Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Sf123456 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [5]

Comments:

Sf123456 has repeatedly removed a redirect category even after they received this explanation as to its function. They are also the subject of this ANI report, which also partially pertains to edit warring. KyleJoan^talk 03:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You might want to add these two (diff and diff) to their list of disruptive edits. M.Bitton (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - 48 hours for removing reports from noticeboards. One revert deletes an AN3 report about themselves, another removes 100K bytes from ANI, another revert removes a complaint from ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:177.232.84.121 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: Special:diff/1089445527

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: warned by Maxbmogs on their user talk

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:177.232.84.121#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Comments:

Persistent addition of unsourced info in List of Illumination productions, seems the editor does not understand the scope of articles as seen in the last two edit summaries -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 15:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Plus, the IP's claim that Illumination will be producing a film called 'Cut the Rope' in 2022 seems to be unsourced. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wildhorse3 reported by User:Abhishek0831996 (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Wildhorse3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:

Came off a block by EdJohnston for edit warring on this page[10] and is now continuing the edit war by falsely claiming that he got consensus while admitting that he is misrepresenting sources.[11] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 1 week. The user is continuing the same war for which they were previously blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kire1975 and User:North Carolina Man reported by User:Gulbenk (Result: Fully protected for one week)

Page: Greensboro massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
Kire1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
North Carolina Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18] [19] [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21] [22]

Comments:
I initiated an edit to correct an error in the article. Subsequently, one, then two editors working in concert attempted to restore the erroneous information. A discussion was initiated at Talk, where I presented the reasons why the information was erroneous. The two editors refused to work collaboratively with me or heed the information given to them, but simply acted to restore the error without a rationale. This is a "slow motion" edit war that does not meet the definition of 3RR, but needs to be resolved nonetheless.Gulbenk (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully protected the article for one week. The three editors are urged to go back to the article Talk page to continue their discussion, and if an agreement is not reached as to the content dispute, other forms of dispute resolution must be tried. All three editors are warned that if after the protection expires, they edit the article without a clear consensus, they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Gulbenk has a long history of WP:DISRUPTIVE edits on this article, going back well over two years before I started paying attention to it this week. For two days, Gulbenk has lobbied personal attacks against North Carolina Man and myself on the talk page when he does not get his way. This is far from a slow motion edit war. This report is an escalation of his attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the process and make his attacks seem official before someone eventually proposes a WP:TBAN on the topic for him as becomes more and more likely to happen. "The consensus is simply not on his side. Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with him." The article's lead alone has seven paragraphs in it, but editors are afraid to change anything in it because Gulbenk is a WP:BRR edit warrior. He's not interested in discussions on the talk page. He is the captain of this page and it's his way or the highway. I have been trying to assume good faith but as anyone who reads the talk page can see, one can only pretend so long. Kire1975 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the second edit [23] that Gulbenk claims above to be an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is actually an attempt by him to use the talk page as a forum for his own WP:CPP political views. He actually claims in this edit that he would assign the term "domestic terrorism" to at least one of the parties in this dispute. I asked him to read WP:NOTFORUM and stop pinging me, he persists aggressively enough to threaten blocks and sanctions against me and anyone else who disagrees with him, even if we have RSS sources to back up our edits. Kire1975 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note that Gulbenk's reasoning here does not mention what the "error" he decided to declare this war about was, what was "erroneous" about the "information" that he ~~handed down~~ gave out, nor what the "reasons why the information was erroneous" means. He fails to state how he attempted to work "collaboratively" with us. He describes himself only as "giving information." Our rationale for the edit reversion was very clear from the beginning, supported by evidence and stated multiple times. His claims that we don't have one here are malicious and false. It is Gulbenk who is unwilling to collaborate. Kire1975 (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you Bbb23 for the intervention. I wish I could say that a one week cooling off period holds some hope for mutual agreement. But the three posts (above) by Kire1975 are indicative of the problem. Personal attacks, links to off-topic subjects (not "domestic violence), no discussion on the merits. Gulbenk (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply: Gulbenk , you may have submitted a typo. Nothing here has been said or linked to about "domestic violence". I think you must have meant "domestic terrorism" which is very much on-topic. No personal attacks against you have been made. My next edit will be to ask a question about the merits of the case on the talk page. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gomaza reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1083715884

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1 2 3 4

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24][25]

Comments:

Comment Edits are not vandalism, and Gomaza has not been warned for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noticed that the user who made this report have starting the edit war. Gomaza (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats why I'm the one who performed four reverts. I'm going to wait for you to explain your removal of RS in the talkpage. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why my recommendation is for both of you to discuss the situation at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made three reverts within 24 hours.[26][27][28] Gomaza (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I expect anything on the talkpage from you? --Semsûrî (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you forgot this one[29]. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first edit within 24 hours in this page and not a revert. Gomaza (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope its a revert.[30] Now let's focus on the talkpage.--Semsûrî (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained everything in the edit summary. You should use the talk page and explain your edits like I told you before here.[31] Gomaza (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you at the talkpage and expect a adequate reply not the generic I have readded the pictures and removed the false information. I don't want to go back and fourth here. @C.Fred: If this is the only thing I can get, I need you to get involved. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:46.176.102.247 reported by User:Iaof2017 (Result: /16 range blocked one week)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38][39]

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

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

Comments:

Personal attacks and persistent disruption on Talk:Eleni Foureira by IP user and clear violation of WP:3RR. Iaof2017 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

/16 range blocked for one week by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Igec133 reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Igec133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

15:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "consensual version"
15:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Please do not violate the generally agreed consensus. Take a look at the article talk, Social Democracy section and present arguments. Don't do disruptive edits!"
15:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "unsourced ideologies removal"
15:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Direction – Slovak Social Democracy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It's worth noting that "Igec133" appeared just minutes after 178.143.117.83 edits (unexplained sources removal) were reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging EdJohnston since they warned them about edit warring on the same article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Igec133 is indefinitely blocked for disruption, based on the long history of problems regarding Slovak politics still listed at User talk:Igec133. The issues started in October 2021, resumed this year, and apparently are still continuing, judging from the behavior described today. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Earthh reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[41] June 5, 14:23
[42] June 5, 14:53
[43] June 5, 15:01
[44] June 6, 09:29
[45] June 6, 09:32
[46] June 6, 11:25

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

Comments:
Earthh has reverted 6 times to try and force a change into the article, reverting three separate editors over this span. Rather than take to the talk page, as numerous users have requested, they insist only on reverting. Toa Nidhiki05 15:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverting multiple users who object to your edits since March, this is why you were notified for persistently edit warring without using the talk page [48]. This is getting ridiculous.--Earthh (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed ridiculous that you've reverted six times in a 24-hour span rather than engage on the talk page like you've been asked to. Toa Nidhiki05 15:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to link this dif for the 3RR warning on Earthh's talk page, but you linked a dif on the Morbius article instead. Note that Earthh has since removed the 3RR warning from their talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, ty for the catch. Toa Nidhiki05 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note, when reviewing this, that Earthh has previously reported OP for edits on this article. There seems to be an ongoing dispute on content in this article. Not taking sides, but I wanted to include this just as a reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

none at the time, now Talk:Same-sex_marriage#"metropolitan"ism

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [55]

Comments:

I'm reporting this as an uninvolved editor. In the last 24 hours, Kwamikagami has made four reverts, which is in violation of WP:3RR which states An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Discussion between Kwamikagami and @Newimpartial: has been ongoing on Talk:Same-sex marriage for a couple of weeks now with no resolution. I issued Kwamikagami with a 3RR warning, diff above, which they then removed from their talk page [56]. As another editor reverted their fourth revert [57] so I do not know if Kwamikagami intended to self-revert or was ignoring the report. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the timestamps correctly, you warned Kwamigami 10 minutes after edit #4 above, then raised this report without identifying any of K's following edits as edit-warring. Is that right? NebY (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was filing a bug report with the new section tool, and replying to a comment on another talk page in the time since filing the report. I've not yet caught up on all of the actions in the last ten minutes. However in doing so now, I do agree that there was a fifth revert as identified by Newimpartial and Bbb23 below, that does not appear to have been self-reverted as of yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you went straight from warning to reporting without K making any intervening edits, is that right? It makes the warning seem rather irrelevant if you were going to report anyway, except perhaps that the report asks for a diff of a warning. NebY (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? This is an experienced editor who knows better (and a former admin, at that) and even after the warnings has continued edit warring on sanctioned articles. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my last edits were "edit-warring". Two were links that AFAICT are not opposed by other editors, and one was a tag marking the dispute. But I've self-reverted regardless. — kwami (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below about the part of your edit that constituted an additional (technical) revert. Also, your other edits were clearly intended to continue the dispute by other means, in article space, after I had started the discussion on Talk. So you were wise to self-revert under the circumstances, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even seen your discussion yet, and anyway tagging a disputed point is an appropriate way to handle a dispute that is under discussion. Linking WP articles for unclear referents is hardly "continuing the dispute by other means" when you don't dispute the referents! At least, I assume that when you wrote "France proper", what you intended was the topic of our article "Metropolitan France". — kwami (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is off-topic for the noticeboard, but I have responded to your claim at the article Talk page. In any event, you seem to be missing the point that "being right" isn't a valid pretext for edit war behaviour (except in WP:3RRNO situations, which this manifestly isn't). Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "being right". I tagged the point you challenged and moved on to cleaning stuff up. If you want to count that as "a pretext for edit war", fine, I've already reverted myself. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who resorts to templating an issue in dispute when they "run out of reverts" is a pretty good indicator of WP:EW ideation, or at least WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. You have done this now, repeatedly. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the subject for today's activation of Kwamigami is different from the previous occurrence; I have started a Talk page discussion of the new topic here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that I believe this subsequent edit by Kwamikigami was also technically a revert, though it may not have been intended as one. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that counts as a rv, but I've self-reverted anyway.

Do you actually dispute the links? And does tagging a disputing point count as a "revert" for purposes of 3RR? — kwami (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our edits sailed past each other; please see my reply to your comment below. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd actually forgotten yesterday's edits per BOLD until I checked the 3RR warning. No discussion by BOLD editor at the time. I'm sure there are other ways around this dispute than the existing wording, if the consensus of the past year no longer applies. — kwami (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing your most recent revert might be taken as an indication of good faith... Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't, you already reverted it. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true; your last 3 consecutive edits constituted the last revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that. My last rv was rv'd. My last edits did not touch Newimpartial's wording. AFAICT the links are not part of the dispute, and AFAIK tagging a contested point pending discussion doesn't count as a 'revert'. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that re-inserting the word "metropolitan" at the same point in the article - whether or not capitalized and whether or not hidden by a pipe link - technically constitutes a revert. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps so. I've already reverted that. But note that I used that wording in the link because Metropolitan France is the wording of our article. I suppose I could've linked to a rd in order to avoid that word, but someone would eventually 'fix' it to what I had, so that seems rather pointless. — kwami (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a former admin, your grasp of the whole "don't edit war" principle seems pretty thin, tbh. And citing BRD as though it were policy in an apparent attempt to excuse your WP:EW and OWN behaviour - as you did here - does not improve the impression you give. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim was that you could revert consensus, and that it was up to the supporter of the status quo to get a new consensus on Talk before reverting you. That's contrary to BOLD, so I thought BOLD was appropriate to cite. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cited BRD, and when I call you on that you now claim consensus for your version. This is precisely what I have asked you for on Talk - evidence of prior consensus - but to no avail. I have not seen any other editors supporting your preferred language for the article, whether in the edit history for the article or in the Talk archive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "call me out"? You made the change, so per BOLD it's up to you to defend it. This isn't you reverting a recent change, this is you making the change. The wording has been stable for a year. That in itself demonstrates consensus. You've also noted old talk page discussions that use the term you dispute, with no-one objecting to it. That also shows consensus. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. No it doesn't and you know better. If an error remains in an article for 10 years, it doesn't mean it should stay, it means it gets fixed. The same thing applies. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if we were talking about an error, but we're not. We're talking about the best wording. AFAICT there's no dispute about the facts. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last nine-ten months, several editors have removed the terms in question and you (and only you) have added them back in. That isn't what anyone would regard as "implicit consensus" - more like WP:OWN on your part. But even if you were "right" on the merits, that wouldn't justify your four/five reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true over the past 9-10 months, but others had done the same before that.

You're correct, that doesn't justify my 4 reverts. My only excuse here is that I honestly forgot that I'd made the same reverts yesterday.

But also on your part, saying that the status quo ante is "ridiculous" doesn't justify your edit-warring. If you want to make a change and it's contested, you should take it to talk, not demand that it remain in the article and that the status quo ante be defended on talk. The fact that someone else had previously made a similar change without discussion doesn't justify you doing the same. You didn't start a discussion until after this 3RR was filed. I'm happy to discuss other wording, my only concern that it be accurate and not misleading. For example, your implication that integral parts of France are not "properly" part of France is problematic, IMO. It would be like saying that Hawaii isn't part of the USA "proper". — kwami (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.116.76.5 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: 79.116.76.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Babies aren't actors. Babies don't know how to pretend. Babies don't start careers."
19:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "She was in a movie at 9 months old (allegedly) but she wasn't acting because 9 month old babies don't know what acting is."
19:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "How is it possible for a 9 month old baby to act? It's not acting if you don't know what's going on..."
19:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "How does a 9 month old baby know how to act? How does a 9 month old baby know what a career is?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ashley Olsen."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I can't tell if this is a child trolling or someone genuinely thinking they're right and edit warring but they don't seem willing to accept that their edits are contested (and incorrect) and have been removing information from the lead that has long been supported in the body. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they've now done it for a 4th or maybe 5th time [58] PRAXIDICAE💕 20:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:BobNesh reported by User:NoonIcarus (Result: 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] (removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65][66][67][68]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [69]

Comments:
BobNesh has reverted four different editors in less than three hours, effectively breaking the three reverts rule. The user has been asked to self revert and has been warned both about WP:BRD and the edit warring, but has ignored the messages, even removing the warning placed on their talk page.

It should be remembered that the Bucha massacre article falls under the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee regarding Eastern Europe or the Balkans topics, and that BobNesh has repeatedly been warned about edit warring in unrelated topics, being blocked in 2015, 2018 and 2020. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for two weeks. This is BobNesh's fourth block for edit warring and POV disruption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:2800:A8:A01:A1:35C0:A77E:D72E:23E3 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Not blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [70], however I also did a general citation clean-up as in these three edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[71] - Initial change of two citations to nested archive links (not revert)
[72] - First Restoration of nested archive links
[73] - Second restoration of nested archive links
[74] - Third restoration of nested archive links
[75] - Change of nested archive link to another via urlscan.io (not technically a revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[77]
[78]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [79]

Comments:

This is for an edit war report, and not 3RR. The IP editor has been reverting against myself and @Izno: to insert an archive URL as a citations primary URL, and then to use a nested archive URL. I've tried asking the editor about this, however the response I've received has been odd. The editor is convinced that Wayback Machine archive links may result in a BLP violation, and so has been insisting on using a nested archive (that is an archive of an archive) to prevent a reader from viewing older or newer revisions of the archived page. I tried to clarify what PAG supported this, however received no response.

After issuing the editor with the edit war warning, I was told to Stay out of the way; you seems haven't grasp the seriousness in terms of handling BLP articles, which sometimes would turn really sensitive. I've attempted to clarify again while writing this report which policy or guideline supports this, only to be told that the editor is invoking WP:IAR and has now changed the link again to use a nested archive of the website urlscan.io. The editor then shortly after removed that comment from their talk page. I'm not sure how else to resolve this as the IP editor seems unwilling to engage further on this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocked While he is definitely taking the rope offered him, he hasn't reached the end yet. Since your attempt to discuss he has not edited the article. Let's see where we are at with this in 24. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hipal reported by 86.171.219.109 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC) (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal#Edit_summary_at_Karine_Jean-Pierre [diff] I did not try to resolve this in the talk page because they weren't edit warring with me.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipal&diff=1091938563&oldid=1091920933 [diff]

Comments:
Karine Jean-Pierre, an American political advisor, made some comments and was criticised for them. Hipal changed the wording to state that she was attacked. Multiple users have raised issues with her comments being downplayed in the article, and the response to her comments being misrepresented, such as implying a physical attack. (See [85], [86], [87], [88].) The question about bias was not helped by Hipal's inflammatory responses contrary to WP:THREATEN and WP:ESDONTS: Toa Nidhiki05 said in the edit summary "Attacked is not a proper wording here, that implies some sort of physical confrontation", to which Hipal responded in the reversion edit summary "another block needed?", (See: [89]), despite not even being an Administrator to issue such a block. I understand Hipal used to be an Administrator, however, so they should know better than to engage in this conduct. An IP said in the edit summary "NPOV. There is no source provided for physical attack. The source provides "President Biden’s incoming White House press secretary has come under attack". Coming under attack isn't being attacked, it's being criticized." (See: [90]), to which Hipal responded "let's get the NOTHERE ip's blocked" (See: [91]), contrary to WP:ACCUSE, WP:AGF and WP:HUMAN. Hipal was informed that they have breached WP:3RR (See: [92]), although their user page claims they hold themselves to 1RR usually (See:User_talk:Hipal). The user has a lot of edits deleting other people's work and reverting their edits, for example, 4 reverts in a row beginning "Undid revision..." for the PragerU article ([93], [94], [95], [96]), although in those cases the reversions were for different pieces of text.

This appears to be a long pattern of behaviour, and struggling with WP:CIVIL: their userpage is all about "drama of all these editors trying to work together with some harmony", "One thing I've tried with a great deal of success is to stop assuming that editors will be civil", etc. Their talk page is about breaches of an ANI moratorium (18), accusing other contributors (19), threatening other contributors (20), edit warring and not coollaborating (21 22, 23, 24, 25), requiring dispute resolution (26, 27), and reverting edits and deleting content without justification 28 29 30, 31 32 33 34 35, 36 37, 38 39). From what it appears, Hipal has a high edit count by deleting the content written by others in good faith, and skipping the use of templates such as {{rs}}, and that has given a sense of hubris to threaten blocks, assume bad faith and make accusations of WP:NOTHERE. This behaviour is entirely unacceptable, but it appears they think that they can get away with it, stating on their userpage "Wikipedia does very little to enforce civility, so we should all expect that some editors here will be incivil".

Hipal should not have breached 3RR, let alone a host of other rules. Please act on this. 86.171.219.109 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards