Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:30, 1 May 2021

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Newzild reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: this was the previous stable version of the article

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1] post-facto, but the editor is a long-term editor and should know better and has another edit-warring warning at the bottom of their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision of the article talk page as of 07:18, 26 April 2021

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [2]

Comments:
So, can I assume Newzild is unblockable? Or is my report way off base? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:47.201.194.211 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: last good version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

first reinsertion of content
restored disputed content with insignificant changes
reinserted the insignificantly-changed version
reinserted again after revert by a second editor
and again
and again, after a third editor removed it
and again, after a fourth editor did so
and again, after a fifth editor did so (while declaring in the edit summary that there was No more opposition to restoring)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion at Talk:Quantum entanglement has been editors disagreeing with 47.201.194.211 and them now resorting to personal attacks

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: the latest item in a Talk page that is nothing but warnings

Comments:
The IP continues to edit-war [4], flatly refuse to understand what "consensus" means [5], and make peremptory demands on the Talk page [6]. Can someone please stop them from wasting more of the community's time? XOR'easter (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Warlighter reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020189495 by MrOllie (talk) it does not introduce any grammatical errors. it fixes blatant violations of guidelines."
18:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020189100 by Akeosnhaoe (talk) irrelevant. If you want to change a particular word, change that particular word. But you are obviously reverting just to be disruptive."
18:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020188400 by Akeosnhaoe (talk) incorrect"
17:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020167158 by Akeosnhaoe (talk) rv vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I also reverted a number of this user's edits on other pages which I felt were removing useful information which they re-reverted as well. This user is constantly insulting articles in their edit summaries, it's all pretty strange honestly. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akeosnhaoe has clear disruptive intent and is undoing edits for no reason whatsoever. See [7], [8], [9]. With regards to the article on python, they claim to have a problem with one particular word that I introduced when fixing appallingly bad writing, but their "reason" is nonsense and they are undoing my changes entirely. This is clearly not someone editing in good faith. Warlighter (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely - by User:Sro23 as a sock of WP:LTA/BKFIP per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation by User:Terjen reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: Blocked per AE)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&type=revision&diff=1017887609&oldid=1015632229

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They are aware of discretionary sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Terjen and have also been warned before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boogaloo_movement

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Terjen&action=history

Comments:
They've been warned about edit warring and disruptive editing before, there's an ongoing Arbitration Enforcement request etc. They're continuing being generally disruptive, but they've clearly violated the 1RR sanctions on the page - so I think these 1RR violations should be addressed as a priority. Bacondrum 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
Reported user here. This issue is already in arbitration (my first ever - I have edited since 2006) making this report seem redundant. I have on my own accord self-quarantined from editing entries since the arbitration was filed, so there is no "continuing being generally disruptive" - and it is not a fitting description for my time on wikipedia. I have no history of frequently being "warned about edit warring and disruptive editing". Possibly the report filing is related to this exchange between me and the filer. As to the diffs above, they're all adding tags to bring attention to new postings in an ongoing discussion on a Talk page, most of them days apart; The last one is a different tag bringing attention to a newly posted argument on the talk page arguing MOS:LABEL. Please let me know if you like more details or have other questions. Terjen (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is edit warring, 1RR is 1RR. Bacondrum 07:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum is a party to the arbitration enforcement filed against me. They reverted my addition of the final tag in this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019911538

The editor that filed the arbitration against me, NorthBySouthBaranof, was officially warned by admins about their edit warring just last month. Terjen (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the sequence of events:

Before 15 April 2021, Terjen opened a discussion on the Talk page, pointing out concerns with using the "far-right" label in wikivoice on the page, proposing it is resolved by adding an in-text attribution.

04:21, 15 April 2021 Terjen adds a tag to the label, linking to the discussion on the Talk page.

05:18, 15 April 2021 NorthBySouthBaranof reverts to remove the tag, with the comment "an RFC already determined that this is appropriate. You'll need new consensus to change it."

The discussion about the label continues on the Talk page

21:57, 20 April 2021‎ Terjen restores the tag, with the edit comment explaining it is "linking to ongoing discussion"

22:30, 20 April 2021‎ NorthBySouthBaranof reverts the edit, removing the dispute tag, with the comment "per clear and undisputed RfC, closed with "Firm consensus to describe Boogaloo movememnt as far-right as per overwhelming majority of reliable sources"

The discussion about the label continues on the Talk page

0:09, 26 April 2021 Terjen adds a new tag linking to the updated ongoing discussion, with the edit comment "tag bringing attention to ongoing discussion about mislabeling"

0:12, 26 April 2021‎ NorthBySouthBaranof reverts the edit, removing the tag, with the comment "Again, you have two options: open a new RFC to reverse the previous formal consensus, or WP:DROPTHESTICK"

The discussion continues on the Talk page, now with a new post arguing contentious MOS:LABEL:

03:41, 26 April 2021‎ Terjen adds a different "Contentious label" tag linking to the discussion, with the edit comment "tag contentious label - see discussion"

7:35, 26 April 2021‎ Bacondrum reverts the edit, removing the tag, with no edit comment.

The discussion continues on the Talk page

Terjen (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTTHEM - the fact remains that this user reinstated the same content 3 times in violation of 1RR discretionary sanctions. Bacondrum 21:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin: I've blocked Terjen for essentially the same issues, for two weeks, at WP:AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – Two weeks per a thread at WP:AE. There's no need for any additional action here. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MikeJones19888 User:GullWing88 reported by User:Retrotechexpert (Result: Socks blocked)

Page: DeLorean time machine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: MikeJones19888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and GullWing88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1020223518

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeJones19888&oldid=1020582065

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1019811721#Replica_Solicitations_and_Advertisements

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeJones19888&oldid=1020223844

Comments:

This user has been attempting to replace a valid reference to a database showing empirical data of the number of DeLorean Time Machine replicas in existence with a link to his own web address where time machine replica services are offered. A review of the articles history identified this user and other named variants (see article talk page link above) have made similar modifications to this article in an attempt to advertise their services. The data on his commercial web address is also incorrect, but the intention is to use SEO page rank provided by a link from Wikipedia to improve his page traffic instead of for the benefit of provided substantive information to wikipedia visitors. Advertisements of this type have been regularly scrubbed from this page to provide a neutral observation and presentation of the facts. User has been warned multiple times and continues to circumvent edits by replacing links to his personal web address. An edit earlier today went so far as to add a full blatant advertisement for this user's web address soliciting the aforemmentioned replica rental services. Retrotechexpert (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user apparently is using another account (GullWing88) to make the same edit as well. Previous similar edits that advertised this same web address were also made by an now blocked account Mikemonroe88 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikemonroe88 -- See this identical edit diff from GullWing88 from earlier this evening: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1020230585 Retrotechexpert (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence that GullWing88 is the same user as MikeJones19888 -- user made edits to Back to the Future (Franchise) article and added blantant advertisement to aforementioned web address advertising rental services. ClueBot reverted this change. All contribs from this user appear in the same vein -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GullWing88 Retrotechexpert (talk)

Same user continues to make identical edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1020312194&oldid=1020255702 Retrotechexpert (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User continues to use alternate account GullWing88 in repeat attempt to point article to DeLorean Time Machine replica rental web address -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1020349051&oldid=1020345515 Retrotechexpert (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: GullWing88 (talk · contribs) and MikeJones19888 (talk · contribs) are Confirmed to be the same editor and are blocked indef for sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:31.166.38.73 reported by User:KoizumiBS (Result: Blocks, Semi)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:
False information and WP:OR is added from this IP 31.166.38.73 (talk · contribs). The user writes about the Turkic origins of the Donghu referring to these sources (Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (2000). "Ji 姬 and Jiang 姜: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity", Early China, p. 20; Wei Shou . Book of Wei. Vol. 1; Tseng, Chin Yin (2012). The Making of the Tuoba Northern Wei: Constructing Material Cultural Expressions in the Northern Wei Pingcheng Period (398-494 CE) (PhD). University of Oxford. P . 1 .; Wei Shou. Book of Wei. Vol. 91 "蠕蠕，東胡之苗裔也，姓郁久閭氏。" tr. "Rúrú, offsprings of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ"; Wei Shou. Book of Wei. Vol. 91 "蠕蠕，東胡之苗裔也，姓郁久閭氏。" tr. "Rúrú, offsprings of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ"). But the sources say about the connection of the Rourans with the Donghu and the Xiongnu, not with the Turkic peoples. Previously, the user was engaged in similar activities in the article Tatar confederation. As a result, the article was protected, and the user was blocked. Previously he edited from here: 169.148.68.144 (talk · contribs), 31.167.235.14 (talk · contribs), Osamaorf (talk · contribs). Request to protect articles (Rouran Khaganate, Proto-Mongols, Donghu people), as well as take action against the user 31.166.38.73 (talk · contribs).

Gross violation of WP: CIVIL rules: diff. I ask the administrators to remind the user about the inadmissibility of such edits, and also to take appropriate measures against the user Osamaorf (talk · contribs).--KoizumiBS (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some lines to the header and am notifying Osamaorf (talk · contribs) of this complaint. If one person is conducting an edit war with multiple IPs (all located in Jiddah) we might call that sockpuppetry. User:Osamaorf has previously been blocked for the same thing so this time around an indef block seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Osamaorf indef blocked for the continued sockpuppetry, three IPs blocked a month each, three articles semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erzan reported by User:Twozerooz (Result: no blocks)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19] [20]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [22]

Comments:

Comment both editors are at fault here. While Erzan has a long history of edit warring, Twozerooz has also spent the past week edit warring and appears to have violated the 3RR. I can see a WP:BOOMERANG incoming. Both users need to spend more time on the talk page. — Czello 14:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given the number of new accounts engaging in edit warring I suspect there might be some sock puppetry going on. — Czello 14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have susepcted there is more than one user. Because some of edits have been fixing my clusmy edits and adding sources over time. One user was undoing my edits fast, even my very minor one's to fix an error. For example I was adding sources from Harvard and Stanfard, engaging in the talk page as well. Then after several edits, a second user is engaging in undoing my very minor edits, which again had plenty of sources. Erzan (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many users trying to undo your edits is a sign of something, but it is not sock puppetry. --Twozerooz (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were two users, including yourself, undoing the same sentence with many credible sources.

The word many suggests there was 3 or more undoing the same sentence but that is not the case, it was just two. Erzan (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree -- it looks like there has been some PoV pushing from Twozerooz and Godless Raven. I've added the page to my watchlist and we'll insist on a consensus to change the lead from its current wording. — Czello 09:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have spent quite a significant amount of time on the talk page, as have numerous other editors. While we are all doing our best to keep the page truthful, Erzan's relentless edit warring needs a better solution. --Twozerooz (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Erzan has also spent a lot of time there. Honestly I'm tempted to do a huge rollback and say that you should both be following WP:BRD, but it's difficult for me to see what the "status quo" version of the article is as it's been edit warred for months. By the looks of things, Erzan's version is the WP:QUO. — Czello 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The statuos quo was the edit you see now. I was simply adding minor edits, adding sources from Havard, LSE, Stanford. This page has been under assault, sections that have been on this page for a long while are being removed and it's the same theme. An attempt to remove any edits that refer to socialism. It's bizzare because again, despite credible sources to all my edits, 2 users have been undoing very minor edits on the exact same sentence in 2 days. Is that not vandalism or something? Erzan (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1016874772 is the WP:QUO version. It should be reverted back to here. All users prior agree on the subject. You'll see a few 'thanks' between the other users. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the edits were a clusmy attempt to prevent vandalism. The disputed sentence had plenty of sources and the edits from User:Twozerooz have ignored them and the talk page comments from the user have been very personal. Erzan (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there have been plenty attempts from numerous users to revert the on-going vandalism. Plenty of sources have been provided to User:Erzan by myself and many other users, however they have been ignored. It appears Erzan's long history of edit warring has now spilled over on to this page as well --Twozerooz (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While I can't endorse Erzan's edit warring, WP:BRD maintains that you need to get consensus for your changes first. You should have left the article as it was and discussed it on the talk page until you had consensus. — Czello 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was consensus from everyone except Erzan. Erzan should have left the article as it was, and discussed it before editing.--Twozerooz (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I can see a consensus on the talk page, just you two arguing. Although perhaps I'm just missing it; can you direct me to anything more specific? — Czello 15:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consesus. I have seen this page for months if not years and all of a sudden the 'socialism sidebar' was removed without anyone mention of why in the talk page by yourself. There is a pattern emerging and it is an attempt to remove references to socialism. This is why I provided plenty of creddible sources to edits to avoid looking like there was a bad faith edit. Erzan (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was consensus on the things that Erzan is trying to edit. e.g. even the discussion between Godless Raven and TFD were based on miscommunication and were largely superficial in nature, and ended with TFD saying "IOW it already said what you wanted it to say" --Twozerooz (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I have read the talk page, over and over. I do not see those users agreeing with one another on the particular edit that is being disputed here. Erzan (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The first clue wasn't the fact that we're trying to revert your edits? Regardless, I suggest a way to break the stalemate: Both Erzan and Twozerooz be banned for edit warring, for a period of time that will give plenty of time for other users to decide the course of the article. Seems like an appropriate compromise. I also suggest someone clean up the talk page given how messy it has become, which is likely a serious roadblock to allowing proper discussion on the subject--Twozerooz (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hold on.
      
      They who? it was only 1 user and then yourself who kept undoing the same very minor edits which expanded the list of sources.
      
      Czello I am increasingly susepcting an attempt of sock puppetry. How do I go about raising this? Erzan (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Erzan: Your edits were not "minor" edits. They were incorrectly flagged as minor edits. Please see here for how correct use of the Minor Edit flag. --Twozerooz (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      
      @Erzan: Go to WP:SPI and click the "How to open an investigation" dropdown; that'll show you how. However, if you want a checkuser request you will have to be prepared to present some compelling evidence. — Czello 16:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Erzan and User:Twozerooz have both violated WP:3RR and it would be logical to block both editors. To avoid a block, I suggest that both of them offer to make no further changes unless they get a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would not want Twozerooz blocked for my role in this. Especially after all @Czello help in trying to resolve this and adding the page to their watchlist. Happy to follow the recommendations from both @Czello and @EdJohnston. Erzan (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, EdJohnston keeps his cool: blocking both editors would have been a perfectly understandable response (and we could have thrown User:Godless Raven in that batch as well), but not a long-term solution of course. Discussion is now happening on the talk page--but User:Twozerooz needs to be careful, and they need to stop making personal attacks ("you seem unwilling to learn"). BTW I see no reason whatsoever to suspect socking, and I don't think anyone is going to consider CU on a hunch here. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:97.112.198.148 reported by wolf (Result: One week)

Page: RAS syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 97.112.198.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 198.70.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] (as 198.70.2.200)
[30] (as 198.70.2.200)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [33]

Comments:
Straight 4RR+ vio, user editing from three different IP addresses, the two noted above and an initial edit of the same content with 184.1.1.160 (talk · contribs). - wolf 22:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week due to not only going way past three reverts but the incivility and personal attacks. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: thanks for the response. I see you blocked the second IP, which made two of the reverts, but not the last (and most recent) IP, which made five of the reverts. I was just wondering if that was an oversight, or intentional. Thanks again - wolf 03:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. I had come here when the first IP had been reported to AIV, so I had only had that one on my mind. I have blocked the other one now, too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for follow up. Cheers - wolf 04:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tomatoes30 reported by User:Mikehawk10 (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Tomatoes30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

07:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC) ""
06:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC) ""
06:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
06:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
06:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
Consecutive edits made from 06:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC) to 06:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
1. 06:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
2. 06:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
3. 06:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
06:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
Consecutive edits made from 06:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC) to 06:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
1. 06:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
2. 06:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Yankees */"
Consecutive edits made from 06:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC) to 06:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
1. 06:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* yankees */"
2. 06:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* yankees */"
3. 06:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* yankees */"
Consecutive edits made from 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC) to 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
1. 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
2. 06:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
Consecutive edits made from 06:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC) to 06:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
1. 06:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 06:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
3. 06:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
4. 06:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New York Yankees */"
05:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC) ""
05:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC) ""
05:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC) ""
05:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

05:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. Austin Romine (HG) (3.4.10)"
06:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. Austin Romine (HG) (3.4.10)"
06:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "Level 4 warning re. Austin Romine (WP:HG) (3.4.10)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

06:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "new section" (on user talk page, added by HMSLavender)

Comments:

The user is a new account that is specifically removing all information about the New York Yankees and adding information related to the Boston Red Sox. The user has reverted many more than three times in the past 24 hours on the page, and has been warned on their talk page to cease disruptive editing, though they have continued to edit war. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eggishorn reported by User:One way system (Result: no blocks)

Previous version reverted to: 20:53, 4 December 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
16:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
16:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; 17:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments: User:Eggishorn wanted to revert the content on the RAF Lakenheath article. I reverted and then started a talk page discussion to outline why I disagreed with the content removal. I restored the content to the WP:STATUSQUO while the talk page discussion was ongoing using my third and last revision. However, Eggishorn has removed the content four times, including removing the content on his fourth revert when I had already restored the status quo while we discussed on talk. One way system (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the fact that the links are malformed adn there is a redundant link, the first edit was clearly not a revert - it was a simple editorial change One way system is very close to a boomerang since all their changes are pure reverts and I have addressed their lack of quality sources on the talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quality and appropriateness of the sources is a content issue that can and will be discussed on the talk page. That is a content dispute and is not to do with the edit warring.Your first removal of content was effectively a reversion of the content added by User:Snugglewasp on 4 December 2020: 21:10, 4 December 2020 . The content dispute should be discussed on the talk page not be edit-warred over. One way system (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Three things to, hopefully, clear things up for One way system.
1.Your first removal of content was effectively a reversion of the content added [...] on 4 December 2020. No. The removal of extant material is not considered a revert (otherwise, no one could ever remove anything: see WP:REVERT, Technically, any edit can be said to reverse some of a previous edit; however, this is not the way the community interprets reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy.).
2. This makes the first revert yours—of 17:34; when this was reverted you should have gone to the talk page per WP:BRD: you had made a Bold reversion, you had in turn been Reverted, so then it was time to Discuss. As it is, it means you have made as many reversions as Egishorn has. Are you sure you would like to be treated the same...?
3. Thirdly, per policy, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content...i'e, you.
HTH. ——Serial 17:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I did start a discussion on the talk page. See above. One way system (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmmm. Apologies for my lack of clarity: "start a discussion" means instead of carrying on reverting as opposed to reverting and discussing. ——Serial 17:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - But what you say makes no sense to me. If a discussion was to be had, then the content needs to be restored to the status quo until the conclusion of that discussion. That is what I did. Do you mean to say that restoring the status quo while the content is being dicsussed on talk is incorrect? One way system (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Naturally, per ONUS: challenged material is not to be restored without consensus. ——Serial 18:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are being had on talk page; we're certainly not going to block Eggishorn. Closing. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:KidAd reported by User:Yousef Raz (Result: petition denied)

Previous version reverted to: 20:53, 4 December 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 03:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
22:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
23:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
23:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
23:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
23:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
23:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
23:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
03:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; 17:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments: User:KidAd has been reverting my efforts to add a succession box and to document individuals as “acting” in multiple articles including but not limited to the attached articles. Attempts to discuss have failed, attempts to get other users to discuss have failed. Wikipedia doesn’t have a standard when succession boxes should be included, but government office holders seems appropriate and are commonly included in those articles.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by involved user Very odd submission here. Based on my interactions with this user, it has become clear that they may lack the understanding necessary to participate in this project. This user has repeatedly edit-warred to include the word "acting" in infoboxes, even when the infobox already includes the word. (Basically this change x 15). They have also repeatedly inserted strange and unnecessary succession boxes even after I removed them. In the case of Tae Johnson, which this submission seems to be focused on, they have refused to start discussions per WP:ONUS and even claimed that an unrelated discussion on Brandon Wales granted them permission to ignore policy and keep edit-warring. Also strange is that on the Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning part of this submission, they included a link to a warning I left them. Additionally, the diffs of the user's reverts also includes their reverts. This user is obviously confused, and I would appreciate help from anyone in teaching them that what they're doing is not correct. KidAd • SPEAK 22:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. User:Yousef Raz, I think you should have listened the first time, listened to the advice of someone who has a bit more experience than you. If you feel like adding another box to an article makes any sense, you should get a consensus for that from the community, especially if you have already been reverted. My suggestion to you is that you say "OK" and swallow your pride, and start a talk page discussion somewhere. Because KidAd is not going to be blocked for these reverts, and you might find yourself in hot water per WP:BOOMERANG and certainly WP:ONUS. If that's not enough alphabet soup for you, there's always WP:CIR, and you really don't want us to look through all your edits with that in mind. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking for someone to be blocked. TThis isn't an issue of pride. These are legitimate edits that are well sourced that only one user consistently reverts for a reason that is unclear. Im trying to avoid an edit war by bringing it here. I have included pretty standard succession boxes that are very common and well places. If these succession boxes do not meet a standard set by a rule, then I got no problem with excluding them. I have attempted to get other users input, and none have responded.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:105.43.58.17 reported by User:Tol (Result: Semi)

User being reported: 105.43.58.17 (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:

22:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "Please check the discussion at Talk:Mustafa Amin#Ali_Amin_&_unconstructive_editing"
22:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mustafa Amin."
22:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* New message from Tol */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

22:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Ali Amin & unconstructive editing */ new section"

Comments: This editor has been repeatedly reverting my and -Zai-'s removal of information related only to Ali Amin (Mustafa Amin's sibling), as well as adding birth and death dates in the biography section despite already having those in both the lead and infobox. He or she has been warned repeatedly, including a message pointing him or her to the talk page discussion I opened, to no avail. The user ignores the repeated messages and continues reverting. Tol | Talk | Contribs 23:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole reported by User:Tom94022 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not applicable

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on other talk page: [41]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [42]

Comments:

As noted in the discussions attempted with Locke Cole the use of IEC prefixes is allowed in cases where both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary. The article in question has for a long time used IEC prefixes to resolve the ambiguity in the two meanings of binary prefixes (e.g. GB meaning either 1 billion or 1,073,741,824). Locke Cole made his changes and was asked to discuss but instead he reverted. Another editor joined the discussion supporting the original usage but Locke Cole reverted nonetheless. so far no one has supported his POV. Clearly the article should remain in its original version (with minor corrections) while editors discuss the changes if any. Locke Cole should be blocked from further edits of the article.

Thanks for reviewing this issue. Tom94022 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is longstanding consensus at WP:COMPUNITS that we do not use IEC units in articles. This editor, as well as Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have apparently held a 10+ year grudge that they didn't get their way at WT:MOSNUM and are editing in defiance of that longstanding consensus. I appropriately tagged the article as containing original research and being unsourced days ago after these two edit warred to maintain the IEC prefixes, and that edit was reverted earlier today. At that point I elected to edit the IEC prefixes out and disambiguate them using the appropriate {{BDprefix}} template to alert readers to the discrepancy between GB/GiB, etc. I've only reverted two times in the past four days. Propose WP:BOOMERANG for Tom94022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dondervogel 2 who have taken MoS arguments to various articles to fight their lost battle one by one. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of notification of this discussion for Dondervogel 2: [43]

See also discussion at WT:MOSNUM#WP:COMPUNITS where it's clear there is no consensus to restart the debate over using IEC prefixes. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole has reverted only twice today, to keep the article in compliance with WP:COMPUNITS. (The first of three edits today was not a revert and four reverts are needed to violate 3RR.) If anyone, it is Tom94022 who should be sanctioned, for edit-warring in clear violation of guidelines and for tendentious reporting here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole has reverted three times today,, 9:32, 9:25 and 8:44. The usage of IEC prefixes is allowed in articles where both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary - in the article in question by my count there are 7 JEDEC binary usages and 9 IEC decimal usages, clearly neither is primary. Tom94022 (talk)

In addition, Locke Cole's original edit and subsequent revert knowingly introduced ambiguity into Memory hierarchy, in violation of the provisions of WP:COMPUNITS. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You were free to disambiguate the units using the methods shown at WP:COMPUNITS or using {{BDprefix}}, but apparently your fingers only know how to waste time on talk pages or revert. Sad. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've made three edits to Memory hierarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), one edit and two reverts: 2021-04-30T15:44:09 (initial edit, not a revert as I introduced new content), 2021-04-30T16:25:34‎ (revert #1), and 2021-04-30T16:32:06‎ (revert #2). You quote part of WP:COMPUNITS but ignore the part that you don't like, specifically the full quote here: in articles in which both types of prefix are used with neither clearly primary, or in which converting all quantities to one or the other type would be misleading or lose necessary precision, or declaring the actual meaning of a unit on each use would be impractical (emphasis added). The full WP:COMPUNITS provides multiple examples of how to correctly disambiguate units where there may be confusion as to their meaning, all of which you fail to use over IEC prefixes which WP:COMPUNITS clearly tells editors are not to be used... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definition of "Or" in English or in logic is "used to link alternatives." There are three alternatives listed in the controlling sentence that allow IEC binary units to be used - Locke Cole chooses to emphasize one of three alternative exceptions which is just irrelevant, the challenged article meets the first alternative's criterium. Tom94022 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both types are used because someone mistakenly or deliberately added them. They aren't used because the sources called for them. Regardless, there are options for providing the reader with guidance to make clear that the terms are referring to different values without resorting to original research and giving undue weight to something that clearly has not taken the world by storm... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence of tendentious editing by Dondervogel 2 (talk · contribs)

Dondervogel 2 has also tried to repeat settled arguments (covered by WP:COMPUNITS specifically from discussions at WT:MOSNUM) at various articles, see the talk pages here:

ThinkStation (e|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
X86-64 (e|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
iPad Pro (3rd generation) (e|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
iPad Pro (4th generation) (e|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
iPad Pro (e|t|h|li|w|lo) diff
Synchronous dynamic random-access memory (e|t|h|li|w|lo) diff

These are basically the same arguments just being repeated ad nauseam. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karma1998 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

User being reported: Karma1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 20:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC) to 20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
1. 20:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020747153 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
2. 20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020746368 by Tgeorgescu (talk) Stop distorting reality. That is not what archaeologists say"
Consecutive edits made from 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC) to 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
1. 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020745857 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
2. 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020745710 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
3. 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020745025 by Tgeorgescu (talk) Things have not changed much since 2014, in fact now we have more proof towards my point"
16:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC) to 10:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
1. 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "I was forced to edit this page, since it heavily distorted reality: the majority of scholars believe that the United Monarchy existed and have rejected Finkelstein's opinion. Not only that, Mazar's opinion is also distorted, since he supports the existence of the United Monarchy"
2. 01:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Archaeological record */ Now the page is equilibrated and reports actual archaeology"
3. 01:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Archaeological record */"
4. 01:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 01:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 10:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

11:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion */ WP:FTN"
20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kingdom of Judah."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Edit war"
20:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ win by default"
20:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ deleted Mazar's opinion"
20:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ typo"
20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ he also stated stuff you dislike"

Comments:

User:Fleets reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [52]

Comments:
This is a weird one, so apologies. I removed an unnecessary redirect from Gallen's article on the 20 April, New South Wales, Australia --> New South Wales, for obvious reasons. Fleets reverted three times with this rationale. I couldn't find any mention of the redirect being recommended at the suggested project page and "oh but it makes the location appear as the same colour" is just daft. They then made a fourth partial revert after I mentioned the unnecessary redirect isn't covered by any aspect of WP:RPURPOSE, but this time linking Australia on it's own. Again, simply to make the location appear as one colour. After getting clarification at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking that Australia should not be linked (I pinged Fleets to the discussion, in an attempt to encourage them to engage on the matter, they declined), I removed it on 29 April. Fleets responded by edit warring the unnecessary redirect back in, including this, which to me has crossed the line from stubborn to plain old disruptive. I haven't left an edit warring template on their talk page as they're an experienced editor, which is also the reason why I didn't report their breach of 3RR on 20 April. – ².O.^Boxing 21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the odd disruption continues. Has now removed Australia entirely, simply to make the location "appear as one colour". It's stepping into ownership territory now. – ².O.^Boxing 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to clarify for any reviewing admin, these three reverts by me were inline with 3RR, to enforce any clearly established consensus which was clarified by experienced editors at the MOS:Linking discussion. – ².O.^Boxing 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~And now an attempt to avoid 3RR by reverting while logged out.~~ – ².O.^Boxing 12:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be unrelated. – ².O.^Boxing 16:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:74 observer reported by User:FDW777 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[54]
[55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [57]

Comments:

Clear attempt to repeat this addition, virtually word for word including the needless capitalisation of "Cleansing". User was informed about Troubles 1RR restriction, chose to revert anyway. FDW777 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also 1RR breach at second article at Provisional Irish Republican Army, to this version. Revert #1 and revert#2. FDW777 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong concerns here about Wikipedia being used as a platform for whitewashing the Provisional IRA and promoting their and other IRA incarnations' subversive agenda. Wikipedia should not allow itself be used for that disingenuous purpose. This behaviour has manifested in, for example, FDW777 claiming that the murder of a completely innocent civilian in Rosslea, Douglas Deering, is not 'notable', see: Talk:The Troubles in Rosslea. The Provisional IRA page is now in a ridiculous state with a plethora of inaccurate and biased 'citations' (over 400). 74 observer (talk)

User:41.47.200.65 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 41.47.200.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Criticism */ colonialism isnt a thing of the past. No work or piece or source out there attributes an "end" to colonialism. People still havent got their land back and europeans are still colonizing, as well as engaging in many new forms of colonialism known as neo colonialism, to say its a thing of the past is misleading and sounds kinda biased towards colonizers if u ask me. There is absolutely no proof that colonialism ended yet mountains of it alluding to its continuation i.e missionaries"
20:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC) ""
19:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "there now its not disruptive, just added a fact"
19:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020737544 by Denisarona (talk)"
19:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020737301 by Golem08 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on MIssionary."
20:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Missionary colonialism */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

20:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Colonialism */ new section"
21:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Colonialism */ reply"

Comments:

I am hopeful this user can bring their good ideas to the project, but they are not hearing the multiple earnest appeals to stop edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.3.149.129 reported by User:31.53.124.255 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

As you can see, my edit notes and my edit itself states the distinction, and my latest edit even includes a reference. Not only is the user undoing my work, the user is also deleting names which are credited as working on the programme.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Nothing has been written on talk pages, however the edit summery has been used clearly.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:

Blocked – 3 months. Continuation of the pattern of warring for which this IP was blocked for a month back in December. At that time, User:ToBeFree commented in the block notice: "edit warring combined with a complete, active rejection of any attempts to build a consensus, including the repeated removal of the other user's comments from multiple discussion pages". To illustrate that the IP's approach has not changed, today they removed their own edit warring report. On 15 April they removed someone else's post from article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 589: / Line 589: @@
 Strong concerns here about Wikipedia being used as a platform for whitewashing the Provisional IRA and promoting their and other IRA incarnations' subversive agenda. Wikipedia should not allow itself be used for that disingenuous purpose. This behaviour has manifested in, for example, [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] claiming that the murder of a completely innocent civilian in Rosslea, Douglas Deering, is not 'notable', see: [[Talk:The Troubles in Rosslea]]. The [[Provisional IRA]] page is now in a ridiculous state with a plethora of inaccurate and biased 'citations' (over 400).  [[User:74 observer|74 observer]] ([[User talk:74 observer|talk]])
-== [[User:41.47.200.65]] reported by [[User:Firefangledfeathers]] (Result: ) ==
+== [[User:41.47.200.65]] reported by [[User:Firefangledfeathers]] (Result: Blocked) ==
 '''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Missionary}}
@@ Line 615: / Line 615: @@
 I am hopeful this user can bring their good ideas to the project, but they are [[WP:IDHT|not hearing]] the multiple earnest appeals to stop edit warring. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 23:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
+:{{AN3|b}} – 48 hours for edit warring. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 == [[User:82.3.149.129]] reported by [[User:31.53.124.255]] (Result: Blocked) ==

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