Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 401: Line 401:
:(also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) [[Special:Contributions/50.169.82.253|50.169.82.253]] ([[User talk:50.169.82.253|talk]]) 01:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:(also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) [[Special:Contributions/50.169.82.253|50.169.82.253]] ([[User talk:50.169.82.253|talk]]) 01:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{AN3|noex}} Looking at other potential problems here, w/r/t blocking or protecting. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 01:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
* {{AN3|noex}} Looking at other potential problems here, w/r/t blocking or protecting. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 01:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*:'''Request for clarification:''' Does this mean that the proper recourse in this situation against a revert without discussion is to revert back? This would seem like the natural consequence. The reason I did not revert previously was because [[WP:3RR]] says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." However, if a revert without discussion is not considered a rule violation, this makes me wonder whether the proper course of action would be to just revert back. On the other hand, I'm concerned that reverting back would increase tensions and lead to accusations of gaming the system, which is exactly the situation I was trying to avoid by bringing my report here instead of just making the revert. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) [[Special:Contributions/50.169.82.253|50.169.82.253]] ([[User talk:50.169.82.253|talk]]) 02:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:30, 13 August 2023

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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.

    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:Bluthmark reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Declined for now)

    Page: Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC) to 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
      1. 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC) ""
      2. 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
    4. Consecutive edits made from 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC) to 19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
      1. 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
      2. 19:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
      3. 19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
    5. Consecutive edits made from 15:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
      1. 15:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
      2. 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
    6. Consecutive edits made from 15:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
      1. 15:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
      2. 15:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
      3. 15:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
      4. 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order."
    2. 20:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Star Wars Jedi: Survivor."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User is insisting on adding several writers, WP:VG/MOS states to list one main writer. Talking hasn't worked, a final warning hasn't worked. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I would have blocked, but the AN/I thread that this led to, particularly these comments by Jayron32, have put this in a different light and maybe this is something we should wait on. Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Daniel Case (talk · contribs), they're still doing the same thing. Why wait out an ANI, when this is clearly edit warring? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Jayron has a point, a point which one edit to your page has a direct bearing on, and this was noted by another editor who got involved. Yes, I'm aware, the AN/I has also noted other more questionable edits by Bluthman (edits that might be too old at this point to address with a block, but it has also been noted that you could just as easily be blocked as well, and other editors on the thread have agreed with Jayron.
    I did not say we had to wait out the AN/I. I suggested it. If, before it concludes (if it concludes), Bluthman continues editing in the same vein, I would be more inclined to block as now it cannot be assumed that they don't know any better. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both parties are edit warring here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] from @Soetermans. That's a violation of WP:3RR, isn't it? (And to say 'talking hasn't worked' seems a bit off when there is still nothing on the article talk page—and they even started a discussion with you on your user page.) Shells-shells (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kire1975 reported by User:AlanS (Result: Resolved)

    Page: Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kire1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [6]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [7]
    2. [8]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

    Comments:
    This article has 1RR in place. I invited Kire to self-revert and wouldn't have bothered coming here if they did. AlanStalk 03:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The controversial statement of fact relating to a living person has been put back. I was unaware of the 1RR rule.
    User:AlanS has made no attempt to resolve this dispute on the article talk page. The link posted above claiming he did is a link to my user talk page. It is the middle of the night where I am. He waited an hour and a half before taking it to this noticeboard. This is not a reasonable amount of time for me to see it, much less respond appropriately as I have done. Kire1975 (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message on your talk page giving you the opportunity to self-revert. That is dispute resolution. It is your responsibility to be aware of editing restrictions which apply to each article. AlanStalk 09:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm WP:NOTPERFECT.Is the matter resolved now? Kire1975 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A self-revert is a straight undo of your previous revert. Not carrying on pushing a content dispute. AlanStalk 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The DailyBeast article is not reliable. A new consensus has been brought up on the talk page by a third party and the material you want to keep has been removed. You made no attempt to seek consensus about it before coming here to scold me. Thank you to whomever marked this matter resolved. Kire1975 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There being no consensus on reliability is not the same as being "not reliable". If you don't understand this difference then I really need to ask questions. You can go on about talk if you like, but the fact that you made no attempt to go to talk prior to edit warring speaks for itself. AlanStalk 14:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the matter was not already decided by third parties on the talk page, I would have been happy to bring it there. WP:AGF please. Kire1975 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you tagged my talk page with advising me WP:AGF, I might very well do the same to you for your words above if I was so inclined. AlanStalk 01:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems from this discussion and the edit history that this matter has been resolved by the users involved, and frankly that's the best outcome. Alan should have waited a little longer given the time difference noted. But I also find Kire's claim to have been unaware of the 1RR restriction straining credulity as well ... it's mentioned in that big yellow box with the stop sign that pops up when you open the edit window; you have to scroll past it to edit, in fact, by design. Yes, Kire, I can see from your userpage that you have an eye condition that adversely affects your vision. But notwithstanding that you have been able to edit here for 17 years, therefore I think you reasonably should have been expected to see that notice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm happy for this to pass, however while it may have been the middle of the night where Kire is (It was just before lunch time where I am when I left the message on their talk page inviting them to self revert), the message I left inviting them to self-revert was a mere 41 minutes after their second revert so I find their assertion that they didn't have time to self-revert before I came here to be interesting. In any case what is done is done. AlanStalk 01:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a policy you can point me to about this "responsibility" issue? I will pin it to the top of my user talk page. In the meantime, moving the notice onto the main page if you want everyone to see it is a better solution than insulting my medical problems and assuming bad faith. Kire1975 (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't read any assumption of bad faith at all. It's a statement of fact that there is an additional notice that comes up when trying to edit that page. I would assume you read all notices when editing? AlanStalk 13:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I said I didn't read it. You are assuming bad faith. Please stop. Kire1975 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When you've had the AMPOL CT aware notice on your talk page for over two years, it is assumed you are aware of pages you edit that have AMPOL editing restrictions. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume anything you want, but don't assume I'm lying when I say I wasn't aware of it. The offensive WP:QUESTIONABLE material was put back as soon as I was made aware of it. Kire1975 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are casting aspersion. I advise you to strike your statement. AlanStalk 01:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck. Kire1975 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou @Kire1975. AlanStalk 04:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ByzantineIsNotRoman reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Blocked one week)

    Page: Eighth Crusade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "I left a couple replies on the talk page addressing this, many others already pointed out why the “inconclusive” result was justified. Please lock this page to prevent further vandalism and edit warring"
    2. 16:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC) "I would stop edit warring unless you want to get blocked from editing, leave a message on my talk page if you want instead"
    3. 09:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Edit-warring within 24 hours of release from block for edit-warring. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kiwi Jaden reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: Declined)

    Page: Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Couples */"
    2. 10:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169636479 by Chelsea Lee Art (talk) don't know who the heck you are but I've been doing this for years and we go by their Wikipedia articles. It describes her as a presenter too. Stop reaching."
    3. 09:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Couples */She’s not a pundit."
    4. 09:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Couples */She’s called a television presenter on her page. She’s most known besides being a former British No 1 tennis player as a TV presenter. She’s not a pundit."
    5. 08:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Couples */"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: You will find that the other user Chelsea Lee Art has been involved in several petty disputes and has been trying to take over the thread of Strictly Come Dancing series 21. Annabel Croft is described as a former professional tennis player & television presenter on her Wikipedia page and the BBC article does too (before finally describing her as a pundit). The other user is doing this to start an edit war, whereas I am following proper procedure. So the fact you've put me here and not the other user is deeply upsetting. Kiwi Jaden.

    User:Robcolbie reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    Page: Irn-Bru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Robcolbie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [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], [18]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

    Comments:
    User has been attempting to insert incorrect information to the article for some time. As per discussions at their talk page, they do not have consensus to do so. Barry Wom (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct information. Don't need consensus when it's clearly there for all to see Robcolbie (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Therealwearegetting reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

    Page: Focus on the Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC) "I'm going to keep changing it because you don't stop hate with more hate. Make it neutral if you don't like how I'm handling it. Thanks in advance"
    2. 09:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC) "Syntax"
    3. 02:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) "Removed the Karen like tone"
    4. 00:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Focus on the Family."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Khateli20 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Pblocked indef)

    Page: Jak Roberto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Khateli20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [20]
    2. [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]
    5. [24]

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

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

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

    Comments:
    This has been a slow motion edit-war going on for a couple of weeks over a fan nickname that I don't think has strong enough sourcing to include in the lead in Wikipedia's voice. I've left warnings, notes, pointers to WP:BRD, cceated talk page discussion without success. The editor appears to be a WP:SPA around this article so perhaps a block from the article will finally get them to actually discuss. Ravensfire (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darker Dreams reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

    Page: Witchcraft (traditional) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Darker Dreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Aug 2: [27]

    Diffs of edit-warring and tendentious editing:

    1. Aug 3: diff of edit-warring
    2. Aug 3: and again
    3. Aug 11: return to edit-warring
    4. Aug 11: and again

    This is tendentious editing. The user edit-wars to the edge of 3RR, is reverted by multiple editors (I have been one), then takes a break for a day or more, then resumes the disruption.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

    Comments:
    There is an ongoing cluster of issues around the Witchcraft articles. It started with a page move discussion, that is now at dispute resolution and two AfDs.

    While this has been going on, Darker Dreams copied and pasted the Witchcraft article and created a POV fork as Witchcraft (traditional), using definitions they do not have consensus for. Now, Darker Dreams is continuing the POV push through WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and slow revert-warring. Several editors, including myself, have explained on talk why it's not appropriate to use Indigenous links for "witchcraft", and Darker Dreams agreed that it is uncontested that Indigenous cultures use "witch" for those who do evil to their own. Yet Darker Dreams has now gone back to revert-warring to insert "traditional knowledge/Indigenous knowledge" as a meaning for witchcraft and to remove sourced content that gives a more consensus definition. While the main content dispute is a topic for the mediation, the tendentious editing and creation of POV forks is disruptive. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week from the article, not least because I at least don't want to be dealing with this while I'm at Wikimania next week. But of course other admins will be available ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikibeamer reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

    Page: WPHL-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wikibeamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]

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

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

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

    Comments:

    This user was readding staff members without Wikipedia articles (violating the "no article, no listing" rule). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week from article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bigboss9893 reported by User:60.241.85.72 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: List of professional wrestling attendance records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bigboss9893 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [39]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [40]
    2. [41]
    3. [42]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

    Comments:

    User:Juyiscally and SOCKS reported by User:Tokisaki Kurumi (Result: Declined)

    Page: Chinese New Left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:

    Previous version reverted to: special:Diff/1153947480/prev

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. special:Diff/1153947480/prev
    2. special:Diff/1158973940/prev
    3. special:Diff/1163398395/prev
    4. special:Diff/1169971842/prev

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See above.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chinese New Left#Loose knit group


    Comments: Edit war starting from Chinese Wikipedia, this user has consistently refused to engage in giving constructive comments on the discussion page, only emphasizing that the article should be edited according to one specific POV. It should probably be reported to SOCK however I'm new at this so I'll report it here first. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Case of Chinese New Left. --ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 15:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:79.41.217.183 reported by User:The Herald (Result: Already blocked)

    Page: Veal Milanese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 79.41.217.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 15:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
      1. 15:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169967560 by 81.185.160.53 (talk) Multi IP vandal deleting sources"
      2. 15:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169967525 by 81.185.160.53 (talk)"
      3. 15:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169967505 by 81.185.160.53 (talk)"
    2. 11:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169955902 by 93.23.104.72 (talk)"
    3. 11:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169955970 by 93.23.104.72 (talk) The only one removing info it's you vandal"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 09:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) to 09:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
      1. 09:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169942057 by 93.22.134.152 (talk) Source shows it's not French"
      2. 09:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169942637 by 93.22.134.152 (talk)"
      3. 09:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169870945 by 77.204.146.57 (talk) vandalism by unconfirmed user"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User:Marcelus reported by User:134.192.8.17 (reporter also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19)(Result: No violation)

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

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Determining Nationality: Is duress a factor?

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

    Comments:
    First EW diff falsely denied that consensus had not been achieved. Despite reporter's noted efforts, Marcelus did not engage in a talk discussion about whether consensus had actually been achieved.

    Second EW diff inappropriately attempted to enforce WP:STABLE on an edit that the reporting user had RFE'd and explained. After the second and third revert, Marcelus did not participate in the discussion, and did not explain the content basis for the desired version.

    During discussions on the talk page, Marcelus derailed the discussion by accusing other editors of WP:BADFAITH. (diff, diff, diff, diff, reporter's warning diff).

    Marcelus has previously been blocked twice for WP:EW(first block, second block). Just like the present dispute involving Sergei Bortkiewicz, the first block also involved a dispute over the ethnicity/nationality of a biography subject. As this is a third time offense, the reporter requests that Marcelus serve a three month block from editing Sergei Bortkiewicz, Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Determining Nationality: Is duress a factor?.

    Finally, Marcelus responded by questioning the reporter's use of WP:GOODSOCK. The reporter welcomes an administrative review of the reporter's activity, and this may be necessary to assuage the reported user's concerns. Public networks often use different IP addresses, and the reporter has made an effort to disclose all the IP addresses they have used on this discussion. WP:GOODSOCKs cannot always use a constant IP address.

    (also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 134.192.8.17 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Passing by comment: I recommend semi-protecting this article for few months to deal with problematic IP edits and move on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please elaborate on what "problematic IP edits" means.
    (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor also unilaterally made edits to the Sergei Bortkiewicz article twice (see [46] and [47]) before any consensus was established. On the former, their edit summary misleadingly explained that the edit was a result of consensus ("It appears that there is consensus in the talk to no longer mention Bortkiewicz as Russian in the lead"), even though the ongoing discussion at the article's talk page demonstrates that there is none. IP user also opened a new topic today on this same issue elsewhere and unhelpfully did not inform editors participating at the Bortkiewicz talk page discussion. As for accusations and insinuations of bad faith, the IP editor has made a number themselves including against me. All of this suggests that they may be WP:NOTHERE and are more concerned with WP:RGW. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My RFE asserting that "It appears that there is consensus in the talk to no longer mention Bortkiewicz as Russian in the lead" came 29 minutes after @CurryTime7-24 wrote in the talk, "In other words, if the lead merely mentioned that he was Austrian or omitted mention of his citizenships altogether, that would be OK too."
    One minute before I opened the new topic at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, I wrote in Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz: "I am consulting Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Biography for an opinion on whether duress can be a factor in determining the nationality of a biography subject." Maybe I could have formatted that notice better, but perhaps someone can guide me to the proper Wikipedia policy on this.
    @CurryTime7-24, please cite the diffs of the specific edits in which you believed I accused another user of bad faith.
    (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Looking at other potential problems here, w/r/t blocking or protecting. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Request for clarification: Does this mean that the proper recourse in this situation against a revert without discussion is to revert back? This would seem like the natural consequence. The reason I did not revert previously was because WP:3RR says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." However, if a revert without discussion is not considered a rule violation, this makes me wonder whether the proper course of action would be to just revert back. On the other hand, I'm concerned that reverting back would increase tensions and lead to accusations of gaming the system, which is exactly the situation I was trying to avoid by bringing my report here instead of just making the revert. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1170080186"