Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Ficaia (Result: Protected)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] (1)
2. [diff] (2)
3. [diff] (3)
4. [diff] (4)

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: [1]

Comments:

• Page protected – 4 days. The original two-person war between MarnetteD and Ficaia has now widened out to four people. One group wants 'actor' and the other wants 'actress'. This needs consensus to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not in any war, thanks. A discussion thread has been opened on the article Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Ficaia (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] (1)
2. [diff] (2)
3. [diff] (3)
4. [diff] (4)

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: [3]

Comments: P.S. I know I've filled this out wrong. I'm not a technical person. But the recent page history demonstrates the issue.

User:Silverije reported by User:Slatersteven (Result:Page protected )

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

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

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

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

Comments:

Note, this has in fact been going on for days. It also an old issue on this page that goes back years. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected by @Deepfriedokra: Jayron32 13:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2A02:8070:E192:A300:2CDF:96DC:9CE8:BFCF reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: /64 range blocked for 3 months)

Page: Ekaterine Gorgodze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:8070:E192:A300:2CDF:96DC:9CE8:BFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This anon IP is having to be reverted by multiple editors while using multiple anon Ip's on dozens of articles. The page listed is one of many. see also here, and here, and here, and many many others. Since tradition IP punishment won't work can we get a limited range block on 2A02:8070:E192:A300: ? Maybe a few days without editing will make them stop. I warned a couple of the anon IPs but the next time they log in it's a different IP. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Since this post they have made more edits (two of which were reverted thus far) right here under a new IP. Again they were warned on the IP talk page, but I don't think it's going to stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• And another right here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Special:contributions/2A02:8070:E192:A300:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for 3 months. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YoungDylan for background.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Deedman22 reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Alexander the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Deedman22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Another
2. New revert after report
3. 05:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 22:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081344038 by Dumuzid (talk)see talk"
5. 21:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081343691 by Dumuzid (talk)he gave no reasoning. he's linking an old discussion that has nothing to do with the current image. rv"
6. 21:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081025424 by RandomCanadian (talk)the bust is contemporary and is most certainly an improvement over the one proposed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Picture of Bust of Alexander, again */"

Comments:

Wikipedia editing is not "wait until no-one is looking to reinstate your preferred version", yet that is exactly what they did, despite there not having been consensus for it either now or months ago. This is still the same problem that led to this user's block 8 months ago (@Bbb23:). Not only have they not learned from that, but their edits have once again crossed the 3RR bright-line... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian You literally decided (a few days ago) that you wanted to change the lead image to your preferred version (a lead image that has been in place for months). Your reasoning, aesthetic appeal, makes no sense, as you are replacing a depiction with historical context.

Also, my goal was not to wait until you "weren't looking"— i logged out for a bit, logged back in and saw you changed the image so I reverted it back. I could care less about whether you are looking or not. Cheers. 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Deedman22 (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Why does this look like a perfect copy of what happened back in June last? "Your reasoning makes no sense" is not how things work on Wikipedia. Simply because you disagree does not mean that you are right and others are wrong (that was the exact same line of reasoning you also used when this happened back last year, see I'm right because my reasoning is right, you're wrong because you have failed to provide a reasonable counter argument? from Talk:Alexander_the_Great/Archive_23#Image_dispute,_v2). You reinstated a version which is clearly disputed (as you should know from, uh, getting blocked for edit warring over it?). Please learn to collaborate with, not confront, your fellow editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian Your reasoning is literally "my bust looks prettier than yours, so it should be used" and mine is "the current one has historical context, and it is probably closer to what Alexander the Great actually looked like". the version that you are trying to change has also been in place for months is most certainly not "clearly disputed". So why you are suddenly deciding that you don't like it now and want to change it. Deedman22 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting my comments. I've detailed reasons, which include MOS:IMAGEQUALITY (which has not that much to do with personal preference, but with objective factors such as contrast and clarity of the depicted object - oh, and it not missing a nose) and plenty of others (including how the "historical context" claim is not only unprovable but not a sufficiently major distinction in this case to support a worse picture). You can keep poking the strawman, but that only shows that you're not willing to collaborate and a bit of WP:BATTLEGROUND. You reinstated your preferred version back in late February (which is just over a month ago), without any talk page discussion, despite you knowing full well that such a change had been rejected the last time around. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

huh, I reverted someone's edit who had been trying to change the current image that was already in place. the current image has been in place for over half a year.

This dispute was resolved months ago and the current lead image (which has been in place for over half a year) was the settled-on bust. You (for some reason) have decided that you want to start edit-warring again. Also, if you remember, the bust I originally proposed (the one by Lysippos) is not being used as the lead, and is further down. We came to a middle-ground. There's nothing wrong with the quality of the current bust.

Deedman22 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is very much undeniable evidence that the infobox image was changed back on February 23, just over a month ago, as I was saying, without any accompanying discussion or consensus. Worse than that, it's not even the same picture that's been restored this time around... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, it was changed without discussion or consensus in Febuary, and i simply changed it back. What's worse is you aren't even looking at previous edits to see the image that has been used since at least July 2021. The Feb2022 edit that I made was a reversion to the one that has been used since July2021. And okay, it's the same bust at a different angle (by the exact same artist) so for all intents and purposes it's the same picture. Deedman22 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Deedman22, I agree with RandomCanadian on this. A consensus of 2 should not be hard to challenge, but thus far it seems that you are alone. I would urge you to persuade rather than bludgeon. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I've linked the last talk page discussion on this (Talk:Alexander_the_Great/Archive_23#Image_dispute,_v2) - and there is no consensus for your proposed version there. In fact, there seems to be consensus against using your version. This doesn't have to end like last time, although again that's entirely your choice. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian The version I was proposing in that discussion is for an entirely different image. Yes, there is a 2:1 consensus against the version i proposed in that discussion (by the same two people this time around), which is why it's not the image that is currently being used, and the version that is being used was the middle-ground image. Now you two are deciding that you don't like it and are ganging up on "middle-ground" image. Interesting. Deedman22 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  You can't play two tunes on the same fiddle. It's not is for an entirely different image. In that very same discussion, you said, and I quote, It is a picture of the same bust at a different angle. If a very similar picture was rejected, simply using a slightly different one doesn't quite cut it as "middle-ground" per any definition of that term. A middle-ground would be something like the Alexander Mosaic (which a lot of people have said they'd be fine with). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian if you read the discussion i was clearly arguing for the usage of the Lysippos depiction, but since you kept changing that, I began defending the usage of the then-current image (which was the Leochares depiction, the current image now) as the middle ground. Deedman22 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian The bottom line is, you decided, three days ago, that you wanted to change the lead image (one that has been in use for many months) to an image that fits your taste for aesthetic appeal, without any accompanying discussion or consensus, and then you brought up an old discussion about two completely different images (Lysippos depiction vs Roman portrayal), with very little context, and when I tried to change it back you began edit-warring. Deedman22 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Deedman22, however this began, I concur with RandomCanadian now. That looks like consensus to me. If you can show otherwise, please do. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  You've broken WP:3RR, and are edit warring against two other editors who've each made two edits each. Beam in your own eye, and all of that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Deedman22, please stop reverting even while this discussion continues. That will almost certainly lead to sanctions against you. Dumuzid (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C4:4788:2400:FDF0:F5B2:3CBE:C401 reported by User:PAVLOV (Result: Blocked)

Page: British Union of Fascists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A00:23C4:4788:2400:FDF0:F5B2:3CBE:C401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Oswald Mosley was left wing, his own words. Only a fool or a liar would parrot the left wing diatribe of Fascism being Far Right. Fascism was a progressive left wing ideology, hence the attraction to Mosley. To quote Mosley In 1968, he remarked in a letter to The Times, "I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics."[62]"
2. 20:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Cannolis LMFAO you Soy Boy Black Shirt, I'm waiting for you to revert it again, like a true Left Wing Fascist would. Adolf would have been proud of you LOL"
3. 20:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Cannolis, your personal opinion & political affiliations disregards the FACTS. The Doctrine of Fascism was written by the far left Giovanni Gentile & Benito Mussolini, heavily influenced by communism. FACTS."
4. 19:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Oswald Mosley Wiki page, he was left wing. In 1968, he remarked in a letter to The Times, "I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics."[62]"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on British Union of Fascists."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Well, this edit war was started by this IP user and seemed they don't want to communicate with each other. PAVLOV (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cannolis: welcome to share your opinion about this case. Thanks a lot. PAVLOV (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Looked to me to be an IP trying to push the absurd idea that fascism is a left wing ideology. Considered it to be vandalism so I was reverting freely though perhaps it was just WP:OR with the IP thinking Mosley's quote constitutes a RS for this particular group being left wing. Cannolis (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Also been involved here; the IP has repeatedly reverted several users while trying to equivocate fascism as being a leftist ideology. My last revert asks for discussion prior to future edits. We'll see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Should also note that the first two edits of this string came from Special:Contributions/92.40.174.238 Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours by User:Drmies. The IP editor wants to describe the British Union of Fascists as left-wing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Galileeblack reported by User:Sweetpool50 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: A. E. Housman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Galileeblack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:26, 5 April 2022
2. 21:05, 5 April 2022‎
3. 15:53, 6 April 2022
4. 16:22, 6 April 2022

The last was an immediate reversion of user’s self-reversion

Appeal to discuss matter

1. 20:58, 5 April 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:35, 6 April 2022

Relevant talk page discussions:

1. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A._E._Housman&oldid=1081246595]

Subsequently blanked by user #[12] And replaced by another editor

1. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A._E._Housman&oldid=1081298618]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 8 April 2022

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ankit solanki982 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ankit solanki982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

Comments:

Note they have in fact (along with oither users) been at this for days. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note they continue to edit war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note as well the user continues to try and make dishonest edits here [[22]], this is the second time they have tried a stunt like this. I think they need a full on block. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate at ANI? Due to likely sockpuppetry, and POINTY disruption, as well as edit warring and personal attacks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

True, but at the time this was really an edit war issue, now I think there are other issues as well. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

They have now been indfed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Indef blocked by User:Girth Summit per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaideep thakur. The page in dispute has also been EC protected under WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Chesapeake77 reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: Warned)

Page: Kramatorsk railway bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chesapeake77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Chesapeake77: [23]
2. Me: [24]
3. Chesapeake77: [25]
4. Dunutubble: [26]
5. Chesapeake77: [27]
6. Me: [28]
7. Chesapeake77: [29]
8. AusLondonder: [30]
9. Chesapeake77: [31]

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:

Chesapeake77 is adding inappropriate infobox to article against reverts of three other editors - AusLondonder, Dunutubble and me. It continues after the edit-warrior being referred to the guidelines: link. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Chesapeake77 said she was not aware of the three-revert rule. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment I did not know about the 3 revert rule.

The first time I saw the rule described, I stopped reverting.

I did not see all the posts about this immediately.

I won't be doing any more reverts on this issue. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Editor posted a template on my talk page to accuse me of edit-warring despite being reverted by multiple editors. Editor also used edit summaries to accuse others of vandalism for reverting the incorrect addition of a second infobox to the page. Fairly new editor so may not be aware of policies regarding edit warring but they need to learn basic policies like this fast. AusLondonder (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. The user may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  They're a new editor. Please be gentle. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:188.120.98.211 reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: Semi)

Page: Vojvodina's Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 188.120.98.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081140751 by Vacant0 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Check the page history, the same user has been removing content from different IPs. IP 1, IP 2, IP 3 Vacant0 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Previous IPs have been already warned 1, 2, 3, 4 --Vacant0 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Gasittig reported by User:Balkovec (Result: Warned)

Page: Marine Le Pen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "NPOV with inclusion of descriptor further in paragraph."
2. 17:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Refer to WP: NPOV"
3. 17:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Refer here if you need a lesson on neutral introductions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Macron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Scholz"

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) to 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Neutral intro accompanied by previously removed description later in paragraph"
   2. 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 03:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC) "Neutral description; see f.ex. Macron, Biden, Johnson, Scholz."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Warned after the report filed 18:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Note User was never warned about 3RR. Warning just issued. [32] —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:ChristaJwl reported by User:MrOllie (Result:Partial block)

Page: Chris Hollins (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081659356 by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk)"
2. 20:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081653346 by MrOllie (talk)"
3. 19:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Hollins releases his own birthdate on verified wikipedia page. Better, more comprehensive wording."
4. 00:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I did not write this like a campaign advertisement. And all sources are cited."
5. 00:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Correct Dates, Cite practice areas, update info block to reflect accurate descriptions, revise headings and subheadings"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* New Edits */ Reply"

Comments:

Note in particular persistent removals of the word "Interim" from his sourced job title, "Interim County Clerk". User is a near-single purpose account who was previously blocked from this page for a week for edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Partial block restored, this time indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Berposen reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Azov Battalion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. Dispute tag initially added here.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I rescue template. The consensus(RFC) has a content gap. The term neonazi is agreed upon, but the issue of its current status is not addressed, this is April 2022. I have said it in the discussion. Why does only one give his point of view? Discuss it there please, before deleting the quote template."
2. 22:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "The edit summaries are for summarizing the edit. I suggest removing templates that a collaborator places only after consensus. I also mention that "multitude" is too broad to describe the two reverters, 3, including you."
3. 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Be discuss removing this template in the discussion. The template "more citations needed" has too survived the criteria of the administrators. And it also dates from April."
4. 20:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081661457 by BSMRD (talk) The term is not questioned, it questions whether it continues to be or not."
5. 20:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "The edit summary is not the adequate place to justify template removals."
6. 20:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I recreate lost template, after restoration, because whitewashing."
7. 16:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1081630255 by EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk)"
8. 16:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "I proceed. I do not question the term. I question its actuality. Please remove the template via discussion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* 3RR violation on Azov Battalion */ new section"
2. 22:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* 3RR violation on Azov Battalion */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion */"
2. 21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Dubious template */ new section"
3. 21:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Sources for neo-Nazi descriptor */"
4. 21:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC) "/* RfC about the neo-Nazi descriptor */"

Comments:

They reverted another time shortly after I explained to them on their talk page that they had reverted four times already. (Though, when I went over their edits with Twinkle I found even more reverts on top of that.) Note that the text they are trying to tag as disputed was decided with an overwhelming consensus in this RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that they have continued to revert-war after I made this report, [33] (added above as well.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment:The collaborator does not agree that a point is questioned, under a template, totally within the norms. Although the complaint has substance, only I took the flag to defend my staff. That if there had been no objection from a vehements group of followers of the article, they would have discussed it in the discussion.--Berposen (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My Dispute tag initially added here. I hadn't noticed the other user's. I disputed his actuality. The other user, disputed to its origins, that flag, I do not take it, it is clear the agreed point in the RfC. The templates and their places were different. The rollback he are talking about is the rescue of the template quote. Because the other user who took the flag to question the RfC, added other templates, and the reversion that caused, eliminated mine. --Berposen (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

*Comment: Battleground mentality of User:Aquillion. The editor's repeated removal of "disputed" and "dubious" tags despite ongoing, and very involved, Talk Page discussion, in which a plurality of active editors disagree with his POV:

1. [34] - "rm. tag per additional sources."

2. [35] - "rv. recently-added template per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion - it is inappropriate to add a template like this once consensus is established."

User:Aquillion has made massive edits [36] despite all other involved editors refraining (or being forced to refrain through instant reverts) from doing so while the Talk Page discussion over sources and the upcoming RfC is ongoing.

User:Aquillion has refused to engage with the many sources, including those of the leading scholars on the issue (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, et al), in addition to the latest from the news orgs AFP, BBC, DW, CNN, WashPo,, Financial Times, which all explicitly refute his POV.

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

*Comment: It seems User:Vladimir.copic is also in breach of 3RR[37],[38],[39] - but I wouldn't dream of trying to get him blocked just because he happens to hold the opposite POV to me. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked one week. I also question whether Berposen has even the minimum English skills necessary to edit on en.wiki and to communicate with others.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@ Bbb23 - Battleground mentality of Aquillion? I feel users who arrive here with such an obvious absurdity to safeguard their POV partner need to be cautioned. I'm referring to the remark left EnlightenmentNow1792. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If another administrator wants to take action against another editor or editors, that's up to them. The block of Berposen was straightforward.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

User:Marappagounder reported by User:WikiLinuz (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marappagounder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Persistent edit-warring. Previously included the same text as an IP here, but ever since the page protection, warring as a registered user. For instance, see this note on the article talk page. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and here's the latest personal attack towards me. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Here too. This seems to be WP:NOTHERE. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

When the closing admin reads this, please take a look at (and block) the following IPs, who vandalised my talk page after I reverted Marappagounder; based Marappagounder's comment here, they are clearly the same individual:

• 117.249.228.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.245.96.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.249.206.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thanks. — Czello 08:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:106.215.40.96 reported by User:EnlightenmentNow1792 (Result: )

Page: Russian Orthodox Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
106.215.40.96 User talk:106.215.40.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46] [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48] Obviously not interested in engaging in Talk

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [49]

Comments: Weirdness [50], [51]

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The first three edits are manual edits. It is appaling that this user termed these 2 diffs[52], [53] as "Weirdness" when they are just sensible replies to User:El C and now further justified by this deceitful report. 106.215.40.96 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)