Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Addicted4517 reported by User:Walwal20 (Result: protected, Walwal20 blocked for 24 hours following protection expiry)

Page: Hartley Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Addicted4517 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hartley_Jackson&oldid=983278668

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]

(same problem in The Mighty Don't Kneel [6] [7] [8] [9] [10])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
This is one of the complex cases.

• [11] the general discussion begins here, in the AfD
• [12] discussion on whether Hartley was a member of The Mighty Don't Kneel begins here
• and continues in the talk page here [13]

Comments:
I tried working as a third opinion (maybe non-neutral; I had voted delete and later keep on the AfD) after Jammo85 asked for guidance in properly sourcing the article. The reverts actually began earlier [14] and [15]. After this last revert, I took some time to research the topic, the results are all in User:Walwal20/RfC_Hartley_Jackson. The RfC also contains Addicted's arguments against. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 10:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Considering Addicted's somewhat hostile comments in Talk:Melbourne_City_Wrestling, I would suggest (if I may. I don't know how suitable it is of me to suggest this. My apologies if it isn't.) that this be investigated as a possible case of WP:Wikihounding, not against a specific person, but against a specific topic; in this case, Australian pro-wrestling. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • [16] [17] [18] [19] These diffs on Alexa Bliss also seem questionable to me, as the source he removes seems proper and includes a video proving the statements he reverted. Pinging Jaguar83 and LightSamus in case they want to add anything here. Overall, navigating Addicted's edit history, I think it could be a case of WP:CTDAPE also. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • An attempt of WP:CANVASing was made User_talk:Jammo85#Formal_warning. A warning was issued even though WP:CONSENSUS on the subject has not yet been achieved. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 03:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The complainer is trying to seek allowance for sources that are under WP policy not reliable, and inserting unrelated innuendo (per Melbourne City Wrestling) to back his case. Walwa refers to his draft RfC and has completely ignored the points I have made. His latest excuse is WP:BLPSELFPUB in which he seeks exceptions when in fact the sources are indeed unduly self serving and there is doubt as to it's authenticity. For example the Twitter tweet relies on original research to establish some sort of connection where none is proven. As it stands presently based purely on WP policy, Hartley Jackson was never a member of The Might Don't Kneel and my reversions are wholly acceptable to maintain this in the absence of appropriate, neutral (per the core rule of WP:BLP and independent. All of the sources violate the last one in particular. There is considerable controversy over the claim which is why sources have to be the appropriate ones. I believe I have done nothing wrong and at this point I am only reverting what amounts to vandalism of both articles. It is not unreasonable to expect appropriate sources, especially in BLP's. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Additional re Alaxa Bliss edits - Wrestlinginc is listed at WP:PW/Sources as not reliable. This is due to their use of people who are listed as unreliable. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• This seems like a rather complex content dispute. In my opinion it may have been better to seek more input on the wrestling project first before doing an ANI.★Trekker (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This ANI is not about the content dispute, it's about the violation to WP:3RR. If you're outnumbered, you should never keep reverting others. The content will be discussed in the post that you mentioned, which was created by me, even though Addicted should have been the one to do it, since he's outnumbered. Addicted does not want consensus, he wants to enforce his view only. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 06:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you, @*Treker:. You are correct to call in assistance for what is definitely a content dispute. Note also that Walwa is trying to use pure numbers (two vs one) to overcome clear policy issues with their edits that I am rightly reverting. I would like a consensus, but when policy points are totally ignored this becomes impossible. Policy will always trump numbers and I do not feel restrained by numbers when policy is not being held to. It's called being bold in the firm belief in the absence of any contrary information enforces my actions as correct. Perhaps there has been a touch of edit warring, but when one is faced with edits that is totally ignoring policy it constitutes vandalism, and that is a valid exception to 3RR (along with the fact that I never reverted more than three times in 24 hours). Now that both pages have been protected with my version in place perhaps the content can be addressed properly and finally per policy. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Addicted4517, it is not clear policy issues, and you have myself, Jammo85 and DrewieStewie [20] against you. You placed your ego and beliefs above WP:CONSENSUS. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 08:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes it is policy issues because now three users are claiming the sources are reliable when it is clear according to policy that they are not, as I explained fully on your RfC draft. You are yet to fully explain how these notes are not correct through policy. That is why we do not have a consensus and as long as you persist with this line there will never be one - and that's a bad thing. Instead of POV pushing to get your way, discuss the issue on your draft RfC. Start by showing in policy how I am incorrect. It's a simple task. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Page protected by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 07:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Slakr. I was the one who requested protection here, specifically so that there is time for this ANI to be answered. Can you not make it the result of this ANI, please? Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• • @Slakr: Please do not close this ANI for this reason as it does not resolve the issue at hand. It is a content dispute. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Noting that I am here because of User talk:GorillaWarfare#Little help (permalink). The page protection seems to have addressed the edit war for the moment, so now is the time to try to come to an agreement on the article talk page. While Addicted4517 would probably have been better off requesting admin intervention rather than continuing to revert the edits themself, I do not see the need for additional admin intervention here. I'm personally sympathetic to Addicted4517's request for reliable, independent sources to verify the contested claim about a BLP. Surely there are sources besides Facebook pages and blogs that could be used? If you are unable to reach an agreement among the three of you, WP:3O might be useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've also restored the "Result: protected" that was removed by Walwal20. Walwal20, you're welcome to continue the discussion even after the discussion has had a result recorded, but please don't remove the result that another user has recorded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, "Surely there are sources besides Facebook pages and blogs that could be used?" really offends me in many ways. I went to extra miles, at Jammo85's request, to find archived official sources such as [21], let alone [22] [23] and [24], which are not social media sources. Addicted is focusing on social media specifically to manipulate your opinion, and you have fell for it. The whole story is told User:Walwal20/RfC_Hartley_Jackson, together with Addicted's comments, if you want to take a look.
  Finally, this ANI is not a discussion of sources, it is a discussion of a violation of WP:3RR, which has not been addressed yet (could very much close it as no violation was observed, or something of the sorts, if you will). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare:, I think this comment clearly shows the lack of good faith in this ANI. He is now casting aspersions against both of us (especially me) in a vain attempt to garner sympathy over sources that are not reliable for reasons I have already addressed - to be honest this is close to a violation of WP:NPA. This matter is about a content dispute, not 3RR which I never violated anyway per the limits mentioned. EW is of course beyond that, but the core is the said content dispute. Further, there has been a development on the talk page of Hartley Jackson that also has an effect on the TMDK article. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  This is a noticeboard on Edit warring and 3RR, so yes it is about WP:3RR/warring. If it happened or not, that should be something for the admins to judge. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Edit warring happened, it's been addressed, and now it's time for you to come to an agreement on the content of the page so that when the protection expires this doesn't reoccur and result in sanctions. It might be worth seeking outside input on the acceptability of the sourcing, since it appears you can't agree. Moving that draft RfC to the article talk page and filing it as an official RfC seems like a reasonable choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: I regret to advise that the moment the page became unprotected, Walwa promptly re-started the problem without a consensus on the talk page. I have warned him formally on his talk page and if he reverts again without discussing it appropriately I will be returning here and starting a new report. Just a heads up. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Addicted4517: Feel free to notify me directly if it happens again. @Walwal20: consider this a warning: achieve consensus FIRST, then make the agreed-upon edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Hi GorillaWarfare, there is consensus. The discussion has been up since 27 September, and there are walls and walls of discussion already. There must be a limit to discussions where unanimity cannot be achieved (Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not unanimity). I intend to revert per support of Walwal20 at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, Jammo85 at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, SeosiWrestling at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, HHH Pedrigree at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, DrewieStewie at User_talk:DrewieStewie, Ravenswing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 07:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  There is no consensus. Most of the users only provided sources and did nothing else. The reversion is against instruction from an admin. I will leave that there. Action should now be taken, and in order to preserve the page against another edit war I will hold on reverting myself for now. The current edit on both Jackson and TMDK as it stands contains unreliable sources and should be removed with the claims they are attached to. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  If consensus had been achieved, as you claim, there would not have been a need for intervention at this noticeboard. I have Blocked Walwal20 for 24 hours for continuing the edit war against my express warning. I don't understand why you have chosen to continue edit warring rather than moving your draft RfC to be live, so you can gain formal consensus with outside opinions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Abbas Kwarbai reported by User:Curb Safe Charmer (Result: )

Page:

• Shirley Ze Yu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Genevieve Leveille (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
at Shirley Ze Yu (2, 3, 4 and 5 were consecutive, with nobody else's edits in between, so I don't think they constitute 3RR)

1. removal of orphan maintenance tag
2. reversion of merged references
3. removal of orphan maintenance tag
4. removal of 'failed verification' maintenance tag
5. removal of 'failed verification' maintenance tag
6. reversion of content edits 11 hours after uw-ew warning

reverts by the same user to my edits in other articles in the last 24 hours:

1. removal of 'definition needed' maintenance tag at Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli
2. reversion of content edit at Draft:Genevieve Leveille
3. removal of 'failed verification' maintenance tag at Draft:Genevieve Leveille
4. reversion of content edits at Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli 11 hours after uw-ew warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27] and this

Comments:
Abbas Kwarbai has been warned about ownership of articles but has become increasingly aggressive in their reaction to me improving the article or adding maintenance tags, i.e. a 'stay out' no-edit order. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you so much for reporting me into this place. Ever since, my activities on Wikipedia is base on my choice to write more article with few edition. A couple of times, I requested for assistance from different user, where curb appeared to be one of them but his has never help me. Later he appear to maltreat me here in Wikipedia by nominating investigation about me that the articles I created are mostly been paid me, he even make an instance with Dr Bindu Babu saying that she paid me because I have removed his edition of saying her PhD is from unrecognized university, but he later told me to provide prove if the university is accredited, I went there to search and I found that it's unaccredited university, and from there I stop editing her page completely except five days where I tried to applied for nomination of deletion of her page (which I want probe I have no connection with those whom I wrote article about them much less to talk of paying me). It became obvious what he is alleging me is not true as he can't prove it in the investigation tag. The investigation was suspended as he can't prove anything.

He added me on his watchlist following my footsteps to catch me with violation of Wikipedia act. I actually disrespect him when he started following me into my [draft:Genevieve] editing by adding verification fail,citation needed which really vex me to remove it because it is a draft not article and I must to recheck all the links I used before taking it to article, he also comment that Jersey is only from United States by reediting the article without clicking on blue link (which clearly shows that there is a province in United Kingdom called Jersey).I undo his edition immediately. Curb also appear to add (definition needed on his GMP) that's for Ahmad Nuhu Bamalli article's where numerous independent secondary reliable sources have mentioned it, and I told him it is a program carry out in Harvard university and it simply means General Management Program, for that reason I immediately remove his template.

In the case of Shirley Ze Yu, someone who isn't Curb added a template of "This article is an Orphan". So,based on what I understand for an article to be orphan, it has no any link attach to it. I later realised that Shirley Ze Yu has numerous links that attached to her article such as she is alumni of Kennedy school business administration, Harvard University, China Central Television news anchor, and her page appeared to be twice when searching it. To my level of understanding, any article with these informations isn't an orphan, as such I removed his template immediately.

I warned him to stop following my footsteps on Wikipedia because following someone like the way he use follow me is an indication that, that person is a criminal in Wikipedia. I don't respond to any editor who touches an article that I created because I know Wikipedia is for all. Free environment like Wikipedia will never encourage one to be following someone's footsteps by adding what curb is doing to me.

Finally, if I make any mistake about what in Wikipedia policy, I'm apologizing. Nonetheless, I want Wikipedia to intervene my issue with curb to stop involving into my activities completely as I know he has chance to edit what. I even declared on my talk page I don't want assist or intervention of User:Curb Safe to involve in my activities on Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Abbas Kwarbai: You've now reverted two different editors who correctly placed an {{orphan}} tag on Shirley Ze Yu. Please read over what orphaned articles are before continuing to remove the orphan tag from a page that has no inbound links. Doing so is disruptive editing at minimum, and is entering the realm of edit warring. Furthermore, please be sure to disclose any and all conflicts of interests in accordance with our policy of doing so, including any edits you're being paid to make. --slakr^\ talk / 08:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Re this revert, which is referred to in the response above, Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom. This can be seen by 'clicking on the blue link' to paragraph five of the article about Jersey. Coincidentally it is where I live. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Grnwng reported by User:Hipal (Result: Blocked)

Page: Multi-level marketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grnwng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:15, 12 October 2020
2. 22:43, 12 October 2020
3. 11:34, 13 October 2020
4. 19:40, 13 October 2020
5. 21:04, 13 October 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:47, 12 October 2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:27, 13 October 2020 after first starting a discussion on the editor's talk page 22:27, 12 October 2020

Comments:
Grnwng's edit summaries and comments suggest this is a new account for an editor with some past editing experience. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I see a blatant policy violation, I try to fix it. Unfortunately, I have encountered people who are absolutely unable to comprehend what a neutral point of view is. Grnwng (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the madness I have encountered here: User:Hipal accused me of "original research" for removing the word "controversial" from the opening sentence of the article, and believes that "If it [a biased point of view] is well-referenced, then it's removal is a POV violation". I certainly hope that this user's belief that "X is a controversial Y" is somehow more neutral than "X is a Y" is not widely held. Grnwng (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent others. You're the one who thinks "a biased point of view" applies [28]. Bringing it up again after it was rejected [29] makes it look like you're not paying attention to what others say. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. But editors on the other side should look at WP:LABEL and reflect on whether 'controversial' is a good term to use. See also the reference in the first line of the article to pyramid selling which on Wikipedia is considered a type of fraud. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]

Grnwng's first edit after this block expired was to revert once again, without any further attempt at changing to consensus to do so. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hipal made four reverts within a little over 24 hours but received no warning or sanction, strangely. This is an insane situation. The sentence "X is a controversial Y" has no place in Wikipedia. It blatantly violates the NPOV policy. No "consensus" can change that. "X is a Y" is neutral and verifiable, and to argue otherwise is absurd. And yet, this editor keeps on reverting to re-insert the word "controversial", accompanied by a "vague" tag. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous way to behave. Grnwng (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. What can we do to get you to stop edit-warring? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop inserting policy-violating text, and I will be able to stop taking it out again. Grnwng (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

So you're not going to stop edit warring whenever you believe policy is being violated? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you not going to stop edit-warring to make an article violate policy? Grnwng (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. This isn't about me, but if you look at the header on my talk page, there's an answer to your question. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked again for immediate resumption of edit-warring, and according to talkpage it's against a growing consensus. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:37.54.2.103 reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Warned)

Page: FC Obolon-2 Bucha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.54.2.103 (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. [33] 16:08, 13 October 2020
2. [34] 12:22, 14 October 2020
3. [35] 12:26, 14 October 2020
4. [36] 12:29, 14 October 2020
5. [37] 12:58, 14 October 2020 (added after this report made)

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

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

Comments:

• Nonsense. The club was renamed. It is named FC Obolon Kyiv and FC Obolon-2 Kyiv not Obolon-Brovar already, see official site. My edits (only 3 reverts, first listed is not counted) are correct. His reverts are incorrect and without any reason (he reverted the page to very old name). 37.54.2.103 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The IP repeatedly added a non-existent category, contrary to WP:REDNOT. That it is why they were reverted.
    They have now made a 5th edit[39] to add the non-existent category.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Again, my edits were made because it is not Brovar already according this links: [40][41]. This Brown is not friend for reality, and reverted many correct edits, it's a pity. 37.54.2.103 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      • The IP's edit did not WP:CITE any sourced, broke WP:REDNOT, and were repeated despite warnings. They continued even after a 3RR warning, and even after another editor reverted them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
        • This Brown did not read WP:5P, broke real events, and were repeated despite warning. They continued to deny the reality. 37.54.2.103 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
          • I know WP:5P v well thank you. It's absurd to say an en.wp edit "break real events".
            If the IP believed that their edits are correct, they should have WP:CITEd a source ... and if they believe that a category is misnamed, they should use WP:CFD to propose a rename. They should not editwar when challenged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
            • Nonsense again. If Brown has doubts about reality of renaming, it could ask the additional sources on the article talk page (trying to resolve dispute writing his important opinion), but not revert all correct edits and content immediately. 37.54.2.103 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
              • There is nothing correct about repeatedly adding uncited information.
                There is nothing correct about placing an article in a non-existent category.
                And the repeated misgendering is obnoxious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked the next time they try to add an article to a red-linked category. This action violates the guideline at WP:REDNOT. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Maxim.il89 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Page protected)

Page: List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Maxim.il89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC) (Undid revision 983626452 by Koncorde (talk)Do you have some problem or something? Discuss the sources, there are 6 sources there - which is a blog?)"
2. 09:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983625103 by Koncorde (talk)Right, this is getting ridiculous. Which one of them is the blog? Why not just remove the blog reference? Why edit just for the sake of it? If one is a blog, it can be removed!"
3. 09:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Here's a better idea - adding a "better citation needed" - again, the information is relevant, but if a better source is needed, apparently Wiki has a tag for it."
4. 23:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983565282 by Koncorde (talk)"
5. 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983547107 by Grayfell (talk)No, you're just edit warring for your ego. If "many of those sources are pure garbage", remove the garbage sources - as User:Debresser has pointed out to you, removing everything because you don't like some of the sources is nonsense."
6. 21:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "Wow some people need to calm down. Use bloody talk page."
7. 11:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983416516 by XOR'easter (talk)What's going on? I completely changed the references. Obviously the majority of Jews being Ashkenazi matters."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* October 2020 */ WP:3RR"
2. 00:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* October 2020 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed */ Reply"
2. 21:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed */ Comment"
3. 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed */ reply"

Comments:

This is a dispute over content originally added by an IP who is likely also Maxim.il89 around 11 October.

Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates#The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed has several editors, very little consensus, a battleground attitude, and a handful of personal attacks.

Above are four reverts of four different editors in a 24 hour period. Maxim.il89 seems confused about this and seems to think only one editor (me, I assume) has been reverting them. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Added additional incidents last evening and this morning. User continues to insert information using blogs etc then cries when the information is removed that we should only be removing the blog sources. Today says "which ones are blogs?" when it is the first thing Grayfell pointed out to him on the TalkPage when trying to resolve the issue. Koncorde (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

He continues to misunderstand basic notices on his talk page, and instead heads off to the other users talk page to attack others who leave 3RR or notices.[42][43] Koncorde (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Context

I first ran into Maxim when he was a new editor trying to insert POV and tangentially related content to the wikispace of the club he supports. [44][45][46] This is fine, and an example of many news users not quite understanding how things are often done, and for the most part he calmed down. But even now I can see he has returned to those sections on the main article space and again inserted the same rejected vanity content[47] but has otherwise generally been productive and a lot of content is reasonable if routinely poorly sourced to fan made sources in some cases. I later ran into Maxim at the Chris Mullin talk page where he tried to do a move request. Procedural issues aside, I think you can see he replied to pretty much every single person that posted an oppose reason indicating the kind of one-2-one mentality he has with anyone that disagrees with his POV push.

For whatever reason from the 10th of October the user has become interested in Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence and has posted a mix of the same statements to multiple pages, from a relatively simple[48] to the exceedingly complex[49] which are generally filled with OR and SYNTH. Grayfell has raised this with the user repeatedly (and subsequently so have several other users) but he has ignored their arguments, and per this change on the talk page you can see that he has failed to read what Grayfell said to him and others have reiterated. Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• This situation does not seem to be letting up. The user does not seem able to understand that he needs to stop this reinsertion of material in contravention of consensus. There may be competence issues here as he lashed out at the discretionary sanctions notification I left insinuating that it labeled him a believer in a genetic connection between race and intelligence. We need an admin to help. jps (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Debresser

I just want to say two small things, to put this report in perspective.

1. As I see it, Grayfell is also being belligerent about this,[50] including that he too is making the conflict too personal sometimes.
2. The claim that Maxim.il89 is editing against consensus, supposes that consensus is not like his opinion. That is not so clear-cut as Grayfell suggests here, and there is serious opposition to Grayfell's edits, which have as a matter of fact been reverted and no other editor has repeated them.

So IMHO this report is not necessary, and I am confident that Maxim.il89 respects Wikipedia's core policy of consensus. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The context is Maxim.il89's claim that "Simply removing everything is just your ego." which was repeated several times. What, exactly, is belligerent about my response?

Maxim.il89 violated 3RR despite being warned specifically about this. All of this was to restore content added by Maxim.il89. Further, Maxim.il89 has been warned about edit warring multiple times by many editors over the past year. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure Debresser is looking at the same discussions as everyone else and seems to be misrepresenting the facts. Koncorde (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Response by maxim.il89

I went out of my way to look for more sources, change formulations, specifically say how I'm happy to collaborate on the formulation and stuff, and this can be seen from both the comments on my reverts and talk page. I'm sorry, but User:Grayfell knows exactly what he's doing - if it were about compromise, we'd be discussing both the good and bad references, we'd be looking for a better formulation.

This whole thing is over one simple line in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates. I added a sentence saying how most of those on the list are Ashkenazi Jews, which is relevant to the article (Jews aren't just one group). Everything else can be discussed, debated, and compromised upon, but for that there's need to have willingness to discuss and work together. Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You violated WP:3RR after being warned, and have been warned for edit warring several times before this. This edit, for example, is not "a single line". Several editors have tried to discuss specific issues with you about these edits on the talk page. Adding even more bad sources is not a solution to these problems. This has already been explained to you several times by several editors on the article's talk page. In order to come to a compromise, you first have to stop edit warring and recognize the reason this is disputed. The article's talk page is the place to do this. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:36.71.139.150 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)

Page: User:Danu Widjajanto/Vandal Langsa Log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 36.71.139.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983598223 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) TW Tidak Vandal Langsa Log"
2. 04:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983597986 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
3. 04:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edit by 983597702 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
4. 04:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983293565 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs on User:Danu Widjajanto/Vandal Langsa Log."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: The user has been globally blocked for a short time. User:Mifter has locked their talk page here and semiprotected the disputed page for a month. It seems possible this might be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manda 1993. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Azuredivay reported by User:Prolix (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]
5. [56]

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

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

Comments:

All attempts to contact the user have failed, user has continuously reverted to a version that does not comply with MOS:DIGITS. According to Vincentvikram the user has a history of edit warring on other pages as well. Prolix 💬 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Some disruptive editing on Stan Swamy [59]I requested discussion on the talk page but no response Talk:Stan_Swamy Vikram Vincent 14:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Azuredivay is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert an article so that it violates MOS:DIGITS unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks EdJohnston! Prolix 💬 07:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:170.239.28.58 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Spider-Man: Far From Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 170.239.28.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */Vandalism? Please"
2. 16:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
3. 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */Why would you put an unofficial surname?"
4. 15:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
5. 04:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */Jones in not official."
6. 23:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"Jones" is unofficial surname"
7. 16:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
8. 23:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
2. 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."
3. 20:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."
4. 20:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP was invited to start a new talk page discussion, but has failed to do so.

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:159.146.14.20 and User:159.146.10.13 reported by User:Cardace (Result: )

Page: Sandboxie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 159.146.14.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 159.146.10.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]
6. [66]
7. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [68]
2. [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:

For 2 months now, this user has been using multiple IP addresses in order to continually vandalize the article.

In addition, this user actually used one IP address to delete the warning from the other IP address' talk page (see last Diffs of the user's reverts: above), which is vandalism on its own.

User:Blumoone reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )

Page: Young (Tulisa song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Despite the fact she lives in London and I live in Coventry, 100 miles away from her"
2. 01:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915836 by Binksternet (talk) tabloids should not be used"
3. 01:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915731 by Binksternet (talk) unreliable source as you have been told before"
4. 01:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915498 by Binksternet (talk) Do not use a tabloid (Metro) for genres as it was confirmed by a "generally unreliable source" (WP:RSPSOURCES WP:GUNREL)"
5. 01:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915371 by Binksternet (talk) Metro is an unreliable source"
6. 01:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983915263 by Binksternet (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 10:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC) to 10:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 10:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Do not use a tabloid (Metro) for genres as it was confirmed by a "generally unreliable source" (WP:RSPSOURCES WP:GUNREL)"
   2. 10:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Suspected sockpuppet of User:MariaJaydHicky (or any related account). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I see that user also reported to AIV. 180.244.144.193 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User:LordRogalDorn reported by User:Borsoka (Result: )

Page: Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LordRogalDorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74], [75] (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He was already blocked for the same reason. He was explained why his edits were problematic. I think he is unable to understand one of our basic policies even if three editors from three countries try to explain him in three different way. Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

As I explained user Borsoka here: [[76]]. I was blocked for a different reason. It was not the edit itself, but the fact that I did not mention I made that edit in the absence of explicit opposition [[77]]. "you could have left a note on the article's talk page that, in the absence of explicit opposition, in a few days you would have repeated the edit. If you had done any of those things, I would not have blocked you". The Admin did not say that my edits were problematic. In fact, the admin said [[78]]: "The point is not that you were right or wrong on the merits, the point is that, when your edits are reverted, you should discuss and find consensus, rather than simply keep reverting back". I was temporarly banned strictly because of the edit warring (not mentioning I'm reverting back after days of silence from the other user), it was not a temporarly ban based on vandalism and disruptive editing.

Meanwhile, another user took my old edits and reposted them [[79]], user Borsoka opposed him just like he opposed me [[80]], but that user quoted a part of the policy "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" (WP:PRIMARY) and turns out he was right [[81]], then user Borsoka made no further objections and did not oppose his edits for 15 days, so my original edits remained part of the article and became the new status quo.

As it stands right now, user Borsoka is undoing the status quo version arguing "OR", when in fact the content he tries to remove is sourced.

1.Last status quo version: [[82]]

2.Borsoka's first revert: [[83]]

3.My revert of his revert: [[84]]

4.Borsoka's second revert: [[85]]

5.My second revert of his revert: [[86]]

6.LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Do I need to comment on the above message? I think it is clear: WP:NOTHERE. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Where does the WP:NOTHERE come from? I didn't have bad intention in either cases. In the former case, as I mentioned, user Borsoka stopped replying on the talk page. After a few days I assumed he dropped the conversation and reverted the edits. The rest was explained above, the point I'm trying to make is that I didn't know that I have to mention 'in the absence of explicit opposition' as I thought it was evident from the talk page. Then, the status quo version was the one enforced by Borsoka, I was the one coming with new edits, so the edit warring was on me. But in the present case, the situation is the opposite. I am the one enforcing the status quo version, while Borsoka is the one coming with new edits. As for the policy, I quoted him part of the policy that shows I'm right, his response was to quote me back the same policy I quoted him, saying "you misunderstood our policy" with no further explaination even after I asked for it. I may not have experience on Wikipedia, but I understand that Wikipedia's policy is a set of rules all users should follow, and from the previous incident that in the case of an edit war the status quo version should be the one standing until consensus is reached, this looks to me like WP:BOOMERANG. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me that User:LordRogalDorn isn't going to stop, and is not receptive to advice. In the above, he seems to be insisting that anything which is sourced can be included in Wikipedia, making no assessment of whether a primary source from the 16th century is a good source for what actually happened in history. Trying persuasion at this point seems unlikely to work. It could be time for a longer block or a topic ban under WP:ARBEE, since they are already alerted to the sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Given that Borsoka was blocked for one week on 25 September for edit warring, I think you have a point about the topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred:, I was not blocked on 25 September. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, please, explain me why am I still at fault when Borsoka broke the status quo? Isn't the status quo version supposed to be the one staying on the page before an edit war starts? Not to mention that Borsoka made no attempts to discuss this on the talk page. Just because I am the one who got bocked for edit warring in the previous report, it doesn't mean I'm automatically the one in this report as well. Especially when the situation is reversed. I am literally asking for advice right now, to explain it to me so that I can understand the way Wikipedia works, the reasoning. As it appears to work randomly at the whim of some users. I made no assessment because user Borsoka never asked me for such a thing, he didn't accept the fact that I was using a primary source from start, let alone ask the reason why it would make sense in this particular case. If you wish to, I can provide an explaination why. Persuasion was never tried, I was hit with "it's like me" despite the policy's text and when I asked for further explaination was ignored. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Simple: other editors are not here to play your game and to entertain you. If you have not been able to understand a basic policy, copied word by word and explained by multiple editors, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Just for the record: it was you who wanted to place two sentences in the article quoting two 16th-century scholars without establishing their relevance - so I have been the one to restore status quo after waiting for verification for days. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I played no game. Please provide a diff with "basic policy, copied word by word and explained by multiple editors" as this didn't happen. I told you the policy [[87]], you just quoted the same text I refered you to back to me with no other explaination [[88]], imagine how helpful that was, then said "you misunderstood our policy" [[89]], how is this even explaining? it is mockery at best. The 2nd user only made one single comment on the issue [[90]], that was his whole contribution. I replied to him with this [[91]], and he didn't reply. Would you call that explaining? I wouldn't call it. And the 3rd editor didn't even side with you. These are your 3 editors who apparently have been trying explain me in three different ways. While your argument for reverting my edits was "OR" (which was not the case), as opposed to "use of primary sources is not always allowed" as it seems to be the real reason, hardly any explaining. I am here to build an encyclopedia and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia. Just for the record: I explained their relevance in the talk page, multiple times. And it's not like I didn't ask for an explaination [[92]]. The page was called "Origin of the Romanians", the chapter "Origin of the Theories", the section about middle ages historians talking about the origin of the romanians. After that user told you the policy, you stopped discussing with him and reverting his edits for 15 days. No verification was needed as "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". This is not to say that "anything which is sourced can be included in Wikipedia", there are certain conditions, which are fulfilled by the sources I added. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:Lordpermaximum (Result: )

Page: Stephen Thompson (fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NEDOCHAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98], [99]

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

Comments:
This editor constantly violates WP:RS and reverts references from green sources at WP:RSP such as The Independent.Perm 16:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Observer comment:

• NEDOCHAN made an edit [100]
• Lordpermaximum reverted [101]
• Lordpermaximum added content [102]
• NEDOCHAN reverted [103]
• Lordpermaximum reverted [104]
• NEDOCHAN reverted [105]
• Lordpermaximum reverted [106]
• NEDOCHAN reverted [107]

I count 3 reverts for each participant, while noting that NEDOCHAN began a talk page discussion on Talk:Stephen Thompson (fighter) to discuss the issue, but Lordpermaximum has not participated in it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

1. You counted wrong. He reverted it 4 times in the span of 7 hours 17 minutes. You forgot to count this one.

2. The last and the 4th revert was done at 15:36. He opened the talk page section at 15:40.Perm 16:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I consider this an edit to fix the infobox per WP:MMA. Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The initial edit was not a revert; it was a fix to bring the article into compliance with the project guidelines. I don't see clear evidence of it being a revert. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Karate" part of the fighter's style was deleted by NEDOCHAN 4 times in the span of 7 hours 17 minutes by referencing to an almost inactive project thus overriding WP:RS and disregarding a green source from WP:RSP. If it can't be counted as a revert than I accept that there has been 3 reverts by him.Perm 16:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I would sincerely ask whoever assesses this complaint carefully to view the edit history of Lordpermaximum. In their short time editing, they have started BLUDGEONING their points in RS Noticeboard, on the BLP noticeboard, started an RFC -the replies to which they have edited and moved. Their heavily edited talk page shows several editors pleading with them, only to get more BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I haven't time to do this properly, as their editing is so disruptive listing it all would take ages. A simple look through their edits shows just how exasperating it has been.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is also a text book example of WP:HOUND. Why did the editor suddenly review my edit to Stephen Thompson?NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)