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:Krish990 reported by User:Noobie anonymous (Result: stale)

Page: Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Krish990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1] on 9 February 2020
2. [2] on 2 February 2020
3. [3] on 29 January 2020
4. [4] on 28 January 2020 at 18:07 (UTC)
5. [5] on 28 January 2020 at 13:15 (UTC)
6. [6] on 28 January 2020 at 09:12 (UTC) and many more times

Comments:
User Krish990 has been edit warring the article Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke since a long time stating the supporting characters Rithvik Arora and Kaveri Priyam also as main cast while the original main cast are only Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma. Despite discussions in talk page of the series by providing reliable sources to prove that incorrect, the user still reverts back and is firm in his point without properly supported sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobie anonymous (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Result: This was filed a long time ago, and there doesn't seem to be any extant issue, so closing as stale.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:ThecentreCZ reported by User:Concus Cretus (Result: no violation)

Page: Czech Pirate Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] [14] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

User ignores all warnings and refuses reply and explain their edits on talkpage and continues edit warring - deleting the word "liberal" and "liberalism" from the page based on a series of WP:OR statements; while the term is widely sourced by mainstream sources: Pirate party, a liberal group the liberal, youth-powered Česká pirátská strana, the Czech Pirate Party Concus Cretus (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That is not true, the one who started edit warring is User:Concus Cretus. As the first one he broken rule of 3 reverts within 24 hours. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the point here is that you repeatedly remove reliably sourced material without an explanation backed by any guidelines on encyclopedic content, ignoring discussion.--Concus Cretus (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation. There needs to be four reverts made in the span of 24 hours for 3RR to be breached, which is not the case here. El_C 02:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

User:178.40.136.239 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: semiprotected)

Page: Dáil Éireann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.40.136.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]
6. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22], [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
An editor also tried to intervene on the editor's talk page: [25]

Page protected for a period of one week. El_C 02:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Flchans reported by User:Sulfurboy (Result: No action)

Page

Maryna Tkachuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC) to 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Awards and Commendations */"
   2. 16:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Professional activities */"
2. 16:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 942428411 by Justlettersandnumbers (talk) Dear JLAN, I am tired of mentioning that I am NOT a paid editor. I am still expecting proof of your false assumptions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Maryna Tkachuk. (TW)"
2. 16:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Maryna Tkachuk. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "/* removing unsourced info on BLP page */ new section"

Comments:

User keeps adding back unsourced (or at the very least lacking inline cites) information on a BLP. User has been warned a couple times on their talk page. They have now removed those warnings from their talk page. User has also posted borderline attack comments on my talk page. User is just in general a loose cannon. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to keep this concise. There's been a conflict/misunderstanding around this article involving Wikipedians such as Sulfurboy, ArnabSaha, JLAN and Barkeep49. Original article about Dr. Tkachuk has been in place on Ukrainian Wikipedia for over a year - uk:Ткачук Марина Леонідівна ; I used that, as well as the openly available information at the university website to create a similarly fashioned article here on English Wikipedia. Please mind the Ukrainian article has never had any issues with notability, validity of information or otherwise. It was very amusing to find out people from India and Texas know much more on the subject than them. Since this is already turning into more text than it should, I'll just point out the chain of events:

1) I present the draft, which, after some tweaks, is approved by Sulfuboy. The article is created. 2) ArnabSaha flags is for G12 speedy deletion because of assumed/suspected copyright infringement of NaUKMA website materials. JLAN deletes the article and flags the Commons photograph for deletion as well. 3) Following the necessary declarations, both the photo and the materials are verified, and the article is undeleted. 4) I start working on it in order to improve it, add citations and the like. 5) I face the article being vandalised by Sulfurboy, the information outright deleted, although being perfectly cited etc.

Throughout this experience I faced lots of frustration with how English Wikipedia operates already. There were unbacked claims that the person isn't notable, unbacked claims that I am paid for writing this article. I am tired of all this and of how bureaucratic your enviroinment is. My aim is improving Wikipedia and making Ukrainian educational and scientific enviroinment better known to outside world. I am not a hired editor or paid employee, I just want people to leave me alone and let me make a decent article. I am open to criticism and advice, but when in a couple of hours someone deletes it based on a wild assumption - that's not advice, that's spit in the face.

So, at this point, because I'm tired of all this story and furthermore just to prove the point I am not paid for this or anything - you can go ahead and delete the article alltogether, forever. Shame that English Wikipedia is not an accumulation of humanity's knowledge where people are equal and can work together, but instead is merely a bunch of bureaucrats feeding their egos. Peace. Flchans (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I've requested G7 on the page as the author has requested deletion and they look to be the only one that has made any significant contribution to the page.Sulfurboy (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sulfurboy, there is a world of difference between "You can go ahead and delete" and "You should delete" or "Please delete". BUT, I honestly have nothing against you viewing my words as such and placing your G7 or whatever you call it. By all means. Would be a great victory for Wikipedian bureaucracy. Best. Flchans (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hello User:Sulfurboy. The creator of the article, Flchans, placed a {{db-author}} tag on the article but the tag was removed by User:Pigsonthewing in the belief that the subject is notable. After reading the discussion above, are you OK with closing this AN3 complaint with no further action? EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• EdJohnston, Yep should be fine, editor has seemed to calm down so we should be good. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Closing with no action per agreement of the submitter, and per the discussion above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Gleamian2 reported by User:Deacon Vorbis (Result: Page protected)

Page

David Eddings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gleamian2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 942482169 by Deacon Vorbis (talk)"
2. 22:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 942476520 by Deacon Vorbis (talk)"
3. 21:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Sources aren't reliable. There are numerous of people with the names of " David Carroll" and "Judith Leigh/Lee" and there are numerous people with the last name of "Eddings" that reside in USA. Unless there is actual court/police evidence of D. Eddings and J. Eddings committing crimes, this article will be continuously updated to edit/remove misplaced/misunderstood statements/documents concerning the Author David Eddings."
4. 21:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Sources aren't reliable. There are numerous of people with the names of " David Carroll" and "Judith Leigh/Lee" and there are numerous people with the last name of "Eddings" that reside in USA. Unless there is actual court/police evidence of D. Eddings and J. Eddings committing crimes, this article will be continuously updated to edit/remove misplaced/misunderstood statements/documents concerning the Author David Eddings."
5. 15:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 941577388 by 94.247.8.8 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Why is everyone so content on David Eddings being a child abuser? */"

Comments:

Note, my own last revert was only made after it seemed that Gleamian2 had decided to abandon his objection: "Whatever. I'm out. See ya.", and I wouldn't have otherwise. Also note he had removed old discussion from the article's talk page that was also about this same subject. Appears unwilling to discuss rationally, and only interested in whitewashing the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected All of you, including @Millahnna: consider yourself warned. @Gleamian2: @Millahnna:user didn't violate, but came close to, you both violated WP:3RR and can be blocked. Deacon, you didn't even try and join the discussion on the talkpage, but decided to avoid 3RR and just edit war. None of this is appropriate. Either contribute like civil editors, or if it continues, i'll be issuing blocks after the protection ends. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted and thank you for the ping. For the record, and I absolutely should have been more clear about this on talk or in the edit summary, my last revert on that page was attempting to give a clean edit for reversion if it was decided to remove the content in question (the removals were also removing a ref we needed for other content on the page and a sentence that should be easy enough to source. I didn't want the material we actually needed to get lost in a blind deletion. But again, I absolutely should have said something about that being my intent. Millahnna (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

OK wait a second. I just looked at my edit history on that page and I'm now confused as to how I 3rrd. I first reverted the edit in its entirety because it broke something in the ref list and said such here. Glemian did not respond to my concernes about breaking the code and reverted. After the content was removed again, I left the removal in place but edited to restore the reference that had been removed but is used elsewhere in the article here. My final edit was the one I detailed above (and I have now dropped a note on the talk page to be more specific about my intent there) but here is is again for consistency. I have 3 edits on the page and they aren't even flat reverts of Gleamian's ideas, save the first. THe other two are both attempts to rescue a reference that was needed. Millahnna (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, Deacon is in the talk page discussion. They absolutely participated. Has yet to specifically answer the questions. I'm concerned by this ANI; the facts don't seem to match the interpretations. Millahnna (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Millahnna: You are correct about the talkpage part, I missed that. That said, your correct you didn't BREAK 3RR, but you were on the very edge of breaking it. It required 4 reverts, and I must of missed that. Even then though it still doesn't justify this. Any revert, regardless of it being the same content or not, counts as 3RR. 21:42 Feb 24, 22:06 Feb 24, 07:10 Feb 25. These three reverts count towards your 3RR. Had you reverted again you would have broke it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well shoot. I only did anything because of the broken ref in that first removal. I'm not sure what I could have done different to make sure the ref got retained then. I tried keeping it both with and without the contested material but since that's being viewed as part of the content dispute, I guess I should have left it broken. I'm really confuddled by this. Millahnna (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked 48 hours, reversed)

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

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Earlier today I made a comment on the talk page of another editor, then quickly thought better of it and thought better and withdrew it. There were no intervening edits between the two and I withdrew it to not become involved and to avoid the drama. Since then Debresser has

1. re-added the comment
2. again
3. and again
4. and again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this edit summary (not on the talk page, as I have no wish to discuss anything with someone so abrasive.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: it's on a talk page, and an aggressive battlefield approach is the last thing I want to discuss with.

Comments:

I don't want the comment there, and I don't want to get involved with the battlefield idiocy displayed. It speaks volumes of that individual that a request not to re-add a deleted comment was ignored. - SchroCat (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Am I seeing this right? We blocked someone for editing there own user page?--Moxy 🍁 23:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Moxy The blocked user edit warred to keep in place a comment that its author withdrew before it was replied to. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

331dot, how many times did the OP do the same? This block is not a good block. You don't go to someone's user talk page and then keep reverting. You blocked Debresser but not the OP, why? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

So you seem to be saying that a user is not permitted to withdraw their un-replied to comment? 331dot (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I didn't say any of that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

OK this looks very odd.....the user was restoring a post so they could reply to it but it was removed over and over again by original poster? Why cant the user reply to the post....what gives the poster the right to comment but not have to deal with a reply?.You can see how this looks backwards right. Odd an edit war on a user page ends up with the page owner being blocked.--Moxy 🍁 23:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah kind of odd. I count at least 5 reverts by SchroCat. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of which I will note have replies to them. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a grey area between the right to withdraw comments and the desire of some users to keep all material that's been on their own user talk page. I'm not sure if there's a policy governing that. But to block one edit warrior and not the other, when both broke the 3RR, looks a bit like taking sides in the dispute.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not taking a side. I am respecting the desire to attempt to deescalate a situation. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally reverting on your own page is exempt per WP:3RR point 2. Closest I could find to a policy on this. PackMecEng (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

But reverting to keep a comment withdrawn by its author on the page to carry on a dispute is okay? I'm genuinely asking. 331dot (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point once it was reverted and replied to I would say yes. The over 4 reverts from SchroCat become less de-escalation and more just rubbing it in. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, right, OP could have brought this to EW a few edits ago, but to only block one person is wrong when the OP violated 3RR on someone else's talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) So once a user posts something to another's user talk page, if that user removes it, the page's owner can restore it and reply to it against the poster's wishes? 331dot (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I see, technically yes. Is there a policy that goes against the 3RR exemption? Because from what I see Debresser gets the exemption and SchoCat does not. Perhaps they should be more careful what they post on other peoples talk page and then not edit war with them about it? That could probably go for both people honestly. PackMecEng (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

So SchoCat gets penalized for attempting to deescalate a situation because he made the error of posting something he would like to take back on to someone else's user talk page? Talk about a way to discourage communication between editors on their user talk pages. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

After the first or second revert I would agree with you, they are trying to deescalate. After the fifth and it was replied too? Hard to say with a straight face they were trying to deescalate isn't it? PackMecEng (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree as I don't feel the persistence of the person desiring to carry on a dispute should be rewarded. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• As this is proving to be controversial, I have reversed my action pending further discussion. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No way should an editor be able to go to a user page..... insult them or make any comment then remove it and subsequently get the user blocked for wishing to reply. Baiting and Block is not a precedent we should set--Moxy 🍁 00:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What evidence do you have of deliberate baiting on the part of SchoCat? 331dot (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a precedent in behavior.....just imagine I go to your talk page insult you then remove it knowing there's going to be an edit war... because you (as most would) want to reply and because of that the user will be blocked. This is not what we want to see happen....in my view the OP should be blocked for messing about in another user space.--Moxy 🍁 00:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It's clear to me this is much more complicated than it initially seemed to be to me, I'm going to hit the sack soon for the night and re look at this tomorrow; I apologize to all for causing difficulty. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If other reviewers wish to do something here, they may without waiting for me. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest a WP:TROUT to both users for escalating the dispute into a five-way revert war, rather than taking it to a forum such as this one ealier. But there's no need for blocks over this. On balance, per Moxy's comments above, I'd also suggest that the user talk page comment by the OP and the reply should be restored to the user talk page if that's what Debresser really wants. Withdrawn or not, they obviously saw the comment and wished to reply to it, on what is their own talk page.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree no need for Block in this case. Both users have the same history and one more block probably won't make a difference here.--Moxy 🍁 01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, kudos to 331dot for withdrawing their earlier block. I think that was the right decision.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes 331dot decision shows a willingness to see other people's point of view and great maturity in an administrator that is lacking in many talks.--Moxy 🍁 01:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Debresser didn't just re-add SchroCat's comment. What Debresser did was re-add and at the same time reply to SchroCat's comment. It is understandable that a person would want to reply if they were called "arrogant". Bus stop (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll add it for you again, Bus stop, and maybe you could take the time to read it more carefully. What SchroCat did was to call the actions of Debresser "arrogant". Still, never let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a bit of axe grinding. Cassianto^Talk 07:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"The truth" encompasses the whole post, Cassianto, which reads: "You call someone insolent for presuming you were shouting because you made an error in keeping your Capslock on, but you throw accusations of incompetence because someone erred in something they did? Can you see how that looks staggering arrogant, Debresser?" It was responded to. Simultaneously it was restored. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think the only thing I have to add is that it would be good if we all(including me) moved on from this and I think this will serve as a good reminder to us all to consider our edits carefully before making them. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• It is a good thing I was unblocked, because I think I should have the right to say something before being blocked. I am familiar with the idea that a user should be able to remove a comment he regrets having made, as long as no other edit has resulted from it. Frankly speaking, I don't much agree with that rule, even if the reason is to deescalate a conflict, because the real way to deescalate a conflict is to think before posting. In any case, I can respect it on other talkpages. Not so however on my own user talkpage. I think it is my right to restore something that was posted on my talkpage. After all, I received a notification of it, so one can't say nothing happened.

What I probably should have done right away, and have done in the mean time, is restore is with <s>...</s> code, that is, as something that was strikken. I hope that compromise will satisfy all involved.

On a sidenote, I strongly reject the WP:BATTLEFIELD accusation, and regret that editors start WP:WIKILAWYERING as soon as something happens they don't like.

Also on a sidenote, I don't see the mandatory warning regarding this discussion on my talkpage.

And on a further sidenote, I agree with the editors above commending User:331dot for undoing his block when he saw that it was disputed. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MB reported by User:Sulfurboy (Result: AWB revoked, warned)

Page

Dan Lam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC) "clean up, added orphan tag"
2. 16:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "clean up, added orphan tag"
3. 15:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 942576311 by MB (talk): Per user talk page reasons (TW)"
4. 14:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 942514093 by AuthorAuthor (talk): Per WP:INFOBOXIMAGE (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dan Lam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC) "/* Infobox image */"

Comments:

I warned both parties making edits to Dan Lam about the three revert rule. I even attempted to mediate the conflict over the infobox image on the pages talk page. Yet, user User:MB has persisted with yet another revert. I don't like reporting an experienced editor as he seems to be, but I'm afraid if his actions on the page continue to go unchecked it will further discourage the original page creator User:WriteIncunabula who is a new editor to Wikipedia from continuing to contribute. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy, I don't follow this. The issue on the infobox image was resolved after you rendered your opinion that the image did not belong in the infobox. I have made some other unrelated changes to the article after that. I restored the orphan tag and explained on the other user's talk page that the article was still an orphan, contrary to their belief, and explained to them how to check that. MB 03:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

As you should be aware MB, there is no valid excuse to edit war, especially with AWB, the restoration of {{orphan}}. Hell, there is a tool linked directly in the box that shows two other articles. Continue to revert, and a block will be issued. For now, your AWB access is revoked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Johan764538 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: no violation)

Page: Olivier Dubuquoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johan764538 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: last good

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

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

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

Comments:
Editor is removing sourced material, is skirting the line of ownership with this edit summaryVViking_TalkEdits 14:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No violation I see three reverts above, but the fourth link represents a new addition of material to the article, so is not a fourth reversion. After which editing appeared to stop. Both parties need to calm down and discuss the issue rationally at the talk page, rather than engaging in further edit warring.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: )

Page: Goths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert 1

• Krakkos adds that Goths are "frequently" referred to as Germani.[33] (17:04, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster switches "frequently" to "sometimes".[34] (20:28, 25.02.2020)

1. Revert 2

• Krakkos adds a source from Peter Heather.[35](08:39, 26.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster changes the date of the source added by Krakkos.[36] (09:34, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 3

• Krakkos rewrites the lead through the use of quality sources.[37] (17:45, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster rewrites content Krakkos added to the lead.[38] (11:12, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 4

• Krakkos corrects the date of a source from Peter Heather.[39] (09:56, 26.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster reverts Krakkos.[40] (11:16, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 5

• Krakkos adds a citation needed template.[41] (15:50, 26.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster removes the citation needed template added by Krakkos.[42] (18:25, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 6

• Krakkos adds quotations.[43] (18:20, 26.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster removes the quotations added by Krakkos.[44] (19:02, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 7

• Krakkos adds the source The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather[45] (17:04, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster switches the date of publication of The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather.[46] (20:09, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 8

• Krakkos adds a source from page 467 of The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather.[47] (17:04, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster removes the source from page 467 of The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather added by Krakkos.[48] (20:19, 26.02.20)

1. Revert 9

• Krakkos adds a citation from Peter Heather in the Oxford Classical Dictionary about Jordanes' claims of possible Gothic origins in Scandinavia.[49] (17:45, 24.02.20)
• Andrew Lancaster rewrites what is cited from Peter Heather, claiming that Jordanes' "reliability is disputed" and that he writes about things which happened "more than 1000 years earlier".[50] (20:26, 26.02.20) In the cited source, Heather writes no such things,[51] and Andrew Lancaster is therefore deliberately misrepresenting the sources (he does this all the time).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warning 1 [52][53] (17.01.20)
• Warning 2 [54] (20.01.20)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Andrew Lancaster has recently flooded Talk:Goths with sections and arguments, and i have replied to most of them. The section most relevant to the reverts is at Talk:Goths#describe where the Goths lived.

Comments:

• One month ago, Andrew Lancaster and i had an intense edit war at the article Germanic peoples. As a result, we were on 17 January 2020 both[55][56][57] warned by Fram about future edit warring.

• Edit warring continued, and on 20 January 2020, Dougweller protected[58] the article for 2 weeks, and warned[59] us both that future edit warring would result in a block.

• As soon as the protection of Germanic peoples ended, Andrew Lancaster resumed his aggressive editing, entirely rewriting the lead at Germanic peoples.[60] I refrained from any more editing warring, but instead tried to discuss the issues at the talk page.[61] Several editors openly agreed with my concerns.[62][63][64] Several other editors have only dared to express their concerns with me privately, as they are afraid of Andrew Lancaster. My attempts to resolve the situation at the talk page were ignored by Andrew Lancaster, who because of my refusal to engage in more editing warring, has exploited the situation to completely rewrite the article.[65][66]

• I significantly improved the article Goths in September 2019,[67] and nominated it for WP:GA in December the same year.[68] On 3 February 2020, Jens Lallensack began reviewing the article,[69] stating that it was in good shape.[70] Almost immediately afterwards, Andrew Lancaster becomes active at Talk:Goths, complaining about the quality of the article.[71] Over the next days he starts making numerous drastic, unsourced and unhelpful edits to the article.[72][73] He had never edited the article before noticing that i had put it up for for a GA review.[74] This is clear WP:HOUNDING.

• Andrew Lancaster's strategy of aggressive edit warring and flooding talk pages with incoherent walls of text paid off at Germanic peoples, and inspired by his success he is now utilizing the same disruptive strategy at Goths to cause me frustration. Andrew Lancaster's aggressive editing has already succeeded in driving numerous productive editors away from important articles,[75][76][77] and i'm about there myself. This kind of behavior is harmful to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• What edit war? An extremely dishonest summary by @Krakkos:, who continues to surprise. Krakkos is the main editor. My edits have very detailed edit summaries, and come with lots of attempts to get pre-discussion on the talk page.
• I suppose that technically revert 4 is a revert and maybe 5, But as the edsums show, with 4 I thought the book publication year "errors" of Krakkos would be accepted as straightforward mistakes! And 5 (cn template removal) was after a talk page discussion which showed there was no sourcing concern [78]. However, it turns out these are not mistakes, and Krakkos is routinely making preferred sources look more recent than they are. Krakkos now wants disruption. I have seen a few cases before in the editing of Krakkos, but the pattern and the insistence did not strike me. As this became clear I did no more reverts after the 1st and started a talk page discussion [79]. Very soon after Krakkos suddenly initiated drama and smokescreens, posting an extremely dishonest explanation on the talk page of an admin [80]. @Doug Weller: I suppose this here is the next step.
• As the talk pages of various articles show, Krakkos is desperately doing anything (such as this) to avoid meaningful discussion, and is consistently unable to show an empathy with our policy and norms, with the sources, or other editors. It makes things very messy. This is because Krakkos does not want to talk about things like why these publication years keep getting switched in the same direction, and only for authors Krakkos wants "promoted". How could I have expected Krakkos to say this was not a mistake?
• Behind all the patterns in the edits one desire can be defined which is central at least to the recent cases I have contended with, and that is that Krakkos wants no mention of any of the newer more critical scholars such as Walter Goffart to be used in Wikipedia, and if they are to be used, Krakkos wants POV forking and walled gardens within articles and/or between articles, in order to quarantine them away from material based purely on sources with the "good old" theories with nice simple Germanic categories. Krakkos also can not explain how this can fit with our policies.
• Further in the background is the whole career of Krakkos as a Wikipedian which mainly involves categorizing people and things by a language family (Slavic warriors, Germanic warriors, Germanic religion, etc.) The problem with the highly respected new criticism in the Germanic subject area is that people like Goffart are saying this way of categorizing has basic methodological problems. Categorising people as Germanic is VERY important to Krakkos!
• I think the summary by Krakkos already makes it clear, anyway, that there are lots of things going on, but "edit war" does not quite capture it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• BTW this is not the first time Krakkos has tried to use this forum against me in recent months, and perhaps the past cases should also be looked at. In my opinion there is a pattern of deliberate efforts to make life awkward for other editors, and abuse the system's flexibilities against them. With Krakkos AGF is difficult, but if you manage it, the alternative is that Krakkos has an incredibly incompetent understanding of how most Wikipedians think we should work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He usually adopts these attrition tactics against those who get in his way, often with success. You got in his way, resisting his attempts to impose his grand ethnic scheme. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I recommend a month of full protection for our Goths article. This protection might be lifted just as soon as somebody opens an WP:RFC on the talk page (about any of the matters in dispute) and both User:Andrew Lancaster and User:Krakkos engage in a good-faith discussion there, without attacking one another. The filing of a report here represents a sort of escalation from the earlier dispute about Germanic peoples which led to two weeks of full protection on 20 January by User:Doug Weller. As Doug said the last time around, 'to my surprise and disappointment both of you seem to be both teetering on the edge of being blocked'. It would be logical to block both of you at this time, but you have no prior blocks so it may be worth offering a last chance. Reading the talk discussions, it is hard to feel sympathy for either party ('aggressive', 'drastic' and 'incoherent' from one of the parties and 'dishonest' from the other). You aren't supposed to be solving your problems here, you are supposed to be solving them yourselves with RfCs and other methods. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Wallyfromdilbert reported by User:CaptainPrimo (Result: )

Page: Rodney Reed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Removing content negative to the subject.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942720663
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942799078
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942799691
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodney_Reed&oldid=942799882

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallyfromdilbert#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rodney_Reed

Comments:

This user has been engaging in edit warring against multiple users removing content from a page for months. Just today he did 4 reverts. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The content is a clear WP:BLP violation because it is stating allegations as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Even if the other issue of whether WP:BLPCRIME and "public figure" could be interpreted differently, that would require actually engaging in the discussion on the talk page or reopening the discussion at WP:BLPN, which already reached a consensus regarding the use of primary sources. Also, note that the filing editor is continuing to restore this content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see you engaging in any discussion on the talk page. I've posted multiple things there and you've barely responded to any of them. And when you have you have just repeated the same claims. The information is presented as stated in the sources. If you feel the language is not netural, you can change it. CaptainPrimo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)