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:Sharief123 reported by User:Faizhaider (Result: Page protected)

Page

Syed Jawad Naqvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sharief123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 04:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) to 04:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 04:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967353690 by 14.142.206.26 (talk)"
   2. 04:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "All ref(s) are official and are based on information and biography and from official website...."
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC) to 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   5. 15:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   6. 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   7. 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""

There are many more, whole thing has been going on since at least late April.

This one is the latest of his reverts/undo,

1. 16:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967480597 by Tubi719 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sharief123#May_2020
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sharief123#July_2020

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Content_change/addition_dispute_resolution_2020
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#RFC

Comments:

Constantly involved in content dispute multiple editors, no result of warning or effort on article's talk-page or even an rfc. Constantly censoring the content and involved in disruptive edits on the article. When warned, keeps posting coy-paste messages on article talk-page and user-talk. Definitely trying to promote the subject of the article in violation of multiple policies. Fz^tc_s 10:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What I get by the edits of Sharief123 is that he trying to censor all the criticism on this article even if they are properly sourced. He adds favourable things even if they are not verifiable, he has been involved in edit-warring since very long on this article. He seems to be very biased and guided by his POV and not by Wikipedia policies, on top of that he uses bogey of the policies to intimate and harass other editors. He is simply trying to own the article under guise of good faith and what-all. I'm specially bedazzled by recent edits by Sharief123, they added flowery language using peacock terms and added links which hadn't any content to support what they were put to cite. Also, most of existing matter which is cited using third-party reliable sources was removed including any and all the criticism. The edits were clearly pov push and so I have undid them restoring the article to previous state. But he reverted them back and an ip removed all the maintenance templates on the article and he unnecessarily threatened me with the block warning without any previous message or engaging me on article's talk-page despite my attempt to do so.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected 48 hours.

This was a more complicated case than it seemed on the surface, given that Sharief123 (t c) has engaged on the talk page in the past and seemed willing to discuss the article. However, in reading over that communication, it doesn't look like they were effective in communicating why they were making the changes to the article. (I suspect a language barrier.) Now, they're not talking on the talk page at all and just wholesale reverting or repeatedly adding/removing similar content.

I suggest that the involved editors, including 14.142.206.26, Faizhaider, Sharief123, Smsaifhaiderhussaini, and Tubi719, take these next 48 hours to discuss this on the article's talk page and come to a resolution.

@Sharief123: Consider this a strong warning. Your pattern of editing is considered edit warring, and if you continue to do so, you will end up blocked from editing (either this article or the whole site). –Darkwind (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Darkwind Thanks for your balanced approach to settle the situation. I (& various other editors), with best of my effort have tried to engage and explain the reasons to Sharief123 on article's talk-page on his talk-page & on my talk-page but you may have seen the responses at best they can be categorized as being innocent of the situation but actually they full of subversion, contempt, irony, wordplay, and at times even threat (of blocking/reporting/etc.), at least in one case he put up a fake block notice on a IP's talk-page. He not only keeps reverting the edits but also the maintenance tags.

Anyways, I'll try to engage again on articles talk-page.--Fz^tc_s 05:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the resolution as of now, will try to reason on talk page of article. Hoping for the best.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a thread on article's talk-page.--Fz^tc_s 09:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jerodlycett reported by User:86.146.209.237 (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As an editor of over five years standing, it is hard to believe that he is not aware of edit warring or the three revert rule

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on an article talk page: [6], [7]

Note: discussion is at Talk:Philishave where a very similar edit war is in effect. The article Pontiac is openly discussed at that discussion.

Comments:

The Wikipedia Manual of Style unambiguously states at MOS:TENSE that when discussing products that are no longer in manufacture but still 'meaningfully exist', then the tense used to describe the brand is present tense. The first example provided unambiguously covers the point, "The PDP-10 is a mainframe computer family manufactured by Digital Equipment Corporation from 1966 into the 1980s". That unambiguously requires that the Pontiac article must also say "Pontiac is a car brand owned, made, and sold by General Motors (though I had modified it to read "Pontiac is a car brand that is owned by General Motors though no longer used for any current models" to remove any doubt as to what is current.

Jerodlycett has now four times reverted it back to "Pontiac was a car brand owned, made, and sold by General Motors in opposition to MOS:TENSE. For the avoidance of doubt Pontiac branded cars still meaningfully exist as Google turns up no end of such cars being offered for sale.

The discussion has been taking place on the Philishave article because Jerodlycett is insisting that "Philishave is the brand name for electric shavers manufactured by the Philips …" should be changed to "Philishave was the brand name for electric shavers manufactured by the Philips …" claiming that the brand no longer exists. Philishave razors clearly do meaningfully exist as Google turns up many suppliers of spare parts.

He falsely attempted to claim that another user agreed with him even though that user had made no further changes to the article or any further discussion, once the position of MOS:TENSE was pointed out (though has been active elsewhere since). He has even attempted to invoke a chilling effect by accusing me of unconstructive editing despite that I am following the manual of style.

Note: I have reverted Pontiac a few times myself but reversion of disruption and/or vandalism does not seem to count for 3RR. I have not reverted the current incorrect version. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Response

First, WP:3RR clearly states what the rule is, which the IP seems to have missed, that they must be within in 24 hours. Secondly, the IP editor has been disruptive, some evidence of this:

• Random third level warning
• Insult used in edit summary
• Attempt to communicate through edit summaries
• And another attempt that was thoroughly ignored
• Talk:Philishave#Philishave is a discontinued brand shows a complete ignoring of what other users have stated and combative behavior.

Interactions with other users have included removal of an image and formatting on others with a summary accusing others of doing this exact behavior shown here, and a reading of guidelines with should and common practice as musts shown here leading, with this lack of understanding of 3RR, to my conclusion that either they lack WP:COMPETENCE or are just WP:NOTHERE. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP did not miss that edit warring does not have to be within 24 hours. That is only a bright line. Four reverts even if outside 24 hours is still edit warring. Dragging up random edits from other places is a poor attempt at trying to deflect attention from your own failure to abide by the manual of style which is what is being discussed here.

Jerodlycett has made blatant attempt to misrepresent the facts. He states above that I "shows a complete ignoring (sic) of what other users have stated". This is an attempt to claim that he has the support of multiple other users. That is a blatant lie. No other user has supported Jerodlycett in his arguments. One user did claim it should be past tense before Jerodlycett joined the discussion, but has made no further comment or argument once the wording of MOS:TENSE was pointed out despite being otherwise active.

Oh yes! and a repeated claim (three of the diffs above where he is communicating via edit summaries) that as I am following the MOS, I have to take it to the talk page to (presumably) get (his?) approval where as Jerodlycett has made no attempt to do so over his going against the MOS. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you also stop misgendering me, proper pronouns are right there on my user page. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Warned as follows:

To 86.146.209.237: Starting with your behavior on this page, you are deliberately misgendering Jerodlycett, as is clear from your attempt at subtle (but actually quite blatant) emphasis on pronouns in your last paragraph. That is rude at best, and it really colors the rest of your behavior in context. If one doesn't know the pronouns one should use to refer to a fellow editor, one can use standard generic gender-neutral language such as they/them, refer to the editor by username only, or, for heaven's sake, look at their userpage where zie makes it pretty clear what pronouns to use. Failing all that, in a worst case, you could have even picked a set of pronouns like he or she and stuck with it (personally, I try to avoid using "he" as a default, but I slip up sometimes), but don't express your uncertainty with either questioning punctuation or italics/bold, much less both, as it really looks like you're just trying to ridicule. At least a default assumption isn't deliberately insulting.

As to your behavior in the article, you changed wording that had been stable since September 7, 2018, or almost two years, so you really shouldn't be surprised if you got reverted. It would have been better for collaboration if you'd gone to the talk page after your first, or even your second revert. Instead, you made the change four times before you apparently gave up and still didn't explain yourself where editors of Pontiac would know where to see it. Looking at the timing, it isn't unreasonable to think you deliberately came to the Pontiac article and changed the wording just because it had been used as an example in a discussion elsewhere that you were participating in. (Again, not conclusive behavior but it adds to the impression that you just want to win the argument.) Regardless of your motive, this is edit warring, even if it isn't 3RR.

Also, violating the MOS isn't generally considered intrinsically blockable behavior. What is blockable behavior is editing in a disruptive way in order to blindly enforce the MOS, or to disregard it, such as edit warring in one direction or the other. The MOS documents broadly-accepted consensus that helps editors maintain a consistent style of writing across the project, but local consensus can and does override it; furthermore, the meaning of "meaningfully exists" (emphasis mine) is certainly debatable. You could have waited for the discussion to get additional input from other editors, or even opened it as an RfC, instead of repeating the edits. It's true, "no other user" has supported zir position, but "no other user" has supported your position either. Just because you think the MOS backs you doesn't automatically make you correct, especially where the meaning of the MOS language is open to interpretation.

Both of you have a responsibility to avoid disruptive behavior and discuss the situation. Following your interpretation of MOS doesn't automatically make your editing acceptable; you can disruptively enforce just about any rule.

@Jerodlycett: As much as the above is true, it is also true that you were edit warring back. No, you didn't violate 3RR, but a slow edit war is still an edit war. After the second revert, I would have suggested explicitly debating the meaning or applicability of the terms used in the MOS, or seeking dispute resolution, etc. as per my suggestions above to the anonymous editor. Also, if communication in edit summaries is not effective, use a talk page instead. "They didn't listen to what I said in my edit summaries" hasn't typically been considered much of an excuse for disruptive editing.

To both of you: I do thank you both for dropping the disruptive edit warring; before either of you change tense in any applicable article, I suggest completing your discussion at Talk:Philishave and reaching an agreement, or using dispute resolution. –Darkwind (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darkwind: Just for the record: there was no deliberate intent to mis gender Jerod in my posts. I had not looked at, nor did I have any reason to look at, Jerod's user page. Per your own suggestion in your first paragraph, I very deliberately 'picked' pronouns through an educated analysis of Jerod's name. 'Jerod', an alternate spelling of 'Gerald', is generally considered a male name in English and therefore a fairly safe bet. I have not knowingly used any other gender (and certainly not above).

It would never have even considered the use of 'zi' or 'zie' as I have never encountered either prior to this time. Not surprising as neither is a valid English word and they do not appear in any recognised English dictionary of any English variant. 86.188.36.227 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:GevHev4 reported by User:Solavirum (Result: No violation)

Page: 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GevHev4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I've tried my best to protect the NPOV in this article but thr afromentioned user keeps getting involved in an edit war and neglects the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on an article talk page: [11]

• Note: GevHev4 (t c) was not notified of this report. I have done so. –Darkwind (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• No violation. I do not see any evidence of edit warring on this article. –Darkwind (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:66.90.149.252 (Result: No violation, OP warned)

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

Reason for report: edit warring (no 3RR violation yet due to decision to seek intervention here rather than continue edit warring; WP:0RR and WP:1RR applicable after ample notice that user's actions violate WP policies and guidelines)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]: edit summary: "Why"
2. [14]: edit summary: "No. explain what you are doing, and why. you know this well enough"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [15]
• [16]

Attempt to resolve dispute through discussion:

• [17]: edit summary: "that's not how this works; no one need seek approval for a change on the basis that changes must be justified; on the contrary: if there's real concern about an edit, it is up to you to at the very least provide an *argument* that it's actually bad, rather than just not needed"

Comments:

NB: User:Drmies's talk page is locked, so notification of this report has been left as a response to Drmies's recent messages on my own talk page and User talk:Andrew Gray (with a request in the latter case to move the discussion here). 66.90.149.252 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on this IP user's informing multiple unrelated users at [18] and [19], I believe this is one of our edit-warring IP LTAs. See also [20] (see summary). JavaHurricane 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No violation. IP, this is the wrong approach. Just explain yourself better, that is all that is being asked of you. All this extra-drama is not necessary and is discouraged. El_C 16:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:El_C, at the risk of making a political reference and having the whole comment discounted because of it, there's sort of a big debate going on in the world right now about the lack of accountability for people with power. If Drmies were not a user with special editing privileges, his or her action here would not be dismissed like this. This would *simply not be allowed* if the usernames here were swapped, and we were only considering the substance of what has actually happened and the comments folks have actually made.

And User:JavaHurricane's comments are hardly unbiased—they're involved in the edit warring. And also, like Drmies's comments, dishonest: I reached out to User:Andrew Gray _before_ it escalated into an edit war—precisely to keep it from escalating into an edit war—and my comments to User:David Gerard are hardly indicative of whatever JavaHurricane is suggesting: reaching out to David Gerard, as I mentioned in that very comment, was a "masochistic attempt to stack the deck *against* me". (On the other hand, if you consider the number of established users who've stepped in to, for lack of a better word, act in Drmies's favor, then the suggestion would actually be apropos.)

Please consider the long-term consequences here, especially what this means for Drmies's interactions with other editors—particularly IPs. See [21]. This is WP:OWNERSHIP gatekeeping through-and-through. The onus is on Drmies to actually provide an argument why the edit *shouldn't* be kept—not on an editor to seek Drmies's approval before making a change. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (the IP editor in question)

The change the IP was attempting to force into the article was odd, adding nothing useful. Clearly it required explanation. Frankly, it looked like the type of edits we get where someone is just trying to stick their own name into an article. I can't imagine a different outcome if someone with 20 edits had reverted. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If that were the reason the edit had been reverted, you'd have a point. But it's not. To repeat WP:OWNERSHIP is not a valid reason to revert, no matter the stature of the user. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am not sure why I was asked to weigh in on this, but thought I should respond to say I'd seen it - it seems there is now a start at some discussion on Talk:setuid, which is what I was going to recommend, so I will bow out again. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW: No matter what comes of this particular issue in this particular article, this incident was mishandled. I will fight to my own death (figuratively; on Wikipedia) to quash WP:OWN issues on this site. These shenanigans should not fly, and User:JavaHurricane and User:Objective3000 are just as culpable as the initial actor (User:Drmies) here. Serious question: how is this not outright embarrassing and/or shameful for you? You spit out 2 second replies and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about the ethos and history of this project. I'm monitoring your interactions, and combing through your history. Quit fucking this up. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD, an accepted standard for what to do after someone disagrees with an edit someone else makes. And see also WP:ES, an accepted standard for even a token attempt to persuade others that a possibly arbitrary- or valueless-looking edit has merit. If I saw this same behavior between two IPs, I'd come down against the original who kept unexplainedly redoing it because our policies and guidelines are that editors work hard to collaborate and discuss when it becomes clear that there is opposition to one's ideas. DMacks (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks: Please see WP:ONUS, which is policy. All the best, ——Serial ^# 09:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic. The edit in question is an unexplained change of the user/account-names in apparently-fictitious (editorially-created) example shell commands--no actual encyclopediac claims, and no add/remove/change that to make any such content more or less verifiable. DMacks (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

...and Drmies actually did explain legitimate-sounding concerns about the edit [22]; not in a usual place, but clearly IP saw it based on the fact that they responded to it there. By timeline, the IP-account then did not repeat the edit (that's instead when C. A. Russell did). DMacks (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mind you, C. A. Russell, comments such as this—especially to a blocked user's User Page which you know they cannot edit—is outrageous: a personal attack is still a personal attack even if the recipient is indefinitely blocked. Please do not ever do that again. ——Serial ^# 09:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Further, C. A. Russell, comments such as "and then tries to retrofit some bullshit argument to justify their original actions. Let's watch the next instance of this unfold... now", rather suggest that this whole episode was engineered by you to get this very result. That's wholly unproductive behavior. ——Serial ^# 09:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And per DMacks' comment regarding WP:ES, this editsummary indicates they know all about them already: although perhaps less about WP:NPA, considering its contents ((Redacted)). ——Serial ^# 09:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume that C A Russell is not aware of the policy regarding logged- out editing, which instructs that editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors. In this particular case, it would appear they did both deliberately. ——Serial ^# 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, "engineered to prove a point"? No. Please limit your feedback to coherent ones. 1. User Drmies violates Wikipedia policies. 2. I reach out to an admin to head off edit warring and provide more-than-ample warning to Drmies that would dissuade either any rational person or anyone who actually gives two shits about what this project stands for from repeating the original ill-considered revert. 3. Drmies persists. 4. I report this clear-cut violation here, on the administrators' noticeboard—you know, where this sort of thing is supposed to be handled. 5. The administrators who respond utterly fail to do their job, opting to provide cover for the admin—with Drmies themselves having left comments of his or her own revealing that (a) Drmies was out of his or her depth and had no idea what they were doing in that article, and (b) that he or she actually feared being sanctioned (why? because of course they'd be sanctioned—after all they had gotten sloppy and had done a bad a stupid thing).

So, then, in response to that failure on the part of the responding admins, I leave a comment somewhere. And you.... point that comment in some sort of tortured, and completely backwards cause-and-effect to explain the earlier thing?

Do you understand the concept of the word wikt:anachronism?

No. There was no engineering here, except the kneejerk dismissal of a complaint against one of Wikipedia's own anointed, i.e., engineering on your part.

And please, any cursory glance at my edit history will reveal gnome-like editing almost entirely to content space for over a decade, because I simply don't care for this behind-the-scenes, meta drama. Every time I have to deal with the kind of nonsense I'm being made to deal with here now, my edits drop. The only intended outcome here was to better the affected article by getting rid of a rather embarrassing choice of names. To believe that I wanted to get involved into an inane edit war with an oblivious, well-intentioned-but-ultimately-ill-equipped admin is simply. ridiculous.

Grow up, grow a spine, and do your duty instead of covering for misbehaving admins. Censure of Drmies in this case—which is what should have happened in response to the original incident report—is the only correct way of handling this incident. Anything else is a total failure of accountability. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, in response to User:DMacks the word "onus" might be applicable, but if you'd taken the time to read the policy you linked to, it is absolutely inapplicable to this situation. And WP:BRD is a policy—but not one characterized the actions Drmies took here. I repeat myself, this is a straightforward case of WP:OWNERSHIP through-and-through. Stop covering for bad actors. Geez. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you feel you had a case does not excuse you to then break every rule in the book (see litany of offences above). And you clearly haven't read ONUS or you would realize that DMacks was disputing its applicability). Time to drop the stick, I suggest. ——Serial ^# 10:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And you clearly haven't read ONUS or you would realize that DMacks was disputing its applicability Does this sentence actually make sense when you read it back to yourself?

Meanwhile, the prescribed action (bringing up the changes on the article talk page) actually occurred (refer to Andrew Gray's comments above) came to fruition! And User:Drmies, who was so quick to click "undo" before and so plausibly wanted discussion took the opportunity then to do... absolutely nothing. So now we have clueless users like User:Calton wading in, this time even more out of their depth as a result of this completely absurd flouting of WP:OWNERSHIP and admin duties, and... reverts. So now we have (a) absolutely no need for justification for the change, since that's not how editing works, (b) no justification for any of the reverts, nor any engagement on the talk page, and (c) a still absurdly embarrassing section on the article in question.

So, what's the resolution here? What the hell do you actually want? Here's what I want: accountability, no powertripping admins, and no guff for making (good!) edits to articles with demands that they first meet approval of folks who admit they have no background or means of grappling with the subject matter at hand. Do your duty. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:RGW and WP:POLEMIC: "Do your duty". All the best! ——Serial ^# 11:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

By all means, continue citing irrelevant WP:WP pages at me and issuing passive aggressive faux niceties. It's not clever, it's just unbecoming. (And censure Drmies.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Too many aspersions, bad faith, and incivility in your review here, C. A. Russell. You are not exempt from these because you feel like you're critiquing the powers-that-be. This report is closed. If you want to bring it or any of its components to review, please do so properly at AN or ANI. Generally, few editors are going to notice this report, anyway. As for your "query," two reverts almost always results in a no violation close. The IP should have provided better answers in their edit summaries or elsewhere, and so they were cautioned against failing to do so at that time. I try to treat all editors fairly and I take exception to the implication that it is in any way otherwise. El_C 11:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

A report that starts with an admin's ownership problems and trigger-happy, zero-substance reverts and then ends with chastizing remarks about the reporter's "aspersions, bad faith, and incivility", without a hint of acknowledgement that the would-be WP:OWNER's insistence on satisfying their whims is precisely an embodiment of the latter trio? Perfect way to cap everything off. It's pretty breathtakingly unaware to say that you "take exception" in this instance as if it's supposed to have any import here. Geez, here I am on the admin's noticeboard because of my "capacity to tremble with indignation" over the "injustice" of an admin flouting the rules, but I must concede, truly that is nothing in comparison to your taking exception and the discomfort you're made to feel when confronted with your failure to hold said admin accountable. It's a good thing your comfort or discomfort matter and the charter of this project and its policies don't, otherwise we'd be in a real pickle. Being dismissive of reports of users' clear-cut examples of bad behavior when those users are admins is, of course, the most paramount thing to strive for on Wikipedia.

You know the gesture towards review is an empty one, because by the time anyone reads through this cesspool, they'll be so turned off by my indignation that kicked in after the original finding that they'll have forgotten that this is really about censure of Drmies and holding admins accountable for clear-cut policy violations. Add to that the fundamental inability to realize that they can both hold Drmies accountable and still think that I'm unlikeable, and we've got a winning recipe for the continued abuse of power by people who shouldn't hold it in the first place and their peers who cover for them.

Meanwhile, your esteemed colleague has made the carefully considered decision to pop up over on Talk:setuid to drop taunts[23]. I understand that no one here cares about even the appearance of impartiality, but surely one of you would still think it best to show up and reign the smug joker in. Geez, this project well and truly has devolved into an absolute bottom-of-the-barrel . -- C. A. Russell (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your repeated claims of WP:OWN are flat out wrong. Frankly, you need to take a break, voluntarily or not. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@O3000 your prediction came true...they have. —— § erial 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Mersenne56 reported by User:Adrian J. Hunter (Result: one week, partial)

Page: The Case Against Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mersenne56 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29] (in the edit summary; user was reading the edit summaries)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30], user's response: [31]

Comments:
User is insisting on parity between Vox and Quilette, in spite of consensus recorded at WP:RSP, and edit-warring to keep either both sources (first diff) or neither source (next three diffs) in the article. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 10:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Jerodlycett reported by User:Guitarist28 (Result: No violation)

Page

Russian bounty program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jerodlycett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 77.81.136.85 (talk): Uncited (TW)"
2. 22:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 77.81.136.78 (talk) to last revision by Davemck (TW)"
3. 07:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 77.81.136.80 (talk): No citations (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Reverting changing IP which is obviously the same user as per here. These IPs may or may not be their IPs. Still, it appears they have violated the 3RR. Guitarist28 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Response

Obvious vandalism, by any number of different editors, can be reverted. This is something Guitarist28 should know since he already feels comfortable using tools like RedWarn, and doing a Good Article Review within his first week. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No violation. 3RR was not violated (only 3 reverts are listed), but reverts of obvious disruption are exempt per WP:3RRNO. El_C 11:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:GDBarry reported by User:Funky Snack (Result: Both warned)

Page

Times Radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GDBarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:32, 15 July 2020 diff hist -939‎ Times Radio ‎
2. 14:27, 15 July 2020 diff hist +50‎ Times Radio ‎ Ditto
3. 14:26, 15 July 2020 diff hist +44‎ Times Radio ‎ Edited heading to make it accurate

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Times_Radio and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GDBarry.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User believes he has the right to have the final say. User has removed the section several times.

Comments:

Please see the article's talk page, where I have already made all my arguments. I see no point in repeating them here. GDBarry (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please leave this for a decision to be made by consensus. You have been disruptive to Times Radio so this is why the warning has been submitted. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The way you have left the article is highly inaccurate and misleading. I'm not happy with it, but I won't change it again until a decision has been made here. GDBarry (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please understand that all articles must meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO criteria. Your request of adding Luke Jones "because he's on a national radio station" doesn't hold up. As other users have suggested on the talk page, just because someone is on a national radio station doesn't mean they are notable. Meantime, I have moved all presenters into one block, removing "Notable". Until a decision has been reached, please refrain from making anymore edits. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC}

That was not my reason, as I have already explained on the talk page. I have submitted an article for Luke Jones which I believe meets the notability criteria. He played a prominent part in the station's launch day on 29 June 2020 and received detailed write-ups in the Guardian and Daily Telegraph. I submitted an article for inclusion on 8 July 2020 which included quotes from both these reviews. It is now waiting to be approved. I do not see how you or anyone else have the power to pre-judge the approval process. GDBarry (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, just because someone has a passing comment in the press doesn't mean they warrant an article. So many people are mentioned in the press, yet if EVERYONE who had a mention in an article online, we'd crash Wikipedia. As mentioned, please refrain from making any further edits until your article is approved/declined. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I will wait until there's a decision from the admins before I make any further edits to the Times Radio article. If they say I can't include Luke Jones's name until he has a stand-alone article, then I won't. If they say it's OK to do so, then I will. GDBarry (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User now adding people to PM (BBC Radio 4) with no content. Further disruptive editing going against Wiki rules - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me which rules I have violated. I am not aware of any rule on Wikipedia that forbids the mention of people who do not have Wikipedia entries - particularly when they are distingushed former presenters with many years' service, mentioned in articles about the programme. An awful lot of other articles about long-running radio and TV programmes will need to be edited severely if there is a rule forbidding this. GDBarry (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note that you didn't take out any of the people I added who do have Wikipedia entries, but had not been previously mentioned. How about thanking me for adding them and making the article more comprehensive? GDBarry (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding those with articles is fine. To add people into lists of names, they must be notable and have articles as per WP:BIO. - Funky Snack (Talk) 19:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no such rule. The correct rule is the one at WP:LISTBIO, as I've already said. But if you want to go through every article on every single radio and TV programme that's ever been broadcast taking out every mention of everyone who doesn't have an existing Wikipedia article, good luck to you. There are an awful lot of people who you'd be airbrushing out of broadcasting history, and I don't believe that's the purpose of Wikipedia. GDBarry (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Please also see the discussion I had at here, where it was clearly stated that "WP:LISTBIO is the policy for embedded lists and it was rewritten a few years ago to make it clear that notability is not required for inclusion in embedded lists just as it's not required for any other content in an article".

I thought this was a page where the admins could resolve disputes, but it just seems to be a page for continuing the argument we were having on the talk page. Is there anywhere we can get a definitive pronouncement on this? GDBarry (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have gone back to discussing this on the Talk:Times Radio page. There's clearly nothing happening here. GDBarry (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This page isn't really for discussion. The only reason I am involved in a discussion in this page is being polite and replying to you. These requests can take some time, so please be patient. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So what's it for then? This whole process is getting precisely nowhere. I didn't ask for the matter to be referred here, you did it off your own bat. It's supposed to be for when issues can't be resolved on the Talk page. I'm quite happy to resolve it on the Talk page. I think you are wasting the admins' time. GDBarry (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:GDBarry and User:Funky Snack are both warned against edit warring. Whoever reverts the article next is risking a block, unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Speaking of 'a definitive pronouncement': an admin board like this one won't make a content decision for you. The question of including Luke Jones or other presenters needs editor consensus. See WP:DR for some options. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have never reverted an edit on that article, or on any other Wikipedia article to the best of my knowledge. In fact I don't think I even know how to revert edits. Why have I been accused of doing something I have never done?

As for "editor consensus", it looks as though there isn't going to be any. Stalemate. GDBarry (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Straight away GDBarry DELETED the presenters from PM (BBC Radio 4), an article, which is also the subject of an ongoing edit war. EdJohnston, please can this be taken into consideration as this user has been abusive and going against Wiki protocol re articles. Please can his edit be reverted. Thanks. - Funky Snack (Talk) 18:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I deleted a list of former presenters which I had created myself. I did so because I didn't want another edit war. Can't I delete my own submissions if I want to? GDBarry (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think the list ought to be removed from the article, why not propose this on the talk page and maybe somebody (not currently warned) will do it? Since I closed this AN3 there have not been any reverts by either of you, luckily. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the point here is that the user deleted the list AFTER being warned EdJohnston. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I repeat again - I have never reverted any edits on Wikipedia. I do not know how to do it. Nor do I wish to find out. GDBarry (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You deleted the list after you were warned! - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I deleted the list in order to avoid any further edit warring. That was not reverting someone else's edit - that was removing something that I'd created myself. GDBarry (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You still made an edit when you were told not to - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I was not told not to make any edits to the PM article. I was told not to edit the Times Radio article. You brought the PM article into the discussion even though it's an entirely separate issue. GDBarry (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No reverting/making changing to other pages in discussion. Until a decision on the RfC has been reached, I suggest you stop this edit warring.- Funky Snack (Talk) 21:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I deleted that list in order to avoid edit warring. You removed the names of a number of distinguished former presenters of the programme, one of whom served for twenty years. No one has ever tried to do that before. Rather than getting into another edit war I thought the best thing to do was to remove the list entirely. Please do not use the PM article as a proxy for the dispute over Times Radio and Luke Jones. GDBarry (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Mancalledsting reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: CU block)

Page

Killing of George Floyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mancalledsting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967889508 by Muboshgu (talk)Erasing my edits won't delete the body camera footage"
2. 22:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967888950 by Ian.thomson (talk)This is an encyclpodia and not a place for political activism. Defeat is hard accept,I know, but we have to follow the NPOV policy"
3. 22:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967888569 by Ian.thomson (talk)Then edit the words and don't erase the source"
4. 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC) "/* State civil rights action */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC) to 22:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Killing of George Floyd. (TW)"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• See Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Body_Camera_footage_has_been_released

Comments:

I'm getting a WP:NOTHERE vibe, looking through their past edits and talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's be real, a user who reads that "a panicked and fearful Floyd pleading with the officers in the minutes before his death, saying “I’m not a bad guy!” as they tried to wrestle him into a squad car" merely as "he was resisting arrest!" is not someone who should be editing articles relating to race (at a minimum). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree this user is edit-warring. —valereee (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 72 hours, but have no issues with any admin change the block duration if they see fit. There are definitely significant issues with Mancalledsting's approach to editing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Update Now checkuser blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon reported by User:BorkNein (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:Daily Mail (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [unnecessary, user is well aware of edit warring policy]

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

Comments: Put simply, Guy Macon wants to enforce his preferred RfC format onto the one I had alreayd chosen. As shown above from the preceding debate between us, he is well aware that these are optional formatting choices, left entirely at the discretion of the filer. He boldly changed it, even though he was likely already aware from that discussion that I would not agree to the change. I reverted, telling him clearly I wanted my preference to be respected, and not to falsely claim to be "fixing" something which is explicitly left up to users to choose, expecting him to then discuss the issue, as he is required to do. Instead, he has simply repeated the exact same format change a second time, as part of adding his response, without explaining why he also chose to repeat this contested edit, in violation of the edit warring policy. Since he has made it very clear he intends to report me should I ever edit war, I have come here rather than do so, but be in no doubt, I absolutely do not agree to his edit. Please restore my original formatting, and remind Guy Macon of the edit warring policy. BorkNein (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) Just to save time. The filer's edits messed up formatting for no understandable reason. Obviously the incorrect venue anyhow. Pardons if I floated above my pay grade. O3000 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep. The correct venue for such a conduct dispute is WP:ANI, not here. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Haider Khan10 reported by User:Azmarai76 (Result: Malformed report)

Page:  
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. We don't even know which editor you are trying to report. – EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf reported by User:Number 57 (Result: 2 weeks, sitewide and one week, partial, respectively)

2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election: 2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:29, 16 July 2020
2. 10:34, 16 July 2020
3. 10:38, 16 July 2020
4. 11:02, 16 July 2020

Although a discussion has been ongoing at User talk:Aréat, Koavf has continued reverting. Number 57 10:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
Exception #4 is "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." and removing sources for information and calling sourcing "pointless" seems to be a pretty clear example of what someone would say constitutes vandalism, since WP:V and WP:OR are bedrock policies, in addition to MOS:TABLECAPTION. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's been estabished in the past that merely "removing sourced material" isn't (generally) considered vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), unfortunately. Having said that, Number 57, I think it's pretty unhelpful to dismiss any good-faith attempt to increase accessibility for our screen-reader users as pointless. Pinging RexxS who can advise, I think, on WP:ACCESS requirements.

But Koavf, honestly, filing retaliatory reports (per below) is...not helpful :) —— § erial 10:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, If you think that report lacks merit, I will withdraw it per your recommendation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Koavf; as much as you might think you're right, it's as much about the optics as anything else (even if it wasn't retaliatory, it's gong to appear so—and that, not your diffs, might colour your whole report). So yes, I suggest that you withdraw that report and keep the discussion focused here (for instance, as you say, pointing out that another party showed an equal-willingnes to edit-war and an equal unwilingnes to discuss on talk). You might also argue that, if you were acting per ACCESS, your edits were in compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (AKA ISO/IEC 40500:2012). —— § erial 10:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, sourcing was not being removed. The table source is in the final row. The claim that this constitutes reverting vandalism is ridiculous. Number 57 10:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Rationale: Several edits made by Aréat removed basic accessibility features:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967952453&oldid=967952257
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967952920&oldid=967952592
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967953416&oldid=967953070
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_North_Macedonian_parliamentary_election&type=revision&diff=967953757&oldid=967953528

See User talk:Aréat, where I discussed this with him. While that conversation was happening, Number 57 made his WP:POINT-y edit which was bad faith, willfully hostile to blind users, and done purely for the purpose of decreasing the quality of the article. I think that it is reasonable to call his edit vandalism and my attempt to undo it was for the purpose of undoing vandalism (cf. how I did not revert the removal of colum and row scopes repeatedly nor did I revert Aréat's fourth revert but let it stand). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The claim that I did something "for the purpose of decreasing the quality of the article" is as ridiculous as the claim above about removing sourcing. I removed a caption that duplicated a heading directly above it. Unless screenreaders cannot read section headings, there does not seem to be any point to having a caption directly below one. Number 57 11:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: Since you saw that MOS:TABLECAPTION was explicitly cited in the edit summaries and the user talk page referenced above and that says unequivocally that all data tables need captions, then why did you defy this for this one table? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've already given you the answer above. A dispute over this is not a justification for violating 3RR. Number 57 11:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Sitewide, as this is the second 3RR violation by Justin within the span of a mere few weeks. As for Aréat, it is not clear that they have reverted four times (the first edit may be a bold edit rather than a revert) — please feel free to clarify. El_C 12:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. Aréat also blocked for violating 3RR. El_C 13:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:58.179.159.63 reported by User:Redthreadhx (Result: Semi)

Page: How You Like That (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.179.159.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Comments:
Attempt to negotiate in the user's talk page by another editor proved futile as it was swiftly deleted. [33] I was also accused of vandalism by the user. [34] Redthreadhx (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two weeks. Discussion as to which chart is the best can take place on Talk. The IP's charge of vandalism is clearly incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Balolay reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Blocked)

Page: Diriliş: Ertuğrul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Balolay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This version. The dispute is over whether to include the text The show has also received criticism for a lack of historical accuracy, depiction of non-Muslims in a negative manner and for glorifying Islamic fundamentalism. Balolay repeatedly inserts this text and Joelaroche (apparently a new user) repeatedly removes it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:23, July 14, 2020
2. 13:24, July 13, 2020‎
3. 12:55, July 13, 2020
4. 12:20, July 13, 2020
5. 12:12, July 13, 2020
6. 12:05, July 13, 2020
7. 12:00, July 13, 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Balolay has been blocked twice previously for edit warring, see this and this.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Some discussion here. Note I'm not involved in this article dispute.

Comments: I have seen a pattern of edit-warring by Balolay, despite having been blocked twice for edit-warring. In this case Balolay makes a whopping 7 reverts in less than 24 hours! Balolay is also currently edit-warring at Rape in Islamic law, not bothering to respond to concerns of WP:NOR posted on the talk page.VR _talk 15:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The very fact that a user who has been on Wikipedia for 12 years and is supposedly well versed on Wikipedia rules has to dig up my past edits on completely separate articles (whose disputes were resolved or are being actively discussed eg., Talk:Diriliş: Ertuğrul) in order to gain leverage is very alarming and downright harrasmest.

Regarding my edits on Rape in Islamic law, I ask administrators to kindly read the discussions on Talk:Rape in Islamic law and Talk:Concubinage in Islam. The user has been in disagreement with almost every other editor including @Mcphurphy:, @Eperoton:, @Bolanigak:, @Vishnu Sahib:, @Dr Silverstin:. When he has nothing left to argue about he accuses them of WP:CANVASSING as he/she did here [35]. Admins like El_C pointed it out [36] too.

Another trait that this editor has shown is to make POV edits under the guise of see talk page as here [37], while conveniently ignoring the fact that the issue was already solved here [38].

My conclusion is that this editor being a Muslim can't let go of his/her inherent bias when editing Islam related articles. Seeing the edits and exhaustive discussions on Talk:Rape in Islamic law and Talk:Concubinage in Islam, it is obvious that User:Vice regent has done systematic whitewashing of Islam related articles on Wikipedia by giving one sided perspectives, while harrasing other editors who disagree. This should be alarming for the entire Wikipedia community. Regards Balolay (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly edit warring on both sides. But for some reason Vice regent has chosen to report only one side. Mcphurphy (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Balolay is blocked 72 hours for a long term pattern of edit warring. He restored his favored paragraph to the lead about seven times on July 13 and 14. On his seventh revert he invites others to wait for consensus. (It seems he thinks the rules apply to others, but not to him). Meanwhile he's been reverting at Rape in Islamic law. I take note he was blocked for sockpuppetry as recently as May 22. He and his sock were both editing the same report at AN3 and pretending not to know each other! I think this is taking too many liberties with our policy; he is lucky his sock block was not indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:SP013 reported by User:Arjann (Result: )

Page: File:Dil Bechara Album Art.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SP013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dil_Bechara_Album_Art.jpg&diff=967492561&oldid=967492333
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dil_Bechara_Album_Art.jpg&diff=967999141&oldid=967871669
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dil_Bechara_Album_Art.jpg&diff=967492333&oldid=967055842

• Comment First one is not a revert as it was just a upload of a new version of the file. SP013 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am trying to explain him here but he is unwilling to understand.

User:Arjann reported by User:SP013 (Result: )

Page

Cobra (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Arjann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967998723 by SP013 (talk) Please do not removed sourced information"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC) to 17:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 17:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967682429 by Sush150 (talk) - Please do not remove referenced/sources information"
   2. 17:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC) "Restoring page version to sourced and valid information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps changing the Music section after giving a clear and concise reason as to why there should be a different Inbox and a track listing as a majority of Indian film articles have a Infobox Album and a tracklisting. SP013 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Typ932 reported by User:Davey2010 (result: Typ932 warned)

Page

Alfa Romeo 166 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Typ932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 968031422 by Typ932 (talk): Go yourself to get consesus for you changes, you started this shit over year ago., using TW"
2. 20:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 968030695 by Typ932 (talk): Revert this mischief using TW"
3. 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 968030230 by Typ932 (talk): Yes everyone has the right to edit, you have no fucking reasion to revert my edits, because there is nothning against rules using TW"
4. 19:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 968023957 by Typ932 (talk): No fucking need to edit this article, there is no rule how talbes should looklike using TW"
5. 19:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "engine table layout, no need that huge table which messes the layout and is not in line with other Alfa articles."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Back in July 2019 I removed unneeded table coding[40], Typ reverted, edit warred, and got warned[41],

Unfortunately they've returned today to Alfa Romeo 166 and to Alfa Romeo 156 and have reverted everyones additions to the tables simply to add the coding back,

They'd also resorted to these personal attacks which were totally uncalled for.

Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes this guy has bullied my over year of time period, he has now reason to revert and change my edits all the time. He claims I need consensus If I edit articles and hes doesnt need? There is no rules in Wikipedia how tables should look like. I have same rights here to edit as everyone else. Im sick and tired of this guy , so pls do something. He made also personal attacks year ago.-->Typ932 ^T·C 20:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't bully people and you haven't been bullied, If I make a change and for a year no one cares - the onus is then on the reverting person to get consensus because the edit has remained for so long and therefore is seen as being an okay edit.

As explained to you there is now a bot that removes part of the table coding I'd removed (I don't know what the bot's called as I came across it randomly but I've definitely seen it remove cellpadding),

You were told last year to get consensus and to talk to people but instead you resort edit warring and calling people assholes and idiots!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Kid you are not my dad, read what I just post. You dont tell to me what I can do here -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said I was, You can either abide by WP:BRD or you can leave, You don't get to edit war a year later when there's a talkpage a click away!. Like I said the onus is on you to get consensus for the change however it's worth noting another editor too had reverted you there which again indicates they agree with my changes and or they saw no problems with those changes. –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So if anyone else is not reverting your edits they agree its ok? sure. And once again Its not my job to get consensus,its your job to get consensus if you start that edit warring and changin pages which are fullu under guidelines and policies. You can always start discussions in talk page and discuss about your questionable edits before you make anything. You were the person who started the unneeded editing. I can edit here as freely as everyone else. So you have 2 choices leave or stop this bullying -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It is also your job to seek a consensus since only you think that those codes should be restored. You've so far reverted a bot's edits and are causing disruption over pages. No one else thinks the same way as you or agrees with your changes. Neither this site, nor those pages are owned by you to decide who should seek a consensus or not. Give WP:BRD and WP:OWN a read before you make other weird claims. Two editors disagree with you on the changes you're making right now. So its high time you seek agreement of others before restoring your preferred changes. The fact that you're ordering others what to do and then pretending to be a victim of bullying makes this case strong against you.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 it is WOSLinker bot.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Typ932, I came this close to blocking you, for the edit warring, the obstinate behavior, and the uncollegial remarks, all of which is probably worth a week of vacation. If you revert again there, I will be happy to block you for a couple of days or longer, since you should know better. Please stop insulting other editors in your edit summaries, please copyedit your edit summaries and messages before you save them--and seek the article talk pages if you wish to win your case. That is all. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Drmies blocking this user would be more appropriate after continued display of offensive behaviour as seen here.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I dont care of your blockings,anyone can edit here anonymoysly if want. Seems already 2 biased admins here already, Mr Davey started all this over year ago and he made also 1st personal attacks and insults, and is acting like super master god admin here to tell what people can do or not to do here. Anyway Im out of Wikipedia after 13 years, I dont want to play with kids anymore.Bye -->Typ932 ^T·C 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not your site in the first place. If you are not happy, you can leave and I can see you are already "fed up" after seeing disruptive messages on your talk and user pages. You can consider making your own site and be the boss there but that is not happening here.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So this is your and daveys site? ok. Keep up the "good work" and bullying people. bye

@Typ932: re. I dont care of your blockings,anyone can edit here anonymoysly if want. This sounds as if you are suggesting that, should ye be blocked, you will return and edit as an IP? Two things must ye know. Firstly, we're not stupid. Secondly, please read this page to find out the consequences of being caught doing so. —— § erial 10:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No, but this is not your site either to tell others what they should do and be stubborn when you are in the wrong. Buh bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeh keep insulting, what else we can wait from kids. And for that admim: Seems you are not so smart to clear this thing, I havent do nothing wrong here. That Davey started this over year ago and one admin deciced it wrongly favoring him and now you do the same thing. As said many times I havent break any rules at 1st place, but Im sick and tired ot these home policies here. Mr U1Quattro is just making revenge attack towards me because some of my edits in history didnt please him. . Everyone should have same right to edit here, Mr Daveys edits cant be rule here. -->Typ932 ^T·C 10:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

User:136.2.16.181 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Vachanamrut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

136.2.16.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968031601 by Apollo1203 (talk)"
2. 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968031269 by Apollo1203 (talk) BAPS did not exist when this book was made. And they are a breakoff group. How does including their ideology make sense?"
3. 20:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968030292 by Apollo1203 (talk) You don't need a talk page discussion to remove biases. They are your personal beliefs and you are misleading readers."
4. 19:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968011495 by Apollo1203 (talk) Remove Biases. Vandal was unable to handle it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Vachanamrut. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please also note WP:3RR violation on Swaminarayan Sampradaya as well. Ifnord (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from Vachanamrut and Swaminarayan Sampradaya for 24 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:86.143.34.149 reported by User:Fazzo29 (Result: 1 week)

Page

Template:2019–20 EFL Championship table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

86.143.34.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968038862 by Fazzo29 (talk)"
2. 20:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968037809 by Fazzo29 (talk)"
3. 20:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968037226 by Fazzo29 (talk)"
4. 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968028726 by Add92 (talk)"
5. 19:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968026628 by Add92 (talk)"
6. 19:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968024026 by 200.44.80.85 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Template:2019–20 EFL Championship table. (TW)"
2. 21:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) "edit warring warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• As this is the IPs second block for the same disruption, I've partially blocked them from editing the template namespace for 1 week.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:96.244.140.242 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Blocked)

Page: Beth Shalom Congregation (Columbia, Maryland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.244.140.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

• IP continues to edit war to restore promotional text to Beth Shalom Congregation (Columbia, Maryland). I provided them with our COI guidelines and requested that they use the article talk page to request changes, but they're simply ignoring the information provided and reverting.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• And yes, I realize that I'm at 3 reverts, but the material being added consists of a ton of embedded links to their marketing materials and platforms (hence why they are are also edit warring with Xlinkbot).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• As well as several uncited claims about living people. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 23:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• A recently registered account is also demonstrating the same behaviour. Darren-M talk 23:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note that the IP has registered an account a new account showed up: ExpressViewPortal (talk · contribs). Their first edit was continuing the edit war. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2}(Edited at 00:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC); EVP is possibly a joe jobbing attempt)

• Result: IP blocked one week, User:ExpressViewPortal is blocked 48 hours. Based on behavior, this account is likely to be the same person as the IP. The IP has never responded on their talk page to anything. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)