Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

You must notify any user you have reported.

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


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

Additional notes
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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


User:Alexbrn reported by User:Guarapiranga (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Similar content reverted on another page:

  1. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] [8]

Comments:

A cursory search for this user on these talk pages indicates this is not the first transgression. The user seems to have a very strict agenda to defend regarding this topic, continually imperilling WP's NPOV. Guarapiranga (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No evidence of a breech of 3RR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I can personally attest to these violations. @Alexbrn has in the past prevented my efforts to improve Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The reverts are baseless and represent an effort to prevent new / updated information being added to the linked WP article. See: [9]

Hotpass105 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Having a look at his talk history it seems evident it's quite a habit of his. He's repeatedly engaged in edit wars with other editors: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]

But Cyintherye gets it most right, I think: it's a pattern of edit warring. — Guarapiranga (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What it is, is a "pattern" of being taken to a AN3 for bogus reasons mostly by POV-warriors like yourself, most of whom have been blocked/banned since. I have never been blocked a a result of any of these reports (because, as I say, they are bogus like yours: trying to pass off one of Hotpass105's reverts as mine is naughty). Alexbrn (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Now Alexbrn is not only edit warring on the reported page, but has started an all-out campaign across multiple pages:
Talk:Circumcision
Talk:Genital modification and mutilation‎
WT:MED
It is clear he has a POV on this topic, and that he is determined to impose it on Wikipedia by whatever means. Guarapiranga (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The mighty tide of consensus will sweep us along and result, I am sure, with a good outcome for the encyclopedia in a more WP:PAG-compliant manner than what we started with. Posting here when you've just tripped over 4RR at List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting is ... brave. Alexbrn (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Just an external comment, but I remark that you are both discussing (here and on the WikiProject Med and on the talk page of the entry), that's very encouraging and this request I think is needless Face-smile.svg --Signimu (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Ryder Haron reported by User:Shaidar cuebiyar (Result: both 24h)[edit]

Page: Richard Clapton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryder Haron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I count 9 reverts by Shaidar cuebiyar (t c) (if you count their first two-edit sequence today as a revert) and 9 by Ryder Haron (t c). Furthermore, Shaidar cuebiyar did not notify the other party of this report despite the instructions to this page. @Ryder Haron: As a new user, there is some excuse for you not being familiar with the policies against edit warring, but your edits were still disruptive, hence the block from editing. Please take the time to put together a sensible argument as to why these changes should be made, so other editors can discuss with you. @Shaidar cuebiyar: You, however, have no such excuse, as a 10+ year veteran of this community. Please avoid this behavior in the future. –Darkwind (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:KasimMejia (Result: no violation/withdrawn)[edit]

Page: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [48]
  2. [49]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:
3 days ago user was warned but self reverted at the noticeboard for violating 1RR at the same article [51]. Also it was discussed at his talk page [52]. Yet again after 3 days another violation seems to have taken place where there are 2 reverts under 24 hours. KasimMejia (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Those are obviously consecutive edits so count as 1RR and this is not a violation. User:KasimMejia was informed of the fact that consecutive edits do not count as separate reverts here, but chose to file this report anyway, knowing full well that this was NOT a violation. Volunteer Marek 13:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: You did inform me of it, yet I filed it anyway because I don't know if that is an actual rule or not since you didn't link me a rule page. I also don't know whether you're an administrator or not. KasimMejia (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Frankly it isn't relevant if Volunteer Marek is an admin. They already pointed out to you no violation had occurred and you disregarded that to post a spurious complaint. Frankly you'd be well advised to withdraw this report lest you face a trip to AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Simonm223: I don't know whether that user was correct about no violation indeed taking place so I had to ask an Admin, but OK I'll delete it since assuming you are an admin. Do I just delete the section to withdraw it or do I have to do something else to withdraw it? KasimMejia (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a single edit (three sequential edits) I made on this page during last three days. Is it even a revert? Yes, this is a removal of content, but a revert of which edit, exactly? As a note of order, I did not make any violation even during the previous report about me by KasimMejia. I self-reverted just to save some time and nerves. Note that KasimMejia issued 1RR warnings to at least six different users and me: [53], [54],[55],[56],[57],[58]. I suspect most of them were not 1RR violations. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    • All those users who I issued the warning self reverted because they had indeed made a violation. Also you did so too, maybe not with this edit since its considered consecutive but 3 days ago. And the admin had to warn you to self revert because you didn't believe when I told you about your violation. [[59]] KasimMejia (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I did not. Here is my advice. For each alleged revert, you should provide 2 diffs: (a) the alleged revert itself, and (b) the edit by someone else that has been reverted. You refused to provide (b) when I asked you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't to understand what a "revert" is. I told you this in your violation 3 days ago too but you didn't believe until the admin warned you. A revert is removal of any material from the article wholly or in part. If you still don't understand you should read WP:WAR in detail. KasimMejia (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
No, the revert is NOT "removal of any material from the article". You are mistaken. You had to ask one of admins on their talk page what revert is, instead of threatening multiple users to report them to this noticeboard. notifying multiple users about their "violations". My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I did not ask any admin on their talk page what a revert is and I didn't threaten any user. I notified them about 1RR violation which is required for users to do before filing a violation. In fact you telling me that I "threatened" users is a violation of WP:GF. KasimMejia (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Someone already explained you 6 days ago that several consecutive edits count as one edit [60]. Why did you make this report? My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw the notice since the user made no violation according to the administrator. KasimMejia (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Indeed, continuous reverts are not counted disparately. Just out of curiosity, when you say according to the administrator — which admin were you referring to? El_C 20:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe either Simonm223 or Volunteer Marek is an administrator, might be wrong though. KasimMejia (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
You are — they are not. El_C 07:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Bonthefox3 reported by User:KasimMejia (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bonthefox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]


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

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

Comments:

I informed the user on his talk page about the violation of 1RR. User said he doesn't want it removed and then reverted for a 3rd time after warning. KasimMejia (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, don't do that, don't block me. Bonthefox3 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You can self revert your edit here [66] like requested at your talk page and not be blocked. You violated 1RR and made yet another revert after warning you about it. KasimMejia (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bonthefox3. I think that was a violation. Self-revert if you can. My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 20:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Freeknowledgecreator reported by User:Bueller 007 (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: The Taming of Chance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taming_of_Chance&oldid=891758300

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taming_of_Chance&diff=921940526&oldid=921939709
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taming_of_Chance&diff=921941132&oldid=921940747
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Taming_of_Chance&diff=921941453&oldid=921941413

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

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

Comments:

The user who reported me here made an unconstructive change at the article, seems to be annoyed that it got reverted, and is neither more nor less guilty of edit warring than I am. He made things worse by gratuitously and pointlessly insulting me here and is not really in a position to be complaining about my behavior. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The change was not unconstructive; it was changing the citation style to a more standard one that is used throughout all of Wikipedia. You reverted without explanation, your next reversion came rudely as a condescending ALL CAPS EDIT SUMMARY LIKE THIS, and your third reversion again came without explanation. See WP:OWNER. This appears to be an obvious case of someone reverting any changes to an article that they feel that they "own". Bueller 007 (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The place for this discussion is the article's talk page. The unconstructive change I was referring to was your removal of EBSCO attribution. There was absolutely no reason for that and I emphatically do not agree to it. I have no objection to changing the citation style. Also, for future reference, it is really not appropriate to report someone for edit warring because you don't like their edit summaries. The noticeboard is for serious violations of the edit warring rules; it is not a place to report routine disputes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Restored your citation changes here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Only three reverts are listed, you need four to violate 3RR. I suggest you both tone it down and take it to the article talk page. El_C 16:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: sorry, I overlooked the last comment. This seems resolved as Freeknowledgecreator has self-reverted. El_C 16:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Forza2020 reported by User:Aoi (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Lana Lokteff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Forza2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921960732 by Calton (talk) removed as per WP:Biographies of Living Persons; Wikipedia is not a blog or tabloid to push defamatory material about a living person, who has denied such claims; either reword such descriptions from unreliable sources, or remove them. Regards."
  2. 00:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921958050 by Grayfell (talk) no it isn't, as per WP"Biographies of Lving Persons; this is removal of unreliable sources which are defamatory to a living person who has never described herself with such a label, which is grounds for lawsuit. Please remove immediately, as the sources given are potentially facing lawsuits for defamation.."
  3. 23:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921957157 by Aoi (talk) please read WP:Biography of Living Persons - "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.""
  4. 23:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC) "this has been removed as per WP:Biography of Living Persons - these sources are unreliable, questionable, and also defamatory towards a living person, which is grounds for lawsuit in the United States. Such descriptions, denied by this person, need to be removed unless a source of this person declaring such is found."
  5. 13:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921873954 by Aoi (talk) there are none listed stating she is a supremacist, or of her admitting such; until you can provide such a reliable source, this is not in line with WP on biographies of living persons"
  6. 13:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 921873411 by Slatersteven (talk) that source has nothing to do with this person in this article; please provide a source specifically about Lokteff of her admitting she is a supremacist"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [67]
  2. [68] (this is a prior 3RR warning on a dispute on an unrelated article; however, I'm adding it here to show that they were aware of the 3RR before their first reversion).
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 13:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Link rot */ new section"
Comments:

User has continued to edit war, despite being told on their talk page by a sysop that their assertion that their reversions are exempt under the BLP exception to the 3RR rule is incorrect. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely - I've gone ahead and blocked not only on grounds of 3rr (which would have been temporary) but also WP:NLT, as they won't stop saying "slander" with a clear intention of creating a chilling effect. Unless and until they accept and admit that they can't do that, they don't need to be editing. SLPC is a reliable source, Wikilawyering be damned. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Sisuvia reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [70]
  2. [71]
  3. [72]


Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74], [75] See personal attacks here: [76], [77] Comments:
This user has no civility and is apparently here to attack other users. He/she would rather edit-war than engaging positively with other users and contribute to the articles. He has personally attacked me at least twice in the Talk page and revert edit summaries, turning every discussion about the content to a personal attack. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Although your link to the 1RR warning represents no such thing. El_C 07:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:5.116.17.23, User:5.116.143.209, User:5.115.214.27 reported by User:KoizumiBS (Result: sprotected)[edit]

Page: Merkit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.116.17.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 5.116.143.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 5.115.214.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=922013668&oldid=922012740

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=921902303&oldid=921863210
  2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=920925562&oldid=920921564
  3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=920909584&oldid=919990033
  4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merkit&diff=914485026&oldid=913183397

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

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

Comments:
Please lock the page Merkit to edits only from registered users because of Edit warring.--KoizumiBS (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 2 weeks. El_C 14:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Tonk111 reported by User:Harshil169 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Kamlesh Tiwari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Tonk111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 922014724 by Harshil169 (talk) The identity, admission of the killers, police stating what the prima facie motive is, this is not visible anywhere"
  2. 10:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC) ""Muhammad was the first homosexual", That is not a commentary, but a mocking statement"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 09:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC) to 09:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    1. 09:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Comments on sexuality of Muhammad */ Anyone who read his comment against Muhammad knows that it was an insult in retort to the insult against RSS."
    2. 09:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Insults against Muhammad */"
Warnings on Edit-warring
  1. 10:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kamlesh Tiwari. (TW)"
  2. 10:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Kamlesh Tiwari . (TW)"
  3. 10:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Please don’t add your own commentary */ new section"
Comments:

User is not adhering WP:NPOV, WP:OR, not engaging in the Dispute resolution as opened on talk page and giving authoritarian statement like It was not commentary, just an insult. Kamlesh Tiwari referred Muhammad as first homosexual and none of the reliable sources cited in the article are supporting fact that it was insult but the user is still making changes in the article and changing 'Comments on sexuality of Muhammad' to 'Insult of Muhammad'.

  • And here consensus was built up and as per the policy WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, name of accused should not be taken and thus, I removed my own content on the suggestion of one editor but this user reinstated it.
  • Issues on talk page are already open (such as why name of suspects were taken, don't add your own commentary) and user is not involving in the consensus building and adding the content without consensus and citing policy. Harshil want to talk? 11:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169 reverts me for trivial reasons. Since when do I have to cite a source for saying an insult is an insult? Also about the second part, right now he says names of the accused should not be taken. It was that what I added was already there. Harshil has changed his reason all of a sudden. Tonk111 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Since when do I have to cite a source for saying an insult is an insult? Ohh well, according to you insult is insult and no source is required. I wasn't aware that wikipedia allows to post your opinion as it is on the article. I hope you had read WP:OPINION before commenting here. To the respectable Admin who will read this, you can easily understand how this user is doing disruptive doing without properly understanding Wikipedia's policies and adding the version which is favorable to them. -- Harshil want to talk? 12:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything against common sense. I have given a source on the talk page, if you don't agree I'll give more. You wrongly accuse me of re-posting the same content, then change it to not naming the accused. Tonk111 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Nothing but you’re just contradicting yourself here. What you’ve cited was opinion of ABHM that it was ‘disrespectful’ and ‘deteriorating’. That doesn’t mean it becomes insult. It’s opinion of ABHM, not fact and it is covered in the section very well. Admin can easily understand that user isn’t able to differentiate between opinion and fact and was pushing his POV on the article by doing edit war and not engaging in dispute resolution. User is intractable and not even adhering third opinion given by editor on talk page. — Harshil want to talk? 12:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Not just ABHM, but the news itself called it a insult, "Right-wing outfit Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM), whose working president Kamlesh Tiwari had insulted Prophet Muhammad" Please read the first line in the source I gave. And what POV intactrability you talk about? I did remove the names of the accused when you demanded. Tonk111 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Three reverts are allowed, so no violation on the 3RR end. Please continue to discuss on the article talk page. That having been said, Tonk111, some of your edits are highly problematic for a recently deceased person — you should be aware that you are a risking an imminent topic ban (or at the very least, an article ban), or other discretionary sanctions, if these violations were to persist. El_C 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:BawinV reported by User:Trillfendi (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Lover (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BawinV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [79]
  2. [80]
  3. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user, who is probably a sockpuppet, has been disrupting many Taylor Swift-related articles with POINTism. For Lover they are set on including that it is her highest Metacritic score (congratulations...) despite the fact that it is not leadworthy or particularly important material. After the 3rd undoing I am now reporting. Trillfendi (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Trillfendi: Not enough reverts for a violation. Also, I see no indication that you warned the editor or that you discussed the issue on the article Talk page. Finally, do not accuse another editor of socking. If you believe there is sufficient evidence that a user is socking, take it to SPI. Your allegation is a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:184.146.207.178 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 1 month)[edit]

Page
The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
184.146.207.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 04:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC) to 04:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    1. 04:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 04:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 04:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Revival Attempts */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 03:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC) to 03:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    1. 03:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 03:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 03:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 03:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC) to 03:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    1. 03:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 03:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC) to 03:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    1. 03:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  6. 03:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  7. 03:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  8. 03:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Production */"
  9. 03:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  10. 03:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
  11. 03:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 monthbradv🍁 04:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Wisefroggy reported by User:Moxy (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page
Justin Trudeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wisefroggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. revert during this filling.
  2. 15:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 922186419 by Moxy (talk) No reason for undo. No explanation given."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 13:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC) to 14:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    1. 13:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC) "Re-added quote from MP, which is well sourced - there is no evidence it is "blatantly false""
    2. 13:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC) "Re-added description of Blackface video. It is not opinion; it is straight from the sources. Whitewashing is not appropriate"
    3. 14:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC) "added {failed verification} and {CN}"
    4. 14:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Publication University of Laval: assessment of Trudeau's campaign promises */ added {failed verification} - almost this entire section is {FV}"
  4. 15:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC) "/* 2019 federal election */ Re-added one-sentence description of contents of video, as per talk page consensus"

IN MY DEFENSE: these are all reasonable edits; MOST concern {WP:CN} and {failed verification} - In particular: content said a politician "kept 92 percent of pledges" - Absolutely amazing!!!! Oops, that is not in the sources given. So I add {citation needed} and {failed verification} (please click above links to see). Yet my accuser user:Moxy simply deletes the {CN} and {FV} tags. Why would one delete tags??

Talk:Justin Trudeau#‎Laval University press.--Moxy 🍁 16:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Moxy doesn't like me because I have (and still do) accuse him of whitewashing (one (of many)example of him deleting content which he deems critical [21:59, June 7, 2018]) Wisefroggy (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup was redone Justin Trudeau#University and early career --Moxy 🍁 16:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Aware of 3RR].

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 14:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC) "/* Content on blackface */"
Comments:

Wikipedia:Single-purpose account just adding the same thing over and over. Not here to build the project....just here to deface a bio. Moxy 🍁 15:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a single-purpose account - I have contributions to dozens of articles, spanning many years. See my contribs.

SPA should indeed be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a single-purpose account - I have contributions to dozens of articles, spanning many years. See my contribs.
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warnedbradv🍁 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


IN MY DEFENSE: Moxy doesn't like me because I have (and still do) accuse him of whitewashing (one, of many, examples of him deleting content which he deems critical [21:59, June 7, 2018]) Wisefroggy (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Wisefroggy (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Wisefroggy, that's not a defense. You were edit warring here, and I left you a warning on your talk page. If you continue you will be blocked. – bradv🍁 15:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It's quite obvious. You keep edit warring, you get blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

IN MY DEFENSE: these are all reasonable edits (click them); MOST concern {WP:CN} and {failed verification} - In particular: content said a politician "kept 92 percent of pledges" - Absolutely amazing!!!! Oops, that is not in the sources given. So I add {citation needed} and {failed verification} (please click above links to see). Yet my accuser user:Moxy simply deletes the {CN} and {FV} tags. Why would one delete tags??

Moxy doesn't like me because I have (and still do) accuse him of whitewashing (one (of many)example of him deleting content which he deems critical [21:59, June 7, 2018]) Wisefroggy (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup was redone Justin Trudeau#University and early career --Moxy 🍁 16:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
WHY are you re-posting the same thing? This is getting annoying, now. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:46.208.236.175 reported by User:CocoricoPolynesien (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)[edit]

Pages:

  1. Gambier Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  2. List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  3. The Thing (1982 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

  1. 46.208.236.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 46.208.152.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. 46.208.236.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

(same person)

Previous version reverted to:

  1. [82] for Gambier Islands
  2. [83] for List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
  3. [84] for The Thing (1982 film)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [85] for Gambier Islands
  2. [86] for List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
  3. [87] for List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
  4. [88] for The Thing (1982 film)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [89] for Gambier Islands
  2. [90] for List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
  3. [91] for The Thing (1982 film)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [92] for Gambier Islands
  2. [93] for List of non-marine molluscs of the Gambier Islands
  3. [94] for The Thing (1982 film)

Comments:

Repeated blanking of sections (assuming good faith firstly, then it appeared vandalism but seems to be more not liking being reverted), doesn't seek consensus, refuse discussion, personnal attacks, doubtful justification of edits (I quote : "dumb, useless, pointless, awful, poor"), breach of policies and edit warring. Used the same behavior with User:Darkwarriorblake. Warned multiple times and blanked the warning without issue resolution. Trying at this very moment to intimidate me on my talk page by criticising my comprehension level and my level of English, as well as my past contributions.

I'm aware I'm may be borderline myself but I consider the behavior of the IP to be absolutely disgusting as it makes personnal attacks and refuses to collaborate with other members of wiki. Regards. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: CocoricoPolynesien whitewashes user_talk and has an extensive record of warring against multiple Wikipedians. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
No objection. I have been involved in Treaty of Campo Formio that has been settled and François Lecointre that has been settled.
  • Pictogram voting x.svg 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. – bradv🍁 15:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I was sent there by WP:AIV because of edit warring... And what do I do about the personnal attacks ?
The IP user made 4 reverts alone on the 14th at The Thing, and has continued to utilise a brute force approach to editing since. No-one has been hostile towards teh IP that I can see yet they have been openly hostile and/or stubborn regarding their edits. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)