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)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Rao Lakshya Pratap Singh reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Rao Lakshya Pratap Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[1] at Latest revision as of 15:50, 8 May 2022 "The real history was Rao Gujarmal defeated Badgurjar Bahadur Singh and area was annexed into Ahirwal . This is true story"
06:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "Article should be now put protection as It is violating the history No Dor Rajput were mentioned anywhere . The Antiqe of Ghasera fort clearly mentioned Rao Gujarmal and Surajmal as pagdi brothers. The name itself putting mal means they both are expert"
16:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "It was only Rao Gujarmal who killed Bahadur Dacoit and took revenge of his father"
[2] at Revision as of 07:01, 7 May 2022 "It was Rao Gujjarmal who killed Bahadur Singh niot by any Rajput ruler as Rajputs were already defeated by Rao Gujjarmal"
[3] at Revision as of 01:28, 6 May 2022 "Initially it was ruled by Yadav Rulers. This has to be added and Bad Gurjar Bahadur Singh killed by Rao Gujjarmal of Rewari"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

11:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ambati Rayudu."
09:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Aligarh."
09:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */"
16:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Aligarh."
16:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

09:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */ new section"

Comments:

User keeps on removing sourced content, replaces with their own unsourced content, POV pushing caste Yadav/Ahir replacing sourced mention of "Rajput". Fails to seek WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page despite multiple requests. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar unsourced Yadav/Ahir-caste POV push in other articles [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, Rao Lakshya Pratap Singh broke WP:3RR (also linked under Diffs of the user's reverts above). Still no discussion at talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArsenalAtletico2017 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "The dispute is still ongoing which term should be used, so let's delete both before dispute is over" (Re-removes "neo-Nazi")
11:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Influences */ Dispute is not solved so it should not be added" ~~Re-removes "neo-Nazi"~~(Removes a different "neo-Nazi", undoing another editor's addition)
19:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Influences */ Approximately 100 words added as suggested in the Talk page" (Re-adds summary)
15:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Most of the sources say "fascist", so it should be "fascist"" (Re-removes "neo-Nazi")
21:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "Most of the sources describe him as "fascist" rather than "neo-nazi"" (Re-removes "neo-Nazi", undoing another editors addition)
20:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Influences */" (Re-adds summary, undoing another editor's removal)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Enemy of Europe."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is not a 3RR report, though AA2017 did revert four times in a 25 hour period. Despite the lack of a bright-line violation, this user is definitively edit warring, with universal talk page objection to their summaries of the work and their repeated removal of "neo-Nazi" as a descriptor of its author. Over the past few days, this pattern is evidenced across other related pages (Francis Parker Yockey, the author, and Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, his previous book). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not even an edit-warring. The summary of the work has been reduced in size by every edit and reached app. 100 words as suggested on Talk page, also the debate about which term should be used ("fascist" or "neo-nazi") is still ongoining so I removed both of them currently exactly to avoid edit-warring. There is no patter of me sabotaging the page in any way by engaging in edit war.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the report since the above reply, so I want to make sure, ArsenalAtletico2017, that you see the changes. You're undoing the work of other editors, and you know that there are objections to the edits I linked. It's edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC) this edit was not about Yockey unlike three other edits which removed "neo-Nazi" from the text. Other three edits are not done within 24 hours.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's worth clarifying, so I've struck the original description and substituted in that it was removal of a different neo-Nazi. It was still an undoing of the other editor's addition, and edit warring includes any reversion "involving the same or different material". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to clutter the report too much, but if admins would like diffs of edit warring on the closely related pages, they are available upon request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wareno reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments: I was also reported by him here: [17]

The User:Qiushufang is currently reported for disrupting Wikipedia with arbitrary and very obviously partisan pro-Chinese edits. This is just him trying to get out of it. Wareno (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned about edit warring [18] at 22:43 and asked to engage in talk discussion [19] at 22:55 prior to your report at [20] at 23:54, before which you neither engaged in dispute resolution at the article's talk page or at my user talk. And after you reported me you continued to edit war [21]. Qiushufang (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Wareno and User:Qiushufang are both warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Battle of Sincouwaan without a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Whether any particular source deserves to be included in an article needs the agreement of editors. Consider using WP:RSN if necessary. There is also a thread about this at WP:ANI#User:Qiushufang but it has not yet attracted anyone except the original disputants. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bulleye Jackie reported by wolf (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

[23] @ 2022-05-09T07:49:45
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] @ 2022-05-09T02:08:21

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [29] (by different user)

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

Comments: (I'm an observer, not involved in this dispute). This editor has reverted the same content 6 times in less than 6 hours, (a significant amount ≈25 kb) against two different editors; Chipmunkdavis and Horse Eye's Back. Does't appear a 3RR notice was given, possibly as it all happened rather quickly, or because it seems each user felt they were reverting vandalism and 3RR didn't apply...(?) Perhaps the users involved can clarify. - wolf 08:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism, it's WP:Harassment. The account exists solely to harass Horse Eye's Jack on this page, and somehow isn't blocked. CMD (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Up to 9RR now. CMD (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further look at the history shows this content was first reverted by an IP user back on 30 December 2020. Following a revert by Horse Eye's Jack, the Bulleye Jackie account was created the very next day, as an SPA, editing this article only. They reverted that content 9 more times over the next year or so, before this set of reverts (making 15 in total). Another IP user then reverted the same content, and user UBQITOSW has reverted the same content, in whole or in part, several times, but not in the past few months. There are other issues to consider here including possible socking and the need to address and very long running content dispute. - wolf 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA who has done nothing but disrupt/edit-war List of modern armament manufacturers. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: Great catch, just a historical note that the content dispute actually began in November 2017‎ not December 2020. The content was originally removed by Drmies in this series of edits[31][32][33][34]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wolf, thanks for writing this up--I know it's a drag to file edit warring reports. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:X11311y reported by User:Russ Woodroofe (Result: Both socks blocked)

User being reported: X11311y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

08:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "AMS Reviews and Zentralblatt give no objection to this paper really."
08:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "It is not for promotion.but for check by all mathematicians."
07:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "honest"
07:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

07:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "welcome; please do not edit war"
08:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

08:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC) on User talk:X11311y "/* Edit warring */ cmt"

Comments:

After explaining WP:3RR policy to X11311y, the similarly named account X11311 appeared to advanced similar edits. It looks like both accounts are WP:NOTHERE, violating WP:SOCK, etc; but there is at the very least a clear WP:3RR violation. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both socks blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soumyadip3 reported by User:Czello (Result: Indef)

User being reported: Soumyadip3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

10:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "LPR is a partially recognised state recognised by Russia and is a seperate breakaway state who hates Ukrainian Neo-Nazi regime. Stop DISRUPTIVE editing and use your Western ideas somewhere else"
10:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "The thing which is very much unclear is your DISRUPTIVE EDITING and having a Pro-Ukraine mindset because LPR is internationally recognised as a country by RUSSIA. So it's a PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED State. Is that THAT much difficult for you to understand"
09:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC) ""
06:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Added about Russia's recognition of LPR"
12:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "Added details about Luhansk People's Republic being recognised only by Russia"
11:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "LPR is a country recognised by Russia only"
10:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC) "Luhansk People's Republic, a breakaway state"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

10:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Luhansk People's Republic."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In addition, user is promoting Kremlin propaganda.[35] Clear WP:NOTHERE — Czello 10:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:2601:647:cc00:4a0::c2c8 reported by User:Aluxosm (Result: Page protected)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:53, 9 May 2022 "Undid revision 1086892373 by Vsmith (talk) please see talk"
14:23, 9 May 2022 "Undid revision 1086952254 by Aluxosm (talk) The age has been reported as fact and is not in dispute. Kjær quote has no citation & may not be actual quote."
16:00, 9 May 2022 "Undid revision 1086970013 by Aluxosm (talk) the unsupported Kjær quote appears to be fabricated to be fabricated to support a false narrative. See the Voosen ref."
03:01, 10 May 2022 "Undid revision 1087013175 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) Kjær quote does not reflect content of quote in cited source"
06:04, 10 May 2022 "Undid revision 1087072532 by Aluxosm (talk) fabricated information should never be used no matter how many friends agree"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:58, 9 May 2022 "→‎Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis: new section"
16:14, 9 May 2022 "→‎Edit warring over well sourced statements: new section"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts made at Talk:Younger Dryas impact hypothesis § Hiawatha Crater (beginning at: "The following statement has no source to back it up...")

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 16:58, 9 May 2022 "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring notice"

Comments:

IP user is repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing, predominantly by removing sourced material regarding Kurt Kjær, despite discussions and explanations. Aluxosm (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I accidentally reverted their last edit (diff before correcting). While I think that it should be done, I'm not sure that I should be the one to do it. The contentious version is the current one. Aluxosm (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:MovieBuffIndia reported by User:SP013 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "On what basis KGF Chapter 2 stands with 3 days old ₹1007 crore. Just because a non RS Jatinder Singh published it? Very basic thing of this movie surpassing RRR itself is void if you persist with this number. Have a discussion on talk page before reverting to 3 days old box office number. Those who have been following the BO section of this article knew that till 3 weeks only MB figure quoted by ht was used. Pinkvilla Jatinder is not a sole source."
04:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Refer ICTF discussion, Manobala Vijayabalan is very much reliable. Dozen sources with their editorial board approves it, unlike Jatinder Singh. Pinkvilla is never used for Bollywood or Telugu BO. Do no revise sourced figure current figure with outdated non RS figure. Undid revision 1086914626 by TuluveRai123 (talk)"
04:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Do not use non RS Jatinder Singh from Pinkvilla for BO. Refer ICTF."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on K.G.F: Chapter 2."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User violates the Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule on this single page and has been trying to push a POV about box office figures and attacks other editors who disagree with him. (He has already been banned multiple times for doing this but he still continues to do this) SP013 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks don't work here, it seems.

Blocked – for a period of 1 month ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:M.Bitton reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Filer warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[37] (next edit: [38]),
[39],
[40], this is revert of this edit [41]
[42], this is revert of this edit [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

Comments:
The user openly refuses to respect WP:3RR rule [47], even though they were blocked for 3RR violation before.My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. What "My very best wishes" is doing is deliberately confusing "bold edits" (such as number 4) and "reverts", while edit warring themselves against multiple editors (including Mhorg). Also, before filing this report, they left this notice (unlike them, I wasn't aware of it), and finally this sarcastic edit summary for the 3R notice.

The discussion on the talk page was started an hour after we stopped editing and so far nobody agrees with their so-called "improvements". M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I answer here as I got a ping. I can only say that user "My very best wishes" almost seems to be using this technique of bombing stable articles, removing whole chunks full of important text and sources. In just 24 hours he has removed all this stuff:[48][49][50][51][52][53][54] and therefore pushes many users to commit to reverting all his actions. In my opinion, while not violating any precise rules, it comes close to a type of malicious behavior. So I would suggest to those who have to deal with this practice to consider this aspect.--Mhorg (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I issue warnings to those who remove sourced content without a valid reason, and report them if necessary, but seeing as I was dealing with a veteran editor, I thought it would be insulting to do so. This is how I get thanked for it and for my AGF. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't edited the article that much myself, it is somewhat understandably generating more heat than light, step back/cool down probably ought to be the order of the day. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive343#Technical closure at Azov Battalion ("That talk page is radioactive. Nobody wants to touch it." El_C 23:55, 27 April 2022). The more substantive the edit, revert or not, the more fuss it is likely to cause. And everybody is "aware" now, right? Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Based on the response above (e.g. reply by M.Bitton about diff #4), he either does not understand what revert is or simply refuses to follow the 3RR rule (even though they were blocked for that before). Regardless, that means they should not edit such highly contentious subjects. Actually, I wanted to continue explaining the rule to user M.Bitton, but he did this [55] with edit summary "AGF has limits". After that, the only way for clarifying that matter was making a report on this noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"AGF has limits" was after the DS message that they left. The thing that I still can't get my head around is: how come "My very best wishes", while being fully aware of the DS (unlike myself) showed so little regard for it? In case you are wondering, yes, they reverted the reverts on more than on occasion. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not know about DS? The notice of DS is located on the top of talk page of Azov battalion where you edited [56]. You have previously received DS notifications by other users, in other subject areas [57]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't and don't you dare accuse me of lying (I won't stand for it). I don't see what the Horn of Africa has to do with Eastern Europe. More important, why template me if you were sure that I knew about it? M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The sourced content removal continues. M.Bitton (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get ready, because that's his way of interacting. I still don't understand how it can be allowed, but maybe it's just me who has a different way of conceiving the encyclopedia.--Mhorg (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:My very best wishes is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Azov Battalion without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. The editing climate on this article is not good ('radioactive' per User:El C), but that makes it all the more urgent for participants to edit carefully. I do not perceive an actual 3RR violation by either party but My very best wishes has been cutting a lot of corners on consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does user M.Bitton understand that they made a 3RR violation? If not (as follows from their response above), then I am afraid they will continue doing the same. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:90.186.249.22 reported by User:Uli Elch (Result: IP blocked for 72 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Comments: User stubbornly attempts to blow up fleet size in contrast to company's own website, which is stating 44 aircraft as of today. He instead quotes "my visits in Air HH Aircraft" as "source" for "56 aircraft".

User:Nishank21 reported by User:Le Deluge (Result: Indeffed)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kakarhati&oldid=1002692153 Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [70]

Comments:
It's not egregious, it's a new editor who has only tried to edit one article on a town in India apparently in good faith over the last week or so. But they just don't understand the concept of referencing or what's notable or how to format things - I've tried to explain but they just keep reverting their old material without any attempt at dialogue. Le Deluge (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked for nothing but disruption + a probable healthy dose of incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atlacatl Cortés reported by User:SrCerberus (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [71] (Atlacatl Battalion) and [72] (National Guard (El Salvador))

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Atlacatl Battalion:

1
2
3
4

National Guard (El Salvador):

1
2
3
4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here and also in the edit summary of the revertions, it can be seen in the revision history of both articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here and Here

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

Comments:
The user has also been making problematic edits to several wikipedia articles in Spanish and uploading multimedia files to wikimedia commons without the corresponding license. On the other hand, user PizzaKing13 has helped to keep the pages stable and reverse edits. He is already informed. 🫡 𝘇𝘂 𝗜𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗗𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻 Talk to me! 18:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. This user is edit warring to put back their incorrect image licensing claims. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:CreecregofLife reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result:CreecregofLife and U-Mos both warned )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Television */"
03:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1086905807 by U-Mos (talk) Unexplained removal. “Per talk page” is what’s said when you have consensus. Not the minute you make a proposal"
02:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1086903252 by U-Mos (talk) She is regenerating in the centenary. No regeneration in the modern era has waited to the next episode to reveal face. You don't have a source that their first appearance is in 2023. Why would they drag his in-show out for all we know THIRTEEN MONTHS from the hypothetical cliffhanger?"
02:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1086902888 by U-Mos (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

15:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Initial year for Doctor Who appearance */"
15:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Initial year for Doctor Who appearance */ Reply"
19:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Initial year for Doctor Who appearance */ Reply"
19:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Initial year for Doctor Who appearance */ Reply"

Comments:

Contributor violates WP:3RR and goes against consensus, showing no sign of stopping or intending to. Has been warned multiple times in edit summaries, albeit not directly to the three-revert rule, from what I know. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User Talk:CreecregofLife. ~~~~

as required by guidelines. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have consensus. There is an ongoing talkpage discussion. There was no 3RR warning. We are in the middle of talking it out. All of the reverts were done more than 24+ hours ago. To claim there were "no signs of stopping" is ludicrous. There is no reason for this report to be here. You can't abuse the ANEW board to swing a discussion in your direction CreecregofLife (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully reject the notion that I am doing this to swing any discussion. Also, not all reverts were done more than 24 hours ago, that's disproven by the list of diffs above. I maintain the report.

Notified: Talk:Ncuti Gatwa. ~~~~

Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 19:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You rejecting the notion doesn't make it any less of a fact. You declared consensus by inserting yourself. You also included a reversion that was done to maintain status quo because a reversion was made "per talk page" in the middle of the discussion the minute a change was proposed. The change was not supposed to be implemented at that point and somehow it's my fault because you labeled it edit warring? The fourth edit was made about 36 hours after the initial 3 and five hours before you made your report. You have made it clear that you do not follow proper procedure and are doing whatever you can to punish the opposition. I must ask that the report be retracted. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not retract my report and shall await response from other involved editors and admins. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 20:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I didn't violate 3RR, I enforced WP:STATUSQUO, I was never warned that I was violating 3RR, I was using the talkpage, your entire argument is faulty, you prematurely called consensus and used the board as a debate tactic. You didn't even try to resolve, you just wanted a win. "Per third opinion" is not consensus, it is not resolution. You are only proving nobody will play fair CreecregofLife (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm not retracting my report is because you did violate the three-revert rule. I agree you weren't warned about the 3RR, while you should have been, and I included this in the initial report. You also have nearly 10,000 edits so I consider it unlikely you're not aware of the three-revert rule, although this is an assumption of course. I don't want a win and I'm also not the editor whose edits you reverted/engaged in the edit war (or dispute if you will) with. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 20:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're still required to place a warning CreecregofLife (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filing this, Amadeus (and for responding to the third opinion); I was contemplating possible next steps. I filed the 3O as it was very clear that the discussion was going nowhere, even after I made the effort to discuss, did some source finding and WP:BOLDly implemented what I consider to be a very fair compromise (as can be seen in the talk page section). I was wary of any official warnings for fear of inciting further aggravation, and did think this could be resolved with a clear third opinion on the matter, but apparently not. U-Mos (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion could've gone somewhere if you bothered to discuss it instead of circumventing consensus. Why is when you edit war "Bold" but I maintaining WP:STATUSQUO edit warring? You are making it clear that neither of you wanted a fair discussion, and are punishing me for trying to keep things in line. Just because you don't like what you're hearing doesn't mean the conversation wasn't going anywhere. It is clear that both of yours handling was improper and you have no case CreecregofLife (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just say for full neutrality: If U-Mos also engaged in edit warring/repetitive editing in violation of the 3RR, I would also fully be for punishing them according to the policies and guidelines. We will see what the admins think. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 20:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely fair. U-Mos (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is that “fair”? He explicitly said he presumed innocence for you and guilt for me. That’s the exact opposite of fair CreecregofLife (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, explicitly nor implicitly, presume innocence for U-Mos. Obviously I 'presumed' guilt for you, since I reported you. I don't think that's based on presumption though, the facts are there and an admin has now responded. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 21:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not an “if”. They did. CreecregofLife (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By my review, both editors did not violate WP:3RR, and both did violate WP:EW. Because a compromise has now been reached, which supports neither version the editors were edit warring about, blocks would no longer be preventative. But to be clear, if either User:CreecregofLife or User:U-Mos edit war again, here or some other page, it will likely be resolved with blocks. Hopefully this warning is "preventative" enough. A warning before a block during each episode of edit warring is most certainly not required, and should not be counted on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I accept this finding, thanks for your time. U-Mos (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your resolution. I agree blocks would no longer be preventative, nor necessary. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 21:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jjiza reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Partial block)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "Please refrain from citing opinion pieces or material from questionable sources. Direct interview and/or Investigative journalism is required when presenting one's birthplace as a factual. In fact many public figures do not include birthplace as it is incredibly difficult to verify. Until there is a consensus presented from more than 1 source (not just the same blog piece), it would be unwise to present a foreign country as this man's birthplace."
20:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC) ""El pais" is not a reliable source. Author is not a journalist, and presents many assumptions (such as his weight or his date of marriage). Has no way of verifying his birth country. Sounds as if they went off what they googled and ran with it. I'd refer to the Associated Press article that says he's from Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. No mention of Ukraine."
20:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "removed "Ukrainian-born" , as his nationality is not mentioned in the linked source. We've repeated had edits citing Ukraine, New York, and Pennsylvania. Until there is a journalistic consensus regarding birthplace, it would be wise to leave out until that point in time."
20:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1087172214 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) Insider does not mention his birthplace or birth city. Faulty linkage."
20:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1087171848 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)Direct quotes are not a violation. i.e. <Trisha Paytas>"
20:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1087109495 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)redundant"
04:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1087071048 by Endwise (talk) One would think that such alleged orchestration deems relevance in this particular sector. Considering context and overall impact (I believe their "drama" received upwards of 35+ million hits), one would not find direct leading quotes "excessive", providing this is a page about himself. Surely this would be inappropriate on the <Mukbang> page, but on his own? Hard to justify the contrary."
04:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1085902317 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) Direct quotes are superior, journalistic interview, per wiki rules."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "/* May 2022 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC) "pinging Jjiza to the section discussing the Soo controversy and starting a new section for the birthplace dispute"

Comments: Jjiza said they'd read the edit warring policy in this 21:09 (UTC) edit just before reverting again (revert diff #1 above at 21:15). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocked from Nikocado Avocado as this article is clearly the focus of their editing here and they're reverting multiple editors to blank sourced content.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:1.121.215.198 reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: Blocked 7 days)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [80]

Comments:
Reverted by four editors, and still not talking. Also warring on other pages. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 7 days. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berposen reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [88]

Comments:

The user was blocked a while ago for this on the same page. Now they are claiming an RFC consensus based upon an RFC, and their opinion of what option had "won" (which seems to be wrong). Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berposen may be running out of chances. They are back again at this board after a 3RR block for the same thing issued on April 8 by User:Bbb23. Since Berposen became active on enwiki once again in April of this year their edits are almost entirely about the Azov battalion. Berposen seems to be misunderstanding the result of the RfC that the other editors are trying to follow. As before, the dispute is about whether to have 'neo-Nazi' in Wikipedia's voice in the article lead, a thing that was confirmed by the 2021 RfC. Per his comments in the last 3RR complaint, the one on April 8, it is uncertain whether Berposen actually understands our policy and can express himself well in English. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Arrivals at this point, you are right, I must be misinterpreting something because of the google translator. You already as an administrator find shortcomings about my editorial in the enWiki, and you join a group of editors that already exceed 6 people, something must be wrong, I will refrain from re-editing the article. I apologize for wasting make them time. --Berposen (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2022 (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