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:Leahmerone reported by User:M622 (Result: page protected)

Page: Escape the Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leahmerone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]

{{subst:void| Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] Warning:User_talk:Leahmerone#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion_2 Comments:

Proposal: * Blocked – for a period of weeks M622 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC) (this is my first time filing a report for a user, so IDK if i have to do this: let me know something's wrong, ok?)

• Page protected for a period of 24 hours Continue the discussion on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is verges on being a COI. The YouTube channel mentioned on there YouTube page makes videos about ETN (Escape the Night). If this is not them then the username might be considered deceptive to some considering the area they are editing. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

User:Brentdavisubc reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Warned)

Page: Learning theory (education) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brentdavisubc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: # [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:' [15]

Comments:
This editor appears to have begun making these edits as unregistered editor and continued making the edit war after registering an account. The editor also appears to have a conflict of interest; WP:OUTING prevents me from directly stating why I believe this but I am confident than other editors can come to the same conclusion quite easily. He had continued making these edits after being reverted by multiple editors and warned about both WP:COI and WP:EW; he has not responded to warnings in any way. ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You must be thinking they are the same person as 66.222.220.108 (talk · contribs) who made three prior edits on the same article. Two of the three IP edits were adding a link to http://learningdiscourses.com. If this is all spam, then an indefinite block could be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: That is correct: I believe it's plausible to assume that User:66.222.220.108 and User:Brentdavisubc are the same editor. I'm not accusing him of sockpuppetry; it's perfectly fine to begin editing without an account, create an account, and continue editing. My concerns are the edit-warring and conflict-of-interest. He has self-reverted his edit to the article and made no further edits to the immediate issues appear to have been addressed but I'll leave it to others to determine if a block of any sort is still warranted. ElKevbo (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Bretndavisubc is warned for edit warring and violation of WP:EL. No block this time because they reverted their last change. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:FleurDeOdile reported by User:Destroyeraa (Result: No action)

Page

2020 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

This editor manually reverted the edits.

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
2. 21:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC) "/* July 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

FleurDeOlile's attitude to other users has not improved at all, even though FleurDeOlide has been given warnings by other editors, including me. One July 21, FleurDeOlile reverted a handfull of edits, claiming that those were "of poor quality," even though they were clearly of good faith. Later, the editor wrote on 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, clearly violating WP:OWN. FleurDeOlide reverted editors four times, clearly violating the 3RR. However, the editor did not use the undo function and manually undid the edits, evading getting in trouble with 3RR. For the list of reverts, see below:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

I have warned this editor about their behavior. They have ignored me. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 14:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:FleurDeOdile was previously blocked in May for 72 hours by User:Juliancolton. The block summary at that time was Disruptive editing: persistent ownership violations, edit warring, refusal to engage in discussions, WP:IDHT. See also Julian's post on the user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: But obviously, FleurDeOlide didn't learn anything from that block. Another more lengthy block should do. Also, other users such as Chicdat, AC5230, Cyclonebiskit and TropicalAnalystwx13 have all warned this editor in the past few months. This editor doesn't learn and should face consequences for their behavior. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 15:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If FleurDeOdile won't respond to the complaint I think an indefinite block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. If FleurDeOdile continues, I have warned them that I will report them at ANI. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 09:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have looked into FleurDeOdile's contributions, and it seems that the editor has stopped being disruptive for the time being. However, the editor still has not replied or responded the the warnings on their talk page. When you get a thing on your talk page, you get a notification. It seems that FleurDeOdile is intentionally ignoring me and other editors. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved observer here. I have looked at some of the reverts and ownership claims and wonder if this is a case of the topic of hurricanes and storms attracting a certain kind of editor? I notice on YouTube that the moment a Tropical Storm is named certain enthusiasts rush to get maps, graphs and animations on their channel and fill websites with analysis and info, often cribbed from official sources, and within the rush is a sense of "ownership" over the facts. It might be the same here: one editor who treats the article as their own webspace (hence the "poorly written" revert) out of an over-enthusiastic fandom-type attitude towards hurricane season? I certainly agree though: if there is no chance of compromise or teamwork then a wider block may be required given the behaviour. doktorb _words^deeds 10:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

if it took too long to respond, thats because i have a way too busy life and im not intentionally ignoring you. and i formally apologize for all the mess i started FleurDeOdile 17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@FleurDeOdile: That's okay. Everyone is busy, and its hard to respond when you have loads of other stuff to do. However, please understand why I'm reporting you. It's because of your behavior and attitude to other editors. If you keep taking ownership of pages and edit war with other editors, you will be blocked. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

i do fully understand @Destroyeraa:, will try to keep in mind not to start edit war in the future FleurDeOdile 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@FleurDeOdile: Thanks. I do not wish to report anyone on Wikipedia, because no one wants to spend their time on Wikipedia reporting others. However, those who use rude language, vandalize, cyberbully, edit war, and take ownership repeatedly will be blocked. Please review WP:OWN. Everyone: IPs, autoconfirmed users Extended confirmed users, admins and editors who have special rights are equal on Wikipedia, and need to be treated equally no matter what "status" you have on WP. You will probably not be blocked since you understand your faults, but any successive offenses will probably result in a lengthy block. Thanks again. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 23:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The parties who were in the dispute now seem to be discussing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Aroma Stylish reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Warned)

Page: Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aroma Stylish (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. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]
7. [30]

User is constantly tapping the revert button, edit warring against two veteran users. Showing a clearcase of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by refusing to replying to the points made, completely ignoring them. Has threatened to continue edit warring no matter what [31]. No consensus has been reached on his edit, and attempting to have a discussion with him seems pretty futile. Yes, I've know I've broken the rule as well (didn't pay attention, great excuse I know), I have no problem in accepting the consequences of my actions. But this disruption has to stop. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
He has no point at all! That's the problem. It's a clear case of WP:I don't like it. This is a respectable source by Pew Research which clearly shows that attitudes toward Iran are mostly negative worldwide, which is exactly what the article on anti-Iranian sentiment is about. The source doesn't clarify if this is a specific hostility towards the ayatollahs, Persian culture, common Iranian people or the aggresive policy of a government (if it said such a thing, I would add it to the table). It says simply "attitudes toward Iran". I'm sorry for the Iranian exiles whose country's image has been damaged by the actions of their regime, but censoring polls because you don't like the result is not a valid course of action in Wikipedia. Saving the distances, I've seen in Wikipedia, for example, surveys on antisemitism by ADL and other organizations where sometimes the result regarding negative attitudes toward Jews is extremely high (mainly in Arab and Muslim countries, followed by Eastern Europe and even Armenia!) and I'd never think about erasing those polls from the encyclopedia because I don't like the results. The truth is above everything.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Aroma Stylish was previously blocked 48 hours at WP:AE on 25 May due to violation of the WP:ARBPIA 500/30 rule. Aroma Stylish's earlier statement 'I'm going to revert you as long as necessary' does not inspire confidence. Maybe they would consider withdrawing that post, in the interest of not providing immediate grounds for an edit warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What has the poll (which is about its global image) to do with Anti-Iranian sentiment, i.e "feelings and expression of hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice towards Iran"? The poll is clearly about the regime as well, and even mentions how Rouhani is viewed by other countries. Also, please don't accuse me of stuff like "censoring" without any proof. You've no idea if I have an actual agenda or not, unless you can read my mind that is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the table whatever clarification you feel is necessary, including attitudes toward the Iranian regime specifically. But the poll is about public attitudes toward Iran, which is obviously relevant for an article regarding anti-Iranian sentiment. There's no way around it.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Which is....--Aroma Stylish (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What has the poll (which is about its global image) to do with Anti-Iranian sentiment, i.e "feelings and expression of hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice towards Iran"? The poll is clearly about the regime as well, and even mentions how Rouhani is viewed by other countries. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I repeat. The poll is about public attitudes toward Iran, which is obviously relevant for an article regarding anti-Iranian sentiment. I don't get why it's so difficult for you to understand this. It's not complicated at all.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"It is like that because it obviously is" is what I get from your comment. Could you please answer my comment properly? In what world is a source regarding the public image of a country/government (and its president) related to "feelings and expression of hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice"? If it's not too much to ask, try to answer without focusing on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-Iranian sentiment, also known as Anti-Persian sentiment, Persophobia, or Iranophobia refers to feelings and expression of hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice towards Iran..." Do you get it, now?--Aroma Stylish (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And this is what I meant by attempting to have a discussion with this user seems pretty futile. I'll let others weigh their opinion in. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Aroma Stylish is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Anti-Iranian sentiment unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:‎Mustvalge reported by User:Qumranhöhle (Result: No action)

Page: Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Mustvalge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Don't know what to do. This User:Qumranhöhle reports me here, keeps reverting my edits in different articles, writes on my Talk page accusing in vandalism. --Mustvalge (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what happened to the description of the case which I entered here. The article Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (which certainly has its problem) had a consensual introduction by July 9th. The version was changed with claims that violate AGF and others Wikipedia principles. It also introduces typos and - to say the least - disputable phrasings. I reverted to the consensual version whereas user Mustvalge keeps reverting to his/her version without having established a consensus on the discussion page.

Unfortunately the user keeps changing other articles with his POV. Introducing wrong information into articles (like in Aramaic) is exactly that: vandalism. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: No action. There is not enough information in this report to justify a block of any party. I suggest that editors discuss that matter in the two existing threads:

• Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet#Redirection/merge to Phoenician alphabet
• Talk:Phoenician alphabet#This page might need to be split

If reverting continues, file a new report. There may be a case for protection. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Doubledareyou reported by User:Berrely (Result: Doubledareyou warned)

Page

Federal Constitutional Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 969107776 by Berrely (talk) Disruptive deleting the valuable information Broken Subsid. and spitiing on german hyperlinks of www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de"
2. 12:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 969105085 by Berrely (talk) I hope an english racist bans me because I used PAJZ poor English and didn’t use citation source OPENJUR (e.g. 1 BvR 435/68 [18]) for 2 BvR 1775/16 and 1 BvR 1304/13 or a hyperlink to www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de"
3. 11:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 969096543 by David notMD (talk) Illegal revision and nonsense."
4. 18:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968954749 by Pajz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Disruptive editing (RedWarn 15)"
2. 12:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (RedWarn 15)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:40, 22 July 2020‎ (UTC)
2. 10:55, 23 July 2020‎

Comments:

Despite users discussing on their talk page and the user being warned, they still broke 3RR. They also launched personal attacks in edit summaries by calling "The editor who bans me" an "English racist". — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Similar edit warring and accusations ("Racism") in Edit summaries at Sabine Hossenfelder David notMD (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not acceptable, but Doubledareyou is a new user. I have therefore left a detailed final warning on User talk:Doubledareyou. Ay further edit-warring on the part of Doubledareyou should lead to an immediate block without further warnings. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User Verum-Nunc is vandalizing several pages on the Turkish Wikipedia page. He has a strongly POV and is editing with probably a nationalistic POV

{{subst:Verum-Nunc}}

Nahroyo (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:103.248.87.164 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Sony Pictures Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "*LEAVE THIS F**KING PAGE ALONE, YOU JERK!*"
2. 02:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 969214700 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
3. 02:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "*LEAVE THIS F**KING PAGE ALONE, YOU JERK!*"
4. 02:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "*LEAVE THIS F**KING PAGE ALONE, YOU JERK!*"
5. 02:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "*THIS PAGE IS STAYING THIS WAY AND THAT'S FINAL, YOU JERKS!*"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Sony Pictures Television. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Nate Speed is at it again. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Nate Speed IPsock blocked. Sro23 (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:GPinkerton reported by User:Vice regent (Result: content dispute, no action )

Page: Hagia Sophia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GPinkerton (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. 01:49, July 24, 2020 partially reverted this edit. For example, in the revert GPinkterton inexplicably removes "its holy books destroyed", which is sourced to a scholarly source and which I had added just a few hours earlier.
2. 03:14, July 24, 2020 reverted this edit.
3. 03:17, July 24, 2020 reverted this edit. Note the edit summary is false, there was no "deletion of reliable sources".
4. 03:38, July 24, 2020 reverted this edit.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:21, July 24, 2020 (before the 4th revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion here and other places.

Comments: Made 4 reverts in just under 2 hours. Had been blocked for edit-warring less than 1 month ago by Number 57 but was unblocked by 331dot on the condition that "as it doesn't sound like you will edit war again". Also made a personal attack, calling me "someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about". GPinkerton also asks someone during discussion "Can you read?".VR _talk 04:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This report is utterly fictitious. The comment immediately above is slander.

• 1.) The "holy books destroyed" claim is in the source which is itself quoting a decades-old POV account but is not in the centuries old account on which the other claims made is based, so is an interpolation. I replaced this source with reference to the actual text of the Annals of Niketas Choniates, on which the claim is actually based.
• 2.) User:Vice regent decides unilaterally to remove all mention of Niketas Choniates, claiming his claims are "fact" because they are repeated in a non-specialist work about the history of Orthodoxy.
• 3.) User:Vice regent decides unilaterally to remove a perfectly good link for no reason despite extensive discussion on the talk page proving there is no consensus to do so.
• 4.) User:FullMetal234 decides unilaterally to remove all mention of the famous incident of rape by the sultan Mehmed of a Byzantine virgin, despite numerous citations to scholarly work.
• 5.) No edit-warring has occurred, since none of the material was unjustly reverted and neither was it the same material the each time, and this is a clear POV attempt to whitewash the Islamic conquest of Constantinople and/or create a false equivalency between Erdogan's actions and those of the Fourth Crusade, apparently to make Erdogan look better. (Though this is a funny way of doing it ...)
• 6.) User:Vice regent only days ago repeatedly attempted to insert the ludicrous claim that Mehmed had "purchased" Hagia Sophia from the Christians, a wholly fictitious claim they fought hard to include and which demonstrates a certain slant to this user's edits. GPinkerton (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It should also be noted User:Vice regent has previously been blocked indefinitely for sock-puppetry. GPinkerton (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Yes, but he/she was not engaged in sock-puppetry; please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Block review/unblock proposal.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

In short, what is wrong here is that I simply undid the vandalism of these edits, rather than reporting them earlier. GPinkerton (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The edits GPinkerton reverted are a content dispute, they are not vandalism. GPinkerton's edit-warring was also called out by Toddy1 and GPinkerton's personal attacks were called out by Elizium23.VR _talk 04:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent's edits are reverts in all but name, stemming from a content dispute generated by User:Vice regent, who has refused to engage in attempts to resolve the dispute on the talk page. GPinkerton (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"4.) User:FullMetal234 decides unilaterally to remove all mention of the famous incident of rape by the sultan Mehmed of a Byzantine virgin, despite numerous citations to scholarly work."

This allegation is false. There was only one reference to a scholarly work and that same work said the story as false, more information can be found on the talk page. Also on the talk page GPinkerton made several comments that revealed debating in bad faith such as accusations against me for only editing the page because it "contradicted my worldview"FullMetal234 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not false. It obviously does contradict your worldview because the source cited does not say what you claim. Anyone that reads it can see that the way the cited source handles the story is no different from the way the Wikipedia article treats it. GPinkerton (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether the allegation should be included in the article is a content issue. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring does not deal with content issues.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: That's right! This is a content issue. GPinkerton (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, User:GPinkerton is here again?! When is somebody going to understand that this editor is not capable of peacefully editing in a community? Just check how many times he has been reported here (and elsewhere) in the last year... Debresser (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: That's rich coming from you, a notorious repeat offender! GPinkerton (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, Debresser is a notorious and committed edit warrior whose vandalism at Vashti resulted in his being blocked, again, as a result of my reporting him here. Obviously he retains bad feelings about having been caught out again. GPinkerton (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Please don't do this. It's not helpful and is just plain disruptive (and it's not helping your case, either). I've removed it. — Czello 09:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I was referring to the allegation GPinkerton made against me not Sultan Mehmed, He twisted the story to make me seem like I just decided to remove a cited point in the article because it "contradicted my worldview" (notice how he continues to double down on this bad faith argument) when in fact my reasons are justifiable and laid out clearly in the talk page for everyone to see what really happened.FullMetal234 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course I am not happy with you. You are a problematic editor, and were blocked together with me. I still hold that the real problem was you, and you provoked me. Editors here should finally see truth about you. Just see:

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#March_2020

In this baseless warning, an editor who opposed the inclusion of details concerning the Holocaust in Bulgaria was upset at the negative portrayal of Nazi-allied Bulgaria in an article that was then entitled "Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews" wand which I mostly wrote, vastly improving coverage of the subject. No edit warring happened and no report filed; I was not in the wrong. No action was taken. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#April_2020

In this baseless warning Debresser himself is upset about scholarly additions to the Esther article which disabused the reader of notions Debresser clearly prefers concerning the historicity of this fictitious Biblical personage. Debresser then edit warred to remove the content, since restored by other editors. No action was taken. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020

In this baseless warning, Elizium23 is upset about the movement of irrelevant material at Basilica to the new page Basilicas in the Catholic Church, Elizium clearly believed was more important than the actual subject matter of the main article. Ultimately, consensus was against Elizium and the changes I made remain to this day, unopposed. No action was taken. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_2

In this warning, Johnbod is upset that I used part of his real name, easily discoverable on his talk page but apparently not for public consumption despite considerable publicity of the editor. No action was taken. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_3

In this baseless warning, Elizium23 is upset again about the adjustments I made to Catholicity which presented a less pro-Roman Catholicism POV than Elizium would apparently prefer. Ultimately the wording remained as I proposed. No action was taken.

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#June_2020

In this baseless warning Debresser himself is upset about scholarly additions to the Esther article which disabused the reader of notions Debresser clearly prefers concerning the historicity of this fictitious Biblical personage. Debresser then edit warred to remove the content, since restored by other editors. Debresser then resorts to his favourite method of defamation and personal attacks, also in evidence on this very page, with his abusive: "You are a very aggressive and unpleasant editor". As will now be apparent, Debresser has decided to embark on a vendetta against me and his comments here are part of that abuse, for which Debresser is also well-known in other contexts. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#July_2020 Debresser (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

In this baseless warning Debresser himself is upset about scholarly additions to the Vashti article, reports me for edit warring; is blocked (again).

@Debresser: I hold the real problem is you, as evidenced by your numerous blocks before you ever took it upon yourself to interact with me. Indeed, long before I joined the site, so your bad-faith attempts to blame me for your repeated violations looks like more evidence for your vendetta against me/reality. As for what you claim is the truth, why don't you look a little closer at the baseless slander you're repeating. I've clarified above. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see this report as requiring action at this time; continue the productive discussions on the talk page. @Vice regent: saying "I will not engage with you" to an editor who's trying to discuss a content matter with you doesn't help your case; see Wikipedia:Communication is required and seek dispute resolution if necessary. @GPinkerton: you are required to discuss these matters without resorting to personal attacks. If you don't think you can manage that, take a break, otherwise one will be enforced upon you. You may wish to read WP:NOTTHEM. @Debresser: your personal opinions about other users are not required and not wanted here; if you want to make a case for broader sanctions, go to WP:ANI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector FWIW, the "I will not engage with you" was meant in the context of edit-warring, as in, I will not retaliate against the reversions. Also, its unfortunate that this report became about the content dispute. Clearly 3RR was violated by someone whose violated it before and was only unblocked by 331dot on the condition that "as it doesn't sound like you will edit war again". This report was about the user behavior that stems from the content dispute.VR _talk 17:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: understood. If I were to only take GPinkerton's behaviour into account here I would likely block, though it's really borderline in my opinion. But the fact that there is an active discussion which is becoming heated on all sides, as well as Debresser showing up here for no apparent reason other than to cause trouble, means it's not really fair to only sanction one editor. I'm hoping that everyone involved is mature enough to return constructively to the content issue, which I'm watching, and then I won't have to come back and start hammering the block button. It would be better for the encyclopedia that way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Vice regent reported by User:GPinkerton (Result: clearly retaliatory report, no action)

Page

Hagia Sophia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vice regent (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 03:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC) to 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 03:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Museum (1935–2020) */"
   2. 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Museum (1935–2020) */"
2. 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Mosque (1453–1935) */"
3. 03:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Church of Justinian I (current structure) */ plenty of reliable sources state this as fact and attribution is therefore not necessary"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC) to 22:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Church of Justinian I (current structure) */ events of 1204"
   2. 22:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "site"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hagia Sophia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
2. 17:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
3. 18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
4. 21:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
5. 00:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
6. 02:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
7. 02:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Conversion sentence deleted? */ reply"
8. 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Attribution not necessary */ reply"
9. 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Attribution not necessary */ reply"
10. 03:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Conversion sentence deleted? */ reply"
11. 03:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Attribution not necessary */ reply"
12. 03:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Attribution not necessary */ typo"
13. 03:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Alleged Rape at the Altar */ reply"
14. 04:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Alleged Rape at the Altar */ reply"

Comments:

Numerous instances of reversions of reliably sourced material and replacement with poorly sourced material with a POV direction. GPinkerton (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

None of the edits you mentioned above are reverts, except this one, which is a partial revert. I voluntarily abide by the 1RR rule.VR _talk 04:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: That's nice of you to claim, but just manually undoing edits instead of using the undo button is still edit warring. GPinkerton (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkteron: its not a manual undo either. For example, is the first case you cite: Consecutive edits made from 03:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC) to 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC). All I do there is create a link to President of Turkey and Greek Americans. How on earth is that a revert?VR _talk 04:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: How on earth is it beneficial to ignore all attempts at consensus on the talk page and try desperately to remove scholarly material from the article, as you have done? GPinkerton (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm closing this obviously retaliatory report (see report directly above) with no action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Doubledareyou reported by User:Pajz (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Federal Constitutional Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doubledareyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
The user was the subject of another thread only yesterday (#User:Doubledareyou reported by User:Berrely (Result: Doubledareyou warned)), which culminated in a warning by user:DESiegel: "Ay [sic] further edit-warring on the part of Doubledareyou should lead to an immediate block without further warnings." Needless to say, they reinstated their version once again this morning (special:diff/969227193), without showing any interest in a discussion. The day before, in their final warning, DESiegel specifically instructed them: "When you have a disagreement over what should or should not go into an article, please discuss it .. Please discuss with other users rather than repeatedly reverting." (special:diff/969133626) The only difference between the latest edit and the ones that got them warned is the absence of a few links, but, as clearly pointed out by DESiegel and several others, the old revision was (also) not acceptable due to a lack of sourcing. Prior discussion would have been needed; instead, Doubledareyou decided to continue the "edit-warring" that by then he knew did not comply with Wikipedia rules.

Additionally, in keeping with the spirit of their previous Wikipedia contributions, the latest edit summary was again abused to insult another editor. Yesterday and the day before, the user already stated that "Nazizeit [= Nazi period, -Pajz] .. has begun" following the revert by another Wikipedia cotributor (special:diff/969101775); finished off their criticism of my revert with the hashtag "#Nazizeit" (special:diff/968994806); repeatedly claimed other editors "spit on the philosophy of Wikipedia" (special:diff/969100274, special:diff/969109667); expressed their desire for a ban by "an english racist" (special:diff/969107547); and referred to the revert by another editor as "Racism" (special:diff/969102528). This is a remarkable track record for a user with less than 20 Wikipedia contributions in total.

There is, quite obviously, no intent on the user's part to abide by Wikipedia's policies or basic etiquette, and I would respectfully suggest you take appropriate action. It is abundantly clear from the contributions that the issue here is not rooted in inexperience.

— Pajz (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

As per my previous warning, I have blocked Federal Constitutional Court. for a period of 31 hours, the standard first block for edit-warring. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:219.74.51.200 reported by User:Sgnpkd (Result: 6 months, sitewide)

Page: Red Turban Rebellions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 219.74.51.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits with no explanation provided, please open a discussion on the talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
I've tried to discuss the changes with user Baturu1 but then facing multiple reverts from him and another non-autoconfirmed user without any explaination or discussions provided. Sgnpkd (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. Not a 3RR violation, but this is still disruptive editing requiring sanctions. El_C 15:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)