Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ke an (talk | contribs) at 10:03, 18 December 2020 (→‎User: reported by User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} (Result: ): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Hello Animal reported by User:Kaustubh42 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Bigg Boss (Hindi season 14) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hello Animal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [-37]
    2. [+2]
    3. [-2]
    4. [-3]

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

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

    Comments:
    User is vandalising the page by giving false information.

    • No violation – Not enough reverts in a 24-hour period to show a violation of the WP:3RR rule. You are misusing the term 'vandalism'. If you believe someone has made an incorrect change, you should explain the problem on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User: YoungForever reported by User:Bijdenhandje (Result: No action)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

    This issue has been resolved, please do not start new disussions. If you are here to make your point then go somewhere else to request a bann. I'm only here on the English wiki occasionally so make sure to ask for a global bann or it will probably not even affect me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijdenhandje (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The user has done SIX reverts within a 36 hour perdiod, logging out of their account to mask the 3R. The user does not get involved on the talkpage. Several other users have tried to stop their editwar but they keep on reverting and using only the word disruptive behaviour in the edit history. User has been informed but they have removed the {{subst:an3-notice}}tag from their talkpage here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijdenhandje (talk • contribs) 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lengthy discussion. Click to view
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    I'm surprised this topic exists but here's my take. I noticed his disruptive edits which Youngforever reverted because he messed with the format of the page and believed him to be breaking WP:3RR, so I reverted him. He does not seem to understand MOS:ENTO and continued to revert, and did so five times in a short space of time. He then accused us of being the same person which is not true, I am from the UK while Youngforever is American. His claim of "several other users" is patently untrue because there was only one person who made the exact same edit as him out of nowhere which was reverted around 24 hours before he appeared today to make those very same edits. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not violated any 3RR. Bijdenhandje accusations are baseless. The ip address is in Leicestershire, United Kingdom and I live in California, United States. That is two different countries. — YoungForever(talk) 20:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're grasping at straws and have no evidence to back up these bogus claims. It's not possible for us to be the same person, the technology doesnt exist to teleport between countries within the space of minutes, this isn't Star Trek. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Above statement by the user from this IP is untrue as can be seen in the edit history. Evidence is here and here. As can be seen in the edit history user has a questionable history of reverting. Only telling other people in the edit summary to stop THEIR disruptive behaviour, rather than explaining what they are doing or participating on the TP of the article in question. Bijdenhandje (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't provided evidence of anything to back up any of the claims you're making. This user [8] who made the same edit as you less than 24 hours ago appears to be under investigation for sock puppetry here [9]. I'd love to know why that account was dormant for over four years only to make the same edits as you. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have provided no evidence for your location so it does not really matter what the location the IP you are using is. There are clear signs of quacking here. Last time I checked they didn't use tunneling aboard starships. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm using a static IP address which rarely changes, as my edit history shows. So far you've only brought false accusations and assumptions to the table. If this is all you're offering I'm done here and I'll leave it up to the admin. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    YoungForever has done nothing wrong here, and they have MOS:DASH on their side. When inputting a range—for example, Monday–Friday—you use an en-dash, not a regular hyphen. The filer of the report should be the one warned or blocked here. Amaury • 21:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. They did two reverts in the span of 48 hours, which is not punishable at all. The reporting user, on the other hand, has been involved much more. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NO they have six reverts in 36 hours, read the history. They were involved in an editwar with multiple-users. The only thing they did was write:"stop being disruptive" (or simular words) in the edit summary. They were not involved on the articles talkpage. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness, why do you persist with this "They're the same person" nonsense? We've both told you we're different people, let it go already. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bijdenhandje: Why have you not started a discussion on the matter in question at the talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to bring this discussion back ontrack. Two of the quoted reverts were me reverting the reporting user because he was being disruptive, another was me making a WP:DUMMYEDIT to correct myself as at the time he reverted three times. Youngforever technically has only made two reverts of the user in question. The other two examples are bogus and aren't reverts whatsoever. I think we can all agree that this report never should have existed as its baseless and without merit. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Edit warring can happen whenever. You can revert a total of five times, but all five of those times could be spread out across three different days; however, that would still be edit warring. YoungForever has not violated WP:3RR, though. To break 3RR, you need four or more reverts within the span of 24 hours. Amaury • 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just on a side note: they are counting two different edit, I did withint about a minute, as two different reverts. I could have done them in a single edit but they are different issues. There are no reverts from other people in between the edits. So I don't see how its possible to count them, other than for the use of WP:POINT. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a good thing the edit history is not some kind of secret file. Anyone can look into it and confirm that they started editwaring with another user yesterday. Also there was no mention of a guideline in the edit summary. Only insults about being inconstructive. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're going to make accusations of insults, then you need to provide specific diffs and not expect people to just look around and hope they know what you're talking about, as otherwise you're just making baseless claims without evidence. Now, I took a look at the history of Young Sheldon and can see no evidence of insults from YoungForever. Amaury • 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest we find edits that are adequately described in the edit summary and are bringing the article back into compliance with MOS.[10] —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Boomerang. The filer is both wrong on the merits, and is making a non-WP:AGF accusation of editing while logged out with zero proof. FTR, the IP acts nothing like YoungForever so there's almost no chance it's the same editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The only person violating 3RR and edit warring is the filer of this report which can been seen on the history Young Sheldon, they were reverted by me, the ip address, and Schazjmd. — YoungForever(talk) 21:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They continued to accuse the other editors of disruptive behaviour, how it that not an insult? Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bijdenhandje: Breaking MOS once is a reasonable accident. Breaking it repeatedly can be deemed to be disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What are the odds of some random IP-user stumbling across some random article and having knowledge of this guideline? There was no mention in the edit summary of this guideline, all they did was writing insults while reverting. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You're leaving me little choice here. I used to edit here under this name [11]. I had a bad experience here and gave up using an account to go IP only after a few months had passed. That's your entire argument destroyed. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguments are destroyed by providing evidence not by linking a random user account. It could be you, it could be someone else, it could even be one of many accounts you own. And no I am not saying that you do. Just pointing out the flaws in your 'argument'. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can request that an admin geolocate the IP attached to the account. I haven't personally used the account since I gave up editing Wikipedia regularly. But they will see that we're both from the same town. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bijdenhandje: If an allegation of a 3RR violation is an insult, then how do you propose we sanction the insults you have made against YoungForever, by alleging sockpuppetry? I think it's time to drop the stick and get back to productive editing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bijdenhandje: Again I say, drop the stick. I'm willing to close this report with no action. On the other hand, if you keep going, I'll take a look at the article's edit history again and sanction the obvious 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There were never any insults to begin with. Saying an edit is disruptive is not an insult. YoungForever probably could have linked to the guidelines in their edit summary, but their reverts and reason for reverting were still correct. However, as C.Fred notes above, it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Focus on something more productive. Amaury • 21:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This and this is how you should handle situations like this. That's what prevents conflicts. Insults are what start conflicts. If they had done it Schazjmd's example then there would have been no editwar yesterday and there would have been no insults. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not allege sockpuppetry. I never said YoungForever is using multiple useraccounts. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff contradicts that statement. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that contradict what I said? I did not say they logged into another account. Bijdenhandje (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Have you already forgotten what you wrote in one of your responses above? You have provided no evidence for your location so it does not really matter what the location the IP you are using is. There are clear signs of quacking here. Last time I checked they didn't use tunneling aboard starships. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC) That right there is an accusation of sockpuppetry. Without evidence, to boot. Amaury • 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not an accusation of sock-puppetry. It's a response to the spaceship argument. What other username did I mention? Bijdenhandje (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've accused us of being the same person multiple times on this report. You've even quoted edits I've made and placed alongside Youngforevers in your initial report. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @C.Fred: Using threats is very counter productive. Please don't do that again. A lot of this could have been avoided by not making insults and informing the users instead. They way Schazjmd did in their revert is the correct way. Threats or insults are not the way to de-escalate a situation. I am not aware of the english moderator guidelines but I don't think this is appropiate. Bijdenhandje (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For the last time, there were no insults. I acknowledge that YoungForever could have linked to the guidelines, but their reverts were still correct and he did not use insults anywhere. And I am failing to see the threats that C.Fred is allegedly making. Saying that he'll block you because you're refusing to drop the stick and move on to more production things is a warning, not a threat. I would seriously consider listening, unless you want to be blocked. Amaury • 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Amaury, I don't care if I am being blocked after being threatened, cause there is arb-com for that. A block does not change the situation, threats only escalate it. Apparently logging-out to use an IP-adress is seen as sockpuppetry on EN-wiki. On NL-wiki it requires logging into an actual second account, because an IP-adress is not an account. You can't sanction someone for not following an essasy. Even if I did intend to accuse them of sockpuppetry, which is clearly not the case. Schazjmd already resolved this issue ten minutes after I filled the disruption. So this entire discussion is irrelevant given their appropriate use of the edit summary. I do not agree with your opinion on insults, that's all I have to say. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Even though I did not linked MOS:ENDASH on my edit summary, I did linked MOS:ENDASH on the warning as shown here [12] though. — YoungForever(talk) 22:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial insult on my talkpage here did not contain any reference to MOS:ENDASH what so ever. I removed it and explained in the edit summary that it was posted on the wrong talkpage. The second sjablon was even more insulting, I did not read orange sjablons or warnings when they look like a harrasment to me. In stead of an editwar, there should have been information on the talkpage of Young Sheldon or in the edit summary. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You really need to learn what the definition of insult actually is. YoungForever's message on your talk page is not an insult, it is a warning due to your disruptive editing. Warnings and insults are two very different things. Amaury • 23:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't need to 'learn' what your definition of an insult is. There was no disruptive editing from my part or the other person involved. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not my definition, it is the literal definition of the word in dictionaries. 1) "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse" and 2) "a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action," neither of which YoungForever did. Amaury • 23:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It is your opinion that I was not treated with disrespect. You are entitled to that opinion. Now can this please stop? Go make a seperate request if you want to feel good about something. I don't know what you want. I'm not going to respond this non-sense anymore. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a screenshot of Wikipedia notifications from my email address which will match up with my talkpage. [13] I haven't logged into the account in almost a year and have no intention of doing so(I don't feel comfortable doing so anymore). Here's another screenshot showing my account name and IP address which you can geolocate to the same location as my current IP. [14]. Can this we're the same person stuff be dropped now? That's not true. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The disruption at the article appears to have stopped. Perhaps everyone should take a breath (it's just a stupid hyphen/en dash that doesn't really matter to the reader) and get on with constructive editing. Schazjmd (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I guess the discussion can be closed. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The topic reporter is removing statements which implicate him in bad faith accusations, such as this one [15]. He made this in response to the posts made by myself and Youngforever. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @C.Fred: Based on the above and the fact that this editor is refusing to drop the stick, I'd say a block is probably appropriate now, though I don't know if you're now considered to be WP:INVOLVED. Amaury • 23:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: Messed up on my ping above when I first posted it. Amaury • 23:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    C.Fred, I agree with Amaury. Edit warring on the edit warring noticeboard is beyond ridiculous. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is an editwar then the person who started it should be sanctioned if they continue. This is not the place for that request. The above accusation by the IP is false, I am considering requesting a sanction if it is not retracted. You can use CTRL-F and see for yourself that I removed MY OWN duplicate with the excact same contents. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The content of both posts are clearly different. You removed the statement where you clearly accuse both myself and Youngforever of being the same person without evidence because you know that's a blockable offense. You should own up to your own mistakes instead of trying to bully users pointing out your actions. That's no way to treat people. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's Bullshit I corrected the typo in the second post and removed the first post. Other than the letter 'T' there is no difference at all. Use CTRL-F and show me where I call you he or she. You know that I mistyped it. Are you just trying to make a point? I did not call you he or she anywhere in this entire discussion! Stop being dishonest, anyone can use CTRL-F and debunk this.

    Accusing someone of sockpuppetry, wich I did not, is not even a blockable offense. You got that from an essay. Please make a seperate request for that and stop this madness. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You did not. You made the first post at 20:48(for me) where you accuse us of being the same person(And said you'd add links) and followed it up 5 minutes later with a lengthy post with a reworded opening line which includes the links and some more accusations. I'm not stupid, it's all there on the page. You then came back later and wiped out the 20:48 post claiming it was the "same". That's not true. Please at least have the honesty to just admit your mistakes when you've been caught trying to cover your tracks.
    And on your other point, your entire post is accusing us of being the same person. Your linked "evidence" in the report is revisions made by both myself and Youngforever. You were the one who started this whole issue and the problem seems to be your inability to just accept your mistakes and move on. Instead you repeat them and even edit war on the admin board. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you can get block for casting aspersions with baseless claims as it is considered to be personal attacks. This was what you said above: The user has done SIX reverts within a 36 hour perdiod, logging out of their account to mask the 3R. This is clearly an accusation of sockpuppetry. — YoungForever(talk) 01:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are the duplicates, anyone can see that there is no substantive difference. Even the typo is still there.

    This edit has been removed: "Above statements by the user and (t)his IP are untrue as can be seen in the edit history. I will link them in a minute."

    Because it is a duplicate of: "Above statement by the user from (t)his IP is untrue as can be seen in the edit history. Evidence is"

    If you are accusing me of trying to cover something up you should explain how this is not a duplicate. This is not the place to do so. You should start your own request Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Don't forget to mention that I never asked for a bann or a check user. You are the one who was editwarring by putting the duplicates back. Bijdenhandje (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to close this report with no action but instinct suggests that User:Bijdenhandje, who has already broken 3RR, is going to continue beating the dead horse until some admin decides that a block is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this has gone beyond the topic of edit warring, the conversation can be moved elsewhere. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not the one beating a dead horse and was not the one voilating 3RR. This has been resolved hours ago, but the IP continues accusing me of hiding information while everything is still there. If they want to block me they should move their request elsewhere and stop doing it here. I wouldn't be bothered by a block at all. I hardly use the English Wikipedia and when I do I'm hardly ever on this account. So good luck IP, I'm going to bed. Bijdenhandje (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty sure the history of Young Sheldon shows you violated 3RR/edit warring. — YoungForever(talk) 00:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am pretty sure the history of Young Sheldon shows you violated 3RR/edit warring with two different users on two seperate days. All could have been prevented. But it does not look like you are willing to learn from your mistakes. Bijdenhandje (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The two admins above stated otherwise. Your accusations are completely baseless. — YoungForever(talk) 00:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Snickers2686 reported by User:Iowalaw2 (Result: No action)

    Page: L. Steven Grasz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Snickers2686 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/990464575

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Special:Diff/994076699
    2. Special:Diff/994075777
    3. Special:Diff/994072071
    4. Special:Diff/993913277

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/994080475 (post-fourth-revert), Special:Diff/994076481, Special:Diff/994075119, Special:Diff/994071682 (pre-fourth-revert)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/994078120 (on my page because user refuses to discuss on talk page)

    Comments:
    Four reverts in a 24-hour window without discussion on talk page (or actual reasoning on any page) despite repeated requests. The content added is uncontroversial, relevant, included with due weight, and from a quintessentially reliable source, official documents for nominees long used for biographical information in U.S. judiciary-related articles.

    @Iowalaw2: As the editor initiating the change, why have you not initiated discussion on the talk page? See WP:BRD. —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vmakenas reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994217141 by Solavirum (talk)"
    2. 17:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994216846 by Solavirum (talk)"
    3. 17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994216048 by CuriousGolden (talk)"
    4. 17:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC) ""
    5. 15:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC) ""
    6. 15:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 17:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC) "/* One-sided */"

    Comments:

    The user keeps replacing a whole article with improperly sourced or entirely unsourced content and doesn't properly discuss the issue in the talk page. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like he doesn't even care about the warning I and Curious gave. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The contents of the article have to apply to WP:NOPV. The article in its version supported by CuriousGolden and Solavirum was indeed one-sided, as the arrest of the two persons was called "two people taken hostage". This is obviously one-sided. Vmakenas cannot be blamed for trying to find a more neutral version citing both sides. If there are 2 edit warriors on one side, this does not change the fact that they are themselves edit warriors. -- PhJ (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight. Calling this incident a terrorist attack, making it look like the unrecognized NKR court had made the right decision, and that Azerbaijan was in the wrong is trying to find a more neutral version citing both sides for you? Nah mate. He could've had just changed hostage to arrest rather than showing this like some sort of a PKK-like raid on peaceful people. Vmakenas's disruptive behaviour is clearly visible here; edit warring, not caring about talk requests, removing warnings on his talk page, and so on. Being an apologist of him/her ain't a okay thing. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, that wasn't even POV. Armenia has acknowledged that these both were either hostages, or POWs. As they had returned them to Azerbaijan as part of the ceasefire agreement which stated that both sides must exchange hostages or POWs. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – User:Vmakenas was blocked 72 hours by User:Scottywong. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nicoljaus reported by User:Corriganthe3rd (Result: Both warned)

    Page: The Last Frontier (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [16]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [17]
    2. [18]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:
    Nicoljaus, a user who has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, is up to his old behavior once again, deleting sources information from both the above mentioned page and the Taras Bulba-Borovets page, a page that he has committed edit warring on and been blocked several times before. He does not attempt to resolve his disputes in a civilized manner on talk pages, and resorts to personal attacks instead. Just so we do not have a further rehash of his past behaviors, I am reporting him here. Thanks.Corriganthe3rd (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is is it weird if I ask why an editor with 42 edits has the concerns that you do? For a brand new editor that has been here for four months, You seem to be very familiar with the editor in question. Beach drifter (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I came across the user after noticing his disruptive behavior on the Taras Bulba-Borovets page. I investigated his block log shortly afterwards. I have no particular interest in him other than that he stop edit warring with me. Corriganthe3rd (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I opened the topic on the article talk page: [20], but I ask you to return the pre-war version of the article ([21]), because I think the user lacks the spirit of cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Azmarai76 reported by User:Majavah (Result: Warned)

    Page: Mirza Masroor Ahmad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Azmarai76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Added to categories"
    2. 11:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Added to categories"
    3. 11:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""
    4. 11:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Added to categories"
    5. 11:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 11:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mirza Masroor Ahmad."
    2. 11:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "/* December 2020 */ Reply"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 11:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "/* He isn't Caliph of Islam but only Ahmadiyaa */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Constantly adding old maintenance categories and adding {{dubious}}. Refusing to discuss on the talk page. Majavah (talk!) 11:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Majavah please let me know who is Messiah according to Ahmadiyaa beliefs??? Is that Jesus Christ or Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and please don't remove the tags without discussion. Tags like [dubious – discuss] are for nothing else but discussion which others along with you removed after threatening me to be blocked not in accordance with Wikipedia standards.

    Regards User:Azmarai76

    User:Majavah titles like Amirul Momineen is also a bit too much Islamic world has no Caliph (Amirul Momineen) right now. Please do understand Edit War also any editor can see if I have changed anything in the text or just put [dubious – discuss] tags to alot of ambiguous statements in this article ??? Regards User:Azmarai76

    • I came from that discussion and it just tells that User:Azmarai76 is unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia policies and standards regarding it. It was also previously observed by admin @EdJohnston: in a discussion on my talkpage. There may be some inability on his part too in this. But anyhow I think he may only be warned to comply with Wikipedia policies and standards by referring to policies involving there in the matter. Thanks! USaamo (t@lk) 10:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: User:Azmarai76 is warned for edit warring, and has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. If they continue to add 'dubious' tags to this page, or add the Mirza Masroor Ahmad article to maintenance categories, they are risking an article ban. The 'caliph' uproar is due to an unexpected result from some Google searches, and is documented at WP:CALIPH. We understand that some people don't consider the adherents of Ahmadiyya to be real Muslims, even though they consider themselves Muslim. But that is not an issue for Wikipedia. We just summarize what has been reported by reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Noname JR reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Partial block, 31 hours)

    Page: Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994417774 by C.Fred (talk) Arabic and tamazight are official languages in Algeria"
    2. 16:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994412937 by M.Bitton (talk)"
    3. 16:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994405434 by M.Bitton (talk) Tamazight is an official language, it's mandatory to have transcription through"
    4. 15:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994388622 by M.Bitton (talk) I let a comment, same for Algeria same for Morocco"
    5. 07:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994343441 by Power~enwiki (talk) What are official languages in Algeria ?"
    6. 04:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994328659 by Nkon21 (talk)Official languages are arabic and tamazight"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Algeria."
    2. 21:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC) "/* ANI Notice */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Tamazight */ re"

    Comments: Hi, Tamazight is an official language in Algeria (like in Morocco), so why do you revert transcription about it?--Noname JR (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please discuss the situation at Talk:Algeria. Your edits have overwritten some information and removed templates that are used for foreign languages. At any rate, you cannot unilaterally make this change: you must get consensus at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: They are only interested in edit warring. They have just reverted your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:199.185.67.123 reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Fortnite World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 199.185.67.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""
    3. 18:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "It was realized he cheated so the next player won. I feel bad for bugha."
    4. 18:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 18:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: The user in question was repeatedly substituting the name of the tournament winner ('Bugha') without providing a source for a different name ('Suhaas'), when the original name was sourced. Giraffer munch 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Solavirum reported by User:PhJ (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [22], [23], [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]
    4. [28]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

    --- PhJ (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment the user is clearly trying to manipulate the guidelines. See my edit explanations and how PhJ voided discussing this and achieving any kind of a WP:CONSENSUS. Also, I had re-reverted myself about twenty minutes before this request. If anyone needs to be blocked editing, its PhJ, who's been edit warring, avoiding WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRDDISCUSS, not even taking a look at my attempts to bring him to the talk page. 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

    Finding consensus means, in an article about a conflict, giving all opinions of the parties involved in an appropriate manner. That is what Solavirum refuses to do. He wants to push the Azeris' POV. There were older, more neutral versions of the article, as well as versions tagged with the POV or Multiple Issues template. Reverting to a POV version is edit warring. -- PhJ (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That version was established by Scottywong, an administrator and a third-party editor, and you reverted his edits too. The more neutral versions of the article you're referring to was making the topic look like a terrorist attack and the editor who added that is already blocked for violating the guidelines. What PhJ does is avoiding any kind of a discussion and edit warring. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And in any case, this report should be disregarded, as when the report was filed, I had reverted myself twenty minutes ago. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Agree with PhJ, what SolaVirum is doing in that article is clearly POV-pushing, by removing ALL info from Armenian or neutral sources and adding only Azeri or Turkish sources.--HCPUNXKID 14:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, I'm not adding any Turkish sources, I've only added BBC article to the article. Secondly, no, I'm telling PhJ to achieve consensus before publishing such controversial edits. He's calling the incident a multiday terrorist attack (which is a laughable claim). In any case, even if your statement was true, this application is still a false flag. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has reverted their 4th revert, meaning they haven't broken WP:3RR, anything else about alleged POV doesn't belong in this noticeboard. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I agree with PhJ, Solavirum seems to have a big POV-pushing problem, simply deleting sources that confirm information he doesn't like. He removed multiple sources on the 2020 Ganja missile attacks article of Arayik Harutyunyan saying Azerbaijan was targeting civilians in the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, his reason simply being "happened right after first attack" even though the bombardment took place a week later. When @Sataralynd: added it back saying this is key information, Solavirum again removed it, saying "has no place in the background". He tried removing it again as it was being discussed on the talk page, and when Sataralynd there was no consensus for removing it and this violates NPOV, Solavirum didn't even bother to explain his continued edit warring. --Steverci (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Those were added without any kind of a consensus. We reached a consensus. And its there, though with additional information necessary to show that Artsakh authorities saying that they were afraid that even archaeologists will not be able to find the place of Ganja. However, is this even related to this application? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, Solavirum has a very different understanding of "consensus" than general people in a democratic country. In the case of this article, the Ganja article and other article where Solavirum is "working" on, there is clearly NO consensus on the statements Solavirum is placing in the WP articles. -- PhJ (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protected – 3 days. Please use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:115.164.93.149 reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Key (cryptography) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 115.164.93.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmm"
    2. 10:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmmm"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 10:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 10:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
      1. 10:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmmm"
      2. 10:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmmm"
    4. 10:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmm"
    5. 10:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmmmm"
    6. Consecutive edits made from 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
      1. 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmm"
      2. 10:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Hmmm"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Key (cryptography)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Edit warring vandal. Giraffer munch 10:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 31 hours by User:Callanecc for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andrew Ruggero reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Shooting of Cannon Hinnant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "OK I’ll give it to you. However, just like in the George Floyd wikipedia page, the races of the victim and the suspect are worth noting. The races were in the source too."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 16:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 16:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
      1. 16:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Nope, I never stated that is 100% the reason for the killing, it is just what it seems due to what was happening at the current time. Do not revert the edit."
      2. 16:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
    3. 16:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""
    4. 16:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shooting of Cannon Hinnant."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Andrew Ruggero has been warned after several times making inflammatory, false statements in the above article, including alleging (without a source) that it was an act of "black supremacy" and then further violated NPOV by adding the races of those involved to the lead, leading to undue weight and and an implication that this was a racially motivated crime, which has been discussed on the talk page over and over again. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 31 hours by User:EvergreenFir. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:213.205.194.98 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )

    Page: London Beer Flood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 213.205.194.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994638781 by Johnbod (talk) Why remove correct and sourced information? I know IP editors are not welcome here, but the ethos of “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” still lives with some of us"
    2. 19:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994637726 by Johnbod (talk) No, I am not that editor: I am an IP editor. Looking at the two references you have added, p233 of the work makes no mention of this (ie. fails verification); the second is not a reliable source. If you do find reliable sources to back up rampion, I think you should respect CITEVAR and add any references in the consistent formatting"
    3. 19:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Please follow WP:CITEVAR and use the same formatting as the rest of the article. As a featured work, it should have the basics correct"
    4. 19:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994633682 by Johnbod (talk) as already mentioned, please find a source - you can’t add things without a proper reliable source"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on London Beer Flood."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No one, not me, the edit-warring registered editor, or this person leaving one-sided threats, has opened a thread. And I’m the one who is up to be blocked? 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Requested full-protection at RFPP minutes before the 3rd and 4th revert happened. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I have answered when threatened on my talk page: I’m sorry, but are you serious? You leave a threat for only one side of a disagreement but not the person that is adding unsourced material into an FAC, then using an unreliable source and a source that doesn’t back up what they are claiming? And yet you come to kick the IP editor, not a registered editor. It’s not a great surprise, but they are also edit warring, and they are damaging the article when they do so. What gives, exactly? I will repeat: a registered editor has added unsourced material which I removed. He edit warred it back in. Should it be left there in a featured article? Should we leave it there when he reverted again and added a source that doesn’t show what he claims and an unreliable source? According to Tbhotch, it’s ok to threaten the IP editor for edit warring, but the registered editor, despite their edit warring, doesn’t get the same treatment?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994633682&oldid=994633351 1st revert
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&type=revision&diff=994636303&oldid=994634434 2nd revert
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994637726&oldid=994636963 3rd revert
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994638781&oldid=994638130 Vandalism (correct and sourced information being deliberately removed.

    Is this appropriate behaviour? 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Edit warring "It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring." And you are right, John has reverted 3 times now. Therefore I will add a 3rr warn and it's up to them to decide if they want to re-revert you. [30] This is WP:NOTVAND, disruptive if anything. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    213.205.194.98 has four reverts in 32 minutes, blocked for 72 hours. I'm leaving this open in case anyone wants to take action on the other party, Johnbod, to whom I'll just say this: it's not OK to edit-war, regardless of the provocation, regardless of who's right, regardless of the exact fiscal number of reverts. Edit-warring is harmful to the project, please just stop doing it. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just say my edits were doing different things: adding text, then adding a ref, then another, then removing the original sentence, which was misleading without the extra stuff I was trying to add, and hardly relevant (concerning events 150 years later). At every stage I was just reverted by the ip. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EPicmAx4 reported by User:CycloneYoris (Result: Blocked)

    Page: 2020 Pacific hurricane season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: EPicmAx4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994645876 by CycloneYoris (talk) You are free to think whatever you want about how active season was, but Wikipedia will not recognize it, so please stop reverting."
    3. 20:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994645492 by CycloneYoris (talk) What other measures are there?"
    4. 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994644192 by CycloneYoris (talk) 2017 has 18 storms to the Atlantic's 17 and 2019 had 19 storms to the Atlantic's 18."
    5. 19:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994540683 by CycloneYoris (talk) Please, tell me how that is inaccurate"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 Pacific hurricane season."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User has been given a warning for edit warring and has been told to solve this on the article's page but they keep on reverting for no reason. CycloneYoris talk! 20:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It appears that the editor in question also tried to revert again under an IP address to try and get their way. The editor has also removed all warnings, and the ANI notification on their talk-page. The user is however, attempting to discuss the edit warring on the appropriate talk page. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 21:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours. This user also appears to be reverting while logged out. If that continues they could be risking a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SammyWaffle! reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked indef)

    Page: Cabinet of Joe Biden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994649989 by Muboshgu (talk)"
    2. 20:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994649498 by Muboshgu (talk)"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 20:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 20:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
      1. 20:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994634322 by PCN02WPS (talk)"
      2. 20:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "added political affiliations"
      3. 20:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""
      4. 20:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""
    4. Consecutive edits made from 20:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) to 20:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
      1. 20:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994640671 by 73.82.183.136 (talk)"
      2. 20:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994640223 by Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk)"
    5. 15:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994579344 by BazingaFountain42 (talk)"
    6. 13:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Notice */ new section"
    2. 20:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cabinet of Joe Biden."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: Initiating this finally got SammyWaffle to use a talk page. Sadly, what they chose to say suggests WP:NOTHERE to me. See their past disruptive edits from earlier in the month. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SammyWaffle has [31] in an uncivil manner on my talk page to complain about my reversion of their [32] on Marjorie Taylor Greene where they added insults and removed the existing content in the "Gun control" section. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 21:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to comment that I was called a "karen" on my talk page by SammyWaffle here and that the user seems to be creating a Wikipedia page of themself here. I agree with Muboshgu's assessment of WP:NOTHERE. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And now this. Blocked indef. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:wallyfromdilbert reported by User:BazingaFountain42 (Result: )

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994512406
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994647761
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994651425
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994652493

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

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

    Comments:
    Why is @Wallyfromdilbert: concentrating only on that one bio article? He hasn't been making the same reverts at the other Biden nominee bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears a relatively new editor is showing up at the page and an edit war resulted. BazingaFountain42 appears to have made at least 4 reverts just today. Perhaps just lock the article and let the new editor know that once a change has been reverted the next step is the talk page. Springee (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Springee: In this situation though, the new editor was in the right. He was merely lining up the bio article, with the other Biden cabinet nominee bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article was brought to BLPN where this RfC seemed to have a clear consensus against using "nominee" in the infobox, in favor of either "presumptive nominee" (or similar langauge) or removing the infobox until the nominations are officially made after the inauguration. GoodDay and BazingFountain42 have been edit warring on various pages, which is part of the reason why the one page was brought to BLPN in the first place. In the RfC, only one other person agreed with GoodDay that infoboxes should include a "nominee" status before the nominations are made after the inauguration. Also, despite GoodDay's claims, not all of Biden's future nominees have had their infoboxes updated, including Jennifer Granholm, which was part of a recent ANI thread regarding BazingaFountain42. I believe I did go over 3RR on the Blinken page but there were several intermediary edits by BazingaFountain42 that I reverted because they were clearly vandalism: [33] [34]. I have only reverted 3 times since then, as two of the diffs above are consecutive edits by me. Not sure what BazingaFountain42's reason is for the numerous reverts that included those vandalism edits. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have previously stated, the vandalism was on accident. My computer had a browser extension that changed every instance of "Trump" to "Drumpf", and I realized that shortly after and removed the vandalism and corrected the article to have Blinken shown as the nominee. I can't believe I have to say that again. It's incredibly frustrating that you keep bringing that up because I have admitted my mistake, acknowledge the reason for it and am no longer making said mistake. Furthermore, the reason why there was the discussion on whether or not we should have Granholm listed as the nominee was because she hasn't been officially announced yet, whereas Blinken has been officially announced. It wasn't on whether or not we should have her listed as the nominee because Biden hasn't yet been inaugurated. Context is everything. Excluding Granholm (since her nomination has not yet been officially announced by the Biden transition team), literally every single on of Biden's nominees has the position for which they have been nominated and "Nominee" in their infobox. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't edited the Blinken article for days, out of frustration with your constant reverts. PS - Granholm has not yet been announced as a cabinet nominee, btw. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CycloneYoris reported by User:EPicmAx4 (Result: Warned user(s))

    Page: 2020 Pacific hurricane season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [35]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [36]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:
    EPicmAx4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs)

    User:Austintexas000aaaa reported by User:Grayfell (Result:Checkuser blocked)

    Page: Elder of Ziyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Austintexas000aaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 21:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994655303 by SecularSourcworks (talk) just undoing his edit to your edit"
    2. 20:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Better Source. And yes, being nominated for a Nobel matters."
    3. 20:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 992583939 by Zero0000 (talk), we report the facts, we don't decide being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize doesn't matter"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Austintexas000aaaa is a conspicuously new account editing Elder of Ziyon to restore badly-sourced content added by another conspicuously new account a couple weeks ago. The article has a template for 30/500 and WP:1RR as a Palestine-Israel article. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page: Chang'e 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Returning to Earth */ Incorrect synthesis; manually revert"
    2. 19:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "/* Landing site */ Fixed inaccruate synthesis"
    3. 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994603617 by Albertaont (talk) The specific allusion to the Luna 15 and Luna 16 highlights the different roles that robots have played in the previous moon race vs. the current one. It is necessary elaboration for understanding McDonald's conclusion."
    4. 06:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994536527 by Albertaont (talk) If it says something else, then list it. Vandalism is not the right way to do this."
    5. 06:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 994535855 by Albertaont (talk) If it says something else, then list it. Vandalism is not the right way to do this."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Chang'e 5."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Note the two edit summaries dating from around 06:10 UTC today, a blatant disregard of WP:VANDNOT CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see User_talk:Normchou#December_2020, [37] for my conversation with @CaradhrasAiguo: who created this report. I believe this act of that user was done in bad faith. Normchou (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTTHEM principle: The focus of this report is your crossing of the 3RR red line, not anything else. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually wrong. See WP:SHOT#There is no "immunity" for reporters. Normchou (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please pay particular attention to the timestamps in my talk page. This report was created right after that user made a number of accusations against me, but none of them were related to the discussion of a potential edit war. I believe they are acting in bad faith. Normchou (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The reporting user's allusion to WP:NOTTHEM above is deemed inappropriate. The block (should there be one) has not yet occurred, and I am not requesting an unblock here. Once again, if one pays attention to the timestamps, including those of the diffs and this complaint, it would be evident that a block is unnecessary. Normchou (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Normchou (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The suggestion of acting in bad faith is only pertinent to the reporting user. "That user" merely refers to the user who filed this complaint. Normchou (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In reality there are different weights of evidence rather than the dichotomy of "conclusive" vs. "inconclusive", which could mean different things to different people anyway. Regarding this specific matter, some of the evidence has already been supplemented in the above thread as well as on my user talk page. It is up to the admin to decide the weight of evidence. Normchou (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sexismcorrector23 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Withdrawn)

    Page: Peter Sutcliffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sexismcorrector23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [38]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [39]
    2. [40]
    3. [41]
    4. [42]
    5. [43]
    6. [44]

    Comments:
    Multiple users have Warned this editor, and the editor reverted immediately after they were warned. VVikingTalkEdits 14:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, if no one else objects I think this has been taken care of. VVikingTalkEdits 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Halbared reported by User:Vpab15 (Result: Withdrawn)

    Page: Kingdom of Northumbria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Halbared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [45]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [46]
    2. [47]
    3. [48]
    4. [49]
    5. [50]
    6. [51]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] and [53]

    Comments:

    Me and other editor tried to engage with Halbared, but he just kept reverting our changes, six times in total. Vpab15 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi, I've requested arbitration by an admin, shirt58. But I don't mind any admin popping over and advising. I'd like to assume good faith by the above, it just seemed a tad suspicious to request for examples and then edit them.Halbared (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also requested a look by AmandaNP, I'll abide by any third set of admin eyes, I may have gotten too close.Halbared (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Halbared self-reverted and we'll both accept third party opinion. This report can be closed as far as I am concerned. Vpab15 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by User:Ke an (Result: )

    Page: Kėdainiai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hugo.arg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994863234&oldid=994862471&diffmode=source

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994936889&oldid=994863234
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994939490&oldid=994939423&diffmode=source
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994939934&oldid=994939750&diffmode=source

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hugo.arg&diff=994940212&oldid=991093625&diffmode=source

    Comments:

    User Hugo.arg keeps malisiouly reverting obvious factual information for no reason. Name K4dainiai is a Lithuanian name, which had transcriptions in other languages. This fact is maliciously and withour arguments deleted. -- Ke an (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=994942067"