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:Konli17 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )

Page: Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert 17:59 12 nov:[1] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map [2] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november: [3]
2. Second revert 20:33 12 nov [4] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article: [5]

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

Comments:

This article is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War topic, allowing one revert per 24 hours.

• This user has a very long edit-warring record. In addition, the user resorts to personal attacks when their argument fails such as here, here, here, here, here and here, and here.
• This user removes mass amounts of sourced, relevant content because it simply goes against their POV (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Examples are:
• Here, which is part of the complaint above
• Other pages: Here, here,
• Konli is edit-warring here, 4 reverts in less than 48 hours.
• This user uses fake edit-summaries to sneak in their significant changes to the meanings by simple tweaking such as this one and removal of sensitive words that fake/change/reverse the meaning (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc.
• This user has tried to block every effort at reaching consensus on the page in question. Look at this message here to another (more reasonable, neutral) user on their side.
• This user was blocked back in June for edit-warring. It is about time for this user to see a topic ban or a definitive block given their constant disruptive behavior and sabotage of many articles. Thanks Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That page was quiet for months until Konli17 returned from his long break and decided to push their POV. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Here's a recent example on the Hulusi Akar page of how he fakes content from sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Even a pro-Kurdish editor doesn't agree with his edits: 13 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

One more example where Konli faked the content of al-Jazeera story that they used. Konli claimed: "in order to prevent the SDF linking Afrin Canton with the rest of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". However, neither the page name (Shahba Canton) nor the other names (Afrin, Autonomous Administration) claimed were mentioned in that story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There are other users who have witnessed the edit-warring behavior of this user. Is it appropriate to ping them or that would be considered canvassing? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Could you please look into this case here? The page you protected has seen major vandalism by this user since it was partially-protected. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A decision for this case is over due and the user in question is taking advantage of this by continuing their edit-warring. See what they call "clean-up! They have deleted half an article that is well-sourced (neutral, Western sources) and very relevant to the area in question. All this happened while an RfC is open and against advice on the Talk page by user @Sixula:. If all the edit-warring is not enough for an indef banning then the many personal attacks identified above should be the straw to do it. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the conflict between Konli and the other three could really use an admin looking into it. The complaining editors SD, Amr Ibn and ThePharoah17 have all shown a very surprising tolerance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which appears not to be on the radar of the Admins. SD and Amr Ibn, both wanted to move Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria in the midst of an Siege of Kobane by ISIL in 2015. The pinged admin EdJohnston closed the discussion at the time. ThePharoah17 has shown similar views after I have made that public just a few days ago arguing that the YPG is just a terrorist organization as ISIL. The YPG is only designated a terrorist organization by Turkey, and supported by a global coalition of 83 countries including the USA and most of the countries of the European Countries, which is formed specifically to fight ISIS. ISIL is probably the most designated terrorist organization in the world. That they now want to oust Konli17, who really improved many articles is not very Wikipedia. Amr Ibn and SD are also involved in a long edit war about the existence of Syrian Kurdistan, in which they deny its existence and dismiss any academic sources which mention a Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute is currently raging at the ANI and also at an RfC at the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, you are accusing me of being "tolerant" to ISIS is extremely offensive. You can not show one single comment I have made that comes even close to what you are claiming. No one on the planet hates them more then me. You should be banned from wikipedia for your words. Also, what academic sources have I dismissed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:FleurDeOdile reported by User:MarioProtIV (Result: Blocked)

Page: Hurricane Eta (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:

1. 17:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988518828 by MarioProtIV (talk) its not oversaturated"
2. 17:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "cant see any land on that image"
3. 13:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Constantly reverts user’s edits to Eta’s image from a high quality image to a lower quality and oversaturated image. Does not listen to opinions and blames other people (as far as calling me “biased against” him on the discord. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional note: The same images are also the subject of edit warring at Saffir–Simpson scale, 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, and at List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging ChessEric who tried to stop the dispute. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:FleurDeOdile was previously blocked 72 hours in May for ownership behavior and edit warring. They have been reported here three times altogether. It is high time for them to respond and explain how they will handle these things in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

mario is the one who started it. the image stood there for a while until he started changing it FleurDeOdile 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

FleurDeOdile, should that give us confidence that you won't continue to edit war in the future to put your preferred photograph into articles? I suggest a one-week block of your account due to the long-term pattern of warring. There is no reason to believe you will stop this ownership behavior. Your talk page is full of other people complaining about this, going back to Fall 2019. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 5 days. Long term warring for more than a year. (Check out the complaint at User talk:FleurDeOdile#Lili image from May 2019 and other posts below it). Fleur has also been warned for insulting other users in their edit summaries. FleurDeOdile's reply above gives no reason to believe that anything will be different in the future. A previous 72-hour block in May, given for similar reasons, seems to have left their behavior unchanged. The present block could be lifted if the user will propose how they might do things differently from now on. Fleur's reply above seems unresponsive. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:SquidHomme reported by User:Admanny (Result: No action)

Page: 2020 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SquidHomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]

Comments: Page is under 1RR discretionary sanction [11] and consensus required. User has given bogus reasons for reverts such as "CNN/Fox is fake news" In addition, user has previously broke 1RR but this went unreported:

1. [12]
2. [13]

I am merely enforcing consensus within the article to wait till all sources call a state before listing it on the page, per WP:CRP. Admanny (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR and WP:FATRAT, I see nothing wrong here. This Admanny guy just cannot bear the loss of his dear candidate.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 00:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting enough when you broke 1RR twice, one when you added votes to Trump and one when you added votes to Biden. I'm clearly not siding with anyone, lest to say you called CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as well. We follow a strict consensus where a handful of sources must call a state for it to appear in the infobox, and you are clearly not adhering to that. Also, would you really want to use IAR and FATRAT on a discretionary-sanctioned article? Admanny (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I am improving the article by updating with what information I got my hands on, And when someone like you come to be an obstacle for the improvement of the article, I believe I must resort to WP:IAR as I am improving it, not vandalize it. Secondly, I wasn't aware of the consensus at the time nor the unusual 1RR instead of 3RR. Also, what's the problem with me calling CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as you appear to care more for these words when it's my personal opinion and shouldn't be of your concern as I'm not adding any of those phrase into the article. I say you should respect another's personal view.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 01:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I get that, but your improvements are going against the community consensus. Secondly, there's a big header on the editing page warning you of 1RR, I doubt you missed that. Lastly, your edit summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO and could be interpreted as biased. Admanny (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I get that, but your improvements are going against the community consensus. Have I told you that I wasn't aware of them at the time of the writing because it wasn't in place the last time I edited it? there's a big header on the editing page warning you of 1RR, I doubt you missed that. I also doubt you missed that when you reverted my edits and another user's edits more than once. your edit summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO and could be interpreted as biased. It might be biased for you (I can see from all the hatred you've directed toward me), but not for others.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 01:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Have I told you that I wasn't aware of them at the time of the writing because it wasn't in place the last time I edited it? The banner has been there even before election night. If you had a problem with the edit, you would have participated in the [14] ongoing discussion instead of lashing out. Admanny (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The banner has been there even before election night. If you had a problem with the edit, you would have participated in the [15] ongoing discussion instead of lashing out. I believe you're bright enough to notice that my edits precedes this discussion, right?—SquidHomme ^(talk) 01:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually the discussion started 4 and a half hours before your edits, and yes, thank you, I am bright enough. Admanny (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And what? Is there any consensus I should follow? My edits precedes this discussion as there are no binding consensus produced as of yet regarding the inclusion of Georgia. Also, what's the point of a new discussion if there's a consensus in regard to how many "major networks" calling needed for a state to be included. And yeah, of course you're bright enough, boy. I agree :) —SquidHomme ^(talk) 02:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of Georgia, or any state for that matter, is based on a consensus of major networks and news sites that are pre-determined before election night. That's the consensus. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Admanny (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what's your point by suggesting me joining the discussion when there's already a consensus regarding it. Is there a change in the consensus? Is the recent discussions about Georgia changes the consensus? Talk about your wit here.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 02:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I mentioned it pretty clearly already. Your edits are 1. Outside consensus, 2. Breaks 1RR and 3. are edit-warring, since you don't bother the talk page discussion. A handful of shenanigans if you ask me. Admanny (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are 1. Outside consensus How many times should I say this for you to understand: I am not aware of the consensus AND 1RR an the time the edits went live. In regards of 1RR, don't forget that your edits broke 1RR too. you don't bother the talk page discussion Tell me, what's the use for me to join the talk page discussion if there's already a consensus? Also, do you have any proof of me edit warring? As far as I know, I reverted your edits, not actively editing it. I'm sure you're bright enough to tell the difference.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 02:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of the consensus AND 1RR an the time the edits went live. Good, that admits you missed the big banner on top of the editing page. Block worthy for that. don't forget that your edits broke 1RR too. Allowed per WP:CRP, just making sure consensus is followed. Also, do you have any proof of me edit warring? Sure, you repeatedly reverted without even having a word over at the talk page. I discussed, you didn't. WP:BRD cycle. Admanny (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You seem too focused to get me blocked rather than improving the article. It figures. And it also appears that you have ignored WP:IAR and WP:FATRAT completely that in order to improve the article, some rules cannot be followed due to it being a drawback that keeps the article from being updated as soon as possible. I'm not stating that I don't respect the consensus on this page, but it prevents the article on getting new, updated numbers. Not because of questionable sources, in fact the sources are legit and verified. And the consensus itself didn't specify and list which major media outlets qualified to be the caller. My question is this: Is Newsmax, or OANN qualify as a 'major media outlet?'Block worthy for that. Ah yes, you ARE the judge, jury and executioner. Why bother bring me into this discussion, judge? Sure, you repeatedly reverted without even having a word over at the talk page. I discussed, you didn't. What word should I say, when the discussion is CLOSED because of the CONSENSUS has been reached? If there's an open discussion that will change the consensus once again, of course I'll take part in. So stop making false assumptions about me.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 04:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to participate at [16], so it's quite obvious discussion is not closed. You decided it's closed by not participating and rather reverting. Strange... Admanny (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

How come there's a CONSENSUS when the discussion is *obviously* NOT EVEN CLOSED??? Can you elaborate?—SquidHomme ^(talk) 04:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Prior consensus is decided. Discussion is underway to change that consensus. Please don't be dumb. Admanny (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be dumb. Oh no, I don't need to be you. I was talking about the consensus before this one, not this one. Not even a straw poll or voting exists in this one, just comments over comments.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 04:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Then pitch in to that one? That discussion is way old now, I'm doing you a favor by redirecting you to the current one. The fact you're blatantly refusing to even participate is astounding. Admanny (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

blatantly refusing to even participate? Which part of this discussion shows that I "blatantly refusing?" As I said, stop making false assumptions about me.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Any experienced editor knows the WP:BRD cycle pretty well. You're not discussing even after I invited you multiple times to, so I'd like to repeat myself, blatantly refusing to participate. Admanny (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I find it funny, with your obsession to the word blatantly refusing to participate without even be able to point which of my word says that I'm blatantly refusing to participate in that discussion. Think about your wit here.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I find it funny, that it took you so long to finally participate. What made you crack, if I can ask? Admanny (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I participated LONG before your false accusation of me beingblatantly refusing to participate. Making me question your knowledge of WP:CIV.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Considering I see very little evidence of you participating in any discussion after going through the talk page's archives, I consider that highly unlikely. [17] Admanny (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh thanks, but I don't need fans to stalk me right now.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Prcc27 can add additional details regarding the current consensus if required. Additionally, user has pointlessly counter-filed a report against me, when clearly both filer and reported user would be investigated with this report anyway. Admanny (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion, so I'm not really sure if my comment here will mean much per WP:CANVASS.. Although, FWIW, I saw this discussion in my watchlist before I even noticed it was in my notifications. If anyone's curious about the consensus, please see the talk (especially the RFC at the top of the page). Prcc27 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The 1RR on the talk page applies if the user was formally alerted before, which they weren't. I've left the notice on SquidHomme's talk page now.—Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User has also made attacks towards other editors even on RfC discussion here and on talk page here against several editors. Admanny (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why this user Admanny links a completely irrelevant and unrelated discussion into a discussion about 1RR rule. As for the "attacks," that is an RfC. A place where a user can vote and express the reasoning and personal opinion about things in matter. For that I don't think this user @Admanny: understood.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 22:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out that this user Admanny's remarks: Please don't be dumb. here in this section, is also a form of personal attack against me.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since neither User:SquidHomme nor User:Admanny were officially notified of the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions on their talk page until after all the reverts that are listed in this report. The notification requirements for the discretionary sanctions can be seen at WP:AC/DS#Awareness. Meanwhile, I hope that everyone will avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Admanny reported by User:SquidHomme(Result: No action)

Page: 2020 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Admanny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24]
7. [25]
8. [26]
9. [27]
10. [28]
11. [29]
12. [30]

Total: 12 reverts in 13 November!

Comments: In doing what he called "enforcing consensus within the article," this user has also breaking the rule itself by reverting it more than 2 times. Discretionary sanction applied to all editors who edit 2020 United States presidential election stated that an editor must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. This user User:Admanny clearly violates the rules knowingly by reverting the article three times within 24 hours period, using the phrase "enforcing consensus within the article," as an excuse to justify the reverts.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 03:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I point out something here? WP:BRD's example states clearly that if someone makes a change and gets reverted, they should take it to the talk page. In every scenario, with a consensus that needs to be followed, I'm the "Editor 1". There's absolutely no reason why you need to accuse me of making up an excuse. It's pretty clear you're just trying to rat me out now. Admanny (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. That's all I can say.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 05:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Also, I don't know what made this user exempt to the rules but this user has tendencies to "own" the article, which violates WP:OWN as evident in some (if not all) of this user's edits in the 2020 United States presidential election article. Which made me think that this user's argumentation regarding WP:BRD is just to justify their "ownership" of the article.—SquidHomme ^(talk) 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Article has the following restrictions: 1RR and Consensus required. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Extraneous report of above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The 1RR on the talk page applies if the user was formally alerted before, which they weren't. I've left the notice on Admanny's talk page now.—Bagumba (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: It's true that this user Admanny wasn't formally alerted before, but they knowingly breaking the rule as evident here: [31] saying: "1RR is pretty much rarely enforced as I seen a lot of editors break that on that page." Suggesting that because of a lot of editors break that on that page, and so they may be given permission, or allowed to do the same and gone unpunished because it "is pretty much rarely enforced." Isn't this a premeditated misconduct?—SquidHomme ^(talk) 08:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since neither User:SquidHomme nor User:Admanny were officially notified of the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions on their talk page until after all the reverts that are listed in this report. The notification requirements for the discretionary sanctions can be seen at WP:AC/DS#Awareness. Meanwhile, I hope that everyone will avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Lelekas reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2020 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988516132 by Tvx1 (talk)"
2. 17:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "The guy who inserted the graphic had a reason. You have not a reson to delete this. All you show is that you do not know what WRC is."
3. 01:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 21:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC) "We used the same graphic in the 2019 season. I cannot understand your problem about this."
5. 23:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC) "It is a useful graphic, why we have to delete it?"

Two more reverts, with similar reasoning, by possibly the same editor editing while logged out:

1. 15:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "Not sensible deletion of the graphic showing the points progression. Check the 2019 season, there is also such a graphic there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_World_Rally_Championship"
2. 13:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2020 World Rally Championship."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Points progression */ reply"

Comments: This user has been edit-warring against the removal of a graph from this article for over two weeks. Talk page discussion shows a preference to remove the graph. The user has refused to participate in the discussion, despite having been repeatedly requested to do so. They only revert on sight and are utterly unwilling to allow removal on the false pretense that content cannot be removed merely "because someone included it".Tvx1 14:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I left a note for Lelekas here. They have been restoring the same graph over-and-over for more than two weeks. They have never posted on an article talk page so the outlook for cooperation appears dim. There is an actual discussion whether to include the graph at Talk:2020 World Rally Championship#Points progression. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the user has responded by simply blanking their talk page. Still no comment in the discussion on the talk page. What's the best way to proceed here?Tvx1 13:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours. Long term warring to force inclusion of a graph that is opposed by many. User won't participate in the discussion about it on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Mariah200 reported by User:Blablubbs (Result: No action)

Page: Pritika Swarup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mariah200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Please, this has been settled. It's never a copyvio. You can initiate AFD if you desire"
2. 17:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988678034 by Blablubbs (talk) Already settled before now. Not a copyvio of this https://www.imgmodels.com/pritikaswarup"
3. 15:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "tag clearly states "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. You can take it too AFD if you want"
4. 15:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "declining the speedy having addressed the issues"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation; see also uw-ew (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated speedy tag blanking. FWIW, the page is still a copyright violation. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this notice. I am sorry for my actions. Trying to understand what's going on. It seems I got it all wrong. I was only trying to fix the issues. I also believe that "Speedy del" tag can be removed by any editor after dealing with the issues raised. I am so sorry. It wasn't intentional. I only tried to work on the page since the topic meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Pls forgive me. Mariah200 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing the intentionality part; you were explicitly warned to stop edit warring in an edit summary, on your talk page – a message you responded to (and hence acknowledged) immediately before you blanked the tag again. And with all your reverts, the page still contained close paraphrasing and direct copying from the source page, something which you failed to acknowledge. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, I am so sorry oncemore. I didn't intend to engage in edit-warring. I thought I only removed the CSD tag having settled the copyvio issue on the page. Pls accept my apologies. I have learnt my lessons from this. Mariah200 (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since User:Mariah200 seems to be willing to follow our policies from now on. See User talk:Blablubbs#Pritika Swarup regarding copyright. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis reported by User:Atelerixia (Result: No action)

Page: Dependent territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chipmunkdavis (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Atelerixia (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)]

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

Comments:All of my edits were well-thought-out and constructive. There was no reason for them to be constantly reverted.

• Result: No action. The three reverts you list are over an eight-day period. They don't break 3RR. Anyway, an earlier report about Dependent territory was closed previously with a warning to you. There is still a live dispute about the definition of a dependent territory that needs to be resolved on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Addicted4517 reported by User:103.101.171.186 (Result: Malformed report, Stale)

Page: Pro Wrestling Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Addicted4517 (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]

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

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

Comments:
Malformed EW case. The last edit from this IP was in September on the article Slave bible. Accused appears to be Addicted4517, though with no page being referred to it's not clear as to exactly which article they have allegedly edit warred on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to fix up this report, guessing what the complaint was about. Besides being malformed, the report is stale. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Malformed report. Anyway, nobody has edited the article since 4 November so the report is stale for 3RR purposes. Consider using the article talk page to make your argument. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Yzd.exe reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)

Page: Arab states of the Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yzd.exe (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. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]
6. [41]

Comments:
User violating WP:NPOV, WP:EW and WP:COMMONNAME by constantly attempting to force the term 'Arabian Gulf' onto the article, even though the term is not used in English and the majority of the world, and that's ignoring the fact that the article is even named Arab states of the Persian Gulf. No lack of WP:NPA either [42]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Edgekirov reported by User:Rwendland

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

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's recent reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]

User:Rwendland WP:DISENGAGE'd 30 September 2020‎ to 11 November 2020‎ while Dan Norris sought selection to stand in an election. User's earlier reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]
7. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Diff of request on User talk:Edgekirov to user to engage in discussion on article Talk page: [58]

Comments: User:Edgekirov is a single-purpose account new editor who seems to believe a politician's Wikipedia article should not be changed while that politician is seeking selection / election. They have reverted all non-trivial changes, of which a 3rd party editor User:Jumpytoo stated "Content seems well cited and balanced" in this reinstate, since 2 September 2020‎, and has not engaged in any discussion on the article's Talk page despite invitations to do so in edit summaries and their Talk page. Rwendland (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Note: This is the first time I have had to engage in any formal dispute resolution, so please forgive me if I have chosen the wrong venue. As the user has not engaged in discussion guidance suggests neither WP:Third opinion nor WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard is appropriate. As Edgekirov has more than 4 edits (all reverts) so is autoconfirmed, semi-protection would not be useful. So I have ended up here. Rwendland (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC))

User:2A02:C7F:14EE:F00:1D5B:7B97:E427:BFBA reported by User:Number 57 (Result: )

Page: Chalfont St Peter A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:C7F:14EE:F00:1D5B:7B97:E427:BFBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:02, 16 November 2020
2. 19:09, 16 November 2020
3. 19:24, 16 November 2020
4. 19:30, 16 November 2020

Editor was asked to self-revert their last edit, but responded by telling my 'Your level of arrogance knows no bounds'. Number 57 19:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

They've now made a fifth revert. Number 57 20:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've engaged with this user on their talk page. I don't think they understand how Wikipedia works. I'm hoping the discussion leads somewhere productive. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @C.Fred: The IP is now making legal threats.[59] Number 57 10:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:2A02:C7F:14EE:F00:1D5B:7B97:E427:BFBA (Result: No violation)

Page: Chalfont St Peter A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C.&oldid=989047644
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C.&oldid=989046966
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C.&oldid=989027383

The Editor was asked to revert his changes or provide assistance to why the data cant be used. Instead made vague refrences

Comments:

• I have nested this counter-report under the initial report. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:93.138.76.165 reported by User:4thfile4thrank (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Hrvatska radiotelevizija (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.138.76.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989084283 by 4thfile4thrank (talk)"
2. 23:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989082748 by 4thfile4thrank (talk)"
3. 23:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Stop insulting, great Serbian propagandist"
4. 23:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "gossip is not relevant to this page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
2. 23:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking."
3. 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Why are you removing content for no reason? */ new section"
4. 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 23:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the IP's talk page. I leave a message, and then he replies. After that, he blanks the article again without replying, and is speedily reverted. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Comments: You forgot to write an insult from a great serbian propagandist who constantly writes against the Croats [[60]], i will erase those lies until you block me93.138.76.165 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved user comment: this user is asking to be blocked. Literally. Then you better block me: quote from their talk page. Also: this user has reverted four times on a single page in the past half an hour. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: they’re now reverting my rollbacks to their edits, so chalk up another two reverts. [61][62] D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Konli17 reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: )

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:
This is an article that is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War theme (1RR). The user reported here has a long history of edit-warring, and there is another case open against them in the noticeboard. This user has an extremist nationalistic POV agenda they are trying to push in many articles, as witnessed in the other complaint. Look at their revert history and edit warring behavior that warranted many warnings and complaints by several users on their Talk page and related articles Talk pages. This user is not here to contribute positively,, but to push their POV through wherever they can. Thank you for your attention. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:2603:6080:6703:48A2:5418:71CB:D291:86CE reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: )

Page: Pinkalicious & Peterrific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:6080:6703:48A2:5418:71CB:D291:86CE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "British Broadcasting Corporation"
2. 05:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "cchannelcb"
3. 05:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "cChannelcb"
4. 05:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "Bbc"
5. 05:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "uWorldwideuk"
6. 05:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "uk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pinkalicious & Peterrific."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user thinks this show is made for BBC instead of PBS without a solid reason and refuses to discuss about it. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:E-960 reported by User:François Robere (Result: )

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

User being reported: E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Law */ Revert, restored last stable version of the text."
2. 10:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Revert, pls do not edit war, and pls refrain from being disruptive — for new content, pls see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC) to 10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Law */ Revert, restored the text to the last stable version — no consensus for the changes on the talk page."
   2. 10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Sports */ trim"
4. 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988839744 by HQGG (talk) Revert, edit warring 3R rule, disruptive editing — you will be reported if you continue to edit war."
5. 14:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988824497 by HQGG (talk) Revert, do not edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* 5RR, T-ban vio */ new section"
2. 22:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Stop edit warring over church nonsense */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Abortion */"
2. 15:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Abortion */"
3. 16:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Abortion */"

Comments:

Discussion on abortion rights in Poland, after an attempted constitutional change by the Polish government. User has been previously c-banned from "Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed."[68] Repeated PAs and refusal to self-revert. François Robere (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: The "sports" diff was an oversight. I filed using Twinkle, and it automatically lists all edits from the last 25 or so hours. Regarding your diffs - only two of them are mine and they're spaced 20 hours apart (with discussion in between), so why you keep attacking me as "disruptive" is unclear. Note the second of the two collapses edits by four other editors, which could give a false impression about my edits. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment by E-960

This is a down right manipulation of reality. I think user François Robere thinks that if he files an admin complaint report first it will divert the attention from the fact that it's him and user HQGG who repeatably violated the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and despite an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, have re-inserted the disputed text, here: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] and [75]. Also, I would like to point out that other users have reverted those edits not just me, including Oliszydlowski and Snowded, also during the ongoing talk page discussion GizzyCatBella and NeonFor criticized François Robere and HQGG for their Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, yet François Robere did not refrain form his disruptive editing, and now cries wolf, when I reverted the text back to the original long-standing version. --E-960 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, why is user François Robere, listing a completely unrelated edit (10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Sports */ trim") about Formula 1 and Robert Kubica, as proof of a content dispute against me in the Law section of the Poland article? Another point regarding the ban, it's scope relates to religion and secularism (separation of religion from civic affairs and the state, anti-clericalism, atheism, religious symbols, etc.), not law or general politics. This is just silly. This complaint should be dropped, as it's only purpose was to entrap someone and divert attention from François Robere own disruptive behavior. --E-960 (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)