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:Kacziey reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: Protected)

Page: Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Edit summary by Kacziey: "/* Reception */Unexplained edit warring POV push by daveout and removing large RS including Washington Post NY magazine etc."
2. 12:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Edit summary by Kacziey: "Added The Independent 2017, and back to version before Daveout’s unexplained reversión and edit warring"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit war across several days with User:Daveout. Both have warned eachother, kept reverting each other and adding then removing disputed content. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, I explain my edits in talk of that page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Talk:Glenn_Greenwald

See (also) this example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Greenwald&diff=prev&oldid=980615544

I have included around 8 sources with original quotes, while Daveout edits original texts from source or just plain removes to fit his POV. I gave it a “rest” (Sep.27) of more than a day after he “promised” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Greenwald&diff=prev&oldid=980621905 he will write something which is “feasible”, yet he did not but just left his vandalized version. Regards. Kacziey (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: I first encountered Kacziey while he was trying to claim that journalist Greenwald is a “passionate defender of Antifa”, based on a primary source, a twit written by Greenwald that says this: If you express any criticisms of Antifa, then it proves you're pro-fascist because the word literally means: "anti-fascist"! Just like those who supported the Patriot Act were patriots; those who didn't were unpatriotic, because it was literally called the *PATRIOT* Act. Greenwald is obviously being IRONIC here (he’s a critic of antifa and the patriotic act). Then, Kacziey went on to The Intercept’s page to label Greenwald far-left and anti-israel. A discussion started on its talk page, with many user noting the use unreliable sources as well as the sources not using unequivocally the term “far-left” to refer to Greenwald. Then he went to greenwald’s page again to say that he was criticized by his “anti-vax” views. This is what the source actually says: it’s often hard to tell the extremists apart. Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right — and while most of those who defend President Trump’s dealings with Russia are on the right, some, such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen, are on the left. A comparison is drawn between those two issues (anti-vax and russia-gate), but they are separate things. The author just wanted to illustrate that some issues attract both the left and right, it doesn’t mean greenwald has an opinion on the anti-vax thing. \\ I also want to point out that 1) Kacziey wasn’t reverted solely by me, he was reverted by other users and by an anti-vandalism bot, 2) other editor asked him to stop edit-warring on his talk-page but he deleted those messages. 3) at least 2 users thanked me for reverting him. \\ This user clearly has some text interpretation issues along with POV pushing behavior, he should be topic-banned on the basis of WP:CIR. Thanks. - Daveout(talk) 14:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Daveout:, while I'm sympathetic, User:Kacziey is a new user (179 edits; 1st edit 23 September) and should get a certain amount of latitude. That said, they've been pretty aggressive at Glenn Greenwald. I've placed two Discretionary sanctions alerts on Kacziey's talk page, informing them of WP:ArbCom rulings in WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBAP. Hopefully that will defuse the situation, and reduce any edit warring, which should adhere to WP:1RR. Note that that applies to all editors on the article.

As far as specific comments about left/right, anti-vax, or anything else, all that is a content dispute, and AN3 isn't going to get involved in that. Everyone should adhere to WP:BLP and WP:1RR. New users should be aware that getting involved in articles under ArbCom sanctions as one of your first articles at Wikipedia is going to be tougher than at most other articles, and though you'll get some latitude as a new user, once informed, you'll be expected to follow the policies and guidelines like everyone else. Mathglot (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Should've also pinged NonsensicalSystem. Mathglot (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Fair enough, I myself are uninvolved not including the report. If it continues any further I'll put something up on the dispute noticeboard. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@NonsensicalSystem:, I should perhaps have included this at the outset, to make my role clear: (Non-administrator comment). Mathglot (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I see. Probably should wait for result before taking any more steps then. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: sounds good to me (i hope that will be enough). thanks for taking a look at this. - Daveout(talk) 13:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. Please use the talk page to reach agreement on the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Telsho reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Warned)

Page: Singapore–United States relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Telsho (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Singapore–United States relations#Improvement dispute

Comments:

The edit warring, disruption, and personal attacks continue at Singapore–United States relations, Telsho resumed edit warring mere moments after their previous block for edit warring expired. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussions on the talk page which ended more than a a month ago about improving the article are unrelated to the diffs and not the same material whatsoever, which I had clearly stated in the edit summary and adhering my best to WP:ROWN. Constantly claiming "no consensus" and lumping different topics together is hardly a valid reason for you to revert and claim I'm "edit warring" when I was consecutively restoring part of a reverted edit. Notwithstanding that I never violated 3RR in the first place, I'm not the one initiating edit wars here, you clearly refused to read. Also please specify exactly where and when I "personally attacked" you. Thanks. Telsho (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If you review the diff I actually claimed editorializing and undue weight as the reasons for reverting you ("Get consensus, there appears to be a lot of editorializing in there that isn't strictly supported by the sources given. The weight is also undue, the incident merits a paragraph at most."). You do need to get consensus but not having consensus is not the base justification for the revert. Please tell the truth. Anytime you baselessly accuse a wikipedia editor of "spewing personal opinions” instead of going by the sources its going to be interpreted as an attack. Also just FYI that talk page discussion is still active, it isn't closed or “ended" and consensus hasn’t been reached. How about we ping in @Grandpallama: and you can ask them if they feel that the take page discussion has ended with a consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Telsho is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Singapore–United States relations unless they've obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Telsho was blocked 48 hours as recently as 25 September per a prior complaint at this board. If Telsho continues with this ongoing pattern, admins may need to take some action. The editor can't blame all of these disputes on other people. Telsho is archiving their own talk page every 24 hours and it is evident why that is necessary. User:El_C wrote to them on 25 September, "Look, Telsho, you can't keep going like this. It is unsustainable." EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:April Melanie Smith and User:Chewings72 reported by User:Matthewrbowker (Result: Block, semi, warning)

Page: Manchukuo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: April Melanie Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Chewings72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]
6. [11]
7. [12]
8. [13]
9. [14]
10. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, I am not involved in the dispute.

Comments:
I came across this article during my Huggle work, and it really needs to be untangled. There are multiple users attempting to revert each other. I'm up to 3 reverts by April, 4 reverts by Chewings72, and three additional reverts by IPs attempting to keep April's content. I am not involved. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Comments · Changes} 19:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As readers will be aware from my actions and advice to User:April_Melanie_Smith (as noted by User:Matthewrbowker), this user has ignored my advice and requests to stop including changes that are clearly the user's POV and not based on any reliable sources. The user has continued to ignore my advice and has not provided any comments to support her changes or to argue that my reverts are incorrect. Chewings72 (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I have made one last attempt to return the article to a stable version. To avoid any possible accusation that I am breaching the 3RR rule, I will not make any further attempts to stop User:April_Melanie_Smith's further actions. Thanks Chewings72 (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – User:April Melanie Smith is blocked 48 hours for edit warring. I've also semiprotected Manchukuo for a month. If the editor April Smith wants to completely overhaul Wikipedia's account of the temporary state of Manchukuo they need to get consensus on the talk page. User:Chewings72 should avoid crossing 3RR even if he believes he is reverting disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:SanAnMan reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: The Pandemic Special (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SanAnMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20] (while this diff does not revert the same type of edit, it is the same idea of insisting that the episode is not part of season 24)
5. [21]
6. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments: In addition, they have called edits that call the episode the season 24 premiere unconstructive and vandalism and removed warnings on their talk for AGF and 3RR

I agree with above. SanAnMan is doing the same over removing time and time again despite justification information about the show's availability on other platforms, categorizing incorrectly as "reruns." Nearly every TV show page on wikipedia talks about streaming availability, with many episode pages doing the same for key milestones. Fdsoisdfojsdlj (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fdsoisdfojsdlj: can you provide diffs? I believe you, but providing diffs for your separate incident will definitely help give some sort of sanction to SanAnMan. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: How do I do that? Took me 5 minutes to figure out how to sign my name. Fdsoisdfojsdlj (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Go into any page's history, and you'll see a blue word next to each edit that says either prev or diff. Click on that, then copy the link, then put it between one pair of these —-> [ ] brackets in an edit onto this page. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I had placed a WP:RPP on this article about a day before the editing wars started because I knew it would be a point of contention as to whether or not the episode was a special episode or the season premiere. I had cited at least 6 or 7 reliable sources, including the official press release from South Park Studios, that all confirmed one after another that this episode was a special and that it was not the season premiere. I even explained on the talk page of the article why this was so when the question was first brought up on the talk page. There was overwhelming confirmation from multiple reliable sources that all supported the view that this episode was a special and was not a season premiere. Nonetheless, unconfirmed editor after unconfirmed editor kept insisting that it was the season premiere (some without any justification whatsoever), and most of them were using a near-identical edit summary when changing the article. They were also using just one or two identical links to video feeds to justify their stance, none of which were anywhere near as reliable as the sources cited. Since I saw so many unconfirmed editors/IP-only editors using the same summary and making near-identical edits to the article, I (mistakenly) assumed that this was a case of sock-hopping and just started reverting as vandalism until the page could be protected (which it now has at this time of my comments). You will note that the reversions listed in this complaint are almost all from IP-only or unconfirmed users with practically no previous edit history. So I admit that I mistook User:Unnamed anon as another one of these hopping vandals. However, it should be pointed out that this user has only had about three months of edit history and has already had multiple contentions with both other users and admins during that timeframe.

As for User:Fdsoisdfojsdlj's statements about the streaming services, I was going by the long-term history of other South Park episode articles that never even mentioned anything about streaming services; I felt his argument of "Nearly every TV show page on wikipedia talks about streaming availability" was a dictionary definition of WP:OSE. The streaming service information has been documented on the main South Park article, and I did not feel it was worth repeating on a single episode review.

And as for removing Unnamed's comments from my talk page, per WP:OWNTALK and WP:BLANKING I am allowed to perform any edits or removals I choose to on my own talk page, and, "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." (quoted from OWNTALK) - SanAnMan (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I withdraw this particular report (my one below about QuestFour still stands). The source SanAnMan gave that came directly from Comedy Central is infinitely more reliable than the sources currently on the page, and I will replace those sources with the one they gave. Thanks SanAnMan for giving this particular source; I am now in agreement with you that this is considered a special episode, and am willing to see the source I was giving as a mistake based on your arguments on the talk page. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Unnamed anon: I appreciate the feedback. The source I gave here was already in the article once, just not in the place where you added it, so I just fixed your edit so that the cite isn't listed twice. Just trying to help. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Complaint withdrawn by User:Unnamed anon. Thanks to them for the withdrawal and to User:SanAnMan for the explanation, EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Resource sharing reported by User:180.241.205.155 (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]

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

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

Comments: I believe this user conduct edit warring with adding unsourced or questionable source in Medes article. I tend not to report that user to AIV because edit warring that occured by this user is not vandalism. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Now blocked indef by User:Salvio giuliano for tendentious editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:173.175.21.168 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Advice)

Page: Talk:Texas A&M University–Central Texas (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.175.21.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a; the editor is edit warring to delete his or her comments in the Talk page

Comments:
No comments; this is very straight forward. ElKevbo (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The user agreed with your edits and made a note that Wikipedia guidelines were followed by changing the user's mind and within a short time period. Warnings are accepted and agreed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.21.168 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You have done no such thing and you have continued to edit war not only in the article about the edit that was originally discussed in Talk but also to remove your comment in the middle of the Talk page discussion. I don't know what your game is but you need to stop or be prevented from disrupting the work of other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree not to delete if there is a comment made after a comment. Unaware of that specific guideline and will follow in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.21.168 (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No block, since the IP editor has agreed to stop removing their replied-to comments. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: )

Page: List of South Park episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QuestFour (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. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments: QuestFour also has a massive history of 3RR warnings on their talk page, and the third revert was done despite me giving him another warning and advice on their talk page to re-read the edit warring policies, as well as an attempt to reach a compromise on the article talk page. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to reach out to them in an attempt to let them give their side of the story, but they are still editing in any page except this one. Should sanctions or a warning be placed on QuestFour until they give their side of the story here? Unnamed anon (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it necessary for QuestFour to give their side of the story? Part of why I am reporting them is their massive history of edit war warnings. I am asking this because this report is close to being archived, and still has no administrator input. Thank you. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:AleviQizilbash reported by User:Thhings6sz (Result: ECP implemented)

Page: Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AleviQizilbash (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. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

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

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

Comments:First 3 edits/diff were within 24 hrs. I see he has deleted edit war warning posted by others on his talk page.

Comment - Not sure exactly how to do this (I only have 1,000 edits to Wikipedia, and I mostly mind my own business editing articles of all sorts). But in my brief encounters with AleviQizilbash, (Redacted) The name-calling and the spontaneous generation of conspiracy theories would be funny, if this were a comedy sketch. But, it's not. It's an encyclopedia project. If we could be rid of him (or at least his belligerent attitude), the Wikipedia community would be better served. - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

AppleBsTime, I've redacted a rather egregious personal attack from your comment; there is no amount of vandalism or poor behavior that would ever make such a comment appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected by Jackmcbarn, which should be enough to end the dispute. Both parties edit warred far beyond what is acceptable, but blocking at this point would be purely punitive. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Shiv issar reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Government by algorithm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 981495502 by MrOllie (talk) Per talk section. Apologies for the edits to the "Talk" section - I'm still learning how to edit Wikipedia. :)"
2. 17:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 981494671 by MrOllie (talk) Per talk page"
3. 17:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 981354881 by MrOllie (talk) Unjustified omission."
4. 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 981352124 by MrOllie (talk) This is beginning to look like the emergence of a bias against my edits. A few relevant citations doesn't indicate "citespam". Call for a mediation, if you must."
5. 19:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979901562 by MrOllie (talk) Not cited any source for "concept being around since the 1960s". "Government by algorithm" or "Algocratic governance" is a specific analytical category."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Primary sourced claim of first use */"

Comments:

• Warned Both Shiv issar and MrOllie should consider this a warning. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

User:47.197.54.139 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: blocked for 31 hours)

Page: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 47.197.54.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "There are enumerated items in the POV talk section that explore the lack of neutrality in this article. Address the concerns there. Undid revision 981583084 by Grayfell (talk)"
2. 05:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Address the issues in the Talk page. I dispute the neutrality ofUndid revision 981578678 by Mvbaron (talk)"
3. 05:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Please address your concerns in the Talk page under th POV section per WP policy. This article is biased. We will label it as such until the issues are resolved. Undid revision 981576705 by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)"
4. 05:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Please abide by Wikipedia policies and not revert this POV tag without reaching consensus in the Talk page. That you disagree is not sufficient grounds. Undid revision 981565019 by Newimpartial (talk)"
5. 02:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Adding POV tag back. There is active discussion about the POV nature of this article per the conversation in Talk by user Bereginia. POV was also a core issue raised by Fictualinfidel's RfC, and POV is a core issue addressed by myself in "Anti-Semitism as an Essential Quality." The neutrality of this article is disputed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory which reliable sources consistently describe as antisemitic and pseudo-intellectual. The IP proposes that "credence" should be given to this theory, and is now edit warring to add a POV template against consensus.

On the article's talk page, the IP says "I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 20+ years, and I'm well-versed in the conventions here" but has ignored warnings against edit warring and has reverted five editors. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this statement "This article is a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory which reliable sources consistently describe as antisemitic and pseudo-intellectual. The IP proposes that "credence" should be given to this theory, and is now edit warring to add a POV template against consensus.

Nothing about my communications has suggested this theory be given credence. There is also not consensus that this article is NPOV. So I'm not edit warring against consensus. There are at least three other editors who have called this article out as POV in the last three weeks. The Talk section on that topic contains only substantive examples of that lack of neutrality and no replies from the editors in question.

On the article's talk page, the IP says "I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 20+ years, and I'm well-versed in the conventions here" but has ignored warnings against edit warring and has reverted five editors. Grayfell (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The editors in question have not engaged to the POV discussion section and are reverting the POV tag even though there are multiple editors decrying the article's lack of neutrality. I have opened a Dispute Resolution request as I believe they are not engaging to the editorial process in good faith.47.197.54.139 (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

One additional comment here: It was not my intention to edit war. I'd asked these editors to engage to the neutrality issue (enumerated in Talk), and they'd reverted the POV tag without doing so. The POV issue is one that has been raised by multiple editors.

Regardless I wasn't thinking about 3RR, so that's my fault. Had an individual editor reverted my revert I would have stopped cold - but since 4 problem individuals each did so I wasn't thinking about 3RR. 47.197.54.139 (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I object to being called a "problem individual" :) Mvbaron (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours From their statement they knew about 3RR even before the warning. And of course we know nothing about previous warnings, blocks, etc they may have had. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Gooduserdude reported by User:Havsjö (Result: )

Page: Greater Germanic Reich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gooduserdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&oldid=972467485

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981587701&oldid=981491401
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981608924&oldid=981597876
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981613703&oldid=981612704
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981614489&oldid=981614306
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Germanic_Reich&diff=981428965&oldid=981333061

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greater_Germanic_Reich#infobox

Comments: For the page regarding future plans to merge Germanic area of Europe into some form of a Pan-Germanic state by the Nazis, Gooduserdude has included a country-infobox. Explanations that such a "strictly defined" infobox is unsuitable for such a loosely planned entity in a article discussing the sum of various plans towards that end falls on deaf ears. The infobox is not only therefore out of place, but contains no actual information, just regurgitation from a Nazi Germany infobox; repeating flag, leader and even driving side(!) It contains no actual information except for a previously existing map and vague proposals synthesized from the article content as the dates of "propoals" and "hypothetical establishment" (i.e. no actual sourced information giving an overview of this (non)-"state"). All this is presented in a very inaccurate way through this infobox. Reverts to the long-standing Good Article rated version is constantly reverted in-turn. After TALK-page discussion and the comment "yes i 100% agree with you" following me explaining this reasoning as the reason for reverting away the infobox the page is still reverted to include it again --Havsjö (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Գարիկ Ավագյան reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 2
4. 4
5. 5
6. [44]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [45]

Comments: Not per se edit warring but 3RR violation. Especially the international reaction map was removed without a consensus. He claims this is the consensus by other users. Here @KajenCAT: has explained that Turkic Council is not a NGO but a supranational organisation. Here you can see that the same method was used here for Turkic countries (except Azerbaijan). Beshogur (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've been waiting for this. First of all, my edits are explained. About the biased map, on the map, countries that expressed support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan are marked as supporting Azerbaijan in hostilities, while the whole world, including Armenia itself, recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. On the other hand, you can support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but condemn military action. Paradox, no? Also, countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan are marked as supporting Azerbaijan. A CSTO member cannot speak for the support of the opposite side, in which case he will lose his membership. The map is biased and propagandistic. Not surprised on this warning from an experienced user. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Here it says: "In this context, the Turkic Council reminds that the related resolutions of the UN Security Council adopted in 1993 demand an immediate, unconditional and full withdrawal of the armed forces of Armenia from all occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan." How is this propagandistic? Did this statement happen without the consent of other Turkic Council members? I doubt. Beshogur (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

So, you think that there is no difference between the Turkic Council and MFA of other countries? Anyway, support the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is not = support military action. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the map's talk page, I said that they should have different shade of colour. But support of territorial integrity is indeed a support, did not see coming from other countries. I do not want you to be blocked, but you reverted others different times. Beshogur (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Գարիկ Ավագյան, it seems Beshogur is hellbent on getting "his way, or no way". Admins, please take a look at the talk page on Stepanakert, he has unjustly reported myself for monitoring/reverting recent vandalism. He is refusing to talk reasonably and make his concerns clear on the talk page..even after 3 requests. This behavior is not acceptable. Archives908 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Update- I have now politely asked him 4 times to make his concerns clear. Archives908 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Archives908, I know perfectly. This is not the first time when users of Turkish-Azerbaijani origin are trying to suspend users who write in favour of Armenia. They should be banned from further editings for their biased edits. I've already reported to the administration. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Գարիկ Ավագյան. I agree, this user's Anti-Armenian agenda is becoming ever more clear. Feel free to link your report to the Stepankert talk page if you haven't done so already. Perfect example of not willing to respectfully communicate with other editors, among others. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for 3RR violation, although for what it's worth it looks like the dispute over the map specifically is currently no consensus leaning against inclusion, and my understanding is that the status quo ante is to not include the map. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Archives908 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: No violation)

Page: Stepanakert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Archives908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. [46] (pre vandalism)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 2
4. 4
5. 5

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [47]

Comments: @Archives908: reverted my 5 times, including an ip user 3 times. My edits were restored contents which were removed by other users. He also changed Azerbaijan map into Armenia which is clearly POV pushing. Please check his edits. Beshogur (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is untrue and unfair. The IP editor is completely separate from you, they added unexplained and unsourced material, for which it should have been removed. You seemed to build on the IP editors edit, also without much explanation. The issue was then brought to the articles respective talk page, which is the next logical step. You however (before engaging in conversation with me) were quick to point fingers and report. This is inappropriate on all levels. Reviewers, please bear in mind that there is no edit war like Beshogur is suggesting. I have simply restored the article to the original state before unsourced information was added/removed. Furthermore, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the respective article, which I for one, would hope any issues can be resolved amicably, with logic, and consensus. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not try to manipulate administrators. He added content, I checked Russian wikipedia where it possible came, and I added a source. Beshogur (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Manipulate?! I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. As we speak, the Stepanakert article is being vandalized by IP vandals. You do realize that there is a conflict going on, right? Over the past few days, I have been diligently monitoring vandalism and removing unsourced content as necessary. That is what a good editor does. As I mentioned earlier, you neglected to make clear your concerns, or even allow me the opportunity to contribute to a discussion. Rather, you reported me instantaneously. That is against the spirit of what this encyclopedia is built on. For the second time (and let me make this abundantly clear) there is nothing stopping either of us to resolve whatever issue you have, amicably, on the talk page. Out of concern, I also believe that the article should be protected as the recent wave of vandalism is unacceptable. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• No violation while several reverts were made, they were all made in immediate succession, rather than being back-and-forth edit warring between editors. As far as 3RR is concerned, that counts as a single revert. That having been said, this edit in particular appears poorly justified, and should probably be addressed on the talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Beshogur reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Murovdag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 981652598 by Khirurg (talk) No one cares about your thinking, take your concern to the noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#TRT_World"
2. 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 981648061 by Khirurg (talk) Not reliable? It says reportedly if you wonder"
3. 14:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "rv"
4. 17:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "/* October 2020 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts within 24 hours and two minutes. Also hostile and aggressive edit summaries. Khirurg (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• There are 3 reverts in 24 hours, nothing wrong. Beshogur (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is Gaming of the 3RR restriction. Khirurg (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

On top of that, Beshogur, your sources are time and time again not reliable and your edit tactics are inappropriate. Do you understand that this is unacceptable behaviour? Khirurg, oddly enough Beshogur has unjustly reported myself and Գարիկ Ավագյան above for similar issues that he, himself is doing. I truley hope that the Admins are paying attention to this! Archives908 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It was not on purpose. Beshogur (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so now you are apologetic? I don't think that will fool the Admins. You have a clear agenda, and it has been exposed. Archives908 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, this being their second 3RR violation (in addition to other DS blocks related to edit warring). I'll also note that TRT World definitely should not be considered a reliable source for claims related to Nagorno-Karabakh, as Turkey is not a disinterested party. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:172.78.51.90 reported by User:KidAd (Result: )

Page: Victoria Spartz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 172.78.51.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: user discussion on my talk page

Comments: User has repeatedly inserted material from sources, copy-and-pasted directly into the article with a full URL. After my two reverts, the IP went to my talk page here and here, claiming that their edits were covered by "fair use guidelines." I explained here that their interpretation of "fair use" did not provide justification for copy-pasting content from sources into the article. I left a template warning on their talk page and a warning of this 3RR report, but they have not replied to either warning on their talk page. As I formulated this report, the IP again replied to me on my talk page, [53], casting WP:ASPERSIONS with From what I gather from your talk page there is something entirely suspicious in what you're doing on Wiki. Note: I reverted an identical edit to the same page on September 29. While the edit was made by a different IP, they are both linked to Valparaiso, Indiana. The IP has since been reverted but another user, but I have no expectation that they will stop based on prior behavior. KidAd talk 22:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Fourth revert. KidAd talk 22:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

1. KidAd and an associate have continually deleted content that is factual, sourced, quoted, and used under Fair Use Guidelines.

2. All they've done is delete the content instead of attempting to rectify what their claimed problems with the Controversies section are, and in fact an edit war.

3. That appears to prove KidAd and associate are, in fact, engaged in scrubbing the Victoria Spartz page instead of helping expand it.

4. It is unethical and IIRC against Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.51.90 (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User:EuanHolewicz432 reported by User:SnapSnap

Page: Coco Chanel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: EuanHolewicz432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

User:EuanHolewicz432 first attempted to insert controversial content (which had already been previously disputed) to the article late last month. After being reverted by me and another editor, EuanHolewicz432 started a talk-page discussion, where most of the responses opposed and/or questioned the insertion of said information. A week later, User:ToeSchmoker restored the disputed content ([58][59]), although no clear consensus has been established. After being once again reverted by me and another editor, both ToeSchmoker and EuanHolewicz432 continued to restore the disputed content—the former insisted that consensus had been reached based on "previous edits made to include it", while the latter accused me of "political bias". I wouldn't be surprised if this was a case of sockpuppetry (EuanHolewicz432 and ToeSchmoker are both seemingly new users). snapsnap ^(talk) 01:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me start by addressing out the closing accusation; apparently another editor thinks themselves a detective (I had already been falsely accused of "making edits while logged out"), finding me in other users who simply share my viewpoint. I am not ToeSchmoker and I am sure an administrator can attest to that claim via digital evidence once the matter is noticed. I think this also serves as a microcosm of the wider issue at play here; you are seemingly unable to see other editors at eye to eye, apparently assuming that I must be some conspirator hellbent on inserting two words into the biography of a long-gone woman for no clear reason - that I do not pursue truth and accuracy as the rest of this site's editors do. It is evident in the way the discussion was held on the talk page - I simply reiterated my claim of wanting to represent the truth of the matter, something that is shared by many editors who sadly did not seek to pursue the matter further. Your argumentation was a Gish-gallop of unrelated policy and belittling the contributions and value of IP users. All that said, I would like to extend my hand in a gesture of goodwill and apologize for my claim re. your "political bias" - it was wrong of me to assume bad faith and I can only request that you apply the same thought processes to me. With that in mind I still fail to see the "big issue" and how the content is "controversial" in the first place and I would also request that - if you still are willing to dispute a change - you engage in dialogue with the other editors rather than seemingly dropping the subject, only pursuing it when the article is edited; this makes it appear as if engaging with other editors is purposefully avoided as a means to maintain the status quo and leads to situations such as the one that took place this very day. Nevertheless I await the issue's resolution. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Aquillion (Result: )

Page: Hamas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Revert again, despite 1RR. 1 this editor doesn't know how to use references and breaks code, which allows the 1RR exception 2. this editor made a wholesale revert of my edits, including the completely unjustified revert of typo fixing and copyedits, and I have trouted the editor on their talkpage.."
2. 18:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Incorrect references code. Also, please use normal references, not notes."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Here.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Here.

Comments:

I noticed this when it scrolled across my watchlist with the edit summary, above, literally announcing they were intentionally violating the WP:1RR on this page; while they say they were doing it because of broken code, the page was not significantly impacted, and it's hard to see that justifying such a sweeping revert, especially given that they were plainly in a content dispute over the bulk of the material they reverted. User was warned by someone else here (further discussion makes it clear they saw it), though given that they announced their intention in their edit summary it's probably not necessary. Further discussion about the dispute at hand (including further warnings) is here. Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

user:Nishidani has broken 1RR too why didn't you reported him? He removed word militant as description of organization two times?

[[60]] first edit removing militant

[61] 1 revert by Nishidani

[62] 2 revert by Nishidani

I can make separate report if needed --Shrike (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)