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 Jienum (talk | contribs) at 13:23, 25 November 2021 (→‎User:Sundayclose reported by User:Jienum: 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:Smilealwayswiki reported by User:Knight Skywalker (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Raza Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1056345682&oldid=1055503013

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055377602&oldid=1055377278

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055375833&oldid=1055365953

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055319132&oldid=1055319001

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055181667&oldid=1055166214


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    He was warned by the administrator not to change the main section after he was blocked.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smilealwayswiki&diff=1055381239&oldid=1055379434

    He told him that those terms are well sourced.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055377278&oldid=1055376518

    After his block period expired, he is celeverly trying to show the organization in positive way. This time he pushed better sources in a different section, while using almost WP:PRIMARY source, where the Raza Academy praising themselves .

    He was also using threatening words as ChalNikal. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smilealwayswiki&diff=1055376882&oldid=1055330952

    I checked the article's history. Most edits were made by some blocked editors. Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The article Raza Academy faced biased one sided editing by User:Knight Skywalker see how he changed the lead to just one line propaganda term radical and fundamental. He is engaged in edit warring at more than one place see Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan check his talk page history which he recently deleted. He is accusing other editors in this language after receiving warning,If you don't give such warning to Narsaksaaslee that means you are acting as his friend. You people are here for long time, and created friends to support same POV. ZebraaaLounge (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC). More over, Chalnikal is not abuse anywhere and it is means leave me and go away. He is comparatively a new id also.[reply]
    Basically, he is having a bias toward some particular community which is being reflected in his edits. The basic rule of Wikipedia is to maintain neutrality in articles. The lead of this article was changed to one line which says it is fundamental and radical. Though it was just based on personal opinion pieces from here and there. The attempt was to show it in bad light. Firstly i removed and tried to discuss these bad faith edits on talk page but no one discussed. Recently,i made the tone of the article neutral and accurate based on reliable sources. Even, i did not remove those terms and kept them in another heading but he reverted without going in to merit of the edits. I am of the view that he must be stopped from inserting bad faith edits to this and other articles. The Raza Academy article may be restored to its previous version before Right wing Knight Skywalker changed the lead to his POV. Smilealwayswiki (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Smilealwayswiki don't want to accept that inserting well-sourced content (which might seem negative to someone's POV) is not right wing edit or left wing edit. He is possibly not a new editor. He created his own talk page, and in the first edit he mentioned, Earlier i was not having wiki id used to edit by ip address directly. I created now. I will try to positively contribute wikipedia. Why he was trying to convince about positive contribution? Knight Skywalker (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some paid editors to target minorities in some countries. This editor seems to be one of them. His edits are proof of it that he did not want a neutral lead in an article which belong to some other communities. He is habitual problem creator and must be stopped from creating problems here. Smilealwayswiki (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LefterisA reported by User:Jochem van Hees (Result: Partial block, 24 hours)

    Page: Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: LefterisA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1056539339

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/1056601535
    2. Special:Diff/1056607945
    3. Special:Diff/1056609353
    4. Special:Diff/1056610072

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1056609916

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1056588955

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1056610913

    Comments:
    Started by adding a wikilink on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021, I disagreed so I opened a talk page discussion, then they continued edit warring (and violating 3RR) on Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Have provided arguments to support my opinion but the editor kept on insisting on theirs so any extra effort to persuade them would have been more than needless (besides my argument being supported by other editors too and existing prior to the former one's). LefterisA (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, LefteristA was the only person advocating for adding the link; previous discussions resulted in removing it. Not that it matters, since the point is that they violated 3RR. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record. the editor keeps on presenting false points of reality since if you check the respective history page you will notice that other editors have continuously added that link with the former one being the only person removing it. Furthermore, the "decision" was taken by just them and another one so that doesn't make it a consensus, especially if there are more than one editors that disagree. LefterisA (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LefterisA: Disregarding the fact that the crux of the edit war is a clear instruction in the Manual of Style, it's clear that you have edit warred. I strongly suggest you self-revert. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: Can you please check the respective talk page first before making such a consensus? Of course I didn't edit war without providing argumentary, it's just not fully presented there by the other editor. LefterisA (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LefterisA: So you acknowledge that you have broken the three revert rule without a justifiable reason? Again, you really want to self-revert now. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)WP:3RR is a pretty clear rule, and it does not matter if you have a gazillion arguments or none. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: That meant I provided argumentary, guess 2 negations at once made it hard to understand. Anyways, the point was checking the tp first before making any consensus, that seems pretty logical to me (and I think everyone). LefterisA (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LefterisA: Consensus is irrelevant here. The only issue is your disruption of the article by violating the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you have not self-reverted, I have rolled back your edit, so you may consider yourself to be sitting at three reverts in the last 24 hours, not four. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jochem van Hees: Well, a pretty clear rule is trying making a consensus anew when there are more than one people disagreeing (something more than apparent with some research on the history table). LefterisA (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which rule are you referring to? 3RR is one of the very few harsh rules Wikipedia has. Maybe you're thinking of WP:BRD, but that's not a rule and you haven't been following it either. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: Wouldn't say so since it is how the disagreement actually started. LefterisA (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LefterisA: It doesn't matter how we got to this point. The issue now is your conduct. Since you have broken 3RR again, administrative action is now necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours from the two articles where the user has been edit warring. Since the user showed intent on persisting in edit warring, administrative action was unavoidable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: What about checking other editors' conducts besides mine? On the talk page of the one article, I received irony from the other editor but you did not even bother occupying with that one. LefterisA (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LefterisA: You're the only editor who broke 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: Proper conduct expands to more than just keeping up with the 3RR rule hun but as it seems you still fail to understand it. LefterisA (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LefterisA: True, but the only sanctionable issue was your violation of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: Thank you for admitting my argument about your not making sufficient research tho before making a consensus. LefterisA (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LefterisA: What consensus? You broke 3RR, you got blocked. End of issue. Consensus is irrelevant to the behavioural issue. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: No, you didn't check the talk page (as I already told u) where the other editor made an irony towards me. So apparently it's not :) LefterisA (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @LefterisA: And what does that have to do with your conduct? You were reported to the edit warring noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And sarcasm is not punishable by anything more than a {{trout}}. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: Okay, enough bothering with that one. Just for the record, I will not let others impose their edits so easily from now onwards since noticeboard administrators fail to distinguish right from wrong as it seems. LefterisA (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @LefterisA: Please clarify what you mean by "will not let others impose their edits so easily". I am concerned that you mean you will return to the same pattern of behaviour that got you blocked today. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:108.30.187.155 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Assault weapon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 108.30.187.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "NPOV Tag was removed without adequate discussion of the NPOV concern. The scope of the article is Assault Weapons, yet the article fails to discuss prominent controversies regarding assault weapons and merely discusses the etymology of the word "Assault Weapon." Controversies regarding a topic must be adequately treated in the article even if the subject of the article is not well-defined"
    2. 03:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "NPOV Tag was removed without adequate discussion of the NPOV concern. The scope of the article is Assault Weapons, yet the article fails to discuss prominent controversies regarding assault weapons and merely discusses the etymology of the word "Assault Weapon." Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is topic of the article is not the etymology of "Assault Weapon." Controversies regarding a topic must be adequately treated in the article even if the subject of the article is not well-defined"
    3. 02:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "Again, I have begun a discussion of the failure of neutrality at the talk page. Please do not remove the tag again until the conditions for removing it are met."
    4. 02:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Assault weapon."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 03:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Assault weapon "/* It's a variable-meaning term */ Sometimes articles can be about a term. If that weren't the case then this article would not exist because the term has such widely varying official meanings that there would be no distinct topic."

    Comments: The reporting editor here knew very well I had (as allowed by policy) started a discussion regarding my concerns regarding Due Weight and Neutrality (namely, the failure to cover relevant controversies related to the topic) on the article talk page. I then placed a POV tag on the article so that additional editors could join the discussion over the concerns I raised. This user then disingenuously posts warnings on my talk page, removes the tag, and posts here when they know perfectly well I started a discussion of the article's neutrality on the article talk page and had simply added a tag to the article as POV so that other editors could contribute to the discussion of whether or not the article contravenes Wikipedia policies. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP editor needs to review wp:IDHT. I am also somewhat concerned that the IP editor seems to know wiki policies. Knowledge of wikipedia's workings takes a while to gain. Perhaps this is an editor who doesn't wish to use their real account. Perhaps this is just an IP who picked this up quickly (and has prior blocks). Regardless, they have moved from someone raising their opinion related to the article to just plain disruptive. Springee (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a trap? If I review the page that you linked, will I be accused of knowing too many policies? The policies are right there for everyone to read. I tagged an article as being not neutral for reasons I have attempted to raise on the talk page. All I did was add a POV tag and start a talk page discussion over my concerns over neutrality. Please stop removing the tag until the discussion is finished and engaging in these bad-faith attempts to win the debate by reporting me for being "disruptive" for placing a neutrality tag on an article with which you disagree. Make your arguments on the talk page, please. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also like to add that the POV tag clearly states "Do not remove this tag until the conditions for removing it are met." The tag stating that the neutrality of the article is disputed should not have been removed prior to the conclusion of the discussion. I did not make any changes to the article during this discussion. I opened a discussion at the talk page, and subsequently tagged the article as disputed. I believe that the reporting editors who removed the tags are acting in violation of policy and attempting to short-circuit discussion. The tag indicates only that a dispute is occurring at the talk page. It would be ridiculous if a tag disputing neutrality could not be placed until a discussion has already concluded that the page is not neutral. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Govvy reported by User:Deancarmeli (Result: Blocked)

    Page: 2021–22 Maccabi Tel Aviv F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Govvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

    Comments:

    The user was warned not to edit war before their 3rd revert, both in edit summaries and in the talk page itself. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You're pathetic and a bully, restore how you want to have your template, but don't remove my other edits on that page. It's a pretty simple request, which you failed to do. I didn't edit-war, I didn't break 3RR. And this whole thing is stupid. Your template is going to be deleted anyway. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for this kind of language, nor Ad hominem attacks. There are no templates that are mine, as this is Wikipedia. I have created some templates, true, by do not own them. If one of them shall be deleted per one policy or another, that is fair. That fact, however, has nothing to do with this discussion. In the 3 provided examples you haven't deleted a template currently being deleted and have reverted previous, status quo work – even after being warned not to do that for a third time, even after being invited to open a discussion about you wished edits. That is why you were reported. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you make little sense to me, and from my POV you are the one breaking the status quo. I am simply cleaning up the mess you've made. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if that is so, there are rules in this place. As this conversation isn't very pleasant to me, I'll end my part in it and wait for an administrator. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: Why would I revert again? I know the 3RR rule, templating someone's page, raising an admin board post, today I've just done more wiki-maintenance for the project than I normally would do. Hardly a personal attack there, I used very tame words, this whole post at ANEW is just wasting everyones time! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That very much is a personal attack, and you'd be hard pressed to find an admin who believes otherwise.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole process is just one side of a coin. And this edit here, [8] is not reverting the one edit he is on about, but also an edit, (Results by matchday) which actually fixes an issue which was affecting mini browsers. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a massive problem with WP:IDHT. I suggest you either acknowledge your bad behavior or at least stop posting more senseless messages here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can something be done? Govvy continues his undiscussed edits on the article: [9]. Deancarmeli (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked User:Govvy 24 hours for continuing to revert the article after this report was closed. Whether the revert was intended by Govvy to fix a technical problem is immaterial, since my warning was againt *any* revert. Clearly Govvy's revert was undiscussed, as noted by Deancarmeli above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:64.251.57.46 reported by User:Johnbod (Result: Malformed)

    Page: Madonna (art) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Five reverts in 2.5 hours, all removing 2 images, one of which he objects to. Ip's first edits since 2013. Talk section does not support this. Several warnings on his talk. Notified of this. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, 6 times. The template didn't work for me. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Owerthise reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Checkuser blocked)

    Page: Ebrar Karakurt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "No, other version is more islamophobic."
    2. 19:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "I literally wrote a single quote of him, and put several cites to back it up. Not "millions of" quotes. Also, this became a controversial topic in Turkey, so is controversy."
    3. 18:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "No, he isn't an extremist. No, he isn't only an imam. No, that quote is not descriptive enough. No, people didn't insulted her but just criticised."
    4. 17:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "Deletion of sourced content for no reason"
    5. 06:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "Can't revert it unless you find an excuse"
    6. 23:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC) "Okay, got the sources. Any other problem?"
    7. 22:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC) "Reverted - You're not neutral either"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 17:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Owerthise "/* November 2021 */"

    Comments:

    3RR warning: [10]. bonadea contributions talk 21:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And here is 8RR, with a particularly unpleasant edit summary. --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    :I'm not particularly happy about the edit summary, but user responded to messages on user talk page and is willing to abide by 3RR going forward.[11] Based on that, I'm inclined to take no action but monitor their conduct. Were there to be further issues, then a block could be levied immediately. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And now at Moon. Wikignome Wintergreentalk 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs: Moon[12][13], the last after telling C.Fred they "try" to stop edit warring.[14] Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They're continuing to revert my corrections of their often unhelpful wording tweaks. I'm not sure what this means - that they'll keep going until they hit 3RR? Wikignome Wintergreentalk 21:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ponyo: The spidey sense was starting to tingle that something wasn't right here. Thanks for getting to the bottom of it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Soapbox: This is the admin's dilemma. Block too early in a situation like this, and we're mean to innocent newcomers. Try to AGF, and the newbie turns out to be a LTA troll.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TruthAndContext reported by User:Aeonx (Result: Partial Blocked 48 hours)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [15]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

    Comments: User has also been reported as a potential sock-puppet:[23]. User is a new account single-article editor who has shown a clear POV bias (which they themselves stated). Despite numerous attempts to encourage the use of the article talkpage, discussion and consensus before repeating the same edits, and after numerous warnings, the user continues to make the same disputed changes to the articles (albeit without technically using the revert function). I have tried to incorporate the non-controversial aspects of the user's edits so far as is appropriate. Aeonx (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jannizzero1 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Globally locked)

    Page: Battle of Fornovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jannizzero1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [28]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30]

    Comments:

    User:Jannizzero1 has chosen to remove referenced quote(s) and referenced information. All under the guise of accusing me of cherrypicking information and ignoring the talk page and instead canvassing, 5 other editors.[31][32][33][34][35] Their first revert from my last edit in September, they stated "Furthermore, a biased editor visibly cherry-picked sources to magnify Italian casualties and minimize French casualties". Yet they can not bring any sources to support their claim. I have quoted one source they and the IP from the Talk:Battle of Fornovo have continued to misrepresent in terms of casualties. Instead of discussing content, they are commenting on the contributor[36](just like the IP from the article talk page), and edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Real Punk Rockers reported by User:Woodroar (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

    Page: Bernard Rhodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: The Real Punk Rockers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Rhodes&oldid=1050836658

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23 November
    2. 24 November
    3. 24 November
    4. 24 November
    5. 24 November

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The Real Punk Rockers was initially warned in 2019 and partially blocked for a week. Today I left a BLP discretionary sanctions warning, BLP warning, and a COI warning as The Real Punk Rockers identified as the son of Bernard Rhodes.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The was a discussion about sources in 2019 which The Real Punk Rockers removed today.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notice posted. This was also brought up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bernard Rhodes, where I first heard about this article and editor.

    Comments:
    I just removed my own report, as I didn't realize this one was here. They continued edit warring after I provided more warnings. There are WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns with this editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sundayclose reported by User:Jienum

    Page: Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1056958543

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1057023122

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    He was told that the contents of the paragraph regarding the FX series were relevant to the article, especially the subsection, and that sources were provided. He cited weight as a problem, so excessive details were removed by me, and I told him that if he still had a problem, to discuss it on the talk page before reverting again.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1056961980

    He then reverted it again and then attacked me on my own talk page, accusing me of assuming ownership over the article and that I should be the one to seek consensus on the talk page, not him.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1057023122 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jienum&oldid=1057024265

    I answered by telling him I would once again revert the article and leave the subject open to discussion on the talk page, and gave him a final warning to not make personal attacks and baseless accusations against me on my talk page, and issued him a warning regarding the three-revert rule.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jienum&oldid=1057094371 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1057092313


    As I have read on his talk page, Sundayclose has a history of reverting edits for no reason and being accused of making personal attacks against other users, yet he has not once been issued a proper warning to stop his malicious behaviour. I doubt very much that ordinary warnings are going to stop him, because he appears to be biased in O.J. Simpson's favour, which is why I am requesting administrators' help in putting him in line. Much appreciated. Jienum (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1057101251"