Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Click here to create a new report

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

User:Sajaypal007 reported by User:LukeEmily (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[1]
[2]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

He keeps deleting academic content - including quotes and references (books/journals). He needs to get consensus to delete such high quality references. The quotes accurately reflect what is on the page. There is no WP:OR
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeEmily (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HebaAisha I already reverted both of these and gave reason of reversion on both of them This user User:LukeEmily reverted back this edit is what I reverted again please see the earlier revert where I gave specific reason for the removal and he reverted back. Before removal I tried to build consensus on talk page but this user didnt engage on the talk page. He kept on adding content. Even after removal she reverted back. He has done heavy editing on that page and most of the article added are not related to the subject but only has running reference about it. It was pretty one side view which he kept on adding with such sources. I also asked him about work which really address the subject. But he did not participate in the talk page. I also tagged the top mods twice regarding the matter but they didnt reply yet. There is one more user HebaAisha and both of them working together for this. I myself was about to file complaint against LukeEmily but she did it first. Sajaypal007 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajaypal007 is interested in particularly glorification of Rajput community hence in an edit dispute with us.I recommend protection of Rajput article to have administrator consent required for edits.I have just moved image to gallery section and not done heavy edits as he is saying.Another editor has done sourced changes which are from publisher like oxford press etc.This user don't like whts written as it is like degradation of a community for him.WP:Uncensored should be seen before complaining.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
second accusing us of working together is like personal attack.It is possible that two users like same topic and area so they can exchange thought.see WP:No personal attack Heba Aisha (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also Sajaypal007 has created similar chaos on various Rajput related pages . which can be seen from his talk page msg and contributions.Not assuming good faith and adding personal opinion always.Heba Aisha (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its 11:31 p.m in India i need a sleep.Good night everyone.🙏Heba Aisha (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajaypal007 is promoting the Rajput caste all over wikipedia. He does not have the right to delete academic references without discussion. I told him many times that wikipedia is not a place for caste promotion. So just because some source mentions something unpleasant does not mean it can be deleted. I have been attacked by other Rajput editors too - calling me Rabid dog etc. My fault has been adding academic high quality sources that they do not like.LukeEmily (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier in talk page both of these user are working together and I didnt even tagged this user and he is here. In fact if someone can look their history they will know how both of them operating. They were also discussing about exchanging emails. If I bring some user here by messaging to accuse LukeEmily will it make any difference. You guys are accusing me of glorofication of castes that can be considered personal attack as well. Admins will themselves see what is going on. I myself am asking for admin intervention since a couple of days. I am not interested in any glorification. I already asked you to stop accusing without any basis. I can accuse you of sockpuppetry too by looking over both of these accounts. As i explained earlier I gave sufficient explanation for removal just see the edit history. I am saying this for 2nd or 3rd time these are not rajput history its history of rajasthan which I was a student and know about. Anyone can see my contributions, for an outsider rajasthan history may look like Rajput history but there is a lot of difference. I suggest you read something about rajasthan history. I never created any chaos. And if controversial topic I already tried to build consensus first but you guys didnt participate and LukeEmily went on adding without hearing on talk page. @LukeEmily please read Rajasthan history you may say its Rajput caste glorification. I am improving rajasthan history articles not rajput caste. I removed the citation and gave the reasons probably you didnt read them and reverted back. Again accusing me of caste promotion. Please I again request you guys to maintain civility. I am not talking about whether its unpleasant or not. You probably didnt read talk page thats why you are saying such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajaypal007 , admins have intervened and two who were attacking me were blocked indefinitely and one was blocked for 3 days. My study/interest is in varna mobility and Rajput caste is a big subtopic- I will be editing other pages too - not just Rajput. I am not interested in Rajasthan or wars and Rajput historic figures. I discussed everything with you multiple times on talk page. Just see the Rajput talk page and search for my name. Deleting sources that someone adds - especially if they are scholarly is like throwing away their hard work. You should have discussed on talk page waited for feedback from me and senior editors like Sitush and then we could have edited more. But you simply deleted sources - all academic. There sources are not only WP:RS but top quality. I check your history too. That does not mean I am working with you. LukeEmily (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As admins will see i only edited twice after so much talking on talk page, you made a series of changes and when asked about in talk page you ignored it. As for what that guy called you, I have my sympathies. But both you and HebaAisha are issuing various warnings and lodging complaints here. I am alone but I stand by what I did, both of you are trying to hound me when I edited with giving proper reason, it looks like you guys dont want any opposition to your views and for 2 edits you created so much chaos everywhere. You should have built consensus over edits but you repeatedly ignored. Now both of you guys are here too to try to get me banned so you can do whatever you feels. Thats not correct approach. I request admins to look at the talk page of the Rajput page and also its edit history before coming to any judgement. PS: Both of these accounts are fairly new like 1-2 months old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not discussed here at all yet. See Talk:Rajput#lede_section. In any case, the sources are academic and accurate. And the bottom line is that you deleted academic references. Your edits clearly show that.LukeEmily (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok....i m new but abide by policy of wikipedia and none of them say that new ppl can't edit😁Heba Aisha (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you are requesting on talk page of Utcursch the indian admin to revert back the article so that Shudra origin get abolished along with high quality sources and WP:puffery prevail which told about origin of Rajputs from sacrificial fire pit.plz.....they are myth there is consensus among historians that they are a heterogeneous group and contain Shudra too.An uninvolved foreign admin should see into the matter as we can't rely solely on indians given their preferred choice related to caste.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ur proper reason should be supported by proper source too. NOT ur personal feeling and ideas.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[3] This is WP:Primary but this is not the only thing from where origin section is derived but Sajaypal007 u should have idea that primary sources could be used with caution supported by other sources and it was fairly used in origin section.but u reverted it as u don't liked it.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just a small doubt?...why all ur edits are related to Rajput caste related topic only.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is in edit dispute and a @Showbiz826: removed quote?

The page 449 contain the quote that he removed.Heba Aisha (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These both guys have edited that article heavily but when I reverted just two edits with proper reason given not personal opinion (as one of them said), anyone can see that both of these guys engaged me on multiple fronts issuing warnings for block even though they didnt discuss the same in talk page but I did in vain. They trying to cow me down so they can edit with their one sided view. The line I removed or words added were according to their own sources. But they didnt like it one user reverted back my edits and other tried to warn me for block when what they should be doing was to discuss it on talk page like I trued to do. I requested admin helps many times too, and I requested admins to not just revert but after reverting discuss all these on talk page so edits can be made with consensus. This user @HebaAisha asked me like 7-8 times why is your edit history full of rajput related pages and honestly speaking I am fed up with replying to her, I told her multiple times that this I edit topics related to Rajasthan(geographical) reason history not Rajput(caste) related issues if I was interested in rajput caste i would have edited other articles but as you can see in my edit history its mostly related to history and that too mostly rajasthan history. That user is probably not from rajasthan hence a genuine mistake made by many when they think rajasthani history is full of rajput history. But he kept on asking even though I replied multiple times. When I reply he doesnt say anything but another forum or talk he again raise the same thing. Please whomsoever will review please look into the matter and also see both of these users one of whom @AishaSheba keep on appearing at multiple front wherever I am discussing anything even though nobody tags her. It looks like wikibullying against me by warning me by these user to get me blocked or opening multiple fronts to engage me on so I give up on that page. This whole thing is taking so much of my time which can be better utilised as improving wikipedia. I request both of these users too that please keep the discussion at a single talk page of the article. Don't engage me at multiple places. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please look at Sanjaypal007's edits yourself. He has deleted academic references that he found were "unpleasant".In this single edit [4] itself he removes three scholarly references that he felt were not flattery. This is waste of hard work and is taking immense time. People who are promoting their caste should not be allowed to edit them. His pattern is across multiple Rajput pages - not just the main one. I have only expanded the article to present a neutral viewpoint that I have read - but he deleted anything he did not like. LukeEmily (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to every accusation of yours many times and once again I state this that I didnt remove those because of flattery or its unpleasant nature. I gave specific reason for their removal and while reverting those you didnt addressed the points which you raised and neither did you engage in talk page at that time. I can't write everything multiple times. I don't have so much free to argue here and there. I think admins will look for who was the aggressor you, me or anyone else. We have presented our cases. Now lets wait for admins before making this thread unnecessarily longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - LukeEmily, you reported only 2 reverts in 24 hours. WP:3RR sanctions apply only if more than 3 reverts are made in 24 hours. All edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. It is perfectly normal to revert an edit and discuss it on the talk page or to wait for you to discuss it on the talk page. If the issues cannot be settled with discussion, you may seek WP:Dispute resolution methods. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sajaypal007...Its like we are defending caste system on wikipedia also.While for lower caste the term like "low origin", "untouchables" can be used.We are not in favour of using them for castes whose members are very active on wikipedia and it amounts to derogation of the caste as Kautilya3 has said on Rajput talk page.By doing this we're giving excuses to other editors to doubt our intention and our neutrality. I have seen heavy edits on caste like Yadav Kushwaha》 and more recently on Pasi (Caste).It is natural that after being inspired by the glorification attempt at pages like Rajput they will also try to glorify their own caste and we will end up fighting vandalism only.There is no caste derogation as Kautilya3 is saying on Rajput caste talk page as LukeEmily didn't removed the sources that claim their Brahmin and Kshatriya connection.This article has now become Wp:Pov aligned.It was violation of the same policy before as whole origin section was dominated by mythical origin like they have emerged from sacrificial fire pit and last one line talked about peasant origin but we can see that a lot of intellectual talk about peasant and low origin.Heba Aisha (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sajaypal007: admins have left matter to us to decide.See their edit at Rajput talk page.They have also warned that those who involve in edit wars will be blocked and they ""can't decide on content dispute""Heba Aisha (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its not wikibullying as wherever i appeared you were discussing about Rajput pGe only and as i m involved it became necessary.Also Kautilya3 is also here and there though no one tagged him.We are just putting our sides.Heba Aisha (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Kautilya3 can help us settle the issue at talk page of Rajput. Lets discuss there about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajaypal007 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:122.53.222.246 reported by User:Serendipodous (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

User:Tjbakerscala reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 22:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC) to 23:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
1. 22:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision. As of current, there are 10 teams contracted for entry in F1 seasons from 2021 to 2025. There is always a possibility that a team can terminate their participation in the F1 championship, but if we were to omit teams from the entry list based upon this logic, no teams would be on the list until the eve of the 2022 season testing. Until such a point as a team’s entry status changes, these 10 teams are on the list. Selectively omitting three teams (Alpha Tauri, Haas, and Mercedes)"
2. 23:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC) ""
20:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision. As per f1.com, the recently signed Concorde Agreement contracts all current 10 f1 teams from 2021-2025. This is the contract for 2022. Also from the article: "With the 10 teams signed up for the next five years, and the regulations and cost cap defined, Formula 1 can finally embark on a new era." https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysis-what-the-new-concorde-agreement-means-for-formula-1.1Z97Z6vRwfDTHVhGbSS510.html"
20:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid last revision. 10 teams are confirmed until 2025. From f1.com "By signing the [Concorde Agreement], each team commits to that period [2021-2025], giving stability to those running the world championship, but also the teams, their staff and their partners."https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysis-what-the-new-concorde-agreement-means-for-formula-1.1Z97Z6vRwfDTHVhGbSS510.html"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

22:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2022 Formula One World Championship. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:2022 Formula One World Championship#Entry list, although they kept reverting after starting this discussion

Comments:

Also one more revert just over 24 hours before the first one Joseph2302 (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: They appear, based on diff to be also socking as Tjbakerscale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who continiued the edit war. In the first diff they claim to be Bonadea (talk · contribs), but I dont take that. Presumably, based on that they are WP:NOTHERE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hae started a sock puppet investation on that here.
SSSB (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the earlier revert that Joseph2302 referred to.T v x1 09:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned Should he start reverting again without having achieved consensus, please re-report either here or on my talk page. $Salvio$ 10:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find that a peculiarly light approach. The actions of this user are highly dispurptive (I mean, the used a sock puppet to try to game the system). Moreover their last revert, through sock puppet, followed hours after their last talk comment. That doesn't really show an intent to try achieve a consensus through discussion first.T v x1 11:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: the sock belongs to an LTA, not to this user (check out the SPI). $Salvio$ 11:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deacon Vorbis reported by User:Lightburst )

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
diff An administrator reverted Deacon Vorbis restoring my comment
diff Deacon Vorbis hatted my comment
diff Deacon Vorbis hatted my comment again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12] and [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: diff

Comments:
I do not want my comments erased, hatted or refactored. even though I stopped myself I admit this edit war has gotten out of hand, that is why I made an offer on Deacon Vorbis's talk page to strike the comment they disagree with and I also sent a dove to hoping to end the conflict. I think it is consensus that comments made at AfD should remain and if an editor changes their mind they should strike their comment as PMC has done. diff The editor made a contribution at the AfD that they then erased diff I reinstated the editor's comment diff the editor reverted that edit as well diff

I suspect that this conflict began a few weeks ago when Deacon Vorbis was edit warring on the WP:ARS page. User:Deacon Vorbis made 4 refactoring edits regarding a comment on the ARS page: (here are the four:

diff
diff
diff
diff
diff DV self revert 4th edit

Deacon Vorbis then filed an ANI which was contentious. diff Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts were of personal attacks and attempts to un-collapse disruptive, off-topic derailing of an AfD discussion. I'm tired of this shit, and no one should have to put up with it. WP:IAR. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited knowledge, it's not entirely obvious that DV's apparent penchant for trying to police various discussions is necessarily the most productive use of their time. For the record, I still (for some reason) have this page watchlisted, and was made aware of DV through an entirely different edit war that was flooding my watchlist yesterday. GMG ^talk 16:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came here with what I thought was an edit war. When I recognized the edit war, I stopped and warned the user. When the user continued to refactor my comments even when they were reinstated by an administrator, I tried to compromise by offering to strike the comment. When these approaches failed, I came here - not to get anyone punished - but to stop my comments on the AfD from being messed with. Because this apparently is not an edit war, I will be reverting the hat to display my comments and the comments of others under the hat. Lightburst (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.176.254.245 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 66.176.254.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[14]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is trying to add a specific but non-notable church to the article. Numerous warning unheeded, may need a short break from editing to have an opportunity to see how to edit. Ifnord (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked $Salvio$ 18:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marebear567 reported by User:SuperGoose007 (Result: 48 hours)

User being reported: Marebear567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

[15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
22:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
22:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
22:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Personal life */

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[16]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is putting in a controversial statement about the subject and is backing it up with a unreliable source. Goose^(Talk!) 22:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours for this edit that was made after the 3RR warning and is not included above. Given the edits at User talk:Nkon21, the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not contained to the article. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:109.92.11.101 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Page protected)

Page: The Black Book of Communism
User being reported: User:109.92.11.101

Previous version reverted to: There has been a lot of edit warring on this page by ip above. This is the diff before they began [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Black Book of Communism#Self published source

Comments:

Page protected by Ritchie333 $Salvio$ 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horseradishy reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Previous version reverted to: [29] – with narrators included as voice actors

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[30] – User:Horseradishy removed credits
[31] – again
[32] – same
[33] – same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] – content removal warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35] – user talk page discussion

Comments:
User:Horseradishy insists that narrators (in this case, Ringo Starr and later Michael Angelis) should not be included as voice actors in the infobox of a TV show character, The Fat Controller. His rationale of "Narrators are not relevant to voice acting a specific character" makes no sense to me, nor has he provided any WikiProject guideline on this when asked repeatedly. Instead, all he can come up with is the Thomas Wikia, which is of no relevance to WP.

Convince him to either show me a WikiProject guideline which says not to include narrators as voice actors, or to back off and let my content stick. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. For my money, you're both edit warring. Instead of blocking the both of you, I've fully protected the page for a few days, so that you can follow WP:DR. $Salvio$ 13:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Data L!nk reported by User:Iangcarroll (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasmina_Vujic&type=revision&diff=974219436&oldid=970642074

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(others on page history, not sure what to include)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AData_L%21nk&type=revision&diff=974903841&oldid=970526678

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Only discussion on page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jasmina_Vujic

Comments:

User:Data L!nk disagrees with new journalism about the article's subject. We engaged in an edit war about it (regrettably on my part), for which we were both banned from editing the page for two weeks, and in the interim we achieved consensus in the talk page that the material should be added. The user has now reverted the material again after our bans expired. I do not want to engage in another edit war, but it's taking quite a lot of work to defend against what seems to be a sockpuppet account. Iangcarroll (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:93.136.83.115 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 93.136.83.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 974907379 by 212.178.245.220 (talk)"
17:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 974895795 by 212.178.245.220 (talk)"
12:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC) "He declared himself a Croat, look page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danijel_Suba%C5%A1i%C4%87"
10:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 974841954 by 212.178.245.220 (talk)"
08:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 974830217 by 212.178.245.220 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Hi! Please resolve this edit war. In Danijel Subašić page [[36]] he declared himself a Croat on article page whith sources , they want to be a Serb by force and put him that he is a Serb in this article. Thanks93.136.83.115 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked $Salvio$ 19:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serial Number 54129 reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: No violation)

User being reported: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

No violation. You are basically throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Serial Number 54129 (edits from May and July, really?)... Please, try WP:DR. $Salvio$ 19:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rostadia2012 reported by User:Dante4786 (Result: Warned user(s))

User being reported: Rostadia2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: to his credit, he did approach me on my page. However, he accused me of something I didn't do. I don't want to change the title of the article.

Comments: Firstly, apologies in advance. I am a novice on Wikipedia, this is fairly new to me and I probably messed up the report. Secondly, please don't block him. I believe he has good intentions. In fact, I took the report idea from him. He was right, we need a third party to resolve this. To explain what all of this is about: we are arguing over the language. He wants only the Romanian name of the stadium to be written at the beginning of the article (text). He wrote The Stadionul Steaua, I wrote The Steaua Stadium (Romanian: Stadionul Steaua). He argued his view by writing: the Romanian stadiums and arenas keep the same model: Romanian language. Well, this is a lie. This is FALSE. My edits were done so that the page of Stadionul Steaua (2020) will resemble the page of Stadionul Steaua (1974). Since the former is a replacement for the latter, it makes sense in my opinion. And there are more examples supporting my point of view. The pages for the stadiums of Dinamo, Botosani or Poli Iasi have the same layout: the title is in Romanian, but the article begins with the name written in English. After all, we are on the English version of Wikipedia, aren't we? For a more famous stadium, see Santiago Bernabeu. It has both the English and the Spanish names written. He wants just the Romanian name. He wants the article to begin with "The Stadionul Steaua". This is a mixture of Romanian and English. "The Stadionul" is incorrect. It's like writing "the" twice, since "stadionul" is translated as "the stadium" in the Romanian language. Also, he is against the expression "informally also known", even though this is how it was written on Stadionul Steaua (1974) for the last 9 years.Dante4786 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. @Dante4786: I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place... You and Rostadia2012 need to follow to WP:DR to solve this content dispute; however, this noticeboard does not make decisions regarding content, it only deals with behavioural problems. For the moment, I'm closing the report with a warning. Please note that, if this edit war continues, blocks will be handed out. $Salvio$ 09:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User: Evrik reported by User:68.231.135.128 (Result: Declined)

I would like to report the User Evrik as violating Wikipedia Policy. The article is on Eugene Scalia and is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Scalia and talk page found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eugene_Scalia. There is a very lengthy explanation on the talk page on why the sentence clearly violates the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View and Verifiability policies. I have twice filed a dispute resolution for the content. An independent reviewer named Deb agreed that the sentence as written violated the Wikipedia Policy.

I formally file a grievance against the user Evrik. The user continuously places his political opinion from a biased website as an objective truth in Wikipedia's voice. Please review the talk page and let him know that it is not acceptable to repeatedly ignore Wikipedia Policy. Thanks.

Declined I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place. Evrik, from what I can see, has not edit warred and discussion on the talk page is one of the appropriate ways of solving a content dispute. Also, please note that administrators do not generally rule on content, but only on behaviour. In this case, please follow WP:DR. $Salvio$ 09:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrKay reported by User:Calton (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

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

Comments:
Rapid-fire, undiscussed reverting of a years being added to an infobox. Editor claims that he's reverting a sock puppet and is thus exempt -- a claim I find hard to believe given that he simultaneously made essentially the exact same reverts on a parallel article -- Akihito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --without the slightest indication or claim of sockpuppetry. --Calton | Talk 08:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this seems lame? Yes, there is an indication or claim of sockpuppetry in the edit summaries. Nothing about this seems to me to justify edit-warring by either of you. What's the problem, exactly? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added by sockpuppet [39]. Per Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions, reverts of actions performed by sock puppets are exempt from 3RR, so the first diff linked above is exempt. With regard to the final two links above, per Wikipedia:Edit warring#Three revert rule: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert", and the final diff is reverting a sock puppet anyway. There are 3 reverts reverting Calton, and so the bright-line rule is not breached.

There is no sock puppetry as far as I know at Akihito. I never said there was. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User: HistoryofIran reported by User:Gunner555 (Result: Stale)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
Please be informed that this user has reverted my rightful addition in the Origin section. I added source/book as per Wikipedia guides. Book published and catalogued in Google Books. This alternative view on Samanid family origin was attacked by multiple pro-persian users. Wikipedia welcomes alternative views in texts. My addition was by an author originally from Iran who knows the country history from inside. Hence, his research must be respected. However, some users seem to be "jealous" and "irritated". My comments and additions are treated "nationalist rant" but in fact the responses are pure nationalist comments to my views. Furthermore, user Historyofiran has reverted my added section under Gaznavids https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghaznavids&oldid=974565915. User Wario-Man using his privileges takes side and further deletes my section in that Talk. Kindly take necessary measures against this biased actions. Gunner555 (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stale and probably a little retaliatory as well, in the light of your own block for edit warring. My advice, is to follow WP:DR to solve this content dispute; however, be aware that you must be ready to accept that consensus may be against you. Finally, a word of advice: edits like this make you appear tendentious. I suggest you focus on the issue at hand, instead of soapboxing. $Salvio$ 09:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:-Wiki Kudit 2020- reported by User:Yaratmayıcı (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: -Wiki Kudit 2020- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

09:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 975029914 by Medelam (talk)"
09:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 975029839 by Medelam (talk)"
09:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 975029741 by Medelam (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

09:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked I am not sure what is going on there; is there some context I'm missing? For the moment, I have imposed a short block, but I'm ready to bump it up to indefinite, if there's something more. Salvio 09:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: and now, he's been globally locked. $Salvio$ 09:51, 26 August 2020 (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