Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Jaydoggmarco reported by User:Darouet (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: prior to removal, and removed

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jaydoggmarco clearing previous warnings related to Kiki Camarena from his talk page in September

Jaydoggmarco has made this talk page comment, before their second two reverts: [5]

Comments:
User was already warned about editing at Kiki Camarena previously [6], and recently came off of a 6-month American Politics topic ban [7]. Darouet (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I've notified the editor here [8]. -Darouet (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darouet, is Joefromrandb's behavior at Kiki Camarena not equally objectionable?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on his talk page asking to discuss before making any changes and he kept reverting and refusing to respond. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb did not break 3RR, and Jaydoggmarco, whose talk page message involves no substantive discussion other than a statement of disagreement, has been warned and sanctioned recently in this same topic area. -Darouet (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Joefromrandb has a lengthy block log for disruptive editing (although, admittedly, nothing recent), didn't discuss at all, and reverted four times in 33 hours. Presumably any administrator will take that into account when ruling on this case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I didn't check Joefromrandb's own rap sheet. -Darouet (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe has also stalked my edits and reverted a lot of them after i edited the Jon Schaffer article. Look at his edit history. Darouet also has falsely accused me of using a sockpuppet. ^[1] ^[2] Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the referenced sockpuppet complaint [9], which didn't include an accusation, and at this point is stale — the IP disruption stopped after my complaint. -Darouet (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very conspicuous out-of-nowhere appearance notwithstanding: meh. Was my behavior "equally objectionable"? No. Was I equally guilty of edit-warring? Yes. I indeed did have a look at this user's edits after he trolled the Jon Schaffer article; while not rising to the level of what he did there, this user has myriad inappropriate edits recently, including unmodified recidivism at biographies of living persons. His edits to the Kiki Camarena article were egregiously inappropriate, as was the pathetic attempt to insist that talk page consensus is necessary to maintain the status quo of the article, and until such a consensus is achieved, his changes are not to be reverted. At a minimum, this user has serious competence issues. Again, I was absolutely edit-warring. I don't say that proudly, but as I'm disgusted by the perennial ubiquitous hypocrisy at this board, I won't be a part of it. Yes I was. I was editing at a time at which I was stressed out and pissed off, something I certainly know is not a good idea. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the personal attacks, I'm not the only one who has edited on the Kiki article and who disagreed with Darouet, My edits were supported by several users. Talk page discussion is important given that the information in the documentary is being challenged in an ongoing lawsuit and There are documents that contradict several of the claims in the documentary. You don't even know the information that's being debated on. None of my edits have been trolling. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecution rests. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page, and who has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and battleground mentality. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

User:AP295 reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[10] original bold edit, changing long-standing wording
[11]
[12]
[13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Basis_(linear_algebra)#"in_mathematics"_vs_"in_linear_algebra"

Comments:
User appears to reject the principle of consensus (see Talk:Basis_(linear_algebra)#Sequences_or_sets but also all their engagement with anyone). --JBL (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there exists a wealth of good material about math and science on Wikipedia, there are also many important articles that need a lot of work. STEM articles are extremely underrepresented in WP:FA, particularly articles about math and computing. It would be dishonest of me to say that I think it's simply for lack of editors. Trying to get almost anything changed is a big dispute and I feel disillusioned by the experience. If I am not welcome here and you find it convenient to ban me for "edit warring", then that's fine, I won't argue. AP295 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandhya Ch1 reported by User:FrogCrazy (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: 1002054449

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

User_talk:Sandhya_Ch1

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

Comments:

There appears to be an edit war involving two users on this page adding and removing the "reception" section; additionally this user removed NPOV and other tags without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogCrazy (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandhya CH1 may be a block evasion of User:Sandhyachooriyil who had created Vellam, and was then blocked in March 2020 for copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legendstreak0 reported by User:Bastun (Result: )

User being reported: Legendstreak0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

00:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Per sherdog"
18:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002074438 by Bastun (talk) FOLLOW SHERDOG"
18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002060586 by NEDOCHAN (talk) per Sherdog , follow the rules"
15:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Per sherdog"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

22:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Weight - January 22 2021 */"
and that whole TP section.

Comments: Legendstreak0 appears to have reverted no less than 5 other editors, per the page history. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i would like to make my case clear , why are users like you seemingly biased and make edits that don't seem constructive when it comes to conor mcgregor . you should know that many other people before me tried to add secondary sources tp other fighters just like you did to conor mcgregor's page only to get banned , but with you its all butterflies and no one stands up for the reverts you make . this shall stop , follow sherdog or leave the secondary sources i made on the nick diaz, gsp , and tony ferguson pageLegendstreak0 (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello, i wanted to add that actually the last revert edit that i made was the agreed upon result in the talk page and discussion over the article that we had a "war" in Legendstreak0 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please could the editor who reviews this also conduct an SPI into Legendstreak? NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legendstreak0 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiman122112 NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what you are talking about but accusing others of being “sockpuppets” won’t work and you will be reported now for the 5-7 reverts you made under 24 hours Legendstreak0 (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely fail to understand how reverting removal of sourced content is, somehow, "biased". You will note that you were notified here, before you posted above, about the RFC on the reliability of sherdog.com - you just chose to ignore it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got into both of you , and you both are biased editors, if you add ESPN sources to Conor then you can add ESPN sources to gsp and nick diaz , end of story Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still really not sure what bias it is I am supposed to have. By all means, if ESPN has reliably sourced information that can be added to other articles - knock yourself out and add it! No pun intended. The only reason I reported you here is because you were edit-warring and broke 3RR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“broke the 3RR” but my revert edit was the agreed upon result , yeah I don’t think that’s how reports and banning works , hypocrisy is a bad thing ..in all fairness you should be the one reporting yourself in this case since Your result was the one that didn’t make it on the consensus Legendstreak0 (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legendstreak0 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiman122112 NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nedochan, is wrongfully accusing all kinds of different users to be other people who were banned a long time ago. Please look into it . I believe nedochan is a sockpuppet or was a sockpuppet at one pointLegendstreak0 (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ata Barış reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC) to 09:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
1. 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002111060 by 46.196.85.168 (talk) I just wrote a little info for MPT. No government website says that K.irpi is a copy of another vehicle. Variants of the Altay Tank have been added again. Hisar-A's photo has been added again. It was added to the variants of the Yıldırım missile. Reference will be added to these. Please do not delete it. Don't swear at my talk page. I will correct the wrong places. But here are t"
2. 09:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"
3. 09:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Tanks */"
21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002095094 by 46.196.85.168 (talk) Don't be disrespectful. Don't make changes to your mind. Don't swear on my talk page and the changes you made are wrong. The changes have been reverted."
Consecutive edits made from 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC) to 20:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
1. 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */ Edited"
2. 16:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */ Edited"
3. 16:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Rockets and artillery */ Yıldırım IV added"
4. 16:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Assault and battle rifles */"
5. 17:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Tanks */ Variant of the Altay tank added"
6. 17:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Anti-aircraft */ Hisar-A's photo added"
7. 20:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Armored vehicles */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Please */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

11:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) "/* over here */ rep"

Comments:

Some of the systems that this editor trying to explain are not in the air force, but well in Land forces command which User:Shadow4dark constantly reverting and that's true that systems belongs to Land forces command. You always reverted but when he revert you report to admin page.. This is not sincere. Also the one & only wrong thing he did is adding additional info for some systems. You could let him know on hes talk page that this is unnecessary edit before complaining here.

As you can See below Hisar A system is for Land forces command you can see on official site. This way there is no mistake this editor done, on the contrary, you revert despite the source says its for land forces command... https://www.aselsan.com.tr/tr/cozumlerimiz/hava-ve-fuze-savunma-sistemleri/hava-ve-fuze-savunma-sistemleri/hisara-alcak-irtifa-hava-savunma-fuze-sistemi

For Yıldırım systems the different versions need additional information.If you have a little understanding of the military. You need to tell the difference between the rocket launch system and the ballistic missile. Yıldırım system has 4 It has several variants and requires minimal additional information.

As for the Armored vehicles i see he just add additional information about Altay (tank) variants. It might sound funny but there was a ceremony in the defense industry even today few hours ago and you, as someone who wrote an article about the military, must have seen different variants of this tank & must mentioned in the article about types of the tank. See below ceremony of today about tanks & variant of this tank..

https://twitter.com/tcsavunma/status/1352883851165577216

Best regardsCengizsogutlu (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good but user ignores talk pages Shadow4dark (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:Legendstreak0 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

sorry for the seemingly messy report but this is my first time doing it , I would love to report the user nedochan for reverting edits and starting an edit war in the georges st Pierre pageLegendstreak0 (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we are trying to reach a consensus just like the Conor page will be changed tomorrow , the gsp page should always be 185 for the weight and so does nick Diaz’s weight Legendstreak0 (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legendstreak0 is a sockpuppet of banned user

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiman122112 NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not , you keep assuming and reverting , I hope you get blocked and Learn your lesson today , biased editing is unacceptable.Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

while reverting nedochan completely ignored the RFC , and kept on reverting and reverting like it’s ok to do and acted like they own the article. The RfC clearly found that Sherdog needs to be used with caution and that higher quality sources like ESPN are preferred. But as usual nedochan was carelessly reverting with no thought .Legendstreak0 (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are a sockpuppet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiman122112) of a banned user and the sooner the SPI establishes that, the better.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not , but keep on wasting your time and assuming . Anyways back to the point , while reverting YOU completely ignored the RFC , and kept on reverting and reverting like it’s ok to do and acted like YOU own the article. The RfC clearly found that Sherdog needs to be used with caution and that higher quality sources like ESPN are preferred. But as usual you were carelessly reverting with no thought . Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and I hope the results get here sooner , it’s about time people like you get banned after this much time on wiki abusing articles with reverts and being close minded to any other opinions out there from other users, you IGNORED the RFC and broke the 3RR.Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rishabh.rsd reported by User:Dhawangupta (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[17] 19 January
[18] 19 January
[19] 07:36, 21 January 2021‎ Rishabh.rsd talk contribs‎ 74,629 bytes +699‎ Manually undone vandalism by Dhawangupta
[20] 21 January
[21] 23 January - Now edit warring as IP address.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23][24]

Comments:

Easy enough to understand, that this user has clear WP:IDHT and WP:CIR problems. He is using misleading edit summaries all the time such as "Added information with citation"[25] or treating reverts as "vandalism".[26]

Ultimately, he is already caught misrepresenting sources[27] and he has provided no explanation against it.

That wasn't enough for him. He switched to IP address to continue the edit war after he was warned to stop making repetitive reverts.[28]

Compare these 100% identical edits with each other for evidence of socking:

Edit 1: [29][30]

Edit 2: [31][32]

He has been warned for years of years to stop using traditional religious knowledge and instead use dated scholarly sources,[33] but he continues to make edits against it. I believe a block is totally warranted. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:83.102.62.84 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: )

User being reported: 83.102.62.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC) "Removed claims based on unreliable politicized sources.
20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1001731630 by Generalrelative (talk)"
20:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "It's stupid to use the weasel words to argue against the article itself which then goes on and presents multiple facts how g-factor correlates with different outcomes on the next paragraphs. And the previous editor who made this change, judging from her history she is politically motivated, far from objective. If such persons are allowed to make anti-scientific claims on Wikipedia, guess we are next asking creationists to write the page about evolution theory?"
20:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Poorly explained additions"
20:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "It's not a personal attack, it's a fact that you are a part of this anti-scientific group whose ideology builds upon the belief that genetics as the basis of individual development don't matter. You have been vandalizing Wikipedia regarding to this matter for months, therefore you are on an ideological crusade against the truth, which must stop."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Comments:

Four reverts within the past hour, including two after being warned by User:MrOllie. Personal attacks in edit summaries as well. Seems pretty disruptive and not likely to stop without intervention.

Thanks for your time. Generalrelative (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty disruptive

If you consider facts disruptive.

and not likely to stop without intervention.

Personal attack and claim based only on the writer's own prejudice. 83.102.62.84 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And.... one more revert by IP immediately after commenting here and opening a talk page thread:

6. 22:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002315998 by Megaman en m (talk) Proofs how the editor had misinterpreted the source"

Generalrelative (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Banana Republic reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Not edit warring)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[36]
[37]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:

This appears to be a violation of American politics discretionary sanctions, where a bold edit has been reverted and the editor has restored the content shortly afterwards. It is clear that if I was to revert again, the editor would revert back again. In filing this report, I have only now noticed that I actually reverted the same content a couple of weeks ago as well, and left a message on their talk page about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is Onetwothreeip who is edit warring, reverting without engaging in the talk page discussion. They did not respond in the talk page about the issue. If necessary, I can provide diffs, but I don't think it's necessary. Banana Republic (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably a lie to say that I have not engaged in either article talk page discussions or user talk page discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No violation There is no 1RR restriction on that page. If you think there's a broader issue with Banana Republic, file at WP:AE. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I have no reason to believe there is 1RR on the article. Is there not a discretionary sanction on American political articles that restricts editors to reverting content once a day and not being allowed to restore content they added that has been reverted? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip: WP:1RR means "reverting content once a day". And no, there are no active remedies on 2021 United States Electoral College count, only a notice box on the talk page about WP:ARBAP2. Compare to Talk:2020_United_States_Senate_elections to see the different templates. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sup34cj reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[42]
[43]
[44]
[diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:

Sup34cj has not committed a 3RR violation, but given the combination of edit-warring, vandalism and and now logged-out editing I have decided to file the case here. In a nutshell, in 1996 the MPAA redefined the NC-17 rating to prohibit patrons under the 18. It is is worded "No One 17 and Under Admitted" (it used to be worded "No children under 17 admitted". This is all clearly documented and there are plenty of sources in the article to back it up, but the editor simply refuses to back down. He keeps reiterating the same nonsensical argument that if under-18s were prohibited it would be an NC-18. I don't dispute the eminent logic of his position, but that is simply not what happened: the MPAA raised the age limit and then re-worded it in a funny way so they wouldn't have to change the rating. This isn't a neutrality issue, it isn't a challenged fact, it is simply the case of an editor refusing to accept a fact. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:192.145.116.159 reported by User:Caius G. (Result: )

User being reported: 192.145.116.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002486464 by Caius G. (talk) Restoring neutrality."
17:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "Reworded to restore objectivity and remove blatant political bias."
17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "They are editorials because they only contain the biased opinions of their writers, and not objective details. This is has already been discussed on the talk page, but the article is being locked down by political trolls."
17:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "Removed opinionated assessment of the historical relevance that only referenced cherry picked editorials. Snooganssnoogans, stop injecting biased, untrue language to fit your political agenda."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (softer wording for newcomers) (RW 16)"
18:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This has already been discussed in the talk page. Snooganssnoogans and Caius G. both have extensive editing histories that show political motive, which brings discredit to Wikipedia.

Comments:

Was directed to an existing discussion on the talk page per WP:BRD, refuses to engage in discussion and calls reliable sources "editorials". Caius G. (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.67.153.44 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Page protected)

User being reported: 81.67.153.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) "The map was put on the page very recently and is problematic. It was created by a wikipedia user and doesn't match anything at all. The problem is not solved in the Talk. It is contrary to the principle of wikipedia to impose a completely false image."
11:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "Problem with the subjective map. This map was made by a wikipedia user and only represents his personal vision. Maps were discussed in the Talk and a new section is there specifically for this map."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

15:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC) "/* KIENGIR's map */ Don't misattribute"

Comments:

The user has been blocked before for edit warring[47]. And now falls back to the same behavioral pattern, by forcing their preferred version of the page. Their edit summary "The problem is not solved in the Talk" sums it all up. Austronesier (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Report on WP:ANI if behavior on talk page becomes a problem. I think page protection will better solve this specific issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody, the problem is with the user KIENGIR. He tries to put a map created by a wikipedia user on the Southern Europe page. However, this card only represents this user. This map does not correspond to the geological, geographical or climatic map of Europe. It does not correspond to any world body like the United Nations, EuroVoc, CIA, etc ... This map also does not match historical or ethnic maps. It is therefore totally subjective. We cannot invent maps and install them on wikipedia. This map was created by a wikipedia user and represents their vision only. You forcefully pass a map that is not scientific or official. The problem is that you impose this map in the page. If you stop imposing it and there will be no more problem. It is not because a user has had an account for 10 years that he can do what he wants on wikipedia pages. To avoid being blocked by these people, a lot of readers don't want to get involved, so I'm telling you, we have to stop. It must stop.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goszei reported by User:128.74.59.148 (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:56, 24 January 2021‎

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

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

Comments:

On the page about Navalny someone constantly changes the main photo to the bad one.
If this is a wrong place to report, please point out the right one.

User:70.179.20.232 reported by User:Ram1055 (Result: )

User being reported: 70.179.20.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

08:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "nites"
08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "notes"
08:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "added"
08:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "please stop deleting new zealand source"
07:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "they for some reason keep deleting New Zealand Herald source"
07:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "She also accidentally live streamed intimate sex session with boyfriend to her 14,000 followers on Instagram Live causing her to remove the video later. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/instagram-star-accidentally-live-streams-herself-having-sex/FNE3IBXROHU3NU3QTG5QGVKYME/"
07:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "added reference She also accidentally live streamed intimate sex session with boyfriend to her 14,000 followers on Instagram Live causing her to remove the video later. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/instagram-star-accidentally-live-streams-herself-having-sex/FNE3IBXROHU3NU3QTG5QGVKYME/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

08:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kristen Hancher."
08:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. Kristen Hancher (HG) (3.4.10)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "/* New Zealand Source Added */ Replying to 70.179.20.232 (using reply-link)"

Comments:

Additional edits after 3RR warning ~RAM (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sam_Raimi&type=revision&diff=1001456992&oldid=1001391048

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antonio_Sab%C3%A0to_Jr.&type=revision&diff=1001729261&oldid=999684871

[1]

[2]

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, 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