Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

User:Ekdalian reported by User:Dr.SunBD (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [8]

Comments:

Dear wikipedian, User:Ekdalian destroy informations with references by editwarring. This user's Warring activity against some castbase article specially Vaidya,Vaidyabrahmin ,Ambhastha. Please check this user's editing history . Thank you.

• Result: No action. It turns out this is an old report. Although undated, it was actually filed on June 24. At that time User:Dr.SunBD left this comment on Ekdalian's talk page, charging vandalism and edit warring. Around that time, User:Ekdalian left a comment on User:Bishonen's talk page, alleging POV pushing by caste warriors, for example on Baidya. At Vaidyabrahmin (the article mentioned here) Dr.SunBD seems to have been adding material to the article directly quoted out of the Mahabharata, an epic from ancient India. Why does an article called Vaidyabrahmin even exist? It's not about a caste, it is perhaps a religious topic. The edits of User:Dr.SunBD might need further review, but that user has not continued to edit Wikipedia since 24 June, so I am closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• The account Dr.SunBD ceased editing after I warned them about edit warring, poor sourcing, misrepresenting sources, and caste glorification. Baidya has seen many new, or "new", users appear since then, but is now semiprotected. Bishonen | tålk 07:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC).
• I have stopped editing out of respect for Senior Admin User:Bishonen even though I know User:Ekdalian is misguiding him/her.

User:Dr.SunBD

User:David Gerard reported by User:Autonomous agent 5 (Result: Declined)

Page: Chainlink (blockchain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

11:24, 6 July 2021‎ - 14:33, 6 July 2021‎ reverted 12 edits

15:23, 6 July 2021‎, 15:27, 6 July 2021‎, 15:27, 6 July 2021

08:57, 7 July 2021, 10:38, 7 July 2021‎, 10:42, 7 July 2021

with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Declined. @Autonomous agent 5: I don't see a clear violation of 3RR, nor have you shown where you attempted to discuss this matter on the article's talk page. Given that David Gerard has raised concerns of promotional content, it sounds like you really need to discuss this matter and get consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:David Gerard is giving what appears to be legitimate criticism in the summary and changing the article to show the criticism i.e. adding tags - but when this editor looks at the sources it wasn't possible to find how the sources aren't legitimate for the article - in addition this editor has made changes 21:57, 6 July 2021, 19:31, 6 July 2021 - the editor is not reasonably showing consideration for the material in the article -

• 18:45, 6 July 2021 will not allow the "Publications" section
• reverted the "Design" section @ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎ containing only green sources WP: RSP @ 15:23, 6 July 2021 with the summary "rv promotional, crypto, deprecated content - Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion"
• cite 6 @ this version "Chainlink is currently headquartered within the Cayman Islands" is yet again reverted from the article @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainlink_(blockchain) - the user has reverted this sentence @ 15:18, 8 July 2021, 08:57, 7 July 2021, ‎ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎

with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MarioProtIV reported by User:Piquito veloz (Result: )

Page: Kepler-7b (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarioProtIV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User reverts with subjetive reasons, for example he dont know difference between primary source (wp:or) or secundary and Tertiary source and 2° or 3° sources are allowed in encyclopedias. User dont know that celestia is GNU, open source and sources of the images is, for example, from NASA (public domain).--Piquito veloz (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I do, and the reason why I removed them was because they were being discussed on your talk page, which seems to indicate that they are not allowed. I repeatedly advised in the later edits that the images should be removed until the discussion is sorted out about the images, which apparently are a copyright violation. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Not copyright violations there because NASA guidelines are clear. Sources in the information of each image is clear. User dont know about licenses theme. --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Texture used to wear Kepler-7b in Celestia was downloaded of the server and webpages of the NASA. --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Can read there the next text: "NASA content - images, audio, video, and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format - generally are not subject to copyright in the United States. You may use this material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages." --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I do know about license difference but the fact that no consensus was reached on the images means they probably should not be there in the first place, and in some cases are redundant as some of the size comparisons are OR since there is no set value for some of them. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 02:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

MarioProtIV is changing the argument, tend to alternate between non-existent copyright infringements (He does not know the issue of licenses) to subjective appreciations such as redundancy or OR (He does not know the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources), there is not a previous image in the case of WASP-62, and there lot of sources and descriptions indicate that the planet is a clarified giant [9] [10] [11] because alkali metals or sodium and user revert and now the article is without images again, where is the supposed redundancy there? There are a lot of images from Celestia in a large number of articles without reverting but, coincidentally, mine are reverted. Looks like harassment--Piquito veloz (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For example, a clarified giant texture is secondary or tertiary source because is based in descriptions of scientistcs and artist about apparience of the planets with strong sodium fingerprint in an exoplanet spectrum. --Piquito veloz (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of the comparisons appear the size of planets in kilometers in the left corner of the pics, for example, can see it in kepler-22b appear radius as 15307 kilometers according to the source that appear in wikipedia about that Kepler-22b is around of the mean of 2.4 times the size of Earth and theres is not a redundancy of pics there too because there is not a previus pic with a comparisons of the size of Kepler22b versus Earth and texture of Kepler-22b is from NASA (public domain). None of the arguments that the user has mentioned are there, why reverts? What's going on there? --Piquito veloz (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Will he invent a new subjective argument from now on related to Kepler-22b?--Piquito veloz (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Same theme that Kepler-22b is in OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, in left corner appear size acording to source that appear in Wikipedia about the mean of radius, not previus comparisions pics (not redundancy), texture of the planet by NASA (public domain) None of the arguments that the user has mentioned are there, why reverts? What's going on there?--Piquito veloz (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

User acting like the owner of a lot of articles about exoplanets even without clear arguments or argument like there is not consensus just when he is the only that revert in Kepler-22b a stable version that was there during 5 days. and other lot of articles related. Here is a collaborative environment and not a place to collect articles imposing subjective criteria without clear arguments. If the user have reverser tools i ask to admins if he be able to use such tools. --Piquito veloz (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps new war of edits in Kepler-22b start again because user try revert again. I back to pic version because was there during 5 days and lot of users saw it, more stable version is the previus version that he always try revert --Piquito veloz (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that we don’t know the true size of Kepler-22b (and other planets) down to the kilometer (and assuming so via Celestia is probably OR), and it is always changing with new studies that come out. Plus, there is already a size comparison at the top of the page so the image is redundant. I do not understand why a discussion on the planet’s talk page was created about it instead of being constantly re-added despite objections or comments about them. Until the matter is settled I highly recommend they be removed until consensus can be made about these images. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Parameter is about the mean, if your argument is true why you dont run to revert here? if the mean changes the image changes too. Someone revert the info about the mean radius in the text only because is speculative too? Well, no! --Piquito veloz (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If we don’t know the true size of Kepler-22b (and other planets) why does you back to the next image in Kepler-7b? --Piquito veloz (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [12] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1° revertion,
2. 2° revertion,
3. 3° revertion
4. 4° revertion

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

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

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

Comments:

User:87.9.93.58 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: )

Page: National Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.9.93.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [17]

Comments:

Note page is under DS (user has been informed, specifically about 1RR [[18]]. Edit waring over altering a quote.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is likely the same editor as 87.11.249.85 which has just made this same edit again. —{Canucklehead} 09:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Birdofpreyru reported by User:Laprivacidadimporta (Result: )

Page: Killing of Samuel Luiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Birdofpreyru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

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

Comments:
The matter at dispute is included in the talk diff. He has reverted edits many times to include a pretty long sentence in the first paragraph -which he hadn't even done before starting the edit war-. The sentence gives blatant undue weight to one specific theory, which seems to be disproved at this point. He has a history of editing articles to downplay racism and homophobia. Sorry if I myself also reverted his edits too many times. I honestly prefer to be banned if at least I can get his fringe viewpoints removed. Thank you so much for understanding. Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprivacidadimporta (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Later edit: I posted the warning wrongly and I didn't include the comment. I have ellaborated more on it and can totally admit my fault. I still hope I can get his edits to end. Thank you for being understading.

• Birdofpreyru is no more guilty of edit warring than Laprivacidadimporta, looking at the edit history. I encourage Lap. to take the matter to the article's talk page, since they seem to be the one initiating the change. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Lap lies. It started with him removing the official statement by police, given by all media, which is still the official position: the crime had no homophobic motive. It was the long standing version of the article, written before me. Upon me returning the statement, then making it more explanatory, he went nuts and started the edit war. He also attempts to add his personal ideas to support his point of view (OR in wiki terms) not taken from cited sources. Note, I don't remove the wording saying that witnesses say it is homophobic in their opinion, i just defending the official pov Lap tries to remove. I belive you should penalies Lap, and here is no wrong doing on my side here. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

---

My "personal point of view" is the one defended by:

• the witnesses
• The Primer Minister
• Just one of many ministers of Spain
• BBC here
• BBC here too
• The Guardian
• CNN
• oh, look, CNN again
• NBC
• Der Spiegel
• El País
• laSexta
• laSexta again just because...

At this point, every single branch of government, every media outlet everywhere in the world and definitely the public opinion agrees without any trace of doubt that it WAS a homophobic aggression. The police hasn't ruled it out either, it merely watered down the allegations the first day. Since then, it has become completely evident that it was a homophobic crime. That statement by the police cannot possibly deserve half of the first paragraph by any reasonable standard. We now know for certain that the crime was homophobic. It is so wrong and messed up that you are trying to tell otherwise. I ask administrators to, please, fix this quickly. Thanks a lot. —laprivacidadimporta (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC) </ref></ref></ref>

I think, it will be pretty clear to admins that you got a heavy butt-hurt here, and far from being neutral you are trying to remove official statements from the police investigating the case, because they don't fit into your narrative; and sure you can cherry-pick some articles which agree with you (although in some of the links you posted above there is no statement that it was homophobic crime). Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the "opinions" of literally EVERY single media outlet in the world, every Spanish public administration, etc... And once again, the police only said that on the very first day. Since then, we have come to know exactly what happened and how. And once again, that initial statement cannot deserve half of the first paragraph by any reasonable standard. You don't get to claim that you're the beacon of truth here when you are obviously extremely bothered by me trying to get factual information in the article. You are the one that has a very obvious fringe counterfactual narrative here. And it's clearly not a nice one or a tolerant one. —laprivacidadimporta (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again: you are trying to remove from the article cited position of the official case investigation, becase it contradicts your radical point of view. And you lie when you say that every branch of Spanish government considers it homophobic attack, actually in half of your citations above there is no mention of the position you claim. I just insist it should be kept until the police (or court) officially recognize it was homophobic attack, if they will. I don't see where your allegation of intolerance is coming from. I believe it is a time for you to calm down and wait what administrators decide. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Won't say anything else to let administrators decide, but my "radical point of view" will stay the one upheld by every institution and media outlet. That's my final word on this. You -and everybody like you- can steer opinions, but not change facts. Be tolerant. Respect. Show compassion. Laprivacidadimporta (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Nvtuil reported by User:Ecthelion83 (Result: No violation)

Page: Debt-trap diplomacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ecthelion83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Nvtuil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 0:39, 20 June 2021: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:40, 6 July 2021: [27]
2. 07:56, 9 July 2021: [28]
3. 07:43, 9 July 2021: [29]
4. 19:53, 10 July 2021: [30]

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

1. 19:56, 10 July 2021:[31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:52, 6 July 2021 and 20:35, 10 July 2021: [32]
2. 23:46, 10 July 2021: [33] - my remarks are at the end of this subsection

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

1. 21:48, 10 July 2021: [34]
2. 21:33, 10 July 2021: [35]

Comments:

Yes, I am reporting myself in addition to Nvtuil (talk · contribs), as I have just noticed that I am engaging in this as well. This is an ongoing dispute; I believe that without administrator action this pattern of edit warring may continue, even if I myself refrain from participating. I am also concerned that Nvtuil (talk · contribs) may not be a good-faith editor, based on his past edit summaries and his attitudes on being an IP editor (as 49.195.183.131 (talk · contribs)) prior to creating an editor identity.Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note that: 1) I re-phrased problematic wording, in good faith, which was brought to my attention by Nvtuil (talk · contribs), and yet he later deleted the entire segment, even though it was relevant, reorganized, and properly sourced/cited (among the reasons given in his edit summaries are a blanket dismissal of what I believe to be credible sources).

2) Nvtuil (talk · contribs) then rewrote the entire first subsection (on Sri Lanka) based on his POV, which is counter to the purpose of presenting a debate that is not yet concluded (Nvtuil (talk · contribs) does have 2-3 credible sources to support his POV, and I have a few sources representing an opposing POV; I believe these sources are credible and cannot simply be dismissed). His use of POV wording such as "wrongful" is, I believe, unacceptable in this article.

3) On his talk page, Nvtuil (talk · contribs) accuses me of accusing a scholar (one of his sources) of intentionally failing to discuss what he believes to be an irrelevant topic. In retrospect, the language in my original edits were very accusatory, and thus after he brought this to my attention, I corrected the wording. However, the point still stands that the different treatment of Japanese loans to Sri Lanka in comparison to Chinese loans is relevant, and the source, for whatever reason, did not address this. The fact remains that Sri Lanka has treated its debt obligations differently, and as a result this brings suspicion on the terms of the Chinese loans. That needs to be discussed, or at least noted. This contention was completely deleted by Nvtuil (talk · contribs), even when re-worded appropriately.

4) Nvtuil (talk · contribs) took issue with my need for citations. He seems to fail to understand that I am adhering to a style of citation, in which either every sentence (i.e. every clause presented as a documented fact) is cited.

5) Along with this style, when referring to authors, public figures, etc., I refer to them by their title and their last name, even if I were to know these individuals personally and am on a first-name basis with them. Edits by Nvtuil (talk · contribs) to Deborah Brautigam's introduction are not only inconsistent with this style, but his characterization of this presentation as "redundant" wording suggests that he is not familiar with any style at all, and will likely revert any attempt I make to bring the article into consistency with a style of presentation/citation.Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• No violation. Neither editor has made 4 reverts in a 24-hour period. Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:207.96.79.216 reported by User:Eric (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Meteorite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 207.96.79.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033014110 by HopsonRoad (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC) to 01:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
   1. 01:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033012056 by Eric (talk)"
   2. 01:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033011988 by Eric (talk)"
3. 01:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033010800 by Eric (talk)"
4. 22:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1032985779 by HopsonRoad (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "/* Overly long contribution to the History section */ add note re edit warring"

Comments:

IP instantly reverts any attempt to edit their additions. No communication. Eric ^talk 02:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Karma1998 reported by User:Pipsally (Result: Both warned)

Page: Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Karma1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033062724 by Pipsally (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC) to 10:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
   1. 10:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033058383 by Pipsally (talk)"
   2. 10:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1033058336 by Pipsally (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Historicity of Jesus."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC) "/* Fringe theory */"

Comments:

Edit warring to push his OR driven deletion of sourced content. Pipsally (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Goodmorning. I have deleted such material because it supports the Christ myth theory, which is a fringe theory rejected by virtually all scholars. Thomas L. Thompson's works, in particular, have been subjected to devastating critiques by mainstream New Testament scholars such as Maurice Casey and Bart D. Ehrman (I will provide the links to their articles, if needed). Since Wikipedia does not accept fringe theories, I deleted it. I have tried to explain my point to @Pipsally:, but she has ignored me.--Karma1998 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence it is a fringe theory, you are using WP:SYNTH to remove sourced material and you are not waiting for consensus on talk, but reverting before it has been achieved. Also, it is not solely that I am reverting but the other changes you make through the article that are unsupported eg changing "most people" to "the overwhleming majority of scholars" and "Most" to "virtually all". these changes are not acceptable without good sources.Pipsally (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pipsally: That the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory is something that is already well known in the academic community. The point has already been discussed and decided on Wikipedia. There's no need for a debate, because there's already a consensus.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few examples to prove my point:

• (Gullotta 2017, p. 312): "[Per Jesus mythicism] Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles."

• Patrick Gray (2016), Varieties of Religious Invention, chapter 5, Jesus, Paul, and the birth of Christianity, Oxford University Press, p.114: "That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty. [Note 4:] Although it remains a fringe phenomenon, familiarity with the Christ myth theory has become much more widespread among the general public with the advent of the Internet."

• Larry Hurtado (December 2, 2017), Why the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars: "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn’t have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."

• Michael Grant (2004), Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, p.200: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

• Bart Ehrman (2012), Did Jesus Exist?, p.20: "It is fair to say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology. This is widely recognized, to their chagrin, by mythicists themselves."

• Maurice Casey (2014) "The whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."[31]

I think this settles the point pretty easily.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I mightbe helpful if you put that sort of information in the talk page instead of here.

If there's consensus on wikipedia that it is fringe then I have to wonder why there there is such an enormous article on it, and given that it certainly seems reasonable to have the text as it stands.

You are still not able to justify all the other changes outside of this point.Pipsally (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia has an article about the Christ myth theory (in which it is openly explained that it is a fringe theory) does not make it true. We also have an article about Young Earth creationism: this doesn't mean we support it, obviously. If you are referring to Thompson's article supporting his own theory, that is just empty circular logic.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Karma1998 violated 3RR only if you count their first removal of material as a revert, which many administrators would not. Otherwise, Karma1998 and Pipsally both reverted three times. Additionally, there was no edit-warring warning given by Pipsally to Karma1998. I see an ongoing discussion on the article Talk page about whether to include the material; that discussion should, of course, continue until a consensus is reached. Both editors are warned that any more reverts to the article may be met with blocks without notice, and that if a consensus is reached, it would be best to let another editor implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Bbb23:. This discussion will proceed on the talk page.-Karma1998 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)