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:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: )[edit]

Page: Portal:Current events/2021 September 19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alsoriano97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: "Difficult to post due to fast paced nature of Portal:Current_events Multiple days, same behavior. Examples from Sept. 19th shown below. Behavior has been ongoing for months."

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045432916&oldid=1045430468
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045400547&oldid=1045399945
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045375066&oldid=1045366985
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045303309&oldid=1045302097
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045272572&oldid=1045271722

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_May_12&type=revision&diff=1022949962&oldid=1022925020%7C

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events&oldid=1023348929

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlsoriano97&type=revision&diff=1045470261&oldid=1043461440

Comments:

Long standing issue with user Alsoriano97 on the page Portal Current Events that has proved difficult to resolve due to rapid pace of Portal Current Events, and the current page changing every day. User has a history of 3+ reverts on multiple days over multiple months and has often been enforcing their personal view of what Portal Current Events "should" contain. User has been warned previously, and had a long discussion on the talk page of Portal Current Events that has been linked. Discussion has further examples of revert behavior. Have also archived list of all stories on Portal Current Events redacted (usually with limited comment) at User:Araesmojo/News_Stories_Redacted

User:Aakash Singh India reported by User:MeraHBharat (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Delhi–Mumbai Expressway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aakash Singh India (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:[6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[8]

Comments:

I see both users engaging in an edit war. One of them could have stopped it much earlier and start discussing, rather than continuing. Speaking of Aakash, two articles Purvanchal Expressway and Agra–Lucknow Expressway had to be fully protected due to an edit warring complaint. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@DaxServer i was having no idea about, this user's past track record. but if that is the case, why this user is getting so much chances, why he is not blocked yet??? and one more thing, i had seen that Callanecc has protected the disputed page, but hasn't reverted aakash singh's edit, i thing this is unfair, you people should revert that page back to original, because in this way last edit on which page is still running is of aakash's, please intervene in this matter also.thank you. --MeraHBharat (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@MeraHBharat: Admins always protect articles at The Wrong Version. You are welcome to open a discussion on the talk page on the wording to be used in the article. After a consensus has been established, someone with sufficient privileges can edit the article to reflect the consensus. - Donald Albury 17:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:CaptainJaccuracy reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Nominator blocked 3 months)[edit]

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 00:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reunions and upcoming eighth album (2018–present) */Added missing updated band activity; someone who knows how will provide link."
  2. 00:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reunions and upcoming eighth album (2018–present) */Added missing updated band activity; someone who knows how will provide link."
  3. 23:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reunions and upcoming eighth album (2018–present) */Added missing updated band activity; someone who knows how will provide link."

I don't not want to out the editor, but the edits by 24.121.182.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 66.185.226.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) use the same terminology. This is the same editor who will not take WP:NOTNEWS for a reason. Further requests on User talk:24.121.182.191. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 23:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "+"
  2. 00:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit summary triggering the edit filter on Anberlin."
  3. 00:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "unsigned and response"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

  • Walter Görlitz, if CaptainJaccuracy has reverted twice, and you have reverted six times in the last 24 hours, which one of you is edit warring? – bradv🍁 01:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • CaptainJaccuracy and the anons are the same editor. They all refuse to supply a single source despite being asked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      And that's an excuse for edit warring? – bradv🍁 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      @Walter Görlitz, in the past 24 hours you have also violated WP:3RR at Derek Sharp and The Guess Who. You have a total of 17 blocks for edit warring in your block log, yet you still seem to think the 3RR rule doesn't apply to you. I also vaguely recall having this conversation with you before, so I must ask, what is going on? – bradv🍁 02:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 3 months for long-term edit warring. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Walter has a recidivism pattern/history of edit-warring, especially with IPs who are here for good intentions. Most editors/IPs haven't encountered any toxic "behavior" issues until Walter gets involved. There are many other occurrences he escaped blocking, including with me. I hope time away provides him the opportunity to make a fresh start when he returns. Thank you, kindly. I appreciate it! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Walter reverted this comment on his talk page but i wanted those involved to see it and review past issues i provided: [9] (not sure who or what "back Lac du Fond" is?) 137.27.65.235 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

If I may, I was only attempting to update the Anberlin page with recent activity. My problem is, I have not learned how to supply sources attached to the edit. The following is a valid source backing my edit, and I have another if necessary. User: Walter Gorlitz has reverted all of my and other editors edits of the same Anberlin History information, which he deems unworthy. The first single leading an upcoming album by a band is hardly irrelevant to the band's activity! I am not trying to "war". Will user Walter Gorlitz continue to be allowed to delete everyone's Anberlin updates? https://www.digitaljournal.com/entertainment/review-anberlin-puts-on-a-high-adrenaline-rock-show-at-the-paramount-in-new-york/article

User:2600:8801:970D:9200:4507:4E7:C19E:6B72 reported by User:JellyMan9001 (Result: Range blocked 48h)[edit]

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

User being reported: 2600:8801:970D:9200:4507:4E7:C19E:6B72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 02:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Definition error."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 02:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 02:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    1. 02:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Definitions in Portugal and Spain */Error"
    2. 02:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Definition error."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 02:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    1. 02:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Error, although the Philippines was apart of the Spanish empire at one point, the Philippines is not considered to be apart of the Hispanic world. This is because they have some Spanish influence but do not speak the language nor does their population have substantial mixture or cultural mixture to be considered Hispanic or Latin. They are considered Asian."
    2. 02:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */The article used as evidence that Hispanic applies to Philippines and pacific islands is not proof that they are referenced as Hispanic, this is because the article and other sections are opinion based."
    3. 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Definitions in Portugal and Spain */The republic of the Philippines is considered and registered as an Asian nation."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 02:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    1. 02:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Hispanic was coined in the US stemming from Rome, however the term is not used to apply to all the territories that were apart of the Spanish empire. It’s was used as a classification in the US census in order to place European(Spanish)/Native American people of Latin American origin."
    2. 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Fixed typo and finished sentence."
  5. 02:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Definitions in Portugal and Spain */Hispanic was originally created in the US and applied to those of European/Native American ethnicity of Latin American origin, and is still applied in that sense."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 02:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hispanic."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 02:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC) on Hispanic "Reverted good faith edits by 2600:8801:970D:9200:4507:4E7:C19E:6B72 (talk): I think we should discuss this on the talk page before finalizing on a decision"

Comments:

  • Range blocked 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Scribetastic reported by User:FormalDude (Result: both users 2-week p-block)[edit]

Page: 2021 California gubernatorial recall election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported: Scribetastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    1. 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ""
  2. 22:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "Smh. What a page. Suppositories are less anal."
  3. 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "If you're going to be anal, then at least do it right. You defend shotty sources that can't keep up with the SoS or even the AP. Be less reactive."
  4. 18:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "Why make it harder to know the exact time of the update?"
  5. 18:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "Do you even check sources before editing, lol? You're all over the place"
  6. 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "You can't even be bothered to match the two times. The SoS has uncounted ballot reports."
  7. 17:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "NYTimes isn't even a listed citation on the page. Stop vandalizing"
  8. 16:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "SoS updated."
  9. 05:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "Trying to keep info identical to SoS site"
  10. 22:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "Try to only use numbers from SoS site"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 03:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2021 California gubernatorial recall election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Scribetastic#2021_California_gubernatorial_recall_election


Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Both users p-blocked. Here by way of WP:RFPP. FormalDude, this is a poor report. You only reported one of the users. You've also left multiple parameters blank — these are not optional. You also failed to provide a summary or sign + timestamp this report. For future reference. Thanks. El_C 05:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry about that. Thanks for telling me. ––FormalDude talk 06:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Abbasmilani reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Indeffed)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1045662479

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/1045684980 at 21:42, 21 September 2021‎ (UTC)
  2. Special:Diff/1045746185 at 06:50, 22 September 2021‎ (UTC)
  3. Special:Diff/1045748683 at 07:09, 22 September 2021‎ (UTC)
  4. Special:Diff/1045751488 at 07:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1045749221

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1045747437

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1045751836

Comments:
Copyright issues as well: the website that is being copied from (e.g. [10]) has a copyright notice and the material is not in the public domain. Similar issues are taking place at Nahid Mirza, where the editor is repeatedly restoring copyright violations (there appears to be logged-out editing from 80.5.133.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). DanCherek (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Haskinben7 reported by User:Notfrompedro (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: History of street lighting in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haskinben7 (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: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:
I'm an uninvolved editor who saw this happening. The edit warring caused the article to be protected but Haskinben7 is autoconfirmed so they just continued reverting to their preferred version. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:LocalTVFanatic reported by User:Destroyeraa (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: List of programs broadcast by G4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LocalTVFanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22] Was warned previously in a separate incident.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24] User also attacked User:JellyMan9001 on his talk page, and left harassment on the talk page of Cluebot Commons. User did not resolve to BRD despite a talk page thread started by JellyMan9001. Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I dropped it because upon further research of the shows and their stations, I think he's right about the programs not having aired on G4. His attitude worries me though as it could potentially scare off newcomers. This whole situation reminds me of 15-year-old me who was given rollback privileges wayyyy to early and let it get to his head. JellyMan9001 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Neutral comment Here because I was informed by 2600:1004:B01C:12A3:CD2A:23A5:2EE1:E31F (talk · contribs) about the issue. I've reverted the false series list from the article; LTVF could have been a lot calmer in this dispute, but they've been CheckUser'ed, so that's neither here nor there now. The false shows list was contributed here and several times before by 64.231.141.64 (talk · contribs), who was contributing other junk we had to clean up and is now under a 1m block. Hopefully this is the end of it; next time, please use the edit summaries to describe the reason for reversion rather than just getting into a rollback war. Nate (chatter) 15:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry for interfering with this report but. Even though I wasn't invited, they also have been removing the dubbed names in the Pokémon Master Journeys: The Series. I asked him on his talk page if he could send me a link if a WikiProject or Wikipedia rule said that dubbed names are only allowed, but he continued to revert it. I added the dubbed names because Yowashi added the dubbed names before the English episodes aired see here and here. They said in the notes that you shouldn't add the dubbed episodes but I looked at the notes and they don't mention anything about "don't add dubbed names until the episode aired". All I see in the notes are the episode number, other English-speaking countries following the Japanese order, and how English episodes are released quarterly while others outside are released weekly. Anyways, if the programs didn't air on G4, and we can't find a source online to prove that, I think I should revert my edit. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Even if they're right, that does not excuse edit warring, and there definitely seem to be civility issues. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed. I'm worried about potential newcomers being scared off by somebody angrily demanding them to stop editing in their talkpage. JellyMan9001 (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely – by Callanecc (talk · contribs) as a checkuser block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:78.66.46.101 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Animal Farm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 78.66.46.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 08:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1045960451 by FormalDude (talk)"
  2. 08:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reception */ I can literally go on Baidu right now and search about the book and even download a translated version of it. This also states that the book isn't banned because "chinese people don't read books anyway". Is Wikipedia supposed to be openly racist now?"
  3. 08:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1045862141 by Mandarax (talk)"
  4. 20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "The source saying the book is banned from online discussion also claims the letter N is banned in China. It's absolute nonsense. The next two sources then state that the book is not banned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 08:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Animal Farm."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 08:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC) on User talk:78.66.46.101 "RCP send warning to 78.66.46.101 about Animal Farm"

Comments:

User is continuing to edit war over the removal of well sourced content simply because they disagree with what it says. ––FormalDude talk 08:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

How is it well sourced content if I can disprove it in four seconds? Being able to read about the book on Baidu means online discussion of it is not banned. Also, why should there be a bit by some racists in the Atlantic saying Chinese people don't read books and therefor the book isn't banned. Should we go to the page for every single book on Wikipedia now and list every country where it isn't banned? This reeks of sinophobia. –– 78.66.46.101 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Content disputes should be discussed at the article talk page. This report is about your violation of the three-revert rule. ––FormalDude talk 10:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Result: The IP editor is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus for their change on the article talk page. The material you are taking out appears to have sources. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Mzanzi sa reported by User:Greenman (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Orania, Northern Cape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mzanzi sa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]
  5. [30]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Echo1Charlie reported by User:Satrar (Result: No violation; both users warned)[edit]

Page: Separatist movements of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Echo1Charlie (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. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

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

Comments:
This user has a long history of edit warring and has been also previously reported. Moreover, they are again and again removing the maintenance templates without resolving the issue. Satrar (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Here the editor @Satrar: was misquoting the source and changing the content and i was reverting it as good-faith-revert. So I request the admin to verify whether my edit/ revert are reasonable, also please cross check the inline citations. Thank you—Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Also I want to let you know that the editor who filed this, was duly informed of his action as [39] here but the editor was interested in [40] removing the warning rather than checking fault is on who's side. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Also it can be seen in the edit summary (of diffs provided) that I'm requesting the said editor to cross check the facts which the inline citations provided and advised him to create a talk section and convey his objections there; please see the edit summary of each diffs —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • The reported user talks about good faith but fails to assume so when labelling a benign edit summary as dubious. Something appears to be mystifying about this user's editing behaviour.  samee  converse  06:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • This [41] was the dubious edit summary I mentioned and he (@Samee) talking about here; the said edit summary by @Samee: was "Copyedit (minor)" but he swiftly removed POV template, when advised to discuss the matter and this was the response I got " A 4-month old bold, well-versed need not teach others how to edit Wikipedia." —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Respected admin, if they (both I assumed to be pakistani, their area of interest, edit say so) if they can block a proactive Indian editor they can further their agenda as seen here [42] , here [43] and here [44]Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        Now you are racially profiling me and lamenting on ethnic terms. Seriously?? Satrar (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

how calling one pakistani become racial profiling??? I think it's proud for a pakistani to be called so. Also I clearly stated "it's my assumption" and not called so don't play the non-existent victim card—Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  1. [45] this edit made by @Satrar: is factually incorrect (which I've stated in the edit summary and advised to check the source; but he ignored), to verify the claim please refer page 19 of this https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Asia/0510pp_kashmir.pdf inline citation which says (1). Only 2% of thee responders from Jammu and Kashmir(Indian controlled area) wanted to join pakistan; while the editor @Satrar: edited it as "95% of respondents voted for all of Kashmir to accede to Pakistan" [46] which is factually incorrect and misquoted
  2. In the same edit diff it can be seen that "while in Jammu and Kashmir (state) administered by India 28% voted to join India and only 2% voted to join Pakistan" claim is removed while it is clearly stated in the same cited source and same page number.
  3. Similarly in this [47] edit the same admin removed the cited content although the cited source (https://theprint.in/defence/8-pieces-of-clinching-evidence-that-show-how-iafs-abhinandan-shot-down-a-pakistani-f-16/278752/) clearly states that as About 45–50 seconds after his R-73 launch and about 7 km inside PoK, the MiG-21 was hit by an AMRAAM fired by a PAF F-16. ; without verifying the claim the editor @Satrar: quickly removed the content with edit summary "Reverting vandalism and removal of poorly sourced material" [48] and edit summary [49] "Don't do edit war and state your concerns on talk page" and still he hasn't responded to the very same talk section he mentioned in his edit summary or the section I've created and invited him to discuss here; from these edits he made on two articles his intention are clear which is (1) spread false information on Wikipedia (2) mislead the reader (3) further the pakistani agendaEcho1Charlie (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This is why I said my edits are qualified as good faith, I hope the admins will take wise decision here. Thank you —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment (non-involved user) the 3rd diff listed is actually an edit made by the reporter. Also, while Echo1Charlie has made 4 edits to that page in 24 hours, they are 2 pairs of consecutive edits, not 4 separate reverts. The last edit is restoring a tag that the other editor wanted retained. At this point it appears to be a "no violation" (imho). Also, the editor being reported wasn't notified on their talk page, but a note has since been added there. Perhaps this dispute should be carried over to the article talk page, and if a consensus cannot be found, then perhaps these editors should go to Dispute Resolution (again jmho) - wolf 07:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
wolf absolutely incorrect. They were notified with edit warring template well before time. I'm just wondering why suddenly your interest aroused and you have jumped in out of no where keeping in view similar history of yours of edit warring and personal attacks for which you have been blocked for 8 times. (: Aren't we going towards WP:MEAT? Satrar (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Satrar: 1) Yes, before filing an ANEW report, you need to warn the other user about any potential edit warring, which it appears you did do. But after you file a report, you must notify them of said report. This is clearly stated at the top of this page. It appears you did not do this. I was just letting you know for future reference. 2) Uninvolved editors can and do comment on various noticeboard reports. This is not unusual, and there is nothing nefarious about that. I merely pointed out an error in your report and noted that (imo) there isn't a violation here so far. 3) I have no idea why you have taken such a hostile attitude here, and really... what does my block log have to do anything? Your comments border on the obnoxious. And accusing someone of violating a policy without proof can itself be a violation of WP:NPA (yes, falsely accusing me of "meat puppetry" is a personal attack). I suggest you either retract the accusation and apologize, or take your chances and file a report a SPI. But either way, you should really dial down this bellicose attitude of yours. It's completely unnecessary. - wolf 08:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Respected admins, interestingly this arrogance was guiding @Satrar: the whole time, note that. Thanks —Echo1Charlie (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • His displeased reply to the editor @Thewolfchild, misquoting the sources, not responding to the talk section, unreasonable revert and removal made to the cited content, his biased and misleading reporting here etc., proves my previous assumption "he need to block a proactive Indian editor so that he can spread false information and further their agenda with impunity" —Echo1Charlie (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I've a request admins, please exercise your rollback right to revert both of these articles if you're satisfied with the inline citations (which clearly backup the claims I made), as this editor won't cooperate or discuss this matter on the respective talk pages (still he hasn't responded after hours!), strangely he would revert the content if I make a change although it's clearly stated in the inline citation. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Both users are warned to stop attacking each other. Both have labeled the other's edits vandalism in edit summaries, which constitutes a personal attack and is far less likely to result in a resolution of the content dispute. Both editors should stop editing the article until the content dispute has been resolved. Echo1 has begun a conversation on the article Talk page. Satrar should respond on the Talk page, and both editors should focus on the dispute, not on each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Krupsofa reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Sock blocked)[edit]

Page: Kabyle people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 10:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC) "Bringing sources, one is an interview of Si El-Hachemi Assad (member of HCA) there is no more reliable."
  2. 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "It's a fact and tamazight isn't taugh in primary school."
  3. 21:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Newspaper article talking about statement which is still promugalted, one month later"
  4. 11:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 23:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Attempts at discussion with them on their talk page do not appear to have been heeded, as they keep adding unreliable sources, and have not attempted to discuss much. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:TheInkakaiRises reported by User:John Cline (Result: Indefinitely blocked)[edit]

Pages: Inkakai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
And: Fireal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheInkakaiRises (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user participated in an uncontroversial technical request to have the page Fireal moved to Inkakai. After a contest was raised, a requested move was started and is in progress. This user who has an apparent conflict of interest decided instead to perform a cut and paste move which has disjointed the article history and confused the requested move. Several attempts to revert this action by different editors were all reverted by this user. Their cut and paste move needs to be undone and they need to be stopped from forcing their wrong ways.--John Cline (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Ivar the Boneful reported by User:Rab V (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Laurel Hubbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ivar the Boneful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [51]
  2. [52]
  3. [53]
  4. [54]
  5. [55]
  6. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [59]

Comments:
User:Rab V what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this? You made three reverts yourself [60], [61], [62]. I'm the one that initiated the talk page discussion. You then immediately re-reverted, telling me to discuss on the talkpage! Congrats, you won the race to the drama boards! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm glad you took it to the talk page but continuing to violate 3RR rule after discussing on talk page impedes any helpful discussion. Rab V (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I only made 2 reverts also. The first edit was novel and not removing anything added prior. Rab V (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:StalwartGrantist reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: )[edit]

Page: Qajar Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046051753 by HistoryofIran (talk) Added correct flag of Pahlavi Iran for infobox "Succeeded by." Added template:History of Azerbaijan. The Pahlavi Iran article itself states that its official ENGLISH name was "Imperial State of Persia" until 1935 (When Reza Shah requested that it be changed to match the native endonym "Iran"). This article should match that pattern, since Qajar immediately preceded Pahlavi."
  2. 18:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046047759 by HistoryofIran (talk) "Persia" was the official ENGLISH name of the country used by foreign powers in correspondence with Qajar Iran (this is an English-language article). The Qajars and the rest of the Qizilbash were Persianized/Iranicized Shia Oghuz Turks living in Persia/Iran (i.e. the basic modern definition of ethnic Azerbaijanis)."
  3. 17:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1046045894 by LouisAragon (talk) It has to do with the classification of the Qajar tribe, which includes the Qajar royal dynasty, as Azerbaijanis. It's the source used in the Qajar Tribe's wiki article"
  4. 13:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1045989564 by Excommunicato (talk)"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 02:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC) to 11:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    1. 02:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC) ""
    2. 11:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 17:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "/* AA2 advisory */"
  2. 18:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC) "/* 3RR */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Said editor is using an ethnographic source from 1994 that specifically deals with the Russian Empire and Soviet Union to press a pro-Azerbaijani narrative, in violation of WP:DUE, WP:RS and WP:VER, on an article about a historic Iranian realm. They are persistent in changing "of Turkic origin", into "Azerbaijani Oghuz Turkic origin", and are also trying to add "Template:History of Azerbaijan" to the article. Zero attempts have been made by said user to open a talk page section in order to reach a WP:CON (thus structurally violating WP:BRD in addition to WP:WAR). It must be noted that said user, although being registered on Wikipedia for a year, has already received numerous warnings by other editors within a relatively short time span, as can be seen on their talk page,[63] so I believe this is more than just an overal issue in relation to sheer edit-warring and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]