Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 18:59, 1 May 2020 (→User:CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Symphony Regalia (Result: Filer blocked): Sorry, fixed my reference to MarkH21). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Nyclover4 reported by User:Trillfendi (Result: Warned)

    Page: Katie Moore (model) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nyclover4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    God knows why this new user was so bored they decided to go tearing apart Katie Moore (model) for no valid reason. Claiming the article is promotional (it’s not... it’s a standard fashion model stub of an article), claiming reliable sources are unreliable or self-published, and trying to remove a bunch of content to get the page speedily deleted. If they knew how Wikipedia worked they would’ve proposed deletion if they believed the model did not meet notability standards. But obviously that’s not the case as reliable sources like W Magazine, Harper’s Bazaar, and the Houston Chronicle have given her enough significant coverage.

    1. It started here, when they tagged the perfectly fine page for speedy deletion, claiming the article was promotional and need to be rewritten. By whom?
    2. Then they removed all career activity because the source’s link died, rather than simply placing the archived link. Who What Wear is a reliable fashion source.
    3. Then nonsensical mess like this.
    4. Then claiming I had a conflict of interest because I... created the page and put work there. Make it make sense.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs)
    • Result: User:Nyclover4 is warned that competence is expected. With this edit he managed to trash the infobox. On his eighth Wikipedia edit he placed a well-formed G11 tag on the article. Meanwhile he managed to trigger the edit filter. The article is well-sourced and the subject is probably notable. This may not be the user's first Wikipedia account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danielinnov8 reported by User:Psychologist_Guy (Result: Warned)

    Page: Joel Fuhrman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Danielinnov8 (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]

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

    I raised the issue on the talk-page earlier on. However they ignored my original request for discussion and repeatedly added this [5], [6], [7]

    Comments:

    Repeated edit warring. This user wanted to add 15 links to amazon.com. I disputed that and the excessive amount of other links they want to include. On the talk-page I created a section "Problematic edits from Danielinnov8", this user has created a section about me "Problematic edits from Psychologist Guy" but placed it above my section in an attempt to make out he was on the talk-page first. I find this dishonest. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: User:Danielinnov8 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Joel Fuhrman unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.86.138.120 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Semi, Rangeblock)

    Page
    Pat Toomey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    72.86.138.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953494621 by ZimZalaBim (talk) you're edit warring to sustain your opinion of the "importance" of this committee. Need to make up your own mind why you keep reverting: is it irrelevant material or not?"
    2. 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953493513 by ZimZalaBim (talk) this is a well known/easily ascertained fact. What is an opinion is your declaration that the committee assignment is important, which cannot stand if one admits that nobody with seniority got appointed to it. You're edit warring to impose your opinion...about a committee assignment so trivial it hasn't even occured to you to add it to the list of Toomey's committee assignments here."
    3. 13:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953484889 by ZimZalaBim (talk) needless deletion of relevant material. If the committee is important as claimed, the lack of seniority would be highly relevant. Who benefits from suppressing that info?"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This IP range is engaging in the persistent insertion of POV commentary, continuously reverting any attempt to remove it from the article. The article was recently protected due to this activity, but now restrictions are lifted and the IP range is back. ZimZalaBim talk 13:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look at page history you'll see the other IP addresses involved, which also included harassing me on my talk page. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    But you yourself are not engaging in edit warring, or pushing your own POV? This began, I'll remaind all, with my deletion of a trivial insertion on Toomey's page by a Politico sockpuppet of a Politico story noting that Toomey had been appointed to (another) committee tasked with overseeing the vast emergency spending by the Trump administration. Trivial because it cannot meet during the emergency recess, cannot force Trump to reveal information he has said in his signing statement he will not permit Congress to oversee, and cannot use clout it does not have (1 of the 4 members is not even an elected official, the other 2 have virtually no seniority -- in other words, a committee nobody with clout wanted to be on). The creation of the committee was an extremely small deal, so small that nobody on Toomey's page even thought to add it to the list of Toomey's committee assignments. It was blatant sockpuppetry to promote Politico's story, pure and simple. Instead of accepting that I was eliminating trivia, ZimZalaBim and a handful of other naive (?) editors began reverting over and over the deletion of the sockpuppet's work, insisting without argument and in the absense of evidence that the committee was important and highly relevant now. ZimZalaBim was so determined to prevent the inclusion of my edits that, once I accepted that these "naive" editors were not going to let it be removed or even try to make a case for its importance, and once I decided to add basic context to let readers determine whether this semi-orphaned committee was actually important, ZimZalaBim began deleting all those edits as well. Again, no justification, evidence or argument - just edit warring and threatening as alwasy to ban me. Utterly preposterous behavior...elevating trivia and ignorning sockpuppetry, just because he has the power to do so.

    As for the complaints about my IP addresses, that just goes to prove that he and his buddies don't understand how some ISPs assign IP addresses randomly. I have in fact improved the Toomey page considerably over the years, something that cannot be said of ZimZalaBim or the other "naive" editors who wish to block me from unscrewing what the sockpuppet screwed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.120 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be civil in your interactions and discussions. Toomey's appointment to the COVID-19 Congressional Oversight Commission is notable. Whether you feel the Commission will have any power or influence is your opinion and not relevant in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rubriguez reported by User:Eric (Result: Warned)

    Page
    Spanish language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Rubriguez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Names of the language */"
    2. 14:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Names of the language */Added content"
    3. IP diff for first edit
    4. IP diff for second edit (undoing Eric's initial revert)*
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Edits to Spanish language */ new section"
    2. 14:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Spanish language. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    I have tried to provide guidance to this user, so far to no avail. I do not want to repeat my reverts, so I guess I have to bring this to admins. Note that the user's first two edit sessions on this topic were made while not logged in: Special:Contributions/79.159.110.249. See that talk page: User_talk:79.159.110.249. Eric talk 15:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: This is my first time using the Twinkle ARV tool to make an edit-warring report, so I likely did not employ it perfectly. Open to any refinement of my approach.
    Note also: I have no reason to believe that Rubriguez was deliberately editing from multiple accounts; I presume the user had inadvertently logged out. Eric talk 16:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: I have tried to solve this situation writing on the Section "talk" at the Spanish Language article. Please check these two active discussions: "Names of the language" #REDIRECCIÓN [[8]]
    and "Castellano y español (map blue and red)" #REDIRECCIÓN [[9]]. Besides, I tried to solve it at Eric page with a specific discussion about it but he deleted it #REDIRECCIÓN [[10]]. I would like to ask for apologies due to my ignorance with the codes for right writing at Wikipedia. I'm learning it.Rubriguez (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.154.179.211 reported by User:TheseusHeLl (Result: Rangeblock)

    Page: The Promised Neverland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 81.154.179.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of 81.154.179.211's reverts:

    1. [11] "Souce Unreliable"
    2. [12] "they are lying to you!"
    3. [13] "i'm not stopping until you put this on LOCKDOWN!"

    Diffs of 81.154.188.238's reverts:

    1. [14]
    2. [15] " It's A f*cking lie!"
    3. [16] "you'll be sorry"
    4. [17] "you'll be sorry"
    5. [18] "you'll be sorry"
    6. [19] "you'll be sorry"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    This editor reverted the reverts of over 5 editors! -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblocked by Ad Orientem for a month. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Ad Orientem and Tenryuu. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:‎ Buidhe reported by User:Light show (Result: Warned)

    Page: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Buidhe (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. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] This is not a 3RR notice. --Light show (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

    Comments:

    Light show (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I note that Light show did not warn Buidhe regarding edit warring before coming here. I also note that the "discussion" Light show opened on the talk page was open all of three hours before they brought it here. That's certainly not in the spirit, regardless of the letter, of the policy. ——SN54129 09:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor had already replied three times and made it totally clear they had no intention of discussing their deletions. A notice was placed on their talk page right after posting here. In addition, the editor is obviously quite experienced and had nonetheless violated the 3RR guideline. A warning about 3RR was not needed.--Light show (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The point about warnings is that they give an editor a chance to self-revert. Let me take an abstract, hypothetical example; if an editor is, say, topic-banned from BLPs, but (accidentally) edits a BLP, they would probably prefer the warning and the chance to self-revert, would they not? I can't imagine that they would actually prefer an admin to swoop in and block them without warning, as you seem to be advocating. ——SN54129 09:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an edit warring notice only. The final comment by the editor (below) made it clear they had no intention to revert anything.Light show (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your mass deletions without requested discussion should all be restored." --Light show (talk) 1:10 am, Today (UTC−7)
    "You're the one who needs to prove consensus for the INCLUSION of this content, per WP:ONUS." buidhe 1:27 am, Today (UTC−7) Light show (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All true. Unfortunately, WP:ONUS is policy; so you better have one hell of a good reason for not abiding by policy. You don't get to pick and choose when to follow policy. ——SN54129 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If you check the page history, you'd see that the number of reverts is the same between Light show and myself. I propose that the talk page discussion plays out until Light show gains consensus for the inclusion of this material (or not) per WP:ONUS. (If both Light show and myself undid until we got back to 3 reverts, the result would be same as now). Before this, I thought that edit warring only refers to the same content being repeatedly added or deleted. buidhe 09:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am willing to agree to a temporary editing restriction on this article, but I note for whoever closes this discussion that Lightshow also violated 3RR. buidhe 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: User:Buidhe is warned they may be blocked if they make more changes to Covid-related articles in the next seven days without first getting consensus in their favor on a talk page. User:Light show also violated 3RR and should be aware of WP:ONUS when they try to restore disputed material in the future. Buidhe continued to revert while this report was open. Both users are experienced and I am surprised that Buidhe seems not to fully understand the rules. Another admin might have chosen to block both parties so I am hoping that the war stops here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that I did not violate 3RR. And because the other user did, but seemed unconcerned, I decided to bring the general edit war issue here, but not as a 3RR. The other user chose to ignore repeated requests to discuss, which was the point. Although from the hostile feedback I alone received here initially, I won't bother next time I see flagrant violations of guidelines. --Light show (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Light show, the article history shows you making five reverts starting with this one at 06:35 on 29 April. Each of these edits was labelled 'Undid' so they have to be reverts. How does that not violate 3RR? On the question of hostile feedback, I hope you won't consider the above reminders about WP:ONUS to constitute hostile feedback. Your effort to open a proper talk page discussion is noted. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed 3rr referred to reverts for the same edit, not to any reverts to anything on a page. In any case, my notice wasn't about 3rr, it was about a drive-by highly experienced editor doing mass deletions and ignoring requests to discuss. If you review the examples on your linked discussion, you'll see that hundreds of words from different sections, in different deletes, with at least 36 separate citations, were removed over a few minutes. They had minimal rationales, like "irrelevant." Therefore, any regular editor of an article who reverted such edits would be violating 3RR, despite requesting a discussion.
    The editor then put the "onus" to restore anything onto whomever wants any of it restored, even demanding a consensus. Allowing that kind of protection to a drive-by mass deletionist does not seem to be what ONUS was intended for: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. There have been hundreds of edits by dozens of experienced editors before the editor drove by, none of whom considered the deleted material a topic for dispute. There were no discussions I recall about any of the now deleted material. The onus should obviously be on the other editor, who should be required to restore the deleted material and discuss before performing deletions to stable and undisputed text. And a primary editor to the article should IMO be thanked, Ed, for properly noticing the issue here, as opposed to being equally warned.--Light show (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Light show, I doubt you will succeed in getting the meaning of WP:ONUS changed. But meanwhile, feel free to open a WP:Request for comment about one or all of the disputed items. I think you are familiar with RfCs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ash Salvatore reported by User:Robertsky (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Enrique Iglesias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ash Salvatore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Sales updated!! And yaa bish faces better keep ya pointy nose outta it!! Unless ya got somthing ti prove me wrong."
    2. 05:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953805386 by 88marcus (talk)"
    3. 10:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953583355 by 88marcus (talk)"
    4. 21:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953352041 by DariuZzandor (talk)"
    5. 12:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953051256 by Keith D (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. The user's talk page
    2. Talk:Enrique Iglesias
    Comments:

    The user has been disruptive on this article, insisting on using a relatively less reliable source to inflate the sales figure of the artist despite the reasoning given in the user's talk page. The user had been 3RR ban before on 3 April for the same article, and refuses to engage in constructive criticism and reasoning. Despite not breaching 3RR per day, the user have been reverting other users' edits over the same statement ever since his block ended. robertsky (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – Two weeks by User:Ponyo for disruptive editing. This follows an earlier 72-hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ahmedfalah7711 reported by User:Jaydayal (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ahmedfalah7711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953840562 by Jaydayal (talk)"
    2. 09:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953840149 by YoloSCIS (talk)"
    3. 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953836344 by YoloSCIS (talk)"
    4. 08:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953833988 by Speaklevel (talk)"
    5. 08:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953831698 by Speaklevel (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "/* April 2020 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Looking at user talk page, it is full of explanations and warnings but there is no response from the user. He is not responding to any message and continuing his revert spree. Jaydayal (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I have provided plenty of explanation, please check the contribute history i only amended the the british ban of RSS not the other part. You are being busy with polar mind blaming it on me. I have explained how the citation fail to verify the british ban off RSS clearly in my contrition Ahmedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ahmedfalah7711 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Satendresse reported by User:Graecusperseus (Result: No action)

    Page
    Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User reported
    Satendresse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user actively refuses to continue engaging in the talk page and it seems futile to try to convince him to do so. It seems necessary to block him.Graecusperseus (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Actually, there is some communication, but I don't see enough history to say they refuse to engage. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:114.134.189.16 reported by User:MrQueeba (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Alexander Fernando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    114.134.189.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953967508 by MrQueeba (talk)"
    2. 00:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953967406 by 2604:6000:FCC2:EE00:2CA4:A39D:6F02:C6A0 (talk)"
    3. 00:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953967066 by 47.20.138.157 (talk)"
    4. 00:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966917 by V DE VICTINI (talk)"
    5. 00:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966770 by 190.92.88.36 (talk)"
    6. 00:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966614 by 190.92.88.36 (talk)"
    7. 00:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966412 by JamesHSmith6789 (talk)"
    8. 00:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966310 by 2601:404:8102:5590:6929:7B9E:586B:4639 (talk)"
    9. 00:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966206 by Stizzleswick (talk)"
    10. 00:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953965815 by GenesisMaster (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    repeatedly adding text about an unrelated celebrity to the top of the article despite several reverts. already received warning from another user MrQueeba (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 31 hours by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:14.203.52.66 reported by User:Dibbydib (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Origin (Brown novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    14.203.52.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954039612 by Evolution and evolvability (talk)"
    2. 10:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "The author of a work has a right not to have authorship of the work falsely attributed to someone else (s 195AC(1) Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Copyright Act)). Since deleting it or salting it from wikipedia where to check for authorship, I will paste the link here:( www.linkedin.com/in/pierre-m-harkild-752131106) and if they remove it will be infringing on my "Moral rights" to be acknowledged as the author and will be held responsible if not being correctly attributed...."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 10:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Literally states that they were a blocked account earlier ([27]) and is continuting to edit war on Origin (Brown novel). dibbydib (T ･ C) 10:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 1 week by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be the same guy as the one reported at AN for warring about Origin (Brown novel). He gave his name in an edit that has now been revdelled. He says he has a claim to copyright on some materials used by Dan Brown. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More about this story can be seen (admin-only) at [28]. Due to the legal threats, I think that blocks or semiprotections will be justified if this editor shows up anywhere else. Admins who handled this in the past were Jauerback, Ohnoitsjamie and Yamla. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A14.203.52.66&type=revision&diff=954065149&oldid=954064924 More of that vandals posts here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.124.29 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Symphony Regalia (Result: Filer blocked)

    Page: Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 06:36, 30 April 2020‎ (UTC)
    2. 01:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    3. 15:39, 29 April 2020‎ (UTC)
    4. 22:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt to resolve on user talk

    Comments:

    • CaradhrasAiguo has a long history of removing information from related articles without explanation. He first attempted to remove this section here, and I challenged this edit because most recent talk page consensus is not in favor. He then immediately reverted my revert, but stopped after I warned him to stop editing warring. The discussion moved to his talk page, where I asked for explanation on why he suddenly removed an entire section, and suggested that he take it to the article talk with a proposed rewrite. In response he indicated that he was aware that there is no consensus but does not care because his position is correct and others aren't.
      The next day, without going to the article talk, he blanks the section again twice (diffs 3 and 2 in the above list), and then subsequently directly canvasses help from a friendly editor (MarkH21) for 3rd revert. CaradhrasAiguo has a history of enlisting help from MarkH21 when he is in dispute with other editors. For example, when he was accused of POV editing on similar content he threatened the other editor by saying "Sod off, you have now been warned by MarkH2". Similarly, MarkH2 has a history of posting on CaradhrasAiguo's talk page to back up his arguments[29][30][31]. Outside of the talk page, CaradhrasAiguo and MarkH2 have been coordinating in POV disputes on related topics (China) going back 5 months now. [32][33]
      MarkH2, after being summoned, incorrectly cites WP:ONUS to suggest that CaradhrasAiguo does not need to follow BRD when challenged on removal that changes status quo, and then performs the 3rd revert for CaradhrasAiguo.
      Per WP:REMOVAL, "If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule".
      Please review the evidence. Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-administrator comment) Because MarkH21 is accused of a few things in this report, I have notified him of this report on his talk page. --MrClog (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is nonsense. If a multiple editors reverts an edit and suggests talk page resolution, the collective edits don’t get lumped together into a 3RR report as if they’re one editor. WP:REMOVAL is an essay, not policy nor guideline and definitely not standard practice.
      As I explained at User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Removal of sourced material, the two of you need to open a discussion at the article talk page and achieve consensus for the inclusion of the material which is required by the policy WP:ONUS. WP:BRD is just an explanatory supplement for one optional method of obtaining such a consensus.
      As I urged both of you to do before, you need to discuss it at article talk instead of bickering over tangential issues and frivolously accusing editors of POV coordination. This is an utter waste of time. — MarkH21talk 14:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-administrator comment) To be fair, it seems like Symphony Regalia argues that there was WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for the inclusion of the article. The disputed text seems to have been in the article at least since the beginning of this month. The question seems to be whether "silence is consent" also means that the onus lies on the remover to establish formal consensus if there has been implicit consensus for a longer period of time. In my opinion, it does not. I would say that the moment CaradhrasAiguo removed the text, there was no longer an implicit consensus, because the silence was broken, meaning the person seeking to include the material has to achieve consensus. (Full disclosure: I was in a dispute with Caradhras in March.) --MrClog (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I agree and I don’t think that past assumed consensus by silence is a factor in WP:ONUS anyways. ONUS is very clear: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Here, we have a dispute over whether content should be included and there is currently no consensus.
      Either way, this 3RR report is a waste of time. Symphony Regalia and CaradhrasAiguo were advised to discuss the actual content dispute on article talk instead of focusing on tangential complaints. This report is now the worst of the bunch. — MarkH21talk 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      A 3RR violation took place. You say "multiple editors", but what you really mean is one editor and someone he canvassed directly after his 2nd revert, knowing full well that person would assist him. It's rather misleading for you to claim you told us to take it to talk or to act like you played the role of the mediator when you joined a side in an edit war and issued a revert. In reality I told him to take it to talk, which was the entire point I went to his talk page at all, and on the contrary your entry into the discussion was you asserting that CaradhrasAiguo does not need to seek consensus even if his removal is challenged, and thus does not need to go to talk. You didn't mention talk at all until after I mentioned it. Your primary purpose there was to help him achieve his 3R while providing enough plausible deniability to not look like you were doing so, which is why you reverted instead of staying out of it, and it's exactly why he notified you. You and him have a long history of doing this for each other.
      I don't believe Wikipedia was ever intended to be an environment where someone can get challenged on a large removal, ignore WP:BRD and edit war, and then canvass an ideologically similar editor to help. There are a lot of ideologically similar editors I could call, but I would never directly notify them for the purpose of helping me revert after being challenged.
      It seems very few editors agree with your interpretation of WP:ONUS. If something has been in the article for a long time, it's presumed to have reasonably strong consensus. If you are challenged on said removal WP:ONUS does not give you a ticket to not follow WP:BRD. WP:RFC closures on longstanding content near-universally take a "no consensus" outcome as "maintain the status quo". "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" does not mean that anyone can remove sections and blank articles for any reason. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      SR, re: your wild supposition Your primary purpose there was to help him achieve his 3R while providing enough plausible deniability to not look like you were doing so, which is why you reverted instead of staying out of it, and it's exactly why he notified you.–You have no evidence for that, and you will withdraw that or be seen as continuing your previous disruptive behavior. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You have a history of attempting to intimidate editors who highlight your misconduct, and regardless of your attempts to do so, I am not going to refrain from reporting inappropriate behavior for consideration. It is quite clear why you canvassed. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Symphony Regalia: You may want to review WP:APPNOTE, since notifying Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article and Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) is not canvassing.
      No 3RR violation took place. CA made three reverts over four days. I made one revert. Review what WP:3RR says.
      Furthermore, I came to comment on the procedural issue of WP:ONUS and the tangential issues raised as an uninvolved editor, without offering an opinion on the underlying content dispute. I did not say anything to the effect that CA does not need consensus or to that he does not need to go to talk; on the contrary I suggested that you build consensus (i.e. talk or DR). Nor are we ideologically similar. Your bad faith accusations are not welcome here.
      I told you to go to the article talk page three times (1, 2, 3) as an uninvolved editor, to which you have reacted by filing a bad 3RR report. — MarkH21talk 19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      A 3RR violation did occur. 3 reverts took place within 24 hours, with the last one being by someone the relevant party directly recruited, and 4 within 2 days. I don't think these attempts like this to skirt the 3RR are in good faith. You may want to note that WP:APPNOTE indicates "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." This was not done. CaradhrasAiguo only notified you (reactively, I might add), on the basis of you sharing his opinions, and did not notify anyone else and avoided going to article talk even after I asked him. You two sharing an ideological similarity is quite evident in that you've been taking his side in related POV disputes going back 5 months now[34][35], and you are not an "uninvolved editor" in that last week you were also posting on his talk page to defend him regarding a dispute with someone else.[36][37][38]. Looking at intent here, his decision to notify you and no one else, was quite clearly intended to skirt edit warring rules without having to open a broader discussion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It’s hard for me to share the same opinion as CA if I don’t have one on the issue at hand and haven’t expressed one about that article before.
      We are ideologically similar because CA reverted an IP’s edit that contravened the consensus from RfCs and RMs in the article talk, and because I told CA to not accuse another editor of misconduct at the talk page? Err okay.
      I am uninvolved with respect to the content dispute between you two on Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and came to comment on the procedural issues. Me having been involved in past discussions about diurnal mean temperatures in climate boxes is pretty unrelated to whether I am involved in this content dispute on COVID-19 misinformation. — MarkH21talk 20:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) SR, An agreement on A) using the term "re-education camps" above "concentration camps" B) using statistics verifiable by sources is based on WP:UCN and WP:V/WP:NOR, respectively, not ideology. Your characterization should be filed under commenting on ideology, and its repetitive nature a demonstration of uninvolved editors' concerns that you are beating the innards of the dead horse. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Numerous diffs are of the behavior trend are above. WP:WIAPA is not at all in play here as I am not making statements about ideology, but rather am pointing out that evidence dictates that you two share strong opinions and consistently back each other in disputes, which is a violation of WP:APPNOTE in that "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." while you avoided taking it to talk and notified no one else.
    CaradhrasAiguo, I am not here to argue 2v1 with the two involved parties, as there are better things to do, and it is clear that no one would ever admit such a thing to begin with. If you are making the assertion that you avoided article talk and specifically notified MarkH21, and no one else, as just a mere coincidence then I believe that no impartial reading of this by anyone would come to that conclusion. It is clear that you recruited him to help you in an editing dispute and to violate 3RR. While one can get bureaucratic and deny it all they want, the intention is quite apparent. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) This is probably going to be my last comment here. I can see Symphony Regalia's point regarding consensus. In part, my earlier comment was more of a general way how I look at implicit consensus. However, in a heavily edited and watched page like this one, implicit consensus is stronger than normally, because many have seen the section without removing it. The attempt at dispute resolution on the user talk page was a good step, but it should preferably have taken place at the article talk page, where I'm sure more users would join in. It seems like a discussion has now been initiated at § Urns story as first reported by Caixin. Regardless of what interpretation of WP:ONUS is correct here, establishing formal consensus on the issue at the article talk page is a better solution for all parties involved than seeing who survives this administrators' noticeboard. --MrClog (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the perspective. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Please close: This bad 3RR report needs to be closed so it can stop wasting all of our time. I would warn Symphony Regalia about their blatant bad faith accusations and remind them what WP:3RR is because they are still misguided on its contents, otherwise there are no outstanding issues here. — MarkH21talk 20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      MrClog is in agreement that the twisting of WP:ONUS that was used to violate 3RR is not accurate. Ultimately it is quite clear what happened here, it is quite clear that CaradhrasAiguo was editing warring and tried to skirt the rules, and it is quite clear (see above diffs) why he specifically called you to assist him. If you are trying to make the argument that it was mere coincidence, I don't believe that will hold up. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      How you managed to read MrClog’s statements, such as

      I would say that the moment CaradhrasAiguo removed the text, there was no longer an implicit consensus, because the silence was broken, meaning the person seeking to include the material has to achieve consensus

      and

      Regardless of what interpretation of WP:ONUS is correct here, establishing formal consensus on the issue at the article talk page is a better solution for all parties involved

      as agreement with you that ONUS was erroneously applied in order to enact a 3RR violation is beyond me. — MarkH21talk 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      His most recent comment is right above yours. He has revised those statements with: "In part, my earlier comment was more of a general way how I look at implicit consensus. However, in a heavily edited and watched page like this one, implicit consensus is stronger than normally, because many have seen the section without removing it". You are selectively quoting. Lastly, "establishing formal consensus on the issue at the article talk page is a better solution for all parties involved" is exactly what I originally told CaradhrasAiguo when I opened the discussion on his talk page, which you opposed after he recruited you to help him edit war, by suggesting that WP:ONUS relieves him of the responsibility to seek talk page consensus. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Bradv was right. Your repeated rehashing of arguments and failure to drop the stick is extraordinarily tiring, particularly as you are ignoring all refutations to your bad faith claims. — MarkH21talk
      Attempting to influence this discussion by tagging in unrelated persons is equal parts manipulative and inappropriate, and can be seen as bad faith. Repeating "Please close" and "bad faith" is not productive when you have a conflict of interest concerning this. There is some rehashing on both sides. Ultimately, the evidence will decide. CaradhrasAiguo's edit warring and canvassing was quite apparent. Rather than participate, I wanted to report the behavior as it is concerning and skirts the rules. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I see I've been mentioned and quoted a few times since my last comment, so this will really be my last comment (I hope). In this content dispute, like in many disputes, it seemed like the focus of the editors was more to establish who should seek consensus instead of establishing consensus (and I've been guilty of this too in some of my disputes). Often, editors spend days at noticeboards and user talk pages arguing who should initiate a talk page discussion seeking consensus. It would have been and still is much more useful, for both parties involved, to spend time establishing consensus. This does require either of the two parties to decide to stop reverting and allow the Wrong Version™ to stay up until a consensus has been reached - and this isn't necessarily easy to do - but it prevents a lot of frustration and wasted time. TL;DR: Try to find a consensus, instead of trying to find who should find a consensus. --MrClog (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • After wasting everybody's time here for the better part of 17 hours, SR launches a personal attack-laced diatribe (history of doing so concerning information that makes China look bad), and continues to falsely claim a particular discussion pertains to a specific story when it does not. In light of the failure to apologize for the repeated unsupported bad-faith accusations, can somebody please Boomerang at least a year-long block at SR? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome anyone to review that diff and judge for themselves if it qualifies as a "personal attack-laced diatribe", in the context of repeat poorly explained content removal. I find this rather ironic coming from someone who was blocked for over a week for personal attacks just a month ago, and in that thread you exhibited a very similar response pattern ("Their only purpose on this site is to wreak disruption. Immediate WP:BOOMERANG, please.") to what you're doing now. Concerning edit warring, if your behavior was fine, let it stand on it's own without resorting to this. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only did you edit 22 times at this noticeboard before posting at the article talk, 7 hours and 45 minutes after I initially posted, you were warned by an admin who is a regular on this noticeboard for exhibiting the same conduct as you are at this thread and that talk page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because I tend to make tiny tweaks. You've been warned for the behavior you're exhibiting in this thread by at least five different people. Your pattern of intimidation[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] where you issue threats and attempt to turn this into some sort of WP:BATTLEGROUND is ultimately a continuation of that behavior. I have no desire to get into an endlessly offtopic discussion with you. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits were not all tweaks, there are 9 posts / timestamps from that period. Fact is, you expended time and energy into those tweaks, beating countless horses to death on procedural matters and bad faith accusations, rather than posting on the article talk. And all but one of the diffs you presented above dates from February. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You never had any intention of going to article talk. You reactively went to article talk after you were reported, so that you would look less guilty. I have posted on article talk. Nothing you've been reported for is in bad faith, it's all supported by the diffs. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. You know very well my delay in posting on the article talk was due to sleeping during the overnight hours, as I pointed out. You can't have it both ways—selectively point to [evidence I was being deferential to MarkH21, while claiming his advice was not the impetus to my posting on the talk page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a regular on this noticeboard so I'm not closing this, I'm just going to pass along some advice.

    There are two possible responses I see coming out of this complaint:

    a) Any admin looking at this verbiage will find it over-the-top and close this complaint with warnings to all participants to bring the discussion to the article talk page, or
    b) Some admin, more masochistic than I, will actually wade through this all and start handing out blocks for the disruption you have all wrecked on this noticeboard.

    My recommendation is for you all to stop responding to each other, insulting each other here and move the discussion to the article talk page where you might actually come to some hard-won consensus. To the OP, this effort will not bring the success you hope for in blocking your editing opponent. Now, go do something productive with your time. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MilkyMike9788 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked indef)

    Page
    Tarek Fatah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    MilkyMike9788 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"
    2. 10:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 09:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) to 09:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
      1. 09:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"
      2. 09:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"
    4. 07:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Tarek Fatah. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The editor is engaging in edit warring even after explaination User_talk:Thatoneweirdwikier#Why_do_delete_the_authentic_edits_with_citations_on_tarek_fateh_page_can't_you_please_keep_this_Wikipedia_unbaise?. Please have a look Amkgp (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    He/she has done this on other pages as well. They seem to insist the citations are authentic, but it's not about the citations as much as it is about the text surrounding it. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:StevinelIsAwesome reported by User:Amkgp (Result: )

    Page
    She-Ra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    StevinelIsAwesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    4. 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    5. 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    6. 19:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    7. 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    8. 18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    9. 18:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    10. 18:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    11. 18:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    12. 18:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    13. 18:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    14. 18:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    15. 18:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on She-Ra. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:51.235.191.121 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: )

    Page
    She-Ra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    51.235.191.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    4. 19:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "added content"
    5. 19:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "added content"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on She-Ra. (TW)"
    2. 19:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on She-Ra. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    They are busy vandalizing even after warning and leading to WP:AN3 Amkgp (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wchales7320 reported by User:ToeFungii (Result: Partial block)

    Page
    Mount Carmel Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Wchales7320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. 04:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "Added content. Non-biased, factual, supported by the Constitution"
    3. 04:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "Added content, WITH REFERENCES"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 03:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC) to 03:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
      1. 03:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "Added content, reference is the United States Constitution"
      2. 03:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC) ""
      3. 03:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "Added references"
      4. 03:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC) ""
    5. 03:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "Added FACTS. Not opinions"
    6. 02:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "Added content. Again."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
    2. 03:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Wanted to say hello and offer a little help */ new section"
    3. 04:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User is bound and determined to post info and been reverted by 6 users (incl one admin) for trying to post the same material. They also posted once under an ip prior to creating an account. The ip is 2001:5B0:45C0:B24C:A53D:6102:A9EF:B492 which i'm only including because i'm assuming they'll try and use that if just the username is blocked. ToeFungii (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User blocked from editing Mount Carmel Center for 36 hours.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mushuukyou reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: )

    Page
    Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mushuukyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    3. 07:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    4. 07:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    5. 07:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Circumcision. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:


    User:FullSendNelk reported by User:Dmartin969 (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [52]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [53]
    2. [54]
    3. [55]
    4. [56]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

    Comments: User has only made edits on this page blanking the criticism section, and has been unresposive to talk page messages. Full disclosure I did make more than three reverts that I beleived to fall under WP:3RRNO, but hve decided to ask here before going further.


    User:JjlPierpoint reported by User:Flix11 (Result: )

    Page
    Freeman Dyson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    JjlPierpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 06:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC) to 07:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
      1. 06:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Climate change */Corrected factual misinformation and provided citations to corroborate the corrections."
      2. 07:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Climate change */Fixed typo"
    2. 06:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Climate change */Misstatement of position corrected and citation inserted to substantiate the correction."
    3. 05:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Climate change */Corrected misstatement of his views on climate change and added link to video interview of Dyson confirming the accuracy of the correction."
    4. 23:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Corrected mischaracterization of his view on Co2 contribution to climate change and included video interview clip of him stating his views."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Freeman Dyson. (TW)"
    2. 06:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Freeman Dyson. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:OyMosby reported by User:WEBDuB (Result: )

    Page: Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: OyMosby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [59]
    2. [60]
    3. [61]
    4. [62]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [63]
    2. [64]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

    Futhermore, user continued to make the changes even though debate was ongoing on talk-page about the Background section, after a warning by two users. All moves are part of a continuous series of nationalist POV editing, which also include minimizing statements of the scale and severity of genocide and the Holocaust.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    I don’t understand why I am being reported? No edits have been made for days on that article not o mention you continued making edits on the page while and ongoing debate was going on since April 27th yet here you are making more edits on the page:

    [1] [2]

    You had been warned multiple times of 3RR:

    [3] [4] [5]

    Your removed sourced information from the intro that was already discussed months ago in a conversation on the talk page that you were part of.

    What was on talk page in February: You: [6] Consensus was that itnis to stay What you removed recently: [7] What another user reminded you of the talk that happened months ago: [8]

    A user @Peacemaker67: made it clear to you in February and months later on the talk page that the intro sentence is Ts as per Tomasovich’s book cited. And you still manipulate the sentence or delete it to maximize some narrative or censor the information for some bad faith reason.

    [9] I added a sentence from the very same source you posted when you selective included one part without the counter argument presented in the same source. So who here is really trying to downplay, or skew the article or topic?

    You also kept adding WWII civl war section that yet another editor had to remove and you added back again. You as well as another editor tag teaming me on the page. Multiple other editors disagreed with your edits as well and your stance on the talk page. Personal attacks against me won’t end well for you.

    Not to mention I haven’t edited on the page since you said no changes are to be made until talk is done. And I haven’t. So why days later are you trying to start another issue? Looking at your edit history it is clear that YOU are the nationalist POV pusher. And you accuse ME of minimizing genocide and the Holocaust? How dare you? Where did I ever do that? You however downplayed the genocide waged by the Chetniks in your edit history. Do you even realize what a revolting and serious accusation that is?

    I don’t see how these disgusting attacks say anything about me. They say everything about you and your pov agenda on Wikipedia. I hope admins look into your edit history. Trying to get rid of people you disagree with is a bad a low way to go.OyMosby (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=954306620"