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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:13, 4 April 2021

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)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475
476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325	326
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Viennese Waltz reported by 91.125.11.18 (Result: Declined)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

91.125.11.18 (talk · contribs · block log · lta)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

User being reported: Viennese Waltz (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 09:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) to 10:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
1. 09:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1014829201 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"
2. 09:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1014829901 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"

09:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1014831692 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"

10:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1014833493 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Editor has received repeated warnings from administrators and other editors over the past three years

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See edit summary 17:07, 26 March 2021

Comments:

~~This editor seems like he can only talk in edit summaries of reverts. 91.125.11.18 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

146.199.206.3 and 91.125.11.18 are both the banned user Vote (X) for Change. His contributions can be reverted on sight. He should not even be bringing this case. See WP:LTA/VXFC. --Viennese Waltz 12:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the cited page, which seems to consist of a lot of allegations unsupported by diffs and nothing relating to me. For example, the last report is this [1]. I checked the science desk archive around the time of the report and found this [2], this [3] and this User talk:90.192.119.245. There are two IPs involved 200 miles apart. 91.125.11.18 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not edit warring to revert the posts of a banned user. --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Declined, too much likelihood that the filer of this report is a banned user. Note that the reverts listed above are reverts of an editor, 146.199.206.3 (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked by User:Newslinger. This 149.* IP is suspected to be WP:LTA/VXFC, who is known to edit at the reference desks. It is plausible that the IP who filed this report, 91.*, is also VXFC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that 91.125.11.18 (talk · contribs) is likely a community-banned user. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kinsley Bottom reported by User:SinkingInMercury (Result: Both partially-blocked for 1 week)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5], [6]

SinkingInMercury (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I constantly kept telling the user that he has wrong and to provided sources of decades long relationships. He has the same amount of reverts as I do. He made the original edits, I told to have a discussion regarding this issue so neither of us would get blocked. I was busy doing stuff outside of Wikipedia, and instead of waiting for my response, he reverted the edits again without my response. He has no patience waiting for response. He assumes he is right just because it happened for a little bit. I accept that we were engaged in this edit war, but him constantly making these claims without discussing and sources of decades long relationships is disingenuous. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided my sources in the article when User:Kinsley Bottom asked in the edit summaries. User:Kinsley Bottom still kept reverting them nonetheless and failed multiple times to explain why they should be removed. Also, User:Kinsley Bottom still has not provided explanation for removing the character's other abilities from the article, which were sourced. SinkingInMercury (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week (partial block - Batman, Catwoman, Two-Face). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SinkingInMercury, Kinsley Bottom - You two really need to put aside the frustration and work things out peacefully on the talk pages of the articles. The edit warring over Batman, Catwoman, and Two-Face is extensive and very disruptive, and both of you absolutely know better than to do that. ;-) I've only blocked you two from editing those three articles, not the entire website. The block will expire in one week. During the seven-day block, please take the time do peacefully work things out properly, discuss the issues and the disputes on the articles' talk pages, and come to a consensus between the two of you regarding everything. This way, when the blocks expire, one of you can publish the appropriate changes to these articles (if any) that reflect what the both of you agree on. :-) I expect that this is going to happen, and I also expect that the edit warring will not continue on other articles, nor will it continue when the block expires. If this happens, I'll have no choice but to impose further blocks. Please don't make me have to do that... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsley Bottom does not seem to be getting the idea. The editor is continuing another edit war on Miles Morales (another cartoon/comic book topic), with three more reverts after the above warning:[7] [8] [9].Meters (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m making my case on that issue. Seriously. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:IrelandCork & User:KrakDuck & 178.35.85.84 & 85.104.67.119 & 176.112.166.214 reported by User:Reiner Gavriel (Result: Protected)

User being reported: IrelandCork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & KrakDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All these users appeared after User:Arsenekoumyk block and are editing the same articles. They get into several edit wars with several users and are pushing an, in my opinion, nationalistic narrative. They say provocative things like calling people bots and "Chechen baby". Also accusing people of things, which in my opinion are really close to insults, seems to be common (1, 2, 3, 4). Now to the edits on Imam Shamil. Several users, including me, have pointed out that Imam Shamils Kumyk ancestry is nothing proven and uncertain and only legit according to some (Kumyk) historians, which is why the others and me pointed out that his Kumyk ancestry is nothing certain. I suspect several of these users to be sockpuppets of ArseneKoumyk. Apologies if reporting several users like this is not allowed- ~~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made only one edit in Shamil's article, removed a space, hardly an edit warring. Also, based on the history of Shamil's article, Reiner Gavriel started edit warring with KruckDuck by adding some personal thoughts which are unproven, going against stable consensus version without any talk. So basically by this request Reiner Gavriel demonstrates that he's is possibly someone's puppet creating this request out of some grudge on me, and it will be checked in a relevant request.--IrelandCork (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my ever only edit in Shamil's article # 15:15, 31 March 2021‎.--IrelandCork (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment on the report, I have linked comments of yours and explained why I am reporting you. Also please stop with your accusations, you have accused me and others, including several moderators, of things. If you have these suspisions you are free to report me but stop throwing them randomly at me. Accusing someone is not an argument. Also referring to you claiming "going against stable consensus version without any talk", there is no stable consensus, several other users have pointed out the biased edits of KrakDuck and possibly his sockpuppets. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Gavriel Now I checked your content claims. You insert words "by Kumyk historians". Neither Bliev nor Khalilov are Kumyk, for starters. Bliev is a doctor of historical sciences, most famous historian on Caucasus as they can be, not a youtube blogger, and he's [Ossetian]. Khalilov is nowhere said to be a Kumyk also, with two widely cited works on Shamil. So, you basically inserted a lie in the article, and it was reverted. All of those secondary/tertiary works rely on two Shamil's contemporary sources - Chychagova, who interviewed Shamil, Чичагова М. Н. Шамиль на Кавказе и в России (биографический очерк). — СПб.: Типо-литография С. Муллера и И. Богельмана, 1889., and there is also earlier source - Некоторые биографические подробности о Шамиле // Военный сборник, № 12. 1859. So here are three questions:

Why lie about "Kumyk" researchers.
Why conduct an edit warring for a lie and bring me here, who just added a space with no participation in content dispute.
What's your general problem with "Kumyk" researchers, if they had a say on it.--IrelandCork (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated that 2 of the 3 sources are by the Kumyk historian Arslan Magomedovich Khalilov in my edit, which is why it should be noted that it is not only according to some sources, but also majority Kumyk sources. Whats with these silly accusations again? I have 1. not lied about Kumyk historians, 2. explained why I am also including you in the report in my comment and 3. 0 problems with Kumyk researchers, simply pointed out that it's important to note that they are Kumyk in this matter since it is relevant to the statement. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Gavriel Then you need to go to talk page, raise your concerns, prove that Khalilov is really a Kumyk and that it's something worth noting (like it would be bad when history of Russian or England are written by Russian or English). 2. You did not, but I know why already, so it's fine.--IrelandCork (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you nicely to stop throwing your shady accusations at me. I will file a report against you. Concerns about Imam Shamils doubtful Kumyk ancestry were already raised, Khalilovs ethnicity is not part of the debate. He is a Kumyk historian who has done mainly work on the history of Kumyks, easy to find out when you google it. I'm curious what you are trying to achieve with those accusations? Trying to make me look bad? ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. While there might be issues of sockpuppetry, it's not obvious at first glance. I would recommend Reiner Gavriel take this to WP:SPI and explain their suspicions there. — UwU wug's this? 22:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do that. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:243:CC00:FF30:4BD:411C:F434:468D reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 2601:243:CC00:FF30:4BD:411C:F434:468D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015535806 by Ifnord (talk)"
01:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC) "What is going on here? I have explained why this change is appropriate each time but I keep getting messages that I don’t include an explanation. Reason: The conservative labeling is inappropriate."
00:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC) "Deleted “conservative” label; by contrast, CNN and MSNBC do not have “leftist” or “liberal” labels. Labelling something “conservative” adds no value to the article."
12:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC) "Deleting irrelevant characterization"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Newsmax."
01:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Newsmax."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: -noah-, I don't rightly understand your edit summary: they did explain. Now, if you find that a BS explanation, then explain that. Ifnord, you too: just warn/report as vandalism--deleting sourced content without a proper explanation, etc. Reporting here takes so much more time and effort, and they're not worth it. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor may believe they are performing their duty by removing a bias label from a media/new organization. They've explained their actions but they may need a timeout so they can read up more on how the process works here. I will not invest any more time here, and will ignore any future edits tonight. Ifnord (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 31 hours for vandalism by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Knottinghill (Result: No violation)

2 April 2021‎ (UTC) "‎Leibniz: this is all a bit trashy, but at least rm the "for instance", since it isn't an instance"

Comments: Insisting on deleting new information on Asian philosophy, which was added after conducting serious academic research and providing all its credible citations. Since the page only discusses European philosophical history and not ideas from other countries in the sciences, these edits were introduced. User has not given a proper reason for his actions but insists these pieces of information are "trashy" and "irrelevant". Has also been demeaning and not providing reasons for his explicit disruptive behavior on this page. This disruption has gone on for a few days already. Requesting for assistance in this matter. Just trying to use the page to teach my students. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knottinghill (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have only three reverts there. Which is the same number as K. The most recent edit [10] by Czello also re-removes K's stuff. Notice K's Just trying to use the page to teach my students - that's not what wiki is for William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – Nobody broke WP:3RR. This is a content dispute about Philosophy of physics which needs to be resolved in the usual way. That is, by seeking WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached there, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:User1527 reported by User:JBchrch (Result: Blocked)

Page: Legal system of Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User1527 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
previously as: 146.199.143.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First series of edits [12][13][14] Reverted by DeCausa [15]
First series of reverts [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Reverted by DeCausa [25]
Second series of reverts [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Reverted by me [35]
Third revert [36] Reverted by me [37]
Fourth revert [38][39] Reverted by Njd-de [40]
Massive, unexplained removal of content removal [41]. Reverted by me [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43] Previously (implicitly) to the IP: [44].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:
User is adamant about introducing poorly-sourced content to this GA because he personally disagrees with the scholarly sources cited. Does not engage clearly and constructively in the talk page. --JBchrch (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the diff as of signature time --JBchrch (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mirrored7 reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Update: 6 and 7 have both been made not only since this thread has been opened, but also after the user discovered this thread.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None. The user's talk page has had plenty of sections opened on their talk page in the past six months (tomorrow is the six-month anniversary of their third edit warring block) regarding edit warring, including a December 2020 ANI case regarding their edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ariana Grande#Demi Lovato "Met Him Last Night" in the career section covers most of the edits, and Talk:Ariana Grande#Doja Cat covers the last edits.

Comments:

This has been going on for six months. I'm tired of their edit wars. It's obvious they are still doing this. If you look at their contributions list, there have been consistent instances of edit warring since October 2020, and they show no intention of stopping anytime soon. Their December ANI case put them on thin ice, and that didn't do anything as they're still edit warring. I feel no need to warn them as it won't do anything, as demonstrated in the past. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 02:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply) (updated 03:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Doggy54321: There you go again. As you can see there are still on going discussions on the talk page. I'm very open to discuss, and of course it's not to go always my way, I'm pretty aware of that. But if the discussion not finished, then why reverting it back? You, and BawinV are doing the most on all of Ariana Grande's pages, for months now. Always trying to start pity arguments whetever she's should be considered a "real songwriter", or not, but add puffery on Taylor Swift pages. I even agreed to remove 'songwriter' from her description, just that you give rest, but you always find somwthing new to nag about. Admin, maybe it would be interesting to take a look on BawinV and Doggy54321's history of obsession on Ariana Grande and Taylor Swift pages. There you can see that their edits are hardly objective. I really have enough of this. Mirrored7 03:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

@Mirrored7: The fact that you participated in a discussion after you made four out of five of those edits doesn't change the fact that you made those four edits. From what I've seen, you are not open to discuss. You responded one time to the various messages I sent you. I do not get how you don't get the message yet. You have been contacted by various editors over multiple months, you have been told to pretend the undo button doesn't even exist by an admin, you have been advised to talk before reverting, and you have not done anything about it. I can bring up every page you have edit warred on over the past several months if I want to, but I don't think that's going to be very helpful here. Now, I would love to have anyone sift through my contributions and find times that I have shown a bias, as that would allow me to determine exactly what edits I have made in the past that are not acceptable, which would allow me to, moving forward, immediately halt this type of behaviour, and I know Bawin feels the same. But, no diffs have been provided through your multiple claims that Bawin and I have shown a bias, so please put your money where your mouth is and show us some examples. I'm pinging BawinV so that they can add their two cents as well. D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 03:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I almost took Mirrored7 to ANI out of frustration a couple of weeks ago when they continued to hit the undo button at the Ariana Grande article while completely ignoring my multiple pleas to them to please explain their edits on the talk page. The editor then completely deleted the part of the lead that I was disputing, again without acknowledging my discussion, and finally deleted the entire talk page discussion that I opened without ever acknowledging my question. While other users editing this page have been far from perfect, the fact that Mirrored7 is continuing to revert even after this report was filed seems to indicate that they may not be able to edit in this topic area without being disruptive. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doggy54321: I told you that I'm not always on here, but I'm very open to discuss. I'm now on a discussion on the Ariana Grande talk page, but you and versacespace are reverting my edits, without even acknowledging my replies. And please don't start with BawinV. His edits has been distruptive, and he was reported because his edits multiple times. Your edits are very passive aggressive, and not as clear to read. You both seem to be a team what concerns the bias towards Taylor Swift and against Ariana Grande.

@Aoi: I'm sorry that I don't reply to you. But I'm not always in here. I took the "fashion" thing out of Grande's lead in the last days, agreeing to your edit, and even thanked you for your help on your talk page Mirrored7 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my bit wasn’t clear, I was just trying to point out the Tu quoque I was seeing. If you aren’t always on here, then take some time after the fact to follow up. You not being active but always being willing to discuss isn’t a valid argument as it can be disproven with the kind of edits that Aoi showed above, where you completely ignored and then deleted a thread in which you were pinged four separate times, or the edits to your talk where you removed sections without adding a reply. I’ll have you know that I am a massive Swiftie and a massive Arianator, and neither of those seem to be affecting my editing. Bawin and I aren’t a team that tries to puff Swift articles and deflate Grande articles, as that would be WP:NOTHERE and would result in blocks for the both of us. Again, Tu quoque... D🐰ggy54321 ^{(the Easter bunny has been summoned...)} 03:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrored7 is doing the most to spurn tales about how Doggy and myself are some kind of a team (LOL). We both have multiple topics of interest on Wikipedia, where the common factor is TS. That's all about it. And for Mirrored's statement about me editing for "months" on Ariana Grande, I think he should do a quick fact-check. I haven't edited on Grande for MONTHS despite spectating all the rule-breaking happening in that article; why? because the whole atmosphere of that article made me feel so uncomfortable. It's extremely hard when one rogue editor takes control of an article and simply disrupts everything you contribute, and never wants to communicate (they simply delete my talk initiation from their user talk page). Therefore, I simply stopped editing on that article. I don't need that energy in my work. I'd rather put my effort in improving the quality of other better articles. Ariana Grande is nowhere near good quality (according to Wiki standards for biography, especially popular personalities), and we know why. I feel only bad for Doggy; their efforts to communicate with Mirrored7 was completely futile..Mirrored7 doesn't reply unless an admin is involved in the talk, LOL. That's why I think this discussion on Admins' noticeboard is very necessary for the good of Grande and related articles. BawinV (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I'm a kitten and it doesn't affect my editing of Doja Cat related pages (other than the fact that I regularly update them). versacespace talk to me 03:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 2 weeks. Since March 2020 Mirrored7 has been blocked for edit warring by four different admins. They've also been reported at ANI. It appears that Mirrored7 is not getting the message. If they can't work with others they may have a limited future on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davey2010 reported by User:Heartfox (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
This editor has justified imposing their personal style preferences on an article by citing it as the "standard format", despite the fact alphabetical order for awards and nominations tables is widely used across featured lists and elsewhere. They have made these changes without consulting other editors on the talk page, despite the fact the table has been sorted alphabetically since June 2020. Heartfox (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an affected party, this was not necessary. versacespace talk to me 03:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Years first format has been widely used and accepted for years - I don't know why we have such a problem with this ?, Awards should never be done in alphabetical order as it means when they recieved the award would be all jumbled whereas in a Year format it's going from Years ago > Most recent .....,

I also don't understand why VersaceSpace felt they need to join in and tag team as that doesn't help anyone.

Anyway this is a mountain not worth dying on. –Davey2010^Talk 11:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: you misunderstood me. i don't think you needed to be reported. versacespace talk to me 12:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VersaceSpace, Ah sorry I misread you - I thought you said it was necessary so apologies for that, At the end of the day I edit warred without going to the talkpage so Heartfox cannot be faulted, (They did what any editor would do). I've been here long enough to know edit warring is never acceptable but I chose to edit war anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Davey2010 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Doja Cat without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. Davey2010's statement above suggests that they won't continue to revert so no block is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Claus st margarita reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: )

User being reported: Claus st margarita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

05:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015729190 by StjepanHR (talk)"
05:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015728917 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
05:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015728870 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
05:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015728777 by StjepanHR (talk)"
05:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1015728662 by StjepanHR (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

05:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on New Hollywood."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is edit-warring on the page and is removing "better source needed" maintenance tag repeatedly. They have been asked to discuss on the talk page, warned about 3RR. But they have continued with this. Ashley yoursmile! 05:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BulgeUwU reported by User:VideoGamePlaya (Result: Both partial blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1011267684&oldid=1011267659

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62] section: Possible issue with article pertaining to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in lead section

Comments:
This is a controversial subject, and by default disagreements like this are unavoidable. The information the reported user found objectionable has existed on wikipedia, without objection, for some time. Upon the user's first removal of the contentious information, I tried to resolve the issue by restoring and rephrasing it into something perhaps we could both agree on. This was folly on my part as a short time later this too was deleted, with no reciprocative attempt at compromise. I again restored the information, creating a relevant section on the article's talk page, inviting the user to clearly explain his objections, and then, after a conclusion is reached, shall we decide how to proceed. Again, this seems to have been folly on my part, as all the sources I had unearthed (highly respected mainstream newspapers, see talk) were dismissed by him as "fringe conspiracy theories" claiming everything they asserted was ahistorical, whilst offering none of his own to backup such a wildly inaccurate allegation. Before even giving me a chance to respond (to the extant one can respond to something like that), he'd already re-deleted the information in question. I again restored it, citing the BRD cycle and called for a cease fire, asking for patience until the talk page discussion is concluded, ideally with the input of others. I even asked him to personally suggest a reword-- something we could agree on-- anything we could do to resolve this, but it landed on deaf ears. Didn't even acknowledge it. Again, he re-deleted the information, this time on the pretext of the sources used being WP:Bare URLs. I made it clear the guideline blatantly states that while bare URLs are not ideal, they are permissible. I then asked him to provide some sources to prove that he was correct. This was ignored, completely, and he again proceeded to delete the information in question, this time not even leaving an edit summary. Despite my best efforts, I'm of the firm belief this individual cannot be reasoned with, which is a shame. As such I feel it is necessary to report the situation here, else there will be no end to it. It is odd, as this person is clearly at the least a somewhat experienced user and must know how unacceptable this is. As it stands, the information is no longer present on the page. I would restore it again, but it would not be long before Mr Bulge yet again decides to arrogate himself to the position of arbiter of what should and shouldn't be included on this website.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours I've partially blocked you both from the article itself, so you can both discuss on the talk page. You've both had a few reversions. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I literally just made it perfectly clear I have no intention of making any further edits to the article, so this action achieves absolutely nothing in the way of resolving this problem, which, obviously, is the reason I'm here. I wasn't seeking to have anyone "blocked", me or the user I reported. I simply want this issue resolved. The line "so you can both discuss on the talk page" baffles me slightly. This tells me you didn't properly read (or at the very least misunderstood) what I wrote, as, again, I thought I'd just made this clear-- I have attempted-- to the best of my ability, to resolve this in a sensible, grown-up fashion via discussion on the talk page. I instigated said discussion-- Proof of which can be seen here in this edit summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1015346533&oldid=1015300071 "This information has existed on Rhodes' page in some form since this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1009897511&oldid=1009850248 over a month ago. It's removal should therefore be discussed on the talk page as per 3 revert rule-- which i have created a relevant section for."

As stated in my previous comment, however, these talks have been fruitless-- my attempts at compromise utterly (and quite rudely) ignored, and the user I've reported has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information based on nothing more than his own personal opinion, completely dismissive of said discussion on the talk page, not even giving me chance to respond. I do not believe any further dialogue will resolve this issue which is the entire point of my being here. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place? As stated, as it currently stands, reliably sourced information has been removed, and remains removed, based on someone's own personal objection to it. Further discussion is pointless and I refuse to waste any more of my time in doing so. What do we do to have this matter resolved? Is there a formal process?VideoGamePlaya (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:AntiSemanticCanard reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

[63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

08:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "It's already been discussed in talk. Nobody has provided a source for the claim that Trueb et al are scientists. It's been shown several times they are dermatologists with a COI."
07:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Cause */ The article cited was [not] authored by scientists, rather dermatologists expressing an opinion."
06:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Cause */ This has been litigated in the talk. Trueb et al are NOT scientists. You were unable to provide a counter-argument. It explicitly states they expressed an OPINION. Opinions from non-scientists carry no weight."
03:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Cause */ The source does not match the claim. S"
00:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "No scientist says PFS is caused by mass psychosis"
18:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "This claim was made by dermatologists, not scientists. Dermatologists are not qualified to discuss the field of psychiatry."
18:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: see User Talk:AntiSemanticCanard

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Post-finasteride syndrome

Comments: This could be resolved if User:Alexbrn weren't so biased in his approach. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Trueb et al are not scientists but dermatologists. They explicitly state they are expressing an opinion. Opinions from non-scientists are not valid. This is a cut and dry case. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were previously linked to WP:EW where it plainly says that "being right" is not a defense (and you're wrong in any case). You have been warring against multiple editors. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source of the claim says: 'More recently, Rezende et al. (65) and Trueb et al. (66) published an article, Post-Finasteride Syndrome: An Induced Delusional Disorder with the Potential of a Mass Psychogenic Illness? The authors labeled patients with PFS as psychotic and delusional, as stated in their discussion, “In our opinion, PFS demonstrates some analogies to such controversial “mystery syndromes” as amalgam illness, multiple chemical sensitivity, Morgellons disease, and Koro for the following reasons: patients complain of symptoms that cannot be adequately explained biologically, and the frequency of consultations for the conditions parallels the respective media coverage, which points to a high degree of suggestibility.' No where does it suggest Trueb et al are scientists but merely dermatologists with a COI expressing an opinion. Moreso, the lead author has a history of quackery, writing papers such as "Saint rita of cascia: Patron saint for women with frontal fibrosing alopecia?" and "Minoxidil for endocrine therapy-induced alopecia in women with breast cancer-saint Agatha's blessing?" and having them published in "peer-reviewed" journals. So not only is this 'scientist' not a scientist, he's a bizarre quack with a history writing strange papers with a veneer of scientific integrity.

My conclusion is Alexbrn shares the same religious beliefs as Trueb and is therefore unqualified to edit the controversial topic. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the content and are in a minority, you need to discuss that issue on the article's Talk page rather than repeatedly reverting everybody. An admin may wish to erase the potentially libellous BLP violation in the above (and there's similar at the article Talk page too). Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. Nobody, including you, has provided a source for the claim that Trueb at al are scientists. It's been shown they merely run a dermatologist practice and have a COI and a history of authoring papers about Catholic saints performing miracles. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RM Trüeb is an ex-professor in the University of Zürich, and credited author of articles and some books. Dermatologists are scientists and, indeed, medical doctors. NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dermatologists are not scientists. And even if he were, he is not qualified to discuss "mass psychosis" or "histrionic personality disorders" as he is a clinician (not a scientist) of skin disorders. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AntiSemanticCanard is continuing to edit war while commenting on this report. - MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rule explicitly state: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." Dermatologists (with a history of writing quack papers) making claims of "mass psychosis and delusions" is an extraordinary claim. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:IAmPushpak reported by User:36.68.161.33 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

[64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments: This user has conducted edit warring and vandalism with ArnabSaha over addition of materials against the discussion/consensus related to the article and reliable sources and without following NPOV. 36.68.161.33 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:180.252.247.184 reported by User:Assem Khidhr (Result: )

User being reported: 180.252.247.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1015899304

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was given multiple warnings by multiple editors, including a final warning (none of which issued by me). Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in question has been blocked for 31 hours for vandalism... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:185.46.78.5 reported reported by User:Harizotoh9 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments: Edit warring over last few days, plus BLP violations by inserting a controversy section sourced to Youtube vlogs. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:107.10.140.224 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: )

User being reported: 107.10.140.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Removed irrelevant content. An obscure 8 year old speech is not pertinent to the film Stand and Deliver and its legacy. It is incumbent on the individual who referenced the speech to show that it is an impactful aspect of Stand and Deliver's legacy. If someone says this edit is invalid, the burden of proof is on you to explain what about it is invalid."
18:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Removed irrelevant content.

An obscure 8 year old speech is not pertinent to the film Stand and Deliver and its legacy. It is imcumbent on the individual who referenced the speech to show that it is an impactful aspect of Stand and Deliver's legacy. I submit that it isn't."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC) "Final Warning: Removal of content blanking (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been blocked twice for edit warring, recent blocked expired and user has gone back to removing content, also attacking other users Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 19:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spyder212 reported by User:I am only here to build knowledge and share it freely for all, worldwide. (Result: )

Page: Physician assistant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spyder212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reporting editor: I am only here to build knowledge and share it freely for all, worldwide. (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:

[77]
[78]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:

Comment I'm not sure I see the problem. This guy has reverted twice, five days apart. — Czello 20:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my recent contribs. This report is simply trouble making. I have reported this user to AIV and (recently involved) admin User:Cabayi for further action. Has been vandalizing my talk page since then... Definite behavioral issues on Wikipedia. Spyder212 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, you're in the right here. — Czello 21:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

He warned me about no more than 3 revisions but then I saw he did it too. Hope I'm doing this right

[[User:Blissfield101 reported by User:Avgeekamfot (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
Same as the one above. He warned me about making more than 3 edits but he already did? Also I started discussion on the discussion page of both.

This user made a factually incorrect statement about Seattle/Tacoma being a hub for American Airlines. He cites a Bloomberg article that uses the term hub in a general sense, not referring to a specific . Seattle/Tacoma is a hub for American's partner, Alaska Airlines, but it was never declared by AA itself. What this user doesn't understand is that kind of language is used in airport articles all the time when referring to this kind of stuff. That does not mean it passes the WP:V test. Where is the statement from American Airlines announcing Seattle/Tacoma as an American hub? I tried explaining, but he keeps insisting on reverting my edits. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me a rule that says it's a "bright-line rule" not to undo another editors work more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. You've clearly done so and therefore you seem to be in violation of the rule you told me about. I await your block.

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

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

'Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a. Previously discussed policy on user talk page.

Comments:
User readding content in clear violation of policy. Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE, only edits are to preempt golf tournament results. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

userlinks:Wjemather --> This user was the one edit-warring by inputting incorrect information. If you go to the section in question mentioned, you can verify that my edits were correct while the undos by the user in question were incorrect and intended to be disruptive. We have gone over this issue numerous times before and he keeps repeating his ludicrous and questionable behaviour even when other admins have stated that I am not under any violation. At this point, I have accepted this user to be an insecure clown trying to cause disruption and chaos over and over again. As for me, I will continue to be a valuable contributor to the Wiki community here. Thanks again! Klaysaurus (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:03, 4 April 2021 edit Wjemather (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 50,814 edits →‎User: reported by User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} (Result: ): new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:13, 4 April 2021 edit undo Klaysaurus (talk \| contribs) 134 edits →‎User: reported by User:Wjemather (Result: ) Next edit →
Line 529:		Line 529:

	<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> User readding content in clear violation of policy. Seems like a case of [[WP:NOTHERE]], only edits are to preempt golf tournament results. <sub>[[User:Wjemather\|<span style="color:#0D5218">wjemather</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Wjemather\|<span style="color:#520D0D">please leave a message...</span>]]</sup> 22:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> User readding content in clear violation of policy. Seems like a case of [[WP:NOTHERE]], only edits are to preempt golf tournament results. <sub>[[User:Wjemather\|<span style="color:#0D5218">wjemather</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Wjemather\|<span style="color:#520D0D">please leave a message...</span>]]</sup> 22:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

			[[userlinks:Wjemather]] --> This user was the one edit-warring by inputting incorrect information. If you go to the section in question mentioned, you can verify that my edits were correct while the undos by the user in question were incorrect and intended to be disruptive. We have gone over this issue numerous times before and he keeps repeating his ludicrous and questionable behaviour even when other admins have stated that I am not under any violation. At this point, I have accepted this user to be an insecure clown trying to cause disruption and chaos over and over again. As for me, I will continue to be a valuable contributor to the Wiki community here. Thanks again! [[User:Klaysaurus\|Klaysaurus]] ([[User talk:Klaysaurus\|talk]]) 22:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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