Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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

User:Zerzuran reported by User:Alexplaugh12 (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Sani Abacha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zerzuran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

2. [1]
3. [2]
4. [3]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Last three sections

Comments:
User has a POV which they refuse to discuss on the talk page.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This particular user used to be productive. But, since their recent edits were reverted by multiple users on Sani Abacha article, they have gone berserk to the extent of removing a discussion that supposed to be archived from Primefac's talk page. Their recent edits are now disruptive on the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nnadigoodluck, said it best. I personally would have reported this user about a day / two days ago but from a closer observation & having interacted with them I don’t think they are being vandals or disruptive on purpose. A lack of comprehension on policies like WP:NPOV or consensus building seems to be the complication here. Furthermore, having lived in Nigeria for the last 20+ years & understanding the intricacies pertaining to culture, ethics and beliefs I suspect the user may have a subconscious WP:COI with the article without even knowing so. In any case I don’t think any dire sanctions are required a warning is enough. Celestina007 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Number 57 13:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Isenta reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: No violation)

Page

Backhoe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Isenta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "as some cannot read and think this specific source is general, i chose an even more specific link that verifies this sentence is accurate."
2. 14:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962345043 by Praxidicae (talk) there is nothing spammy about this link and it's required to verify the sentence is accurate"
3. 14:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "revert targeted harassment"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Adding spam links on Backhoe. (TW)"
2. 14:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "/* June 2020 */"
3. 14:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Backhoe. (TW)"
4. 14:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "/* June 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC) ""

Comments:

And an added bonus of personal attacks. Praxidicae (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I would have preferred an apology for your mistake. You accused me of being a spammer four different times and you were wrong about what the link even was. Isenta (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Isenta there is nothing for me to apologize for, you added a spam link as I stated in my summary. This is straight up corporate spam and we do not generally allow such things as I explained to you repeatedly. However your aggressive personal attacks are uncalled for as is your edit warring. Have a nice day. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You keep calling me a spammer man. How is that not a personal attack? That to me is a personal attack. You are wrong. I am not spamming. I added that as it verifies the sentence is accurate. You first told me it was a general link and you were wrong about that, objectively wrong about that part of it. And yet you go on calling me a spammer. Please stop. Assume. Good. Faith. Isenta (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a link to a manufacturer's promotional web site, so is, as Praxidicae said, straight up corporate spam. It is possible to assume good faith of someone who adds such a link once, but to edit-war it back in after you have been told it is unacceptable makes that very difficult to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

For it to be spam, there would have to be intent on my part to be spamming. There was not. I agree it's a bad source. You try to find sources to verify construction company history in the 1940's. It's not easy. I used what I could find. Isenta (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Isenta. GSS ^💬 14:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's good to have friends, huh? Isenta (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• No violation Best to let the ANI discussion take its course. Number 57 13:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:കർണ്ണൻ reported by User:Arjayay (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Religion in Kerala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: കർണ്ണൻ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
& Talk:Religion in Kerala#Christianity in Kerala

Comments:

User has tried to justify his removal, at Talk:Religion in Kerala, but repeated it again before anyone had the chance to reply - Arjayay (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note I've just invited the reported editor to self-revert. I'm waiting to see their response. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Number 57 13:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Aquintero82 reported by User:Desperado15 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Template:Foreign relations of Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aquintero82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In the bilateral relations templates, this user is removing Turkey from Europe and removing Russia from Asia (which are both Eurasian countries) while adding a West Asian country (Cyprus) to Europe. These countries geographic classifications are very clear and it is not possible to classify Cyprus as only in Europe while classifying Turkey as only in Asia. This user is trying their best to classify countries according to their political opinions.Desperado15 (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Desperado15 is new to Wikipedia. Having myself been a member and edited articles on Wikipedia for more than ten years, there have been numerous discussions and debates on this topic. It does not make logical sense to classify Russia as Asia when it has a massive chunk of land in Europe, but classify Turkey as Europe when over 90% of its land mass is in Asia. Like many editors, Desperado15 is biased on the matter. Please refer to Wikipedia's own page on Europe. Aquintero82, (talk); 19:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears that Desperado15 may also have been using the IP 78.190.231.255 (talk · contribs). The IP has made almost 50 edits that might be considered controversial. Admins should do whatever is needed to keep the war from continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Filer blocked 48 hours, the IP is blocked one month. The editor is doing mass changes to classify Turkey as being in Europe rather than Asia across multiple diplomatic templates. This needs a consensus, and they have not tried to use talk. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Tullyo reported by User:Monochromatic Bunny (Result: Blocked)

Page: Legendary (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tullyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:38, 11 June 2020‎ (UTC) "No house was in the bottom"
2. 22:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC) "No one was in the bottom in the last episode. Stop changing it"
3. 13:58, 12 June 2020‎ (UTC) "The judges gave the houses another chance cause they were good enough to not being in the bottom two. Stop changing it cause they were safe or even worst adding more colors, it makes it messier you have to keep the board simple."
4. 18:54, 12 June 2020‎ (UTC) ""
5. 12:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC) ""

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:44, 12 June 2020‎ (UTC) ""

also my reverts on the main article:

1. 15:44, 12 June 2020‎‎ (UTC) "see talk page discussion"
2. 19:10, 12 June 2020‎ (UTC) "please read the newest section on the talk page to discuss this: Talk:Legendary_(TV_series)"

Comments:

The disagreement is over the placements of two lowest performing contestants in an episode of a reality TV show (Legendary (TV series)). The user Tullyo insists that his interpretation of the judges critiques were correct, and continues to change the information on the page in accordance with his perception of the judging. However, multiple users including myself disagree with him and change Tullyo's edits to what the page displayed initially. I have even posted the article talk page link twice in my reverts to Tullyo's reverts because I've started a discussion on the topic, but he refuses to engage in any type of discussion and instead chooses to keep changing the page to his opinions. Monochromatic Bunny (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 10 days. User has been blocked twice before and seems to be edit warring wherever they go. They are hardly ever to be seen on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Bellagio99 reported by User:Malina120 (Result: No violation)

Page: Social network analysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bellagio99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments: Dear Wikipedia Admins, I am herewith reporting the misconduct behavior of the user (Bellagio99), who has reverted my edit several times. It is my first contribution to Wikipedia, and I added a reference to a research article regarding the application of SNA in economics (similar to other fields of knowledge mentioned in the SNA wiki page). But the user (Bellagio99) insisted to keep deleting my contribution without even reading the article that I am citing. Actually, removing a citation based on the name of its author is totally unethical. Such racist discrimination should be stopped. I am really shocked to see this happening in Wikipedia which supposed to be objective and fair. Thank you in advance for you kind consideration. Best regards, Malina120 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I see only two reverts within the last month. Further, the discussion on the user's talk page directly contradicts the claims you made in this report. —C.Fred (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:A.Savin reported by User:Dan arndt (Result: )

Page: Central Province, Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A.Savin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Central Province, Sri Lanka]

Comments:
This editor has previously been advised of potential edit-warring in respect to Galle Lighthouse (refer:User talk:A.Savin#February 2020) and then subsequently at Pidurutalagala (see:User talk:A.Savin#June 2020). Noting that he has removed other 3RRR warnings from his talk page [29] in May 2020 referring to issues on Ravana Falls and Demodara railway station.

He has previously been advised on a ANI that "ask that in future if you are reverted, you go directly to the talk page rather than reinstating." He has been advised of WP:BRD however has chosen to ignore this advice and repeatedly reinstates his own images on this article, despite the fact that a number of editors have posted on the talk page that they disagree with the inclusion of his images. Dan arndt (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm really sick and tired of this ongoing harassment by "Dan arndt". Why don't they just leave me alone and let me do my job? --A.Savin (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"Dan arndt" is assuming bad faith of me, is monitoring all my edits and reverting most of them for hard-to-understand reasons, or even without any explanation at all. Is there not a single admin out there, who don't find this behaviour normal? I am clearly a good-faith contributor, who has been in Wikimedia movement for 15 years, and this hostile and arrogant behaviour makes me ill. --A.Savin (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: User:A.Savin often engages in edit wars to restore his own images to articles. (See his talk page). But this time around he also restored his own picture to the article four times in 36 hours. (First time, 13:13 on the 12th, through the fourth time, 21:55 on the 13th). He might avoid a block if he will promise to make no more reverts on this article without first getting agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:James343e reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Caucasian race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

James343e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962445373 by Beyond My Ken (talk)"
2. 02:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Skull and teeth */ Yes, I 100% sure. I read the original article. Blumendfeld talks of the Caucasoid race in general and does not exlcude North Africans, Middle Easterners or South Asians and says in the page 25 that Caucasids have small teeths. I don't know how is this controversial, when Caucasoids have always been composed of these non-European groups, including North Africans."
3. 02:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Skull and teeth */ North African were also included in the original Caucasoids."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Caucasian race */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Outdated */ Don't use primary sources when secondary or tertiary are needed"
2. 15:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Outdated */ Please stick to WP policies"

Comments:

He started changing the page early on 13 June. After being reverted and warned here, he inserted the same idea on 14 June, 00:05. After being reverted again, he started the edit war I report here, on the same article, but trying to force a different idea, namely that North Africans are Caucasian. He also made other edits, I only gave the diffs related to that idea. If we count the first diff (at 14 June 02:54) as initial action, he didn't infringe 3RR, but looks like he is intentionally gaming the system and to make other users confused. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I accepted that my initial proposed editions for "outdated" were not helpful and the first discussion was solved. I really apologize if I gave problems, I completely moved away from that first discussion. With regard to the second point, of "North Africa", as you yourself acknowledge, I did not infringe 3RR, so in my opinion that does not qualify as edit war (I wasn't "intentionally gaming the system" but rather reverting back to the statu quo, as North Africa was mentioned in the lede from the beginning). Crucially, I'm not proposing a new idea with the North African mention. In the lede, it has been mentioned that Caucasian classifications include population from North Africa since years, it was the statu quo version till yesterday someone tried to change it deleting the North Africa mention and I admittedly opposed. Besides, I am not trying to say that all North Africans were Caucasian, I just reverted back the lede paragraph as it was in the statu quo. The lead paragraph always included North Africa according to the old anthropological classification of "Caucasian". The lede of the article reads that Caucasian "has usually included ancient and modern populations from all or parts of, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa." With he term "all or part", it includes regions were Caucasians are present in all the territory or part of the territory, which would include North Africa. Anyhow, I apologize again if my actions have been problematic, especially when it comes to the first discussion that extended too much, something I want to prevent now with the second topic of discussion.James343e (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I forgot:

This diff of 03:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC) --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted back to the statu quo, the mention to North Africa in the lede paragraph has been the statu quo version for years till yesterday someone tried to change it deleting the North Africa mention and I admittedly opposed and put it back.James343e (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. James343e's defence is not very convincing. He declares that 'North Africa' is part of the status quo, and that's why he is warring to put it back. WP:NOT3RR does not excuse reverts made to defend the status quo, whatever you may believe that to be. I saw four removals of 'outdated' followed by four edits to restore 'North African' over a two-day period. EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrés Buno reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Nguyễn dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Andrés Buno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "So remove "Classic Chinese": Classic Chinese is a writing system, it's not a language. Classic Chinese (Hantu) was abolished in 1910. And Vietnam wrote alot Chu Nom too."
2. 08:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "More than 30+ countries had sent tributes to ancient China, even include Portugal and Netherlands and none of them "Chinese tributary state", but only Vietnam is must be listed as "tributary state" LOGIC!!! (MarkH21)"
3. 07:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Improvement"
4. 07:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. . 00:13, 13 June, 2020 (UTC) ‎"Message re. Hồ dynasty (HG) (3.4.10)"
2. 07:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Lê dynasty. (TW)"
3. 07:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Nguyễn dynasty. (TW)"
4. 07:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "/* June 2020 */more specific"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User talk

Comments:

3RR violation consisting largely of removing referenced content and adding unreferenced content, besides personal attacks like this and WP:NOTHERE behavior like this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, BAN me now. And delete this account. I am going to quit Wikipedia foverer. It's Ok. R.I.P. free Wikipedia.

BAN Andrés Buno (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – It seems that this user won't be able to edit Wikipedia neutrally. Any admin may unblock if they become convinced that the editor will follow policy in the future. Here is one of his edits:

After 2 days using wikipedia, now I know that MarkH21 is a Chinese troll who is patrolling wikipedia for their Chinese interests without being alerted or ban.

–EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:180.216.77.34 reported by User:JurassicClassic767 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

180.216.77.34 (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:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Edits by IP rose to the level of disruption that a vandalism exemption applies for the nominator's reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:T Magierowski reported by User:Natanieluz (Result: No violation)

Page: 2020 Polish presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: T Magierowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Violate of three-revert rule, in that summary ([34]) I wrote "Don't remove that" and then he again reverted my changes for the third time Natanieluz (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The edits in question that I reverted blatantly violated NPOV, with lots of undue weight, and no talk page was ever started. I did revert 3 times, though I honestly wasn't thinking of the 3 revert rule and I put an edit summary in all of my reverts. T Magierowski (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

In each summary I wrote why I added this changes to that page, I have give you wide explanation, (at least a few explanations), there are sources for everything; even after your second revert I wrote (like I said before) - "Don't remove that" Natanieluz (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There are exceptions to the 3 revert rule, such as the one about BLP. The article on the elections isn't a biography, but your edit openly attacks the Polish president with phrases like "Andrzej Duda and his political party openly attack sexual minorities, opposition parties and even Polish citizens" and "Duda's homophobic war against minorities". Those phrases had to go ASAP. T Magierowski (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This title's are very similar to that from news papers all over the world, but if you didn't' "like" this title, why you simple didn't change that to something else?Natanieluz (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• No violation Only three reverts (a violation is four or more reverts). And I have to say that section (particularly it's title "Duda's homophobic war against minorities") was a clear NPOV violation. Number 57 13:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Ktdk reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Blocked)

Page

All Nippon Airways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ktdk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962494792 by Carl Grassfield (talk)"
2. 11:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962492789 by Carl Grassfield (talk)"
3. 10:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962490904 by Carl Grassfield (talk)"
4. 10:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962478998 by Carl Grassfield (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on All Nippon Airways. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Ktdk's edit-warring edits on a number of articles are being disputed by multiple editors, he has been splitting articles without discussion and without attribution, and he has made no attempt to discuss on the article talk pages so it is difficult to see the justification for his claim that "The editors who are experienced than me have accepted my edits". David Biddulph (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked both Ktdk and Carl Grassfield for 31 hours; it wasn't just on this page – see KLM fleet also. However, if anyone feels that Ktdk merits a longer vacation in view of his/her extensive history of disruptive behaviour, I'd have no objection at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:176.33.55.202 reported by User:CommanderWaterford ((Result: )

Page

Eastern Anatolia Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

176.33.55.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962509903 by CommanderWaterford (talk) It's not vandalism. It's explained in the talk page."
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC) to 13:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
   1. 13:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Population */ Links"
   2. 13:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 962509484 by CommanderWaterford (talk) Feel free to add yours."
3. 13:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "/* Substitution with Armenia */ Official name changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Removal of content, blanking (RedWarn rev14)"
2. 13:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "New Notice: Vandalism (RedWarn rev14)"
3. 13:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Eastern Anatolia Region. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I told the user to feel free to add their information if they did not agree with mine. The user did not write anything in the talk page nor did he/she add anything constructive. The sentence has no source either. 176.33.55.202 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Not a decline, but an observation. Looking at this I see a dispute. I am happy to see the reported user's comment here, which reflects what I saw from the edits: both editors should engage in dialogue on the article's talk page vs using “undo”., N.J.A. | talk 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

User:HappyWanderer15 reported by User:Охранник Леса (Result: )

Page: North Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HappyWanderer15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:52, 7 June 2020

Previous version (with links, which added from the main text to the preamble) reverted to: 11:50, 11 June 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:09, 12 June 2020‎
2. 01:34, 13 June 2020‎
3. 03:51, 14 June 2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

Comments:
User HappyWanderer15 makes warring edits instead of reaching a consensus on the talk page of the article. Охранник Леса (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion (in which user HappyWanderer15 participates) on the talk page about the content of the article. However, user HappyWanderer15 is using an edit war to promote his version. Охранник Леса (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

User is upset that I warned him for edit warring on his talk page, so this is a retaliatory post. The talk page discussions are clear that "abuses" is the preferred wording over "allegations." Охранник Леса is the only user who disagrees. 00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

User:69.118.68.202 reported by User:Magitroopa (Result: )

Page: 44 Cats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.118.68.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35] (or at least similar to that)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]
5. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

The IP does not seems to care about Wikipedia guidelines, especially in regards to the, "Fuck WP:OR" revert listed above... IP has failed to give a proper reliable source and instead would prefer to keep speculation and original research. IP has also decidedly not to discuss the issue on the talk page, reverting once more after I included a link to the talk page discussion in my own edit summary. Magitroopa (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Qwirkle reported by User:Eddaido (Result: )

Page: Artillery wheel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qwirkle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [48] Comments:

I see no attempt to discuss this before the report, nor a warning to the reported user for 3RR. Further, the reporting editor themselves is at three reverts. Finally, the reported editor has not breached the 3RR brightline. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's great, how do I persuade him to stop?.Eddaido (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: You engage in discussion on the talk page and explain why the images improve the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that's so straightforward, thank you. This editor does not notice these things. The article is about the item(s) in the image(s). How further can you go? Eddaido (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: That's a content matter. You should discuss that at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

As long as we're at it, here's where Qwirkle keeps reverting my case fixes in spite of my attempts to discuss:

• 13 June
• 13 June
• 14 June

Not quite a 3RR violation, but a difficult behavior to work with, especially when tag-teaming with another reverter. See attempts to discuss at User_talk:Pi.1415926535#MOS:CAPS and Talk:Central subway (Boston)#Subway capitalization. I guess as a "semi-retired" wikipedian he only has enough time for reverts, and has no use for guidelines or serious discussion. I haven't given him a 3RR warning, as these weren't within 24 hours. He has engaged a bit at the conversation, with a few personal attacks, unless Pi... who merely posted personal attacks and told me to go away. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)