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:The One I Left reported by User:Gripdamage (Result: Indef)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_One_I_Left#Learn_instead_of_edit-warring
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Allen&type=revision&diff=890032021&oldid=889800104
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woody_Allen&type=revision&diff=889032470&oldid=889016606

I'm making use of the talk page and edit comments and this person is reverting me without comment. Checked their user page to discover they've already been warned about this behavior. Gripdamage (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

talk I apologize for forgetting to fill out the edit comment section. Going forward I will remember to do so.

That's what you said after you were warned on your talk page what looks like two times already. Gripdamage (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

talk You are bringing up old edits I believe. The last edit I made was on the 29th towards simple grammer which I should have made a comment on. I'm a new editor, and some of the rules can be confusing but I promise to fix in the future.

No I'm bringing up the warnings placed on your talk page about making edits without edit summaries or discussion on the talk page just this month by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Radiphus/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doniago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krimuk2.0 I am the 4th user to bring up your behavior and the 4th one you've reassured that you won't engage in this behavior again. Gripdamage (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoops I missed that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BusterD also warned you. So this is the 5th time Gripdamage (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Gripdamage These are old reminders, I haven't responded to those, However I did respond to edit warring yesterday, which was explained to me and haven't done so since. Its part of the learning process it won't happen again. What else would you want from me?

On the 26th of March you had this exchange: "Read edit war. Also, please sign your name after posting a message using four tildes. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)" To which you responded "I understand now. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. User:The One I Left" Now here we are 3 days later, on the 29th of March, and you reverted yet another change without comment and without participating in the active discussion on the talk page in direct opposition to ≥you telling Krimuk2.0 that you understood that wasn't allowed. You refer to them as "old" but you've been talked to by 5 users now all in March 2019. None of them are old: they are all this month. Do you think I can't tell? I can see the history on your talk page. I can see your edit history. You've literally been told 5 times this month. I want exactly the same thing those other users wanted: you to actually stop doing it. Telling me the entries from the 3 other users are "old" when they are from this month, and telling me that you were only responded to Krimuk2.0 "yesterday", when the entries in question are clearly from 3/26 while today is 3/29, does not seem factually accurate. I mean it kinda seems like you're stretching the truth even here. What's with that? Gripdamage (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – Blocked as a sock by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Both warned)

Page: Hrvatinić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:
The user is constantly edit-warring and refusing to discuss the issues in any meaningful manner at all...as can be seen on his talk page and the edit notes. Should be also noted that before I decided to step in he was edit warring with another user as well. That user also tried to resolve the matter with him but was also dismissed in a very rude manner as well I might say as can be seen here. Now regarding this last issue, he first removed the sourced coat of arms saying it is not referenced (despite the reference actually being linked in the article already anyway), I've restored it and added the reference next to it to which he now continues to remove claiming it is "a forgery" which is ridiculous. The user was involved in an edit-war earlier on Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić as well where he kept removing categories without any rationale or any explanation at all...even dismissing the sources by constantly calling one of the authors "naturschik" or whatever that may mean. Sadly on my part I took the wrong route there and broke the 3RR there as well trying to revert what I saw as just pure vandalism i.e. him reverting for the sake of reverting. I believe I have offered this person more than enough chance to explain the changes and suggested at least twice that we either discuss this in a civilized manner or even better...bring someone neutral to look at it and make a judgement. I feel like there is no other choice but to report this individual. The page should be reverted back to its original state before the user decided to push his POV and the user sanctioned. Shokatz (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to say "it is other way around", but I believe, whether it is customary or not I really don't know, that I can make strong case in my own defense by stating how things are from my perspective. Both of these subsection on my Talk-page are important for scrutiny: this (1) and this (2). I started contributing to Hrvatinić and related Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić article in fall of 2018, in hope to develop both from stub/start to at least C. I engaged in conversation (sometimes edit-summary would be sufficient) and left massages on both articles talk pages when required (the Hrvatinić article Talk page is problematic because failed undo of unwarranted move without discussion by User:Gryffindor, it's trapped on second undo of the double-redirect). The editor, who at one point clearly explained to me how he perceiving edit-war as if it's a "pissing contest", and who now filed this report, appeared only week or so ago, and without adding one punctuation mark in either of these texts, he simply started reverting most of my work in this second article, removing it complete with new additional and very much needed reliable sources, adequately referenced for the change. Most important thing here is that he was reverting article to old version of text based on misinterpretation of source, and worse, to a state in which important bits of text are literally unsupported by reference, and categories unsupported by such text. Additional reliable sources were dismissed and removed with all the edits in one sweep move, with, at that point, only some complaints and accusations in edit-summary. But obvious reason which is revealed later is that he perceived my edits only as a removal of bogus and anachronistic ethnic labeling of editor Shokatz preference (it is medieval subject and person), which led him to put forth accusation of me "having agenda". Another important thing is that his claim how I refused to discuss issues is completely and utterly disingenuous, which both articles' talk pages as well as my own, can testify to the fact. I was more than willing to resolve potential content dispute and, this is of utmost importance, in particularly problematic interpretation or misinterpretation of referenced sources. He never appeared on articles' talk pages, only appeared on my talk page, where dates should be taken into considerations too, with various accusations based on preconceived assumptions, labeling my replies as "gibberish", calling me to "drop the act", and after a week or so of torture, with uppercase threats in edit-summary, after which I was quite tired and disgruntled, so I left him this final massage in attempt to present him with an anguish he was putting me through for 10 long days, and hopefully close whole affair. He's response is - really something - after which(!) he proceeded to file this report. Both articles in question were neglected for 15 years, with miserable statistics, and with the subject that is obviously obscure and uninteresting for the wider community. Editor seem to relished that situation, because there was no other editor(s) to express their view over content and dispute, just like his comment on my request for page-protection which I filed yesterday - I guess he would prefer it unprotected. His very first edit, that can be considered contribution of material, happened yesterday, and it was inclusion of file in Hrvatinić article with rationale based on utter misinterpretation of source text, although editor never pasted a reference(!) they just expressed in edit-summary their interpretation of source from reference on another file, and this is important to note, it is a reference and a source which I added earlier to another file in that article, amazingly, one that editor struggled hard to remove. I removed the file, with clear explanations both in edit-summary and article Talk page, but that's not something he concerns himself with. Issue escalated much earlier, when I tried to do what he's done today here, but being completely inexperienced in these matters (edit-wars and process of resolutions) I made terrible mistake and made Arb-request, which was rightly dismissed, instead coming here. I also realized that one of us clearly breaking 3RR rule, but who is in breach I can't say because I am little bit baffled with a way 3RR guideline is utilized, so that's on admins to say. Yesterday I filed a request for page-protection in proper place to which he responded with a comment like this expressing his displeasure, maybe ? In more than 10 years I was never warned let alone sanctioned - it is reasonable to have some disputes over such long period, especially when having in mind that I am contributing majority of my edits on extremely contentious subjects in extremely contentious forum, which is Balkans. On the other side is the user who is obviously very well versed in sophisticated edit-warring, reverting and POV pushing, which is clear from both his Talk page and his edit-history. He was sanctioned on more than one occasion for such behavior across the years (which also means he didn't learn much in all that time between blocks and other disputes with other editor, except maybe how to wage edit-wars more efficiently and effectively). It is my believe that it's worth indicating that, just like in case of these two articles, all his troubling behavior stem from his deep sense of ethno-national identity (even editor's very username is ethnonym). Every revert, every edit-war he had, and any random edit that appear as non-problematic, is almost exclusively concerned with issue of ethnic labeling of his preference - whether it was pushing ethnic background on notability of some personality here, or naming bird with specific ethic prefix, or contentious issue of Krajina Serb-Croatia relations, or moving entire article based on his edit in which he changed surname of historical personality of one particular ethnicity, Korenić, into ijekavian, Korijenić, just to emphasize that it should be of another specific ethnicity, all the while being completely wrong.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. Each one is risking a block if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. I'm also alerting both parties to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. If you are hoping to make a success of WP:Dispute resolution, try to be more calm. If you find yourself becoming angry when editing about Balkan topics, it would be best for you to find other interests on Wikipedia. In my opinion, some of the above comments are verging on personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:Hijiri88 (Result: No action)

Page: Avengers: Endgame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstom.97 (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]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

This is complicated by the user's history of ignoring warnings on his user talk page, and either ignoring talk page discussion or talking it into the ground. (I can provide diffs if required, but they really shouldn't be needed since this is such a clear-cut case of an editor who is already on final warning for edit-warring on pages he feels he "owns" violating 3RR.) Additionally, WP:BRD (since the content was only added a week ago and has now been challenged) now favours keeping the content out, so it should really be Adam trying to open discussion in order to add the content back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Attempting to discuss on the talkpage (because while I was filing this report another user separately requested that I open a talk page discussion) has been fruitless, meeting only with an IDHT comment from Adam that responded to an argument that wasn't actually made.[13] This is fairly characteristic behaviour, I've found: see for example this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the third and fourth diffs were the result of a big (and kind of funny) misunderstanding with a third party, user Zinnober9, with whom I have discussed the issue at their talk page where I have apologised for my impulsiveness and they have apologised for reverting me in the first place. So we are back to me having reverted Hijiri twice, as well as other editors also reverting Hijiri and asking that they take their concerns to the talk page (since the bold change to the article here is Hijiri's, not mine or anyone else's). Hijiri has now opened a discussion about their concerns at the talk page, so from my perspective that is where the discussion regarding this issue should continue. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I support the fact that the edit-warring appears to have been wildly misconstrued here. Hijiri too started no discussion before this report (but has done so 7 minutes after this report - why?), nor warned Adam for edit-warring, as can be seen by the lack of diffs in this report, even though Adam had already started a discussion about it on the talk page of the talk page of Zinnober9. (When starting an AN3 report, it actually states You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too.) Hiriji has now removed the content three times, more than the actual reverts by Adam to be considered, and he has now also been reverted again by an uninvolved editor. It takes more than one to edit-war, so I kindly recommend Hijiri to be careful of WP:BOOMERANG. Unless Hijiri reverts again, given Zinnober9's understanding of the edit, then the page should remain stable concerning the edit from here on out. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Please work this out on the talk page. User:Adamstom.97 should be careful about getting too class to the edge given their restriction which can be seen in WP:EDR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DooksFoley147 reported by User:Andygray110 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ronnie O'Sullivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DooksFoley147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

Firstly, I am aware that this account has only been opened since 25 March. However, I strongly suspect that this is the same user who has continuously made the same reversions and entered into countless edit wars over at least the last 18 months (mostly involving snooker pages). While I cannot categorically confirm, the style of writing and use of punctuation (in particular, full stops, question marks and exclamation marks at the end of sentences) makes me 99% sure this is the same user. A history of comments left on my talk page by other unregistered user(s) shows the same misuse of punctuation.

This user tends not to listen or engage in discussion before steaming ahead and making changes they deem appropriate, with little or no regard for the rules. I'm not saying to throw the book at them, but I have endlessly tried to explain to this user before that it is best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker about issues rather than continuous reverts or imposing their will on articles. I'm not the only user on WikiProject Snooker to be affected by this or have their changes reverted.

In this case, the user insists that a source (Cuetracker, which is on the blacklist) is reliable, is adding content claiming that it is sourced by Cuetracker (although, as it is on the blacklist, the addition clearly cannot be sourced, therefore the addition is unsourced). I have explained to the user now and in the past that Cuetracker is not a reliable source and cannot be used, and that the result they are trying to add is unreferenced, cannot be backed up by another source (because it does not exist), and have also advised that the competition page (Pontins Open) of the result they are trying to add IS sourced and does not include this result. Andygray110 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me there is nothing wrong with my style of writing. I asked one simple question that you did not answer. Why is Cuetracker used as a reference for some events and finals on here that are not sourced by any other site ?. Why is it ok to use it for some events and not others that is what I asked. Yes I only created my account a few days ago, but I am only here to help across a broad range of sports and I do not appreciate your criticism to be honest. DooksFoley147 (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I am only trying to help out on this site, using my own time to make these articles better. I really do not think I should be punished for trying to help in making Wikipedia better. I have always tried to act in a constructive manner with my edits and I do not think that is in question. DooksFoley147 (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I concur with Andygray110's reading of the situation. List of world number one snooker players was recently semi-protected because the editor was making disruptive factually inaccurate edits as an anonymous IP editor, before registering an account to get a round the semi-protection. The Snooker project is only a small workforce that has to cover a lot of ground so we do welcome enthusiastic new editors into the fold, but at the same time one that pursues a non-collaborative unilateral agenda can cause huge disruption, and that is clearly the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It would also account for their keenness to become autoconfirmed. ——SerialNumber54129 11:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry am I not allowed to open an account ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You see Betty I am the odd one out here as you guys know each other. I am like the new kid in School so I would be wrong here anyway. The thing about it is I have noticed when people disagree with you, you will not acquiesce with them or change from your opinion. what you seem to want has to be final, that is not right either. On what grounds can you say I have an agenda ?. You don't even know me. I have no agenda I am here to try and makes these pages better. DooksFoley147 (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

DooksFoley147, the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is the typical approach to edits that are challenged on Wikipedia, meaning that if you made a contentious change, it's up to you to get consensus for that change before you make it again. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Further comment The disruption has now spread to Maximum break. DooksFoley147 keeps removing important contextual information from the article regarding the timing methodology. I have explained at Talk:Maximum_break#Fastest_maximum why this is important information i.e. when two distinct timing methodologies are utilised within the sport it is important to clarify which one the record relates to (because in theory you could end up with two different records!). The discussion on the talk page was started three days ago and yet instead of participating in the discussion DooksFoley147 has instead chose to bypass the BRD cycle and simply remove content yet again that has been a stable part of the article for almost a year. I accept that Wikipedia is not set in stone, but the removal of reliably sourced content that is a long-standing element of a stable article should be discussed if it is contested. Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I see complaints about editing of three snooker articles:

• Ronnie O'Sullivan,
• Maximum break,
• List of world number one snooker players.

Is that the complete list you want reviewed for edit warring? Also, if you would like to introduce a previous pattern of anonymous edits as part of this report, can someone say which IPs are likely to be the same person? Not for purpose of blocking the IP, but just for the general pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The IP edits come from the following accounts: 92.251.229.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.251.131.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.83.249.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.251.188.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (taken from the history at List of world number one snooker players on 25 March 2019. Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:DooksFoley147. Do you understand that this supposed tournament result by Ronnie O'Sullivan from the Pontins Autumn Open may be from a match that never occurred? Can you look at our article on the Pontins Open and find a victory by O'Sullivan in 1991? Probably not. It seems that DooksFoley147 is risking a block for edit warring and for adding unsourced information. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That Pontins article documents the professional championship. Pontins used to run pro-am and amateur events too, and if O'Sullivan did indeed win the event in 1991 he would have been an amateur (he didn't turn pro until 1992). I am certainly willing to entertain the possibility, but this goes to the crux of this ANi report: it needs some solid sourcing before being added to Wikipedia. A single mention on a fansite (albeit one of the best ones out there) doesn't quite meet the threshold for WP:V. Betty Logan (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and making unsourced changes. The user has continued to edit snooker articles without making any commitment to fix the problems with their edits, so there is little hope of any improvement. This statement on their talk page implies that they see no problem with their lack of sources. The user has also been steadily warring at Maximum break, where he takes out the information about the two different timing methods. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Manish2542 reported by User:Kingroyos (Result: Declined)

Page: Mauritius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Manish2542 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21] 5 January 2019‎
2. [22] 12 January 2019‎
3. [23] 17 March 2019‎
4. [24] 31 March 2019‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:
User is repeatedly removing well referenced contents without giving valid reasons and keeps reverting contributions made by others. I have tried to resolved the dispute amicably by trying to find the exact issue but his response has been ambiguous. Its seem that the user is not ready to corporate amicably and has regularly been involved in disruptive editing, edit warring and personal attacks in his Edit summary (See his contributions). The user has been previously blocked two times (See [27] and [28]). I would like a neutral person to step in and resolve the issue urgently.Kingroyos (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Declined. You've not attempted to formally engage them on the talk page of the said article. Start talk page discussions on the content issues; if the editor doesn't join you or if they go against consensus, come back. Lourdes 08:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Decline in insect populations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a report about edit warring, not 3RR. Kingofaces is engaged in wholesale reverts and complex partial reverts. To show the reverts, the following focuses on three paragraphs and a blockquote.

• 1st edit (21:37, 4 March 2019, "Reviews and studies" section):

• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates: Spineless."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2016, the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld produced a report from their long-term records of insect collections in nature reserves in Germany."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2019, a systematic review of the issue – Worldwide decline of the entomofauna – was published in the journal Biological Conservation."

• 1st revert (23:50, 5 March 2019):

• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates: Spineless."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2016, the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld produced a report from their long-term records of insect collections in nature reserves in Germany."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2019, a systematic review of the issue – Worldwide decline of the entomofauna – was published in the journal Biological Conservation."

• 2nd revert (00:58, 11 March 2019):

• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates: Spineless."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2016, the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld produced a report from their long-term records of insect collections in nature reserves in Germany."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2019, a systematic review of the issue – Worldwide decline of the entomofauna – was published in the journal Biological Conservation."

• 3rd revert (01:24 and 01:29, 13 March 2019):

• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2016, the Entomologischer Verein Krefeld produced a report from their long-term records of insect collections in nature reserves in Germany."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2019, a systematic review of the issue – Worldwide decline of the entomofauna – was published in the journal Biological Conservation."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates: Spineless."

• 4th revert (19:34, 19:37, 19:44 and 19:48, 24 March 2019):

• Removed part of a paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "The Entomological Society Krefeld produced a report in 2017 by studying their records of insect collections using malaise traps in 63 nature reserves in Germany."
• Removed blockquote beginning: "From our compilation of published scientific reports, we estimate the current proportion of insect species in decline (41%) to be twice as high as that of vertebrates ..."
• Removed: "A systematic review, "Worldwide decline of the entomofauna", was published in 2019 in the journal Biological Conservation."

• 5th revert (01:56, 26 March 2019):

• Removed part of a paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "The Entomological Society Krefeld produced a report in 2017 by studying their records of insect collections using malaise traps in 63 nature reserves in Germany."
• Removed: "A systematic review, "Worldwide decline of the entomofauna", was published in 2019 in the journal Biological Conservation."
• Removed blockquote beginning: "From our compilation of published scientific reports, we estimate the current proportion of insect species in decline (41%) to be twice as high as that of vertebrates ..."

• 6th revert (04:19, 27 March 2019):

• Removed part of a paragraph beginning: "In 2012, the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates."
• Removed paragraph beginning: "The Entomological Society Krefeld produced a report in 2017 by studying their records of insect collections using malaise traps in 63 nature reserves in Germany."
• Removed: "A systematic review, "Worldwide decline of the entomofauna", was published in 2019 in the journal Biological Conservation."
• Removed blockquote beginning: "From our compilation of published scientific reports, we estimate the current proportion of insect species in decline (41%) to be twice as high as that of vertebrates ..."

• 7th revert (18:47, 18:52 and 18:56, 31 March 2019)

• Removed part of a paragraph beginning: "In 2012 the Zoological Society of London produced a survey of the prospects of the world's invertebrates."
• Removed: "A systematic review, 'Worldwide decline of the entomofauna', was published in 2019 in the journal Biological Conservation."
• Removed blockquote beginning: "From our compilation of published scientific reports, we estimate the current proportion of insect species in decline (41%) to be twice as high as that of vertebrates ..."

Comments:
Kingofaces is repeatedly removing the same sources and text about studies from Decline in insect populations.

The article was created in February, and the constant reverting has stymied article development. I've several times prepared text only to find that the sentence or paragraph I wanted to expand had gone. In addition to removing a paragraph about a notable study—the Krefeld study (Hallmann et al. 2017, PLOS One)—seven times from the decline article, he has reverted eight times at Insect to remove it as a source: 23 Oct 2017; 28 Jan 2019; 29 Jan 2019; 31 Jan 2019; 1 Feb 2019; 2 Feb 2019; 10 Feb 2019; and 17 Feb 2019. He won't even allow a link to the decline article in the lead of Insect (diff).

I asked him twice on 27 March to revert himself at the decline article (04:28 and 04:32). He didn't and instead arrived again on 31 March with another series of reverts. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. If the editor realizes they've gone against talk page consensus and agree to not continue the edit-warring, the block can be lifted immediately. Otherwise, this is going to soon get elongated into an indefinite block. Lourdes 08:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Georg Wurst reported by User:Mean as custard (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Tom Bower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Georg Wurst (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. [29]
2. [30]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

Continued edit warring after expiry of previous temporary block and further warnings on user talk page. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Given this user seems to be only here to attack the Middle East Eye, I think the next block should be indefinite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:U1Quattro reported by User:Vauxford (Result: )

Page: Toyota Hilux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U1Quattro (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]
5. [36]
6. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39] [40]

Comments:

U1Quattro decide to replace pictures on the Toyota Hilux page because they were "damaged" I clearly see any noticable damage in them. I kept telling him I will fix the picture up, create a talk discussion and now a edit warring incdient. Yet he insist to try and replace the picture over. I honestly don't care if this result both of us blocked, reason why we haven't said much in the talkpage because everything is going so fast and by the time I try to defend my statement he has already reverted the previously fine edits. --Vauxford (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The edits are by no means fine and violate WP:CARPIX. Official or not, this guideline is followed on almost every automobile page in Wikipedia. Yet @Vauxford: continues to persistently revert the edits instead of discussing on the talk page without any reasonable explanation. I don't see why should a rusty vehicle be placed as an infobox image. His claim of finding a Hilux in pristine condition as in the edit history is also wrong as there are clearly many images of good condition HiLux on wiki commons.

Diff of claim [41]U¹ _quattro TALK 17:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The CARPIX is only a essay, I'm allow to not follow it and I personally disagree what on there since it was written which favours to Australian photographers. I tried to make improvement but it went out of control after EurovisionNim gone overboard with it and defeat the whole purpose of why I what was trying to improve in the first place. You took my words out of proportion. --Vauxford (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about one's personal opinion and most of what the guideline states is followed on a wide scale while selecting images at Wikipedia. So I don't see why this shouldn't apply on the Toyota Hilux page.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Why did you both violate 3RR so massively? It is a photo of a somewhat dirty truck, whether or not it's on the page is terrifically inconsequential, and unsurprisingly having an edit war has brought you no closer to a resolution. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've made my point. He refused to resolve it on the talk page and start an edit war just because of his personal opinion so there we have it.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I wanted him to at least wait until I did my solution to solve the problem and defend my reason why the photos should stay, but I didn't have chance to do so because the edit war we had was going fast. They might not show immediately but I made edits to the two pictures such as reducing the rust and dust on them which seem to have turn out nicely, see for yourself.--Vauxford (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You could have stopped edit warring for a moment and proposed the changes on the talk page. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

[42] [43] [44] as you can see, I tried doing that numorous but refuses to do so which sorta explain why it spiral out badly. I admit I should of let U1Quattro off and start the talkpage discussion much earlier. It was frustrating just how they clearly ignoring what I'm saying to try and prevent a edit war and continue on. --Vauxford (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The question is, why did you want that photo to stay when it isn't the best one at all? You clearly had no reason and no justification to keep that photo in the infobox. Your reason in the talk page is also not sufficient as are your reasons you presented for your edits. The way I see it, its more of a personal disagreement with the rules and biasedness with your favourite photographers which is clearly not allowed here.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise there won't be any photos of a single cab, the photo you were trying to replace was already used in the article. The article was fine as it is and wasn't breaking any of these guidelines which aren't actually guidelines and 80% of it just someone personal view of how things should be photographed and not thoroughly vetted by the community. --Vauxford (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There are better photos of the single cab in good condition on wiki and I did use a different photo later on. Yet you decided to revert the edits time and time again. Same with the dusty and rusted Hilux photo. The guidelines are true and are used on Wikipedia. They are generally acceptable so your grudge against them is uncalled for.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The obvious way for an admin to close this report would be to block both parties, since the problem seems likely to continue. If either of you wants to handle your dispute in the correct way, there is a page at WP:Dispute resolution. Let me know if you are wiling to try it. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro The one you inserted is another doublecab and at the wrong angle. The pictures are not as dusty and rusted as they are now since I made alteration. We already try to solve the dispute on the talk page but nobody else seem to not care. Why can't you just be happy with the ones already on there, they been there for a good while now and isn't causing any problems. --Vauxford (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, your claim that the picture "isn't causing any problems" is not correct; it is causing an edit war. Try reading WP:Requests for comment and try to set up an RfC. This requires you to state a question, perhaps in one sentence. Then people give their opinions. There seem to be several people on the talk page; you can message them and ask them to join in. Let me know if I can help. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant by it wasn't causing problems except with U1Quattro. I sent a message on your talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Why can't you just let them be replaced? the ones I put are of a good angle. There is no problem with them.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as a review of his talk page and edit history (if anyone has a couple of months to spare) will confirm, Vauxford has form, and in recent months appears to have been "getting more and more like the less collaborative version of himself". He has linked a huge number of "his" pictures to wikipedia car articles. Some of "his" pictures are competent and a few are really rather good: an awful lot more are not. He responds to attempts at discussion with increasingly mind-numbing aggression, stubbornness and arrogance. The result is that those of us with better things to do tend to wander of and do them. No one HAS to contribute to wikipedia. As far as pictures of cars are concerned, most of us leave other people to make an objective assessment of picture quality where one of the pictures being discussed is "one of ours". I have on occasion made an exception to the habit for Vauxford (and his (ex)chum EurovisionNim), because for these two wikipedia has become a personal vanity project. That really ain't how it's meant to be. If we just retained 10% of Vauxford's pictures linked to car entries, wikipedia quality would be enhanced and wikipedia readers would have every reasons to be grateful to the fellow. And over time 10% might reasonably become 15% or even 20%. But this refusal to acknowledge other folks' judgement, and the time consuming determination to insert "his own" (or EurovisionNim's) pictures, regardless of picture quality does wiki-readers no favours. The solution? In the first instance, that's really down to him. Regard Charles01 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Zacharyso1 reported by User:Sir Joseph (Result: Withdrawn by Sir Joseph, editors committed to use talk page)

Page

Kosher wine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Zacharyso1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890495244 by Sir Joseph (talk)"
2. 17:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890493588 by Sir Joseph (talk) Per prior conversation, there are multiple sources that are more specific than yours. And no, the sky being blue isn't as obvious as the requirements for kosher wine, Sorry. I would like a moderator/chief editor to actually read the sources."
3. 17:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Requirements for being kosher */ Your sources are not incorrect, they are LESS SPECIFIC. The published books QUALIFY your sources. This isn't a difficult concept. Why don't you actually READ THE SOURCES before you state something like "I don't believe this is true.""
4. 16:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890455891 by Sir Joseph (talk) This is outrageous. Can we have a moderator step in here, please? There are two published sources that support that only sabbath-observant male Jews can handle the wine, while the only provide "source" doesn't even include the requirement for Sabbath observance."
5. 05:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890228796 by Sir Joseph (talk) There are literally two published sources that confirm this as true. Simply not believing something does not alter its veracity."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Kosher wine. (TW)"
2. 18:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Kosher wine. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I issued warning to discuss, and I added refs to the article, he kept reverting without discussing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've stopped editing it, we've not moved onto the talk page. I'm new to the rules, so didn't understand all of the rules. However, it would be nice if an editor could actually read the multiple cited sources in order to make a decision on the correct content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso1 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that the sources you are using are factually incorrect. Which is why a more minimalist source would be best in any event. Regardless, you can't keep reverting edits. Maybe you should self-revert, that might help. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting that I've cited half a dozen sources, and you've cited none that have directly disputed them, yet they are, according you, factually incorrect. Very interesting, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso1 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I showed you several women who make wine, and I showed you sources, from Kosher certifying agencies who make no mention of those restrictions. That's called directly disputing. If a kosher certifying agency held that only males could work the fields, they would mention it in the article about kosher wine, but they don't. Regardless, this is not about dispute resolution, this is about you reverting without discussing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to withdraw this complaint if @Zacharyso1: commits to using the article's talk page to discuss the article before reverting again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyso1 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Correctman reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: )

Page

Emilian dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Northern Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts at Emilian dialect

1. 22:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890411704 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk)) Yes it is."
2. 23:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890535674 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))"
3. 23:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890537488 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))"
4. 00:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of the user's reverts at Northern Italy

1. 19:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890282137 by Dk1919 Franking (talk))"
2. 21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890343811 by Dk1919 Franking (talk) The subheading doesn't say minority or official languages. It says common languages. Please refrain from sabotaging what was already written. Italian is not a main language in everyparts of Italy. It is merely a language used by the government.)"
3. 5:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890282137 by Dk1919 Franking (talk))"
4. 14:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 890462981 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(→‎3RR: new section)"
2. 14:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC) "(→‎3RR)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also no attempt to have meaningful discussions after revert of my edit on my talk page [45]. Also has a history of edit warring.

Others involved @Ponyo:, @Dk1919 Franking:, @MarnetteD:. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In light of his most recent comment released on my talk page, which doesn't give much room for a civil discussion, I don't feel anymore like assuming good faith on his part, honestly. Even for someone with a vested agenda, that's some trollish behaviour, or it looks like it at least.--Dk1919 (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1003:B106:8356:1C06:19E0:694D:471B reported by User:Dusti (Result: )

Page

WBEY-FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1003:B106:8356:1C06:19E0:694D:471B (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 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) to 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Updated station profile with updated and accurate information"
   2. 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Updated site"
2. 04:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Message re. WBEY-FM (HG) (3.4.6)"
2. 04:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. WBEY-FM (HG) (3.4.6)"
3. 04:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on WBEY-FM. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I would actually be in violation of 3RR if I reverted them again. They're adding promotional information into the page and not adhering to WP:ADVERT or WP:CITE. Perhaps a semi-protect would be sufficient? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Lamberd reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: )

Page: Uchar-hadji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lamberd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User repeatedly since January removes information with sources and also changes text against sources — 1, 2, 3. User was invited to talk page to explain his vandal actions and reminded about edits' vandal nature reminder 1 and [reminder 2] and reminder 3 on his talk page with links to rules, however he preferred to continue vandalism 4.

Comments:
--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)