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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:16, 5 November 2020

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:185.109.66.188 reported by User:Nightenbelle (Result: Already blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [[1]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

IP USer is vandalizing page and continually inserting a fringe theory even after warnings and reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs)

User:JamalGold reported by User:Mr.User200 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [[5]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

New created account makingunsourced and POV edits on 2020 Nagorno Karabakh page. Posible Sockpuppet of User:GoldyMcDonald or User:SalahGood same POV push and similar name.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow they’ve reverted 15 times and counting in the past 24 hours. That is definite edit warring. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted you twice.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Materialscientist for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours-block not enought, he still disrupts other users edits, here one of Ekograff and here 5RR. Also there is a current Sock Puppet investigation taking place on him.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scandevi reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986715551 by Binksternet (talk)"
12:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 986434547 by Wikiman2718 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Please see Talk:Association_for_Behavior_Analysis_International#Edit_warring_by_IP and Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2020_October_21#Malicious_Edits_to_Page_-_Association_for_Behavior_Analysis_International Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Warned by Binksternet here. User's reverts also include ones made via IP: [11], [12], etc. This is explicitly an edit-warring report, not a 3 revert rule report. Through this account and IPs, this user has been edit-warring information that negatively reflects on the organization since August. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This editor Scandevi continued a series of IP edits here, correcting a coding mistake by the IP. The IP range Special:Contributions/2600:6C4A:797F:F9E3:0:0:0:0/64 is from Kalamazoo, the first location of ABAI, the topic of contention. (ABAI later moved to nearby Portage, Michigan.) The IP range and Scandevi have been trying to whitewash the article, to remove the very close connection between ABAI and Judge Rotenberg Educational Center which the U.N. says is using torture methods on autistic children. Scandevi demonstrates a conflict of interest, and is edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Scandevi is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Association for Behavior Analysis International unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:HersiliaAramazd reported by User:FrankCesco26 (Result: Take to Commons)

Page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg
User being reported: HersiliaAramazd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/1f/20201102101720%21QarabaghWarMap%282020%29.svg

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg I state in my edit "Reverted to version as of 09:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC) The source is outdated, it clearly said that azeri infiltrator groups were near the town of Shusha, but since they have been repelled.The source is from 29 October and such not up to date. Please stop edit warring, otherwise we'd have to contact the administrators, since you already broke the three-reverts rule that can lead to a ban."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg#Warning

Comments:
The user has reverted the file ten times since his edit, without any explanation of sort, despite having received explanations on the reasons why his edit was not correct and having invited to stop edit warring multiple times from multiple users. He did not care, showing aggressive and uncollaborative behaviour, and continuing his edit warring. I alerted him of the three-revert rule and invited him to stop, as you can see in the changelog, but I was attacked as a "troll".

Result: This is a dispute on Commons. The admins here have no authority over such matters. See the advice at c:Commons:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ongoing Sock Puppet investigation on that user. Maybe a quick CU could be carried out?.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:HersiliaAramazd hasn't edited English Wikipedia since 23 October. The last ANI about him was here but it concerned a revert war about notices, and did not lead to any action. There is an open SPI about User:JamalGold but so far no clerk has endorsed a check. Even if a positive sock result isn't reached in this case I wonder if EC protection is sensible for the article on Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. So far that is the only article edited by Jamal Gold. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now blocked User:JamalGold one week for edit warring on Casualties of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. They continued reverting that article on 3 November after a 24-hour block for the same thing. That page remains under semiprotection as of now, though ECP has been requested at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:34syd4t4 reported by User:GSS (Result: Warned)

User being reported: 34syd4t4 (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:

13:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user was warned for edit warring yesterday and their edits were reverted by me and John B123 but I can see no effect of the warning and they are constantly removing the redirect from Jaan Kumar Sanu. GSS ^💬 14:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:34syd4t4 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert this article unless they have received a prior consensus on the talk page. There seems to be a dispute to whether this page ought to be a separate article or be a redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi season 14). An AfD might be one way to settle that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: The user was earlier warned by different users for edit warring on different articles. They were first warned by AnomieBOT most probably for edit warring with SpacemanSpiff at Dhinchak Pooja ‎ on 22 October 2017‎, then by Fowler&fowler on 21 August, 2020‎ (diff) for edit warring at Shyamala Gopalan and then by me for their behaviour at "Jaan Kumar Sanu" which they totally ignored and continue reverting so I don't think they care about warnings. GSS ^💬 08:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SnowFire and User:Leitmotiv reported by User:Nightenbelle (Result: Both warned)

Page: Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SnowFire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Leitmotiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Limited_Edition_(Magic:_The_Gathering)#Spacing

Comments:

In literally the most ridiculous Edit war ever- these two are fighting over double spacing.... and have argued about it on the talk page, and tried to bring it to the WP:DRN. Over spacing. Which is removed automatically anyway. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. It should have never got to this point. My edit was purely innocent, if not entirely productive - but certainly not disruptive. Why it was hotly contested, I have no idea. I learned a thing about double spacing in the process though. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the right venue. Double spacing is allowed on Wikipedia. Whitespace-only edits are pointless, gum up watchlist talk pages, and generally aren't improving Wikipedia, despite the general good intent of people making them, so they are generally discouraged and sometimes outright reverted when it's not clear what the benefit is. Leitmotiv is the one who is starting an edit war over imposing his preferred spacing style. I wouldn't care if Leitmotiv was also making substantive edits, it's his right to use whatever spacing style he desires. However, that was not the case here; this was a whitespace only edit. If ceded in this particular venue, then this is essentially a license to automatically go through Wikipedia and remove double spaces from all articles, even articles maintained by editors who are happily and harmlessly using double spaces and prefer them - a change that would make editors unhappy and have no effect whatsoever on readers. It's essentially WP:RETAIN, except rather than American / British varieties, it's single-spacing / double-spacing. It doesn't matter, so defer to the editors who've done the work most recently.

If there was a local consensus that it's better to use single spacing on an article, then that's fine. I'd have ceded to that out of respect for the editors who prefer it (although I wonder if Leitmotiv would have if there was an article that other editors preferred double spaces on), and already do so many places on Wikipedia. It's impossible to say now since various editors have shown up to profess their love of single-spaces. That said, Leitmotiv, this kind of edit serves only to make other good-faith editors angry, and doesn't help Wikipedia. It's slightly bizarre: we both agree that this doesn't affect readers. And we both agree that Leitmotiv was the one who made the initial bold edit removing double spacing. So why am I the subject of abuse for politely explaining to you that there is no standard on Wikipedia, and I "live in a weird upside down world", and I'm the one edit warring? SnowFire (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'll... you have been reported here not because you are arguing over one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen... but because both of you broke the do not revert an article 3 times in 24 hours over the same change rule. It has nothing to do with consensus or how many spaces there should or shouldn't be- it has to do with both of you acting like mature adults and discussing it respectfully on the talk page instead of reverting and re-reverting each other over and over and over. Please, one (or both) of you realize how silly this is and quit arguing! Nightenbelle (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did bring it up on the talk page. I'm happy to discuss it respectfully but think that the Dispute Resolution page Leitmotiv brought this too originally was the better spot to undergo said discussion.

To the extent that this is the edit war talk page, I want Leitmotiv to understand that, even if he disagrees with it, Wikipedia policy does not in fact currently endorse edits that solely change whitespace or spacing style, though - they cause far more heat than light. And if such edits are done, and are contested, to just give up - to believe other editors if they say they disagree and not start an edit war over it. (This issue is beyond just single spacing vs. double spacing - there are people who go around trying to standardize template spacing from using newlines, to not using newlines, to having all the values line up with manual spacing, to not having all the values line up, etc., and this is also discouraged if they're not also making substantive edits.) SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I acknowledge that Wikipedia's policy is unclear about double spacing, it does not explicitly state that double spacing is okay either. As you and I both recognize, Wikipedia renders it all single spacing anyway, which would appear to be the de facto Manual of Style. I understand that it's not a big deal, and I've admitted that from the very start of this edit war conversation at this page. However, it's not such a big deal, that it also requires ostensive reverts on your end that literally add nothing to the article. I would have rather preferred you come to my talk page to discuss the finer merits of double spacing. You would have had more receptive ears than getting involved in an edit war that literally accomplishes nothing. My edits were innocent, yours appear to be out of personal preference per your talk page arguments, and Wikipedia is not the kind of place for that type of biased editing. My edits, while perhaps not useful, were an innocent attempt to remove unused space on wikipedia. Your edits were contrarian and strictly edit warring, because you knew in advance they don't add anything to the article, but readded them in spite of this. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make sense. Why are your edits "innocent" and mine aren't? Either they're both innocent, or neither are. You, Leitmotiv, know that your edits "don't add anything to the article, yet you reverted in spite of this." You see that this is exactly the same thing, correct? SnowFire (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was unaware of the supposed "controversy", but you were. You also knew that your edits would add nothing to the article, but reverted anyway. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: SnowFire and Leitmotiv are both warned. Either one may be blocked if they revert again at Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering) unless they have first obtained a consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexikoua reported by User:Calthinus (Result:Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

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

Comments: A very simple case. As you can see, Alexikoua has made four reverts in fairly quick succession to remove the RS Osswald 2011 from the page. A bonus though: he told Ahmet Q to take "lessons" to learn French "try some French lessons instead", his mother language according to his userpage [20].--Calthinus (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on the argument that those reverts were done in full succession. Per AGF there was a self revert [[21]] inside those 24h. Moreover this the 1st rv [[22]] was a partial one.

On the other hand an editwar has two sides and Calthinus needs to explain why he does not report:

1.User_talk:Ktrimi991 who performed a clear 4 rvs in 12h [[23]][[24]][[25]][[26]] (without slightest talkpage participation before his last revert).
2.user:Maleschreiber with 4 rvs (2 full and 2 partial rvs) in less than 10h [[27]][[28]][[29]][[30]].

So I really can't under understand Calthinus selective report against me. The article has been a target by various editors. Some of them never participated in the correspondent talkpage and page protection was requested.Alexikoua (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Except your self-revert was of different material [[31]]. While you performed reverts to remove Osswald, your "self-revert" reinstated Isufi on an entirely different topic.

(2) As for Maleschreiber, this one [32] and this one [33] are in fact back to back (i.e. no intervening edits), so not applicable.

(3) But even if he had violated 4RR, that would have no bearing on the fact that you did. It's that simple. --Calthinus (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the above evidence it is clear that your report is selectively targeted against me. Especially in the case of User_talk:Ktrimi991 who performed 4 clear rvs in less than 12h in the same article (per diffs above).Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, it is sad to see that you again have problems with edit warring. It is sad also that you make false accusations against me. Two of my rv were successive, so when 3RR is applied, they count as one. As I said a few hours ago somewhere else, I have made 3 rv. The rules on your reverts are clear: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. In addition to all of that, why have you again made personal attacks on the talk page of the article? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree that it is mine editwarring. In fact it takes 2 for edit-warring and the other part (Ktrimi991) performed 4 clear (full) reverts in less than 12h and without participating in talkpage before the last revert.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done 4 reverts - 3 of those difs are consecutive edits (of which only 1 is a revert), which Alexikoua as any admin and editor can observe didn't link in the correct order. It highlights that in addition to edit-warring Alexikoua is making extreme false claims against other editors in a report which was filed about his verifiably 4RR activity. It shows that the editor instead of explaining his editing history resorts to false accusations. It's also part of the bigger problem with Alexikoua's editing history: they put forward continuous false claims whether they involve other editors' activity or the edits they put forward. There are countless examples in the last months where they used bibliography in a way that had no relation to what the citation put forward. Just yesterday, I found out that on Zagori he had placed content that wasn't put forward at all by the source he used. At first the editor provided a wrong page, then when I verified that it was wrong, he tried to provide a cropped quote and then accused me that I didn't understand the text Talk:Zagori#Statistics and he kept with the same narrative until another editor stepped in. Recently he was again warned for reaching 3RR[34], so the editor knows how 3RR works and knowingly followed the reported editing history. His editing also includes POV-pushing for WP:FRINGE theories about the age of the presence of the Greek language on the Balkan peninsula and the situation deteriorated to the point that other editors complained that he was messing up their comments on the talkpage Talk:Proto-Greek_language#Editing_Talk and because he never accepted to WP:DROP other editors had to ask from everyone involved to not reply to Alexikoua anymore[35]. To recap, we have a 4RR breach, consistent edit-warring/3R warnings and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Ideally, no situation should reach the point where a report is necessary but Alexikoua's activity has required admin oversight for quite some time now. This report is a step towards the right direction. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily disagree, I'd like us all to stay focused here and not give the poor admins a mountain to read. The matter at hand here is 4RR. He's clearly guilty of that. Let us all allow the admin(s) to inspect the diffs and come to a conclusion. --Calthinus (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been accused that this is "mine" edit war, it might be helpful to provide the 4rvs by User:Ktrimi991:

[[36]] (restoring again this text [[37]])
[[38]] (restoring again this text [[39]])
[[40]] (identical with the previous rv)
[[41]] (restoring altogether removed parts as in 1st&2nd rv)

All of them are full reverts (restoring previously removed versions) and done in 12h. It is also evident that Ktrimi's first participation in the correspondent talkpage was done "after" the 4rth revert [[42]]. Admin intervention has been requested here [[43]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the editors above: do not respond to everything Alexikoua says here. He seems to be willing to redirect attention by accusing me of things everyone can easily verify I have not done (a 3RR breach). Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No more responses, admins don't need TL;DR - but I do want it to be noted that Alexikoua first accused me of a 4RR and when I very easily showed that I wasn't even close to doing such a thing, he refactored his accusations towards Ktrimi991. It perfectly sums up how the editor operates.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I haven't done a 3RR breach. But you are edit warring [44] [45] [46]. And we know you have a history of that. What's going on here is yet another instance of a well-organized tag team of Albanian editors trying to ram through by force material that is controversial. The way this works is to find any source, no matter how obscure, to claim "X was Albanian", and then use tag-teaming to ram it through by force. In the case of Parga, a town in Greece, they are using an obscure French language Ph.D. dissertation to claim that In the late medieval period, Parga was the southernmost area of Albania. despite the fact that Albania did not exist before the 20th century (note the wikilink to the modern 20th century state). This is the typical "flag-planting" POV-pushing, to prove to the world that "X belonged to us once!". I opened a discussion on the talkpage and multiple users have objected on the grounds that the material is not really relevant, but the team is edit-warring with ferocious intensity to ram the material through by brute-force (I'm counting 8 reverts within a 24 hour period by team members [47]). This has been happening on a regular basis in Balkan articles, e.g. here [48] [49] [50] [51]. Reverts are performed in round-robin fashion to game 3RR. Khirurg (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, whenever one of these people is accused of edit-warring, his compatriots flood the report and turn it into a tl;dr shitshow, attacking the reporting party, as happened here [52]. Now the instigator of this dispute is demanding "no more responses" to avoid tl;dr. It perfectly sums up how this team of editors operates. Khirurg (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg was grouping Croat-Bosniak-Albanian editors who disagreed with him a few months ago: everyone knows Bosnia and Croatia have a history of hostility with Serbia (and by extension Greece), while Bulgaria does too though to a lesser extent.[53] Grouping editors together and claiming that they have a "history of hostility" is typical WP:BATTLEGROUND logic. There's an attempt here to turn a report about someone's activity (admins will judge it) into a TL;DR battleground so that it doesn't ever get checked by any admin. Ahmet Q. (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because everybody knows that Balkan editors are POV-free, and would never vote along ethnic lines. Oh no, not in the Balkans. But thanks for bringing out more attention to your side's tag teaming behavior. I had forgotten about that episode. Khirurg (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 1 week by User:Johnuniq. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hipal reported by User:Right cite (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: 09:56, 14 October 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:

03:52, 3 November 2020‎, Undid revision 986802961
03:55, 3 November 2020‎, Undid revision 986803000
05:33, 3 November 2020
05:34, 3 November 2020
05:36, 3 November 2020
21:23, 4 November 2020, Undid revision 987087871
23:39, 4 November 2020‎, Undid revision 987094219
23:42, 4 November 2020, Undid revision 987093612
00:40, 5 November 2020, Undid revision 987114385

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

August 2019 -- prior block for same behavior on same page, unblocked on condition per blocking admin, "per condition agreed to on Talk page: user will not edit Al Seckel for any reason for two weeks".
Blocking admin in 2019 explained policy to the user: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material."
User at that time in 2019 stated, "I wasn't aware that removal of any information can be considered a revert."
User is since after their 2019 block aware of site policy. User continues to edit-war multiple times, on same page.

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

Comments: Per WP:3RR, policy 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. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." User has engaged in reverting, rather than discussing first, multiple times, on same article. Right cite (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. How about we remove all the edits and start from scratch? ~~Otherwise we're equally in violation of this policy.~~ --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no reverts after being notified, other than to undue my last edits in good faith. As I identify on my talk page, I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have made zero reverts or undoing of any edit whatsoever to the page in question. User seems to communicate mainly by the edit summary Undid revision... over and over again, many many times past 3RR. User is aware of site policy, having been educated about it by an admin to his block log in 2019. Right cite (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on my good faith attempt to settle this. I've no reverts after being notified, and my standard 1RR offer stands. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has not undone their multitude of edits that used edit summary Undid revision... to the page. User has not shown they have learned more about site policy regarding edit warring and disruption from their block back in 2019. Right cite (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you want me to revert all my edits, and leave yours? Is this correct? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the user not displaying they have demonstrated they will permanently cease the edit warring and undoing of edits multiple times on a page, through the Undid revision tactic, as they were blocked for in 2019. Right cite (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a yes or a no? You brought it up, so I assumed you were offering a solution. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately user shows no compunction not to edit war. They appear to do so without concern for site policy, repeatedly, and do not stop at one, two, or three times, or more. It did not stop after the block in 2019. It is likely to continue to be an ongoing pattern of disruption to the encyclopedia. Right cite (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I started discussing the matter with you by thanking you for your work 20:21, 4 November 2020, you responded there without indicating there was a problem 21:52, 4 November 2020, though you had in the meantime started the talk page discussion 21:38, 4 November 2020 ; I don't see how this furthers our efforts to improve the article. That is our goal here, correct? You've disputed a single one of my edits. Are you disputing others? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has commented five (5) times so far in this section. At no point have they demonstrated they have learned about site policy regarding causing edit warring and disruption to the encyclopedia or demonstrated a desire they change their behavior pattern, since their block in 2019. It is likely to continue to occur repeatedly. Right cite (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing else is in dispute? There was no indication (WP:BRD) that we weren't simply working through an article that needed cleanup. My offers to resolve the situation are being ignored, so I'll leave it to others. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the user has ignored above regarding learning anything from their block in 2019 and their two-week ban off the article mainspace of the exact same article from 2019. It is therefore likely their pattern of disruption will continue. Right cite (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Right cite: I don't understand this discussion at all. You can't simply report someone, grab discussion items from over a year ago, and then go WP:IDONTHEARYOU when the user is offering a resolution. I want to assume good faith on this but you're really bludgeoning here. – The Grid (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid:I would very much like to assume good faith as well. I would like to hope that the disruption will stop after this report. Unfortunately I just don't see that from the tone of the user's comments and responses and repeated pattern of behavior. The Grid, I'm open to whatever you feel might be a productive way forward here, if it will encourage the user to stop the disruption and engage in mutual collaboration with the community. Right cite (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:1.144.107.217 reported by User:Cutelaba (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [[54]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

User IP is engaged in repeated edit warring. The user has been warned [60] but they continue to do it. The user deletion of sourced materials is persistently engaged in disruptive editing. Cutelaba (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please let it be known that the IP, the reporter (Cutelaba), and Jorgensen William have all been involved in an edit war to the Mawlid page. They have all been reverting each other’s edits (both Jorgensen and Cutelaba are at three reverts in 24h), and I have read thru the history and it is very disruptive. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, Jorgensen gamed the 3RR system by reverting just outside the 24h period. Diffs:

D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jorgensen and Cutelaba are sock puppets of same ideological-driven editor. I have requested help on sock puppet talk page to open an investigation into them. Their edits regarding Mawlid clearly contradict what even the provided quotes from citations clearly state. They are simply rewording wiki content to suit their prejudices rather than accurately stating what is mentioned by the sources. 1.144.107.172 (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – 3 days. Finding a source that says, Mawlid was invented by Group X and was definitely not invented by Group Y is unlikely to be found. On the talk page we have one person saying this is a dubious Shi'ite custom and someone else saying that the Shi'ites aren't being properly credited for originating the festival. Wikipedia may not have to answer the question of who invented Mawlid. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:AN3 report|diffs=# 22:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC) "Information added which based source All of Modern Europeans and Modern Near Easterns have and share unusually high degree genetical European and Near Eastern homogeneity.^[1]^[2]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).^[3]<ref name=antigens57>Arnaiz-Villena, A.; Karin, M.; Bendikuze, N.; Gomez-Casado, E.; Moscoso, J.; Silvera, C.; Oguz, F.S.; Sarper Diler, A.; De Pacho, A.; Allende, L.; Guillen, J. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |comment=, |orig=, |resolves=, and |warnings= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "las"

19:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC) """ ignored (help)

^ {{cite web|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852743/
^ {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html
^ {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html

[1] {{cite web|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852743/

[2] {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html

[3] {{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 285: / Line 285: @@
 I believe Jorgensen and Cutelaba are sock puppets of same ideological-driven editor. I have requested help on sock puppet talk page to open an investigation into them. Their edits regarding Mawlid clearly contradict what even the provided quotes from citations clearly state. They are simply rewording wiki content to suit their prejudices rather than accurately stating what is mentioned by the sources. [[Special:Contributions/1.144.107.172|1.144.107.172]] ([[User talk:1.144.107.172|talk]]) 03:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 :{{AN3|p}} – 3 days. Finding a source that says, Mawlid was invented by Group X and was definitely not invented by Group Y is unlikely to be found. On the talk page we have one person saying this is a dubious Shi'ite custom and someone else saying that the Shi'ites aren't being properly credited for originating the festival. Wikipedia may not have to answer the question of who invented Mawlid. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
+{{subst:AN3 report|diffs=# {{diff2|987097200|22:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)}} "Information added which based source  All of Modern Europeans and Modern Near Easterns have and share unusually high degree genetical European and Near Eastern homogeneity.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852743/ </ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html</ref><ref name=antigens57>{{cite journal |last1=Arnaiz-Villena |first1=A. |last2=Karin |first2=M. |last3=Bendikuze |first3=N. |last4=Gomez-Casado |first4=E. |last5=Moscoso |first5="
+# {{diff2|987086240|20:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)}} "simplyfized to understanding to complex text and it is based the sources which wikipedia have"
+# {{diff2|987084270|20:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)}} "<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852743/ </ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html</ref><ref name=antigens57>{{cite journal |last1=Arnaiz-Villena |first1=A. |last2=Karin |first2=M. |last3=Bendikuze |first3=N. |last4=Gomez-Casado |first4=E. |last5=Moscoso |first5=J. |last6=Silvera |first6=C. |last7=Oguz |first7=F.S. |last8=Sarper Diler |first8=A. |last9=De Pacho |first9=A. |last10=Allende |first10=L. |last11=Guillen |first11=J. |las"
+# {{diff2|987077006|19:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)}} ""|warnings=|resolves=|pagename=Genetic history of Europe|orig=|comment=|uid=94.54.255.43}}

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