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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Konli17 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First revert 17:59 12 nov:[1] he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map [2] this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november: [3]
Second revert 20:33 12 nov [4] he re ads the same map again after it was removed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

This article is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War topic, allowing one revert per 24 hours.

This user has a very long edit-warring record. In addition, the user resorts to personal attacks when their argument fails such as here, here, here, here, here and here, and here. Another personal attack on another user here.
This user removes mass amounts of sourced, relevant content because it simply goes against their POV (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Examples are:
Here, which is part of the complaint above
Other pages: Here, here,
Konli is edit-warring here, 4 reverts in less than 48 hours.
This user uses fake edit-summaries to sneak in their significant changes to the meanings by simple tweaking such as this one and removal of sensitive words that fake/change/reverse the meaning (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc.
This user has tried to block every effort at reaching consensus on the page in question. Look at this message here to another (more reasonable, neutral) user on their side.
This user was blocked back in June for edit-warring. It is about time for this user to see a topic ban or a indefinite block given their constant disruptive behavior and sabotage of many articles. Thanks Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That page was quiet for months until Konli17 returned from his long break and decided to push their POV. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Here's a recent example on the Hulusi Akar page of how he fakes content from sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even a pro-Kurdish editor doesn't agree with his edits: 13 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more example where Konli faked the content of al-Jazeera story that they used. Konli claimed: "in order to prevent the SDF linking Afrin Canton with the rest of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". However, neither the page name (Shahba Canton) nor the other names (Afrin, Autonomous Administration) claimed were mentioned in that story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other users who have witnessed the edit-warring behavior of this user. Is it appropriate to ping them or that would be considered canvassing? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Could you please look into this case here? The page you protected has seen major vandalism by this user since it was partially-protected. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A decision for this case is over due and the user in question is taking advantage of this by continuing their edit-warring. See what they call "clean-up! They have deleted half an article that is well-sourced (neutral, Western sources) and very relevant to the area in question. All this happened while an RfC is open and against advice on the Talk page by user @Sixula:. If all the edit-warring is not enough for an indef banning then the many personal attacks identified above should be the straw to do it. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the conflict between Konli and the other three could really use an admin looking into it. The complaining editors SD, Amr Ibn and ThePharoah17 have all shown a very surprising tolerance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which appears not to be on the radar of the Admins. SD and Amr Ibn, both wanted to move Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria in the midst of an Siege of Kobane by ISIL in 2015. The pinged admin EdJohnston closed the discussion at the time. ThePharoah17 has shown similar views after I have made that public just a few days ago arguing that the YPG is just a terrorist organization as ISIL. The YPG is only designated a terrorist organization by Turkey, and supported by a global coalition of 83 countries including the USA and most of the countries of the European Countries, which is formed specifically to fight ISIS. ISIL is probably the most designated terrorist organization in the world. That they now want to oust Konli17, who really improved many articles is not very Wikipedia. Amr Ibn and SD are also involved in a long edit war about the existence of Syrian Kurdistan, in which they deny its existence and dismiss any academic sources which mention a Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute is currently raging at the ANI and also at an RfC at the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, you are accusing me of being "tolerant" to ISIS is extremely offensive. You can not show one single comment I have made that comes even close to what you are claiming. No one on the planet hates them more then me. You should be banned from wikipedia for your words. Also, what academic sources have I dismissed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, this is a very serious accusation and personal attack by user Paradise chronicle. Standing against YPG militias does not mean one is supporting ISIL. It's not black and white. See this Human Rights Watch story about PYD/YPG human rights violations. Your argument just shows that you are here to push a pro-PKK/PYD POV agenda. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it. Tradedia^talk 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Could you please look into the three cases against user Konli17 open here and waiting for admin action for almost two weeks. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THIS GUY IS A VANDAL!!!! Here is the most recent example now of how he snuck in a change in words in an edit:[7]. Notice how the words "Assyrians and Syriacs" are turned into "Kurds". Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism reported on the Qamishli page: [8] [9] Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism: [10] [11]

I have news for you @C.Fred: @EdJohnston: @Liz: @Black Kite:. Konli17 is a sockpuppet.

FYI, ThePharoah17 just had to revert the so called vandalism by Konli17 because it was not Vandalism but a removal of second mention within 4 lines. Other so-called vandalism was similar. Guess who is the vandal now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: Both warned)

BOTH WARNED

Both warned for long term edit warring by EdJohnston. The next person who makes an edit at Hellenistic philosophy is risking a block unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. ◅ Sebastian 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:
While this has extended beyond a 24 hour period, I think you will see that there is no attempt to find a solution to the issue by the user. In fact, they have not made a clear case for what it is that they object to in the content. They have only raised the claim that it conflicts with the article Hellenistic period, which it does not, and in any case that's WP:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, the rest of the content that is being reverted is not explained by this. As you can see, they have not responded to a discussion on the talk page. You will also see from the other talk page discussions that this user is in general not at all constructive, often appealing to their own expertise or other articles against content with academic sources, as well as engaging in extremely petty fights over interpretation of individuals words, etc. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keepcalmandchill has previously had to withdraw two previous accusations against me of edit warring. This third one is similarly unfounded. As with Keepcalmandchill's edits on the subject of Hellenistic philosophy, this complaint is also based on factually incorrect information. It should be clear to any reader of Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy that extensive conversation is happening and that Keepcalmandchill's comments have been responded to. Keepcalmandchill is correct that I have pointed out that I have made over 1,000 edits on detail pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy and that Keepcalmandchill has made none. Keepcalmandchill is similarly correct that I have pointed out that their edits on Hellenistic philosophy contradict sourced claims made on other, more-detailed pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy, typically sourced from various specialized academic sources rather than the two introductions to philosophy that Keepcalmandchill repeatedly cites for all claims. Keepcalmandchill is also correct that I repeatedly point out that this area of philosophy (like all of the others) involves specialized terminology which needs to be used with precision. Keepcalmandchill is again correct that the 3 reversions in 24 hour rule has not actually been broken. But, as one can see, they have decided to post a complaint anyway. I suggest that this matter would be better addressed by availing of some form of third-party intervention.

I apologize that the volunteers who deal with edit warring issues have to spend time addressing this matter, as all parties are in agreement about the fact that the reversion rule has not been broken. It should be noted that shortly prior to Keepcalmandchill raised this complaint I had asked for help on this matter at the Help Desk as it had become clear to me that an impasse was looming. Teishin (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "have to withdraw" the previous complaints. I did so as a gesture of goodwill after you responded with some degree of positivity to constructive compromise proposals that I made in the relevant discussions. As both of those complaints involved an outright violation of 3RR, I think it is safe to say that this user has little respect for the rule. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do suggest reading their Help Desk comment, it is... interesting. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Teishin and User:Keepcalmandchill are both warned for long term edit warring. The next person who makes an edit at Hellenistic philosophy is risking a block unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. This dispute seems to have been going on since 1 October. Nobody is entitled to keep reverting endlessly. At some point you are expected to organize your own WP:Dispute resolution and find a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Konli17 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts: Kurds in Turkey:

Iranian Kurdistan:

Turkish Kurdistan:

Western Armenia:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] [22] [23]

Comments:
This user is extremely POV pushing, and doing long lasting edit wars with other users. He is thinking Turkey or Iran is occupying Kurdistan. He got ridiculous edits such as changing short description into "Iranian-controlled part of Kurdistan" or such as "the portion of Kurdistan under the jurisdiction of Turkey", as if Iran or Turkey is occupying a foreign country. As for Western Armenia, claiming an Armenian irredentist concept is "Turkish irredentism". This user has clearly no idea about distinguishing an geocultural region or a political region.

Beside that, insisting about a map made by a ~~blocked user~~ turned out to be a sockpuppet, which is clearly controversial.

Also adding in another map, adding wrong reference, you can control yourself.

Beshogur (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

´*Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at the Syrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it. Tradedia^talk 23:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Konli17 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: )

User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989382024 by 85.104.70.10 (talk) No, it's not"
17:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989378703 by 85.104.70.10 (talk) Erdogan says Kurds and Turks are brothers"
16:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989366968 by Beshogur (talk) Undo unexplained blanking, correct"
14:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Add Kurdish name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

22:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Turkish Kurdistan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Comment. Konli17 has been edit warring for a long time at the Syrian Kurdistan article, adding fake maps with unreliable sources and removing good sourced content that doesn't fit his agenda. I have tried to reason with him but he is still misbehaving and edit warring. It is time for a long block or ban from wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Konli17 has been consistently reverting almost everyone else's edits in the Syrian Kurdistan page. This is the 4th case against them still open with no Admin action yet! Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Konli17 is a particulary disruptive editor. It seems like the disruption is continuing in different places up to today. Something should be done about it. Tradedia^talk 23:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He dit 4x reverts in 24 hours why admins not take a look?? Shadow4dark (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
maybe because it is an ethnic dispute where Konli was constructive and the others were removing info?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bigboy 691 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [24] – revision without section in dispute

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[25] – restored disputed section
[26] – same
[27] – same

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WikiProject Boxing – Titles in boxing section, ongoing discussion

Comments:
User:Bigboy 691 is bulk-adding a large section to boxing bio articles which has not yet gained consensus at WikiProject Boxing, which oversees the MOS:BOXING style guide. There is already a detailed section within the latter – MOS:BOXING/TITLES – which handles championships won by a boxer and uses succession boxes. There is currently discussion about whether to include a summary-type of section earlier in the articles, but User:Bigboy 691 insists on adding the sections anyway, without waiting for consensus or indeed participating in discussion. This is no longer WP:BOLD, but disruptive editing because discussion is still ongoing. Instead, he has blanked his talk page a few times despite requests to engage in discussion, and he appears to have slight conduct issues via edit summaries:

"Not everyone reads those boring links sir" – his views on succession boxes
"... put some respect on my guy Fury" – bias
"Stop hating leave the accomplishments there bro" – no rationale
"Yo chill stop being a square person" – minor PA

However, this is not so much about his conduct than his edit warring and unwillingness to discuss a style format which could affect a large number of articles going forward. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seem User:Bigboy 691 now a troll account that simply delete content in wikipedia. See the talk page for affected article. Matthew hk (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action. It appears that the user is not continuing to revert at Canelo Álvarez; his 'Titles in boxing' section isn't there any more. I suggest opening a WP:Request for comment to try to settle the general style question. Before someone can be blocked for violating a consensus there actually has to *be* a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:IntegratedMedicine reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

07:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989524729 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
10:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989498931 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Updating summary of the College of Medicine's role in society. References to a previous organisation should certainly be included in history but not in the main summary of the organisation. The College of Medicine is now 10 years old and the current summary is outdated."
12:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC) "Updating summary of the College of Medicine's role in society"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

13:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on College of Medicine (UK)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Looks like this report was a pure waste of my time. Which noticeboard should I report edit warring on, eh? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action, since reverting has stopped for the moment. Report again if it restarts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eldhorajan92 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Malankara Metropolitans#Query on the edit in Introduction

Comments:

Please note that Eldhorajan92 is edit-warring against us in 2 articles at once. Diffs are from both articles (5RR in one, 4RR in the other) and he was very recently blocked for edit-warring in a similar situation. Elizium23 (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iam attempt to edit war Because of edit war held against reference, then after conclusion(talk discussion) not go to re-edit or Edit War! Eldhose^Talk 12:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From 16 Nov 2020 to 20 Nov 2020, User: Eldhorajan92 continuously engaged in edit war by adding in-sufficient references which do not have any direct mention of the topic. The user quoted non related remarks from the online/google books for pushing biased views into Wikipedia article according to the user's point of views by self interpretations , discarding all logical and historical side of the content in the references -John C. (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John C. doing continuous edit war against reference. After conclusion of talk page discussion, Its stopped!. Iam not doing any self interpretations, mentioned only Stephen neil and Claudius Buchanan Books(Valuable Books of Syrian Christianity in India). The Indian Orthodox(Malankara Orthodox Church) is only separated after 1911 then just confused. Eldhose^Talk 04:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are edited by users who have a close connection with subject. Please Use Proper References and maintain WP:RNPOV. User:Eldhorajan92, John C. should focus on balancing different views and should refer MOS:WTW, WP:CS, And finally this WP:VERIFY and consider discussing on talk pages before making a major edit respectively. J.Stalin S ^Talk 05:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the rights or jurisdiction of "Malankara Metropolitan" in above books. Have spend a lot of time explaining the same to User: Eldhorajan92. Discussion is here for Admins reference Talk:List of Malankara Metropolitans#Query on the edit in Introduction. Please check . The same invalid/insufficient reference(s) had been used in other articles also for similar edits-John C. (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per reference, The Malankara Church under Patriarch of Antioch. After 1911, Malankara Metropolitan is Independent under new church known as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church as per court view. Eldhose^Talk 05:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jontel reported by User:11Fox11 (Result: Warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[40][41][42] 1st revert
[43] 2nd revert
[44] 3rd revert
[45] 4th revert
[46] 5th revert
[47] 6th revert
[48][49] 7th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is aware, removed edit warring section warning from their talk page recently.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's all over the talk page

Comments:
This is a new article from November 3rd. In the span of 8 hours, Jontel made seven different reverts, which were challenged by other users he edit warred with. The content differs in each revert, but revolves around removing Holocaust denial and far left ties of this group. Each group of diffs above is separated by other users challenging Jontel. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this was going on while this was on the front page under "did you know" with the description: "... that the British conspiracy-theory and Holocaust-denial group Keep Talking unites the far right and far left?". Jontel was disrupting, possibly even vandlising, an article displayed on the front page that has significant traffic today. Jontel's edits specifically went after the description in the front page. 11Fox11 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I was edit warring, just making several changes to different parts of the article. The article is based almost entirely on one report by a pair of campaign groups, with superficial coverage of the same report by sympathetic media without them conducting additional research. It is misleading in a number of ways through misrepresenting the report contents, using tendentious wording and guilt by association. I was correcting errors and giving reasons for doing so. I was making a number of changes because there were a number of errors. Where my changes were reverted, often with unspecific justification, I have typically raised the issues in the Talk page. I have not repeatedly reverted fresh edits, just previously existing material, and am happy to pursue discussions via the Talk page, which I have initiated, including proposing compromise wording. It is the case that the source report makes little mention of Holocaust denial, whereas it has been given prominence in the article, and also that those involved, ex Labour Party members, would not normally be characterised as far-left, who would be revolutionaries, by anyone familiar with the term. I addressed a number of the more prominent errors but certainly not all. It is regrettable to be heavily editing a ‘Did you know’ article, but why was such a new, weakly sourced, controversial and misleading article given such prominence? Jontel (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Jontel's statement above that "I have not repeatedly reverted fresh edits", he actually did repeat the same edits:

Removing far-left: 1st revert, 3rd revert,
Removing Corbyn's brohter: 4th revert, 5th revert
Removing Holocaust denial: 1st revert, 6th revert, 7th revert.

And anyway all seven edits are reverts, removing recently added sourced information. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the first instance, I was attempting to find a compromise. In the second and third instances, my changes were reverted without sufficiently specific edit summaries. As it was a new article, all of the material was relatively new. It was not a matter of me reverting changes to an established article. Why doesn't the complainant engage with the issues raised on the Talk page? All he says is 'sources' without specifying them and make a personal attack. Jontel (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 3RR warning; the notice on my talk page related to a 1RR situation in May 2020. Jontel (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Jontel is warned. They may be blocked if they make any further edit that reverts others' changes, even in part, without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. If you are truly 'attempting to find a compromise' you should wait for the outcome of a discussion instead of reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:5.43.72.55 reported by User:Twassman (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 5.43.72.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990140931 by EthanHunt1010 (talk)"
01:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "you cause clutting article history for no reason"
Consecutive edits made from 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) to 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990140116 by EthanHunt1010 (talk)"
2. 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990140290 by EthanHunt1010 (talk)"
3. 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* External links */"
01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* External links */"
01:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mustafa Nadarević."
01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Mustafa Nadarević."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also reverted warnings on talk page. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 2 weeks for edit warring by User:Cyphoidbomb. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bacondrum reported by User:Wikieditor19920 (Result: Closed)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:
This page is subject to 1RR. This user is still actively violating the 1RR at the page, despite a request to stop and review the DS notice, and a promise that it was an accident. This user has been reported and then banned, blocked, or warned for edit-warring and violating either DS or 3RR at least three times in the past year. See 1, 2, 3. (Note: In the ANI thread that resulted in a two-week ban for a 3RR violation, the imposing admin notes that it was actually three separate 3RR violations that broke the camel's back, not just one. So we actually have nearly a half dozen instances of this user violating either 1RR or 3RR documented between WP:ANI and WP:AN3.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this editor is on about, but we've had issues in the past. I've learnt from my past mistakes and have been making a concerted effort to do better, this report is not fair or justified. If I did go past 1RR I'd have happily self reverted if given the chance. I think this report is vindictive and should boomerang. Bacondrum (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That first diff, I thought I was doing as wikieditor had requested? I'm pretty sure I restored all of his edits? I sincerely find his claims confusing. I don't think I've gone past 1RR, I'm not even sure I reverted anything at all. Same with the second "series" of reverts. I thought I was simply making edits, I can't see how I've reverted anything, but I'm more than happy to self revert if I've done the wrong thing. I've nothing more to add. Admins, please ping me if you have any questions. Bacondrum (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: Can you make it clear which edits in those series you are saying are reverts, and which previous edits they are actually reverts of, please? Reports like this make it very difficult for admins to pick apart what is actually happening. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Yes, I've edited the diffs to show two chains of this user's edits broken by another's changes (each grouping is effectively a single revert per WP:REVERT) within the 24h period. The user did initially partially self revert after being asked, but then returned, and undid that with additional edits. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For more specific reverts within that second series of changes, see here and here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see any reverts other than one which was accidental and all but entirely restored - so one partial revert? I believe this is a vindictive act in retaliation over this recent dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikieditor19920#October_2020 Bacondrum (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A question for admins: are there any sanctions for making spurious and vindictive reports? Bacondrum (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clearly seeing a blatant violation either, but I'll leave it for another admin to look over and make sure I'm not getting it wrong. Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would decline to find a violation here because the reverting story is unclear. If a page is under a 1RR, it only takes two reverts to break the rule, but even so, the first edit of the two has to be an actual revert. That's what I can't determine. At first glance, there are a bunch of similar words being stirred around into different orders. It appears that Bacondrum is willing to fix the problem if it can be pointed out to him. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: This was the first revert, comprised of two consecutive edits. It involved changes to the existing language in the lead, and removal of sources that had just been restored in the prior edit. The second revert, after intervening edits by me, partially undid edits by myself and others. Here, as part of the second chain of reverts, the user claimed they were reverting "contested wording." Yet there is no such exemption, and this was already outside of the 1RR. You can also view the page revision history if you just want a visual representation.

The user's promise to self-revert now is moot at this point—they violated the 1RR and restored their preferred version, and in the time since passed other editors have continued editing the page. Of course, they also promised to self-revert immediately prior to continuing the violation by extending the string of edits in the 2nd revert, rather than stopping once I pointed out the 1RR limitation. That this is followed by an apology (though the tone seems to have shifted slightly since the initial apology) and a claim to have not known what a revert is, or needing to be instructed on what they did wrong, is pretty consistent with the last several times they've been reported for the exact same violation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also, Black Kite suggested I failed to provide evidence of "what specific edits were reverted," but I don't see how that is necessary evidence for a 1RR report. WP:REVERT broadly construes any changes or revisions to the article as a revert — someone added the language in at some point. The provided links show the user made changes to the article, undoing the work of other editors -- some recently, as I noted above, and some a bit older -- in two distinct reverts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not reverts!?! They're just edits!?! See how much nasty venom is being directed at me? This is WP:BULLYING - false accusations and harassment, and is thus a serious personal attack. Bacondrum (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, hang on now. "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version." Claiming that any edit that removes previous content is a revert is nonsensical - that would mean, for example, that I couldn't copyedit a badly written article. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite It's clearly not about 1RR, it's about attacking me. Bacondrum (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about copy editing. The user initially acknowledged violating 1RR and promised to self-revert (see the linked warning thread on their talk page), but then reversed course and decided to continue making changes rather than self-reverting. In this edit, which was part of their second revert, the edit summary explicitly notes that they knew they were reverting the work of another editor, not their own. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as Bacondrum's comments here, I haven't responded, not because it isn't untrue, but because I just don't take it personally. This user attacks the filer and claims they are being bullied, harassed, etc., each and every time that they are reported for disregarding the rules that everyone else seems capable of following. Here are some snippets from the last three times this user was reported for edit warring. Stop me if these sound at all like déjà vu (links are above):

September 2019think this warrants a WP:Boomerang Regarding WP:HARASS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I'm trying to be civil, but they are making it all but impossible. I've made mistakes in the past, learned and changed my ways - one little mistake that I retracted and apologize for does not warrant this level of hostility or sanctions, IMO..
December 2019 WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. Yes I've edit warred in the past, but I've learnt and I believe I'm a much better editor for it. This is a clear violation of guidelines.
October 2020 Thanks good sir, I certainly will be more careful, and it was not my intent to edit war. I have not been persistently edit warring as Wikieditor claims, I have been discussing edits at talk. I am happy to let this go, but the disruptive and vexatious behavior of Wikieditor should be noted, if not addressed I'm afraid it will continue, they seem to be incapable of seeing their conduct is highly disruptive.

I think it can be shown that this is a long-established pattern with no signs of stopping. If it's overlooked here, I think the obvious concern should be that it will most likely just continue indefinitely. But I've presented my evidence, and it's not in my discretion to decide how to handle it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Can someone please make this stop? Surely this behavior is way out of line. black Kite, EdJohnston, Swarm, Liz Bacondrum (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: If you believe there is a pattern of behaviour that you wish the community to look at, the place for that is WP:ANI, not here. I am closing this report. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::@Black Kite: I am asking to review the specific violation here and consider the user's past as part of the sanction. You are completely misconstruing what I wrote and overlooking an obvious violation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC) I'll strike my above comment. Like I said, I believe I presented evidence of a specific violation; the user's past history of violations was merely a supplement. But an admin has weighed in here and decided how to close it out, and as I also said, that's something outside my discretion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's been editwarring himself

black Kite, EdJohnston, Swarm, Liz Sorry to return to this but despite all this carry on about me, wikieditor has just removed this text for the third time in six days "against those whom they identify as belonging to the far right".

Bacondrum (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I merged two sentences about the group's protest activity, and removed the "those that they identify" language in an attempt to pacify users who specifically objected to it on the talk page here. As usual, Bacondrum, you don't have your facts straight, haven't done your research, and are accusing others of engaging in precisely the behavior you are, and yet there is still no accountability for it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs speak for themselves. Bacondrum (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do, in exactly the manner I described. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, up to a point. I am going to strongly suggest that you voluntarily abstain from commenting on Wikieditor19920, reporting his supposed infractions, or reverting his edits directly, otherwise you will also find yourself subject to escalating sanctions. The only reason I did not pageblock you, as I did Wikieditor19920, is that the report above is not entirely clear-cut, in that you reverted different content with the two edit series. So, while you may be technically correct, on Wikipedia at least, that is not the best kind of correct. Your changes have somewhat better consensus support but that's not a license to ignore the DS on this article, OK? Guy (help! - typo?) 01:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's okay. Thanks for being reasonable. Bacondrum (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically an acknowledgement that Bacondrum is subject to a "polite warning" for violating 1RR (I don't know how diffs showing two distinct reverts at a page subject to 1RR can be any more clear cut), and a WP:INVOLVED admin is imposing a two-month sanction on me for WP:BRD edits which incorporated others' suggestions. The bias and lack of accountability in this area of Wikipedia by those charged with overseeing it is just unacceptable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, polite but firm. And only because Bacondrum's edits appear to be closer to consensus - I don't see them being reverted as consistently (I could be wrong there of course). I'm not going to push this further myself, but I do have some experience of this kind of dispute and the admin corps has very little patience with pairs of editors who knock six bells out of each other at every opportunity.

My advice to you both is this: if you want to recruit support, the best way to do that is to exemplify Wikipedian ideals by driving content improvement through calm and civil discussion on Talk. I have seen you both do that in the past. Both of you have done some good work and made some solid points. Take it to email or find a place to talk, but please seek common ground, otherwise the heavy mob are going to roll in with the cudgels and not care at all who started it. And remember: Wikipedia's best content is the result of respectful discourse between people with differing points of view. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with Bacondrum. My issue is with the biased manner in which you and other admins have handled this, giving unheard of leniency to an editor whose edits you support, who is a repeat violator of 1RR and 3RR, and an extreme, unjustified ban against an editor you substantively disagree with (me) for bold edits that you mischaracterize as against consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920

Crossposted to WP:AN for review

Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already under a partial block from the closely-related Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (whose major target is Antifa), and continues to conduct debate via edit summaries not on Talk, so I have added Antifa to he pageblock and extended it. This is in lieu of requesting an AP2 TBAN, which I think is defensible based on the lack of introspection displayed at user talk:Wikieditor19920 in response to the original pageblock, and noted by several well respected and calm editors. I encourage review and discussion of this, and this is without prejudice to action against Bacondrum, who is absolutely not blameless here. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Did you mean to post this at ANI as you indicated on their talk page? PackMecEng (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, grasshopper :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 00:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow is thanksgiving, no time for patience!!! PackMecEng (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am blameless here JzG, exactly what did I do wrong this time? I have done wrong in the past, but not this time. Bacondrum (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)~~ Fair enough JzG. I'll leave it alone. Bacondrum (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum, that was the correct response. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Laurel Lodged reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

09:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990173346 by Solavirum (talk) insert "unrecognised""
16:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990045978 by CuriousGolden (talk) restore state that does not involve the use of a politico-geographic term that is ambiguous (i.e. could refer to multiple different entities in the general area over history from Khanates to NKAO).)."
12:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Eliminate N-K altogether which is ambiguous."
12:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990035761 by CuriousGolden (talk) N-K has meant many things over the years. It could be taken to mean the entire territory in dispute, in which case, it's not an enclave but actually adjacent. Await further clarification please."
11:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) "it is too early to say that N-K is an enclave. It's status has yet to be clarified."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lachin corridor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user reverts edits he doesn't like without a proper reason and their edits on all articles relating to Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan are quite disruptive (e.g. 1. here and here (note that they did the same revert again on this page after being explained by me in an edit how what they added was wrong) where they revert my edit to put a "de facto" control tag on a village that was confirmed to not be under the "de facto" control of the belligerent they were referring to. They failed to provide an argument for these reverts when confronted; 2. Reverting a removal of a primary source here because "what's 1 more primary source in an article replete with primary sources?". From my understanding of this edit summary, the user clearly understands that primary sources are not allowed, yet they still revert an edit to add it back as it supports a POV that they follow). The user has also broken several Wikipedia policies (WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:GOODFAITH) in most of our discussions and has accused me of random things (Like here: accusing me and a random page mover of being a tag team and here randomly accusing me of reverting edits in an article I had never done a revert on). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, this is not only editwarring but also POV-pushing, based on the given links. The Banner talk 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also seeing lots of POV-pushing, and in general, unconstructive edits. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 21:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acousmana reported by User:J.Turner99 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (2021) */ WP:PROMO cite is an advert on author's website, appeal to "professorial" authority irrelevant, popular psychology book NOT an academic work."
18:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Works */ WP:PROMO wait for it to be published, this is a plug right now."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Jordan Peterson */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have also tried to resolve the issue in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life. The book is already notable. I am sorry for not sourcing properly.}} J.Turner99 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) J.Turner99, the article doesn't appear to have restrictions imposed on it, and Acousmana hasn't violated 3RR. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Tenryuu, The article is limited to 1 revert per 24 hours and is semi-protected. I am sorry for reverting twice in a 24 hours period - the twinkle tool did it when I made this report - it was an accident. But Acousmana did it manually. I would argue 3RR does not apply here because the article is limited to 1 Revert per 24 hours. J.Turner99 (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked, the Jordan Peterson article is WP:1RR J.Turner99 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ban me for 24 hours, I understand J.Turner99 (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False charge, 1 revert, followed by 1 edit addressing sourcing issue, the latter is very clearly not a revert. Acousmana (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana, Do you agree that both edits are tagged as reverts? Could you please assume WP:GOODFAITH? The word "clearly" (above) and the capitalisation of the word "NOT" in one of your edit descriptions, suggests that you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH. J.Turner99 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

really not sure what you are seeing, made 1 revert, re:WP:PLUG, then made 1 legitimate edit re:WP:SOURCE that is qualitatively different to the "revert" you feel constitutes "edit warring". Acousmana (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana I am sorry, you are right. I assumed by the rude manner you typed the edit description in, that you had reverted my edit. '

I would like to revoke this report please. J.Turner99 (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bbny-wiki-editor reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: No action)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

This is a new one for me... We have a bright line 3rr violation whose edit summary actually invokes 3rr as justification for the revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new one for me, too. I spent over a week trying to explain DUE to the guy who reported me, Horse Eye's Back (which he did from his new Wikipedia account; he seems to have been banned from his old one). This guy believes an Early Life section that covers 30 years of Fred Malek's life should have over 90% of it devoted to a dropped misdemeanor charge. He also seems to believe that any media outlet that mentions this incident is REQUIRED to be mentioned on Malek's page under DUE, which might be the oddest thing I've ever seen someone argue here at Wikipedia. This guy only came here because I warned him I was going to report him for similar offenses if he didn't knock it off. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is true, you’re just digging the hole deeper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every word of it is true. Your current Talk page and your last account's Talk page are littered with warnings and suspensions for this type of foolishness. The "Dog stuff" discussion on the Fred Malek page speaks for itself. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbny-wiki-editor: The underlying question here is about your conduct. I don't think you've breached 3RR, since the oldest of the reverts listed above appears to be a bold change and not a wholesale removal. However, I also don't see where your edits qualify for an exception to 3RR. This looks like a content dispute, so you should proceed with it as such, including working to build consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, but with whom am I supposed to work? I deleted this content back in the summer and it remained deleted for weeks or months. It was only after Horse Eye's Back returned, with a new Wikipedia account, that the content was restored. It seems like the burden should be on him, but he likes to play this game where he makes an edit and then tells people not to make further edits without "taking it to the Talk page," which is like a cutesy way for his edits to be the final word. It's also impossible to have a rational discussion with a person who believes sources are ENTITLED to be mentioned on Wikipedia. The Talk page discussion with this guy was like a bad Seinfeld episode. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: in the context of four reverts [59][60][61][62] of that same text before the ones on the the 23rd I would say its a revert not a bold edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True or false? You used a new Wikipedia account to restore material that was deleted back in the summer and stayed deleted until you created your new Wikipedia account. You're obviously the user formerly known as Horse Eye Jack who is all over the Malek page's history. Let's not waste more time here playing games. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% open about being the user formerly known as Horse Eye Jack, what game are you suggesting I am playing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which game are you playing? Hard to count them all. You used a new Wikipedia account to restore material that was deleted several months ago. You claim not to understand DUE, but then started invoking DUE to defend your position. You suggested I insert a pared-down version of the deleted material, which I did yesterday, only to have that immediately reverted, with the full four-paragraph version being restored. You've alternately claimed there was and wasn't a consensus to keep the debated material, as recently as today, AFTER restoring material you admitted there was no consensus to keep. And now you've filed a frivolous complaint against me for doing things you've done yourself. Like a lot of people here, I guess you have way too much time on your hands. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bbny-wiki-editor, C.Fred suggested you didn't violate 3R (yet), but it's pretty obvious you've been reverting in that article for a while, and thus one could say you're guilty of longterm edit warring anyway. If you do not wish to get blocked, you should probably stop. In addition, your comments here are instances of harassment and certainly display a lack of good faith, and if you continue down this road you can be blocked for a combination of disruptive edits. I am going to revert you since it is my opinion that you are indeed an edit warrior on this article, and you should not have an advantage. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. There's no way I've been more disruptive or done more edit warring on that page than Horse Eye Jack and his new identity, Horse Eye's Back. I also haven't posted a single word here that isn't true, so it's unclear how any of it qualifies as "bad faith" "harassment." Also, in your revert notice, you claimed I reverted "clearly against consensus." Since when is two to one a "consensus" for anything, let alone a clear consensus? The debated material was deleted from the page for many months until Horse Eye's Back created a new Wiki account and came back for more edit warring. Why was it okay for him to restore it without a Talk page discussion? Do the rules apply to everyone here or only some people? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action. As User:C.Fred noted above, the diffs provided don't show a 3RR violation because only the last three were reverts. I advise User:Bbny-wiki-editor not to remove the dog-related material again without consensus on the talk page. There is a chance of some negotiation as to how much material about the incident deserves inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allos Genos reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

06:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Title, date and author */"
Consecutive edits made from 05:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC) to 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 05:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 06:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""
04:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

05:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "A summary"
05:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ecclesiastes."
06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* November 2020 */ WP:PROFRINGE"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

06:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* The Redaction of Ecclesiastes */ copy/paste from WP:ABIAS"
06:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ admins"

Comments:

WP:PROFRINGE POV-pusher. They shit on WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:39.40.17.230 reported by User:Akrasia25 (Result: Not an edit war)

User being reported: 39.40.17.230 (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:

Only trying to vandalize Akrasia25 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akrasia25: In that case, the better place for the report is WP:AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. For acute vandalism issues, report to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:EditsToday44 reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: EditsToday44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

15:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990448395 by NonsensicalSystem (talk)"
15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990447936 by NonsensicalSystem (talk)"
15:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "I am using the subject's own Facebook page as a source for the birthday, I think she knows her own birthday."
14:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990447076 by HurricaneTracker495 (talk)"
14:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990446803 by NonsensicalSystem (talk)"
14:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990446069 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Grace_Randolph#Please_stop

Comments:

Editor keeps re-adding poorly sourced date of birth, keeps reverting despite warnings. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 15:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user has gotten Level 4 warning for unsourced content. This is 3RR but also persistent unsourced content. Recommend indefinite block. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not rally unsourced. 24 hours is best.HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block not justified here. User appears to not have familiarity with sourcing policies (e.g., an unverified Facebook page isn't reliable). I have left a detailed explanation at the article talk page; hopefully, with this comment and the messages left from other uesrs, this will guide the reported user to discussion at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this? @C.Fred: also see my 24 hour comment above that I highlighted now HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred and HurricaneTracker495: User continues to ignore warnings and to cooperate with other editors. A 1-week block is necessary. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After my online class is over, I think I’ll take this to WP: ANI. Wait until 16:59 UTC. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user needs to understand WP:RS. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495, C.Fred, and NonsensicalSystem: blocked 2 days by Ymblanter. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:174.225.142.220 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

User being reported: 174.225.142.220 (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:

The page being edit-warred on, WABC-TV, recently came off of two week protection because an IP-hopper kept deleting Shimon Prokupecz from its list of allumni. User was also aggressively asserting ownership of the page. I'm sure it's the same one, even though they've decided not to use edit summaries.Crboyer (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crboyer: Blocked 31 hours by LuK3. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:2a01:cb04:b16:b300:35fb:2fac:387d:ed62 reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: Blocked elsewise)

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

History of the user's reverts:

[63]

Comments:

This IP editor is certainly Juan Branco himself as he has signed "JB" his post on the talk page [64]. He is known to use trying edit his own page, see Juan Branco#Self-promotion on Wikipedia (in the versions of the article that he has not edited). D.Lazard (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been blocked by another administrator for making legal threats. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:99.109.58.243 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 99.109.58.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990451407 by NatGertler (talk) Undo the deletion of factual material"
01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990283427 by NatGertler (talk) Stop reverting. Every source is cited. There are links to Stork's google scholar page. Stop reverting factual edits that contai important information and then calling it an opinion."
19:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990211694 by NatGertler (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 07:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC) to 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 07:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990172755 by NatGertler (talk)"
2. 07:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990172433 by NatGertler (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on David G. Stork."
03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on David G. Stork."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

20:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Publication history */ new section"
15:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Publication history */ opinion insertion continues."

Comments:

IP is a WP:SPA whose attempts to spin the article to call the subjects contributions "minor" at to cast doubt on the quality of his publishing credentials ("his h-index can be considered very inflated") via WP:OR Reversions of this addition have included not just myself, but Dirkbb (talk · contribs) in this edit Nat Gertler (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 3 days. We are unlikely to describe a person's contributions as 'minor' in the article lead. If this kind of thing continues a longer block is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:BunnyyHop reported by User:Vallee01 (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] (Over a month ago "revert: more than one editor has opposed you deleting well-referenced parts of the lead, take it to the talkpage" he didn't listen.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism

Comments: BunnyyHop has a long history on the page Marxist-Leninism extremely disruptive edits, and keeps trying to get around discussion on talk, his edits have been reverted multiple times be me Davide King KIENGIR, and Asarlaí. He strangely believe that not responding to a proposal is a form of support and thinks the time frame for this is an hour. Despite there being a clear consensus against BunnyyHop, BunnyHopp refuses to listen and tries to edit the page despite making disruptive edits. I have tried so hard to try to get this editor to stop, the editor has already edit warred before, violating edit sanctions. We tried discussing this on the talk, editors like Davide King has stated this, yet BunnyHop and refuses to listen.

I tried to remove the POV (explained in the talkpage) inculcated in the lead of the article by making a small synthesis of the basics of the ideology. Davide King has been very helpful - he taught me to use the sandbox to alter the article - which I did User:BunnyyHop/sandbox so I could avoid being accused of edit warring. He has also been very understanding and specific on parts of my text which contained a POV without me knowing it, and also instructed me to add more secondary sources such as academic works - which I did. Very pleasant experience. I also moved the criticism from the lead to the overview, so it's packed together with the rest of the contents. My experience with this user is not the best - I don't understand what he really wants me to alter. He also accused my text of belonging in a "poorly written biased ML blog" and that "maybe you should start a blog, instead of trying to spread your ideology here". I only want to make the article truthful, and I used a lot of sources. This user says it's not neutral because it doesn't contain bad things some states did in the lead, which I find incredibly POV. It's not the case with the article of any other political ideology.

Anyway, my problem with this user is that I can't find way to reach a consensus, even though I asked him many times to be specific. He's always reverting my edits, no matter what I do. BunnyyHop (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No where did you establish consensus, other editors thanked me for reverting your edits, I only reverted a fraction your edits, the other reverts were done by other editors because your edits were extremely biased. You are clearly editing against consensus on the talk and the discussion is still ongoing, and your proposals don't have support and are reverted. You keep editing without a consensus and the discussion on the talk page, thinking that not responding is "consensus". Your most recent edits prove this. No where did you establish consensus this, your edits have mostly been reverted by Davide King, KIENGIR and Asarlaí, I am not even the main person reverting your edits. It's extremely disruptive to the page.

Davide King himself stated you were edit warring and warned you against it saying that sanctions might come, and you still went to edit war. All of your edits have been reverted because none of them are of encyclopedic standards and you keep removing sections of the genocides, massacres and atrocities committed by Marxist-Leninist dictators and you keep editing the article despite being against consensus, as well as poorly written and poorly formatted sections. That's why you are being reported. Vallee01 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC

Editors have thanked me for the my edit which you reverted, but that doesn't matter. I have not removed those things, I have moved them to the appropriate place which is NOT in the lead. You have made edits that were not backed by sources, some of which I removed. As for poor formatting, why don't you edit my sandbox so it's better formatted? I don't think your extreme POV (should a paragraph of the lead of the liberalism article be about what liberalism defends, or the horrors of slavery? It's completely absurd and non NPOV) is encyclopedic. I decided to change it - because it's an incredibly biased way to structure the article - by writing the basics of Marxism-leninism, all sentences being excellently sourced. Davide King only reverted my edits once IIRC - he used the talk page to tell me what I should improve and I did - to source better that paragraph and other things. You simply say there's no consensus, I ask why and you don't say anything concrete other than "poor formating", or provoke me to create my own blog or something else. In this moment I ask myself - What am I supposed to do? This editor doesn't suggest me anything useful. My edits are ALWAYS backed by sources. KIENGIR said he had the same problem as Davide and not much more, something I solved by adding more and better sources, changing sentences, etc. Asarlaí didn't revert my edits, you did. Colleague Isabella, on the other hand, thanked my edit. I'm not "establishing consensus" not because I don't want to, it's impossible when communication is little and I don't feel like the people who are against really put an effort to establish consensus, especially when my edits who are very well sourced are thrown in the garbage because of "poor formatting". What's disruptive is not caring about my edits and then saying that "there's no consensus so you can't edit the page", no matter how well I've sourced it. My edits were always according to what was told me in the talk page - I recommend the colleague who is reviewing this to check the edit story on my sandbox and the talk page of the article. I find it a little weird you reference edits from October, because not only was I newer on Wikipedia, it was also about a different matter. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are just stating false information, I never wrote the section on massacres and genocides on Marxist-Leninism, Davide King and Asarlaí wrote most of that: [73][74]. I don't think you understand I had little to nothing to do with the section of mass murders committed by Marxist-Leninists, I simply restored them because you keeped vandalizing the page. "Davide King has only reverted my edits once" Is just completely false. Davide King made most of the sections which you are trying to remove.

Davide King reverts

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990010040&oldid=989980094

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983509209&oldid=983490733

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990200262&oldid=990174977

The section you are removing was written by Asarlaí

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982205557&oldid=982152792 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&d

Seriously it's not hard to fact check this to see through your obvious fibbing. It's not hard to see your violations, you can't hide it. Vallee01 (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are still in October. I barely remember anymore what happened almost two months ago. I'm talking about when I first started writing certain parts of the article a few days ago. I do not care about what happened almost two months ago, it's not relevant anymore. I care about now, where I have my fully sourced and well-structured article just waiting to see what everyone says and finally make it go forward, which you are still not addressing. I only want you to tell me where's the problem in my edit so I can fix it - or you can fix it yourself, my sandbox is open for everyone to edit. You have an objection to my edit - what is it? I have barely touched those parts in my sandbox. If I committed an infraction, that was 2 months ago, when I was still kind of new to Wikipedia. It really feels like you don't want to reach consensus but to provoke me (as you did in the talk page) to make me more prone to committing infractions. If you wanted to reach consensus you would edit the parts of my sandbox where you see a problem (or just point out and I'd do it) instead of wasting our time here, seeing if I'm gonna get banned for what I did 2 months ago or not. I'm most likely gonna leave this here and let the admin do his judgement. Is it possible to redirect this conversation into a dispute solver, or any other user/program in charge of dealing with a problem like ours? User:BunnyyHop|BunnyyHop]] (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly you have been edit warring for over a month! I tried so hard to get you to discuss things on the talk, not just me other editors emplored you to go to the talk page. You returned over the last week to keep edit warring from over a month ago, your disruptive behavior isn't new. A month ago Asarlaí told you clearly "revert: more than one editor has opposed you deleting well-referenced parts of the lead, take it to the talkpage," you didn't appear to listen. You keep deleting well referenced sections without explanation and you keep trying to get away from discussing on the talk. You haven't stopped your disrputive edits. Vallee01 (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:BunnyyHop is warned for long term edit warring at Marxism–Leninism. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. If you are unsure of what others think, you can open up an WP:RFC. At present nobody on Talk seems to agree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erik reported by User:Nyxaros (Result: No action)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First: [75]
Second: [76]
Third: [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:

Comment: Since this user couldn't find a valid reason, they started calling me "problematic" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" because of my talk page history. I demand at least a warning. nyxærös 15:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The valid reason was that the file has been there since 2008, and it has not been an issue for over 12 years. It wasn't a problem that was discovered, and in light of that lack of urgency, WP:BRD could have been followed. I do have concerns about your longevity on Wikipedia based on your attitude with this case and many other cases in the past few months and a related block due to this. WP:NOTHERE includes "General pattern of disruptive behavior: A long-term history of disruptive behavior with little or no sign of positive intentions," and "Treating editing as a battleground: Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW there's an ongoing discussion about this. Also, Erik has not broken 3RR as WP:3RR clearly states - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". I don't see a fourth revert. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:3RR also states: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." nyxærös 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disclosure: Erik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a message on my talk page because I blocked Nyxaros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) last year for incivility. Because of my previous involvement, I'm not going to apply any blocks. But I will add my commentary...

Firstly, Nyxaros' replacement of the poster image appears to be in keeping with the guidelines at WP:FILMPOSTER. The previous image, while it's been there for twelve years, is a preview poster ("This Fall") and not a theatrical release poster.
Neither editor made effective use of talk pages to resolve this dispute. Nyxaros opened up a discussion on the article talk page, then Erik opened up a new section instead of directly responding to Nyxaros' thread. Both editors left messages at each others' talk pages -- Nyxaros to template Erik, and Erik left a contentious message at Nyxaros' page -- with neither editor trying to calmly discuss the matter.
I blocked Nyxaros in August 2019 for incivility following a prior admin's warning. The same pattern of behavior has resumed in this interaction. Examples:

1 ES: "...it is clear that you don't know anything about this issue"
2 ES: "...Since you don't do your research correctly, maybe you can understand that from just looking at "THIS FALL" or English language? Hmm, maybe not..."

...and also in other recent, unrelated interactions. Examples:

1 ES threatens an anon with admin action for good faith editing: "no, you will be blocked if you continue to do so"
2 ES: "...I don't think you should see yourself eligible to edit further on both of these pages/files."

Personal recommendations

That both editors be cautioned to use better judgment when dealing with edit disputes, and to use talk pages more appropriately.
That Nyxaros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be given a lengthier block for repeated violations of WP:CIVIL.

Additional note to Nyxaros -- While you may have been correct on the technical merits of one movie poster over another in this case, your tone is not acceptable for this project. Being technically correct NEVER gives you the right to try to bully other editors. Stop.

Respectfully, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:FILMPOSTER, it isn't a license to go around fixing what isn't broken. The thrust of that guideline is to stop editors from fighting over their preferred posters during a film's marketing campaign, since there can be many variations. The image that has been around since 2008 has been completely sufficient, and from what I can tell, even if it differs from the Cannes poster with the words "THIS FALL", that is a pedantic and nearly-invisible difference. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After some consideration, I've reverted myself and have recused myself from discussion. See my talk-page comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action. User:Erik undid his last change and is withdrawing from the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erevys reported by User:TarkusAB (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Other media */"
Consecutive edits made from 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC) to 23:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 23:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Live-action films */"
2. 23:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Live-action films */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

20:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Resident Evil."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The issue is not only on that page. They went into my contribution history and mass reverted my edits on random pages just to spite me. Does not comment edits, does not post on talk pages, reverts talk page warning. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User making massive changes on pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erevys (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a separate issue, but while we have the admin's attention this user is also uploading copyrighted material to Commons and claiming it as their own work. See File:Re5-gold-edition.jpg, which I can assure you is not his original work. It's the box art from Resident Evil 5. There's no way that all of these various issues are being made in good faith. Strongly recommend at the very least a temporary block for multiple disruptive behavior. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ughhhhh TarkusAB^talk/contrib 03:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:TCP7269 reported by User:McSly (Result: Pageblocked)

User being reported: TCP7269 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 01:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) to 01:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 01:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 01:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC) "I have ALL YEAR to fix the FALSE INFO on this page. WHoever is paying you to change this is a FRAID!!!!"
Consecutive edits made from 01:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC) to 01:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 01:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 01:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 01:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC) to 01:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 01:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 01:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC) ""
01:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC) "This page is a LIE! Not updated with latest medical evidence, the trial of JetBlue pilot Captain Andrew Myers. In that case the medical evidence against aeortoxic syndrome was put on trial, in a court of law, and LOST!!! Whoever is paying you to monitor and update this page is a fraud!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I selected only some of the diff as there are more and the edit summaries indicate that the user has no intention to stop McSly (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pageblocked indefinitely. Guy (help! - typo?) 02:04, 26 November

2020 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Nobody broke 3RR, the problem is that the user pushes their idea without explaining their reasons and against the consensus. There were more reverts, I give only the last ones.

[81]
[82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'didn't give a warning, but I cited WP:STONEWALLING where their behaviour is called "disruptive" in my comment here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on project (sic !) talk page: E.g. [83]

Comments:
The discussion was started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#"Germans",_"French_people"_etc_-_ethnicity_vs_nationality, so we continued it there. The parts of the discussion related to the edit warring begin after KIENGIR's comment of 02:24, 21 November 2020 [84]. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the participants in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#"Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality. I don't think that discussion has reached a consensus in favor of the proposed changes. Per WP:BRD, i believe KIENGIR was thus justified in reverting those changes. Krakkos (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this report is ueseless, better BOOMERANGish, the user fails to understand our basic policies (consensus building, dispute resolution guidelines etc.). The sad thing he reiterates those false accusations that have been already debunked, I participated in the discussion both on the article's talk page, and the wikiproject page, I explained everything, and contrary what the user say (as another user just reinforced, etc.), no consensus has been reached (the user went forward with a bold edit, admittedly ([85]), and contrary what the user says, per defintion (if we are strict) the edit warring started by ([86]) this edit, when the user without any modification pushed his version with no consensus, while I tried to rephrase it more times before telling him if it goes like so on, the the page will have to be restored). I answered to the user's weird accusations (stonewalling, funny, restoring to status quo is the standard process, which is not favoring anyone's version, after more trials), disruptivity is as well not the case, I assume with a good faith the lack of experience in the resolution regarding such issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

User:Flickotown reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 09:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) to 09:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 09:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "removed. See the consensus on the talk page"
2. 09:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "/* November 7 */ removed because this is not a protest"
3. 09:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "removed. See accompanying explanation on the talk page"
05:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 990530997 by Albertaont (talk) brd, unsupported and undue. That's not in the sources and the material isn't necessary when it can be combined with the second cause. Debate on the talk page first before reverting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See block log on user, who is not as new as their account age may suggest. The "see consensus on talk page" is utterly nonsensical since they only posted barely 16 minutes before that particular removal. Also see this remark by Liz, which they evidently ignored. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be an easy WP:BOOMERANG and especially so for an editor who has an established block record. The complaint is invalid because the consensus for the removal of the material in question long pre-existed the revert that was the basis for the first difference of the listed revert - that will be evident for anybody who reads the "paragraph removal" section on the associated talk page. As for the complainant himself, administrators should note that he has been WP:FOLLOWING the edits I've made on two separate pages (Air defense identification zone and Taiwan News) and has most likely committed a 3RR violation on one of them (4 reverts on the Taiwan News page within 24 hours - [87], [88] [89], [90]). Administrators should also be aware that this isn't the first time the complainant has engaged in this type of harassment either - he has been doing the same thing to User:Amigao and User:Pasdecomplot (and no doubt many others - these two users are just the most recent ones that I could find who've been subject to this editor's harassment) and apparently that's been going for a few months now even though he was handed a block a few months prior (on 24 June 2020 to be exact) for, again, doing the same thing to a third, uninvolved editor. The best course of action would probably be if the administrators could just drop the hammer and start imposing severe sanctions in response to this complainant's pattern of disruptive editing because this really does look like an obvious case of an editor who just clearly isn't here to build the encyclopedia. Flickotown (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea I followed you to 2020_United_States_election_protests is pure fantasy, given my edits at the POTUS and Senate articles dating to 7 Nov when news outlets called Pennsylvania and the election for Biden.

Conveniently omitting that the "Controversy" section you had removed was the result of an AN/I 3rd Opinion discussion, your lecturing of BRD can only ring hollow. As to the spurious counting of 3RR, the 2nd diff clearly is not a revert, as that material had never appeared on the page before, nor any of the revisions dating from before your May edit and the latest "dispute". The 3rd diff is a semi-automated usage of User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill, building on the link added within the 2nd diff.

Your claim of WP:HARASSMENT of Amigao will need far stronger and persistent evidence than your own word.

As to the 24 June block, there is no possibility that you did not notice the phrasing "feuding with [editor name]", which was cited both in the log and the admin's custom message. A feud simply doesn't occur between two uninvolved editors.

I did not even have to search that far back to find an example of a blatant personal attack from Flickotown: "That's coming from a person with a photo of Gramsci, a person whose views was all about the fringe", let alone the May/June attacks at Talk:Rania Khalek, a commentator on the already editing-contentious Syrian Civil War: "I would explain more particularly when it comes to your ignorance (or seeming ignorance) of your own bias, but for somebody who likes to boast on your own talkpage about the thousands of edits you've made on Wikipedia I probably just shouldn't bother" CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh wow I didn't even realize that our history actually went that far back to the Rania Khalek article. So it seems like an interaction ban probably is in order in addition to the severe sanctions that should be imposed in response to your pattern of disruptive editing.

Stop trying to gaslight everyone and draw this false equivalence between our conduct as if that's supposed to successfully deflect from your not here edits and editing. You can do your hardest to act like an archaeologist and go around and dig up as many isolated incidents of my problematic conduct as possible (and I admit, I should have used better language for the examples you found), but it doesn't compare to your months (perhaps years) of edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles over multiple areas of disagreement. It just doesn't. The facts don't lie: my conduct on the talk apge for the 2020 United States election protests convincingly shows it's very clear I've come a long way from my earlier days while your hounding of my edits shows that you've learned nothing from your earlier blocks.

I didn't say you followed me to the election protests article, I said you followed me to the Air defense identification zone and Taiwan News pages (which is true). I wasn't aware that there was a controversy section on the talk page for the Taiwan News article prior to my revert of your revert, but now that I am, I've taken the discussion to the talk page (even though I am well within my rights to revert your disruptive editing per WP:HOUNDING.) And the actions towards User:Amigao is harassment (funny how you didn't mention your actions towards User:Pasdecomplot), but since we are on a noticeboard involving administrator's it's best to let them educate you and tell you the truth (instead of reducing it to a i-say-you-say pissing match). As I said this complaint should be an easy WP:BOOMERANG because it just doesn't have anything to stand on. Flickotown (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:92.20.98.190 reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: Semi)

User being reported: 92.20.98.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC) "It's False, Those Shows are not on Cartoonito UK at the moment"
15:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC) "I'm Gonna Tell BonusBalls, You Need To Learn Your Schedules"
Consecutive edits made from 08:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC) to 08:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1. 08:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC) "NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
2. 08:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cartoonito."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

3RR after final warning on IP User page. Aloha27 talk 20:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected two months. Constant reverting by different IPs who don't use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Borsoka reported by User:Boyar Bran (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: "Basarab's name is of Turkic origin.[7][8] Its first part is the present participle for the verb bas- ("press, rule, govern"); the second part matches the Turkic honorific title aba or oba ("father, elder kinsman"), which can be recognized in Cuman names, such as Terteroba, Arslanapa and Ursoba.[9] Basarab's name implies that he was of Cuman or Pecheneg ancestry, but this hypothesis has not been proven.[8][10][11] At least four royal charters from the 14th century refer to Basarab as a Vlach.[12] Charles I of Hungary referred to him as "Basarab, our disloyal Vlach" in 1332.[1][11]" [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: "Hello Borsoka. I've seen that once again you've took interest in editing my contribution. I'd like to point out to you that the modern Romanian language does indeed have a Daco-Thracian substrate, fact agreed upon by all universities in this country and abroad. There's no reason to put a undue weight tag there... As for the rest of the tags, I'll leave them there until we reach a consenus in the talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 1. Yes, "Daco-Thracian" may be the substrate language of Romanian. Or, it is also a possibility, that early medieval Romanians borrowed a specific pastoralist vocabulary from Proto-Albanian and this specific vocabulary is described now as heritage of a supposed substrate language. Both views are mentioned in international scholarly literature. 2. Romanian also borrowed words from Slavic and Turkic languages, from Hungarian, from Western Romance languages. If you understand Hungarian, you certainly realize that the name "Basarab" is extremly similar to two Hungarian words ("to make love" in slang and "Arab"). Could we assume that the name is of Hungarian origin based on this similarity? No, because similarity does not make a connection. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Well, it's not the nicest of assumptions, but you could nullify in the same manner the cuman theory, which is also based on such connections. The Proto-Albanian language may have also derived from a Thracian idiom, hence some similarities between our languages. Your derogatory way of using "pastoralist vocabulary" shows me that you may have indeed a visible adversion to Romanians. Keep going like that and you'll also find your way into ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC) No, the Cumans dominated the Pontic steppes just decades before Basarab's birth and Cumans made up a significant part of the population of the Golden Horde in the 14th century. Making a connection between a language widely spoken in the region in the 12th-14th century and the name of a ruler born in the 13th century is quite logical. However, making connection between a ruler's birth and a language spoken in the region more than a millenium before his birth is a fringe theory. Sorry, but I think my Talk page is not the best place to discuss this issue. Please use the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)" [92]

Conversation continues here: [93]
Previous conversation with Borsoka (I'm not too proud of how I've behaved here, but I cannot remove it now): [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]; [96] (Same links as above)

Comments:
The entire issue is centered around Basarab's name origin. Basically disputing between either a Cuman origin or an indigenous Romanian origin. User:Borsoka is POV pushing, he's also an example of WP:TENDENTIOUS, he constantly removes my contribution because he's considering it fringe. Truth is there's no official academic consenus on the matter of Basarab's name origin. However Borsoka is dogmatically following his theory alone. As far as Wikipedia policy goes, the theory I'm supporting isn't un-academical nor departs significantly from the mainstream views. If there'd even be a mainstream view in the field of Romanian linguistics, Sorin Paliga's theory (the one that I'm supporting) isn't unorthodox. Neagu Djuvara's theory (the one Borsoka is supporting) also isn't standard by any means, Djuvara has just written a small number of pages regarding a possible origin of Basarab's name, yet Borsoka pushes that theory like an absolute truth.

Note: IP 85.120.207.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is me. This IP is a common IP from a students' dorm. I created an account not because I want to sockpuppet, but becasue I'm new to Wikipedia editing and my account Boyar Bran is the first I've ever done.

I know that my behaviour is also far from ideal, but all I want is to present an academical theory, thanks. Bran (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. (Just for the record: 1. I placed tags in the article requesting sources to verify that the statements do no represent a marginal/fringe theory. No source has so far been added. 2. I approached two wikiprojects asking comments ([97], [98]). Nobody has so far commented the issue. 3. I requested a third opinion ([99]). It remained unanswered. 4. Paliga does not claim that Basarab's name is of Romanian origin. He claims that Basarab's name is possibly of Daco-Thracian origin, comparing the name of a 13th-century ruler with words from a poorly attested language which died out in the early 7th century at the latest.) Borsoka (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards