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

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

---

Page: 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: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

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

@EdJohnston: I think if you look at the talk page and the article you'll see evidence of good collaboration and progress. Some disagreements still, but not what I'd call edit warring. The article has picked up a lot of new material, images, sources, structure. Your block will impede progress, nor prevent warring. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Eddaido's last edit summary expresses great displeasure (at 05:59 on 18 June). If Eddaido has changed their mind and now shares your opinion about 'good collaboration and progress' I'll lift the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: I don't think that Dicklyon is part of the Eddaido/Qwirkle problem. Dicklyon is GF and will talk to either of them. Sammy D III (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Eddaido is unhappy, and his edits still get reverted. But the rest of us are making progress, with lots of edits since that revert, and a general agreement on what the article is about, which Eddaido hasn't really accepted yet. I have my problems with Qwirkle, but he knows what he's talking about, and I'm working to convince Eddaido while improving the article and trying to mediate a bit. The root of the problem is that Eddaido tried to make the article into a different topic than it has ever been, and Qwirkle was a bit brusk and elliptic in his revert summaries. But I think we're way past that, and Eddaido can come along if he like, or he can keep pushing his idiosyncratic direction, which is disruptive. But he hasn't been pushing much, compared to the constructive work there. Sammy D III is trying to help, too, but also has difficulty with Qwirkle's style; that's not edit warring. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi just to say I'm around and very much interested in events. Eddaido (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Then please respond to the ping at the bottom of the talk section Talk:Artillery_wheel#RESTART_—_topic_is_Artillery_wheels, or we'll have to conclude that you're ignoring the discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cannon foundry, da Vinci

I am very deliberately ignoring that discussion. Last time I looked there seemed to be progress so I've deliberately stayed away from there and apart from stating the very obvious: An artillery (large-calibre guns used in warfare on land-Google) wheel was specially designed in the Middle Ages to try to cope with the very heavy loads represented by artillery. Really heavy stuff I believe went on rollers over a period of months. More recently variants of those designs have been used for motor vehicles. These are artillery wheels for motor vehicles, artillery wheels for short? Not real artillery wheels - I suggested separate articles but they could be separate sections. Need I say more as to why I will stay out of contributions on that page. As I said, last time I looked you seemed to be leading the pack towards the correct conclusion. Best I do not participate until you reach a conclusion. By the way there remain gross terminological inexactitudes in captions. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC) I want to add: so far as I'm concerned you've stopped what might have become another disaster: Eddaido (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, but the consensus of everyone but you is that "artillery wheel" refers to a certain style of wheel construction, not to wheels on artillery in general. If you're staying out of that, don't come back later and disagree, or you'll be back here for disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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)

• Result: Page semiprotected one year. For many weeks a variety of IPs have been taking out a paragraph about Éowyn's feminist credentials in the same way. Previously the page had a year of PC protection but the same reverts are going on steadily in spite of that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

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)

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. Five reverts of the capitalization of k.d. lang since 8 June. The IP has shown WP:IDHT and made personal attacks on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:173.133.196.181 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: No violation)

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: [15]

Their original edit: [16] (attempting to whitewash the article with unsourced fabrications)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]

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

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)

No violation – None of the three editors mentioned in this report has broken WP:3RR. For a brand-new editor the IP does seem precocious, when they allege canvassing and suggest a referral to Arbcom on their fourth edit. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose reported by User:Evrik (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [26]

Comments:
Sundayclose disagrees on the application of Wikipedia:FREER, on this image, File:Angela Dorian playboy cover May 1968.jpg. However, I uploaded the image in good faith. First, the image gets tagged for speedy deletion, okay. Second, Sunday close then issues me a warning.

I am somewhat taken aback by the ferocity of this users actions, in this edit they threatened to block me again and cited WP:SUICIDE. WTH? --evrik ^(talk) 02:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Three of those reverts were removal of a copyright violation, which as I understand it does not violate 3RR; I reverted an image from the cover of Playboy magazine of a living Playboy Playmate and notable actress, a violation of WP:FREER. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Even if it were clear that the image was coyvio, you tagged my talk page twice, reverted and edit when I was adding sources, refused to take this to IFD, and went a little overboard when you placed WP:SUICIDE on my talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 03:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Sundayclose: Taking a deep breath. If you restore the image and take the discussion to an IFD, I will agree to withdraw this complaint. Cheers. --evrik ^(talk) 04:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: No. Copyright violation is not a matter of negotiation. I trust admins on this board to make a decision about whether removal of copyrighted images is edit warring. I don't trust you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• • Okay then. --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Frat070699 reported by User:Wario-Man (Result: Two week block from page in question)

Page: List of Kurdish dynasties and countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frat070699 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]
7. [34]
8. [35]
9. [36]
10. [37]
11. [38]
12. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40] and was warned before by another user [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:
The reported user has started editing List of Kurdish dynasties and countries since 9 May 2020[43] and his edits has become disruptive on the mentioned article. POV-pushing, false and misleading edit summaries, ignoring other editors' points, WP:OWN, and WP:TENDENTIOUS. They opened a section on talk page but refused to collaborate, dropping their stick, and continued edit warring and non-stop reverts and removals of content added by other editors. Please take a look at both revision history and Talk:List of Kurdish dynasties and countries to see edit warring pattern of them. Wario-Man (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Partially blocked from List of Kurdish dynasties and countries – for a period of two weeks However, it does look like Frat070699 is an SPA only on Wikipedia to push a certain viewpoint on Kurdish history. If this behaviour continues at other articles or restarts on this article when the block expires, a site-wide block may be more appropriate Number 57 10:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Passengerpigeon reported by User:Danielreitberg (Result: Page protected, reporter soft-blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963290437

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963313779
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963314185
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963314714
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963315555
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Escobar_Inc&oldid=963316068

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

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

Comments:

• I have reverted the edits because the user appears to be a sockpuppet of User:WowWashington; they are under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drewserbs. Passengerpigeon (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-admin comment) Reporter appears to have COI issues, serious SPA issues, and likely sockpuppet issues (sprung into existence knowing what that even was). Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Passengerpigeon has an exemption from 3RR for good-faith reverts of apparent vandalism and/or block evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Page protected
  Additionally, Danielreitberg has been blocked based on this comment, which indicates that he is not who the username asserts him to be. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Gatitoamr1299 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: 24 hour block)

Page

Bob's Burgers: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gatitoamr1299 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 09:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 06:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Editing while logged out on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"
2. 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also editing warring while logged out as Special:Contributions/2605:E000:121E:802F::/64 Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours IP was blocked yesterday by somebody else. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Melody Concerto reported by User:66.130.253.101 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Sands Atlantic City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Melody Concerto (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. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Four reverts in 8 minutes including two without any explanation. User also attempted to start an edit war on my talk page. [49]66.130.253.101 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Reasons were provided after sufficient reverts. IP user did not engage via talk; only began reverting. Assumed vandalism; warned and mitigated lack of reason fields in later reversions. ♥ Melody ♥ 05:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't excuse the fact that you've broke 3RR by edit warring for a reason that wasn't part of WP:3RRNO nor does it excuse the fact that you've disregarded WP:BLANKING. And if you've "assumed vandalism" despite the initial edit summary I left, then you do not even deserve to have the rollback tool because you obviously don't know what constitute vandalism.: 66.130.253.101 (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected by someone else already. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Trojanishere reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)

Page

2020 China–India skirmishes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "Those figures are of injured. Not casualties (which includes seriously injured and deaths only). So those numbers include very minor injuries too. And such info about Chinese side isn't available. So, it would distort the info box to make it appear as if injuries are only from one side. Moreover, in all military history pages only seriously wounded are mentioned. Not all the minor ones."
2. 06:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "The captives have were released so it doesn't come under the heading 'casualties and losses'. Further news about captivity has already been mentioned in the opening intro and in the Galwan skirmish sub-heading. So no need of that here in infobox"
3. 04:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "The captives have were released so it doesn't come under the heading 'casualties and losses'. Further news about captivity has already been mentioned in the opening intro and in the Galwan skirmish sub-heading. So no need of that here in infobox."
4. 03:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC) "Casualties itself means both deaths and seriously injured. This has been discussed at the Talk page already. So no need to use the term 'dead and seriously injured' again."
5. 10:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963180580 by 嘉傑 (talk) These details are unnecessary. Please do not make the Page bulky by adding such details. One can know who he is by simply hovering over his name as there is already a wikipedia page and this link has been added."
6. 10:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963179524 by 嘉傑 (talk) Paramount? Isn't he the president."
7. 08:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "This is better as casualties itself includes both deaths and seriously injured"
8. 05:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "As per the citation it includes deaths and seriously injured not deaths and injured."
9. 04:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963149439 by 葉又嘉 (talk) Please do not keep doing this. You will be reported. Pakistani claims do not merit a place here. The conflict is between China and India."
10. Consecutive edits made from 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) to 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    1. 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Why was this removed??"
    2. 19:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Very necessary to mention the source to be american."
11. 19:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Please do not make such edits in the casualties section."
12. 18:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963084026 by Wped87 (talk) Serious injuries are being mentioned. And the numbers have to be comparative. There are no numbers on Chinese injured. There is figure only on killed or seriously injured. Please discuss at the Talk Page before making such major edits. Further the dates earlier were correct."
13. 18:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963080653 by Greatvictor999 (talk) It has already been discussed in the talk page and consensus has been reached to use the word 'casualties'. Casualties itself means dead or serious injury so no need to mention it again."
14. 16:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 963065909 by Mr.User200 (talk) See this : https://twitter.com/PBNS_India/status/1273144011507806209?s=19 . Prasar Bharti is India's national state-run TV channel. So it only tweets after conforming with the government."
15. 16:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC) "These reports are from 16th June. On 17th Indian Army has officially denied any such captivity news. Today Prasar Bharti also put out a tweet regarding the same. The brief time for which some soldiers were held has already been mentioned in the sub section of Galwan clashes. Please, do not do such edits based on speculations which have already been denied"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 China–India skirmishes. (TW)"
2. 10:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "/* June 2020 */you’re missing the point"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes#43 'casualties' vs 'killed or injured'
2. Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes#Question regarding Injured Troops
3. 11:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Should we refer to Xi Jinping as 'Paramount Leader' or President in this article. */re"

Comments:

Editor was warned very clearly about 3RR almost 24 hours ago, since they made at least 11 non-consecutive unambiguous reverts in the preceding 24 hours. They’ve now made 4 non-consecutive reverts in the last 6 hours alone and 6 over the last 24 hours. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment What this article really needs is WP:ECP due to frequent addition of misinformation by small accounts. That will quell edit wars. Orientls (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Trojanishere is warring with established accounts, while the article does need ECP it won’t solve this particular issue. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

My defence:
I am sorry for the multiple reverts but there has been very frequent addition of wrong info from newly created accounts. These edits have been very damaging to the page and as the page in question is an ongoing event, it is being visited in huge numbers. So, in order to maintain Wikipedia's standards I had to do some reverts. Further, the topics on which edits were made were still being discussed at the Talk Page. These accounts without going through the Talk page or participating in it, directly changed info in the infobox. Further, my arguments were backed by citations. Trojanishere (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Comment

Trojanishrere, here it would be better if in your defence, if you can explain do you understand where you have done wrong regarding 3RR rule and what you will keep in mind in future to avoid such. Because in simple words you have violated the 3RR guidelines multiple times. I don't know what you did on 19 June, but seems you have exceeded the limit multiple times itslef on 19 June even after MarkH21 bought the matter to your notice.

Again if we consider of 20 June, there were no newly created accounts from where damaging edits were made as mentioned in your comment and all contents are based per esteemed RS. On 20 June you removed reliable sourced content here at 04:43 20 June (UTC), again here at 07:11, 20 June 2020, and here again at 07:13, 20 June. Horse Eye Jack, restored per BRD here at 07:20, 20 June 2020‎. Whereas you have participated discussion here at 09:57, 20 June 2020. After that you should not have pursued the reverts. I added the materials which were per reliable source like WSJ, NYT, PTI etc here 13:00, 20 June 2020‎, but rather than conscious argument you were making self percieved comments (China denies no where reflects in Chinese official statement), and made these two edits here and here, which were absolutely unecessary when you have already violated the rules. When I've asked you atleast three times to self revert the edits that you have done at your talk page, at the article talk page and also at my talk page where you've asked for a clarification, but you did not self revert those edits, which could have been counted in WP:3RRNO and could be perceived that you understand the 3RR rule. Thats why, so that every admin get the notion that you've read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR and understand it and now know where you've done wrong and what you will do in future to avoid such scenerio again, give a fresh explanation without accussing other. Drat8sub (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. User:Trojanishere states they were reverting "very frequent addition of wrong info from newly created accounts." That is not something you have any right or duty to take care of personally, unless the changes are vandalism. Certainly you are not entitled to exceed 3RR while doing so. The only exemptions to 3RR are those listed at WP:3RRNO. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:SHISHIR DUA reported by User:Drat8sub (Result: Page protected)

Page: 2020–21 Indian Super League season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SHISHIR DUA (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 6, 7 and again pinging the user 8

Comments: He was warned of edit warring several times and was blocked multiple times for disruptive editing/repetitive unsourced content addition bahaviour and not adhere with the guidelines. The user seems to haven't understand what edit warring or disruptive editing or importance of reliable sources is as same thing persisted in the article of previous season of the league that is 2019–20 Indian Super League season as had to warned here again, tried to make them understand of the guideliens here here. Interestingly their first block was exactly for the same reason, adding unsourced content. Rather than complying with the guidleines that I've addressed to them at the article talk page they became aggressive here at my talk page threatening me and accusing of indecency or having nasty attitute and bringing my notice to the unreliable sources that I have already mentioned, are not relaible source.

• Page protected N.J.A. | talk 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Apache287 reported by User:Nyxaros (Result: Page protected )

Page: The Last of Us Part II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Apache287 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments: User was reverted by multiple editors, including me, Wikibenboy94, Guardian101 etc. They are trying to change the review aggregator Metacritic's consensus and score without actually presenting a valid reason and sources.

• Page protected Full-protected by Ymblanter Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Harshtripa reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user keep adding "transexual" and "transgender" to a such respectful title in Islamic world. I request this user being banned. Beshogur (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for disruptive editing. This user has made persistent unsourced changes since May 29. The article contains no source asserting a 'transexual' meaning for this term. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:B103N48 reported by User:Cyphoidbomb (Result: Warned; Edit Restriction)

Page: List of Tamil films of 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B103N48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Talk:List of Tamil films of 2020, B103N48, who has well under 200 edits, and thus is not familiar with Wikipedia community policy like WP:CRYSTAL, needed some edification about that policy, which I provided, but they seem to think it is not relevant here. The user believes this wall of poorly-sourced future events about upcoming, unreleased films should be kept, despite at least three other editors thinking that the content should be cut until they can all be substantiated, and some feel that even then, there should be specific release dates before the films are included. In that edit I just linked, B103N45 restored the content yet again, the fourth time they've done this since 14 June 2020, foisting their preference over the opinions of other editors. It would seem to me this is a fairly standard situation--the user can curate this content in their sandbox and find proper sourcing, but unsourced content about future events shouldn't be in there, as it violates policy. But anyway, they seem to be stalwart about warring over this, and it's unclear how many people will be required to comment before they accept a consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note I’ve warned them on continued behaviour when editing and placed this edit restriction until there’s evidence of an attempt to discuss consensus and acknowledge their editing issues with a clear view on how they shall proceed to edit constructively. N.J.A. | talk 11:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Konli17 reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]
6. [71]
7. [72]

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

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

Warning left on user's talk page: [77]

Comments:
This user does not believe in collaborative work or discussion and insists on removing reliable, sourced content that goes against their opinions. They are here to push a certain POV agenda. They have been edit-warring in almost every article they are editing. Another example is Al-Malikiyah. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: (عمرو بن كلثوم = Nom; Konli17 = K) : K made his/her first edit on 5/26/2020. Nom completely reverted K's edit no less than eight (8) times! One other editor tried to intervene and restored K's edit; Nom reverted that, too. K's original edit: added a citation; removed one sentence, citation and quote; and some minor stuff. It turns out that all of the "kurdwatch" citation URLs are typos, and so they don't lead to the intended source (should be kurdwatch.ezks.org, not kurdwatch.org). I don't know if having a valid citation would have made any difference in K's original edit or not. (K removed content based on one of the faulty URLs.) Nom does not appear to have made any attempts to explain why he/she didn't like K's edits, but has repeatedly insulted K, starting with calling his edit vandalism, then accusing him of "trying to sneak in removal of sourced content under your claimed cleaning/sequence/English summary; your edit summary is simply not true and not innocent", then "I don't care what you think", and "you are making up facts". Despite K asking for any explanation on the points of the edits, Nom never gives any. The disruptive editor doesn't appear to be K. Normal Op (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
What about this, he (k) deleted sourced content about kurdish war crimes. The nom added this back but K keeps delete sourced content to move this to one pov point.

forces were accused of several serious human rights violations. Many thousands of the city's Arab residents were forced to leave the city and its area. Surrounding villages such as Bir Ashiq were destroyed and their residents prohibited by YPG from coming back. (he k) just deletes this sourced parts. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Normal Op, It seems that you didn't look closely at the links I provided, here you go again. I am not too worried about the Kurdwatch name typo, I am more concerned about a major Washington Post story K deleted in the bulk of the editing, hence the accusation of sneaking in that deletion of sourced information under the cover of typo fixing and reference formatting, etc. If you consider that an insult, then that's your problem. This shows a consistent, persistent attitude of trying to force their POV on other users, and not being open to listen to the other side. Here is another example from another article. As for your claim that I didn't explain my revert to Konli, here is the link of my first response in the Talk page of the article, and here is the link to my second reply to them. I also left a message to them on their talk page, and left detailed summaries in my edits. What is their response? Absurd, completely opinionated and emotional. Here is an excerpt: "but most Tell Abyad residents seem to have preferred this to being part of the Islamic State." Please read through the Talk page before jumping to conclusions. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Did not want to write here but this user keep pushing his own (pro-Kurdish bias) in Turkey related articles, changing Southeastern Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia into Northern Kurdistan, Syria's north into Rojava, etc. Changing wordings, adding text without adding new sources, etc. admins should check his history. Beshogur (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User Konli17 is behaving the same way in YPG International. They have already reverted my edit twice, here and here to remove sourced content from reliable sources with no explanation or attempt to discuss in Talk page. I think it's time for an Admin to step in. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)::::

He deleted here also sourced content because it seems he not like it?

[[78]] Shadow4dark (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I have also noticed this editor’s battleground attitude. He is constantly pushing his POV. He should really stop and respect Wikipedia’s NPOV. Tradedia^talk 04:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It looks like you are the most active admin on this page. Would you mind looking into this, and into all the contributions of this user? They are continuing with their behavior in multiple articles. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. The user has reverted nine times on this article since 26 May. They have already been alerted under the WP:GS/ISIL sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:The Chukkar reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)

Page

Statue of Albert Pike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Chukkar (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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Daniel Case for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Kisteti reported by User:Deni Mataev (Result: Warned)

Page: Ingush people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kisteti (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. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments:

He uses wrong statistics and simple news articles without sources for the number of Ingush people, instead of trying to resolve anything or come to any kind of conclusion, he ignores any argument made in the talks page, and goes back to edit and revert any change that has been made which is against his liking.

• Result: User:Kisteti is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the article unless they have received prior consensus for their change on the talk page. They have reverted the number of people (in the infobox) seven times since 9 June. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:2409:4072:6D8A:9675:0:0:7A0B:2708 reported by User:Joseywales1961 (Result: Semi)

Page

Nadar (caste) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2409:4072:6D8A:9675:0:0:7A0B:2708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[83]

Diffs of the user's reverts

[84] [85] [86] [87]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

{{subst:uw-3rr}} warning {{subst:An3-notice}} notice to user of this discussion

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly inserting their own text with no explanation, edit summary etc JW 1961 Talk 20:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected six months due to caste-related edit warring. See all the past protections. This article is covered by community sanctions under WP:GS/Caste. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Roberto221 reported by User:Bloom6132 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Michel Mulloy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roberto221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:31, June 19, 2020‎
2. 18:08, June 20, 2020
3. 21:42, June 20, 2020
4. 22:23, June 20, 2020

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

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

Comments: Also violated 3RR at Bruce Lewandowski.

• Result: Both editors warned for edit warning. More background for the dispute may be seen at User talk:Bloom6132#Consensus. (See the insightful comments by User:Elizium23). Bloom6132 has experience in taking articles through the GA process but Roberto221 has done previous work on Catholic bishops. Apparently there is a usual practice which has been followed in the past by members of the WP:CATHOLIC WikiProject. If you guys disagree, and if you require a new style guideline for bishops or an WP:RFC, then get the process started. There is no carte blanche to keep reverting just because you are both experienced editors. More reverts at Michel Mulloy or Bruce Lewandowski or may lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Roberto221 reported by User:Bloom6132 (Result: See warnings given above)

Page: Bruce Lewandowski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roberto221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:30, June 19, 2020
2. 18:08, June 20, 2020‎
3. 21:43, June 20, 2020
4. 22:24, June 20, 2020‎

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

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

Comments: Also violated 3RR at Michel Mulloy.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloom6132 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned per a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Matthewmorrison34 reported by User:TechnicianGB (Result: Blocked as sock by another admin,)

You can end this notice. The user is an confirmed sockpuppet of another user who has been using hundreds of different accounts/IPs to vandalize Wikipedia, he's permanently banned. You can archive this, no action is further needed. --TechnicianGB (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Page: Alicante (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Matthewmorrison34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:20, 20 June 2020
2. 22:20, 20 June 2020
3. 22:36, 20 June 2020
4. 22:54, 20 June 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92] (made after he reverted me 4 times, but I have warned himself priorly in the talk page of Alicante)

Comments: This user keeps deleting data backed up by sources, for an unknown reason and he doesn't even bother to check the source, it's just deleting/reverting the data. I am also aware he is a sockpuppet and I have started an investigation for that. I might suggest a semi-protection of this page for this same reason. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not deleting data, I am deleting a sentence that is NOT backed up by sources and I explained the reasons in the edit summaries of the page Alicante. This claim is proved WRONG by the OFFICIAL DATA of both locations, yet User:TechnicianGB kept on reverting the edits that me and other users (probably members of the city-data.com forum which I am part of and in which we talked about this anomaly) do, even when there was NO source. Today, he inserted a source from a FAKE and UNOFFICIAL Alicante Airport website, whose weather data is not even minimally similar to the one from AEMET (January mean is 11 instead of 13.3 etc.) and keeps on reverting my and other users' edits despite all of our explenations, which through the use of actual data have DISMANTLED and UNPROVEN the claim. I invite you to look at the edit history of Alicante to see that. Also, User:TechnicianGB mentions warning me of the 3-revert rule, but that's only in edit summaries and he started no discussion at Talk:Alicante, which I learned that per WP:BRD is where he should have gone after the original revert. Plus, he left a single warning at User talk:Matthewmorrison34 and then started the ANI before I had edited again. This shows that User:TechnicianGB is also breaking Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Matthewmorrison34 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)User:Matthewmorrison34

Wrong, that claim was there since November 2016 and an IP (not an user, suspected to be a sockpuppet of this user) deleted it in 18th June 2020 which I deleted after. I even inserted a source backing up that text but this user keeps deleting it and making an edit war, the discussion at Talk:Alicante should have been started to delete something that has been there for almost 4 years. Also, this user is doing personal attacks against me at the page User talk:Subtropical-man but that's another topic I didn't mention because it's unrelated, yet I see this user is now mixing all up and doing a copypaste of what another user wrote in another page (for example I have opened a sockpuppet investigation for this user) to try to make a point, I still see an edit war created by this user or one of his sockpuppets. --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: TechnicianGB just brought Matthewmorrison34 to ANI and SPI, which raises concerns of forum shopping. Additionally, TechnicianGB's claim of I have warned himself priorly in the talk page of Alicante is false, as that was a warning about edit warring at User talk:Matthewmorrison34. Matthewmorrison34 hasn't edited Alicante after that warning. A look at the history of the article shows that both editors are edit warring, and at this time, neither has attempted any discussion at Talk:Alicante. Woodroar (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of as sock by another admin, N.J.A. | talk 11:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:Millzipede (Result: )

Page: The Real Housewives of New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Comments:

Despite including numerous references within the article, the user continues to edit war and revert the page due to their own resistance of acceptance to the truth. This conversation has already been had years previously and the user continued to be disruptive despite there being clear evidence to the contrary. The cast member in question in this particular instance 'Jennifer Gilbert' has clearly stated that she made a guest appearance within the series and is clearly visible within the episode however the user 'Hotwiki' refuses to accept this as a source of truth.

First, if you are gonna report someone to ANI, make sure you notified them in the talk page. Second, your edits were unreferenced and if I didn't tell you in the talk page of the article to post a reference, you wouldn't even post it. Third, years of disruptive editing is an exaggeration as I never had an issue with Jennifer Gilbert in the article until this week, when you posted your unreferenced edits. Fourth, Jennifer Gilbert was hardly a guest as it was a "blink and you'll miss it" cameo footage. You are the one being stubborn with this "guest" label when you could have discussed it in the talk page first and come up with a consensus which didnt happen in the said article.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There's prior AN3 conflict between Hotwiki & Millzipede - Special:Permalink/963723533#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Cabayi (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the source added in the article is merely a tweet, not an actual proof that Jennifer Gilbert ever appeared on the show as a guest. The network that airs the show never credited her as a guest as well.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)