Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159
1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Sundayclose reported by User:Jienum (Result: Jienum indefinitely blocked)

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]

Indefinitely blocked Jienum.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hanzla Faiz reported by User:Whpq (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Edit warring to remove an image from the infobox

Switched to reverting to a different image

[6]
[7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9], [10], [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

This editor made exactly 10 edits of a rather mundane nature, apparently so they could gain rights to upload an image which was a copyright violation. After that, it has been repeated reverts with no communication. Other editors involved in restoring the original infobox image are User:Newfiebluejay, User:Flash Lloyd, and User:Qhairun. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Hanzla Faiz is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Charli D'Amelio unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the artice talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Levivich (Result:article protected for a week)

Previous version reverted to: [13] but content has been stable I think since Special:Diff/922493350

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1056989527

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This content was also removed from Warsaw concentration camp and WP:List of Wikipedia hoaxes, among other pages, where extensive discussion and RFCs have taken place on those talk pages. Ironically in those conversations (with the same users), the suggestion was made that this content belongs on this page and not the others.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1057156005

Comments:

This is stable content from two years ago that VM (and others) have been trying to remove from multiple pages this year. At this article, VM has removed it four times. I'm also at 3RR on this article. Levivich 20:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I’m not sure why Levivich is reporting himself here seeing as he’s the one who’s made three reverts. I made two today, one of which was of a new disruptive account which showed up to just amplify the dispute. Neither Levivich nor the other account (whose user name, PolskaJestNajwazniejsza, translates as “Poland’s the Greatest” and is a pretty obvious way of not so subtle trolling of Polish editors) have ever edited this article before my original edit (which Levivich falsely attempts to portray as a revert above in the report) They both showed up per WP:STALK (no other way they’d see it unless they’re watching my edits closely. That new account was also, at the time of their edit in violation of the 500/30 restriction imposed on this topic area (or at most they had *just* passed the threshold right before they made the revert, they have like 503 edits now - which also illustrates that this is a WP:SPA created for purpose of starting edit wars in this topic area) reverting users who don’t meet that threshold does not count as reverting. So I made ONE revert in past 24 hours. Levivich made THREE. Levivich has also failed to make use of the talk page, unlike myself (and the other users he’s reverting)

So let’s see. I make an edit. Levivich pops out of nowhere to revert. He is reverted by another user who also starts talk page discussion. I comment on the talk. Levivich doesn’t. Instead he begins edit warring. With personal attacks and false accusations in edit summaries. Still doesn’t bother posting on talk. Then another account, which is prohibited from editing on this topic shows up out of the blue to support Levivich in his edit war.

Hmmm, levivich, you sure this report was a good idea? I mean, I was all ready to report you myself but thought I’d wait and see if you could restrain yourself.

WP:BOOMERANG please. Volunteer Marek 20:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed out that I am allowed to edit this topic area, as I have 524 total edits, not "like 503 edits" (Volunteer Marek) now, and much else of Volunteer Marek's post is just blaming others instead of accepting his own blame and finally stopping this COI editing. (It's also pretty weird someone could genuinely believe I might be a "SPA" in THIS area, that I have edited only very infrequently).Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You jumped into this controversy as soon as you hit the threshold. You’ve been editing around the edges of the restriction since you showed up. You have a username which is clearly meant to troll other editors. You had immediate divinely granted knowledge of Wikipedia policies as soon as you arrived. We’ve seen this song and dance before. Volunteer Marek 21:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, every time I see a complaint of edit warring or similar in this topic area involving you (at AE/AN/ANI/etc), it always seems to involve similar parties, and often the same editors reverting to restore your edit. Perhaps not exactly unusual for articles in small hotbed topic areas, but this article is "Reliability of Wikipedia" and thus not exactly 'in' the topic area. Just saying that it does come across as tag teaming, and it is your edit that is changing the status quo, so really it should be you to start a discussion per accepted good practices (WP:BRD etc). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, this is indeed a small topic area and the editors you refer to are generally active in it so there’s nothing surprising in that they’d take interest. Especially given that they’ve edited this particular article BEFORE (so it’s on the watchlist). Unlike the WP:SPAs, like PjN, who always show up out of the blue, in a constant stream (one gets banned, two more pop up). Or Levivich for that matter. If you want to know why some OTHER editors made edits then ask THEM, I can’t speak for them.

To be perfectly clear - there is no 3RR violation here, not by me. Levivich presents four diffs, but they’re from different days not from a 24 period, and two of them aren’t even reverts. That looks like a pretty straightforward attempt to misrepresent and WP:GAME, esp. since they reverted THREE times (in a 24 hour period). In fact this whole report looks like a pre-emptive move on his part, after I posted a 3RR warning on HIS page [14]. As in “oh crap, I’ve been edit warring and I might get reported so I better deflect attention from myself by filing a spurious report myself first”. Volunteer Marek 21:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:CorrectionAcct reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: Content and links added by user CorrectionAcct

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "don't just revert other editors" "don't just hit undo". User clearly saw it, as they took the time to refactor my talk page comment to remove the warning:[15].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I asked them in edit summary to take it to talk. They responded at my user talk, so I moved it to article talk:[16] where they also responded.[17]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

Comments:

In the time it took to write this up and take a phone call, the user claims to have flounced/retired. Hard to say. Submitting anyway because who knows if they mean it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just hope he doesn't create a sock & go back at the article-in-question. We older folk, are quick to catch that. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioral issues here make that a definite possibility. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv^🍁 00:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:142.116.104.19 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

User being reported: 142.116.104.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

00:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Métis people in Canada */TO EDITOR: I DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNICAL KNOW HOW TO KEEP UP. THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO KEEP THIS RACIST NONSENSE DOWN UNTIL IT IS PROVEN. IT SHOULD NOT STAY UP WHILE A DEBATE IS HAPPENING. I DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE TO FIGHT THIS FIGHT. ALL I ASK IS NEUTRAL EDITORS ASK FOR FAR BETTER CITATIONS FROM THE PERSON WHO IS ERASING AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP. WHERE ELSE ON WIKIPEDIA - ANYWHERE - ARE ETHNIC GROUPS ERASED? WOULD YOU ALLOW ISRAELI EXTREMISTS TO CHANG..."
00:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Métis people in Canada */"
Consecutive edits made from 23:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC) to 23:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
1. 23:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Métis people in Canada */Removed racist conjecture."
2. 23:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Métis people in Canada */"
Consecutive edits made from 23:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC) to 23:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
1. 23:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC) "Expanded context. This page should be locked due to racist, colonial, exclusionary activists."
2. 23:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Métis people in Canada */Removed racist, colonial, unsubstantiated conjecture. Not one of the citations says anything about Indigenous and Northern Affairs stating Eastern Metis are not Metis. The Department has never, not once, made that statement. In fact, many of the citations listed seem to actually support the reality of extensive racial mixing in 17th and 18th century Acadia, and the emergence of a distinct society and culture. Whomever is editing this needs to provide a full,..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link to their talk page showing the 3RR warnings

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv^🍁 00:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:2806:2F0:60C0:849F:E5:1FD:9245:87A6 reported by User:Lavalizard101 (Result: Semi)

Page: Tony Dalton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2806:2F0:60C0:849F:E5:1FD:9245:87A6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2806:2F0:60C0:849F:E15E:9619:368F:8F1C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:2806:2F0:60C0:849F:E5:1FD:9245:87A6 (not a diff because the warning created said talk page and is the only thing on it)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Edit warring to remove sourced information, IPs probably are the same person, they have edited other articles in a similar fashion changing nationalities and birth places. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although the IP is edit-warring, the change to the subject's nationality was introduced by a new user and is poorly sourced. Indeed, the entire article is badly written and sourced. The change should have been - and still should be - discussed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the nationality in line with reliable sources.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wierdly they were removing the nationality part which is now reliably sourced rather than the part which was unreliably sourced and had now been removed, which they have done similar on other articles but never edit warred over it once those were reverted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected one month. Use the talk page to reach agreement about Dalton's nationality. The IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:60C0:849F:0:0:0:0/64 have reverted seven times altogether over three days, and have never used a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BenJosejose reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057291622 by M.Bitton (talk)"
18:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057290938 by M.Bitton (talk)"
18:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1057289019 by M.Bitton (talk) ok"
17:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "But the mexican drug war less than a thousand deaths and Algeria 100-999 deaths?"
18:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC) "I added this map because it is more updated than the other one."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of ongoing armed conflicts."
18:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of ongoing armed conflicts."
18:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on List of ongoing armed conflicts."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "/* November 2021 */ new section"
18:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "/* November 2021 */"

Comments:

They keep adding an unsourced map that is full of factually incorrect information while refusing to justify it on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danny Mamby reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC) ""
19:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC) ""
19:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Removed duplicate and tidied up content, edits to reflect given references."
12:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC) "Try reading it."
12:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC) "According to the reference that is given."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Fruitarianism."
19:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Fruitarianism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

19:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Removal of fad diet */ c"

Comments:

User is repeatedly edit warring on a singular (and incorrect) point of view during an ongoing talk page discussion with no consensus or WP:SCIRS sources established to support the user's opinion. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think, and I have written to Zefr, that their claims would have a lot more credibility, if they had not done a far more considerable reversion of all of the work I put into the topic with a summary saying "No constructive edits", here [24].

Zefr then did a subsequent total reversion with a similarly dishonest summary claiming that I had used "poor writing and blog sources" when not only had I done no such thing, indeed, I had removed them, but they themselves were the one re-inserting those poor blog sources, here [25] and again, here [26].

Therefore it appears that Zefr is attempting to accuse me of what they themselves are doing, which I had to reject. Here's the comparison of the contributions I have made improving the topic. They have added nothing of any benefit to the topic, and yet are willing to invest their time is constructing this instead?

Is that really what people are here do to? If no one can see what this person is doing and it's acceptable, then there is no hope for the Wikipedia. --Danny Mamby (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just work out what this is about. It appears that it was Zefr who added the reference to Fad Diet in the lede without any reference, here [27], and so what they are engaged in is some kind of gaming to protect that NPOV edit and that for the most part of the topic's history, there has been no such consensus to include it. --Danny Mamby (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User: Nableezy reported by User:Bob drobbs (Result: No violation, request withdrawn)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

Nableezy first reverted a paragraph that I had re-added to the article. Contrary to his claims when he first deleted it, this info was indeed from a RS (The Jewish Chronicle) which is listed as a reliable source in the list of perennial sources. He then went beyond this initial revert, removed a bunch of other text which I had added some time ago. He deleted an entire section of the article. When I informed him he was potentially in violation of 1RR, he told me that he could make as many reverts as he felt liked, so long as they were sequential. I could find no mention of that exemption on this project page. I felt like, at best, this was gaming the system and so wanted to bring it here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I'll help you find it. Go to our edit-warring policy and hit whatever key combination your browser uses for find in page. Then search consecutive. You should find two instances of that word. The second being in the sentence A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. What I told you was Consecutive edits are a single revert. This isnt the place for content discussion, and you can continue to be somewhat misleading on what the consensus of the source is, just as youre being misleading on what I said to you regarding the reverts, but do it elsewhere. As far as the claim on edit warring, I made a series of consecutive edits. Among them to material that the sources flat out do not support. Sorry. I did not say I may revert as many times as I like, what I said was Consecutive edits are a single revert. And they are. nableezy - 00:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll withdraw this request on that basis. I honestly did not see it when I looked on this project page.

However, realize that I'm going to have to revert your massive revert tomorrow such that I can work on and try to improve that section. If the text doesn't match what's said in the source, let's fix that. And now I can't work on it because the entire section does not exist. So, I'll yet again, ask you politely to please undo your reverts so that forward progress can be made on this page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise not the place for this, but you can create User:Bob drobbs/sandbox1 and work on that material to your hearts content. Ill even make it and copy it there for you. nableezy - 00:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And done. nableezy - 00:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No violation and request withdrawn, based on the above discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:SavageCabbages reported by User:Laterthanyouthink (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

09:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) on Gubbi Gubbi people "Undid revision 1057388931 by Laterthanyouthink (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

09:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gubbi_Gubbi_people

Comments:

Repeated edit-warring with a number of editors over the past couple of days, with this article and Gubbi Gubbi people. Attempts have been made to discuss on the talk page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:108.30.187.155 reported by User:Springee (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] See recent 3RRN discussion resulting in block [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37] IP editor has shown a strong propensity to not hear the concerns of multiple editors on the talk page and on their user talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

Comments:

IP editor was blocked for 48hr due to edit warring starting 23 Nov [39]. Springee (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any reversions. In none of the edits cited did I revert any content. Please take a look. I've opened a discussion on the talk page to seek consensus on any changes to the article, as this editor knows. This report is extremely disingenuous. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, there is an obvious revert, a substantial revert, and an edit that counts as a revert even though you added extra material. I'm not seeing a fourth revert. I'm also not seeing any reverts in the last three hours. —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has been, with no success, trying to push editors towards their POV on the talk page. Though they were recently blocked they once against pushed content that was disputed into the article. They then reverted the removal 3 times. I do see that this isn't a bright line violation of 3RR but it's clearly a continuation of their prior edit warring that earned a block less than a week back. Springee (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The IP editor has been, with no success, trying to push editors towards their POV on the talk page." This is truly incredible. Now this user apparently wants me banned for discussing changes on the talk page. You truly cannot make this shit up. Administrators, do you see what I am having to deal with here? The reporting user literally just requested I be banned for "trying to push editors towards my POV on the talk page" (i.e discussing article changes with other editors on the article talk page.) This whole report was submitted in bad faith by the editor who already knew I was actively discussing changes to the article with them at the article talk page at the very time they filed the report. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diffs provided, we've got:
- [40] - Initial edit adding new content. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing anything prior that would make this a revert.
- [41] - Editor re-adds content with sources, addressing the concerns raised by MattSucci. This doesn't seem to violate the spirit of 3RR.
- [42] - Reinserting content in a different place, to address concern raised by OhKayeSierra. Again, this seems to be an effort to find a version that works for everyone; that's not edit warring.
- [43] - New changes per talk page discussion, in which the IP is an active participant.

The IP might be jumping the gun a bit with the bold edits but what I see here is a good-faith effort to address others' concerns. This report looks like an attempt by Springee to get rid of an editor they disagree with in order to win a content dispute; this (in response to the IP's offer to implement North8000's compromise) tells me that Springee is not interested in working together to reach consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 21:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That ignores that the IP editor was just back from a block for edit warring on the exact same topic. The please stop was in reference to the edit warring. I trust you aren't condoning that even if they didn't violate 3RR today. Springee (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why the heck would you post that in the middle of a talk page discussion instead of on their user talk? Do better. And yes, I do condone the edits made today and don't consider them edit warring (as explained above), although I think they could stand to slow down a bit. –dlthewave ☎ 21:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask if you supported the content, I asked if you condoned the edit warring. Per the requirements here they were notified of this discussion on their talk page. Do you dispute that they were edit warring? Springee (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I do condone the behavior which you are referring to, and I do dispute that they were edit warring. That's what I meant. –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are claiming that once the text was removed the first time it was OK to restore it back three more times even though several editors (I was not one of them) reverted the change. That isn't edit warring in your book? Springee (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW the prior block was literally just for adding a NPOV tag to the article. I made no other changes to the article in the previous dispute and I'm sorry I took literally the tag which stated "This tag is not to be removed until the conditions for removing it are met" when this user immediately removed by the tag and as a result restored the tag several times (which merely stated that a discussion on the article's neutrality was being raised on the article talk page.) I am honestly being treated maliciously by the reporting user as you can clearly see by their bad-faith complaints above that I should be blocked in part because ""The IP editor has been, with no success, trying to push editors towards their POV on the talk page." (i.e has been trying to discuss the article on the article talk page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I'd really like it if you could answer my question. Why did you think it was appropriate to comment on editor behavior in the middle of an article talk page discussion, instead of user talk? –dlthewave ☎ 23:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the link you provided I asked that the editor stop edit warring and pointed out the flaw in the argument they were making. Where did that link comment on editor behavior other than asking that they stop edit warring? Back to my question, are you saying you don't think it's edit warring to add content, have it removed by a first editor, restore it, have it removed by a second editor and repeat that cycle 2 more times with yet another editor? You accuse me of being here to impact content. Since you support the content would it be reasonable to say you are here for the same reason? Neither of us were involved in the edits/reverts in question. Are you suggesting that it's not edit warring because it didn't violate 3RR? Springee (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you think you see someone edit warring, please just go to their user talk page instead of bringing it up in article talk. You know this. And as for your question, I think I clearly explained my position in my first comment. Make of it what you will, take it or leave it. –dlthewave ☎ 23:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying you think it's OK to be bold then restore 3 times. You are saying that isn't edit warring in your book. Springee (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, you got me, I'm just a big ol' POV pushing edit warring apologist. –dlthewave ☎ 00:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you were claiming this was edit warring but didn't cross the 3RR bright line I think your comments would be reasonable. However, you have said they weren't edit warring (presumably at all). Clearly they were. Then again, if they agree to get consensus before adding new content perhaps we can close this. Springee (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You knew there was no edit warring and I had opened a discussion on the talk page which you were participating in. In the middle of discussing a proposed edit, you told me to shut up and that my views were "fundamentally flawed" and came here to report me even though you knew the only edits being made were to the talk page. You then started complaining I was "trying to push editors to my POV on the talk page" (i.e trying to discuss the article on the article talk page." 108.30.187.155 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say "shut up"? Calling your argument fundamentally flawed is a comment about your arguments. Springee (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_weapon&diff=prev&oldid=1057447807&diffmode=source. Posted immediately before you opened this bad-faith complaint. No, I'm not going to grovel to you to get you to get you to withdraw your spurious report. You literally knew I had opened a talk page discussion titled "Seeking Consensus" which you were participating in, you got mad for some reason, and came here to waste people's time with a bad-faith report when you knew I was just posting in the article talk page... 108.30.187.155 (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where did I say "shut up"? You were blocked for edit warring. Once your block was lifted you returned to edit warring. Springee (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions have been transparently seen through by others as an attempt to win a content dispute with a spurious report of "edit warring", as judged by everyone else in this thread (and which you knew to be false when you made it.) Go ahead and continue embarrassing yourself further, I'm enjoying it. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User: MehmoodS reported by User:Suthasianhistorian8 (Result: Page protected)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[44]
[45]
[46]
[diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [48]

Comments:

He has violated the 3RR rule by reverting edits 3 times. In contrast I only reverted once. The original version of the article was riddled with unsourced claims, puffery, pov claims, promotion of organizations. I explained this here on WP: Request for edit and on the talk page [49]. You can see the original article had a plethora of issues and I restored it to a neutral version that coincided shortly after the previous consenus building talk page discussion which was on Dec 2019, and the version I restored to was from early 2020 and much more neutral, relevant to the topic at hand, backed up by numerous, reliable and verifiable sources in stark contrast to the original version. [50] (early 2020 version) vs recent Nov 26 version [51]. MehmoodS was restoring the article to a clearly POV, poorly written (had numerous spelling and grammar issues and had numerous unsourced claims) As I was waiting for admin input, another user removed 90% of the article and never bothered to explain it on the talk page. He only left a short comment after he deleted most of the information on the article. I added some more information to the page, salvaged some information from a neutral version of the article [52] despite the addition of information being very fairly written and relevant to the topic at hand and backed up by numerous sources and attributed to various academics. MehmoodS once again reverted the edits, Numerous editors are deleting information without discussing it on the talk page and holding double standards for themselves where they can delete information without discussing it on the talk page because WP:IDL and holding different standards for people who actually wish to expound on the article. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page history, neither editor has violated 3RR; both are at three reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted once. Not 3 times C.Fred Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's count:

04:15 UTC [53]
14:31 UTC [54]
22:05 UTC [55] removal of material added by another editor

That's three reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second one was not a revert it was undoing my own edit because I accidentally restored to the wrong version. The third one isn't a revert; it's removal of unsourced and dubious claims. The lead paragraph after my edit was more neutral and less POV and took both sides into account Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Last stable version before edit wars" is clearly a revert. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that the user reported me even though he was the one who began reverting the article to revision one year old. He did this multiple times. [56], [57], [58], [59] and though a discussion is still in progress on the article's talk page, this user went ahead and readded content that was originally removed. [60]. I just told the user to wait till a concensus is made. The article also got 3rd opinion [61] where changes with constructive editing was done to the article but this user still went and readded changes. So I am surprised that this user even reported me here when he is the one who began editing by reverting changes to revision back to a year old without even having a discussion about the issue in the first place. I am aware of 3RR rule but clearly this user is misusing this forum in trying to block me because the decision by 3rd editor didn't fall on his side. MehmoodS (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. It is sufficiently clear that there is a content dispute. That is best handled via discussion at the talk page, not via sanctions against other editors. To ensure that the parties discuss at the talk page, the article is now fully protected. —C.Fred (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred For how long is it fully protected? It doesn't say on the article. Also would you consider reverting the article to perhaps a date further back since the current article has a plethora of issues like unsourced claims and has many spelling and grammar issues? (It doesn't have to be my version of the article, any version with more sourced claims and less POV and fewer grammar mistakes is good) Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Suthasianhistorian8: Full protection is for 72 hours. See article talk for a possible alternate version to place the page at. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you C.Fred Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards