Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom.Reding (talk | contribs) at 17:20, 7 May 2021 (→User:Fram reported by User:Tom.Reding (Result: ): Duck hunt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:Darouet (Result: No action)

    Page: Id Kah Mosque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previously editing as Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: (see below)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [1] @ 15:53, 2 May, "Undid revision 1021000963 by Deku link...
    2. [2] @ 16:00, 2 May, same revert
    3. [3] @ 16:05, 2 May‎, same revert
    4. [4] @ 16:11, 2 May, removes recently added content, also disputed [5][6][7]‎
    5. [8] @ 16:20, 2 May, as above

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and section

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [10]

    Comments:

    Horse Eye's Back states that the fourth and fifth reverts don't cross the WP:3RR bright line because "That fourth diff isnt related to the other three". This is despite my protest [11], "Just because the statement was contested a couple days ago doesn't mean that removing it now no longer counts as a revert," and the definition of 3RR at WP:EDITWAR:

    The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons.(emphasis added)

    Horse Eye has subsequently argued [12] that they "removed a statement in breach of WP:BLP (a WP:3RR exception even if it was a revert)". However, Horse Eye has breached 3RR to remove the imam's insistence that his mosque — the most venerated in Xinjiang — is real (widely reported in Chinese media, e.g. here [13]). As discussed on the talk page [14], it's highly dubious to use WP:BLP to effectively slander a living person and prevent them from defending themself or their religious community. Horse Eye's insistence that BLP exempts them from 3RR looks like a classic case of WP:CRYBLP, that while

    a few exceptional editing powers that have been granted to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card to give an advantage to one side in an editing dispute.

    I've asked Horse Eye to self-revert [15], and instead they've doubled down with a 5th revert and they have not done so. Unfortunately, because Horse Eye believes that a 4th revert on other contested material on a page doesn't break 3RR, and/or that they are exempt from 3RR in this case, they have effectively promised (e.g. here [16]) this behavior is not going to stop. -Darouet (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Clause struck, and italic text added, per Horse Eye comment below. -Darouet (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Current consensus on Xinhua is that they are not a reliable source for such statements "Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.” I went through a great deal of trouble to replace an unreliable source with a reliable one, Darouet even thanked me for doing so[]. The contention "I've asked Horse Eye to self-revert and instead they've doubled down with a 5th revert.” is false, my last edit to the page [17] was *before* Darouet’s first edit to my talk page [18]. I made it clear that I was acting under BLP in my talk page edits as well as in the relevant edit summaries, there was no consensus to include the contested BLP information so it *must* immediately be removed or sourced to a WP:RS, thats exactly what I did. Beyond all that there is no ongoing conflict, why Darouet thought it was necessary to file such an aspersion filled and error ridden report is beyond me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also jeezy petes Darouet by "this behavior” do you mean removing a completely unsourced BLP statement or do you mean removing a poorly sourced BLP statement? Because both happened in that diff and both are required by policy. we are all required to do that per WP:BLP "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple editors support inclusion of the text, and Jume's comments are also video recorded, leaving no doubt as to their veracity. BLP is meant to protect living people, not prevent them from defending themselves. If an editor believes 3RR no longer applies to them because they can spuriously claim a BLP exemption, they will edit war without acknowledging 3RR. That's what has happened here, and you're promising it will continue to happen. -Darouet (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple editors have also opposed inclusion... As you well know, without a consensus to include a poorly sourced BLP statement stays off the page (or perhaps you did not know that?). BLP is broader than that. How does their being a video change the WP:RS situation? Videos are as reliable as the source which publishes them, they are not themselves sources and videos are no more veracious than any other form of media. I promise to continue to follow our WP:BLP policy, if the policy changes so will my editing behavior. It would be wonderful if you would start following the BLP policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please acknowledge that you now understand that you were mistaken about the timeline of events and that all my edits to the Id Kah Mosque happened before your first post on my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A BLP exemption to 3RR requires a clear violation of BLP policy, not a dubious case. Otherwise both BLP and 3RR become meaningless. -Darouet (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Using Xinhua for a BLP statement related to Xinjiang, islam, and the the Uyghur genocide is a clear violation of our BLP policy, we clearly have consensus that Xinhua is not a reliable source in that situation. Did you see the second post? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this is proving my point - you believe that WP:3RR doesn't apply because you're right, but here you're using "BLP" against the subject in question. If this issue isn't handled here it needs to be escalated to WP:AN because according to this logic, you can break 3RR to remove Chinese-language news sources all across Wikipedia, any time a human being ("BLP") is involved. -Darouet (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No claims are being made against the imam and we’re only talking about Xinhua not Chinese-language news sources all across Wikipedia, what are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's well covered in the complaint above and on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action. It is unclear that 3RR was violated on 2 May and anyway that is now three days in the past. The parties seem to be engaged now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Globe and Mail about a similar issue. Trying to get an answer at RSN looks to be a better idea than an edit war. If the RSN regulars don't believe the issue belongs there, the matter may need to come back to Talk:Id Kah Mosque or go through DRN or an RFC. In my opinion people may be trying to get answers that the sources are not strong enough to deliver. We can't know everything we would like to know. The final answer may be to tweak the prose so it doesn't exaggerate WP's level of confidence in whatever is really happening. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Luwanglinux reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Anglo-Manipur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Luwanglinux (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. [19]
    2. [20]
    3. [21]
    4. [22]
    5. [23]
    6. [24]
    7. [25]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] [27]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

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

    Comments:
    I am not TrangaBellam, but I would point out that the editor warred with four different editors here: me, Austronesier, Gotitbro and TrangaBellam. The talk page discussions are akin to beating a head against a wall. No conclusions are ever reached. The editor also gives all of us warnings on our talk pages: [29], [30], [31]

    The user has a persistent history of edit-warring, ever since came on the scene. His contributions history tagged mw-undo shows him doing:

    Some of this edit-warring was also regarding WP:COPYVIO, for which he had to face an extended block. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    I wonder if user Kautilya, TrangaBellam forgot wikipedia is a platform for collective efforts,most of the time I faced revert from him it was because of this specific reason Manipur was not a part of India or Manipur was sovereign(independent). I am not trying to shove my personal POV to wikipedia but trying to help improve the content and correctness of information in the article I edited with reliable references,The specific reference I added to Causes section of Anglo Manipur War was Kautilya choice as a notable source[32]. I discussed a lot on talk pages and even corrected his concerns regarding punctuation.To me Kautilya and TrangaBellam behaviour is like we don't like this so this is not allowed. He did not even like the insertion of Major Paona Brajabasi at first, he even reverted two times on Khongjom battle content 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Collective effort" by no means implies that you get to railroad your POV, no matter what objections may be raised. All Wikipedia content requires WP:CONSENSUS. It is ironic that you open a talk page section called "Seeking consensus" and then reinstate your content! You were specifically warned by TrangaBellam that he was the fourth editor that was oppositing your edit, and if you reinstated it, you would be taken to this noticeboard. You still reinstated it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What user TrangaBellam did was not a revert,he firstly removed the One event two state journal reference and next thing he edited a bit and finally removed the causes section stating badly drafted,with due respect I asked others opinion time and again including yours as well as listened to their opinion and reflect it on my edit and give edit summary as anyone to freely improve the content I added with reliable source which is totally in a collegial spirit but you were acting too bossy and acted as if you don't like certain lines so this can't be accepted irrespective of the source.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the difference between your original contribution and your latest reinstatement. As you can see, most of the content is still there, except for one small passage that TrangaBellam removed, saying it was duplicating material that is covered in another section. My original objection saying that it was too much space being given for one scholar's views (not facts) has not been addressed. TrangaBellam said the section was "very poorly drafted". That has not been addressed either. You added four new citations at the end. They were all deadlines. I flagged them, but you haven't bothered to fix them. Neither do we know where in those book sources support for the material is supposed to be found.
    Since you start off by claiming that your content is fine and reinstate it immediately, your claim that you are "listening to their opinion" isn't evidenced. You are basically WP:STONEWALLING the discussion and reinstating the problematic content endlessly. Our only option seems to be to get tired and give up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I have stated anyone can modify my edit on causes section by using reliable source, and I did not object your point of view when you reminded me I neglected the rot in Palace of Manipur among the brothers ( any one can refer talk section) and blamed only British Government .Problematic content for why? because It was not written in the way you want?..user TrangaBellam and you are similar in editing style removing content or reference or texts he do not like sucha as this [33] ..No matter how much one try to cooperate if the other party is like a curled tail of a dog, consensus is almost impossible. Also in the article of Kabaw Valley#History you claim the history section as POV even if there is clear evidence of all content added with reliable source, it seems like your usual habit to put POV tag if the contents do not satisfy what you expect and you never bothered to modify or improve the history section of that article with reliable source to remove that tag yourself...My only option seems to be ignore every article you took interest in too.. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me that User:Luwanglinux is risking a block for long-term edit warring on South Asian topics. He might be able to avoid this if he will promise to make no more reverts on articles he has previously edited without first getting a consensus on the talk page. His comments above suggest he sees no problem at all with his editing. He is constantly being reverted by many other people, some of them quite experienced. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not reverting article on my personal POV or without reliable source , I never say my edits are all genuine( His comments above suggest he sees no problem at all with his editing. He is constantly being reverted by many other people, some of them quite experienced. ) but I hope for a cooperative editing environment instead of reverting every edits users have a better choice of checking the information added and present it in a more readable way , Was I at fault for inserting topic about Khongjom battle along with Major Paona Brajabasi role in the war with source which Kautilya reverted twice...hope other editors do check why such edit warring even happened ?, am I the only one who is at fault in edit warring of Anglo Manipur War ?🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Luwanglinux, please answer yes or no whether you agree to wait for a talk page consensus before making any reverts on South Asian articles you have worked on previously. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I always agree to wait for consensus not only on South Asian article but any article in English wikipedia, but its very hard to reach consensus if other party act like owner of article and have right to choose what should be inserted or not, should not consensus be reached based on the topic and its reliability with notable source? Also admins kindly see the the edit warring history of the user Trangabellam (the one who warned me for edit warring also reported me to ANI ) [34] his edits were not constructive at all, see his latest edit on Manipur related article [35] , user like him never bother trying to search for source or checking the information added previously 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – One week for long term edit warring. I was hoping that this user would agree to wait for consensus on the disputed articles, but a discussion at User talk:Luwanglinux did not result in clear acceptance of my proposal. I'm opting for a regular block. Since the user has been alerted to WP:ARBIPA, a topic ban remains an option if the unusual editing pattern continues. Luwanglinux has extreme confidence that he is right while constantly clashing with long time contributors, even giving them templated warnings for their misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ckruschke reported by User:KidAd (Result: Both warned)

    Page: South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ckruschke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [36]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Revert #1
    2. Revert #2
    3. 3RR violation

    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; [39]

    Comments:

    Fairly clear-cut case here. Ckruschke has violated WP:3RR for the purpose of inserting the names of non-notable individuals under "notable alumni" on South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. User has repeatedly ignored WP:ONUS, which states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. In response to attempts to engage with them on the article's talk page and a standard warning template warning them of their WP:3RR violation, they left me a personalized and highly condescending message that reads, in part, Hi - welcome to Wikipedia! I see you have been an editor for a little over a year and its great that you have taken such an interest in Wikipedia! We need more editors with your passion. Unfortunately, I am firmly in the right on this issue. While I appreciate the welcome, it is three years overdue. And though I appreciate that Ckruschke took the time to complement my passion, however sarcastically, I must disagree. Wikipedia needs more editors who can abide by WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF guidelines. KidAd • SPEAK 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that my friend, KidAd, is very protective of his edits. I was attempting to restore the page as his non-constructive edits constitute a clear change to the Notability policy on the SDSM&T page (WRT notability being primarily embodied in whether the person has a Wikipedia page which is astonishingly laughable). Instead of taking the issue to Talk, since the WP:ONUS is on KidAd as the editor who is attempting to change policy, he kept reverting my restoration to the original page so that discussion could happen on a clean slate. Clearly the editor does not understand what WP:ONUS means and is simply using it and other Wiki terms, like WP:3RR, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:AGF, as hammers to further his viewpoint and shout down a dissenter. Its too bad that new editors get their back up after an editor reaches out to them (sarcasm? No...) and learn all the "get out of my yard" Wikipedia buzz words to tell other editors to shut up long before they understand what terms like onus and civility actually mean... Note that the only time this editor reached out to me was to use the Admin hammer so clearly WP:CIVILITY is for lessor editors than he.
    I started a Talk post on the page, which is the clear way to solve this rather than bringing it to admins and what he should have done after my first restoration. Whatever you guys decide is fine with me - I don't have an ego so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Ckruschke (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
    That's fair. Thanks again - Ckruschke (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

    User:Magherbin reported by User:Ayaltimo (Result: Withdrawn)

    Page: Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ifat Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: [48] [49]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] [51] [52] [53]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54] [55]

    Comments: This user is incredibly disruptive literally waging edit wars on multiple pages and was recently blocked for edit warring. It seems like he didn't learn his warning. [56] Ayaltimo (talk) 21:36, 04 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayaltimo keeps defending Ragnimo's edits who is now blocked for socking and I was reverting their disruption across several articles [57] Ayaltimo and Ragnimo have been harassing me for quite some time including personal attacks on talk pages see [58]. I warned the user [59] but it has continued [60]. Ayaltimo now claims I made 4 reverts on the Adal Sultanate article when i've only reverted twice [61] I've read the references in most of the articles in question and they do not state whats implied on the pages. This user and I are currently in a content dispute with an ongoing RFC, it is not going in Ayaltimo's favour hence this report. [62]. We can continue to discuss on the talk pages, i'm fine with that, I had thought the user would understand the consensus from the RFC which clearly reveals users oppose the views held by Ayaltimo and Ragnimo sock Magherbin (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You kept removing sourced content and I kept restoring the revisions on Adal Sultanate like four times and some of them even were before when Ragnimo got banned. You have a habit of randomly removing sourced content and not discussing it on the talk page. You may not do it three times within 24 hours but you still do it regardless of how long it is and you think this is a way to avoid a warning. You are incredibly disruptive and you have been ever since you were unblocked from edit warring. Let the moderators review your behaviour because this cannot continue. Ayaltimo (talk) 23:28, 04 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not see you in the previous discussion I had with the sock puppet Ragnimo yet you claim I dont discuss my edits on the talk page. Read the talk pages carefully before making accusations [63]. Magherbin (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When I undid your revision on 27 of April [64] you came back a week later making the same comments "see talk page" when you could've just tagged me. [65] then you continued to edit war. You're very disruptive and you did the same thing on other pages. After you were blocked you should've learned your lesson so it's important I report your misconduct again. Ayaltimo (talk) 00:26, 05 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained why I removed the content, however the edit summary provided by you here is insufficient [66], and you have broken 3rr before and let off with a warning hence pretending otherwise is futile [67]. Even after that warning you continued editwarring but no action was taken [68] My suggestion is to withdraw the case or risk a block as well. As I stated earlier I will not continue reverting and I have not violated 3RR. Magherbin (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ayaltimo seems to have withdrawn per this edit [69]. Magherbin (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:78.43.29.7 reported by User:Poojean (Result: Partial block)

    Page: Dersim rebellion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 78.43.29.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021478265 by FDW777 (talk) Adding a paragraph of what it is sometimes called isn't a really scientific way of propagating a topic. Please let's avoid adding terms which "some people" say to Wikipedia and focus on facts"
    2. 22:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021477874 by FDW777 (talk)"
    3. 22:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021476882 by FDW777 (talk) Adding a paragraph of what it is sometimes called isn't a really scientific way of propagating a topic. Please let's avoid adding terms which "some people" say to Wikipedia and focus on facts."
    4. 22:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020700704 by Semsûrî (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 22:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dersim rebellion."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

    Oh, thanks, I should have closed the report as well. I had probably found this via AIV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tony1811 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Joy Behar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tony1811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [70]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [71]
    2. [72]
    3. [73]
    4. [74]
    5. [75]
    6. [76]
    7. [77]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [80]

    Comments:
    Tony1811 repeatedly included a BLP violation (i.e., criticism toward the subject when no source that exists mentions such criticism, not even the ones they cited). Sources they cited include a video from Newsmax, a deprecated source; a Washington Examiner report via MSN, a source that should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims per WP:RSP; LifeZette, a questionable source; and Fox News, which is biased or opinionated for politics per RSP. Please let me reiterate as well that none of these sources even mention the criticism included in any capacity. They claimed that their violation of BLP policies was part of a larger conversation around left-wing bias in the media as well as free speech issues. KyleJoantalk 00:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gaeltober reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [81]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [82]
    2. [83]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [85]

    Comments:
    Article is under a 1RR restriction per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. I attempted to meet the user half-way by retaining some of their addition, and also twice requested they self-revert their 1RR breach, and in the latter request asked them to seek consensus for the change on the article's talk page. They refused to do so. FDW777 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FDW777 has not attempted to "meet half way". He objected to "speculation" about Martina Anderson retiring, once the "speculation" was confirmed by Martina Anderson, he objected to the edit being too long. It was shortened. ~He then objects to the edit also saying why she is retiring. God knows why. The edit warring is his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaeltober (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RossButsy reported by User:RPBG (Result: No action)

    Page: Friday Night Dinner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Turning pages into a battleground when explaining they would refrain from edit warring (3RR not violated) RPBG (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @RPBG: Please engage in discussion at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Safyrr reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

    Page: British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 09:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC) "Alright, it looks like the talks on the talk page are over. Here is the restored text with adjustments. If one would like to know where they can find more detailed info about what is covered in the lead in the article, they can consult the Geography section, the Economy section and/or the navbox. Glad this is over"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 06:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC) to 06:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      1. 06:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC) "Look at his contributions, all he does is revert peoples edits and he never contributes anything of value, its gonna be hard to get approval from this guy"
      2. 06:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1021454989 by Magnolia677 (talk) revert vandalism"
    4. 19:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC) "thirteen provinces and territories, kuroshio current, english de facto, borders what, area, Vancouver population, politics"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on British Columbia."
    2. 06:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ +"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    The editor left this on my talk page as I slept before resuming the edit war:
    I have noticed that you have are in an edit war, reverting good edits and citing false reasons for doing so. Like in the article, the paragraphs introduce resume and talk about: the less than 5% arable land that is used for farming, forestry and mining, cinematography, shipping, the real estate market, tourism, geography, climate, population size and area size. You can find this information in the article itself in the Economy section and the Geography section. Furthermore, the introduced texts revises the lead by making it neutral and straight-to-the point, creating a more encyclopedic leading text. Do you have any further questions or additions? Safyrr (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor decided to carry on a discussion on their own talk page rather than on the article's. This is what leads me to believe that the editor is new. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    New editor who is pushing specific (and poorly formatted) content. Not clear on WP:BRD or discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring The reported editor thought that they could close the discussion]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Walter Görlitz: That edit is what made me decide to look into this user. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd. I thought I copied the link. I'm sorry that I failed to paste it in. The editor has been wikihounding me as well: reverting two explained reverts I made. I am currently opening a discussion on the first article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I noticed the wikihounding. On the other hand, the user has been inactive for over an hour. I'm going to wait and see what they do next. I'm monitoring their contributions. If they participate civilly in talk page discussion, all is good. If they continue with edit warring or wikihounding, then I'm prepared to block them. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a reasonable approach. As I noted, they are likely a new, enthusiastic editor. WP:AGF, I recognize that the edits were an attempt to improve the article, even if it was not particularly well received or successful. I do not want to annoy someone who is earnestly attempting to improve Wikipedia. I do want the editor to start behaving in a more cooperative way. I noted on the article's talk page that it was a sincere effort to improve the article, and hope that we can collectively achieve this goal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Walter I think we have a new editor that wants to help. They just need to learn the wiki ways. ....that unfortunately is a huge learning curve. Think they are a bit younger....well then me a 60 year old. ....why? because they rely on websites over scholarly publications. They are doing well with additions regardless of minor problems formatting and sourcing preferences. We just need them to understand we have a process and that process is not fast.... we are not McDonald's we are any encyclopedia bulit by consensus. Let's get someone to welcome them with open arms and try to explain a little bit how things work. I would but my disability causes my grammar voice to text to be horrific. Pick 3 of a potential good editor here if we can just point them in the right direction Moxy- 20:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fredbasing & User:148.252.133.24 reported by wolf (Result: Protected)

    Page: Type 26 frigate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Fredbasing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 148.252.133.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [86]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [87] (as Fredbasing)
    2. [88] (as Fredbasing)
    3. [89] (as 148.252.133.24)
    4. [90] (as 148.252.133.24)
    5. [91] (as 148.252.133.24)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92] (DE warning)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [93] (see comments)

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [94]

    Comments:
    Edit amounts to removal of a significant amount of content. Was first attempted twice by way of another IP address on April 24 ([95]). Seven edits in total, the last five linked above occur in the space of less than 2 hours. Reverted by 4 different editors, with repeated encouragement to use the the talk page, which this user couldn't have missed as they've shown they're quite familiar with edit summaries, using them extensively. (Also see the near identical summaries between the IP and registered accounts). User also familiar with EW policy, stopped at 3RR with the IP account, then created the user account and continued with the exact same reverts. This kind of policy-dodge should not be permitted. - wolf 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Zero attempt at resolving the editing not attempt made in the talk page or information on why edits where being reverse however I have put into the information box why I was removing the unnecessary information from the page FredBasing 18:07 5 may 2021 (bst) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbasing (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't delete part of the report, you can contest them here in the comments, (as you just have), but really, you should be trying to explain why you feel your repeated attempts to remove that content was justified, instead of leaving it be and discussing it as you were encouraged to do. (Not now, back then). - wolf 17:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Derwood1558 reported by User:Rockchalk717 (Result: Partial Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Will Parks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Derwood1558 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [96]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [97]
    2. [98]
    3. [99]
    4. [100]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [103]

    Comments:

    User also threatened to edit war here--Rockchalk717 20:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PostcolonialLitNerd reported by User:Pikavoom (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [104] (specifically ""Depending on your point of view, Priyamvada Gopal is either a warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex." quote and framing of controversies as "media attention")

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20 April
    2. 21 April
    3. 22 April
    4. 22 April
    5. 23 April
    6. 25 April
    7. 29 April
    8. 30 April
    9. 3 May
    10. 5 May
    11. 5 May
    12. 6 May

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this section and below

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [106]

    Comments:
    This is slow edit warring against multiple users, PostcolonialLitNerd is the only one reverting this version in and is reverted by myself, User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Xxanthippe, User:Atchom, and User:15. PostcolonialLitNerd might not have reached 4 reverts in 24 hours, but they've got up to 3 reverts a couple of times and has reached something like twelve reverts total on this content.

    Furthermore, PostcolonialLitNerd is a WP:SPA that only edits this article, see: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Priyamvada Gopal and the user's talk page where multiple users have raised concerns about their involvement.

    In addition, PostcolonialLitNerd has been combative against other users and BLP journalists on talk and has engaged in blatant canvassing on the talk page with selective pings ([107], [108] "I will continue to revert edits that are malign and foolish", [109], "was mindlessly restored by 15"). The user has persisted in canvassing despite warnings ([110], [111]) Pikavoom (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I agree with what everyone has said above and shall not rehash the contents at undue length. PostcolonialLitNerd is a belligerent SPA who has engaged in blatant canvassing (despite being warned several times by several users), and who appears to be set on waging a war of attrition against all of the other editors involved (who are by no means in agreement about many issues) until they get their way. This is not simply a case of an over-enthusiastic editor feeling possessive about the page as per WP:OWN, but a case of blatant bad faith editing. Atchom (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Endorse block; continued edit-warring after numerous warnings, WP:BATTLEGROUND. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I want to take this opportunity to point out that Pikavoom, Xxanthippe, Ohnoitsjamie and Atchom have made no attempt to understand the legitimate objection I have to their edits. Moreover, it's instructive to note that the complainants have repeatedly reintroduced a slur and personal attack against Gopal into the article without consensus and in the face of opposition by other editors. The offending material reads: "warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex" & "the Torquemada of the New Woke Inquisition". These remarks are not presented 'responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone'. It's abusive and in contravention of WP:BLPBALANCE policy. Pikavoom, Xxanthippe, Ohnoitsjamie and Atchom have continued to revert to these comments. That was and continues to be my primary objection. Anyone who sets out to introduce material that unreasonably and abusively paints the subject in a less than favourable light is not fit to edit articles on Wikipedia. There are other minor content disputes covered on the talk page. I strongly encourage Administrators to read my edit summaries and comments on the talk page. I have carefully explained my changes and attempted to uphold Wikipedia's content policies. It is appropriate to revert changes that have not achieved consensus or contravene Wikipedia's policies and standards. Other editors have been supportive and thanked me for my edits. PostcolonialLitNerd (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:95.235.96.59 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 31h)

    Page: Britain (place name) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 95.235.96.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [112]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [113]
    2. [114]
    3. [115]
    4. [116]
    5. [117]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [120]

    Comments:
    Repeated poorly explained attempts to insert apparent original research by IP unwilling to engage in discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anjo james reported by User:Jstore Master (Result: )

    Page: Sreejith Panickar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Anjo james (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [121]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [122]
    2. [123]
    3. [124]
    4. [125]
    5. [126]
    6. [127]
    7. [128]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Unsourced words being newly inserted are *right-wing*, *insensitive*, *misogynistic*, *uncivilized*, *communal* etc.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [129]

    Warnings were issued to this user on their Talk page by two users including me. All he did was to use abusive and obscene vernacular in his reply and a threat that the edits will continue. The article Talk page is now updated with details.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;

    1. [130]
    2. [131]

    Done.

    Comments:
    Person was warned multiple times by multiple users on their Talk page. But the person replied in abusive and vulgar language with a threat they would repeat the edits. Jstore Master (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please fix the report to include diffs rather than Oldids. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks. Jstore Master (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Belevalo reported by User:Nick-D (Result: )

    Page: Special Air Service Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Belevalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [132]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [133]
    2. [134]
    3. [135]
    4. [136]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at: Talk:Special Air Service Regiment#War crimes & introduction, which Belevalo commented in before their most recent revert [138] and has since commented in without reverting themselves [139]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [140]

    Comments:

    This is a report of prolonged edit warring despite the editor being aware there was a talk page discussion, rather than a 3RR violation. As shown by User talk:Belevalo, they have been warned multiple times for disruptive editing over recent weeks in related articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What did Nick-D say, Stifle? ——Serial 16:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no ANI report. I'd be grateful if an admin could action this report (@Stifle:). Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Newtlamender reported by User:TriiipleThreat (Result: )

    Page: Marvel Cinematic Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Newtlamender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [141]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [142]
    2. [143]
    3. [144]
    4. [145]
    5. [146]
    6. [147]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [148]
    2. [149]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [150]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [151]

    Comments:
    User has continued to edit war despite warnings from multiple users.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Just noting that user wanted to resolve the issue here. Since I am neutral I would recommend an actual consensus this time. Since his last discussion didn’t have results.Jhenderson 777 19:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just pointing out that this attempt was made after repeated warnings and posting on this noticeboard.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In my defense, until TriiipleThreat revealed to me the other means that could be used to end the discussion, I didn't know about them. When I did, I looked into ending this discussion trough these means, and stop reverting the edits. — Newtlamender (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that. I didn’t mean to bite because you might be new. Hopefully you editors come as a compromise or something. Jhenderson 777 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newtlamender: then how do you explain the reverts you made after your were warned against further edit warring? Or your response to the warning? And this isn't about "ending a discussion" (which btw is still ongoing), it's about the reverts you continually chose to make, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors, both on talk pages and in edit summaries. - wolf 03:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kolya77, User:Redrose64, User:Parquito98 reported by User:EnLarissais (Result: )

    Τhese users have reverted my edits at the following articles:

    User:24.47.214.156 reported by User:Mikehawk10 (Result: )

    Page: Portal:Current events/2021 May 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 24.47.214.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 06:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC) "This is not relevant to any topic…"
    2. 03:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC) "This is not relevant at all (how is this a current event)? Stop removing my rightful edits"
    3. 01:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC) "This is not relevant"
    4. 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    5. 19:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    IP is repeatedly removing information from a project page in a manner that appears to have violated the 3-revert-rule. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Generalsagar reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result:)

    Page: COVID-19 pandemic in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Generalsagar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:30, 2 May 2021 diff hist +1,106‎ COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ →‎2021 - The edit he made over which he is edit warring.
    2. 07:11, 2 May 2021 diff hist +1,106‎ COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ Undid revision 1020982987 by ViperSnake151 (talk)
    3. 11:27, 4 May 2021 diff hist +1,107‎ COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ →‎2021
    4. 05:01, 6 May 2021 diff hist −204‎ COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ →‎2021
    5. 02:14, 7 May 2021 diff hist −207‎ COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ Undid revision 1021853684 by Yoonadue (talk)
    6. 04:58, 7 May 2021‎ Generalsagar talk contribs‎ 178,953 bytes −208‎ →‎2021: Butt-hurt Modi bhakts are removing the facts
    7. curprev 08:01, 7 May 2021‎ Generalsagar talk contribs‎ 178,953 bytes −208‎ →‎2021: Readers need to know the facts and it appears that Modi's PR machinery is deleting it.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Making edits against the consensus held on talk page.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [153]

    Comments: User has less than 300 edits in 10 years. With talk page full of warning, unresponsive attitude and offensive edit summaries[154][155] this user is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Egeymi reported by User:194.103.189.16 (Result: )

    Page:Do Rzeczy
    User being reported: Egeymi

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [156]
    2. [157]

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

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

    Egeymi ignores the sources, the references do not match text on the page at all.The text is simply false and based on personal opinions.
    (One source links to a Press.pl publication by a journalist from a rival - both economically and ideologically - newspaper. The publication is not about the Do Rzeczy, but about its chief editor. It is not neutral!)

    This topic is treated as a private blog. Just check the sources and versions of this topic in other languages.

    Egeymi keeps things that way by undoing all corrections.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.189.16 (talk • contribs)


    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [158]

    Comments:

    I just keep the original text. IP user should provide other sources showing the statements that s/he does not like are incorrect instead of deleting these. Egeymi (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    194.103.189.16 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Answers: [reply]

    - Please check existing references:

    1. 2 Is about is about the career of a chief editor - Lisicki. Name of the newspaper is Do Rzeczy - it means To the point. The publication′s title is Od Rzeczy - it means opposite. Publication is not neutral.
    2. 6 VoxEurop says Do Rzeczy is Conservative and liberal [159]
    3. Currently deleted link to Eurotopics wich says Do Rzeczy is Conservative [160].

    On the English Do_Rzeczy page in Wikipedia is

    1. ultra-conservative,[2]
    2. Catholic fundamentalist[2] and
    3. right-wing populist,
    4. Right-wing populist to far-right[1][2].

    It is clearly sombody′s personal opinions. We cannot use a single publication by a single opposition columnist and ignore the numerous other sources that say otherwise. On Polish and Russian is conservative-liberal, socio-political.

    My point is that the existing references do not support the text on the Wikipedia page.

    194.103.189.16 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Fram reported by User:Tom.Reding (Result: )

    Page: Template:Authority control (arts) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC) "Restored revision 1021927364 by Fram (talk): Perfectly working version, nothing is disrupted, and an RfC gets easier by using this."
    2. 13:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Pigsonthewing (talk) to last version by Fram"
    3. 12:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC) "No sandbox was used in the changing of this template"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 11:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) "/* Discussion (look of Authority Control) */ +"

    Comments:

    Warning 1, warning 2   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two issues, the reverts and the "long-term disruptive editing warranting a topic ban".
      • As can be seen, the "attempt to resolve the dispute" was objecting to the use of a sandbox for this purpose. Therefor, I moved it to a live environment instead; No further attempts to resolve this were made, only reverts by people opposed to this template and this change in general.
      • The long-term disruptive editing (no evidence presented at all for this requested topic ban!) is=
        • The creation of Template:ACArt, which was nominated for deletion but kept
        • The creation of an RfC about a new look for authority control, which was widely supported and closed as supported on 1 April
        • The discussion of the implementation of this RfC, where every attempt was made to incorporate reasonable objections and suggestions of the three most vocal and strident opposers of the RfC
        • The start of an RfC about the implementation of the RfC, which was requested by 2 of the 3 opposers of the original RfC, but when it was opened was described as "Forumshopping" by Tom.Reding (how an RfC at VPP to get wider input on a template being discussed at the template talk page, and following on from an RfC on that same VPP, can be forumshopping, is not clear).
      • Note that this EW was started at 14.22, nearly 30 minutes after I informed Tom.Reding about an ANI discussion about these issues. For someone who cares so much about Forumshopping, it certainly looks poor form to ask for a topic ban here and now without any evidence except the current reverts. Please give them a boomerang trout and refer further discussion to ANI. Fram (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This (and the ANI report, and the RFCs and VPP discussions and everything else) is too complicated for me to look at, but I do want to nip one thing in the bud, before any more electrons are spilled. We don't do topic bans here. Someone will be along, I'm sure, to review the edit warring issue, but any time spent by either side about the topic ban here is time wasted. If a topic ban discussion is a good use of time - and I have no opinion on that - it should be done at ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fram had a recent 3RR violation last month as well, April 2021, regarding another template that interacts with Wikidata.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1021964037"