:BF3D:4E16:FEF0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who did similar edits (e.g. in Andaman and Nicobar Islands: [53], [54], [55]) before. –Austronesier (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment - all of the IP's are warring in nature. Doesn't use talk page as requested. ON Java has now had 5 separate editors revert their same edit. Uncivil edit summaries. I could provide diffs, but it's easily seen in their contribs. There's not much else in their contribs apart from revert warring to get their way. --Merbabu (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. Repeatedly adding the one line about Christmas Island to the Sumatra article, in spite of its removal by others as irrelevant trivia. Whenthe IP did make his one post on a talk page it was a promise to continue reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Vale.devin reported by User:Haltendehand (Result: Page protected)

Page: Indro Montanelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vale.devin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)79.66.214.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Special:Diff/961454814/962206662

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/963070959/963073630
2. Special:Diff/963055844/963065556
3. Special:Diff/963036198/963052582
4. Special:Diff/962919521/962941620
5. Special:Diff/962867571/962893615
6. Special:Diff/962723854/962739792
7. Special:Diff/962690481/962702710
8. Special:Diff/962606021/962652221
9. Special:Diff/962573084/962576163
10. Special:Diff/962555029/962559955
11. Special:Diff/962509170/962516169
12. Special:Diff/962292966/962353485
13. Special:Diff/962241305/962246431
14. Special:Diff/962212079/962217272

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_Talk:79.66.214.44

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Indro_Montanelli#Persistent_reverts

It is fairly clear to me that the user Haltendehand's behaviour to delete relevant facts (in light of current relevant news discussion) and reverting edits to the page of Indro Montanelli to push his narrative is unacceptable to Wikipedia ethics. He didn't engage and pushed his narrative. Haltendehand has deleted 'controversial' paragraphs in the biography of the famous journalist, that have been clearly sourced, but he deleted them. Vale.devin (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In answer to that I would say that 1. I have not removed any facts from the article, merely moved details about the subject's actions in his youth to the appropriate section and 2. More importantly, as the revision history shows, I am far from the first person to try to do this. Yet every time this is attempted by anyone, User:Vale.devin simply reverts it, and has until now refused to engage in a conversation about this Haltendehand (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
It seems fairly clear to me that this user's behaviour in consistently reverting edits by anyone who tries to remove or amend the clearly inappropriate paragraph in the intro is unacceptable. He has not engaged either on his user talk page or in the discussion page of the article. For reference, it seems entirely clear to me that User:79.66.214.44 is the same person as User:Vale.devin. I also do not deny that I might be at least in part at fault for the edit war. Apologies incidentally if I have made any mistakes in this form or forgot to add something. Haltendehand (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Haltendehand, the other user switched their username with yours, in this edit here: [56].David O. Johnson (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 days. Please use this time to negotiate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:David O. Johnson, thank you. I corrected it without looking at the revision history, thinking I'd made a mistake when entering the data into the form. If it happens again I'll avoid correcting it so as not to cause what would be rather an ironic edit war

User:84.132.148.245 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: )

Page: Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.132.148.245 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:
This is a relatively trivial issue, to do with the capitalization of a section heading, but the editor has been aggressively continuing to edit war despite the efforts of myself and another editor to persuade them that their edits are contrary to guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

User:173.133.196.181 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: )

Page: Sealioning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.133.196.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version before they arrived: [65]

Their original edit: [66] (attempting to whitewash the article with unsourced fabrications)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Comments:
I'd try hashing this out at the Talk page, but with the IP already making accusations of conspiracy and demanding to see a manager, I doubt it would be productive. (Courtesy ping of Britishfinance, who has also reverted the IP.) XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The IP accused me of a 3RR violation on my first revert of their disruptive edit, and that they would report me to ArbCom (clearly not a first time editor to WP). Britishfinance (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

3RR applies to the number of reverts, not your personal total. This is to prevent brigading such as you and your fellow editor seem to be doing. You can't phone a friend here. Now, if I may ask you a question; in what way is asking questions to stimulate discussion NOT the Socratic Method? I linked to Socratic Method which I assume you read. As I said on your talk page, I asked Jimbo a few years ago about the webcomic that inspired the meme, and he said the white woman who expressed hate for sealions was a racist. It's a very fair analysis, I am sure you would agree. There is nothing impolite about asking her why she is prejudiced against sealions. I awaiy our reply. 173.133.196.181 (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This administrator is unconvinced that Britishfinance was canvassed or otherwise called in to the article in an untoward manner. Even if we were to combine the edits of Britishfinance and XOR'easter, Britishfinance's revert would only be the second. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not reach out to contact Britishfinance in any way (until the courtesy ping I made just above). I presume that Britishfinance simply has the article watchlisted, as I do. Sealioning is, by definition, not asking questions to stimulate discussion. "Jimbo's" opinion is irrelevant, as was actually established by a full RfC. XOR'easter (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Buidhe reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]
5. [75]
6. [76]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78][79]

Comments:

This user is edit warring. I have showed good faith and started a discussion on the talk page but the users is acting in bad faith by reverting back, on and on. This leads to nowhere and makes any civil discussion and editing Wikipedia impossible. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed content which was WP:OR and/or WP:UNDUE, requesting that Tuvixer not restore it without consensus according to WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.") Neither of us violated 3RR. The page is now fully protected so I advise that Tuvixer use the talk page to discuss the inclusion of the content and that this report be closed with no action. buidhe 08:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe has violated the 3RR and engaged in edit warring. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No violation Buidhe has not violated 3RR as the first three edits above are not reverts. As the article is already protected, no action is required here. However I think Peacemaker67 should restore the pre-edit war version of the article – a version achieved by edit warring shouldn't be allowed to stand. Cheers, Number 57 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone always thinks the "wrong version" has been locked. The key is resolving the issue, not what it looks like for a few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The stable version is almost always the correct version in cases like this. And while I agree resolving the issue is key, it is also important not to reward the party ignoring WP:BRD or make the party who was following BRD feel highly aggrieved by allowing the B version to stand, as this may encourage both parties to edit war to get their way in future. So, while this is resolved, please restore the stable version. Thanks, Number 57 09:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 and Number 57 I have reverted edits made by Buidhe and I have started a discussion, but Buidhe engages in edit warring and on the talk page claims that I should prove a negative when instead it is she/he who needs to explain why the removal of sourced content is warranted. So when a user shows a clear bad faith, like what Buidhe is doing now, how is a resolution possible? Also isn't a basic rule of Wikipedia that when someone reverts edits that you made that you do not revert them back? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a basic behavioural expectation, yes. Hence why the stable version should be restored pending any agreement on the talk page. Number 57 09:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer, Please stop accusing me of bad faith editing without evidence. WP:Personal attacks are not allowed. buidhe 17:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:SegoviaKazar reported by User:Naypta (Result: one week, partial)

Page

Kaftan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "We need to go back to the stable version so stop your pov pushing if you want a discussion."
2. 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "The information came from the book "costume et parure du Maroc" de Rachida Alaoui. So you can't call the source unreliable."
3. 12:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Another POV of M.Bitton"
4. 08:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "I don't see why specifying the year of issue is a POV. Your POV is trying to hide information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Section: Talk:Kaftan#June_2020

Twinkle didn't pick the above up automatically because I'm not an involved user.

Comments:

M.Bitton (talk · contribs) has previously warned the user on their talk page of 3RR violations. Whilst they themselves have come close to a 3RR breach on the same page, as of writing this they've not broken 3RR, whereas SegoviaKazar has. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. As the admin who had recently fully-protected the page, I take a dim view of SegoviaKazar having abandoned the discussion, even though I'm not sure 3RR has actually been breached here (the Previous version reverted to parameter has been left blank in this report). El_C 13:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nuh, sorry, Twinkle doesn't like you reporting to AN3 when you're not personally involved in the dispute, it seems - will file a bug report. If you look at the diffs, they've just been reverting everything the other user does, pretty much - they've not reverted one specific thing more than three times, but per WP:3RR, it doesn't need to be the same content. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not disputing that. It's just not clear from your report whether the earliest diff constitutes a revert or just a bold edit. El_C 13:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  @El C: Ah, fair. It is a revert: check this diff to see the previous reversion by M.Bitton. The original edit is this one. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, Naypta. That settles that. El_C 13:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you Naypta and El C for saving me a trip to ANI, as I've just about had enough with them casting aspersions (something they have already been asked to refrain from doing) and edit warring while dodging the concerns raised on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Erik-the-red reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: )

Page

Dhola, Tibet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Erik-the-red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:57, 18 June 2020 at Dhola Post "(Manual revert to 13:31, 18 June 2020.)"
2. 3 separate edits ending at 13:31, 18 June 2020 at Dhola Post: "(Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line.)"
3. 12:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC) at Dhola, Tibet: "Addressing clarifications."
4. 22:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC) at Dhola, Tibet: "Undid revision 963110743 by Kautilya3 (talk) Consensus was not reached on the talk page."
5. 18:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) at Dhola, Tibet: "Undid revision 963082813 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
6. 18:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC) at Dhola, Tibet: "Paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dhola Post. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Kautilya3 moved page Talk:Dhola Post to Talk:Dhola, Tibet over redirect: Reverting to the original title"

Comments:

This is a bit of a tricky situation. Several months ago I found a two-line stub called Dhola, Tibet, which I expanded and renamed to "Dhola Post". The user complained about it yesterday saying that it was an undiscussed move. I conceded, set the page back to what it was, and created a new page on Dhola Post. However, the user continues to edit war at the new page as well, over the same content

The user also removed citation needed tags without actually providing citations.

Discussions took place at the article's talk page as well as the user's talk page. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Your allegation that I continue "to edit war at the new page as well, over the same content" is plainly false. I have not changed your newly created page on Dhola Post to match the existing page of Dhola, Tibet. Instead,

* I removed discussion in the "Location and background" section that was irrelevant, focusing on the main point that the Thagla Ridge is north of the McMahon Line, but India believes the watershed principle implies Thagla Ridge is itself the border;

* I deleted a map that was created entirely by you and thus constitutes WP:NOR;

* and I removed discussion in the "Establishment" section that was irrelevant, focusing on the doubts from Captain Prasad, Maj. Gen. Prasad, and Lt. Gen. Singh on whether Dhola was "properly Indian."

I don't see the logic in being accused of edit warring when you made 3 reverts of my changes within 8 minutes (much less 24 hours).Erik-the-red (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I have done a maximum of 3 "reverts", where some of the reverts may have been done in several successive edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you did. 2 of your 6 alleged "reverts" are not reverts at all. [[WP:REVERT] refers to "undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version."

You erroneously labeled 12:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC) as a "revert" even though the diff makes it clear that I substantially rewrote a paragraph based on a newly added source with sufficient documentation (Henderson Brooks-Bhagat) and deleted sources you claimed to be unreliable (Calvin) or insufficiently documented (Maxwell). Because I rewrote a paragraph based on a newly added source, there was no "restoration to a previous version."

You also erroneously labeled [80] as a "revert" even though the diff makes it clear that I made the changes for the first time. There was no previous version from which those changes already existed.

The other 4 are reverts, although I must note that the 13:57, 18 June 2020 applies to a different article than the other 3. So you've accused me of edit warring because I made 3 reverts to Dhola, Tibet and 1 revert to Dhola Post.Erik-the-red (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid you are trying to game the system by arguing technicalities. The fact remains that you make no effort to seek CONSENSUS, and insist on your version of the contents being paramount. By your own admission you have made "4 reverts" despite receiving a 3RR warning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Your allegation that I make no effort to seek consensus is false. As you yourself admitted in your complaint, "discussions took place at the article's talk page as well as the user's talk page." Anyone can check and see that I initiated a discussion with you on the Dhola, Tibet talk page at 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC), while you chose to "warn" me on my talk page at 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC).

As for "arguing technicalities," that is your specialty, evidenced by your attempt to now argue that I've violated the 3RR because I made 3 reverts on Dhola, Tibet and 1 on Dhola Post. The 3RR applies to "a single page," and as you yourself know, Dhola, Tibet and Dhola Post are two different pages because you created Dhola Post.Erik-the-red (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Gu64rk g reported by User:Arms & Hearts (Result: )

Page

Buffalo police shoving incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gu64rk g (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963212460 by Arms & Hearts (talk) Happy to remove this after a discussion but I don't think it is right to remove it before. I have opened a discussion but nobody has discussed this as part of the 'Edit warring' page - 'Disagreements should be resolved through discussion'"
2. 14:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963208543 by Arms & Hearts (talk)"
3. 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Close up video of Gugino has been added (with more impartial commentary)"
4. 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963201496 by Arms & Hearts (talk) The gif provides valid information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buffalo police shoving incident */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

So far no discussion, apart from the one I have initiated in the talk section, arguing why the animated gif should be removed. I believe strongly the gif is a key part of this story.Gu64rk g (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted, so I won't take action, but this editor's early edits appear to have been an attempt to promote conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I blocked before I saw this. The edit was, among other things, copyright infringement; reverting it doesn't make you involved. —Cryptic 15:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)