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:Nyclover4 reported by User:Trillfendi (Result: )

Page: Katie Moore (model) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nyclover4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

God knows why this new user was so bored they decided to go tearing apart Katie Moore (model) for no valid reason. Claiming the article is promotional (it’s not... it’s a standard fashion model stub of an article), claiming reliable sources are unreliable or self-published, and trying to remove a bunch of content to get the page speedily deleted. If they knew how Wikipedia worked they would’ve proposed deletion if they believed the model did not meet notability standards. But obviously that’s not the case as reliable sources like W Magazine, Harper’s Bazaar, and the Houston Chronicle have given her enough significant coverage.

1. It started here, when they tagged the perfectly fine page for speedy deletion, claiming the article was promotional and need to be rewritten. By whom?
2. Then they removed all career activity because the source’s link died, rather than simply placing the archived link. Who What Wear is a reliable fashion source.
3. Then nonsensical mess like this.
4. Then claiming I had a conflict of interest because I... created the page and put work there. Make it make sense.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs)

User:BFDIBebble reported by User:Kevindongyt (Result: Warned)

Page: Uncyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
Page: File:Uncyclopedia screenshot.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BFDIBebble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BFDIBebble has been participating actively in an edit-war since May 2019, with the intention of spreading the domain Uncyclopedia.ca without prior consensus. I am only trying to maintain the status quo. Proof of agressive edit-warring can be found here:

• Uncyclopedia (25 July 2019) - This is the first instance of BFDIBebble editing the page Uncyclopedia. The aforementioned user has, since joining the conflict on Uncyclopedia about whether the website [en.uncyclopedia.co en.uncyclopedia.co], created in 2013 and generally recognized as the "legitimate" Uncyclopedia (the interwiki uncyclopedia:___ goes to en.uncyclopedia.co), or [uncyclopedia.ca uncyclopedia.ca], created in 2019, with less legitimacy than the former but called by its members as the "spoon" (opposite to the "fork") is the "legitimate" Uncyclopedia. Since then, this user has been extremely aggressive with reverting the article, replacing the article with an obviously one-sided version at User:BFDIBebble/Uncyclopedia.
• Uncyclopedia (25 April 2020) This is the latest edit that BFDIBebble performed on Uncyclopedia, reinitiating an edit-war that started a few days before by supposed .ca members (presumably by the way they label .ca as a "spoon" and .co as a "fork".

Note that I stopped editing the article in order to comply with 3RR. It is now protected, but with BFDIBebble's (the user I'm reporting)'s version.

Another thing to note is BFDIBebble's username and intentions: quoting User:Nigel Scribbler, a sysop on .ca, "The BFDIBebble from our wiki informed us last year that someone was impersonating him on Wikipedia." Nigel Scribbler's comment can be found here.

Kevindongyt (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Now leaving a ping for User:Cyberpower678 because he attempted to mediate this dispute back in August 2019. See Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 5#What I'm seeing here as an admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: My assessment of remains that both versions/sites are to be mentioned in the article and covered.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 11:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

See also the old 2013 discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Uncyclopedia, a 2018 meta thread at meta:Talk:Interwiki_map#Uncyclopedia and the current discussion at Talk:Uncyclopedia#uncyc.ca or uncyc.co (or both)?. Pinging User:Aasim and User:Johnuniq from the current Uncyclopedia talk page discussion. Is there any experienced editor who wants to organize an RfC? For those who care, uncyclopedia:Main page still goes to the .co version, so the interwiki links still consider .co to be the favorite. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Kevindongyt, you yourself have a very clear COI in favor of the .co fork as evidenced by this edit which eliminates all mention of the official .ca site which moved from the original Wikia location. You have made no effort to communicate with anybody regarding this and have instead ignored warnings regarding edit warring and POV pushing. You are using Wikipedia as a platform to push your fork and not to build an encyclopedia.

I was also met with a troll comment on my talk page at Uncyclopedia which is why I attempted to distance myself from my Wikipedia account in order to not fan the flames.

Your claims of my edit warring and COI are frivolous given your history in editing the Uncyclopedia article, which includes pushing your fork, edit warring and meatpuppetry, with the likes of yourself, User:Rock-O-Jello and User:Jerkistani pushing the .co fork over the .ca website. I do not think this report should carry any weight and this should be closed immediately. BFDIBebble (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Your aggressive editing, and your assumption that I am "attempting to push my fork" stems from the fact that despite me attempting to mediate the conflict on different occasions, including in May 2019, yet you are clearly attempting to push .ca yourself without prior consultation, being particularly aggressive with your use of Wikipedia:Twinkle to scare editors away. Your use of a COI'd version of Uncyclopedia, copy-pasted to suppress any argument proves this. You are attempting to push .ca, and then reverse the blame on .co in order to make your website seem to have more legitimacy. Your claim that you are merely attempting to "distance yourself" from your Uncyclopedia username is also most likely false, granted the differences between the way Uncyclopedia's BFDIBebble behaves. I am also strongly suspecting that you are a sockpuppet of Q788771, or that you are associated with the aforementioned user, now banned from .ca (see Nigel Scribbler's comment). Additionally, the current SEO status and number of active users on .co versus .ca (120 on .co, versus 19 on .ca) also proves that .co has significantly more legitimacy than .ca. Your point has zero validity whatsoever, and I am therefore asking that BFDIBebble's request be ignored. Kevindongyt (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, you have been trying to change your username in order to "distance yourself" from Uncyc's actual BFDIBebble, now that Nigel Scribbler has called you out. This is definitely not a coincidence. Kevindongyt (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you withdraw the sockpuppetry accusation as this is libellous and an ad hominem. I am not a sockpuppet of anybody. I have nothing to hide. I am not changing my username in reference to my talk page at Uncyclopedia but rather because I want to. You are making libellous claims to try and further your argument, whilst being guilty of the POV pushing, edit warring and COI violations that you are accusing me of. I am certain you are canvassing users in order to push your .co fork. I suggest you stop. JJFuego (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I do believe in "innocent until guilty", but your constant attacks and attempts to dodge evidence proves otherwise. You are attempting to spread a specific POV without any consultation, while I am doing so in an attempt to maintain the status quo of the article at Uncyclopedia. I am not canvassing anyone. I believe that you are using sockpuppets because of the similar "troll-esque" edit nature of the other accounts whom were attempting to defame .co in various ways (most notably using fork-spoon, a term no one outside of the Uncyclopedia community would understand instantly). I have proof here from a screenshot from uncyclopedia.ca's Recent Changes page (screenshot) ((user creation log can be found here)). Please cease your attacks on me immediately. Kevindongyt (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not see what those images prove. I have not made any new accounts on Uncyclopedia besides the single account which I operate. I also did not create JJFuego on Uncyclopedia and I am convinced that you and any other conspirators are fabricating "evidence" in an attempt to discredit me and to continue POV pushing. I suggest you stop. JJFuego (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, two of the accounts created at Uncyclopedia were done so in the exact time frame that I was responding to a talk page message. Nobody can respond to a message and create new accounts in the space of one minute, so somebody is joe jobbing here. I have nothing to hide, but Kevindongyt's apparent flip flopping from "mediating the dispute" to "POV pushing" definitely raises questions. This discussion is no longer constructive and should be closed as such. JJFuego (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I have emailed the administrators at .ca in order for them to examine whether it is connected or merely a coincidence. Your attempts to make me seem that I am pushing a specific point of view on the Uncyclopedia article is false, as I am merely attempting to maintain the status quo, before various trolls starting attacking the article as of this last week (as I have repeated on several different times); I have included mentions of both websites within my reverts, while you have single-handedly removed any reference of .co, making .ca seem like the only Uncyclopedia, something that is false.. Your attempts to "circumvent" this conversation by requesting for this discussion to be closed is merely you attempting to deny liability. I demand that this investigation be completed and not prematurely closed. Kevindongyt (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Also to note, BFDIBebble attempted to spread their view through neighboring pages, which should in itself prove bad faith. Kevindongyt (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

BFDIBebble, do you have any explanation as to why an account was created at uncyclopedia.ca under my Wikipedia username? It certainly wasn't me. Also, if you have nothing to hide, what exactly is your Uncyclopedia username? It isn't BFDIBebble, considering that they claim they are not you. RAGentry (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@RAGentry: I do not know anything about this. I would suggest contacting the admins regarding this. Please see above for my username at Uncyclopedia. BFDIBebble (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@BFDIBebble:, I have looked above, but I cannot find any mention of your Uncyclopedia username. Perhaps I have poor observational skills. Would you mind providing a link to your Uncyclopedia user page? RAGentry (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I know nothing about this except I encountered a discussion about the site a long time ago, and saw the request at WP:RFPP that led to me pinging an experienced editor that I thought had knowledge in the area. The interwiki uncyclopedia happens to point to one of the sites but that should be given zero weight in the dispute because the interwiki system is very loosely controlled and the fact that one site made it there should be regarded as an historical accident. It takes two to edit war so one way to move on from this noticeboard would be to close as "warn both" with a clear statement that any more edit warring will result in blocks. At article talk, each side should make a clear statement in separate sections explaining the background and what they think should happen in the article. After that, an RfC should occur to settle the question. I could help with the RfC after initial statements are posted, if wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:BFDIBebble is warned. They may be blocked the next time they try to change the infobox to link to Uncyc.ca instead of Uncyc.co unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. Thanks are due to User:Johnuniq for agreeing to help with an RfC, assuming that the others are willing to provide statements. Meanwhile the article will stay under full protection for the rest of the week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Danielinnov8 reported by User:Psychologist_Guy (Result: Warned)

Page: Joel Fuhrman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danielinnov8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

I raised the issue on the talk-page earlier on. However they ignored my original request for discussion and repeatedly added this [5], [6], [7]

Comments:

Repeated edit warring. This user wanted to add 15 links to amazon.com. I disputed that and the excessive amount of other links they want to include. On the talk-page I created a section "Problematic edits from Danielinnov8", this user has created a section about me "Problematic edits from Psychologist Guy" but placed it above my section in an attempt to make out he was on the talk-page first. I find this dishonest. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Result: User:Danielinnov8 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Joel Fuhrman unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:OkurrWebbs reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

Article is under 1RR. Editor started as an IP, then logged in and continued. DS and edit warring warnings given. 1RR warning wasn't easy to see on the TP, so I made it clearer. Editor came to talk, was told by an admin that Twitter is not reliable for the time of day, yet persisted. I cannot revert due to 1RR. O3000 (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Added a fifth diff. A revert of an admin on the same subject. O3000 (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OkurrWebbs reverted (by reinserting) at 00:10 on the 27th and was given a DS alert at 01:30. I reverted. They then reverted again at 00:04 today after which User:C.Fred reverted them. Clear violation after a ds alert. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Dr. D.S. White reported by User:Lard Almighty (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Kunal Kamra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dr. D.S. White (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[15], [16], [17]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[18], [19]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also a possible Sock and WP:NOTHERE. POV pushing on articles. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty looks like he is hired by certain people to protect their public image. He is labelling a heckling incident as confrontational, and protecting irrelevant information on another person's introductory bit (and has resorted to personally attacking without any adequate, logical reasoning for protecting the information I mentioned). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. D.S. White (talk • contribs) 13:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

LOL. I have no interest in this article or person beyond protecting Wikipedia from vandalism. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty has taken the right actions here IMO. The real report should be for User:Dr. D.S. White JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So the checking language is vandalism to you? You clearly have certain biases that you want to protect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. D.S. White (talk • contribs) 13:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Warned I am cautioning you both against further edit warring. You need to discuss this on the article talk page, or go to dispute resolution. DS White, do not make further accusations without direct evidence(and without outing editors). 13:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)331dot (talk)

Sure, I'm just a person who'd been noticing these things for a while with Indian wiki articles, and I thought I'd change them. If you want any verifiability you can literally see this particular incident. Calling it "confronting" and not "heckling" is like calling murdered "neutralised". It's ridiculous. I don't really care anymore I'm not acquainted with Wiki and I have a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. D.S. White (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Not a sock either — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr D.S. Winters (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You clearly are since you posted this using one of your other accounts. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the sock indefinitely and the OP for a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:72.86.138.120 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: )

Page

Pat Toomey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953494621 by ZimZalaBim (talk) you're edit warring to sustain your opinion of the "importance" of this committee. Need to make up your own mind why you keep reverting: is it irrelevant material or not?"
2. 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953493513 by ZimZalaBim (talk) this is a well known/easily ascertained fact. What is an opinion is your declaration that the committee assignment is important, which cannot stand if one admits that nobody with seniority got appointed to it. You're edit warring to impose your opinion...about a committee assignment so trivial it hasn't even occured to you to add it to the list of Toomey's committee assignments here."
3. 13:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953484889 by ZimZalaBim (talk) needless deletion of relevant material. If the committee is important as claimed, the lack of seniority would be highly relevant. Who benefits from suppressing that info?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP range is engaging in the persistent insertion of POV commentary, continuously reverting any attempt to remove it from the article. The article was recently protected due to this activity, but now restrictions are lifted and the IP range is back. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you look at page history you'll see the other IP addresses involved, which also included harassing me on my talk page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

But you yourself are not engaging in edit warring, or pushing your own POV? This began, I'll remaind all, with my deletion of a trivial insertion on Toomey's page by a Politico sockpuppet of a Politico story noting that Toomey had been appointed to (another) committee tasked with overseeing the vast emergency spending by the Trump administration. Trivial because it cannot meet during the emergency recess, cannot force Trump to reveal information he has said in his signing statement he will not permit Congress to oversee, and cannot use clout it does not have (1 of the 4 members is not even an elected official, the other 2 have virtually no seniority -- in other words, a committee nobody with clout wanted to be on). The creation of the committee was an extremely small deal, so small that nobody on Toomey's page even thought to add it to the list of Toomey's committee assignments. It was blatant sockpuppetry to promote Politico's story, pure and simple. Instead of accepting that I was eliminating trivia, ZimZalaBim and a handful of other naive (?) editors began reverting over and over the deletion of the sockpuppet's work, insisting without argument and in the absense of evidence that the committee was important and highly relevant now. ZimZalaBim was so determined to prevent the inclusion of my edits that, once I accepted that these "naive" editors were not going to let it be removed or even try to make a case for its importance, and once I decided to add basic context to let readers determine whether this semi-orphaned committee was actually important, ZimZalaBim began deleting all those edits as well. Again, no justification, evidence or argument - just edit warring and threatening as alwasy to ban me. Utterly preposterous behavior...elevating trivia and ignorning sockpuppetry, just because he has the power to do so.

As for the complaints about my IP addresses, that just goes to prove that he and his buddies don't understand how some ISPs assign IP addresses randomly. I have in fact improved the Toomey page considerably over the years, something that cannot be said of ZimZalaBim or the other "naive" editors who wish to block me from unscrewing what the sockpuppet screwed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.120 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Please be civil in your interactions and discussions. Toomey's appointment to the COVID-19 Congressional Oversight Commission is notable. Whether you feel the Commission will have any power or influence is your opinion and not relevant in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:89.205.133.87 reported by User:ThadeusOfNazereth (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Baruch Spinoza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "This was the original version! Look at the source at the end of the article! Not that it’s necessary, but it says: a Dutch philosopher! Ergo: let the other users start a discussion about their nonsense."
2. 23:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Again: this was the original version! Check the source at the end of the sentence ffs! Let them explain on the talk page where it’s written that Spinoza isn’t Dutch. Seriously this is really insane. Again, what’s next? Bach isn’t German? Da Vinci isn’t Italian?"
3. 23:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "This was the original version until someone on 22 April changed it without discussion! And no, I’m not discussing with someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about & doesn’t even give sources. And also: what’s the next step: Bach isn’t German?! This is absurd."
4. 22:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "A monarchical republic? You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about! All the secondary sources mention him as a Dutch philosopher: Nadler, encyclopedias, even the source at the end of the sentence! Stop this nonsense ffs."
5. 19:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "What a load of nonsense, of course Spinoza is a Dutch philosopher. What’s the next step: Bach isn’t German? Of course there was a nationality in the 17th century in The Netherlands; it was a republic, not a city state."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Baruch Spinoza. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User has refused to take issue to talk page, as have other involved users. I created a thread, located here. [1]

Comments:

User has consistently refused to take the issue to the talk page and grown increasingly heated in the edit summaries. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Rubriguez reported by User:Eric (Result: )

Page

Spanish language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Names of the language */"
2. 14:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Names of the language */Added content"
3. IP diff for first edit
4. IP diff for second edit (undoing Eric's initial revert)*

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Edits to Spanish language */ new section"
2. 14:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Spanish language. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I have tried to provide guidance to this user, so far to no avail. I do not want to repeat my reverts, so I guess I have to bring this to admins. Note that the user's first two edit sessions on this topic were made while not logged in: Special:Contributions/79.159.110.249. See that talk page: User_talk:79.159.110.249. Eric ^talk 15:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note: This is my first time using the Twinkle ARV tool to make an edit-warring report, so I likely did not employ it perfectly. Open to any refinement of my approach.
Note also: I have no reason to believe that Rubriguez was deliberately editing from multiple accounts; I presume the user had inadvertently logged out. Eric ^talk 16:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note: I have tried to solve this situation writing on the Section "talk" at the Spanish Language article. Please check these two active discussions: "Names of the language" #REDIRECCIÓN [[20]] and "Castellano y español (map blue and red)" #REDIRECCIÓN [[21]]. Besides, I tried to solve it at Eric page with a specific discussion about it but he deleted it #REDIRECCIÓN [[22]]. I would like to ask for apologies due to my ignorance with the codes for right writing at Wikipedia. I'm learning it.Rubriguez (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubriguez (talk • contribs) 08:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC) 

User:Somali Strawhat reported by User:BFDIBebble (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Baruch Korff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Somali Strawhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953719441 by BFDIBebble (talk)"
2. 18:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953718492 by BFDIBebble (talk)"
3. 18:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953717937 by BFDIBebble (talk)"
4. 18:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Reverting revisions that clearly have no reason to be deleted other than the clear obvious double standard historical revisionism."
5. 17:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Mentioned whih organization Baruch worked with. The Irgun group classifies their own members as terrorists."
6. 17:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "I only added that the attempt of the bombing in London on 1947 should classify him as a terrorist considering he orchestrated the plot. This event was documented on this page but has been severly downplayed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Baruch Korff. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "/* Baruch as terrorist */"

Comments:

This user is constantly adding unsourced, potentially controversial, information on this subject. Despite having been asked several times to cite their sources, this user has not done so and has instead engaged in an edit war and continues to add the same information without citing sources. BFDIBebble (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: When asked to bring concerns to the talk page, user refused and claimed they did "not need a reliable source for textbook definitions." [1] ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 18:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Regardless of the disputed content, which has not been resolved, the user did indeed violate 3RR. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:74.143.76.98 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked 1 month)

Page

Chris Christie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953728104 by Amkgp (talk)"
2. 19:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953727377 by Amkgp (talk)"
3. 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953727118 by Amkgp (talk)"
4. 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953726995 by Flyer22 Frozen (talk)"
5. 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953726855 by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk)"
6. 19:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953726665 by AntiCompositeNumber (talk)"
7. 19:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953725970 by Djflem (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Chris Christie. (TW)"
2. 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953726800 by Amkgp (talk) already level-2 warning given"
3. 19:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Chris Christie. (TW)"
4. 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Chris Christie. (TW)"
5. 19:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Chris Christie. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month This isn't "edit warring", it's vandalism from a long-term abuser. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu I completely agree with you but there was no response from WP:AIV, and the IP user was not stopping "vandalizing"!

User:81.154.179.211 reported by User:TheseusHeLl (Result: )

Page: The Promised Neverland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.154.179.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of 81.154.179.211's reverts:

1. [23] "Souce Unreliable"
2. [24] "they are lying to you!"
3. [25] "i'm not stopping until you put this on LOCKDOWN!"

Diffs of 81.154.188.238's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27] " It's A f*cking lie!"
3. [28] "you'll be sorry"
4. [29] "you'll be sorry"
5. [30] "you'll be sorry"
6. [31] "you'll be sorry"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This editor reverted the reverts of over 5 editors! -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblocked by Ad Orientem for a month. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ad Orientem and Tenryuu. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:‎ Buidhe reported by User:Light show (Result: Warned)

Page: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Buidhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] This is not a 3RR notice. --Light show (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:

Light show (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I note that Light show did not warn Buidhe regarding edit warring before coming here. I also note that the "discussion" Light show opened on the talk page was open all of three hours before they brought it here. That's certainly not in the spirit, regardless of the letter, of the policy. ——SN54129 09:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor had already replied three times and made it totally clear they had no intention of discussing their deletions. A notice was placed on their talk page right after posting here. In addition, the editor is obviously quite experienced and had nonetheless violated the 3RR guideline. A warning about 3RR was not needed.--Light show (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The point about warnings is that they give an editor a chance to self-revert. Let me take an abstract, hypothetical example; if an editor is, say, topic-banned from BLPs, but (accidentally) edits a BLP, they would probably prefer the warning and the chance to self-revert, would they not? I can't imagine that they would actually prefer an admin to swoop in and block them without warning, as you seem to be advocating. ——SN54129 09:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an edit warring notice only. The final comment by the editor (below) made it clear they had no intention to revert anything.Light show (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Your mass deletions without requested discussion should all be restored." --Light show (talk) 1:10 am, Today (UTC−7)

"You're the one who needs to prove consensus for the INCLUSION of this content, per WP:ONUS." buidhe 1:27 am, Today (UTC−7) Light show (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

All true. Unfortunately, WP:ONUS is policy; so you better have one hell of a good reason for not abiding by policy. You don't get to pick and choose when to follow policy. ——SN54129 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If you check the page history, you'd see that the number of reverts is the same between Light show and myself. I propose that the talk page discussion plays out until Light show gains consensus for the inclusion of this material (or not) per WP:ONUS. (If both Light show and myself undid until we got back to 3 reverts, the result would be same as now). Before this, I thought that edit warring only refers to the same content being repeatedly added or deleted. buidhe 09:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am willing to agree to a temporary editing restriction on this article, but I note for whoever closes this discussion that Lightshow also violated 3RR. buidhe 05:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Buidhe is warned they may be blocked if they make more changes to Covid-related articles in the next seven days without first getting consensus in their favor on a talk page. User:Light show also violated 3RR and should be aware of WP:ONUS when they try to restore disputed material in the future. Buidhe continued to revert while this report was open. Both users are experienced and I am surprised that Buidhe seems not to fully understand the rules. Another admin might have chosen to block both parties so I am hoping that the war stops here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ash Salvatore reported by User:Robertsky (Result: Blocked)

Page

Enrique Iglesias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ash Salvatore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Sales updated!! And yaa bish faces better keep ya pointy nose outta it!! Unless ya got somthing ti prove me wrong."
2. 05:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953805386 by 88marcus (talk)"
3. 10:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953583355 by 88marcus (talk)"
4. 21:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953352041 by DariuZzandor (talk)"
5. 12:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953051256 by Keith D (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. The user's talk page
2. Talk:Enrique Iglesias

Comments:

The user has been disruptive on this article, insisting on using a relatively less reliable source to inflate the sales figure of the artist despite the reasoning given in the user's talk page. The user had been 3RR ban before on 3 April for the same article, and refuses to engage in constructive criticism and reasoning. Despite not breaching 3RR per day, the user have been reverting other users' edits over the same statement ever since his block ended. robertsky (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – Two weeks by User:Ponyo for disruptive editing. This follows an earlier 72-hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ahmedfalah7711 reported by User:Jaydayal (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ahmedfalah7711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953840562 by Jaydayal (talk)"
2. 09:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953840149 by YoloSCIS (talk)"
3. 09:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953836344 by YoloSCIS (talk)"
4. 08:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953833988 by Speaklevel (talk)"
5. 08:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953831698 by Speaklevel (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC) "/* April 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Looking at user talk page, it is full of explanations and warnings but there is no response from the user. He is not responding to any message and continuing his revert spree. Jaydayal (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I have provided plenty of explanation, please check the contribute history i only amended the the british ban of RSS not the other part. You are being busy with polar mind blaming it on me. I have explained how the citation fail to verify the british ban off RSS clearly in my contrition Ahmedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ahmedfalah7711 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I note that Ahmedfalah7711 is engaging in sneaky vandalism by first removing the sources[37] and then making a "minor" edit claiming that "No citation or proof of banning by british Government", when the sources he removed clearly state "British authorities soon banned the RSS". Shashank5988 (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not handling this but I will note that Opindia has him for User:Schiindler's addition of the word "terrorist", eg[38]. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Also warned of possibility of topic-ban if the disruption resumes after the current block. Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Satendresse reported by User:Graecusperseus (Result:)

Page

Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User reported

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

This user actively refuses to continue engaging in the talk page and it seems futile to try to convince him to do so. It seems necessary to block him.Graecusperseus (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• Comment I see no evidence of any attempt to communicate with this user, either at their user talk page or the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is some communication, but I don't see enough history to say they refuse to engage. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:114.134.189.16 reported by User:MrQueeba (Result: Blocked)

Page

Alexander Fernando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953967508 by MrQueeba (talk)"
2. 00:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953967406 by 2604:6000:FCC2:EE00:2CA4:A39D:6F02:C6A0 (talk)"
3. 00:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953967066 by 47.20.138.157 (talk)"
4. 00:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966917 by V DE VICTINI (talk)"
5. 00:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966770 by 190.92.88.36 (talk)"
6. 00:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966614 by 190.92.88.36 (talk)"
7. 00:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966412 by JamesHSmith6789 (talk)"
8. 00:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966310 by 2601:404:8102:5590:6929:7B9E:586B:4639 (talk)"
9. 00:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953966206 by Stizzleswick (talk)"
10. 00:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 953965815 by GenesisMaster (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

repeatedly adding text about an unrelated celebrity to the top of the article despite several reverts. already received warning from another user MrQueeba (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• User:MrQueeba please don't waste time (yours and ours) writing this up on this board--it's obvious vandalism. Thank you. The very first person who saw this should have reported it immediately: it is obvious vandalism, GenesisMaster and Stizzleswick, even if you didn't know the same a-hole was doing this yesterday already. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:14.203.52.66 reported by User:Dibbydib (Result: )

Page

Origin (Brown novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954039612 by Evolution and evolvability (talk)"
2. 10:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "The author of a work has a right not to have authorship of the work falsely attributed to someone else (s 195AC(1) Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Copyright Act)). Since deleting it or salting it from wikipedia where to check for authorship, I will paste the link here:( www.linkedin.com/in/pierre-m-harkild-752131106) and if they remove it will be infringing on my "Moral rights" to be acknowledged as the author and will be held responsible if not being correctly attributed...."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Literally states that they were a blocked account earlier ([39]) and is continuting to edit war on Origin (Brown novel). dibbydib (T ･ C) 10:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Symphony Regalia (Result: )

Page: Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:36, 30 April 2020‎ (UTC)
2. 01:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
3. 15:39, 29 April 2020‎ (UTC)
4. 22:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt to resolve on user talk

Comments:
CaradhrasAiguo has a long history of removing information from related articles without explanation. He first attempted to remove this section here, and I challenged this edit because most recent talk page consensus is not in favor. He then immediately reverted my revert, but stopped after I warned him to stop editing warring. The discussion moved to his talk page, where I asked for explanation on why he suddenly removed an entire section, and suggested that he take it to the article talk with a proposed rewrite. In response he indicated that he was aware that there is no consensus but does not care because his position is correct and others aren't.

The next day, without going to the article talk, he blanks the section again twice (diffs 3 and 2 in the above list), and then subsequently directly canvasses help from a friendly editor (MarkH21) for 3rd revert. CaradhrasAiguo has a history of enlisting help from MarkH21 when he is in dispute with other editors. For example, when he was accused of POV editing on similar content he threatened the other editor by saying "Sod off, you have now been warned by MarkH2". Similarly, MarkH2 has a history of posting on CaradhrasAiguo's talk page to back up his arguments[40][41][42]. Outside of the talk page, CaradhrasAiguo and MarkH2 have been coordinating in POV disputes on related topics (China) going back 5 months now. [43][44]

MarkH2, after being summoned, incorrectly cites WP:ONUS to suggest that CaradhrasAiguo does not need to follow BRD when challenged on removal that changes status quo, and then performs the 3rd revert for CaradhrasAiguo.

Per WP:REMOVAL, "If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule. ". Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Because MarkH21 is accused of a few things in this report, I have notified him of this report on his talk page. --MrClog (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense. If a multiple editors reverts an edit and suggests talk page resolution, the collective edits don’t get lumped together into a 3RR report as if they’re one editor. WP:REMOVAL is an essay, not policy nor guideline and definitely not standard practice.

As I explained at User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Removal of sourced material, the two of you need to open a discussion at the article talk page and achieve consensus for the inclusion of the material which is required by the policy WP:ONUS. WP:BRD is just an explanatory supplement for one optional method of obtaining such a consensus.

As I urged both of you to do before, you need to discuss it at article talk instead of bickering over tangential issues and frivolously accusing editors of POV coordination. This is an utter waste of time. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be fair, it seems like Symphony Regalia argues that there was WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for the inclusion of the article. The disputed text seems to have been in the article at least since the beginning of this month. The question seems to be whether "silence is consent" also means that the onus lies on the remover to establish formal consensus if there has been implicit consensus for a longer period of time. In my opinion, it does not. I would say that the moment CaradhrasAiguo removed the text, there was no longer an implicit consensus, because the silence was broken, meaning the person seeking to include the material has to achieve consensus. (Full disclosure: I was in a dispute with Caradhras in March.) --MrClog (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and I don’t think that past assumed consensus by silence is a factor in WP:ONUS anyways. ONUS is very clear: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Here, we have a dispute over whether content should be included and there is currently no consensus.

Either way, this 3RR report is a waste of time. Symphony Regalia and CaradhrasAiguo were advised to discuss the actual content dispute on article talk instead of focusing on tangential complaints. This report is now the worst of the bunch. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

SR's very recent disruptive misconstrual of discussions should be taken into account. I am also typing at Talk:Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic this moment, and see little need to post much more at this thread as MrClog and MarkH21 have covered the other refutations of this facetious report. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MilkyMike9788 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: )

Page

Tarek Fatah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MilkyMike9788 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"
2. 10:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) to 09:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"
   2. 09:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"
4. 07:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Expose"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Tarek Fatah. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor is engaging in edit warring even after explaination User_talk:Thatoneweirdwikier#Why_do_delete_the_authentic_edits_with_citations_on_tarek_fateh_page_can't_you_please_keep_this_Wikipedia_unbaise?. Please have a look Amkgp (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

He/she has done this on other pages as well. They seem to insist the citations are authentic, but it's not about the citations as much as it is about the text surrounding it. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)