Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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


Feed-icon.svg 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.
  • 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 than 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.


User:Hasteur reported by User:TakuyaMurata (Result: Wrong venue)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Microfunction&oldid=915970733

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [1]
  2. [2]

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

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

Comments:

I don’t know if this is the best place to report but the user is attempting to override the outcome of the MfD, which resulted in the warring that needs an intervention. An involvement of a 3rd party is desirable because of the history between this user and me; e.g., Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination) —- Taku (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not the right venue to bring this complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah I was afraid I might be told so; but please see my latest revert [3]. At least the situation is developing to the edit warring. — Taku (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    I have completed the merger (which should eliminate the source of the dispute). —- Taku (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:DerekHistorian reported by User:Nigos (Result: Warning, Protections)[edit]

Pages: Singapore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DerekHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 15:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC) to 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 15:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Controversial ranking of Singapore world smartest city, most safest country, most technology ready nation. are outdated Singapore single sources FULL OF MISLEADING LIES ignored again and again, 2019 puts Japan or Iceland the world safest city, Ai Dubai or Helsinki the world smartest city, Most technology read nation? there's only a 2016 source which shows Singapore, there's no source 2017, 2018, 2019, any results could change by those years. Economy competitive only in May 2019, is too early"
    2. 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Tons of sources of puts Hong Kong as the world most expensive city, again another controversial ranking, this whole page needs to be cleaned up. IT'S SO MESSY all it's sources relies only on strait-times."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC) to 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 11:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC) "Modern Singapore is a global hub for education, [truncated ref wiki markup] finance, [[Health care|healthcare]],[truncated ref wiki markup]
    2. 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC) "I removed all the the part about Singapore is a global hub for education,[9] finance, healthcare,[10] innovation,[11] manufacturing,[12] technology,[13] tourism,[14] trade, and transport.[15], there hundreds of countries that are a global hub for one or many things, , the Singapore wikipedia page deviates from MOS:INTRO putting economic rankings here also deviates. All that is already mentioned on the sections below, also Singapore does have the highest life expectancy as of 2019."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 12:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Disruptive editing: new section */"
  2. 07:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Warning: Three-revert rule on Hong Kong. */"
  3. This warning isn't part of original report, but shows edit warring on other pages as well: 12:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Warning: Edit warring on Turkmens. */"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Consecutive edits made from 17:09, 8 September 2019 to 04:22, 14 September 2019

Comments:

They tried to solve the issue on the talk page, but kept on making personal attacks at Feinoa. They also appear to be wikihounding Feinoa, especially on Hong Kong. Nigos (talk Contribs) 13:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted the diffs for the attempts to resolve dispute on Talk:Singapore. robertsky (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nigos: I had to reformat the report here manually as somehow the TW substitution didn't work properly. I had to manually format out the ref markup in the diff comments, as I do not know how to properly nowiki the entire link. But I believe it should be immaterial. Please check through the reformatted report to see if I have left out anything here. robertsky (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian has not only been edit warring on Singapore, but also on Hong Kong, which resulted the latter being given full edit protection as well. May I draw attention to this particular diff comment that they have made: 10:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "I've waited for more than 24 hours to make this revert. Please discuss this on me on Talk:Hong_Kong page. I'm completely disatisfied with the fact that Singapore is allowed to glorify and exaggerate it's wiki page with a huge paragraph mentioning it's competitive economy, international ranking but Hong Kong is not even allowed mention a small part of it." Emphasis is mine. This edit came after make 3 reversions in 24 hours prior. I believe this is an evidence that the editor is skirting the WP:3RR in order not to be immediately reported as edit warring. This pattern of behaviour is not confined to Hong Kong but onto Singapore as well. Horserice and I had tried to counsel him to be civil, not engaging in bad faith in his discourse, as well as pointing out that consensus would have to be sought page by page rather than ramming down his edits on the page. However, it seems to be it is futile. In Singapore article, he is trying to remove the rankings from being mentioned in the lead, while in Hong Kong article, he is trying to put the rankings in the lead, and at the same time, he is calling out what he perceived to be double standards in the treatment of both articles. Despite having raised valid points, I find his comments on the Talk pages as well as in his edit summaries uncivilised and provocative, while his edits are being disruptive and time consuming, so much so that the editors on both pages are beginning not to address his accusations, me included. I feel that I am (at the very least. but I am sure some other editors on the Talk pages are feeling the same way too) not able to engage him while he choose to communicate in such a manner. robertsky (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:Doug Weller#Edit warring over genetics between Hunan201p and DerekHistorian brought by User:Ermenrich and User talk:Doug Weller#Derek Historian brought by User:Horserice. They might want to add something. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
DerekHistorian has been edit warring across many pages, see here [4], [5], [6], [7]. All from different pages.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep, have a few things to add: Many of DerekHistorian's recent comments are about perceived double standards treatment when comparing the Singapore and Hong Kong articles. He has, up to this point, not sought consensus on either article's talk pages in a conducive and cooperative manner. Instead, he has been aggressive to the point of unduly accusing people of being sockpuppets. Furthermore, he's also been trying to use the actions and opinions of other editors (including mine) as sole justification to enforce content onto articles (see [8], [9], [10], Talk:Singapore#Double standard edits on Hong Kong and Singapore, extremely glorifying of Singapore's unnecessary fluff). Regardless of the validity of his points, this editor's not being civil and his behavior is becoming obstructive. He continually rehashes the same argument that Hong Kong is portrayed in a less "glorifying" manner than Singapore, and ignores repeated appeals to tone down his rhetoric. Other editors are currently suggesting a topic ban on him for Hong Kong and Singapore. However, it now seems from the above comment that he's been edit warring even in other unrelated pages as well. While I'm not sure what would be appropriate in this case, given the apparent pattern of disruptive editing, I think that some action other than full page protections (which have been done already) is necessary at this point. Horserice (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
DerekHistorian also made this edit. Its edit summary makes it look like that the more barnstars you have, the more "privilege" and "power" you have. Nigos (talk Contribs) 00:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yup horrible approach but this can be frustrating and would get under anyone's skin. That said a break is perhaps best be it self-imposed or not.--Moxy 🍁 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what exactly are you implying here? Do clarify, thanks. Feinoa (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked at the interaction and I kind of understand why DerekHistorian is frustrated. There definitely seems to be some amount of tag-team-reversions happening (Btw, Moxy thank you for the link; I am amazed that Wikipedia has such cool data analysis tools). I think page protection is the way to go and perhaps DerakHistorian needs to be reminded how to properly discuss on the talk page. I acknowledge they are trying to discuss, but the walls of text is putting me off unfortunately.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Korny O'Near reported by User:Levivich (Result: one week)[edit]

Page
Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Korny O'Near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Alt-right, racism and white supremacy */ Removed references that don't back up the previous statements - i.e., they don't connect Molyneux to white supremacist or white genocide theories"
  2. 01:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Removing citations of Data & Society, an obscure research institute that shows no claims to either notability or reliability; see WP:RS"
  3. 00:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Re-removed "white supremacist views" statements - comments by the SPLC require attribution to them, and Data & Society presumably do too, if we're being generous and calling them a reliable source at all"
  4. 20:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC) "Removed allegations of white supremacy - not backed up the references and thus a major WP:BLP violation. See talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. User talk:Korny O'Near#September 2019
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Talk:Stefan Molyneux#Neutrality of article
Comments:

Editor was blocked last week for edit warring on the same article. After the block, they engaged in some discussion of the issue at Talk:Stefan Molyneux#Neutrality of article, but it seems after a few days, when they could not gain consensus for their edits (essentially, remove "white supremacist" from the article), the editor went back to edit warring with multiple editors, now at 4RR. I am reporting here instead of leaving a 3RR warning in light of the recent block. Note also the WP:NLT concern at User talk:Korny O'Near#September 2019. Levivich 15:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a single one of those four "reverts" you linked to is in fact a revert. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Your first edit to the page after being unblocked was already a return to edit warring in my view. It dealt with the same material that you were blocked for warring over, and I don't any experienced editor could possibly believe it had consensus support. Your edits since that point have - in various ways - undone the actions of other editors or attempted to restore the article toward your preferred version over the objections of multiple editors. This is edit warring. Nblund talk 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
That's quite vague. Every edit that removes or modifies content undoes the actions of other editors, to some extent. I've made a large variety of changes - some have been reverted and some haven't. Whether someone reverts an edit of mine is outside of my control. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I was the one who blocked him last time but I'd prefer a different Admin this time to show it's not just me. [User:Nblund]] is correct, this is edit-warring whether or not they are literal reverts. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment@Levivich: you have left the Previous version reverted to field blank. El_C 16:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I note with disapproval that hardly anyone is bothering to fill that field lately. It saves us admins a lot of time and I am considering simply suspending reports from now on until this is done. El_C 16:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I will take this to your talk page because I had questions about the same thing. But I note with equal disapproval that Twinkle doesn't fill in that field, and also that I frankly have no idea what that field means, and since no one else fills it out, I thought it was just some kind of leftover from earlier times. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich 16:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 16:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Further notes by the filer, Levivich. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was just about to leave this when the block was instituted, so let me put it here "for the record". Although some of them are partial reverts, they are all literal reverts:

Note also that Korny's 2RR edit summary was "Re-removed ..." What concerns me is that Korny either doesn't understand the edit warring rules, or is purposefully ignoring them, and that's concerning from an experienced editor. I've never interacted with Korny before and am not familia with their edit history, but I'm not sure why, after 14 years and 16,000 edits with a clean block lock, suddenly this month Korny started edit warring with impunity, even right after their first block. My suggestion would be for Korny to just step back from this article–it's clearly for whatever reason clouding their judgment–but if they cannot or will not step back, they need to stop taking up so much of other editors' time and disrupting the article with all the reverting. Levivich 16:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized I needlessly pinged everyone to a closed report. Sorry about that, I should have removed those pings before posting. Levivich 16:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Doc James reported by User:81.35.37.251 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Legionnaires' disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doc James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:

The term "incubation period" is common and easily understood. Thus, when I found it patronisingly "explained" in the article about Legionnaires' disease, I fixed it. Doc James reverted, claiming "Was fine". Somebody else made the same change, saying "simple enough for a reader to understand (and there is always a wikilink)"; Doc James reverted them. I restored the improvement two further times; Doc James reverted each time. Somebody else attempted a compromise, retaining the patronising "explanation" but changing the order; Doc James reverted. On the merits of the case, although they started a talk page discussion, they have presented no evidence to support their belief that this term is not widely understood. Though their fourth revert came a few hours more than 24 after their first, in this case, I think it is clear that their behaviour is problematic, and so I am reporting it here. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree that the jargon "incubation period" is common and easily understood, and I find your repeated use of the term "patronizing" to describe a simple content dispute to be incredibly annoying.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Technical terminology says:
"When mentioning technical terms (jargon) for the first time, provide a short plain-English explanation first, followed by the jargon in parentheses. If the concept is too elaborate for this, wikilink to other articles (or Wiktionary entries)." If I had noticed this dispute, I would have reverted to the version that conforms to MOS:MED.
If you don't like our manual of style. the way to change it is to request a change is WP:MOSTALK, not to revert an editor who is following our existing standards for dealing with medical jargon. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The user may or may not be right about the content dispute, but edit warring is still edit warring. Though in this case, I actually agree with the IP editor. That discussion is better served by remaining on the talk page. In this case, User:Doc James seems to have reverted more than just one editor to breach 3RR. AlexEng(TALK) 19:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── TIMELINE:

At this point the statement had been stable for four full years.

This looks to me like an attempt to reach a compromise and to find out whether the other two editors really want to remove "length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms" or whether they just want to include "incubation period" I say Doc stays at 1RR, others will argue that this is 2RR.

  • 15:50, 16 September 2019:[30] Doc James changes "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period) " to "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period) (Continuation of previous edit. RR unchanged.)
  • 18:01, 16 September 2019:[31] 81.35.37.251 reverts with another "do not patronise" comment. 1RR
  • 18:09, 16 September 2019:[32] Doc James reverts with "Restored per MEDMOS" comment. 2RR or 3RR
  • 18:39, 16 September 2019:[33] 81.35.37.251 reverts with another "do not patronise" comment 2RR
  • 18:53, 16 September 2019[34] Johnbod reverts to Doc James version. 1RR

At 04:55, 17 September 2019 the 24 hours expired on Doc James first revert, so he is now at 1RR or 2RR

  • 09:22, 17 September 2019:[35] Tigraan changes "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period)" to "The incubation period (length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms)" Not a removal or restoration of "length of time..." so this is a new edit and Tigraan's RR is unchanged.
  • 14:43, 17 September 2019:[36] Doc James reverts. 2RR or 3RR

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • There was a lot of agreement with Doc James on the talk page, but that should not matter. You are not allowed to edit war even if you are right and even if everybody agrees with you. Doc James did not violate the 3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" rule. That's an easily-checkable fact. Did he violate the "edit warring without hitting 4RR" rule? I don't think he did, but of course the IP who filed this thinks he did. That's why we have administrators to decide who is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be useful for this IP to disclose all their prior accounts. I doubt this is the first dispute I have had with them (regarding specifically complexity of language). Additionally this was opened within a minute of the "warning" on my talk page and I made no edits between. Also I do not think I have breached 3RR. Plus as mentioned we have guidelines that support the version I was restoring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was my first thought when I first saw this, that as you have one, possibly two, long-term editors who have an unhealthy lengthy obsessive grudge against you regarding previous wiki video dispute, grammatical typos and importantly whether to increase the use of nontechnical descriptive terms, and thus this edit war report likely relates to that. I smell a sweaty WP:SOCK! So, yeah, with the fact that the IP geolocates to a favourite tourist hotspot for British holiday makers, I think it is highly likely a long-term British editor you have a dispute with has utilised their holiday to the Canary Islands to make use of access to IP addresses unrelated to their country of origin to bait you into an edit war, and evade detection via a Sockpuppet investigation. This is not a good faithed editing dispute. On that basis I think the ip editor should be blocked on behaviour alone regardless of whether Doc James technically breached 3RR. Don’t feed the trolls. This IP editor is stalking, harassing Doc James and trying to WP:GAME the system — they are very well experienced in Wikipedia procedures, clearly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Tend to agree with this. The user is highly familiar with advanced WP-speak and from the get-go regards anyone who does not understand "incubation period" as an "idiot" - classic sock temperament and skill-set. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent me. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I recommend a one or two week block on this ip sock until the UK established editor loses access to the IP address and returns to the U.K. from their holiday in the Canary Islands.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I recommend that you do not indulge in wild fantasies. Provide evidence for every one of the claims you have made in this astonishingly weird attack on me, or withdraw them. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow, a very quick response, highly unusual for an ip editor, such Wikipedia addictive behaviour usually only occurs in established editors with many thousands of edits and who own an account.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that this user's time-wasting comments be removed from the discussion. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No action. Call us many things, but we're not entirely stupid - the chances of an editor being blocked on a case filed by an IP which is obviously an experienced editor, and oddly geolocates to a Spanish island mainly populated by British holidaymakers, is zero. Not that the IPs edits are all problematic - indeed most of them look productive, which again points towards an experienced user. But this filing is closed. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Black Kite, should we semiprotect Legionnaires' disease? The IP is still edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Lectonar protected it for 7 days. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AlexanderIvanenko reported by User:Pudeo (Result:Sock blocked)[edit]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. revert 20:10, 17 September 2019‎
  2. revert 20:35, 17 September 2019‎
  3. revert 21:40, 17 September 2019‎
  4. removal of material 22:14, 17 September 2019‎
  5. removal of material 22:30, 17 September 2019‎
  6. talk page revert of my comment without any basis 22:30, 17 September 2019‎
  7. talk page revert 22:51, 17 September 2019

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Soviet_partisans#Be_wary_of_Soviet_era_sources

Comments:
Brand new account registered to do POV edit-warring. This in fact is likely a new throwaway sock of YMB29. Previous throwaway socks that edit-warred this article include LegitimateProft (talk · contribs), LegitimateProfit (talk · contribs) and LegitmateProfit (talk · contribs).

The user was "clever" enough to not do a plain revert for the 4th time, but instead removed other stale parts of the article. Then he reverted my talkpage comment calling out these socks. Filing a SPI on these throwaway socks is useless, so perhaps extended confirmed protection is required in this article. --Pudeo (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, you yourself reverted me 4 times, bro. You're making these accusations against me but failed to report your conduct that's substantially identical.

  1. Revision as of 18:21, 17 September 2019
  2. Revision as of 19:29, 17 September 2019
  3. Revision as of 19:55, 17 September 2019
  4. Revision as of 20:40, 17 September 2019
The article [Soviet Partisans] has had numerous deletions without any discussion. The Eastern European Mailing List has reared its head again, and Pudeo seems to support it. One of the edit summaries is blatantly partisan and removes a lot sourced content: ugh, seems like some Soviet-crimes apologist was active here, restore some content removed without proper discussion on talkAlexanderIvanenko (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
One of those is a talk page revert. That edit summary is not by me either. --Pudeo (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Your edits are indicative of a "rUsSiA iS baD" perspective, and this edit from you depends quite heavily on revisionist, nationalist sources from Finland in a language that no one outside of a single country of 5 million people speaks. And it seems that you are supporting edits with those ugly summaries above.
You added this into the article: Approximately 200 operations were made on civilians, killing over 200 and injuring 50, including children. The partisans often executed civilians throughout, not wanting anyone to witness the atrocities.AlexanderIvanenko (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The content that User:AlexanderIvanenko is edit warring over (against multiple editors) was originally added by a sock puppet of indef banned User:Jacob Peters [39]. I don't know if AI is sock puppet of Jacob Peters or YMB29 (these two have exact same POV) or nobody at all, but when a brand new account brings up an ArbCom case from ten years ago ... well, draw your own conclusions. Volunteer Marek 22:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Akisuto Zeniko reported by User:McSly (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Sukhoi Su-57 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akisuto Zeniko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]
  4. [43]
  5. [44]
  6. [45]
  7. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] and [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has made no attempt at any kind of communication.

Comments:

The diffs presented here are for just one article but the User:Akisuto Zeniko has been adding and re-adding the links to youtube on about a dozen aviation related articles. It has been reverted by multiple editors and has made absolutely no attempt to any communication. They just re-add the same links over and over again. Prior to using that user name the same edits have been made by multiple dynamic IP addresses. Fort example this one 202.248.40.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and this one 2001:318:E011:F:81FC:6974:B6C3:FDA7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). --McSly (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them for disruptive editing. I reverted many ELs from an IP and this user that are just promotional videos for airplanes - i.e., spam. I've not blocked for edit warring per se, since I've reverted, but rather for disruptive spamming after warnings. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reaction --McSly (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 reported by User:Crossroads1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Pederasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. [49]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916284199 by Crossroads1 (talk) Why should I have to settle on talk first when the previous version uses a weasel word that's against Wikipedia policy?"
  2. 02:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916282476 by Crossroads1 (talk)"
  3. 02:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Modern view */ edited to more accurately and clearly reflect the information in the citations."
  4. 02:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Modern view */ it is legal and psychology experts whose opinions are relevant here. Use of the word "considered" without indicating who is doing the considering is a weasel word and against wikipedia policy."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [50]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* More than legal and psychology experts */ new section"
  2. 03:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* More than legal and psychology experts */ reply"
Comments:

Almost certainly the same person as this previous AN3 case where they were blocked for 36 hours. [51] They are on the same article, making the same argument about alleged weasel words, and both IPs geolocate to the same city. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursbradv🍁 03:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449 and User:68.1.171.165 reported by User:AzureCitizen (Result: Two IPs blocked)[edit]

Page: Ranger School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP user using two different IPs (see geolocation data):

2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

68.1.171.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [52] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  2. [53] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  3. [54] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  4. [55] editing as 68.1.171.165 (see geolocation)
  5. [56] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  6. [57] editing as 2600:1000:B144:419D:5901:62A9:C069:449
  7. [58] editing as 68.1.171.165 (see geolocation)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User removes warning seen here: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has not posted on the Talk Page.

Comments:
They've made five reverts within the last 24 hours, and the latest revert took place after being warned (see link above). Furthermore, before revert #5 of 7 above, they went so far as to try and post an edit warring report against User:Garuda28 about the same content, seen here, so they obviously understand what edit warring is and kept it up themselves just the same. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Update 24 hours later: They are now stalking User:Garuda28 by following his edits on other Wikipedia articles and reversing Garuda28's content edits to harass him while using seemingly innocuous edit summaries so that it isn't obvious to others. Garuda28 stopped by my Talk Page to ask what he should do; you can read my suggestion at this thread: User_talk:AzureCitizen#Edit_Stalking. Would appreciate an administrator doing something about this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: Both of the reported IPs are now blocked one week for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Theteeveeman reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page
KTTV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Theteeveeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) to 16:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    2. 14:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    3. 15:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    4. 16:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
  2. 20:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 19:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) to 19:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 19:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    2. 19:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
    3. 19:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Digital channel */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on KTTV. (TW)"
  2. 20:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on KTTV. (TW)"
  3. 17:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on KTTV. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He keeps changing the article the way he sees it; these two links prove 11.2 and 11.3 come from KCOP's transmitter, not KTTV's. [60] [61] Also, he won't respond to any of my warnings; he keeps reverting it and I keep reverting it back. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Result: Mbcg66b3r and Theteeveeman are both warned. Whoever is the next to revert the article may be blocked, unless they have obtained prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Kurtkra reported by User:Robertsky (Result: User was blocked independently)[edit]

Page
Kurt Krakowian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kurtkra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Spam"
  2. 20:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Spam"
  3. 17:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Wrong information"
  4. 15:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Wrong information"
  5. 05:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kurt Krakowian. (TW)"
  2. 20:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kurt Krakowian. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "→‎removal of sourced information: new section"
Comments:

3RR violation, no attempts by User:Kurtkra to engage in Talk page to resolve dispute. robertsky (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Also note that this article is currently under AfD. robertsky (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Resolution

None from this board. The editor was probably blocked by Muboshgu independent of this report with the reason: Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: It appears that the subject of an article register this account to whitewash the article robertsky (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked indefinitely by Muboshgu (talk · contribs). robertsky (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:AlbusTheWhite reported by User:Moxy (Result: one week)[edit]

Page
Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AlbusTheWhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "I have began a discussion in the talk page feel free to express your thoughts"
  2. 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Better image resolution and image change, see talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Despite not being a 3 revert the first thing they do after their block for 3rv violation is come back and start warring again the exact same thing....time to give this guy a good vacation no one wants to deal with a disruptive editor like this. Hard to move forward when the editor simply does not read the MOS that is linked and continuously edits in the same images with fixed pixel size. We could be talking about image selection....but we can't even get past the sizing problems.Moxy 🍁 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 22:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Vickyindia17 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result:72 hours)[edit]

Page
Jai Shri Ram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Vickyindia17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
  3. 08:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 05:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jai Shri Ram. (TW)"
  2. 13:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jai Shri Ram. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • The edits were POV-laden and clearly unacceptable. I've blocked 72 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Addendum: As Vicky1728 is also obviously the same editor I have blocked that account indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ceha reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: )[edit]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The article has been protected three times in the last two months (on my request), and as soon as the last protection expired editor resumed with reverts, removing in the process not only properly referenced prose, which is the only revision that makes some sense by relying of several good sources, but also all template messages and merger template as well. Discussion on the proposal to merge "Turkish Croatia" → "Bosnian Krajina" was supposed to resolve both problems, the existence of a problematic article, as well as the entire dispute surrounding it, however it is now completely overwhelmed by Croatian editors from Croatian Wikipedia, thus being completely disrupted and should be rendered as irregular. I tried to draw attention to these developments in a report on Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents. I'm a little bit baffled with the lack of interest, if not with the lack of concrete reaction. Amazingly, on Croatian Wikipedia they have something called "List of irregularities at English Wikipedia" (where the article and its merger proposal are "campaigned" /Turkish Croatia), which is a subpage of Croatian version of "Village Pump", and obviously serves as a sort of forum for collecting information and preparing an organized approach and unison action toward articles, edit-wars, disputes, on English Wikipedia (being a subpage it's obscured from passing-by outside editors' view).౪ Santa ౪99° 22:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Ban proposal: I recommend that User:Ceha and User:Santasa99 should both be banned from the topic of Turkish Croatia under the WP:ARBEE sanctions, of which both have been notified, due to the large number of reverts each one has made since August 1st, and the three different article protections that have been needed. I suggest leaving this proposal open for a while to see if one or both editors can explain how they can otherwise resolve the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, I didn't deserve any better. If you would recommend same sanction (ban) for an editor who has filled two Talk pages in the last two to three months full of attempts to come up with a resolution, while wrestling with editors who were coming out of outside project (Croatian Wikipedia) taking turns in waves and never put together two sensible words in reply (yesterday Shokatz, today Silverije, tomorrow Ceha, day after tomorrow Kubura), and who has done everything that Dispute Resolution guidelines recommends except completely disengaging. You yourself have been involved in some of the discussions as a mediator, not to mention situation where you left me at the mercy of editor who insulted me (DIFF (troll, idiot, among other things)) and accused me without pointing at any evidence on your own Talk page. But hopefully, you are going to scrutinize that article if I get removed from it.--09:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is couple of suggestions for a resolution: I will never open that page again if you are going to thoroughly check everything about it, so that imposing a POV onto articles by means of bullying and blatant canvasing and campaigning at editor's "base-camp" (language / ethno-national) project does not become rewarding modus operandi - you may or may not be aware that Ceha could gladly accept sanctions against him, as long as those same sanctions (ban) have been used against me too, because the rest of his like-minded crowd, who has been involved all this time, will do his bidding for him - DIFF; DIFF; Take an eye onto discussionr; Can you send me an email; Tražim pomoć (asking for help); Glasovanje (you can start voting); Turkish Croatia (canvasing and campaigning at Croatian Wikipedia "village pump" subpage called "List of irregularities at English Wikipedia")
Or, we could try to resolve a dispute by following guidelines and policies on notability and verifiability, or even better, by agreeing to merge problematic obscure article with fring subject with a larger more prominent one, to put its content under the scrutiny of a slightly wider community, but without canvasing on the editor's base-camp projects (such as Croatian Wikipedia) by those who are against any of the proposed mesures - which is everything I've been trying to propose in the last two months?
Otherwise, I should start getting used to indiscriminate sanctioning proposal.--౪ Santa ౪99° 09:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:WildScience1976 reported by User:Zefr (Result: 72 hours; sock indeffed)[edit]

Page
Luna (killer whale) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
WildScience1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 21:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC) to 22:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 21:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 22:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
    4. 22:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 21:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC) to 21:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 21:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. 20:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  6. 20:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
  7. Consecutive edits made from 20:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC) to 20:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    1. 20:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Luna (killer whale). (TW)"
  2. 22:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Luna (killer whale). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "/* September 2019 edits */ new section"
  2. 20:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC) on Luna (killer whale) ""
Comments:

User appears to be an aggressive advocate wanting to write a documentary on Wikipedia, and has been reverted and warned on the article talk about WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The editor appears to be related to the Seattle Orca Conservancy, and a WP:COI notice was given. The editor has also soapboxed, plagiarized, and inserted copywritten material, as noted in the diff listed above. Until late today, the user has not participated in talk page discussions, and now states that their view is predominant, with no other editors providing consensus, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 01:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Now blocked indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Dlambe3 reported by User:Reywas92 (Result: )[edit]

Page
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dlambe3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916593175 by Reywas92 (talk)"
  2. 03:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916482384 by Reywas92 (talk) You have used all caps, curse words, and name-calling which are all against Wikipedia policies."
  3. 03:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916479398 by Reywas92 (talk) It’s not polite to call other users names."
  4. 01:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916301961 by Reywas92 (talk) You should not use foul language."
  5. 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 916225247 by Reywas92 (talk) a consensus has not been reached"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Please also see previous report and warning User_talk:Dlambe3#September_2019. I recognize and regret my unfortunate participation in this editing conflict but I have made attempts to resolve dispute at both Talk:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eleventh_Circuit#Appointed_by and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_courts_and_judges#Removal_of_presidents_who_appointed_judges_without_consensus without avail. Dlambe3 was clearly made aware of both of these but completely rejected participation in them. This user has reciprocated no effort to discuss this issue. Reywas92Talk 04:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Jaishri17 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: )[edit]

Page
Jai Shri Ram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jaishri17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
  2. 05:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
  3. 05:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
  4. 04:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Added content"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:Gleeanon409 reported by User:Carn (Result: )[edit]

Page: Desmond Napoles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 2019-09-19T13:41:54 - delete source requests ( +00:00:00 )
  2. 2019-09-19T14:29:44 - delete source request again + delete addon ( +00:47:50 )
  3. 2019-09-19T19:25:20 - delete {{OR}} marks without consensus on talk page + again deleting addon ( +05:43:26 )
  4. 2019-09-20T05:46:04 - same ( +16:04:10 )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:

When a participant deletes any and all changes of another participant in an article, this is usually a sign of destructive behavior in my experience.·Carn !? 08:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Carn has proven unwilling or unable to comprehend the very source they’re disputing, claiming it doesn’t contain exactly what it says. Because of this they’re tagging and arguing on the talk page.
As well they insist on de-linking grand marshal because... it doesn’t have an LGBTQ meaning.
As well they insist in wedging in another superfluous sentence about dresses when the subject is already covered.
I would love for more eyes on this, it’s been a rather circular course so far. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
"They"? I'm kind of alone and don't suffer from multiple personality disorders. About "de-linking grand marshal" - that's my mistake - didn't notice "Some US Gay pride associations appoint Grand Marshals".
You do not have a monopoly on what should be considered superfluous and what is not, do you agree? Statements must be verifiable and backed up by sources. For some reason, you are silently rolling back without a single argument so far my attempts to put sources in a paragraph without a single marking of the source from other paragraphs. This is where your roll backs began. The fact that the sources are in the article does not mean that the reader has an understanding of the source of this particular statement.·Carn !? 08:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I changed your words to those used in the source you indicated. I also returned the information that Desmond is gender fluid that you have groundlessly deleted. If you stop rolling back, then this conflict can be considered settled.·Carn !? 09:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)