Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

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

    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: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4], [5] (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)[reply]

    Comments:

    As I explained user Borsoka here: [[6]]. 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 [[7]]. "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 [[8]]: "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 [[9]], user Borsoka opposed him just like he opposed me [[10]], 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 [[11]], 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: [[12]]
    2.Borsoka's first revert: [[13]]
    3.My revert of his revert: [[14]]
    4.Borsoka's second revert: [[15]]
    5.My second revert of his revert: [[16]]
    6.LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I need to comment on the above message? I think it is clear: WP:NOTHERE. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: Given that Borsoka LordRogalDorn was partially 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) corrected 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred:, I was not blocked on 25 September. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borsoka: My deepest apologies. I put the wrong user name there. LordRogalDorn was partially blocked that date, not you. I'll go get another coffee before I edit further. :) —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We are humans. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [[17]], you just quoted the same text I refered you to back to me with no other explaination [[18]], imagine how helpful that was, then said "you misunderstood our policy" [[19]], how is this even explaining? it is mockery at best. The 2nd user only made one single comment on the issue [[20]], that was his whole contribution. I replied to him with this [[21]], 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 [[22]]. 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: "Unless restricted by another policy" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", the quotes I added pass both of these concerns: they are not personal interpretations and don't need specialized knowledge to understand them. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTHERE: either because he does not understand the quoted text, or because he pretends that he does not understand it. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain me, how the quoted text does not make my primary source material fit to be used without a secondary source? and this will likely end all discussion. As I believe this is where all this divergence comes from. You originally told me that all material on Wikipedia requires a secondary source (the reason is obvious, we need the opinions of specialists). I looked into the policy and saw that under certain conditions, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia. I already explained here and back then why I believe the quoted text says my primary source is good to be used in Wikipedia (the conditions it meets). You did not explain me, [[23]], [[24]], even when I asked for it [[25]]. Explain me using the quoted text how I "you misunderstood our policy"? What does the quoted text actually mean and what part from the text I got wrong? As for WP:NOTHERE, really? My addition to the article were two paragraphs with sources to back them up, regardless of whether the policy is or isn't in my favor (I think it is), it's pretty safe to say that I was far from attempting to vandalise or destroy the page. What WP:NOTHERE am I gulty of? I didn't promote any products or myself, obviously this isn't a socializing website, my edits were not for laughs, I obviously don't enjoy this and would have rather avoided this battleground alltogether, dishonesty, where? I literally asked you to explain it to me so you can't tell me that I didn't attempt to collaborate, no threats or harrassment, if I was in it for the "productive editor" badge I would have avoided all conflict. What is really the WP:NOTHERE that you accuse me of? LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I will not explain it to you again. There were two other editors and an administrator who also made an attempt to explain it to you. Sorry, I will ignore your remarks here. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to explain it to me again, you would have had to explain it to me in the first place. Unfortunately, you don't know what you are talking about. As explained above, the so called 2 editors that you keep invoking don't exist, one only made one comment and the other did not even side with you, the diffs are above to prove, and when it comes to the admin, beside him also saying that your three people three explainations for days is a hoax, I already said in the first comment that he never criticized my discussion with you, only the edit war, but keep insisting on things that didn't happen, I've seen the way Wikipedia works and you might win, given the fact that I wrote paragraphs to explain myself while in your case a few one liners is enough to believe you, despite insisting on things that are shown by diffs as not true. Funny how you claim that I misunderstood the policy but avoid explaining how I misunderstood the policy, I think it's clear what happens next. Honestly, I expected a lot more from Wikipedia, a place for knowledge. Not saying it's impossible that I'm wrong when it comes to policy, but you can get away with saying false things about what happened and not having to explain yourself, so much for justice. And since you're an experienced user of Wikipedia you probably know this WP:AFG, brilliant assumption of good faith you made right there, congratulations for being a shining example of Wikipedia's assume good faith principle. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to hear comments from anyone on the idea of an indefinite block of User:LordRogalDorn. An alternative might be a topic ban from WP:ARBEE but that would risk filling up WP:AE with thousands more words of unclear protest about the behavior of others. People don't have the right to complain indefinitely on admin boards when it is so hard to understand them, and when it appears they don't understand our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: From this thread and the one at ANI, I see WP:BATTLEGROUND and a refusal to WP:LISTEN. With only one month and 284 edits, they have been blocked twice. There edit history shows only 14% of their edits in articles. I wish it were otherwise, but unless there is a willingness to change (and work with an uninvolved willing mentor), I don't see how the editor will be a net positive contributor.   // Timothy :: talk 
    I understand now that no matter what I say you won't believe me. I can guarantee that I won't push this issue with another wall of text like this as I realised from this discussion that it's useless. I wish to avoid any possible reports from now on, as such, I will always ask on talk page and relevant pages before editing, and won't revert back without talking on the talk page if someone reverts my edits. I am willing to change and to work with an uninvolved willing mentor. I never wished for WP:BATTLEGROUND and I believe WP:LISTEN is a mutual issue, as nobody has explained me yet how the policy is against my edit, but don't worry, I won't push this issue further, I got the point. There are only 14% my their edits in articles because I wished to finish the current dispute before venturing on other edits, and would like to point out that out of those 86% non-articles edits, not all of them were about arguments, some were offering 3rd opinions, others were asking questions, others were thanking other users. LordRogalDorn (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest a topic ban from WP:ARBEE. Yes, he will likely again describe us as liars, but there is a slight possibility that he will able to add value to our projects in other areas. If not, he will be blocked indefinitely. Borsoka (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also suggest a topic banfor LordRogalDorn from the topics of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User KIENGIR is putting words into my mouth, what can I do? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Based on the above reply from LRD and input from others, I switch my support from a site ban to support a topic ban from Central and Eastern Europe broadly construed.   // Timothy :: talk  07:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [26]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [27]
    2. [28]
    3. [29]
    4. [30]
    5. [31]
    6. [32]
    7. [33]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

    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:Nandorfehervari reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [37]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [38]
    2. [39]
    3. [40]
    4. [41]

    Comments:
    User Perryprog notified Nandorfehervari about the issue of adding unsourced information on their talkpage[42], and I have asked for a reference multiple times as well. Instead of simply adding a reference, Nandorfehervari replied Reference already sent[43] which is untrue. Semsûrî (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

    I believe they were referring to their reply to the message I sent on their talk page. I would also would like to note that I feel it could have been worthwhile to have left a note on their talk page sooner—there were five reverts made of the user's change before I brought it up on their talk page. Finally, I feel like this is a bit of a weird edit-war: while I am not well-informed in this topic, after doing some research it does seem like the attack was performed with the purpose of targeting Alevis, regardless of ethnicity. Would adjusting the sentence to state "[...] more than one hundred Alevis [...]" be sufficient to resolve this conflict? Perryprog (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This would also match the wording used in the linked article about the Grey Wolves: "Their most notorious attack, which killed over 100 Alevis [...]" Perryprog (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Perryprog: Whether their ethnic background played a role depends on who you ask, but Turkey does tend to minimize the ethnic aspect in every domestic social disturbance. New Statesman wrote in 1989: In 1978, several hundred Alevis were massacred in the town of Maras. This March, the man who is widely held to have been connected with the massacre was elected mayor of Maras, on an explicitly anti-Kurdish platform[44] Even if their religious beliefs was the sole cause and the victims were Kurds coincidentally, I still don't think mentioning ethnic background should be neglected. If the user above has reliable references about Alevi Turks also being the victims, it can be added. It should be mentioned that most Alevis in Maras are Kurds. --Semsûrî (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Semsûrî: Thanks for your response. This makes sense to me, and also matches the sources I read—I (now) ultimately think you're right on the necessity of a source stating that Alevi Turks were victims of the massacre, which so far has not been supplied. Perryprog (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Perryprog: If the user does not intend to take part here, I don't see a path forward but simply revert their edits. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Semsûrî: That sounds good to me—they seem to have gone inactive since this report was made. (I assume you'll do the revert.) Perryprog (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: This is not quite resolved still—since the last comment (directly above this one), there has been a second 3RR violation (edit as of 12:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC): I was mistaken, there were three reverts, so this point is moot.) (1 2 3), as well as a message on my talk-page which is essentially a response to the report here.
    @Semsûrî and Nandorfehervari: I feel like this is really just a content dispute. No actual warnings have been given, and I doubt Nandorfehervari is aware of the three revert rule. For that reason, I doubt that this really even belongs on this noticeboard. (Potentially would be better on the dispute resolution noticeboard or possibly ANI.) Perryprog (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Semsûrî and Perryprog: Every single article and source mentions that the targets were Alevis, Kurds and leftists. This is itself evidence that Turks are among the victims. https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/turkey/29122013 "He explained that Kurds were not the only victims of the attack, adding that progressive and leftist Turks who had opposed the official policies of Ankara were also included." http://www.t-vine.com/kahramanmaras-marks-40th-anniversary-of-maras-massacre/ "“Whether they are Alevi or Sunni, it does not matter,” he said. “Those killed here were not just Alevi, there were 10 to 11 Sunnis as well." there are many more examples I can come up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandorfehervari (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cedar777 reported by User:Wikieditor19920 (Result: Warned)

    Page: Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cedar777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [45]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [46]
    2. [47]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

    Comments:

    This page is subject to 1RR. User violated the 1RR with non-consecutive edits spaced several hours apart (with intervening edits by other users). Thus far has seemingly refused to acknowledge or cure the violation. Warning posted at their talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • While I agree this is a violation, I think it was incidental. I've largely be in agreement with Wikieditor and opposed to Cedar777's edits but I think this was a good faith oversight on a contentious topic. So long as Cedar777 promises to be more careful I hope that would be sufficient. Springee (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first diff listed above was an action performed by another editor. The edits I made at Andy Ngo were not reversions, they clarified the content and carefully adhered to the sources of Willamette Week and the Oregonian. The reporting user has incorrectly associated my actions with a source I did not use. Once again today, as with yesterday, my time to address this matter is extremely limited until late in the day (Pacific Standard Time). Please note that I have made no further edits after the user brought their concerns to this page. When I observed the Andy Ngo page yesterday evening, it was undergoing a large number of edits and reverts, which included several actions performed by the reporting user. Despite my request for clarification, what the reporting user expected me to self-revert, in the middle of all that ongoing page activity, was not clear. I will be unable to follow up on this matter for several hours. If this page is no longer a suitable place to address the issue, please kindly advise where best to do so. Sincerely, Cedar777 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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
    • Blocked
    1. [49]
    2. [50]
    3. [51]
    • Blocked again
    1. 00:51, 20 October 2020‎

    Comments:
    Continuation of the same edit-war where Grnwng has been blocked twice already, and has now reverted nine times. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The statement X is a a controversial Y is a blatant violation of NPOV! Writing that in the very first sentence of any article is crazy. And all you have to do to fix it is remove the word "controversial". User:Hipal claims not to understand this, but has tagged the word as inadequate, even while edit warring to keep it in the first sentence. What an utterly ridiculous way to behave. They have also been permitted to break the 3RR without facing any sanction. Grnwng (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin reply: this is your report. Focus on yourself. If you want to file a report against that user, go ahead. You’ve also violated the 3RR plenty of times at this point. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef'd by JzG. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely – by User:JzG per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarioProtIV and User:Destroyeraa reported by User:137.189.220.244 (Result: Declined)

    Page: Hurricane Teddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Hurricane Delta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: MarioProtIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Destroyeraa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Teddy: [52], Delta: [53]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    • Teddy
    1. Special:Diff/984360290
    2. Special:Diff/984398645
    3. Special:Diff/984400855
    4. Special:Diff/984401195
    • Delta
    1. Special:Diff/984231434
    2. Special:Diff/984338389
    3. Special:Diff/984400089

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mario: Special:Diff/983586017, Destroyeraa: Special:Diff/983585988

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season#Delta image

    Comments:
    These two uesrs violated WP:3RR in Hurricane Dorian last week, and has been warned by User:Mifter. Unfortunately, the two have once again triggered edit war in Hurricane Teddy and Hurricane Delta. IMO they are touching the red line of WP:EW, and administrative action may be required. 137.189.220.244 (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-admin comment: neither of them have broken the 3RR. You need four reverts, per user, on the same page for it to be a 3RR violation. Also: the user reporting has not notified either of the two users being reported. I will do that now. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute has been resolved between the parties. Thank you. Now, please look at Teddy's talk page before reporting us unknown user. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the edit warring on Hurricane Teddy has been resolved, the edit warring has stopped and the page has been unprotected. I suggest closing this with no action, I'll ping MarioProtIV on his opinion. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doggy54321: I find it rather suspicious that this user's first edit was reporting other users. It may be a logged-out user but I cannot determine who. In addition, this User has been following us around too. May be an accidental IPhop. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lockdown101 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: )

    Page: Creggan, Derry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lockdown101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 15:03, 20 October 2020

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57] and [58]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

    Comments:
    The editor is obviously 89.243.139.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well, and is also edit-warring at List of people from Derry and St Columb's College

    User:Calculus-dev reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: )

    Page: Free Rider HD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Calculus-dev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984633600 by Greyjoy (talk)"
    2. 05:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984632027 by Greyjoy (talk)"
    3. 04:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984625848 by Swadge2 (talk)"
    4. 04:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984625458 by ClueBot NG (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 05:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Free Rider HD."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Trusted RedZone reported by User:IPBilly (Result: both blocked from article for a week )

    Page: List of fastest production cars by acceleration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984709925 by Drachentötbär (talk) you are disgusting. You have to accept what other editors accepted. If you cannot discuss with other editors prove with reliable sources that your opinion was right. Don't behave like a kid. Stop edit war before you get blocked from editing"
    2. 14:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984680640 by Drachentötbär (talk) reverted to the correct version. Without discussing and proving and"
    3. 06:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984580308 by Drachentötbär (talk) no I didn't, I said because I answer for your question and you understood the importance of decimals. So respectfully do not do rivisions without proving your thoughts correct. Other wise you were be blocked from edting. If you have to say something use the talk page and let's discuss. I just hope your a respectable editor of Wikipedia and no more edit wars."
    4. 17:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984489407 by Toasted Meter (talk) discussion is finished. And no more edit wars"
    5. 06:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984453226 by Toasted Meter (talk) I know it and it's not me. We discussed and editors choosed a sorting system and changed to it. Drachentötbär did reverts without proving his thoughts."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of fastest production cars by acceleration."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Both User:Drachentötbär and User:Trusted_RedZone are engaged in an edit war. There was ongoing discussion about the proposed changes but not resolution was reached and the talk page/revision log has devolved to insults. I did not personally warn Drachentötbär, however Trusted_RedZone passed along a warning I originally posted. This may be a candidate for Dispute resolution based on the content of the disagreement, however the edit war is currently ongoing and should be dealt with. A similar discussion is being held at Talk:List_of_Nürburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times#Order_for_times_with_or_without_hundredths_of_seconds, but had not yet violated 3RR. IPBilly (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked them both from editing the article for a week: this is a bit ridiculous. Trusted RedZone, if I see you make more comments like you did here, you should also be blocked for personal attacks. Both of you, grow up. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your timely response. Can you advise whether it would be appropriate for me to submit a request at WP:DRN to possibly resolve the disagreement at the root of the edit war? There are several editors on each side of the issue, which will remain an open question once the block has expired. Would it be more appropriate to wait until each editors block has been lifted before requesting assistance? Thanks in advance for the advice. IPBilly (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IPBilly, I can't tell you anything about DRN; I always bulldoze through disputes. I'm like Cookie monster, who only wants cookies for breakfast: I always say "RfC is the way to go". Drmies (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BawinV reporter by User:Trillfendi (result: )

    1. 2. 3. 4.

    Just yesterday I was thanked for an edit that user BawinV now wants to edit war about. Maybe there’s a misunderstanding, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt. All I did was put a neutral note about one of the genres. Across Taylor Swift’s album articles there is a sport of arguing day in and day out about her genres, I don’t participate in that. Across the Internet it’s even worse. If one is to call something released by one of the world’s largest record labels “independent” or “indie” just because it “sounds” a certain way, you might was well call The Avengers an “indie” movie too. For people to stop conflating (and therefore further arguing), what exactly is the harm of leaving a simple note that leaves opinions out of it? Trillfendi (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1. There was no edit war.
    2. The above user is literally doing WP:OR, because critics definitely didn't have any problem calling the album “indie-folk”. It is the user Trillfendi that is creating an imaginary dispute that doesn't exist in the first place.
    3. Surprise! "The Avengers" wasn't call an indie movie. Too bad.
    4. What is the harm in not fabricating non-existent “arguments”? Many critics described the album as Indie-folk, thus the genre is in the infobox. That's it. It ends there. There's literally no other complications. Trillfendi wants to accessorize the infobox with a note (based on pure WP:OR) that isn't needed in the first place.
    PS: The "thank" was from me, and it was my misplaced finger - an accident. LoL. BawinV (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was an accident you had to confirm, otherwise you would’ve pressed cancel.... Lie again. You’ve been here far long enough to know what edit warring is and it started with your undoing (and how much “thinking” went into it if you claim it’s imaginary?). Neither of which change the fact that independent art means it independently released. The genre’s own article says the shit. It’s not hard. It takes all of one click. You don’t own the subject of Taylor Swift. Trillfendi (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're typing paragraphs and paragraphs of your original research... for what?? I said it already and I'll say it again. Critics called it indie-folk just fine. They didn't have any problem with it, and neither does Wikipedia. I find it funny you're constantly talking about me personally while I'm only talking about how your edit is literally superfluous. I'm just so weirded out by the fact that you don't seem to understand how Indie is a musical genre/sound/style, not just a type of music production/distribution. Regards. BawinV (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin reply: @Trillfendi: those diffs you added were over the span of two days, therefore not a 3RR violation. You can’t cancel/confirm a thank. And indie isn’t short for independent. It’s a genre of music. Sources say "indie-folk", not "indie". Please also be nice, and maybe don't swear, especially when you’re actually more at risk of a block. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is arguing about the genre itself (hence why an operable, blue link to whatever music critics said so is there). I’ve never edited indie folk so I’m not the person who wrote in its lead that indie folk is “distributed by an independent label”. So if indie folk music is distributed by an independent label, and this album wasn’t, there is the rub. What exactly is the issue with saying this particular album is demonstrably not in that paradigm of a distribution model. That is a fact. Once again, no one is arguing about the genre. Next time someone’s finger “slips” twice to thank me they should keep that in mind. Trillfendi (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a user with 10 edits who didn’t provide a source...smfh. So there shouldn’t be a efn note. Tbh I’m trying to stifle my laughs. Not to be rude, it’s just ironic and funny how an edit war over two experienced users started with an unsourced add. No offence or anything. It’s also not that hard to check the page history to see who even added the statement. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it wasn’t sourced as a lead sentence (the article is an anemic stub that would best be merged anyway), yet it isn’t an incorrect statement either, let history be the judge. The people who want to appeal to authority on what the subgenre “sounds” like have no source either evidently. Trillfendi (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit blatant is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and thus, should be removed. BawinV (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin comment: there are no diffs provided. User:Trillfendi please add diffs of edit warring. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admin reply: also, @BawinV: only has two reverts to Folklore (Taylor Swift album). @Trillfendi: has three reverts. Neither of you have broken the 3RR. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trillfendi should be warned for adding editorial commentary; Valereee, I appreciate what you did, and it proves that yes, admins always preserve the wrong version. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, fair enough. Trillfendi (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, lol yep. —valereee (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trillfendi reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: )

    Page: Folklore (Taylor Swift album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Trillfendi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [60] 16:21 UTC, Oct 21, 2020
    2. [61] 19:51 UTC, Oct 21, 2020
    3. [62] 20:10 UTC, Oct 21, 2020
    4. [63] 21:01 UTC, Oct 21, 2020

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned them

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not been reverting, that’s User:BawinV, but they only have had 2 reverts in a 24hr period, where as Trillfendi has had 4 in the same time period. User:Valereee has made a talk section here and has fully protected the page.

    Comments:
    This user has reverted 4 times in a 5 hour period. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Are y'all seriously edit warring over "indie" vs. "indie folk"? That's pathetic. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me? No?? Trillfendi added an unnecessary note and I'm removed it because it's superfluous, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. BawinV (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-administrator comment the claim that "indie folk albums are released under independent labels" is not sourced, so it's not a strongly grounded reason to dismiss Folklore as an indie folk album. Critics have voiced their opinions, so what are we fighting about? An overview of the genre can be found here, which mentions nothing about the relation with independent labels. I understand that "indie" is a connotation for "independent", but the term "indie music" has expanded to describe music released under big-name labels as well. HĐ (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll note, as I did at the article talk, that no one had opened a talk section in over a month and no one had even commented at talk in three weeks. Instead two different editors came here first. —valereee (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Nightenbelle reported by User:021120x (Result: Filer warned)

    Page: Talk:French Revolution (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nightenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Original edit: 1

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 2
    2. 3

    Warning issued - 4


    The reverts are happening on article talk page, the explanations have been plainly stated on collapsed section.

    Section was collapsed by user Gwillhickers as being unrelated to article content. Collapse was reverted by Nightenbelle. Section was collapsed by reporting user for being unrelated to article content. Collapse was reverted by Nightenbelle. User also engaging in personal attacks, as shown in edit summary.

    Comments

    In order to violate WP:3RR a user must have reverted more than three times in a 24 hour period. User: Nightenbelle has reverted twice, so there is no violation. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR differs from edit warring, though, does it not? I am aware of other users that have been reported for only reverting twice. 021120x (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are different, but 3RR is the firm line in the sand at which edit waring becomes an immediately blockable offence. Reverting an edit twice is unlikely to result in a block, especially over something as minor as whether a comment belongs on an article talk page or the ANI thread, and one of the reinstatements of the edit was you collapsing a comment about your own conduct. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    this is wp:boomerang for my comments on the case opened by user:021120x above and because two separate drn volunteers have advised them their behavior on that talk page and this board has been unacceptable. User is trying to remove evidence of those comments Nightenbelle (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Nightenbelle, we're removing irrelevant harassment from the page. 021120x (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest this be closed with a warning to User:021120x against removing, editing or collapsing any posts by others at Talk:French Revolution. Their behavior seems to fall under WP:BATTLEGROUND. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston:, I'm having difficulty understanding why I'm being singled out for this, as I restored an edit that was done by a previous user. I was not the first person to collapse this, and not the only one who saw it as highly inappropriate. 021120x (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Context: The section in question is related to a currently-open ANI thread. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: User:021120x is warned they may be blocked the next time they remove, edit or collapse any posts by others at Talk:French Revolution. It takes some talent for disputation to keep so many gigantic threads running at a number of noticeboards over what is basically the same issue. No objection to any admin modifying this closure if a contrary result is found in any of the other discussions. DRN volunteers such as User:Nightenbelle have attempted to focus the dispute into a single place but User:021120x has always found reasons for rejecting these suggestions. I share Nightenbelle's conclusion that 021120x's behavior is unacceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: I'm trying to follow the appropriate procedure. The ANI says that edit warring is supposed to be reported here, not on the ANI. 021120x (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    021120x, I think you understand very well what is being said here. The edit warring, if that's what it was, is irrelevant; when you open a report on a noticeboard you can expect your own behavior to be scrutinized. Well, that's what happened, and the best way for you to get out of this is to say "yes sir" and walk away, and not revert/disrupt again on that talk page. Be mindful that EdJohnston warned you, and that his administrative tool works in more areas than edit warring alone. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darkraid1 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: )

    Page: List of Armenian inventions and discoveries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Darkraid1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [64]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [65]
    2. [66]
    3. [67]

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

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

    Comments:

    User:Dwhatley reported by User:Marbe166 (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [71]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 4 September: [72]
    2. 14 September: [73]
    3. 22 September: [74]
    4. 24 September: [75]
    5. 29 September: [76]
    6. 6 October: [77]
    7. 20 October: [78]
    8. 22 October: [79]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alexander Albon

    Comments:
    Dwhatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on including information on Alexander Albon's mother's fraud conviction in the article. This has been removed, mainly by myself and SSSB, because the information is not relevant in a biographical article about Alexander Albon. The user has responded when prompted about it on the talk page, but has disregarded the feedback given there and continues to re-add the information. This has to stop. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Add, please note that there are intermediate changes (by other users) to the page which are good. The current version of the page is fine. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C5B0:E12C:7CB0:27E4 reported by User:Flalf (Result: )

    Page: New World (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C5B0:E12C:7CB0:27E4 (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:


    Comments:

    I've been trying to follow policy as best I've can and I have consulted other editors as well as the single purpose IP and they just don't listen. I think I filled it out wrong but I need help. FlalfTalk 18:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This guy keeps mass deleting the contents of a wiki page - he has clearly never edited the type of article he is making such a mass deletion too--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C5B0:E12C:7CB0:27E4 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=984887144"