Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78Game (talk | contribs) at 02:34, 21 May 2021 (→User: reported by User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} (Result: ): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:Neel.arunabh reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Self-revert)

    Page: Wikipedia:Protection policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Neel.arunabh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023305336 by Praxidicae (talk) See talk page."
    2. 17:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023304545 by Praxidicae (talk) File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are both salted pages. Taking it to the talk page. ]"
    3. 17:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023304389 by Praxidicae (talk)"
    4. 17:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Creation protection (salting) */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Protection policy."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 17:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) "/* File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav */"

    Comments:

    Please also note the countless edit warring warnings and discussions on their talk page. YODADICAE👽 17:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Neel.arunabh made at least three reverts with his edits on 15 May, but self-reverted at WP:Protection policy per a request on his talk page. That might be enough to allow this report to be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Contemporary Nomad reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: No action)

    Page: Arab states of the Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: A Contemporary Nomad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1] (same as diff 1 below)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2] (Cleaned up the article. Removed WP:Synth content and outlined the different subjects under the article title. (Work in progress))
    2. [3] (Undid revision 1023381558 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) It's not subject change but a cleanup. The blanked content is WP:SYNTH of countries summaries.)
    3. [4] (Sections inclusion under discussion in the talk page.)
    4. [5] (Maintaining the previous additions.)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] (Request in the talkpage discussion, user previously indicated awareness and themselves linked to Wikipedia:WAR)

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [8]

    Comments:
    After a disagreement on the article topic, and a third opinion which did not go their way, Contemporary Nomad nominated the article for deletion (note: this was something I had also suggested and not itself an issue) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab states of the Persian Gulf. The discussion (I did not participate) was closed as keep. Shortly after this keep result, Contemporary Nomad blanked the existing article (diff 1 above), essentially turning it into a disambiguation page for a different page topic ("a term" rather than "the seven Arab states which border the Persian Gulf"). Despite being requested (by the third opinion responder) to self-revert, and then asked not to edit-war by myself with reference to the AfD consensus (warning link above) they have persisted repeatedly in their desire to change the article topic (other diffs above), and in the last two cases doing so behind misleading edit summaries that suggest additions rather than a wholesale change to the article topic. CMD (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, this is an impartial recall of the events that have occurred and (in my opinion) does not reflect my intentions while contributing to the article and paint a rather brash image to my edits, my intentions contributing to it, and where I stand today and previously. Although I don't have hard feelings for @CMD at all for viewing it in a different light, I think it's seriously an entangled case of misunderstandings, and if the admins have the time to hear my case and detangle the issue (and history) together, at least so that I can be assured that I have presented my case fairly.
    I have focused on the article last month as my first project on wikipedia to clean it up, rewrite it, and contribute to it. I did have the intention to take it as a project and demonstrate my ability as an editor. But, honestly, found myself hitting a wall trying to come up with relevant content to rewrite the article. The article had (and still have) many issues I can list them in here but I think it's clear if one simply checks the article in question and see what I mean. I have raised these issues in the talk page in 17 April last month, and stated from the get-go that I want the community opinion on how to proceed (also because, well, I am a new Wiki editor and while I do like to call myself a fast learner I do understand the need to have a guided help at this stage) which I think @CMD would vouch for sincerely, that I haven't ever stopped resolving to discussions and trying to fix the issues with other editors and acknowledging my own mistakes. In my opinion, part of the issue that I have struggled with while cleaning the article was the confusion that I have had while editing the article, much of the body sources was discussing the GCC states while the article title is around the Arab states of the Persian gulf that also include Iraq, I have asked the community opinion on the inclusion of Iraq and have been pointed out by @CMD that we can't remove Iraq from the subject since it would lead to WP:FORK in the Gulf Cooperation Council and Eastern Arabia and I agreed with him, which brings me to one of my issues with his mischaracterization here in the ANB when @CMD wrote: After a disagreement on the article topic, and a third opinion which did not go their way I'm not sure how "it didn't go my way" this is awful mischaracterization of my position and what I have even wrote in the discussion leading up to and after that. I was clear from the beginning that I'm here to seek consensus, I went to all relevant projects and asked their members if they were interested in participating in the discussion and then resolved to 3O after a few days without anyone answering from the relevant projects. I did agree with both @CMD and @Firefangledfeathers in their opinion. @CMD suggested me to raise the issue at Afd and again I did. In the Afd discussion @Goldsztajn raised a good point on the term being used in multiple different contexts throughout history (and again) I agreed with him and I still believe in @Goldsztajn statement and I truly thank him because (I think) it has also highlighted another issue in the article subject that I still believe is relevant to point out in the article introduction and would help to build the article around in the future. That's the history of the term and that it has been used in the 20th century to refer to the British Empire protectorates and the trucial states as well (which became the UAE) I did find sources that do refer to them as the Arab states of the Persian gulf, and I think it would be relevant to include even if as a second paragraph in the intro, or a history section (which I was intending to do after thinking about it yesterday).
    I'm 100% content with the Afd decision and believe in it, mind you that I didn't raise the issue there until after I have exhausted the discussion in the talk page and spoke with multiple editors and even though some might have not agreed with me, at least hopefully I have demonstrated that the article needs to be re-written and cleaned (which many have said that they agree with me on). After the Afd closure I thought that I would continue working on the article, I have removed the countries summaries sections in politics, economy, peace...etc since, I admit, I misunderstood WP:Synth and thought that in the Afd discussion we were in an agreement that a collection of countries summaries do not belong. I have also mentioned the history of the term in the introduction, @CMD reverted my edits (and I thought I was in the right in removing the sections in question) and then I reverted it back, @Firefangledfeathers asked me to self-revert and discuss it the issue in the talk page, and I agreed with him, I have started a discussion on a section by section basis. @CMD pointed out that Synth do not merit section removal, I have edited the article introduction to include my edit on the history of the term while preserving the old sections, that I thought we were in the process of discussing.
    It saddens me seeing how it have come to this and reading @CMD opening in the ANB which I think paints me in a different light that couldn't be far from the truth, although I don't have a grudge on @CMD for opening it in here and think it might be for the best actually. So what now? I'm still interested in contribution and making WP a better encyclopedia especially seeing how the subjects I'm interested in (the Middle East/history) have overall poorly written articles which I intend to enrich and rewrite to meet wiki standards and I was thinking of overhauling Eastern Arabia after the current article. But if it wasn't for the fact that currently the spotlight is on me as if I'm a criminal which honestly make me contemplate withdrawing all together. I have a suggestion if the Admins are willing to give me the chance: If I continue to work on the 'Arab states of the Persian gulf' article I want @Firefangledfeathers with me to be my co-editor, I will highlight proposed changes in the talk page elegantly (like I always do :p) and then proceed with them one-by-one. Hopefully this resolves the issue, I do trust @Firefangledfeathers but I also don't want to overwhelm him/her so if they're not open to it then that's fine as well.......
    I apologize for everyone involved here (and for the guys who I have binged to this text-of-wall sorry @Goldsztajn....) and @CMD I honestly don't have any hard feelings for bringing this up, in fact I think you did the right thing. Cheers y'all — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 06:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As requested, I will vouch that there has been much talkpage discussion, and additionally will agree there seems to be mutual misunderstandings. I disagree I made an "awful characterization" considering there is an entire talkpage section titled On the inclusion of Iraq in this article (Part 1 of a multi-part series to clean up the article) which included a lot of text on Iraq. Undoubtedly an article which could use much improvement, this report is regarding the edit warring to change the article scope (which remains changed currently) following my talkpage request and in lieu of furthering the war again myself. CMD (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology for the late reply, had a terrible headache that disoriented me throughout the day. I agree there was a mutual misunderstandings, by awful mischaracterization I meant conclusions on your part that were built on these misunderstandings and confused me while reading the ANB notice, for example when you wrote: awareness] and themselves linked to Wikipedia:WAR I think you misunderstood my talk page section intro there, I wasn't referring to the recent edits but the article history, and by that time (at that discussion) I haven't edited the article much and only engaged in discussion in the talk page, I have stopped editing it after you have reverted the naming dispute sentence. Another misunderstanding on my part (that only know I'm aware of to be honest) was when you said that I have changed the article scope which puzzled me how so but now I think I understand the issue here. I will edit the article intro to include my edit (which to my understanding you're ok with per our discussion in your talk page?) and remove the intro reference to the subject being solely as a term. Also, can we move the editing-discussion to the article talk page? because I feel otherwise we might clutter the ANB. Thanks — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 19:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CMD: I have re-edited the article to include my addition while also preserving the article scope (to my understanding) Here. Is it sufficient? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad (💬 Talk) 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding ACN's co-editor proposal, I don't think we need a unique solution where a common one will do. All I'd ask for is for everyone to follow WP:BRD and maybe for ACN to slow down their editing speed at the article so their incremental changes can be evaluated. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page: Kristi Noem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Brian Mast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pipsally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: N/a

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/1023448741
    2. Special:Diff/1023599907
    3. Special:Diff/1023600227
    4. Special:Diff/1023600801
    1. Special:Diff/1023449483
    2. Special:Diff/1023598245
    3. Special:Diff/1023600527
    4. Special:Diff/1023600885

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Permalink/1023599952, Special:Diff/1023600711

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[9]], [[10]]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [11]

    Comments:
    Pipsally has been using various IPs to WP:HOUND me and revert my edits ever since we got into a mild content dispute on Charlie Kirk. During that content dispute, the editor had went out and reverted me an article they have never touched before. I gave them a strong warning to never stalk me again. Recently, the editor has been using IPs to stalk and revert my edits on various BLPs like Brian Mast & Kristi Noem, and also Ted Yoho, Grace Meng. I had no idea these IPs were connected to Pipsally until they signed their name in this edit (I had asked one of the IPs who they were but never got a response). This is a pure WP:GAME violation. The editor refuses to abide by WP:ONUS, and is simply trying to infuriate me over a bogus content dispute that ended weeks ago. This has to stop. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Talking of Gaming I think Nopinging me in an ANI this tells it's own story. I'm currently using devices I do not wish to sign on, and consquenetly have signed my comments in the talk so you know it is me. There are two IPs. I have reverted your edits because you consistently make problematic edits, whitewash these articles and remove reliably sourced content with spurious edit summaries, including removing content alongside removal of a source without noting it, and continue to remove when extra high quality RS are added without any discussion. It's no good throwing around WP:ONUS when you then consistently ignore it when adequate sources are being provided. that is WP:GAMING None of these edits are remotely close to WP:BLP violations anyway. Pipsally NLI86.99.87.85 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, it appears there are three IPs, I apologise, there must have been a mobile jump.86.99.87.85 (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you never got a response - if the IP on the mobile device jumped I didn't see the note on that IPs talk page did I? I've made it clear elsewhere who I am, which is we're able to have this discussion here Pipsally NLI.86.99.87.85 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You never made anything "clear." This was the first time where you included your real account name. I had no idea who you were until that edit. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was trying to GAME the IPs I would not have signed at all would I. I've deliberately made it obvious who I am in the talk pages for these articles. This is a straight up content dispute that you're trying to escalate into something bigger. Maybe you could try engaging on the talk pages properly instead of warring and running to ANI. Pipsally NLI 86.99.87.85 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HistoricalNameisPersianSea reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Blocked)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]
    5. [17]
    6. [18]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]


    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [20]VVikingTalkEdits 13:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    I am reopening this (hopefully this is allowed) due to two new reversions (1 & 2) and an attempted cut and paste move here. Tol | Talk | Contribs 04:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A00:1851:8002:3AA0:7487:D905:3A4A:337C vandalism (Result: Page semiprotected)

    This user User:2A00:1851:8002:3AA0:7487:D905:3A4A:337C is doing destructive work [22] please look at. 00:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC) 09:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Calton reported by User:PackMecEng (Result: Self-revert)

    Page: Antifa (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being repor ted: Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [24]
    2. [25]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [27]

    Comments:
    Article is under 1RR. PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not aware that the article is under 1RR. I *am* aware that editors like PackMecEng are trying to add some original research WITHOUT consensus on the Talk page. Perhaps PackMecEng should try for that, if he gets the chance. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Calton, maybe just don't edit war with the only justification being idontlikeit. Consensus is clear on the talk page that it is acceptable. So again please stop the battleground attitude. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:168.245.155.5 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Semi)

    Page: List of Hail Mary passes in American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported:

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023750018 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
    2. 03:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023748492 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
    3. 03:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023744644 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC) on Talk:List of Hail Mary passes in American football "/* ongoing vandalism problem */"

    Comments: Just to be up-front about it, I myself broke 3rr earlier today and subsequently self-reverted. This series of IPs has been edit warring at List of Hail Mary passes in American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to insert the never-once sourced claim that a particular referee call was erroneous. Other users at the article and talk page, especially PJEckenheim have been contending with this behavior since 2016. An attempt at compromise was made at the talk page in this section. For context, a year long semi-protection ended on April 12. The edit war resumed on April 13 and there were 9 attempts by the above IPs to insert their 75-80 byte content before the page was semi-protected again on May 11. After the 48-hour protection expired, the edit-warrior reverted 10 times before semi-protection was reinstated. It will expire on June 1, and there's every reason to expect the disruption will start up again without some other remedy. Please let me know if it's appropriate or not to ping the admins that have taken action so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Semiprotected five years. It appears that the same guy has been trying to insert his material since 2016 without success, so the remedy is proportioned to the problem. I considered a block of 168.245.155.0/24 but it couldn't be made long enough to address the problem on this one article. Discussed this with the previous protecting admin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RamTripathi33 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: RamTripathi33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [28]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [29]
    2. [30]
    3. [31]
    4. [32]
    5. [33]
    6. [34]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [37]

    Comments:

    RamTripathi33 has been reverted several times by several esitors, with links to the relevant Wiki-policies in the edit-summaries and in the warnings at their talkpage, to no avail. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alejandroprpr and User:Dash9Z reported by User:Donald Albury (Result: Two editors warned)

    Page: List of governors of Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Alejandroprpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dash9Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [38]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [39] Alejandroprpr
    2. [40] Dash9Z
    3. [41] Alejandroprpr
    4. [42] Dash9Z
    5. [43] Alejandroprpr
    6. [44] User:Donald Albury
    7. [45] Alejandroprpr
    8. [46] User:Gladamas
    9. [47] Alejandroprpr
    10. [48] Dash9Z
    11. [49] Alejandroprpr
    12. [50] Dash9Z
    13. [51] Alejandroprpr
    14. [52] Dash9Z
    15. [53] Alejandroprpr
    16. [54] Dash9Z
    17. [55] Alejandroprpr

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] Warned Alejandroprpr, [57] Blocked Alejandroprpr, [58] Warned Alejandroprpr, [59] Warned Dash9Z, [60] Blocked Alejandroprpr

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [62] Alejandroprpr, [63] Dash9Z

    Comments:

    I initially saw Alejandroprpr as the edit warrior, and did block him twice. However, Dash9Z, although he did respond to my attempt on the talk page to start a discussion, has also been edit warring. I am involved, and do not feel I can take any more admin actions in this dispute. - Donald Albury 12:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left detailed warnings for both parties. It appears that one or more blocks may be needed if they won't agree to wait for consensus. The party who has already been blocked twice may not have a future, but the other is a longtime editor who has never previously been blocked EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Modification3 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

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

    User being reported: Modification3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "It's been two times that you do not give me an explanation."
    2. 15:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "I will withdraw it when I am given a valid reason. In accordance with the rules of wikipedia."
    3. 15:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Can I have an explanation on one point. Why the addition is it not appropriate ? I do not see what there would be to debate on this subject."
    4. 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Sorry to bore you. Why would I need to open a talk page ? These are facts. Sufficiently sourced."
    5. 14:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "I am not the same person."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pesticide."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: The editor appears to be continuing a long-running (at least month-long) edit war at this article, and the edits were reverted as an apparent sock of another editor making the same edits. The editor denies being a sock, but is clearly edit warring over this content. General Ization Talk 16:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.87.118.126 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 67.87.118.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
    2. 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
    4. 16:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Over a simple hyphen in an episode title. Rather unimportant, but they insist on adding one, against sources and a couple of editors. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JKC68413 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )

    Page: Lady Gaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: JKC68413 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 00:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    4. 15:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    5. 03:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 15:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on Lady Gaga."
    2. 21:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lady Gaga."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This is factually incorrect as well. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    previous version reverted too:

    Diffs of the user's revert:

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


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

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

    • Dismiss as frivolous retaliation against my filing (a few days back) which got him blocked. Not a single shred of evidence has been presented about edit-warring.
    • The first diff is by User:Kautilya3. I am certainly not him/her.
    • The second diff is a revert. I alongside K3 rejected his proposed changes.
    • The third diff linked here was self-reverted by me within two minutes.
    • The fifth diff was undoing his restoration of some earlier version of the page without discussion. The current version of the article has been since agreed upon by me as well as the editor, whose version he restored.
    • The sixth diff removed an unused source, which was misrepresented by LuwangLinux. Check the edit-summary in my previous edit.
    • The circumstances surrounding seventh diff is being discussed at talk-page. Also, that deletion can be easily justified as removal of copyright violation (a ground for which LL has been blocked earlier) and not considered as edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User TrangaBellam send me another warning of being blocked [64] that I have violated copyright while I insert history section to the article using my own words for the latest revision he reverted. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    he even reverted notice about this discussion on his talk page,[65] I doubt why he want to show only his achievement at his talk page.this one was reported by user chaipau for his disrupting edit behaviour[66] he removed it too saying he was cleaning his talk page 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The beginning was this edit of Luwanglinux, whereby he copied into a new page, content that was contested and rejected at History of Manipur. It was a textbook example of WP:POVFORK. After I added a POV tag to it, TrangaBellam copied here his own rewrite of the material from History of Manipur, which is a perfectly normal thing to do. This, Luwanglinux counts as a "revert" (diff 8).
    Since Luwanglinux is unable to edit-war any more, he has taken to filibustering on the talk page, making the same points again and again and not getting it. The remaining 5 reverts he points out (one being invalid) are entirely normal under the circumstances.
    Luwanglinux, having just come off a long block, should'nt be doing this. He is slowly but surely exhausting his WP:ROPE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last two reports at AN3 about Luwanglinux are these:
    On that occasion, User:Primefac blocked them for 60 hours for edit warring at Meitei people. (29 September 2020). Primefac suggested that a sanction under WP:GS/CASTE might be considered next time.
    This time, I blocked Luwanglinux for one week due to long term edit warring at Anglo-Manipur War and other articles (5 May 2021)
    Between these two dates, Luwanglinux has also been blocked for sockpuppetry and copyright violations by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure where the threading lies, but it sounds like a topic ban may indeed be in order. The last time I was here about this it was for a different page, so how broad a tban should be set? Primefac (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
    Primefac, if there is to be a tban, it might cover all Manipur-related topics, which is the domain in which the user's contestation lies. It could be a term-limited tban in the first instance, say for 2-3 months. If the user learns nothing from it, the next one can be indefinite. The user is aware of discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm, might work. They also received their WP:GS/CASTE warning. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was the closer, I would consider an indefinite block, but a topic ban might be sufficient, if the user could understand it and follow it. It's not as though this is a new person who is just now coming up the learning curve. (Their account was created in September 2020 and they have 1700 edits). I had a frustrating experience while trying to be understood at User talk:Luwanglinux#You are risking a block for long-term edit warring. At the time I was attempting to negotiate an end to a previous war. Due to not getting a workable agreement, I decided on a one-week block as the result of this AN3 complaint. As I mentioned when closing that AN3, 'Luwanglinux has extreme confidence that he is right while constantly clashing with long time contributors..'. Taking an aggressive approach to editing while not fully understanding what's going on creates difficulties when working in a disputed area. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing about retaliation, I learned from my mistakes and ready to cooperate always but seems like owing to my bad past this is turning like a boomerang, also I pointed out revert tendency of user TrangaBellam.If this report is bias kindly tell me I will never report again.I never use any sockpuppet since user:Primefac blocked me for that.I am not as well experianced like user Kautilya but I wish to become a good editor not the current scenario I am experiancing..🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trader john1 reported by User:Possibly (Result: Blocked Indefinite)

    Page: Kenneth C. Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Trader john1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023969870 by Possibly (talk) This user seems to be connected to Mr. Griffin"
    2. 10:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "pre-submission a proposed"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC) to 09:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
      1. 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023955607 by Possibly (talk)"
      2. 09:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "This is my proposed article for Mr. Griffin. Please check. I have removed un-encyclopedic and excessive content and regroup the topics. Please, check our talk page as well."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ r"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 10:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Promotional whitewashing */ new section"
    2. 10:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Trader john1 "/* May 2021 */ r"

    Comments:

    Suspected COI editor pushing whitewashed versions of the page. Has also admitted at this diff that the one account represents the edits of a husband and wife team. --- Possibly (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. --- Possibly (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cdman882 reported by User:UW Dawgs (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: University of Louisiana at Lafayette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cdman882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [67]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:05, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana and UL[68]
    2. 16:43, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana and UL[69]
    3. 16:56, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana and UL[70]
    4. 19:28, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana[71]
    5. 19:58, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana[72]
    6. 00:09, 20 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana[73]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:16, 19 May 2021 [74]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 22:15, 19 May 2021 [75]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [76]

    Comments:

    Topic of the edit warring may be correct, but editor has been reverted by four different editors in 10 hours. Editor took one of the reverting editors to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive user: Frank042316 for a nonsense DE.[77] where WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NPA [78], [79], ​[80], [81], [82] issues also surfaced. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

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

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

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:

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

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

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

    User:Bobby690 reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Bobby690 and KullyKeemaKa warned)

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

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    • @Laplorfill: Thank you. When I attempted to reason with Bobby, I mentioned the WP:BOLD guideline, and I am assuming that he did not bother to read it. Trust me when I say that this is not the first time that I have had to link a Wikipedia guideline in a message to someone when it comes to edit wars. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bbb23: Out of me and Bobby, at least I tried to reason with him; meanwhile, he acted sort of hostile toward me and continued to revert revisions that I have made with reasons and linked guidelines. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by User:78Game (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [83]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [84]
    2. [85]
    3. [86]
    4. [diff]

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

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

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

    Comments:

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1024261841"