Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Chatterjee95 reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Warned)

Page: Sylvester Stallone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chatterjee95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

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

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

Comments:

Keeps removing the filmography sections of this article and few other articles without providing explainations. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

But BattleshipMan, subs ahead! I think you need to return to port and restock your magazines  :) they've been neither warned about edit-warring nor been notified of this discussion you see. Until then, this might be more of a mill pond than a Midway ;) ——Serial 15:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

PS, (Non-administrator comment) of course ^^^ ——Serial 15:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Battleshipman "invited" me to this discussion (as he similarly did with the reported user, the same unconventional way like me ([2]), well I have to add I opened the talk ([3]), but after a quick check the happenings the user did not engage to the talk page but continued the unexplained (= the last wto instances in the edit log with Filmography) removal. The user is doing slow edit warring, however did not get a warning from anyone yet on it's userpage. At this point this report may not achieve much, if not an admin does a warning, if already the case is in front of them.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC))

I have left a note for the editor. Unexplained section blanking is sometimes regarded as vandalism. Does he sincerely think that a good way to improve our articles on Sylvester Stallone and Woody Allen is to remove their list of films? This user has never posted to a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Chatterjee95 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they remove a filmography section from an article unless they have received a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Aghpazoki reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: first edit by Aghpazoka, on 12 July 2020 at 16:42

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]
6. [9]

(Note, this is not technically a WP:3RR violation, but it is a violation of any attempt to build WP:CONSENSUS.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning: [10]; second warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk page discussion because the user's edits are not only tendentious, but also practically vandalism in their removal of well-sourced information in favor of the user's own preferred version.

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. The user has made 7 reverts since 12 July to call these tribes Turkic rather than Kurdish. The editor has never used a talk page and appears to have no support from others for these changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

User:ThesariusQ reported by User:Hemiauchenia (Result: EC protection)

Page: Socionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ThesariusQ: ThesariusQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute [18] (No response)

Comments:
User is part of a collection of SPA's reverting edits to the Socionics page on Wikipedia including Sounderk, Igor RD and 2806:10a6:19:5b4a:f1bb:23d7:efe2:aef5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sounderk Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Sorry, but the article has been in consensus for many years. After that, there was a non-consensual edit at the beginning [19] which I canceled [20]. After that, they began to cancel my cancellation.--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I clearly asked you to use the articles talk page instead of just reverting the edit, which you didn't do. The involvement of multiple possible socketpuppets is making it even worse. --Johannnes89 (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: This is not clearly a 3RR violation since two of the listed edits were consecutive. Page has been EC protected for one week by User:Cwmhiraeth, which ought to help with the socking. In my opinion a longer protection may eventually become necessary. There is an open sockpuppet case about User:ThesariusQ. The tone of the discussion at Talk:Socionics indicates that one or more editors might be violating WP:ASPERSIONS. An admin with more patience might consider if an SPI block is due, or if any personal attack blocks are indicated. The page on Socionics ought to fall under the WP:ARBPS case. See also WP:ANI#Socionics. A related dispute has been taking place on the Russian Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2607:FCC8:D489:300:44B7:4E9D:E355:C890 reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Page protected)

Page

Mini Ladd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2607:FCC8:D489:300:44B7:4E9D:E355:C890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 09:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 09:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 09:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Vandalism, so was warned on user talk by Nyook (pinged).

Comments:

Vandal edit warring over adding 'Pedo' (short for paedophile) to BLP infobox name (no sources provided). Giraffer (munch) 09:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Page protected Semi-protected by Ad Orientem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:A Simple Human reported by User:KSAWikipedian (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

2021 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

A Simple Human (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

1. 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* 2021 Pakistan Super League */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Refuses to discuss. Keeps unilaterally blanking a page that multiple editors have contributed it. It is the next itteration of tournament that meets WP:N. It has multiple WP:RS. He refuses to discuss prior to unilaterally reverting my edits. KSAWikipedian (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• No. I havent violated WP:3RR. Among one of the edits, I simply restored a previously edition. And we are still under discussion. You reported me without I get to say anything properly. Human (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• A Simple Human did agree to discuss. We had a very productive and passionate discussion and were able to reach a consensus. Since the reasons for the complaint have been rectified, I now withdraw report. KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Kalevipoiss reported by User:Jonesey95 (Result: )

Page

Peacekeeping Operations Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kalevipoiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 6 March 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970509302 by Jonesey95 (talk)reverting vandalism, restoring sources"
2. 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970508436 by Jonesey95 (talk)"
3. 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "expanding previously deleted content regarding sections Background and Task, restoring sources I added that back up new content, minor grammar fixes, users complaining on talk page should check what are they deleting before actually doing it"
4. 09:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 21:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Three-revert rule warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Unexplained reversions */ please work from the current revision"
2. 18:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Unexplained reversions */ 3RR"

Comments:

Sorry to bother everyone here with this minor matter, but this new(?) editor has been unwilling to engage on talk pages and has continually restored a previous version, including outdated tags and pre-copy-editing prose. Possible sock of VJ-Yugo? I don't spend much time at WP:AN*, so I don't know how these things are generally investigated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Drevolt and User:69.71.194.34 reported by User:FactOrOpinion (Result: Page protected )

Page: University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Drevolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 69.71.194.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: I do not know what the original version was, as more than one editor has been changing the text, and when I just went to look for a version of the page that would capture the text prior to the edit warring, I discovered that both of these editors had made changes prior to my first noticing their edit warring. I've already spent time gathering over a dozen diffs, and I don't have the energy to keep looking further back in time to figure out whether there was a time when the text was stable and what it was. I apologize for that, but hope you will understand. They are warring about whether to describe UCB as among the top "30" universities in the lead.

Diffs of the users' reverts:

1. "30" inserted by Drevolt: [21]
2. deleted by 69.71.194.34: [22]
3. reinserted by Drevolt: [23]
4. changed from 30 to 10 by 69.71.194.34 here (and then to 20): [24]
5. changed back to 30 by Drevolt: [25]
6. removed again by 69.71.194.34: [26]
7. reinserted by Drevolt: [27]
8. removed by 148.74.225.72: [28]
9. reintroduced by Drevolt: [29], which led me to leave a message on Drevolt’s talk page
10. 69.71.194.34 then removed the entire sentence: [30], which led me to leave a message on 69.71.194.34’s talk page
11. ElKevbo reintroduced the sentence here and his edit summary said “join the discussion in Talk”: [31]
12. 69.71.194.34 removed the entire sentence again: [32]
13. Attic Salt reverted the edit that removed the entire sentence: [33] and then removed “30”: [34]
14. Drevolt reintroduced 30: [35]
15. 104.32.50.221 changed it from 30 to 5: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Drevolt: [37]
• 69.71.194.34: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
I’m still a “learner”-stage editor. I noticed edit warring on University of California, Berkeley and created a talk page section about it (diff above, current version: [40]), pinging the 2 editors involved and specifying the first seven diffs above as evidence. I also created a section at the Teahouse, asking for help checking whether there were other editors involved and whether it was sufficient that I’d pinged the 2 editors on the Talk page or if I needed to report it at ANI: [41]. No one responded. Unfortunately, the edit warring didn’t stop, as is clear from the subsequent diffs. When I saw Drevolt and 69.71.194.34 continuing to edit war over this, I left messages on their talk pages: [42] and [43]. I went to bed, and when I woke up, I saw that it had continued, despite both people having been asked not to on the UCB talk page and then getting follow-up messages from me on their user talk pages, so I decided to report it here, and I gathered the remaining diffs.

I don’t know enough about the standards to assess whether the other people who’ve reverted these edits are also considered to be edit warring. FWIW, as I was gathering the diffs, I also noticed that 69.71.194.34 was involved in successive reverts about other text, for example, here: [44], where s/he deleted a reference to the Free Speech Movement after having deleted it earlier and it having been reintroduced by another editor.

I did my best to abide by the rules here by not editing the article’s page, trying to engage people in a talk page discussion, and seeking help at the Teahouse. If I nonetheless made a mistake — for example, if I should have come to the ANI sooner — please let me know, so I know what to do in the future. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Page protected Fully protected for 36 hours. Please carry on discussion on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Drevolt reported by User:PurpleDeskChair (Result: )

Page: University of Chicago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drevolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Even after the report continues to edit war. He claims that one source allows him to edit the text. However there has been a several year long consensus that it is top ten. He has been called out on several article talks about his vandalism. The Talk has already built a consensus. I want to be civil but his constant hijacking of the article is clearly not in good faith: [46]
2. Drevolt deletes the more detailed USNews source which affirms the lead text: [47] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleDeskChair (talk • contribs) 00:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
3. Same as the two cases below-- plain and simple edit warring: [48]
4. Re-adds his 'top 15' to the lead: [49]
5. Re-adds his 'top 15' to the lead despite regular and sustained objections by other contributors, sources, and the talk: [50]
6. Historical-- undoes contribution to rankings tab. I only include this example to illustrate his past history with this theme and how it is continuing. It does not relate to the present edit war: [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

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

Comments:
I am a new Wikipedia editor so please forgive me if not using the correct terminology. For the past few weeks, Drevolt has been editing the University of Chicago wikipedia page to include that it is among the top 15 world universities in the lead paragraph. For several years the lead paragraph was that it was top ten in the world-- and all sources provided substantiate that. Nothing has changed and regular contributors all have a consensus around the former lead paragraph. However, for the past week Drevolt has been warring to have it phrased as top fifteen and has frequently undone other users edits to maintain its status. He refuses to use the chat feature and only undos other users edits. He is regularly called out for this. I am aware that he is also warring on the University of California, Berkeley page as well and has already been disciplined for a similar offense. In the UChicago article talk section, he has already been admonished for edit warring by several other contributors in past instances-- this is not a novel occurrence. I have attached a link from March of this year where (for several years leading up to this past week or so) the lead paragraph has been 'top ten on various national and international publications'-- Drevolt has not accepted this reality. I did not attach all links! There are many other cases of Drevolt edit warring on this article from past weeks. Please put a stop to this user's edit warring. As mentioned before, I am new to reporting users. Please let me know if I can update anything to conform to your guidelines.

PurpleDeskChair is the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation for several previous accounts that engaged in disruptive editing on the University of Chicago page that were blocked several months ago. However, I'd also like to point out that prior to a recent change (and to PurpleDeskChair's disruptive editing), I hadn't edited the page in "the past few weeks", and my recent activity doesn't meet the 3RR definition of edit warring. My previous edits came two months ago in response to a sockpuppet campaign on the page from User:WildlyAccurate, who has since been permanently blocked for sockpuppeting after I reported it. Given the fact that User:PurpleDeskChair created this account yesterday and yet seems to already know a suspicious amount about the page history (and has a similar editing pattern to that of User:WildlyAccurate), I'm at least suspicious that this is the same user. Also, as a side note, I have not been "disciplined" for anything on the Berkeley page, whatever that means. --Drevolt (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I first would like to note that I do not know that other user. I am an independent person with his first Wikipedia account. You have made two undoes in 24 hours and an edit all related to rankings. As well, you have made similar edits regarding rankings in the past. So much so that the talk is dominated by user complaints of your harassment of the page. You have a pattern on several university articles to mention rankings in a way which is unnecessarily negative. I do not believe you are acting in good faith when editing this article. Earlier today the UCBerkeley page got protected because of your continual edit warring on the exact same topic. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User PurpleDeskChair is the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation for several previous accounts that engaged in disruptive editing on the University of Chicago page that were blocked several months ago. The user's recent disruptive behavior closely resembles the wave of disruptive editing by sockpuppet accounts that occurred on the page in May 2020. Please see the sockpuppet investigation here for more information. --Drevolt (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This sockpuppet report launched by you falls under the Wikipedia Harassment Policy as Drevolt is retaliating against me for reporting their edit warring:[54] PurpleDeskChair (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am pleased to share that his frivolous report of me as a sockpuppet has come out negative. Meanwhile, Drevolt continued weaponizing Wikipedia's editing into a personal battle on several University Wikipedia articles to adjust their rankings. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting at this point Drevolt has violated the 3RR rule. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, still haven't. --Drevolt (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

While it does not pass the 24 hr threshold-- you have continuously and repeatedly done the same action well above the '3' minimum within 48 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleDeskChair (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's one of the exceptions to the 3RR policy: "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." Given your various connections to the many sockpuppet accounts that have been blocked for editing on that page, I expect the final decision in the ongoing sockpuppet investigation to provide pretty clear vindication on this point. --Drevolt (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What evidence do you speak of? Your only claim is that we 'sound similar'. I do not know these users and have not engaged with them and the fact is no admin/CU has found ANY EVIDENCE to support your allegations. PurpleDeskChair (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Okhistorians reported by User:Leijurv (Result: )

Page

Tulsa race massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Okhistorians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970684116 by Leijurv (talk)"
2. 19:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970683695 by Leijurv (talk)"
3. 19:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970666951 by Doug Weller (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tulsa race massacre. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:Jack Shukla reported by User:SerChevalerie (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sushant Singh Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack Shukla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:

Informed user of edit warring, still reverted edits. The actor's death has been listed as a suicide by the final post mortem report, but user refuses to believe it saying that the police could have been bribed. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Textbook POV-pushing. I protected the Sushant Singh Rajput article and talk page because there has been a flood of conspiracy theory edits and talk page comments. It's a high profile subject that has been getting a lot of media attention, and that has unfortunately attracted a lot of editors ignorant of Wikipedia policies and goals, many of them I'm sure are fans. I don't know/care what Shukla's fan status is, but he seems oblivious to the fact that we don't care what he personally thinks about the subject's death cause. Rather than accepting the police ruling that it was a suicide, he is pushing an agenda that the death is a "mystery". From my count, he has inserted this content five times in the biography,[61][62][63][64][65] which is sufficient for sanctions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F reported by User:JlACEer (Result: Semi)

Page

User talk:JlACEer (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F (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

1. 00:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:JlACEer. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point 150 years */"
2. 23:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point 150 years */"
3. 23:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point 150 years */"
4. 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""

Comments:

I know blocks are not supposed to be punitive but I think this user needs a short block as a cool-down period and perhaps to learn some manners. I'm tired of being harassed. —JlACEer (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Cedar Point one month. User:JlACEer, if you don't want this dispute conducted on your user talk, why not open a thread on Talk:Cedar Point? I don't see any personal attacks by the IP or any vandalism, though they removed references here, perhaps inadvertently. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I tried to encourage the user to take the discussion to talk:Cedar Point but he kept posting to my personal page. I don't think you read the comments made by the user on my personal talk page, he was most certainly out of line, even making snide comments about my previous posts. This type of stalking is almost frightening. Semi-protecting one page may fix the problem for that particular page, but I would like to have seen a little bit of hand slapping of the abusive IP user. I had hoped that at least one person other than me would let him know that such behavior is not acceptable on Wikipedia.—JlACEer (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:37.251.220.233 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Flushed Away (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

37.251.220.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC) to 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC) to 15:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Flushed Away. (TW)"
2. 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio 17:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Ktrimi991 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: )

Page: Kosovo Myth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ktrimi991 (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. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68] (rv of this [69])

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

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

Comments:
While the above is technically not a 3RR vio, Ktrimi991 has been maxing out 3RR a lot lately. This is a highly experienced user who knows not to violate 3RR, but is clearly gaming it. In addition to the above diffs, he has recently:
Maxed out 3RR at Kosovo Myth on July 31: [70] [71] [72]

Maxed out 3RR at Great Retreat (Serbian) on July 18: [73] [74] [75]

Maxed out 3RR at Albanian nationalism on July 10: [76] [77] [78]

And again on July 2: [79] [80] [81]

That’s 5 times in the last month, with only ~100 mainspace edit in that period. Out of those mainspace edits, a clear majority (I'd say ~60% are reverts). At Albanian nationalism (Albania), the article was page protected on July 2 due to Ktrimi’s edit-warring, and he immediately racked up 3 reverts on July 10 as soon as the page protection expired. The reasons for edit-warring are two-fold: One is to prevent addition of material he does not like, such as at Albanian nationalism (Albania) (typically using "no consensus" as an excuse), the other is to revert removal of material he has added, for example at Kosovo Serbs. In other words, he can add material as he sees fit, but no one else can. He knowingly games 3RR because he often writes “this is my last revert” in edit summaries [82], indicating that he knows what he’s doing is blockable, and is writing “this is my last revert” so as to avoid a block. This is nothing new, he has done it several times before [83] [84]. The edit-warring diffs are only from the past month, but the pattern of behavior has been going on for a long time. For example, in June he maxed out 3RR in quick succession at Battle of Manzikert, in an article to which he clearly stalked me or Dr.K. [85] [86] [87]. What is especially disruptive is that while this article falls clearly outside the topics he edits (which are almost exclusively Albanian), he knows just enough history to know that Battle of Manzikert is a sensitive topic for Greek editors. He had never shown the slightest interest in that article or any related articles before, and I can only surmise that he followed me or Dr. K. there and reverted out of spite.

In addition to edit-warring, he frequently uses abusive edit-summaries, laced with contempt, aggression, and condescension, as demonstrated in the diffs above. He also uses WP:BULLY tactics, frequently posting threatening messages on other user’s talkpages, threatening to report them or out them: [88] [89] Talkpage posts, which are far fewer than reverts, are similarly laced with insults, threats, or both: [90] [91] Recently, he posted threats on his talkpage were so outrageous they had to be redacted [92], and he was warned by Primefac [93]. He has also repeatedly threatened me in the past [94] [95]. In 13 years of editing wikipedia, I have never seen such threats.

In summary, Ktrimi displays strong WP:BATTLE behavior on Balkan topics and is clearly very comfortable gaming 3RR. This behavior has been going on for a long time and I am certain the edit-warring, threats, and incivility will continue, unless restrictions are imposed. If anything, the edit-warring is increasing in frequency in the last month rather than decreasing. All of his edits fall within the WP:ARBMAC topic area, and are as such subject to sanction, something which he is aware of: [96]. Khirurg (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• This editor, who has a very long history of frivolous reports (closed without action or with boomerang) on apparently perceived opponents, in the last month or so, has "maxed out", whatever it means, 3RR on Lukovë, Albanian nationalism (Albania), Origin of the Albanians and Dimale. He is practically reporting me for sth he has done himself. he knows just enough history to know that Battle of Manzikert is a sensitive topic for Greek editors. He had never shown the slightest interest in that or any related articles before, and I can only surmise that followed me or Dr. K. there and reverted out of spite What an aspersion and personal attack, and btw do not edit articles if you are very "sensitive" to them. But not a surprise; you have been warned and sanctioned (including a topic ban, "revert restrictions", interaction bans, blocks) several times for your behaviour and inapropriate comments on other editors. It is common for you to accuse other editors of "following around"; you even took the Manzikert thing to Wiki Commons where you accused of the same thing other editors [97][98][99]. During your latest edit warring session you again used your common personal attacks and aspersions for edit summaries (e.g. [100]). the article was page protected on July 2 due to Ktrimi’s edit-warring The edit warring between several editors there happened because you made several reverts there to add questionable (read: false) information on living people without consensus. The article got protected after I asked an admin about personal attacks that were being made there through edit summaries. On my tp, the edit that was deleted by Primefac discussed how you involved me in your off-Wiki conflicts with User:Sulmues. However, I thanked Primefac for the deletion; as I said at the time, in tense situations one might give more details than intended (your previous username, that was all). On Kosovo Serbs you went as far as to make 3 reverts that counter with what the given sources say on the Arnautasi theory (you denied that the source says what it actually says!): a theory that has been described as fringe, nationalistic and racist -- the theory says that the Kosovo Albanians as a community have Serbian origin. I have always fought against nationalistic editing on Wikipedia, and I have reported many editors for disruptive editing regardless of their apparent ethnicity: Albanian, Serbian, Croatian, Greek or whatever. You, what have you done so far in that regard? But why here? Take your concerns about my behaviour at AE; there everthing can be discussed more carefully and in greater detail, I can prepare more diffs and you can get a boomerang. You have said you will report me there for years; why not? Of course, that you are heavily involved in disruptive editing should not serve as a justification for me, or anyone else for that matter, to make more reverts. Indeed, the Balkan area is difficult, with many tense situations and disruptive editing. Hence sometimes I, as everyone else editing the topic, should be more careful and reflect on some cases, and maybe even leave a dispute for a few days. The most important thing is to not resort to infamous fringe theories, like you are doing. Ktrimi991 (talk)

Check your facts. Virtually everything you wrote above is an outright falsehood. I did not reach 3RR at Dimale or Origin of the Albanians. Not even close. Doubtless this is why you have not included diffs with your accusations. And while edit-wars happen in the Balkans, you are by far the worst offender. And no, I have not been sanctioned, in fact I have a clean block log since 2010 (unlike you). Regarding the edits oversighted by Primefac, we both know you did much more than reveal my old username. In fact, why don't we ping Primfac to see what they think? Yes, let's do that: @Primefac:. And you shouldn't misuse words like "fringe theory". Your documented history of gaming WP:3RR is not a fringe theory; it is a documented fact. What is a fringe theory, are your wild allegations about off-wiki nonsense (or more accurately, a conspiracy theory). So in addition to your edit-warring, threats, and incivility, we can add one more reason for why you should be sanctioned: Intellectual dishonesty. Khirurg (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)