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:Theboycaoimhs reported by User:Bastun (Result: Theboycaoimhs and their sock Fingalisnotacounty have been blocked indefinitely at SPI)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Incorrect information changed to reflect that Fingal is not a designated county in Ireland. It is an administrative region"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC) to 13:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Fixed incorrect content. Fingal is not defined as a county in Ireland and the references used to support this claim refer to the break up of Dublin County Council into three distinct regions"
   2. 13:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Fingal is not defined as a county in Ireland. Incorrect information"
3. 12:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Changed incorrect content. Fingal is not a county in the Republic of Ireland. This is false information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

One Two

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Fingal is not a county */ r"

Comments:

New user, has only edited this page. Ignored edit summary warnings from Spleodrach, talk page warnings from me. A case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as the content they keep reverting is well referenced. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Theboycaoimhs and their sock Fingalisnotacounty have been Blocked indefinitely at SPI. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: FobTown will abide by the RfC)

Page

COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964317750 by MarkH21 (talk) no further comments for days, no conclusive agreement was reached"
2. 20:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964067385 by Mx. Granger (talk) we had no agreement"
3. 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 961879523 by MarkH21 (talk) we did not reach a consensus yet."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is reverting multiple editors who are enacting the RfC that was clearly closed by JzG as:

There is clear consensus for 2a, but with only relatively few editors involved and some reservations expressed, so this should not be interpreted as forestalling further discussion to refine the text.
— User:JzG

Clear-as-day WP:IDHT edit warring to remove the entire text (option 4 in the RfC) from an editor who was previously blocked for edit warring on this very article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC was closed without an agreed consensus from either parties, there was no further comment since June 11, 2020. [1] Furthermore, Mx. Granger wasn't involved in the later discussion for a while and suddenly pops up to revert it unilaterally? FobTown (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps this is really a WP:CIR issue from FobTown (whose username is a pejorative term by the way). The closing statement of There is clear consensus for 2a does not somehow mean closed without an agreed consensus, and not all parties have to agree for there to be a consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

FobTown, no it was not. The consensus is unambiguous for 2a.You can start a new discussion to further refine the text, but 2a is the version that has consensus. Guy (help!) 09:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

[2] Shows that MarkH₂₁'s attempts to implement the disputed passage was rejected twice on June 11, 2020 by myself and then User:Horse Eye Jack. Thus my June 11, 2020 revert does not count towards the 3RR. FobTown (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears that User:FobTown should be blocked for editing against the result of the WP:RFC. Perhaps they will respond and make some promise about their future editing that would make a block unnecessary. Since the community has authorized sanctions for COVID, they probably don't want admins to take this lightly. FobTown's remarks above suggest a lack of understanding of the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Now I understand where I was the wrong, this will not happen again, and I'll agree to abide by WP:RFC from now on. FobTown (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. User:FobTown has agreed to abide by the WP:RFC in future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:602:9d00:3970:3d00:cceb:67af:88c7 reported by User:El_C (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Stereotypes of white Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:602:9d00:3970:3d00:cceb:67af:88c7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

22:40, 24 June 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:48, 24 June 2020
2. 23:12, 24 June 2020
3. 06:23, 25 June 2020
4. 06:31, 25 June 2020

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

06:27, 25 June 2020

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

06:31, 25 June 2020 * Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Lourdes 14:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:SalahGood (Result: EC protection)

Page: Operation Spring Shield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:

I'd also like to put forward several other incidents with the user. 1) Good faith warning at my talk page despite no bad faith editing.[10] 2) False vandalism accusation at edit summary despite my edit being WP:NOTVANDALISM[11]. 3) Shouting at me in edit summary.[12] 4) Warning me of edit warring at my talk page after he violates 3RR.[13] 5) Bad faith response and threats following edit war notice.[14] SalahGood (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:SalahGood with a a account of 72 hours of created, is reverting and disruptive editing Turkish related articles, the same way User:Maistara (a proven Sock of User:Gala1900 did). There is a investigation of Sockpuppetry in this case.

Both editors dit the same articles and have the same POV pushing.

During the investigation me and another editors, were warned that User:SalahGood was likely a Gala1900 Sockpuppet here.

Most conveniently a SPI investigation was caried out and 3 accounts were blocked by a admin at:

• Blackout5019 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - Sockpuppet that reverted my edits.
• Maistara (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - SockPuppet of Gal17928 - Blocked at 06:53, 22 June 2020
• Sacrmenbb47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - A sleeper account of Maistara with no edits, (to revert later.)

who were confirmed to each other, and to:

• Gal17928 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - SP
• Ahhlanker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - SP

SalahGood account was created at 09:38, 22 June 2020 and all his/her edits were to restore Maistara edits.

See here: Maistara edits (Blocked SP) - SalaGood edits.

Even more, the same time User:Maistara complained my edits, User:SalahGood was reverted all my edits. Maistara complains about my edits and call me False SalahGood revert my edits. 1 revert 2 revert 3 revert 4 revert Both use the same worlds and criteria.

The SPI Check ended before SalahGood account was created, the investigation was not filed yet, and i requested to include SalahGood, because he was reverting back all Maistara edits after he was blocked.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Operation Spring Shield placed under extended confirmed protection for one month due to socking concerns. This will make it harder for newly-created socks to edit the page. Note that the filer of this report, User:SalahGood, who has 46 edits, is named in a current SPI whch is waiting for evaluation. The participants here are surely aware the page is under 1RR and that blocks can be given for that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:UBQITOSW reported by User:SmartyPants22 (Result: Warned)

Page: List of current ships of the United States Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UBQITOSW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]

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

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

Comments:
SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already said on talk page of List of current ships of the United States Navy that I just hope SmartyPants22 can move all sections to the new layout in one edit prior to change this list, rather than making it into a semifinished article. (with new layout only applied to commissioned section that not reach the half of the full text and remaining sections is unchanged) As for "Previous version reverted to", it should be this version, because I was waiting for SmartyPants22 to move remaining sections during days between this version to his version, but he didn't. UBQITOSW (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:UBQITOSW, you don't get to veto the method by which SmartyPants22 is hoping to restructure the article. The simplest outcome here is a block of your account for edit warring. If you want to make some other concession about your future editing, that might be enough to avoid a block. For example, you could promise to wait for agreement on the talk page before editing again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:UBIQITOSW is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:95.148.249.169 reported by User:CommanderWaterford (Result: )

Page

Jack Buckby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "None of this is relevant and uses primary sources - Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth."
2. 18:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964476979 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) Can you stop reverting this edit. There is a floating 'Jack' under the page heading and above the leading bio. Also see talk page for discussion RE: current career."
3. 18:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964474855 by SuperGoose007 (talk) Hey - See ongoing Talk page discussion"
4. 18:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964474095 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) See ongoing Talk page discussion"
5. 16:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964458499 by Rosswikieditor (talk) Buckby isn't known for being an author; he is known for being a far-right activist. Leading with him being an author is misleading when you consider why he has a wikipedia article to begin with. Please stop vandalising the page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:95.148.249.169 reported by User:Ralbegen (Result: )

Page

Jack Buckby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964489937 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) User needs reminding - None of this is relevant and uses primary sources - Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth."
2. 19:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "None of this is relevant and uses primary sources - Wikipedia's standard is verifiability not truth."
3. 18:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964476979 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) Can you stop reverting this edit. There is a floating 'Jack' under the page heading and above the leading bio. Also see talk page for discussion RE: current career."
4. 18:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964474855 by SuperGoose007 (talk) Hey - See ongoing Talk page discussion"
5. 18:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964474095 by 91.110.151.147 (talk) See ongoing Talk page discussion"
6. 16:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964458499 by Rosswikieditor (talk) Buckby isn't known for being an author; he is known for being a far-right activist. Leading with him being an author is misleading when you consider why he has a wikipedia article to begin with. Please stop vandalising the page."
7. 16:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964456296 by Rosswikieditor (talk) Previous editor is insisting on including unreliable sources. I think it's fair to say Buckby isn't a far-right activist or a counter-extremism expert. He is a political commentator that was a prominent far-right activist."
8. 11:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964419443 by CommanderWaterford (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC) to 19:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC) on Talk:Jack Buckby

Comments:

The user was warned by several other users on their Talk page but has continued to engage in edit-warring behaviour. Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:91.110.151.147 reported by User:Ralbegen (Result: Blocked)

Page

Jack Buckby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964491897 by 95.148.249.169 (talk)"
2. 20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964487440 by 95.148.249.169 (talk) How is it not relevant? It's a wikipeda page about a person's career. That career is still on going but you, as a politically biased individual who shouldn't be editing anything, only want to portray the old stuff so you can paint him as a current far-right activist which he is not. You are deliberately trying to mislead. Why?"
3. 19:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964478545 by 95.148.249.169 (talk) Can you stop deleting out Jack's current career. He has left right wing media and he has published and number of books, one which calls out far-right extremism. These are actual, factual things that can be proven. What does anyone gain from you hiding these facts?"
4. 18:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964476665 by 95.148.249.169 (talk)"
5. 18:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 18:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Please stop trying to distort his profile by deleting provable facts that show Jack Buckby is no longer a far-right activist let alone an activist of any kind and is an author and research associate with no links to the far right whatsoever. No one is denying Jack's former involvement in the far-right, but it is untrue to suggest that this is still the case. The actions to hide this information seem politically biased, in which case the editor in question should be investigated"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jack Buckby. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ R"
2. 17:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ +"
3. 18:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ R"
4. 18:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ R"
5. 19:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Buckby Is An Author and Researcher */ r"

Comments:

User:Ralbegen reported by User:91.110.151.147

User keeps undoing revisions that demonstrate that the person the page is about is no longer involved in the far-right due to their own opinion and political prejudice. The talk page will show that their opinion as well as being irrelevant in providing factual details of the person's career is also in the minority as other users also disagree with their attempts to skew the information in order to paint the person in question as an active far-right activist.91.110.151.147 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for edit warring by User:JzG. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 reported by User:109.245.37.148 (Result: )

Page: Boris Malagurski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
I would like to ask admin to take into consideration that filer had removed template messages from the article around the same time of this report, that there is ongoing discussion on TP regarding temp.msg's justification, and that removal of these msg's is highly contentious and biased. Moreover, IP themselves never participated in these discussions, but this fact did not prevent them from making "TP consensus" explanation in edit-summery. Whole thing concerns blatant COI on the part of the creator and their WP:OWN-like activities, all of which can (and will) be proven with simple contribution overview evidences and edit diff's, so I am already creating a report myself on these concerns, but I can't produce such WP:Open a COIN just-like-that, I am reading everything that I can find on COI and AB, and also to see if and how I can incorporate WP:OWN concerns.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to point out that the total of 5+ editors have been against the inclusion of tags. Rather then discussing first, the reported editor has waged a crusade to push his POV and he took the time to ignore, insult and harass other involved editors (in his diffs and the TP as well), myself included. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Five editors with only one of them providing sensible argument by saying it is not way forward, the rest, and you have been one of them, "arguing" repeatedly how there is no consensus to accept the temp-msg's. Consensus isn't about counting rejection votes but measured weighing of legitimacy, adequacy and sensibility of all expressed arguments, whereas "you have no consensus" argument is not particularly persuasive one ! For the rest of your comment, I wonder if you can provide any meaningful evidence, while I must express also my bewilderment at your ability to find me anywhere.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND; actually serious concerns have been raised as well as questions - for example what is the basis for "systematic bias tag". The choice to Stonewall did not bring us anywhere, now did it? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have requested evidence for the reported editor has waged a crusade to push his POV and he took the time to ignore, insult and harass other involved editors (in his diffs and the TP as well), myself included. Just yesterday you have been warned for trying to weaponize administrative processes against ideological opponents on AE request on Mikola22.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

One man's opinion is quite okay. Once again, take the time to read WP:BATTLEGROUND and do take your own burden for edit-warring rather then making it about other editors and their work, which is the only mature thing to do. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

He was warned earlier to not edit until a consensus was reached. [34] The issue regards the infobox and the number of Ingush people. Where he uses false numbers, from unsourced articles, and misuses otherwise official government estimations, which say something different than what he says. He refuses to settle the dispute in the Talk page, and only reacts whenever the page is reverted. I additionally opened up a thread on the DRN [35], but he doesn't respond there either, showing that he is unwilling to compromise. Several people other than me have seen the issues with his edits, but he refuses to reach any agreement and claims his edits are reverted out of spite and hostility towards his nation. Deni Mataev (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. User:Kisteti has continued to revert the population figure in the infobox since 21 June in spite of being warned in the last AN3 to get consensus first. Checking the talk page shows there is no sign of any consensus at this time. Up to the present, there has been a three-person discussion where nobody else supports Kisteti's numbers. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User: My very best wishes reported by User:AveTory (Result: )

Page: Valeriya Novodvorskaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40] (first time the whole section was deleted)

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

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

Comments:
The user has a long history of vandalising articles be deleting large sections (-4,493‎ symbols this time) along with reliable sources. He first vandalised the article back in February 2019 by deleting around 10,000 symbols without any discussion (some of the information, including this section, was added by me). I restored and improved the article since, but now he deleted the whole section once again while keeping WP:WAR. AveTory (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I self-reverted and started discussion on talk [41]. This is a poorly sourced contentious content about the person inserted by AveTory. Right now it appears that I made only one revert on this page (not counting my first edit, I am not sure if it was a revert), and AveTory made two. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

User:223.191.50.165 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: )

Page

Licence to Kill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964735313 by Flix11 (talk)"
2. 08:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964734196 by Dimadick (talk)"
3. 07:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964733851 by Dimadick (talk)"
4. 07:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 964731086 by Dimadick (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:Brakkar reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)

Page

McKenzie method (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

• Initial edit[42]

Diffs of the user's reverts

• 1st revert[43]
• 2nd revert[44]
• 3rd revert[45]
• 4th revert[46]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[47]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

see Talk:McKenzie method#Research quality

Comments:

I think this user is not acting in good faith. They undid my edits, together with some which looked unproductive, all with a single insulting edit summary: [48]. Subsequently, they are trying to misrepresent a source by omitting its principal finding entirely and incorrectly reporting its findings about research in the area. The user's approach, including this report, seems deliberately confrontational and aggressive, all in pursuit of preventing the article from accurately reporting the sources. Brakkar (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice also that the claimed 4 reverts are nothing of the sort. They represent different edits intended to improve the article as I learned more about what was in the source; had I merely reverted to a single old version, that would be quite a different state of affairs.Brakkar (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Those are the most obvious, flat out "undo" reversions. You'd been warned about edit warring so should know by now what a reversion is - thinking your reversions are somehow okay suggests continued disruption is likely. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The user has made a very unpleasant personal attack on the article talk page, in the section which supposedly represents their attempt to resolve the situation. It is not possible to assume any good faith in their actions at this point. Brakkar (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Any "very unpleasant personal attack" needs to be reported to WP:AIN. But familiarity with WP:WIAPA is suggested before going there. You've already said you are not assuming good faith; no need to repeat it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. In the future, consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Drmies (Result: )

Page: Harut and Marut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49] ("canonical" is not verified in that source)
2. [50] ("not sure that exactly was grammatically incorrect here")
3. [51] ("I just readded something, another editor deleted")
4. [52] (editor now removes the entire paragraph, even though that is relevant and verified material: POINTy)
5. [53] ("so why are you leaving out the second part?")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]. More warnings: User:Faissaloo opened a thread on ANI, which also involved edit warring and problematic editing in this article, and User:Leo1pard has also weighed in. Note that this dispute, narrowly speaking, began with Faissaloo making this edit, with the correct edit summary, "Remove assertion that this was canonical".

There are two problems here: the addition they kept reinserting is ungrammatical, "Although the story does not go back to Muhammad himself, the story gained wide popularity among Muslims to an extent the story became 'canonical'", and the material is not verified in that source (which doesn't contain the word "canon", by the way--it has an interesting discussing on ... well never mind, that goes too far, but it doesn't claim this). And because the material is not verified, I can't even fix the grammar and be assured that it is properly verified. And on top of that, the editor is edit-warring. The last two diffs are simply POINTy: their question, "why are you leaving out the second part?" is easily answered: that second part is the ungrammatical and unverified material.

There is a second ANI thread, started by Venus themselves, accusing Leo1pard of blah blah blah. Venus may well end up getting a topic ban or other censure there, for original research, edit warring, and personal attacks, but let's get this edit warring out of the way first. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)