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:喂番茄 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Warned)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023919865 by SounderBruce (talk)"
2. 02:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023913668 by SounderBruce (talk)"
3. 01:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023906730 by SounderBruce (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ningbo."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is deleting an edit notice that I placed after noticing some overly-promotional language in two sections of the article. After addressing their question on my user talk page and adding a warning on their talk page, they proceeded to make a third revert. SounderBruce 02:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think the edit warning put by user User:SounderBruce was not well-grounded. The information in the economic and tourism section along with many other sections of "Ningbo" was previously outdated and many data have not been updated since 2013, so I have been trying to update the article with the latest data. Firstly, I have not got the time to update the economic section yet, so as you can see, the data in that section are still for the year 2013. I did update a paragraph on the economic status of Ningbo in the introduction section (beginning section) of the article, not in the economic section, but the data I used are publicly available on the government website, and the citations are all provided. Secondly, I did update the information in the tourism section by giving a short introduction to each tourism attraction and site. What I did was: 1. grouping the previous tourist sites by subdivisions (locations) of the city, 2. linking those keywords with those already existing articles, 3. giving information about when the tourist sites were built, 4. giving information about what the sites are used for historically and currently. Meanwhile, I did not use any overly-promoting language such as "must-go" to encourage people, just some necessary background information since this is an encyclopedia website. The parts I have updated are all factual information that is verifiable through publically available sources, rather than any commentary or personal opinions. Therefore, please RESPECT other's work, even if some users do not like the information. Wiki is a publically available platform for everyone to get verifiable factual information. When someone is not into the information about a particular city, it does not mean other people are not into it. I think it is very reasonable to ask the user User:SounderBruce: Can you please provide several shreds of evidence by directly quoting the sentences in those parts that you regard as "overly promoting" or fake information? If not, I am afraid the edit warning is not well-grounded.--Commented by 喂番茄 (talk)

The lack of citations in the Tourism section, which uses language such as "rare local histories", "cultural relic protection", "showroom", and "renowned for its long history" in the first subsection alone. The Economy section reads like a pamphlet hawking the port and various enterprises for the sake of attracting business, rather than listing major industries and hard data. It's clear that the article is full of promotional material and the edit notice is merely there to inform readers of a potential issue. SounderBruce 05:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:喂番茄 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. The user has been restoring promotional language and removing the {{advert}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi，EdJohnston, I want to point the comments and advertisement tag put by user User:SounderBruce are totally unreasonable, because he does not give me strong evidence for it. I will address the comments one by one.

Firstly. I will address some comments he gives in the tourism section:

A "cultural relic protection unit” is used to indicate the historical and cultural site that is protected by Chinese government. The user does not even check the hyperlink to the wiki article Tianyi Ge, which clearly state more details about it as an authorized Chinese national heritage protection site.

B “renowned for its long history” is used to describe Tianyi Ge, built in 1561, the oldest existing private library in Asia, which is known almost for every educated Chinese and welcomes over 1 million visitors every year. There is even a building in the forbidden city in Beijing that is built to resemble it. (You can even see the sentence “The existing hall which is patterned on the Tianyi Ge in Ningbo was rebuilt behind the Wenhua Palace, in the reign of the Qianlong Emperor.” In the wiki article of Belvedere of Literary Profundity cited from historical records. I did not see any over-description of by using “renown for its long history “. For example, in the tourism section of article Seattle, terms of “prominent” “significant events” “Seattle has experienced significant growth in the cruise industry” frequently appear.

Secondly, I cannot understand why the user is so sensitive about the economic data of ningbo listed in the introduction section.

A. All the data are cited with sources and published by government annual reports.

B. There are just plain factual information. For example, “In 2020, the GDP of Ningbo is CNY 1240.87 billion”, “it was ranked 12th among 300 cities in China”. It is not the best, not the worst, just plain factual information for readers with no emotion.

C. I have no idea about the contradiction in comments “like a pamphlet hawking the port and various enterprises for the sake of attracting business, rather than listing major industries and hard data”. Isn’t port industry a major industry for Ningbo? Since “The port of Ningbo-Zhoushan has been world's No. 1 busiest port by cargo”. Why that user ignored the hyperlinks and citations that direct him/her to the pages of specific full ranking and statistics? It is not an advertisement. It is plain factual information. Whether the user like it or hate it. It is there! And what about the beginning paragraph in the economic section? “Ningbo is a major exporter of electrical products, textiles, food, and industrial tools. The city's private sector is especially well-developed, contributing 80 percent of total GDP in 2013” cited from government reports Why the user is again ignoring it as well?

D. Let me provide some examples I found in the article of US cities:

The first paragraph of the article Seattle: “The Seattle metropolitan area's population is 3.98 million, making it the 15th-largest in the United States. In 2013-2016, Seattle rated the fastest-growing major city and remained in the top five in May 2015 with an annual growth rate of 2.1%. In July 2016, Seattle ranked as the fastest-growing major U.S. city, with a 3.1% annual growth rate, and continuously among the fastest growing cities in the United States.”

A paragraph in the introduction section of Pittsburgh: “In 2015, Pittsburgh was listed among the "eleven most livable cities in the world". The Economist's Global Liveability Ranking placed Pittsburgh as the most or second-most livable city in the United States in 2005, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2018. The region is a hub for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and energy extraction.”

In the introduction section of Chicago “O'Hare International Airport is routinely ranked among the world's top six busiest airports according to tracked data by the Airports Council International. The region also has the largest number of federal highways and is the nation's railroad hub. The Chicago area has one of the highest gross domestic products (GDP) in the world, generating $689 billion in 2018. The economy of Chicago is diverse, with no single industry employing more than 14% of the workforce. It is home to several Fortune 500 companies, including Allstate, Boeing, Caterpillar, Exelon, Kraft Heinz, McDonald's, Mondelez International, Sears, United Airlines Holdings, US Foods, and Walgreens.”

If that user feels comfortable reading previous examples from the articles of US cities, but cannot stand with those factual information listed about a major Chinese city. It will be a very very sad sign and severe potential problem of discrimination and double-standards.

As a non-American, I knew little about those major cities in US when I was young. I even thought “Chicago is a country”and “NYC is the capital of US”. However, I was glad to learn more about them from Wikipedia as I grew older, even long before I really visited those places. And from those wikiarticles, I knew that thy are very nice and great cities.

I agree that the article of Ningbo is not perfect currently, and many details need to be further added. For example, if you check the economic section of the article, the data have not been updated since 2013, when the GDP of Ningbo city was CNY 712.8 billion at that time. However, last year 2020, the GDP of Ningbo was CNY 1240 billion. A 74% increase in the economy scale in the last 7 years! Accordingly, many of the data and some of its major industries have changed and need to be updated in the article. Moreover, more details can be added for the performance of different industries in Ningbo. Therefore, I am gradually updating those information recently step by step when I have some leisure time. But every time I update a new economic data, I tried my best to ensure that data comes from public ally checkable sources such as government annual reports or major media reports.

I am very glad if someone could help me with this work, especially since English is not my native language. No matter it is by directly joining me as an editor to update information, or by indirectly helping me such as giving useful suggestions. It is even ok if the suggestions come from those users who have no previous knowledge about the city. But, the suggestions should be at least fair, rather than biased or double-standarded. At least, someone who respects other’s culture and background. Someone is not affected by and stuck with stereotypes. And someone who can treat the factual information fairly, even if he/she does not like them. This is because wiki is a platform for everyone to get useful information, not designed fit the stereotype of a subset of users.

The comments of the user are in general very arrogant and ignorant to the city Ningbo and to its relevant topics. It shows that he/she may not even carefully read the article. Considering the current situation, I am afraid he/she cannot be the one that gives fair suggestions. Therefore, it does not make sense to get that user’s consensus in order to remove that unfair advisement tag. It will be very unfair for people like me who are updating the situations of major cities in China so that every can get newest information. It will be very dangerous for a neutral platform like wiki. --Commented by 喂番茄 (talk)

User:TrangaBellam reported by User:Luwanglinux (Result: )

page:Puya Meithaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

previous version reverted too:

Diffs of the user's revert:

1. 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)""
2. 15:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)""
3. 18:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)"" self-reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
4. 19:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)""
5. 19:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)""
6. 11:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)""
7. 06:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "In this revert he removed journal reference from reputable publisher notable under WP:HISTRS stating irrelevant addition "
8. 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)"Although this version was tagged for POV by Kautilya it was the original first content of the article"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have already opened a RFC template for edit dispute in this article to discuss the historicity of the event bonfire or destruction of Puya(traditional texts of Meiteis) during Pamheiba (the hindu convert king) reign which was disputed by some scholars, User is stating that the article puya meithaba is not related with Manipur religion history, monarch Pamheiba reign, Social history of Manipur while the event and its history either folk or written history exist because of religion conversion by the king Pamheiba 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dismiss as frivolous retaliation against my filing (a few days back) which got him blocked. Not a single shred of evidence has been presented about edit-warring.

• The first diff is by User:Kautilya3. I am certainly not him/her.
• The second diff is a revert. I alongside K3 rejected his proposed changes.
• The third diff linked here was self-reverted by me within two minutes.
• The fifth diff was undoing his restoration of some earlier version of the page without discussion. The current version of the article has been since agreed upon by me as well as the editor, whose version he restored.
• The sixth diff removed an unused source, which was misrepresented by LuwangLinux. Check the edit-summary in my previous edit.
• The circumstances surrounding seventh diff is being discussed at talk-page. Also, that deletion can be easily justified as removal of copyright violation (a ground for which LL has been blocked earlier) and not considered as edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User TrangaBellam send me another warning of being blocked [1] that I have violated copyright while I insert history section to the article using my own words for the latest revision he reverted. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

he even reverted notice about this discussion on his talk page,[2] I doubt why he want to show only his achievement at his talk page.this one was reported by user chaipau for his disrupting edit behaviour[3] he removed it too saying he was cleaning his talk page 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This appears to be retaliatory report for the earlier report filed by TrangaBellam against Luwanglinux, and for which the latter received a one-week block (administered by EdJohnston).

The beginning was this edit of Luwanglinux, whereby he copied into a new page, content that was contested and rejected at History of Manipur. It was a textbook example of WP:POVFORK. After I added a POV tag to it, TrangaBellam copied here his own rewrite of the material from History of Manipur, which is a perfectly normal thing to do. This, Luwanglinux counts as a "revert" (diff 8).

Since Luwanglinux is unable to edit-war any more, he has taken to filibustering on the talk page, making the same points again and again and not getting it. The remaining 5 reverts he points out (one being invalid) are entirely normal under the circumstances.

Luwanglinux, having just come off a long block, should'nt be doing this. He is slowly but surely exhausting his WP:ROPE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• The last two reports at AN3 about Luwanglinux are these:

• User:Luwanglinux reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked )

On that occasion, User:Primefac blocked them for 60 hours for edit warring at Meitei people. (29 September 2020). Primefac suggested that a sanction under WP:GS/CASTE might be considered next time.

• User:Luwanglinux reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Blocked)

This time, I blocked Luwanglinux for one week due to long term edit warring at Anglo-Manipur War and other articles (5 May 2021)

Between these two dates, Luwanglinux has also been blocked for sockpuppetry and copyright violations by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure where the threading lies, but it sounds like a topic ban may indeed be in order. The last time I was here about this it was for a different page, so how broad a tban should be set? Primefac (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Primefac, if there is to be a tban, it might cover all Manipur-related topics, which is the domain in which the user's contestation lies. It could be a term-limited tban in the first instance, say for 2-3 months. If the user learns nothing from it, the next one can be indefinite. The user is aware of discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hrm, might work. They also received their WP:GS/CASTE warning. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If I was the closer, I would consider an indefinite block, but a topic ban might be sufficient, if the user could understand it and follow it. It's not as though this is a new person who is just now coming up the learning curve. (Their account was created in September 2020 and they have 1700 edits). I had a frustrating experience while trying to be understood at User talk:Luwanglinux#You are risking a block for long-term edit warring. At the time I was attempting to negotiate an end to a previous war. Due to not getting a workable agreement, I decided on a one-week block as the result of this AN3 complaint. As I mentioned when closing that AN3, 'Luwanglinux has extreme confidence that he is right while constantly clashing with long time contributors..'. Taking an aggressive approach to editing while not fully understanding what's going on creates difficulties when working in a disputed area. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing about retaliation, I learned from my mistakes and ready to cooperate always but seems like owing to my bad past this is turning like a boomerang, also I pointed out revert tendency of user TrangaBellam.If this report is bias kindly tell me I will never report again.I never use any sockpuppet since user:Primefac blocked me for that.I am not as well experianced like user Kautilya but I wish to become a good editor not the current scenario I am experiancing..🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

After reading the entire talk page at Talk:Puya Meithaba I believe there is a problem of competence regarding evaluation of sources by User:Luwanglinux. My inclination is to close this complaint with an indefinite block. The time that regular editors expend in discussions with Luwanglinux appears to be wasted, since he can't understand our sourcing standards. His conciliatory response above doesn't reflect any actual improvement in his ability to edit here. He has been blocked four times in seven months. The lack of comprehension is made worse by his resentment of any corrections from more experienced people. He filed this report against TrangaBellam, and above, while promising to learn from his mistakes, he wishes 'to point out the revert tendency of TrangaBellam'. There is no actual repentance here by Luwanglinux. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston I did not use any web source or book material from local publisher after this Puya Meithaba conflict in my next edits , please know this the article Puya Meithaba now discuss the historicity section using reliable source, since the event happened in Manipur we know a thing or too at first Kautilya and TrangaBellam strongly believe its a folk history also rather a myth but now its not the obvious. I apologise for saying about TranagBellam revert tendency, even words about Cheitharol Kumbaba is not mentioned along with doubt about the precise history its a better one I think. What option do I have to assure admin as well as other editors that I will not do such thing regarding any Manipur related or south asian article like you previously told in Anglo Manipur War incident User talk:Luwanglinux#You are risking a block for long-term edit warring. I know my bad past (number of blocks) made a bad impression but I wish to become better 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:8001:8B03:187:A54A:2B78:B1B1:33E0 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

Page: A History of Violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:8001:8B03:187:A54A:2B78:B1B1:33E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 03:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
3. 02:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
4. 23:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on A History of Violence."
2. 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP is just one of a series asserting the same edit, removing content from this article without explanation or discussion. Range block may be appropriate. General Ization ^Talk 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours - /64 blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Junefith reported by User:Koncorde (Result: Blocked)

Page: Premier League Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) to 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 13:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 10:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 20:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "I am trying to make this page as informed as possible and I'm using the same references which are used on the Premier League Website using the titles and significant individual achievements that are encompassed on that page. You have removed other valid information for no reason at all and have limited this pages informity. In regards to edit warring I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored. If I can avoid edit warring and come to compromise I would much prefer that"
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC) to 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "No completely false. I am not going to edit war with you. I have sent you an explained rationale on your page and have brought up some valid points in how your adjustment to this page is less informed. You have also failed to make any statement on the reasons for your changes. If you would like to discuss a compromise on a talk page i'm happy too. I have tried to engage in this with you however you have ignored me. I'm reverting you're changes as they don't benefit the informity of this page."
   2. 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 18:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "I have justified my reasoning on your page. Removing valid information and also removing the colour coding doesn't make this page anymore informing aswell as other areas of significant information you have removed. I have explained my reasoning on you're page"
7. 18:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "More informing with the key as is. Community Shield is a major honour and is run through the FA as a result is valid"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Premier League Hall of Fame."
2. 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Why are we listing achievements that have nothing to do with their entry into the HOF? */ new section"
2. 23:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* What accolades should be listed for inductees? */"
3. 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Junefith "/* May 2021 */"

Comments:

User has established WP:OWN with regards to the Hall of Fame article, to the extent of using IP to either intentionally or unintentionally circumvent edit warring warnings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.195.5.1 ).

Some additional edits ( see here Robby reverting https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Junefith&diff=1024063390&oldid=1024060586) and comments to users have made various allegations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Premier_League_Hall_of_Fame&diff=1024059059&oldid=1024055575 Personally, I felt proceeding to threaten me and being rude was uncalled for and was unprofessional especially from a moderator with your influence. ) unsupported by anything I or anyone else has said from what I can see. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User has engaged on talk page, but is generally oblivious to policy despite being directed to it repeatedly. Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – One week for apparent logged out edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Bobby690 reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Bobby690 and KullyKeemaKa warned; both editors subsequently blocked for 48h for failure to heed warning)

Page: Cr1TiKaL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bobby690 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "yeah you can wait as well."
2. 17:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Dude just admit you were wrong and move on. The section is literally for his other names that he is known as."
3. 15:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "He has never said that penguinz0 is not his alias. The only thing he has said is that he started going by Cr1TiKaL when he changed his xbox gamer tag. So if anything penguinz0 is his former alias."
4. 04:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "I didn't say it was his online alias i said that he's also known as penguinz0 which is what the section of the infobox is for. Also if you do a simple google trends comparison you will know that more people search for penguinz0 rather than Cr1TiKaL."
5. Consecutive edits made from 04:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) to 12:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 04:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "what do you mean? The note says that penguinz0 is not his online alias but his channel name"
   2. 12:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 03:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Even though it's not his alias like the note says he is widely also known as penguinz0, which is what the section is for 'Also known as'"
7. 18:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cr1TiKaL."
2. 03:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ Stop"
3. 04:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ Cite a source then"
4. 05:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */"
5. 17:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cr1TiKaL."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• @Laplorfill: why did you report only one of the two edit warriors?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: at the time of the report, User:KullyKeemaKa had not crossed WP:3RR and had begun a discussion on the talk page. Laplorfill (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Laplorfill: Thank you. When I attempted to reason with Bobby, I mentioned the WP:BOLD guideline, and I am assuming that he did not bother to read it. Trust me when I say that this is not the first time that I have had to link a Wikipedia guideline in a message to someone when it comes to edit wars. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Out of me and Bobby, at least I tried to reason with him; meanwhile, he acted sort of hostile toward me and continued to revert revisions that I have made with reasons and linked guidelines. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• KullyKeemaKa and Bobby690 are both Warned that any more reverts to the article will result in blocks. Hopefully, you will be able to work this out on the article Talk page, or, if not, gain a consensus with the help of other editors--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hello in my most recent revert i have provided every single resson as to why KullyKeemaKa is wrong and he is just making up facts to fit his narrative. The only reason i became a little hostile was because he was being unreasonable and kept making things up that were clearly not true even though i kept proving it wrong. And as for the guidelines i have now read all of them and will make sure i don't make any mistakes in the future.Bobby690 (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• In my few years of editing on Wikipedia, I have never seen a false comment like this one. I have tried to be as reasonable as possible. I have even cited a source that proves my point. There are several articles that do not refer to White as penguinz0. I can deal with the variations of Cr1TiKaL being removed from the introduction, but penguinz0 is only his channel name, not one of his aliases. You are lucky that I am this nice, but do this to someone else and the whole situation could go haywire (just saying). Anyway, I will only revert your edit once, then I will talk to an admin if mine is reverted again. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Maxandleoinc reported by User:78Game (Result: No violation)

Page: Commodore International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maxandleoinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; []

Comments:
A user named Maxandleoinc keeps adding the website of the copyright holder of the name and not the historic company. They constantly are re-adding it despite the fact I have warned him that it is not the same company. Their username also hints at shared usage. 78Game (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan reported by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (Result: )

Page: Chris Cuomo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk): Why would you revert grammatical corrections and the formatting of dates? The weight is there, but the relation to the notability isn't. How is one writer in the original report saying it was "not okay" as notable as the network saying it was "inappropriate"? Also, Jones's statement still lacks context. WP:ONUS is still there."
2. 02:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk): The issue isn't Lemann's opinion being reliable, it's whether it's relevant to Cuomo's notability. It's "not okay", it's "inappropriate", how many descriptions are going to include? And why restore Jones's writing without explanation? You're in the business of reverting edits that have nothing to do with this topic too? Please observe WP:ONUS."
3. 02:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Incerto501 (talk): This is besides the point, but Poynter is reliable in "determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations". Whether we should assign weight to their own content isn't covered by the consensus listed. They said it was inappropriate. How is it different than what the network said? Why belabor the point? And why revert fixes that have nothing to do with this topic?"
4. 01:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "copyedits; this heading fails WP:DUE; including Jones's statement in that manner was inappropriate because she only said that Cuomo "should have been well aware last spring of the conflict of interest issues"; without the proper context, it insinuates that she was singling him out for line-blurring; Lemann is one journalist; why single his opinion out? "joined Lemann" fails WP:SYNTH; the Mediaite report itself fails DUE, see WP:RSP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Advising Brother */ new section"

Comments:

Clear 3RR violation. The editor is removing high-quality sources and has already been reverted by myself and another editor. The editor has not engaged on the talk page and refuses to self-revert. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My first revert removed the description "controversies" from the article, which I viewed as a BLP violation. In addition, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d failed to mention that they themselves violated 3RR.[10][11][12][13] KyleJoan^talk 02:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

1) There are no BLP violations present. Everything is sourced to high-quality sources and neutrally written. 2) I did not break 3RR Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There was no source for the description "controversies". Prove me wrong. Apologies for presenting the wrong diff. I corrected it. KyleJoan^talk 02:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord clearly did not violate 3RR, as some of the diffs provided are consecutive. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I got confused. I truly thought that adding something that was not in an original mass inclusion and then re-including it later along with said inclusion means that two consecutive edits would not count as one revert. KyleJoan^talk 03:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Question. Is the oldest diff of KJ truly a revert, or is it a copyedit? —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  C.Fred, It's truly a revert. Large swaths of sourced text were removed. The copyedits were only a minor part of that edit. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Okrados reported by User:Jingiby (Result: )

Page: Theodosius of Skopje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Okrados (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [23]

Comments:
The user was reported by me to EdJohnston and was informed by Ymblanter on discretionary sanctions alert on the Balkans-related topics. Jingiby (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is Okrados. I have only now learned about the 3 revert policy (quite literally about 2.5 hours ago) and how Wikipedia is based on consensus through talk pages etc. In my most recent edit, you can see that I ask to see a quote from the sources to back his edits up, not to edit war. I apologize for my uneducated actions, however, browsing through Jingiby's history, it's very obvious that he also partakes in edit wars, most of the time without well explained reasoning or neutrality. Take that as you may. Okrados (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Eddaido reported by User:HTGS (Result: Two editors blocked)

Page: Roi-des-Belges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Qirkle is so boring. he believes his sole reason to exist is to created disputes with me. Look back over his last three years. Talk page talk turns into nonsense so why bother?"
2. 02:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "removed tag"
3. 22:26, 2021 May 18 "Undid revision 1023888040 by Qwirkle(talk) vanalism"
4. 22:12, 2021 May 18 "Undid revision 1023750242 by Qwirkle(talk) Vandalism"
5. 03:39, 2021 May 18 "Undid revision 1023748764 by Qwirkle(talk) Yes it is getting attention for him. He will continue forever because he believes he is very special and very superior. And he is"
6. 03:24, 2021 May 18 "Undid revision 1023718415 by Qwirkle(talk) Hope this little idiocy of qontinuous querkle is getting the attention it deserves. Its just vandalism"
7. 23:31, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023717990 by Qwirkle(talk) Dequerkled his vandalism"
8. 23:29, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023649586 by Qwirkle(talk) Reverted persistent vandalism of many years standing but this same editor, Quirkle"
9. 15:17, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023648834 by Qwirkle(talk) vandalism"
10. 15:11, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023647638 by Qwirkle(talk) Vandalism"
11. 14:41, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023643317 by Qwirkle(talk) Vandalism"
12. 14:28, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023569093 by Qwirkle(talk) reverted mindless vandalism"
13. 02:35, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023452510 by Qwirkle(talk) Silly mindless vandalism as is Qwirkle's usual resort when baffled"
14. 13:27, 2021 May 16 "Undid revision 1023450025 by Qwirkle(talk) Vandalism"
15. 07:46, 2021 May 16 "Restored revision 1023407174 by AnomieBOT (talk): Revert to better."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Roi-des-Belges."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

(I am an uninvolved party, but did I come across the problem after checking Eddaido's history following conversation on my talk page.) I noticed extensive and pervasive edit warring by both Eddaido and Qwirkle (well beyond the diffs captured here). Eddaido claimed vandalism for many of these reverts—I believe wrongly. I warned them both at their user talk pages, and advised them to resolve this on the article talk page before making further edits to the page. Both of them responded blaming the other party, before continuing to edit the page (and revert each other) the next day. The problem here seems to be a stubbornness on both their parts, and an unwillingness to attempt resolution for fear of… letting the other win?

Eddaido has also commented on the problem at my talk page, alleging that the problem between the two is longstanding (three years), and, I presume, not limited to this page. I have not verified this. — HTGS (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(From a friend of Eddaido, also posted below): This has been going on forever. @Eddaido: wil start editing some very remote article and then @Qwirkle: shows up and they have an edit war. Over and over. It is easy to see Eddaido's frustration from his edit summaries.

This is not a comment on any edits, only that Qwirkle seems to regularly show up after Eddaido. Good luck keeping them apart. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Eddaido is blocked one week for personal attacks and User:Qwirkle is blocked 48 hours for edit warring. As another editor remarked last year at ANI, “it's clear that these editors would rather revert and complain about each other than collaborate positively”. The harsh tone of this dispute may be gleaned from the edit summaries shown in this report and the one below. I'm still wondering why Eddaido insists on *two* pictures of human buttocks being included in the article on a car, on the basis that the reader might need an explanation for the shape of the car seats. Though the buttocks reference may appear ill-advised, it is up to consensus to deal with it, and neither side seems to have the patience to find consensus. In my opinion Eddaido's personal attacks ('Hope this little idiocy of qontinuous querkle is getting the attention it deserves') were nastier than Qwirkle's (WP:NOTTHERAPY) but this dispute doesn't reflect well on either person and blocks for both of them are justified. Both editors went way past 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Qwirkle reported by User:HTGS (Result: Two editors blocked)

Page: Roi-des-Belges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Eddaido (talk): Obvious competence issues are obvious,"
2. 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "No. The article still describes three different (related) designs, describing each of them as the sole subject."
3. 22:30, 2021 May 18 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR"
4. 22:18, 2021 May 18 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR"
5. 03:40, 2021 May 18 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR edit reverted."
6. 03:25, 2021 May 18 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): Reverted WP:CIR edit."
7. 23:34, 2021 May 17 "Restored revision 1023717990 by Qwirkle (talk): WP:CIR"
8. 23:30, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR"
9. 15:22, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): Continues to be WP:NOTTHERAPY …"
10. 15:17, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): Still WP:NOTTHERAPY"
11. 15:09, 2021 May 17 "WP:NOTTHERAPY"
12. 14:40, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): Whether this is vandalism, competance questions, or attempt at self-help therapy, it doesnt belong in mainspace."
13. 02:51, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk) to last revision by Qwirkle"
14. 13:45, 2021 May 16 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR"
15. 13:26, 2021 May 16 "Restored revision 1023407174 by AnomieBOT (talk): Revert to better."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Roi-des-Belges."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

(I am an uninvolved party.) I noticed extensive and pervasive edit warring by both Qwirkle and Eddaido (well beyond the diffs captured here). I warned them both at their user talk pages, and advised them to resolve this on the article talk page before making further edits to the page. Both of them responded blaming the other party, before continuing to edit the page (and revert each other) the next day. The problem here seems to be a stubbornness on both their parts, and an unwillingness to attempt resolution for fear of… letting the other win?

Qwirkle has posted to the talk page, though I find it hard to read those posts as seeking reconciliation. I also tend to find Qwirkle's edits more constructive, but that's not what this report is about. — HTGS (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully some extra eyes will result in a rev delete. That doesn’t belong in mainspace. Qwirkle (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth would it result in a revdel? We don't delete revisions over trivialities. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

On a more related note, this is obviously a slow-burn edit war and both parties should be warned/blocked. This is not how you handle content disputes. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a content dispute; it is competence and ownership problems going back for years..which obviously belongs rather at ANI THAN HERE. Qwirkle (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Given only my brief interaction with Eddaido, I am inclined to believe and agree with you about competence, ownership and WP:NOTTHERAPY. But I don't have the time to play detective on your histories and build a case here. Your problem, Qwirkle, seems to be that instead of raising the issue in the right place, you have been playing maverick, hounding Eddaido and getting into edit wars. (As attested by Sammy_D_III.) You may not be "the problem" but it's not clear that you're working towards a solution. — HTGS (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(From a friend of Eddaido, also posted above): This has been going on forever. @Eddaido: wil start editing some very remote article and then @Qwirkle: shows up and they have an edit war. Over and over. It is easy to see Eddaido's frustration from his edit summaries.

This is not a comment on any edits, only that Qwirkle seems to regularly show up after Eddaido. Good luck keeping them apart. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Eddaido and Qwirkle are both blocked per a report of the same dispute above. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:FDMD04 reported by User:108.56.139.120 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Raghav Juyal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FDMD04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29] <-- This revert was done after this discussion was opened.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30] and [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [33]

Comments:
FDMD04 posted this on 108.56.139.120's talk page: [34] – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at the edits by 108, they are all valid MOS corrections. Every one has been explained with detailed edit summaries citing policy. FDMD04 has continually reverted without explanation, has not responded on the article TP, and not engaged in anyway except leaving a condescending message on 108s TP. FDMD04 is exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP here. I am familiar with 108s work and know them to be a very conscientiousness editor. MB 16:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

MB, thank you for adding commentary that neglected to include. I agree with your summary of the situation. FDMD04 has reverted again after this discussion was opened. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Page: List of modern armament manufacturers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UBQITOSW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of modern armament manufacturers#Keeping the red ink

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [41]

Comments:

User has repeatedly been informed that NOT, RS, ONUS and BURDEN all apply to this situation by myself and other editors [42][43] yet they persist in both restoring massive amounts of unsourced links to the page and in proclaiming to be reverting vandalism (well that is when theres an edit summary at all) when they know fully that is not the case. I have tried to resolve this issue with them by other means since March, this is simply not excusable. They claim to be operating under a consensus reached with my former account [44] (which incidentally they accuse me of falsely claiming is mine) but I can’t find any indication that they ever interacted with my former account unless they were also using another account and there is no consensus of that sort on the talk page between any editors at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:117.204.161.128 reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Bianna Golodryga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 117.204.161.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "This edit is massively Anti-Semitic, which is unacceptable. Disguising Anti-Semitism is unacceptable under any circumstance. As to the edit being sourced, pointing to the Anti-Semitic comments on a social media post is no justification for Anti-Semitism. Further attempts to add Anti-Semitic information under any guise may be construed to be blatant as well as intentional Anti-Semitism. Undid revision 1024368505 by Bilal 213 (talk)"
2. 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "This edit is massively Anti-Semitic, as explained in the previous revert. Undid revision 1024366324 by Bilal 213 (talk)"
3. 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "The information added is massively Anti-Semitic. Being asked to explain reversion of Anti-Semitic edits is neither inclusive nor encouraging users to participate, and may lead to mental and other sufferings. Undid revision 1024362376 by Interesting Geek (talk)"
4. 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1024361248 by Bilal 213 (talk)"
5. 16:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1024342633 by Bilal 213 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bianna Golodryga."
2. 17:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bianna Golodryga."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Note I have also warned User:Bilal 213 who has engaged in edit warring, but has not crossed WP:3RR. They have engaged on their talk page and agreed not to revert further. Laplorfill (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• As a person who got included in the matter, I would like to state that I reverted the edits of User:117.204.161.128(1 and 2) for blanking and of user:146.0.216.124 for vandalism(3). I also made an edit after the reversions briefing and citing the paragraph related to the conflict(4).Interesting Geek (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:John Maynard Friedman reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: )

Page: Euston railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John Maynard Friedman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. A lot of unsourced assertions for a GA???
2. Another unsourced assertion that should have been easy to cite.
3. per WP:Quotations, quotations need attribution and citation, this one does not, tagged. Tagged Rail Magazine as 'failed verification' since it just repeats the line in relation to another topic without any attribution.
4. RV blatant WP:own. The citation given is fake. If you revert again, a WP:ANI report will follow. Use the talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [47]

Comments: