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:TocMan reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both editors blocked 72 hours)

Page: Lee Zeldin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120773769 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"
2. 19:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120772621 by BlueboyLINY (talk) Please follow the consensus on the talk page"
3. 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1120771490 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"
2. 19:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Article Structure */ Reply"

Comments:

Hey folks, sorry for the trouble. I tried to get BlueboyLINY to engage with me on the talk page but it took days of him repeatedly reverting my edit before he responded, and now he continues to revert my edit without engaging further with me on the article talk page. He has reverted me more frequently and engaged in less responsive discussion than me, although I don't say that to excuse my own participation in the back and forth edits either. I hope we can reach a good and amicable solution - thanks. TocMan (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a little late, but one might note that there is no record of discussion of this matter on Talk:Lee Zeldin. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

And User:TocMan was alleging he had gotten consensus at the talk page during the dispute when he obviously had not. (disclosure: I reverted TocMan once, because I prefer to keep the status quo on contentious issues until consensus is reached on the talk page). Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You must have missed it. It's the first section on the talk page. --TocMan (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Botushali reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Expulsion of Cham Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "Stop violating WP:NPOV. Undid revision 1121578892 by Khirurg (talk)"
2. 01:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "The paragraphs below clearly illustrate the bigger picture that resulted in the ethnic cleansing of the Chams. It's not one-dimensional, and by attributing it to one cause you are not following WP:NPOV. The expulsion of thousands, massacres of hundreds (including women and children) accompanied by rapes, looting etc etc cannot be simply rationalised by "Axis collaboration"."
3. 06:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC) "How many times do we have to go over this? There were multiple reasons as to why the Chams were expelled, by doing this you are attributing it all to one reason which is simply not the case. Undid revision 1121417824 by Khirurg (talk)"
4. 04:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC) "Ok, it's getting out of hand from everyone involved. For starters 'historical Thesprotia' doesn't mean anything, because Thesprotia is what currently exists. Second of all, the 'Epirus' is indicating the Epirus administrative unit. Chameria is accurate; the Chams were expelled from Chameria. Let's keep some logical stability here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "/* November 2022 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first revert ("Ok, this is getting out of hand") is a re-addition of the controversial irredentist term "Chameria", which was removed by multiple users recently [1] [2], and thus constitutes a revert. This user is also edit-warring at Albanians (3RR breached there as well: [3] [4] [5] [6]) and Thesprotia ([7] [8]), with hostile edit summaries (Are you ok?) and zero attempt at discussion. It should be noted that he is edit-warring to suppress well-sourced information that is "inconvenient" from a nationalist POV (collaboration of certain members of an ethnic group with the Nazis). Khirurg (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The first revert is a re-addition of the controversial irredentist term "Chameria", which was removed by multiple users recently [9] [10], and thus constitutes a revert. This user is also edit-warring at Albanians (3RR breached there as well: [11] [12] [13] [14]) and Thesprotia ([15] [16]), with hostile edit summaries and zero attempt at discussion. It should be noted that he is edit-warring to suppress sourced information that is "inconvenient" from a nationalist POV (collaboration of certain members of an ethnic group with the Nazis). Khirurg (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

In Albanians I don't have 4 reverts, I have 3 reverts which is the same number as Khirurg. The first edit which Khirurg claims to be a revert isn't a revert of anything [17]. After Khirurg first reverted me, he didn't start any talkpage resolution attempt. [18] [19] [20]. In Expulsion of Cham Albanians, I first have to say that the majority of modern Greek historians don't consider the expulsion of Cham Albanians to be the result of collaboration of some of their members with the Nazis, but the result of Greek nationalist goals which preceded WWII. This is the position of most modern Greek historians on the subject, while the Greek nationalist narrative is that they were "expelled" due to Nazi collaboration. Secondly, I don't consider this edit [21] to be a revert but an independent edit, hence I have 3 reverts. Khirurg has 3 reverts too[22] [23] [24]. I'm not claiming that I should have reverted 3 times or that the 3RR rule means that I should do 3 reverts and I'll engage in discussing in the talkpage in both articles but I truly have to note that while Khirurg accuses me not engaging in discussion, there wasn't a single comment by Khirurg on the talkpage before he reported me. Before the report was filed nobody had written anything on the talkpage.

He also accuses me of hostile edit summaries and zero attempts at discussion, but he himself is guilty of this: "Nah, just the usual WP:JDL" [25], "do not remove this" [26] etc etc. He has also made no attempt to discuss the matter on any talk page and justify his edits, which as I said, violate WP:NPOV.

It should also be mentioned that Khirurg has a long history of being uncivil, condescending and hostile towards me as well as other editors over the same topics. Recently, he tried to get me banned for a bogus "tag-teaming" report which was ultimately never actioned because it was completely false. He has completely disrespected me as a fellow editor by spreading lies and false information and has tried to throw my reputation in the dirt even though I am an active volunteer on Wikipedia. He shows no interest in productive collaboration, and it's high-time he is punished for his actions.

Check out his most recent comment on my TP: "Your counting needs work. Anyway, that's not my problem. Reported." [27] Real civil, Khirurg. Botushali (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You absolutely have four 4 reverts both at Expulsion of Cham Albanians and Albanians. At Expulsion of Cham Albanians, you re-added the loaded irredentist term "Chameria", even though it had been removed previously. That is a revert. At Albanians, your first revert is a removal of text that had been previously. That is also a revert. So for clear-cut reverts in two articles, and two more at another one. 10 reverts in 24 hours, yeah, that's edit-warring. Your attempts at smearing me and playing victim of "incivility" are futile, you should also read WP:NOTTHEM while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Btw, this edit of mine at Expulsion of Cham Albanians is not a revert [28], as this is entirely new material, so I only have 2 reverts at that article. Not sure if it's a competence issue or an attempt to mislead. Khirurg (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Removing text isn't a revert by itself. I wasn't reverting anyone in Albanians with that edit and the first edit in Expulsion of Cham Albanians is different from just a revert. Nobody is "smearing" you but I am mentioning the big difficulty in engaging in dispute resolution when the attitude of the other side is such.Botushali (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Botushali did not violate 3RR on either article, it is true, but there's more to edit warring than that. He used his edit summaries to discuss, to the extent they could be characterized that way, since he largely indicated his intent to continue reverting. Extremely tendentious, that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:97.112.206.67 reported by User:Jacona (Result: blocked for a week for various disruption)

Page: Mosquitofish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 97.112.206.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1121586503 by Jacona (talk)"
2. 01:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "You're the one edit warring over an addition that was approved by an admin. So stop."
3. 15:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC) "No edit warring. If you have an issue take it to the talk page, or take it up with C. Fred. You know, the admin that approved the addition."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP currently partially blocked for edit warring elsewhere. Conversation has taken place entirely in edit captions, repeatedly inserts information without a RS, won't engage on talk page. Jacona (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Why am I the only one who can edit war? You were the one who kept reverting my addition that was approved directly by C. Fred. Then when I said if you had an issue take it to the talk page, you just kept reverting my edits repeatedly.

Being a regular user does not mean you're exempt from the rules you preach to others. You were edit warring and refused to discuss the matter. 97.112.206.67 (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Note: they have broken 3R and are now at their 6th revert. M.Bitton (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:I'm not perfect but I'm almost reported by User:GOG88 (Result: OP blocked for a week)

Page: Multiple (at least 8) articles and pages, including the AIV page.

User being reported: I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Multiple reverts in multiple pages, at least 36 reverts in total, some pages have 4 to 6 reverts in a row, all but two, without any edit summary. Stalking and reverting every edits made by me and at least one another user. Just some examples:
• On articles:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]
5. [33]
6. [34]

• On AIV (have been blocked 48 hours for this):

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Temporarily cannot put any warning in their talk page yet because they will revert them anyway. This will also likely drag them here to revert my report in this page and this would turn into another battleground.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

They will likely revert any edit in any talk page.

Comments:

Hostile, aggressive, and tacitern edit-warrior, apparently not here to communicate or cooperate with anyone, having a WP:OWN attitude, repeatedly restoring preferred versions in multiple articles, even at the expense of multiple editors. Not hesitant and are very ready to get into edit warring, by reverting everything:

• Reverting my discussing message on their talk page, twice: [40] and then [41] "Go away, I don't trust you". I couldn't even start a discussion with them.
• Reverting my message in my own talk page: [42]
• Reverting every edit of mine on multiple pages and multiple times, using their rollback ability, without providing any reason / any edit summary, and falsely and quickly assuming bad faith / vandalism (diffs above, and just some examples among others). Have gone straight back to the undoing spree after their 48-hour block expired, still hardly without any edit summary apart from a short and vaguely worded one that is not related to the content: [43] "Not a WP:NOTHERE user, your edits were the bad faith ones."

• Deleting my report of them at WP:AIV while reinstating their (diffs above). The warring edit in AIV caught them to be blocked by JBW for 48 hours, and I was also suspended from editing for 31 hours, however they have been deliberately aggressive, and I'm caught-up trying to revert their reverts in that page.
• Is now showing their intention that they obviously will not be here to cooperate, and possibly some subtle low-key personal attack, via a condescending and threatening message they have sent me. 48-hour block seems to be insufficient for them. This is a classic WP:OWN and WP:NOTHERE editor. GOG88 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you're a relatively new account. Secondly, you couldn't even use proper English. Third, your edits won't be accepted on popular articles. You use informal writing, calling things "it" way too much, along with writing numbers less than 10 as the number alone, e.g. 4. I never did anything wrong. You even use "ghetto" language which looks ugly and won't be tolerated on Wikipedia. "Y'all"? Really? And ask any admin and anyone who often edits football articles. They won't accept it. Here, I'll make you a deal: You can make those edits if you ask several admins and people who edit articles on football and the majority say yes. So stop acting like I'm the bad person. I never did anything wrong. Other rollbackers get away with things like this based on bad-faith, unnecessary edits you do. I did the same on "Tunisia national football team" with another editor like you, and nothing happened as I warned them. You're attempting to start edit wars by lying in your edit summaries. The old version before your edits was significantly better. Don't fix it if it's perfectly fine. Quit. I even replied on your talk page; that's the way I respond. I'm undoing some of my reverts (see below). Nearly but not perfect (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

So, GOG88, quit lying about me. I am not a NOTHERE editor, nor am I an OWN editor. I don't do personal attacks either. So quit your ghetto language and lies. All I simply do is edit football articles by copyediting them and you're ruining them by changing them to the wrong style that won't be accepted on nearly every Wikipedia article that's popular. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I will admit, I will accept some of your changes, but not all. Your edits to some articles were unacceptable. Many admins look at a user's contributions after seeing their bad-faith edits and revert them without looking. Many. I was one of them. So I'll let some go, but don't edit the national football teams of big African countries. They won't work. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Deal: How about every time you make an edit, you leave a message on my talk page? I won't revert it, just let me know and ask if this is acceptable or if it needs work. Thank you. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Filer blocked for a week. They have not taken into account the fact that they were edit-warring against numerous others to restore their inferior versions of articles (including, but not limited to, using digits for numbers less than ten in violation of MOS:NUMBER, and sub-par writing such as replacing every reference to the subject of the article with "it"). They were blocked for the edit-war on WP:AIV, and when the block expired, immediately started edit-warring again, making seven reverts in the next fourteen minutes. Reporting an editor at a behaviour noticeboard when you are displaying precisely that behaviour yourself is rarely a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:6C50:17F:ABB9:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked, protected)

Page: Orontid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:6C50:17F:ABB9:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]
7. [50]
8. [51]
9. [52]
10. [53]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [54]

Comments:

• The /64 range of the IP has been blocked and the article semi protected. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kor Ph reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Silla

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

• Balhae

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64], [65], [66]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [67]

Comments:

Nationalistic POVPUSH in Korean historical articles and mass reversion on several articles with general blanket comments in edit summaries. Their main concern is the listing of Hangul transcription before Hanja in historical articles related to Korea. See [68] compared to post edit: [69] and the subsequent reversions: [70], [71], and [72]. More recently at Balhae they have also removed long standing dual transcriptions in modern Korean romanization and pinyin: pre-[73] and post-[74]. Qiushufang (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Floidster reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Slavery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "Added "indentured servitude' to the first sentence of first paragraph."
2. 11:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "Added "indentured servitude' to the first sentence of first paragraph."
3. 11:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "Added "indentured servitude' to the first sentence of first paragraph."
4. 22:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC) "Added "indentured servitude' to the first sentence of first paragraph. See citation 1 for verifiable source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Slavery."
2. 11:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "/* November 2022 */ Don't revert again"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "/* National Pride */ Reply"

Comments:

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Cortador reported by User:Denniss (Result: No violation)

Page: Nebelwerfer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1121644356 by Denniss (talk) Leaving unsourced claims for a decade ago just stand there isn't constructive. If you want this information to be included, source it. There isn't a single reliable source for "smoke mortar" being an accurate translation, or one that was used at the time. All there is is a link to a user-genearted dictionary. The claim that this was a code had zero sources at all."
2. 05:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1121574751 by Denniss (talk) If you think you know German military terms, source them properly. This has been up for more of a decade unsourced."
3. 18:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1121301395 by Sus scrofa (talk) If you want "smoke mortar" included as a translation, provide a source that isn't a user-generated dictionary with a forum discussion that calls the translation into question, and provide a source that "Nebel" is supposed to mean "smoke" here. None of that is sourced."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nebelwerfer."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

asked him to use article talk page within the general unconstructive behaviour warning. User obviously does not know german language and german military terms otherwise he would not reinstate this dubious and obviously false translation Denniss (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

noex I also think it might be a good idea to WP:LEADCITE notwithstanding, cite that in the intro or add it somewhere in the body text with a source. Maybe he has to cover it with a hat, but he does have a bit of a point. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

He does not have a point at all because his translation is cutting the german word in two, translate these two parts and then expect to get a proper translation. And this also completely ignores the military context. Actually he would require a source for his strange translation attempt. We have (or had) similar problems at Sturmgewehr 44 with multiple users trying the same translation approach which results in Storm rifle instead of proper Assault rifle.

I believe the first external links actually uses smoke mortar as translation but I don't know if the text is an original reproduction from the US Intelligence report. Denniss (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kacser reported by User:Asartea (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: One Thousand Children (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 18:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 18:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 17:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "added better 41 characters Short description

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.3)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeatedly edit warring to keep a non MOS complaint and ungrammatical short description in the article -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked one week. The user also appears to be incompetent. Although not vandalism per se, the user's edits have been disruptive, and I've reverted them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Godofwarfan69420 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: )

Page: Ron DeSantis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Godofwarfan69420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75] (09:22, 13 November 2022)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76] (13:56, 13 November 2022)
2. [77] (14:03, 13 November 2022)
3. [78] (17:01, 13 November 2022)
4. [79] (03:53, 14 November 2022)
5. [80] (04:40, 14 November 2022)
6. [81] (05:02, 14 November 2022)
7. [82] (15:52, 14 November 2022)
8. [83] (16:42, 14 November 2022)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [86]

Comments:
See WP:IDHT behavior / minor aspersions on this user's talk page, as well as unconstructive comment on mine. Accusing another editor of lying: [87]. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for the numeric suffix which violates the username policy. They've been editing for only a week; I'm surprised no one else seems to have caught this. Perhaps the bots need to look at the combination of those two numbers as well as alone. He has proposed an acceptable change of username; once that change is made and he is unblocked I leave it to another admin to review this one on its own merits. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

User:198.70.2.200 reported by User:Throast (Result: Already partial blocked)

Page: RAS syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 198.70.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1122053298 by Throast (talk)"
2. 16:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC) "Not. A. Re. Dun. Dant. A. Cro. Nym"
3. 15:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC) "As far as letting it go, practice what you preach."
4. 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC) "DC comics is NOT a redundant acronym. See the talk page for the explanation"
5. 21:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC) "Correcting an error is constructive, not disruptive. There's even a non-example on the page itself identical in principle to the point I've made as to why DC comics is not a redundant acronym IE OPEC countries."
6. 20:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC) "DC comics is not a redundant acronym. Not only is it the company name but they also produce merchandise other than comics. "Redundant" means to be able to be removed without effecting meaning or function. If you bought a DC action figure, you wouldn't just say you bought a "DC". Adding "comics" is necessary for specificity"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on RAS syndrome."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC) on Talk:RAS syndrome ""

Comments:

Though the IP has engaged in discussion, they have been stonewalling, refusing to hear other editors' arguments, and resorted to reverting throughout. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Already blocked. I applied a partial block minutes before you posted this. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have taken something away from this, though. If I ever wondered why Wiki isn't considered a valid academic source, this experience cleared it up for me. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I made a solid case as to why it's not a redundant acronym. No one paid attention to that. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred, I guess I was just in the process of filling out the Twinkle form. Sorry about that. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

198...: The talk page history says they did pay attention but were able to refute it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User198.70.2.200: reported by wolf (Result: See above)

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

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89] (reverted by Throast)
2. [90] (reverted by me)
3. [91] (reverted by me)
4. [92] (reverted by C.Fred)
5. [93] (reverted by C.Fred)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [96]

Comments:
On reverts alone this is a straight 4RR vio (now 5RR), but this user was previously blocked by Daniel Case for "edit warring and personal attacks", on this same article back in April. There is also an evading issue: they're currently on a one week block, from Paul Erik for "edit warring and personal attacks" on another article (Mosquitofish) with another IP account. The report that led to that block is still on this page just above. They are also partially range-blocked by Paul Erik from both RAS syndrome and Mosquitofish until 2023-02-10, for "continued edit warring", as there are clear connections among all involved IP accounts, and while repeatedly edit-warring on the same content (going back more than 7 months), on these two specific and very disperate articles, and using the same style of emphatic posts combined with personal attacks, they've been quite open about being the same person. They ignored multiple++ warnings and p-blocks, aĺl in pursuit of this continued edit-war. - wolf 16:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Duplicate report. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No matter how many times you ignore it, it is not and never will be

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redundancy

>the part of a message that can be eliminated without loss of essential information

There is no information in 'DC comics' that can be removed without losing meaning

You can't just say 'I bough some DC'.

DC what? They sell apparel, action figures, trading cards

comics is a product, and necessary for specificity 198.70.2.200 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)