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:MaxBrowne2 reported by User:Debresser (Result: No violation)

Page: The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MaxBrowne2 (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. It started with this edit by an IP, not claiming this was MaxBrowne2 although it is possible, with the misleading edit summary "Fixed grammar"
2. [1] MaxBrowne2's first certified revert, with an annoying edit summary "bad edit summary is not a reason for revert, and the word "trauma" was a good contribution", annoying since this was not just a "bad" edit summary, but actually actively misleading, which is unacceptable, although I agree that had the edit been good, I would have probably kept it
3. [2] MaxBrowne2's second certified revert. The edit summary "I didn't ask you" as outright WP:BATTLEGROUND. In addition, MaxBrowne2 should have understood by now that I oppose to the bold change introduced by the IP and him, and should not have edit warred.
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: MaxBrowne2 opened a talkpage section: Talk:The_Queen's_Gambit_(miniseries)#"Emotional_problems"_is_a_crap_term. Let's start with the fact that the section header is again a WP:BATTLEGGROUND violation, and as such is not acceptable, but opening a talkpage section does not make up for edit warring..

Comments:
This is a report about edit warring in general, with a 3RR violation, including battleground attitude. Preferred outcome, warning to MaxBrowne2 to not edit war and be less confrontational. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – Only two reverts. Claiming that an IP is MaxBrowne2 would need evidence. If you believe that 'crap term' in a talk page header is a battleground violation you could ask the editor to change it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston What do you mean "no violation"? I remind you that according to WP:EDIT WAR: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Debresser (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

While I can't speak for Ed, I'm fairly certain what he means is "no violation of the three-revert rule that was alleged in your complaint". Going strictly by WP:EDITWAR, yes, the defendant would likely be guilty, but it's exceedingly rare that anything short of a bright-line violation is officially sanctioned at this board. More importantly, as far as everyday edit-warring goes, you are every bit as guilty as the defendant is, making it ballsy at best, unacceptable at worst to file a complaint against another without turning yourself in as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a shame that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (stress on Edit warring) deals only with a small subset of edit warring.

Regarding what you mention that I also took part in this edit war. I firmly believe there should be a difference between an editor trying to push his preferred change through with edit warring and incivility, and a civil editor who is trying to keep a consensus version. If editors here see things differently, then I agree that this forum is useless. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• What in the world is going on? Didn't Debresser revert 3 times in that exact same edit war?? Can someone be blocked for hypocrisy? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going with you. Perhaps you account was hacked? Because any admin knows that three reverts is not yet an 3RR violation. And that when those reverts were made on three consecutive days they do not count towards a 3RR violation, which per definition is a fourth revert within 1 day. In addition I repeat that "I firmly believe there should be a difference between an editor trying to push his preferred change through with edit warring and incivility, and a civil editor who is trying to keep a consensus version." My previous interaction with you left me with a very good impression of you as an admin, so, as I said, I have no idea what happened to you. Debresser (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:HMWikiSoldier reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Warned)

Page: United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC) ""

also [4], [5], [6], [7] at United Kingdom, [8], [9], [10], [11] at Parler

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on United Kingdom."

Full list, including those re Parler today, at User_talk:HMWikiSoldier#January_2021

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC) to 19:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC) on Talk:United Kingdom

Comments:

Persistent addition of material despite warnings, no response to multiple requests to engage in WP:BRD, no engagement at article talk page discussion or at the user's talk page. Also warned today re warring at Parler. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:HMWikiSoldier is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at United Kingdom without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No further warring at the UK article since the warning but - and I'm not sure what to make of this - there's been some rather bizarre activity, effectively warring largely with themself at my talk page [12] [13] [14] [15] [16], Newcastle upon Tyne [17] [18] plus the kind of edit you wouldn't make if you're on your best behaviour, at Bony-eared assfish [19]. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And now warring at Conservative Party (UK). Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A report at ANI has been opened. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

...the result of which was that they were identified as a sock and indeffed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Dana60Cummins reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked)

Page: Cranberry juice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dana60Cummins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000015679 by Zefr (talk) Please stop with your assertions of added sugar not being relevant. You obviously have a clear biased here."
2. 01:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Raw cranberry juice is not always commercially available, as "standard" fortified juice that can be found in every gas station. This is extremely important info for anyone on a ketogenic diet. The subject is cranberry juice, not cranberry juice plus sugar and micros."
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) to 00:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Pure cranberry juice is often hard to find and very expensive. Added back to the article. Nutrition moved to talk page."
   2. 00:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Nutrition and composition */ Stressing the fact that "standard" fortified cranberry juice is not 100% cranberry juice."
4. 22:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 999973195 by Zefr (talk) give me a few hours. And u r a doctor. You know there is a difference between fortified foods and non fortified."
5. 21:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Pure cranberry juice */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Cranberry juice."
2. 23:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */ r"
3. 01:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Using talk page as forum on Talk:Cranberry juice."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Pure cranberry juice */ c"
2. 01:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Pure cranberry juice */ r"

Comments:

User persists in adding opinion-WP:OR content without providing a WP:RS source. Providing guidance on user's talk page and no consensus on the article talk page have gone unheeded. Zefr (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:89.164.199.29 reported by User:Idell (Result: Semi)

Page: Automotive industry in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 89.164.199.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Vandalism!!! See the talk page!!!"
2. 14:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Vandalism!!! See the talk page!!!"
3. 12:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Update & removal of false claims"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Automotive industry in Croatia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC) "— Preceding unsigned comment added by , re"

Comments:

See also the previous reverts made under 89.164.131.237. Idell (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Ymblanter due to sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:W33KeNdr reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Pblock from article)

Page: 2021 storming of the United States Capitol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: W33KeNdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Deaths and injuries: This info is simply not relevant to her murder"
2. 19:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Political preference still not relevant to her murder"
3. 19:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Political preference not relevant to her murder"
4. 19:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */The victim was killed"
5. 09:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Npov"
6. 07:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Victim was killed."
7. Consecutive edits made from 05:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC) to 05:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 05:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Removed attributing assumption by the killer."
   2. 05:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Deaths and injuries */Victim was unarmed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol."
2. 19:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol."

Comments:

Probably WP:NOTHERE applies, too. Additional warnings have been acknowledged and removed recently, [20]. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ive been working with other editors to achieve consensus. Have been for days. None of this is edit-warring. W33KeNdr (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have partial-blocked W33KeNdr from editing the article 2021 storming of the United States Capitol for a month. If they persist in adding their opinion to other articles, I recommend a general block. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Zero vandalism has taken place. Care to explain? W33KeNdr (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:CorCorCor reported by User:Zazpot (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [21] Note: this diff is not especially meaningful, as it spans several hundred edits by myriad users. So, probably best to skip it and focus more on the evidence below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]
6. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36]

Comments:

CorCorCor is a WP:SPA that has repeatedly reinserted similar content not supported by WP:RS, despite concerns raised on article talk page and user talk page by several experienced editors (Jayjg, MelanieN, and me, see above), and despite reverts/deletions by experienced editors:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

I suggest a page or topic ban would be appropriate. Zazpot (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC); edited 21:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:W33KeNdr reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: W33KeNdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Fixed multiple errors"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 02:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Say her name"
   2. 02:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Victim was unarmed"
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 01:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 01:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Fixed error"
   2. 01:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */The victim was unarmed"
4. 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */Npov and included victim's name."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Include her name */ umm..."

Comments:

The single-page block earlier this week just moved the behavior around; WP:NOTHERE. VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked This is an indef WP:NOTHERE block. Their edit history and user page say it all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:CatCafe reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44] and [45] (consecutive)
4. [46] this part of a sequence reverted text to the immediately previous version
5. [47]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: current state of discussion

Comments:

Note that this article is covered by the gender-related (Gamergate) discretionary sanctions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(I'm involved in this discussion, so this is not to be taken as a comment by an uninvolved admin). Thanks for filing this, you beat me to it. CatCafe appears to be under the (mistaken) impression that the belief that they are properly engaging in the BRD process (they are not) overrules 3RR. It's worth noting they're also becoming antagonistic towards the other editors involved in this conflict. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why wasn't I notified of discussion by way of *subst:an3-notice*? Anyway I'm sorry and the antagonism all started when other editors made derogatory and hurtful comments about me, accusing me of mis-gendering - and I shouldn't have to be exposed to this. In fact, I believed I was trying to stop other editors arguing to currently mis-gendering on the page and presume their gender. And since then I tried to used WP:BRD to bring discussion back to talk. Anyhow, I will backoff the page now and let the other's sort this out. And hopefully they will do so and without assuming other people's gender on the talk page inflaming the issue.CatCafe (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This diff 22:45, 14 January 2021‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 12,285 bytes +555‎ →‎3RR 3RR noticeboad: new section shows that CatCafe was in fact notified just after Newmpartial filed the report, per policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the discussion on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to concur with GW, CatCafe's comment is a gross misrepresentation of the talk page discussion. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

IHateAccounts you're a bit too involved, as you were one of two people making personal insults of me, further aggravating the issue. That was after the other editor was inflaming sensitivities by taking it upon themselves to 'presume' the current gender of the people in question rather than stick to the sources. That was out of line and both those instances of disrespect become naturally inflammatory. CatCafe (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, respecting people's latest gender self-identification as reported in the source isn't "presuming". Newimpartial (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Newimpartial, you got it the wrong way around and are not following. It was others stating they were 'presuming'. The editor in question inflamed gender sensitivities when they claimed: "So these comments are about trans men i.e. boys" (without quoting a source) and said "Given that the "girls" named in the book presumably mostly or entirely identify as male to date". This is WP:OR as they admitted their own presumptions. It was I and a few others trying to use the sources literally using their term "girls". I'm not the one doing the misgendering here - and should not have that insult put to me. So far on that page, no editor has come up with a source for what the group alternatively wish to be gendered as. And ongoing debate on talk has produced no source to challenge the current sources. If you want this resolved please find sources stating what gender-term the group now are comfortable with, I encourage you to do so. CatCafe (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:GENDERID, we should be referring to people (in articles) according to their latest self-declared gender identification. Given that many of the AFAB people discussed in the book were identified as trans or male at the time of the author's analysis, those subjects should not be referred to as "girls". Of course these were not the only people the book refers to, but for the people who identified as trans or male at the time of the analysis, your use of "girls" is not policy-compliant, i.e., it is misgendering. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well provide cites and place them next to the text you claim. So far you or any other's have had initiative to quote the sources literally proving your claims. That's what we are supposed to do on WP - not WP:OR. CatCafe (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The book reports itself as being about AFAB teens identifying as trans, and how they shouldn't do that. It is not OR to say that a book talking about how too many AFAB teens identify as trans is talking (at least in part) about AFAB teens who identify as trans. That is a matter of simple reading comprehension, and doesn't require citations. Newimpartial (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

See this is the hub of the dispute, and I think you'll find you need citations on WP, not speculation. Here's a suggestion you should have articulated this on the talk page (not after the fact when reporting me here) specifically referring to the source and text supporting your claim, and get consensus for that, and use a supporting cite. There's a lot of avoiding specifically referring to sources and cites for your argument. CatCafe (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Look I've apologised and said I'd back off the article. If these other's like Newimpartial want to speculate the gender of the people with no hard cite, or show an unwillingness to cite supporting sources, then good luck to them. Someone else can deal with any WP:OR they create. CatCafe (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Saying that others need to produce cites isn't an excuse for edit-warring, particularly when most of the removals you reverted were covered by WP:ONUS. It's not as if any of the reverts here were cases where you were correcting what you might have thought (mistakenly) to be other editor's misgendering. This was old-fashioned Edit Warring and WP:OWN behavior, with a dash of Whataboutism here at the 3RRN. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kimand299 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: )

Page: Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kimand299 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "I wrote it as disputed in order to ensure that it is not offical"
   2. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000399799 by NekoKatsun (talk) This wasn't the status quo, the status quo was actually originally the US as the sole country until the UK was added. It should remain blank until the issue is resolved, otherwise it just fits a certain narrative."
3. 22:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Ok then, until a consensus has been reached, lets leave it blank and by the way I have put up my question on the talk page"
4. 22:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a much better source"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Need another source beacuse that is a British website, is it internationally recgonised."
   2. 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000390534 by Kimand299 (talk)"
   3. 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a good reference for the country it was made"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Aliens (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Which country was Aliens made in? */"

Comments:

User:Darkwarriorblake reported by User:Kimand299 (Result: )

Page: Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: [[User:User:Darkwarriorblake|User:Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:User:Darkwarriorblake|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/User:Darkwarriorblake|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/User:Darkwarriorblake|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/User:Darkwarriorblake|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/User:Darkwarriorblake|block user]] · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "I wrote it as disputed in order to ensure that it is not offical"
   2. 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000399799 by NekoKatsun (talk) This wasn't the status quo, the status quo was actually originally the US as the sole country until the UK was added. It should remain blank until the issue is resolved, otherwise it just fits a certain narrative."
3. 22:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Ok then, until a consensus has been reached, lets leave it blank and by the way I have put up my question on the talk page"
4. 22:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a much better source"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Need another source beacuse that is a British website, is it internationally recgonised."
   2. 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1000390534 by Kimand299 (talk)"
   3. 22:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Here is a good reference for the country it was made"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Aliens (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Which country was Aliens made in? */"

Comments:

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

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

Comments:
{{subst:User:Darkwarriorblake}}

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. User:Darkwarriorblake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimand299 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sseevv reported by User:Will Tyson for real (Result: )

Page: Turks in Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sseevv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A (he reverted to the previous version but then heavily modified the article and engaged in further reversions despite an ongoing discussion multiple times adding as many sources as possible)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Started with him reverting myself (I explained why I edited the article in the talkpage) here[49], this was about the reliability of the 7 million Turks in Germany figure sources that he had originally added here [50], which I proposed should instead be moved to the demographics section only and essentially return the infobox and demographics to its version as of October 14th 2020.
2. I didn't see he had reverted me for a few days, but when I did I found his revert explanation demonstrably false (he accused me of inventing estimates even though I put sources and was trying to bring back the article as it was before) so I restored my edit, which he then reverted again. [51]
3. Right after this edit [52], while not an outright revert, he continued to remove sources previously added by another user [53] under the accusation of sock puppets.
4. Most recently with another user after multiple people brought up his bold editing (not just reverting) while refusing to allow others to alter the infobox and demographics section.[54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55] (too many to post diff' individually)

Comments: This is not a blatant violation of the 3RR I am reporting but rather a string of behavior from his accusations on the talkpage and his edits on the main article, in a nutshell : removing multiple users edits over an extended period of time without consensus and accusing others multiple times of Vandalism and using Sock Puppets. Note the talkpage subject in question - Revising Demographic stats in the infobox - has become quite long and arduous to read. [56] He reverted me twice last month and made accusations of vandalism (and said he was reporting me, though he didnt follow through[57]) because I wanted to move what I regarded as unreliable sources from the infobox to just the demographics section. I decided not to restore my edit a second time and try to discuss on the comments section but he dismisses my sources without explanation other than they differ from his. I asked multiple users to weigh in on this, three of which have expressed opposing opinions to his, he made another accusation of sock puppeting ("Well the majority of you have barely contributed to Wikipedia, yet are suddenly here together with the same aim.") even tough two of the users have contribution histories going back years. He dismisses this anyways. From the talkpage he said "The Germany Embassy report must stay, you haven't made any convincing arguments why it should be removed.", there were multiple arguments made against it but he dismissed them while continuing to only allow his sources to appear and not include the lower ones. Note he has been constantly editing the article since each revert and in between meaning its hard to point out everything he has changed. Another edit he made claimed it was in accordance with the talkpage, but no one agreed to it[58]), he just took one aspect of something Buidhe brought up and applied it to the article, but nothing else he proposed. I asked why has he been editing the contested parts of the articles none-stop since this dispute began but got no response. Finally another user asked him too. He then went on to revert another user who had made changes to infobox himself, then he said he would "refrain from further changes", yes, after he reverted another user[59] to the way he wanted the article he won't do that again, convenient. The point in question here isn't who's argument is "right" about the sources but rather his bullying to prevent anyone from changing the information he deems unilaterally correct, he has demonstrated this attitude on the talkpage and article that only he can edit the infobox even when consensus has thus far been against him but he removes anyone else regardless of the discussion on the talkpage and accuses them having an agenda, sock puppetry, and vandalism while dismissing sources that don't corroborate his own. The fact he continued to do so even when much more experienced editors than me have commented is worrying. Will Tyson for real (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

My edits are not malicious nor have I bullied anyone. Yes, I did ask for a sockpuppet investigate, because there was a sudden interest in the Turks in Germany infobox by users who are not very active on Wikipedia. The investigation found that "User:Will Tyson for real" was also likely to be "User:Charlie Bostoner". Overall, I have tried to express the flaws in some of the sources this editor has pushed for. Although I did make a recent edit, once I saw a message by a user asking not to do so until a compromise was founded, I agreed. In fact, this edit was a sincere attempt to please "User:Will Tyson for real" by placing the German census figure which they have insisted on. I did not realise that my good intentions, which was an active attempt to show my willingness to compromise, would backfire in this cruel way. Sseevv (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:DominicRoberti2K3 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result:Sock blocked )

Page: Wizards of Waverly Place (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DominicRoberti2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC) to 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "year"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wizards of Waverly Place."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Checkuser  Confirmed socking. Blocked and tagged.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Log47933 reported by User:IceFrappe (Result: )

'Page: Eric Bieniemy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Log47933 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is not a dispute because User:Log47933 is clearly a single-purpose account created specifically to sanitize Eric Bieniemy. This account was created on 5:30, January 14th, 2021 and made his first revert to Bieniemy's article 8 minutes later. The repeated mass deletion of content with no discussion on Bieniemy's article is this single-purpose account's only activity (he has not edit any other pages) [66]. I believe he should also be investigated for violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and has a high likelihood of being a paid editor. I would also urge a checkuser to be performed to make sure he's not the sockpuppet/bad-hand account of someone. Thank you! Regards IceFrappe (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments:
I admittedly am a new user to Wikipedia. Yesterday I noticed that over the half word count of Chiefs' Offensive Coordinator Eric Bieniemy's article was a Controversies section, recently created by user IceFrappe few days before (in what looks unilateral to me, I do not see any discussion in the talk section). I condensed this, removing entire subheadings that focused on speeding tickets he had received over 30 years ago, including two separate subheadings focusing on driving violations he had committed. I felt this was not pertinent information. I explained my rationale for the changes but IceFrappe repeatedly claimed I was a paid editor and a sockpuppet and reported me for edit warring before engaging in any discussion or defense of their edits. Log47933 (talk) 6:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

First, you violated 3RR. That's an automatic block. Second, it was not unilateral. The vast majority of of the incidents were already in the article for months [67]. I simply organized them under a new "controversies" subheading. This is well-established by precedents, such as Richie Incognito, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry (wide receiver), and Antonio Brown. You're not entitled to mass removed contents because you find it "unfair" to Bieniemy. Give me a break! It's clear you are a single-purpose account created specifically to sanitize and whitewash Eric Bieniemy's legal history and likely a paid editor employed by someone associated with Bieniemy. This is a clear-cut instance of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.IceFrappe (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your claims that I am trying to "sanitize" or "whitewash" Bieniemy,I left every single incident that was in the article before your massive edits because they are newsworthy. The fact that a football assistant coach received a speeding ticket in 1989 is not newsworthy. I have no relationship to Bieniemy whatsoever. Comparing Bieniemy receiving a speeding ticket in 1989 and having a dispute with one of his players almost 20 years ago to the Richie Incognito scandal or Antonio Brown's off the field controversies, which were both major news stories for months and extensively covered by pretty much every national news and sports media outlet is absurd. Log47933 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:The One I Left reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: )

Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The One I Left (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:
Violation of WP:1RR restriction on the contentious article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Onetwothreeip why didn't you reach out to me? I added a sentence or two about the National Guard which I believe was important to the article. Someone asked me to self revert which I dont have the capability to do. You are free to remove it, but I would like to discuss why you think it important to remove. This isn't spam, and this isn't unsourced material I added. The One I Left (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Doesn't look like a violation. Then unknowingly broke 1RR, and then the reporting user asks them to "self-revert", which they are once again, not allowed to do per WP:1RR. That’s a bit confusing. I don’t know why there was a report made here, as blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. In other words, blocks are to stop the disruption of articles, not to punish users. There’s no need for a block as the user didn’t know there was a 1RR on that page (to be fair, neither did I and I’m sure a lot of other people don’t know either), so I don’t get why the report was made. D🎊ggy54321 ^{(happy 20 years of Wikipedia!!)} 12:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Aloha27 reported by User:IceFrappe (Result: Protected)

'Page: Dawn Wells (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aloha27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

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

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

Comments:
This case should be very straightforward. User:Aloha27 has blatantly violated both the spirit and letter of 3RR. After taking issues with the addition of Wells' dementia diagnosis and her arrest (not a revert), he has reverted FOUR times within a 22 minutes stretch in order to enforce his preferred version. This is not only a clear-cut violation of 3RR, but a violation of WP:OWN. He also falsely accused me of violating 3RR by abusing the warning templates [79] [80] to try to intimidate me. Such cynical behavior has no place in Wikipedia. In any case, he should be sanctioned for blatantly violating 3RR at the very least.IceFrappe (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I advised the other user that I'd reverted his initial edit in good faith here that we'd been through this before on the DW talk page. I left a comment at thet time here on their talk page. A subsequent rollback with the advice to take it to the DW talk page and that edit-warring does not fly here here. Yet again, another rollback with the warning I issued here. I'll not bore you admins with the subsequent back-and-forth. WP:BOOMERANG is in order here IMO. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The so-called "warnings" you spammed my talkpage with was a political attempt at gaining an upper hand in a content dispute, a blatant abuse/misuse of warning templates, and a clear-cut case of intimidation and gaming the system. The reality is you're the one who deserve the very warnings you falsely accused me of. You not only blatantly edit warred but violated 3RR in both letter and spirit all within a 22 minutes span; I did not. As for your objection about the content, your only reasoning to justify the mass removal of well-sourced, well-researched content was WP:UNDUE and I challenged you to summarize, yet you insist on continuing on a destructive path of censorship and sterile reverts (including pertinent information about Wells' dementia diagnosis in June). That's a clear violation of WP:OWN.IceFrappe (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Technically, Aloha27 has violated 3RR, but both editors are edit-warring, and IceFrappe has completely ignored WP:BRD; Bold (IceFrappe's addition), Revert (by Aloha27), DISCUSS. Also, I am unconvinced about adding a paragraph aout a trivial pot bust from 13 years ago to a BLP (and this is still a BLP) without a discussion. Article protected. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

reuser:Black Kite: There was discussion on my talkpage. Aloha27 refused to use the article's talkpage as a forum to discuss until I submitted this report. As I noted in my talkpage, the pot bust was big news at the time and Wells even explained herself on The View. Not to mention, he also removed Wells' more recent dementia diagnosis, which highlights the fact that his concern isn't about the pot bust but WP:OWN. In any case, the fact that Aloha27 isn't blocked despite his callous disregard for 3RR (4 reverts within 22 minutes) and his preferred version is allowed to stand during protection set a very dangerous precedent. It seems to encourage violating 3RR.IceFrappe (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no dangerous precedent here and whichever admin closed this would have closed it in the same way. There have been at least six discussions about this material, the most recent one being an RfC only two months ago, and the consensus (5 to 1) was that it be excluded. I am not sure why you believe you can override that consensus, let alone edit-war to do so. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Verman1 reported by User:Armatura (Result: )

Page: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Verman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before reverts [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war&oldid=999825640 link]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: diff

Comments:
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article is under 1RR rule, I notified about this on article talk page and user's talk page, but no response from them and no revert to original version by any other editor of the article either for 3 days. The user's history is full of edit warring, previous topic ban and parole violation. Apparently Not There to build encyclopedia --Armatura (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C8:5D00:ED01:3124:F126:36F9:1441 reported by User:NotGirlfriendButLover (Result: No violation, reporting editor warned)

Page: Villain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A00:23C8:5D00:ED01:3124:F126:36F9:1441 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2A00:23C8:5D00:ED01:2998:CC8B:43EC:2608 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86] [87] [88]

Comments:
the reverts have been done from different IP addresses, geolocate places both of them in the same english city of 2000 inhabitants; the reverters edits where not summarized nor was the talkpage used. the user did not respond to a message i left on their user talkpage. i think the matter is important because of the antisemitic action this user keeps reintroducing. NotGirlfriendButLover (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• 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. The reporting editor is warned that they are edit-warring, and that they should wait for talkpage resolution for the WP:BOLD edits that have been reverted. Other editors may wish to weigh in, and the assertion that Snidely Whiplash is an anti-Semitic caricature is interesting, but you'll need reliable sourcing to support your assertions. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)