Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:49, 13 October 2020

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158
1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Keywan faramarzi (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Komala_Party_of_Iranian_Kurdistan&action=edit&undoafter=982479947&undo=982485832 He always deletes my texts, zelfs in talk gedeelte hij is geschreven iraanse regime ideologi!!!

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:

This report was submitted here a second time, still malformed. I tried to fix the header, but the report still has no diffs. The reported user, User:HistoryofIran is still not notified. I think that User:Keywan faramarzi has a conflict of interest on this topic. Hoping they will make some effort at negotiation instead of reporting regular content editors here. It seems that the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan now wants to present themselves as a mild leftist party and not not a bunch of revolutionaries. This new orientation, if correct, would need to be established through what reliable sources have written about them and not pushed into the article by reverting. It's my guess that WP:ECP on the article might be an eventual solution here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keywan has still some difficulties to adapt to the Wikipedia working spirit and also the use of the talk page. HistoryofIran has sure not violated any 3RR rule as you can easily see at the page history Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:FlutterDash344 reported by User:Magitroopa (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Have already reported user at WP:AIV, reporting here just in case I'm redirected here due to edit warring. Editor constantly changing date of a show without a source, even when warned multiple times on their talk page, seemingly ignoring all warnings. Article of the show in question even lists the October 15 date they continue to change. I found that even iTunes proved they are incorrect here, yet they reverted that edit as well (diff 7 above). At this point, seems to possibly be WP:NOTHERE. Magitroopa (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Won't revert again at the moment, as they probably won't care about the source once more and will just revert again. However, it's very clear that the date they are changing it to is incorrect and should be fixed (most likely with the iTunes source again) when this report is assessed. Thank you in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... The Futon Critic lists October 15, 2010 here as well, so no matter the outcome of this report, they are definitely incorrect about the October 10 date. Magitroopa (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final one... editor recently changed it back to October 15 here, so I readded sources in this edit. Now in the most recent edit here, the user has gone back on their own change, and removed the sources, saying in the edit summary, "Still says October 10, 2010"- when all the sources provided clearly state October 15, 2010 was the premiere date.

Not gonna revert again, hoping this issue can be solved soon. Thanks again. Magitroopa (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped the edit war. FlutterDash344 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:94.194.216.94 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 94.194.216.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 982848675 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
18:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 982848457 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) Piss off you pathetic man-child troll"
18:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 982848124 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) Get a life you pathetic loser"
18:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 982847508 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
18:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "I already gave a reason: Reverting Vandalism. The 'Reception' reached a consensus months ago and was repeatedly reverted/vandalized by a troll with an unconfirmed account. This wording *is* the consensus. Do *not* change again."
10:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 982771090 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 01:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC) to 01:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
1. 01:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "WP:RV"
2. 01:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "WP:RV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Spider-Man (1994 TV series)."
18:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Spider-Man (1994 TV series)."
18:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Harassment of other users on Spider-Man (1994 TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user kept on removing original distributor and used name calling games on me. My feelings were really hurting from those word he/she said. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User has ceased the personal attacks since being warned about those, and user has not reverted—at least not an obvious revert—since being notified of the edit warring report. User was not warned prior to the report being filed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile the named editor, 94.194.216.94 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 60 hours by User:Wugapodes for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I had found out about the issue from an RFPP request, and seeing the PAs and back and forth in the history I thought a block was a better solution than protection. If editors here want to unblock or try something else, go ahead. — Wug·a·po·des 00:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whydocare reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Block, Semi)

Various IP addresses from different parts of India and newly created account User:Whydocare have been edit-warring to insert the claim that the rapists were muslims.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Whydocare has been warned by Materialscientist that the additions were unsourced.[10] Some of the IP editors also received similar warnings.^1,2,6

Whydocare and the IP editors are also involved in edit warring at 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder.

Comments:

Blocked – 5 day block to Whydocare for warring on this article as well as 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder. The page at Balrampur gang rape is already semiprotected two weeks by User:Materialscientist. I've put a month of semiprotection on 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roelle Dimalanta reported by User:Jumpytoo (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC) ""Edit Request" An editor without a conflict of interest will consider it and act accordingly."
21:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC) ""Edit Request" An editor without a conflict of interest will consider it and act accordingly."
20:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC) ""Edit Request" An editor without a conflict of interest will consider it and act accordingly."
09:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

22:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continuously adds unsourced content, and does not respond to discussion requests from multiple editors on their talk page other than add a "edit request" edit summary. Possible WP:NOTHERE Jumpytoo Talk 03:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to Otacon, where they add their own name, Roelle Dimalanta, as being the producer, writer and director. They also insert their name throughout the article, poorly written, maybe a language issue, maybe a child, but definitely a WP:CIR problem. Examples of the nonsense they keep on adding to the article:

While he was hired, imagined to talk with CW's tv show superhero star Grant Gustin as a.k.a. Barry Allen the Flash and Stephen Amell as Oliver Queen the Green Arrow and saying what his real and nicknames are the bathroom at home. While speaking the 2 tv show superhero stars didn't get to hear what Otagon has to say because both special star Roelle Dimalanta as Otagon and Grant Gustin as Barry Allen the Flash both smile and wave at each other at Ace Comic Con in Seattle.

While Roelle's parent want's Roelle to keep secrets from other people about whatever his does and want's to know what his talents and good passions he want's to share and bring happiness and positive impact to others on this earth 1 of his because Otagon's on earth 1 also to be exact. Also, Roelle remembers that his book was tooken away from one of his mentored teachers that he used the book to take notes in it writing what to say and highlighting script lines too. Other students did the show without Roelle while feeling skeptical in the process. It's up to Otagon now to save the day, will Otagon become Roelle's influence to rewrite reality and save the poke universe to gain everything back that Roelle has partially lost? Roelle has a sister named Rochelle and when Roelle recieves email's those email's aren't the same as Otagon's emails. Roelle had the power to message Barry and Oliver online on the poke website Youtube that will save himself, identity and the work he loves to do with others and himself. Also, Otagon was never exiled in the process because he was in perfect shape even after he's done with what he's been assigned to do. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe reported by User:Eric (Result: Self-revert)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

07:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ a majority of editors in the discussion agree with including this text"
15:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ I don't think anyone disputes that AIER is a libertarian think tank, even themselves. It's not POV as it is supported by reliable sources and important for context"
09:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 982938295 by Jonathan A Jones (talk): this is important context for any reader, regardless of whether they click wikilinks"
08:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC) "/* top */ important context"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

10:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Great Barrington Declaration."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

16:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */ new section"
17:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */ reiterate purpose of article, adjust layout"
20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */ replies, with attempt at clarification"
00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */not getting through..."
01:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */what we "need to" know"
11:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Characterization of AIER in intro */ note, request"

Comments:

User has added the text "libertarian think tank" to the article in question four times in less than 24 hours. I reverted two of those edits and another editor reverted one. I started a discussion on the article's talkpage in which the user has not participated. Eric ^talk 11:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect that I did not participate in the discussion. My comment in the discussion: "It absolutely belongs in the first sentence as necessary context; few people will know what AIER is beforehand so it is important to introduce it. Readers will draw conclusions as they see fit. (t · c) buidhe 9:51 am, Yesterday (UTC−7) (reply)" is the fifth comment in the discussion. I did not realize that I violated 3RR, and have now self-reverted for now. (t · c) buidhe 11:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I looked for, and could not find, any previous article version to which the first diff posted above would have been a revert (this was missing from the NB post). Therefore Buide did not break 3RR as far as I can tell.

In doing so, I ran across the following series of edits:

previous Article version

Total elapsed time: 24 hours, 28 minutes. While technically not a 3RR violation either, this clearly shows intent to Edit-War (and possibly GAMING of the system) on the part of User:Eric. Newimpartial (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action, since Buidhe self-reverted at 11:23 on 12 October. Editors should be aware that continued addition and removal of the 'libertarian think tank' phrase does count as plain old edit warring. Also that this article is under the WP:GS/COVID19 sanctions. If you are concerned that someone else could be violating the sanctions, you can leave {{subst:gs/alert|topic=covid}} on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User: Solavirum reported by User:Alex662607004 (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Changed "Artsakh" to "Armenia" 09:16, 5 October 2020,13:21, 6 October 2020
Changed number of casualties and deleted a Reuters reference 11:02, 5 October 2020, [11]
Removed an official statement without a description 12:06, 6 October 2020
Modified a Reuters reference 10:43, 12 October 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user's history:
- Two warnings from other editors.
- Was blocked 3 months before the writing of this section, due to showing the same behavior on the same topic [12].
This user admitted twice his biased views since, in his words:
- "because as a user from a combatant country, I might be slightly biased at least" [13]
- "I can't claim being fully unbiased, I'm from Azerbaijan editing an article about Azerbaijan" [14]
Came up with his own crucial interpretation, "victory", regarding an ongoing conflict while the used reference did not mention that 16:38, 10 October 2020 .
Is disrespectful to fellow Wikipedia editors 15:21, 9 October 2020.

Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Alex's third request (first, and second) in the last two days, with no success. This is getting irritating imo. Rosguill has also commented about these requests. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, my yesterday request was placed twice at the wrong Wikipedia sections and even in the talk section, because I really didn't know the correct section to post it at. Now I do. Besides, making such an honest first-time mistake does not lower the importance of the reported case. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Furthermore, Alex662607004, this is your last warning. There is already an open discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:_Solavirum, relevant comments can be made there. If you make another request separate for administrator intervention against Solavirum without providing substantially more significant evidence of wrongdoing than what you've raised at AN, you're headed for a WP:BOOMERANG block. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:LissanX (Result: 1 week for harassment)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:
User has a chronic problem with edit warring. He imposes his own POV and reverts all edits to content. He often harasses several users across multiple pages and reverts all of their edits, trolling them by saying “take it to the talk page” with no intention of doing so. When the edit warring he initiates is reverted, he ignores all edit comments and begins saying he himself is being harassed and trolling the user he’s edit warring with. A brief look at his edit history shows that many, in some cases the vast majority, of his edits are edit warring through arbitrary reverts. The article for Battle of Karbala is just one recent example. Some edits by me were reverted by another user, to which agreed by me to have the issues the user mentioned reverted, but HistoryofIran came in and to reverted all edits, including ones not relating to any issues, including arbitrarily removing content not disputed. He then continued his troll modus operandi of incomprehensibly saying “take it to the talk page”. — LissanX (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LissanX was recently blocked for the 3rd time (by Drmies) as he violated WP:PERSONAL in relation to user HistoryofIran.[22]-[23] This is his 3rd block in less than three years. When LissanX is unable to enforce his personal opinion into articles, he apparently resorts to violating core WP policies. He also accuses user HistoryofIran of "not participating in talk pages", even though he does.[24]-[25] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LissanX just reverted user HistoryofIran 8 times within ten minutes:

[26] (timestamp 23:54)
[27] (timestamp: 23:55)
[28] (timestamp 23:56)
[29] (timestamp 23:56)
[30] (timestamp 23:58)
[31] (timestamp 23:59)
[32] (timestamp 00:00)
[33] (timestamp 00:06)

- LouisAragon (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LouisAragon pretty much said it all. Also, I assume the reason Lissanx specifically says stuff like 'stop edit warring' and 'take it to the talk page' is because that's what I usually say (which he seemingly doesn't like [34]), otherwise I've never seen him use those sentences. This and obviously those reverts of his is clearly an indication of retaliation. Also, his comment regarding me is pretty much a testament to his WP:ADHOMINEM and WP:ASPERSIONS issues; Nothing to back it up, just casually insulting/accusing me and whatnot. I've already had the pleasure of being called a racist/Islamophobe/whatever by said user god knows how many times [35] [36]. In today's comment I've had the pleasure of being called a troll and having a chronic problem, let's see how many more chances this user gets to attack me and walk away with it. Also spoiler; The user (User:AhmadLX) who 'agreed' with LissanX never actually did, heck he even reverted him as well (EDIT: twice now [37]). So all in all just more lies. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to block LissanX for hounding, not for edit warring--this is really the wrong place. But the edits I looked at, for three of the four linked articles, suggest strongly that LissanX came to these articles with the sole purpose of harassing HistoryofIran. This edit by Lissan, for instance, reverts this edit by History, in a dispute that Lissan had no part of (Lissan had never edited the article before); the generic "take it to the talk page" is the correct advice to give another editor in many circumstances, but here it is just an excuse. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Billy Goblin and User:Doggy54321 reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: )

Page: Ariana Grande (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Billy Goblin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Doggy54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of Billy Goblin's reverts:

Diffs of Doggy54321's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User:power~enwiki already warned User:Billy Goblin and myself

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I (User:Doggy54321) tried to resolve it on their (User:Billy Goblin) talk page, yet they reverted it without explanation

Comments:
I know that I am self-reporting myself as well, I don’t know if that’s allowed or unusual, but I did break the 3RR and I was engaging in an edit war as well, so to only report the other user would be unfair. I would like for us to be punished equally for our edits here (but only for our actions to the Ariana Grande page, if they get a lifetime ban for something else I wouldn’t like to have that upon myself as well), whether that may be loss of editing privileges, a temporary block, or a lifetime ban. After reflecting, I realized that the admin's will come with correct punishments for both of us, and I shouldn’t be putting in requests as to how we are punished. Also: they have been rude to me ever since I reported them (example) and I don't know why. Have a great day! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:122.177.102.44 reported by User:Tagishsimon (Result: )

User being reported: 122.177.102.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

00:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "The moderator is making it personal."
00:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "stop wasting time mate go get a life"
00:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
00:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""
00:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983227941 by Rich Smith (talk)"
00:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is not here to build an encyclopedia. Is already under a partial ban afaics Tagishsimon (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them for 72 hours for edit warring and promo. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slew of anonymous editors disrupting page content

Hello. I am posting to report widespread misconduct through a bunch of accounts run by anonymous editors that are disrupting page content. Those disruptions, made repeatedly and by a variety of editors, can be found in the revision histories of three relevant pages: The Good Place (season 4), List of The Good Place episodes and The Good Place. The specifics of the disruptions are that the series in question ran for 53 episodes, as confirmed by the showrunner Mike Schur, which is the position maintained by the current consensus, and the anonymous editors keep arbitrarily inserting other numbers as their preferred version of the content, in violation of that consensus. The users responsible keep refusing to discuss their issues on the talk page, and do not want to accept the established consensus. In at least one case, multiple warnings have been issued by others and myself, just within the last 24 hours. This is a pretty clear-cut case where the responsibile parties are asserting that their revisions should stand while they at the same time refuse to discuss their viewpoints on the talk page, or to accept the established consensus, which appears to be the prime definition of edit warring. Any action that can be taken to remedy this issue, which is wide-spread and more than any single editor or team of editors can handle, would be very much appreciated. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jgstokes, there is no way this post on this board is going to lead to anything meaningful. This is a matter for discussion on the talk page or the talk page of the WikiProject, and might lead to (semi-)protection; maybe it should be discussed on ANI if it's one or two particular editors. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Addicted4517 reported by User:Walwal20 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hartley_Jackson&oldid=983278668

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(same problem in The Mighty Don't Kneel [51] [52] [53] [54])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
This is one of the complex cases.

[55] the general discussion begins here, in the AfD
[56] discussion on whether Hartley was a member of The Mighty Don't Kneel begins here
and continues in the talk page here [57]

Comments:
I tried working as a third opinion (maybe non-neutral; I had voted delete and later keep on the AfD) after Jammo85 asked for guidance in properly sourcing the article. The reverts actually began earlier [58] and [59]. After this last revert, I took some time to research the topic, the results are all in User:Walwal20/RfC_Hartley_Jackson. The RfC also contains Addicted's arguments against. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 10:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abbas Kwarbai reported by User:Curb Safe Charmer (Result: )

Page:

Shirley Ze Yu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Genevieve Leveille (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
at Shirley Ze Yu (2, 3, 4 and 5 were consecutive, with nobody else's edits in between, so I don't think they constitute 3RR)

reverts by the same user to my edits in other articles in the last 24 hours:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62] and this

Comments:
Abbas Kwarbai has been warned about ownership of articles but has become increasingly aggressive in their reaction to me improving the article or adding maintenance tags, i.e. a 'stay out' no-edit order. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reporting me into this place. Ever since, my activities on Wikipedia is base on my choice to write more article with few edition. A couple of times, I requested for assistance from different user, where curb appeared to be one of them but his has never help me. Later he appear to maltreat me here in Wikipedia by nominating investigation about me that the articles I created are mostly been paid me, he even make an instance with Dr Bindu Babu saying that she paid me because I have removed his edition of saying her PhD is from unrecognized university, but he later told me to provide prove if the university is accredited, I went there to search and I found that it's unaccredited university, and from there I stop editing her page completely except five days where I tried to applied for nomination of deletion of her page (which I want probe I have no connection with those whom I wrote article about them much less to talk of paying me). It became obvious what he is alleging me is not true as he can't prove it in the investigation tag. The investigation was suspended as he can't prove anything.

He added me on his watchlist following my footsteps to catch me with violation of Wikipedia act. I actually disrespect him when he started following me into my [draft:Genevieve] editing by adding verification fail,citation needed which really vex me to remove it because it is a draft not article and I must to recheck all the links I used before taking it to article, he also comment that Jersey is only from United States by reediting the article without clicking on blue link (which clearly shows that there is a province in United Kingdom called Jersey).I undo his edition immediately. Curb also appear to add (definition needed on his GMP) that's for Ahmad Nuhu Bamalli article's where numerous independent secondary reliable sources have mentioned it, and I told him it is a program carry out in Harvard university and it simply means General Management Program, for that reason I immediately remove his template.

In the case of Shirley Ze Yu, someone who isn't Curb added a template of "This article is an Orphan". So,based on what I understand for an article to be orphan, it has no any link attach to it. I later realised that Shirley Ze Yu has numerous links that attached to her article such as she is alumni of Kennedy school business administration, Harvard University, China Central Television news anchor, and her page appeared to be twice when searching it. To my level of understanding, any article with these informations isn't an orphan, as such I removed his template immediately.

I warned him to stop following my footsteps on Wikipedia because following someone like the way he use follow me is an indication that, that person is a criminal in Wikipedia. I don't respond to any editor who touches an article that I created because I know Wikipedia is for all. Free environment like Wikipedia will never encourage one to be following someone's footsteps by adding what curb is doing to me.

Finally, if I make any mistake about what in Wikipedia policy, I'm apologizing. Nonetheless, I want Wikipedia to intervene my issue with curb to stop involving into my activities completely as I know he has chance to edit what. I even declared on my talk page I don't want assist or intervention of User:Curb Safe to involve in my activities on Wikipedia.

User:TracyBeker0910 reported by User:Kaustubh42 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:

User:BNJ Nilam reported by User:Prolix (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:

The version being reverted to by the user in question contains an image File:TCS Gitanjali Park Kolkata.jpg which is likely a copyright violation. All attempts to start a discussion with the user have failed. Prolix 💬 12:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:2003:d8:8f2c:3600:cd44:f39f:ef1f:f48f reported by User:Maineartists (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

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

Comments:

The above is just a small portion of what this unregistered user has been administering on the article page in question. Under difference IP addresses, they have made countless edits: Treemonisha History as though the page was WP:OWN. Far too many edits were unwarranted, unnecessary and without sources to merit inclusion within the article. A discussion was opened on the Talk Page: Substantial Edits and a consensus to revert back to the original content was agreed upon. Whereby the editor in question took their complaint to the Teehouse: Abuse by a privileged editor. Other WP editors weighed in and gave advice; toward which the editor did not heed and continued to make substantial across the board edits on the page in a similar manner, neglecting to enter into any discussion on the Talk Page. A 3RR has now been reached; and a disruptive behavior set. The other IP addresses used: user:80.138.200.129, user:2003:d8:8f2c:3600:e968:b912:6ff2:e683, user:2003:d8:8f2c:3600:1568:d985:581c:7f5d, user:2003:d8:8f2c:3600:2164:ac85:636a:a467. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We may need a page protect until the matter is resolved on the Talk Page. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:TI1880 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: )

User being reported: TI1880 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC) to 08:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
1. 22:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 982939400 by ZH8000 (talk)"
2. 22:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC) "Encyclopedic language."
3. 22:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 08:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "Typo."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After having been recently warned about applying socketpuppets and having been warned about 3RR he continues reverting and neglecting the invitations to discuss the issues (Talk:Basel#Economy of Basle, Talk:Basel#Questionable source for exuberant text, and Talk:Basel#economique ranking). ZH8000 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 245: / Line 245: @@
 * {{AN3|noex}} Furthermore, {{u|Alex662607004}}, this is your last warning. There is already an open discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:_Solavirum]], relevant comments can be made there. If you make another request separate for administrator intervention against Solavirum without providing substantially more significant evidence of wrongdoing than what you've raised at AN, you're headed for a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] block. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 00:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
-== [[User:HistoryofIran]] reported by [[User:LissanX]] (Result: ) ==
+== [[User:HistoryofIran]] reported by [[User:LissanX]] (Result: 1 week for harassment) ==
 '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Battle of Karbala}} <br />
@@ Line 280: / Line 280: @@
 :::LouisAragon pretty much said it all. Also, I assume the reason Lissanx specifically says stuff like 'stop edit warring' and 'take it to the talk page' is because that's what I usually say (which he seemingly doesn't like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HistoryofIran&diff=982907602&oldid=982907518]), otherwise I've never seen him use those sentences. This and obviously those reverts of his is clearly an indication of retaliation. Also, his comment regarding me is pretty much a testament to his [[WP:ADHOMINEM]] and [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] issues; Nothing to back it up, just casually insulting/accusing me and whatnot. I've already had the pleasure of being called a racist/Islamophobe/whatever by said user god knows how many times [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baharestan_Carpet] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HistoryofIran&diff=977305714&oldid=976407979]. In today's comment I've had the pleasure of being called a troll and having a chronic problem, let's see how many more chances this user gets to attack me and walk away with it. Also spoiler; The user ([[User:AhmadLX]]) who 'agreed' with LissanX never actually did, heck he even reverted him as well (EDIT: twice now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Karbala&diff=983265866&oldid=983221742]). So all in all just more lies. --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 00:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
+I am going to block LissanX for hounding, not for edit warring--this is really the wrong place. But the edits I looked at, for three of the four linked articles, suggest strongly that LissanX came to these articles with the sole purpose of harassing HistoryofIran. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Achaemenid_Empire&diff=next&oldid=983162758 This] edit by Lissan, for instance, reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Achaemenid_Empire&diff=983162758&oldid=983121635 this edit] by History, in a dispute that Lissan had no part of (Lissan had never edited the article before); the generic "take it to the talk page" is the correct advice to give another editor in many circumstances, but here it is just an excuse. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 == [[User:Billy Goblin]] and [[User:Doggy54321]] reported by [[User:Doggy54321]] (Result: ) ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards