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)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

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]

Blocked – Indef, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiman122112. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

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]

(talk page stalker) There’s no violation of 3RR on NEDOCHAN's part. Per WP:3RRNO point 3, reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users is considered an exempt. I have no comment on NEDOCHAN's 3RR report, but Legendstreak0, you need to WP:AGF and calm down. No one deserves to be banned from Wikipedia just because they ignored an RfC. While a temporary block might be needed, a ban is very different. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t mean to refer to it as a “ban” , it’s a temporary block is what I meant . Nedochan should take sometime off and take a brake from this stuff and go over the RFC and know how the rules on Wikipedia work with MMA infoboxes, since they got so much free time reverting so much edits daily, thanks Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) NEDOCHAN's behavior in these threads is strange, and a quick review of their edits shows multiple past 3RR violations and a strong editwarring/reversion history. Asking that an admin take a closer look here, something's fishy with both involved users. I feel the sockpuppet claims are anything but good faith, Doggy54321. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonythedwarf: Yeah, sorry. I was looking through their contributions and didn’t see any evidence of an open SPI, so I was just coming here to retract my comment and I got your ping. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 14:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doggy54321, Finished reviewing Legendstreak0.... Filing an SPI report, seems NEDOCHAN may be right, the behavior matches up. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a report. Moony, you seemed to contribute to it then revert yourself. I'm unsure why. I would appreciate it if you conducted at least a cursory review before any further assessment as to my editing. And have a good read, please, of WP:EVADE.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: The filer, User:Legendstreak0, has been blocked indef as a sock per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiman122112. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 25 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[2]. 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]

Boring, the talk page as well reinforce you've completely missed the point (and since then other editors reinforced this, e.g. ([3]). Yes, it must stop, in this we agree.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

User:Goszei reported by User:128.74.59.148 (Result: No continuing warring)

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.

Administrative Comment Come back if this continues. Lourdes 12:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Already blocked Lourdes 12:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:206.198.189.71 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Already blocked for a week)

User being reported: 206.198.189.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "relying on precedence, just doing what has previously been done on wikipedia"
14:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "adding exactly the same information as the previous United States Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist has on his page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Immediately following the last block of this IP for edit warring, their first return to editing is to restore the material that is contested on a BLP and actively being discussed on the talk page. They are continuing to engage in an edit war the second the last block was released. I realize this was only two reverts but given that this is a BLP and past behavior, it's still edit warring. CUPIDICAE💕 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And since filing this, they have reverted a third time. It appears that this IP doesn't intend on engaging collaboratively, as evidence by their 2 prior blocks which also involve adding excessive personal details to BLPS. CUPIDICAE💕 15:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked Lourdes 12:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.139.96.206 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[5] unexplained content removal
[6] reversion
[7] escalates to personal attack
[8] reverting after their edit was undone by a user other than me

The same behavior is on display at the articles for other Intelligent Design advocates:

[9] unexplained removal of "pseudoscience" description
[10] reversion
[11] unexplained removal of "pseudoscience" on a third page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Comments:

User:Sweetkind5 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning, for another page, DS alert, 1RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:
Sweetkind5 was previously blocked for edit warring on another page following a report here. There was a previous report for this page, but it went archived without action. They are also edit-warring a preferred change into Azerbaijanis (bold edit, revert). CMD (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Comment Sweetkind5, in your latest revert, you have mentioned that all the changes you have made have been discussed by you on the talk page. Where? There is no comment or discussion by you. Will you self-revert, and stop reverting, and go ahead with discussions on the article talk page? You are close to be blocked for edit warring with multiple editors, therefore requesting your early response. Thanks, Lourdes 11:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 All the reasons for my edits were mentioned both in my talk pages and in the edit history. And no, I'm not engaged in edit warring.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetkind5 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:E-960 reported by User:Astral Leap (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [22] (version after large removals)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning by E-960 against IP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FB MSBS Grot#Undue weight

Comments:
The IP is also edit warring, but IDK if can be reported. I just linked one set of reverted content above, there are 3-4 more reverts in the last day there. I am not involved in the dispute, I saw the flareup and think it needs attention--Astral Leap (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Astral Leap", you're not even involved on this pretty obscure article. And this is an established user reverting an anonymous IP. May I ask how you came to find this particular dispute and then immediately filed a 3RR report? Volunteer Marek 16:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usually obscure, but the purchase of this rifle is the focus of a corruption scandal in the past couple days. E-960 has been removing all mention of this.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Leap, an account with relatively few edits, since it's debut on February 8, 2020 [28], with months/weeks-long breaks in between editing (for example, Feb. then June break[29]) was last active on January 4 [30] then on January 25 appeared again [31] with a few edits and this one-sided report. Please note that, thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make one point about user Astral Leap, in this past example, here [32] Astral Leap reverted an edit citing "undid disruptive IP editor", so I don't understand why now Astral Leap is reporting me for "edit warring" and not the IP user, ignoring the fact that on the FB MSBS Grot rifle article IP:91.237.86.201 continued to add questionable material, despite being made aware of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and the reason why their edits were problematic. --E-960 (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted 69.119.168.61 shortly after the IP was blocked 3 months for disruption. Likewise, seeing the disruption on FB MSBS Grot, I reported it here. Perhaps the IP editor should be sanctioned here too, But E-960's editing is disruptive. E-960 is removing sourced critical information making the piece resemble PR, edit warred, and ironically issued an edit warring to the IP at 0953 followed by yet another edit warring reverts by E-960 himself (0954, 1145, 1448). E-960 should know better, and his demeanor towards the IP is bullying.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Leap, I do not feel comfortable with you "policing" my interactions on Wikipedia, it's the second time that you reported me for matters steaming form discussions/edits you were not even involved in. You also seem to ignore repeated use of corse language used by IP user 91.237.86.201, here (I blanked out the curse words): "its bulls..t, Ukraine is looking for AR15 rifle" [33], "Onet is high quality source, you write bulls..t" [[34], "Response from Ministry is bulls..t" [35]. Is cursing and disruptively re-adding disputed text ok in your view? So, instead of you reporting the IP you report me for removing the highly questionable material and following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --E-960 (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benarnold98 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

User being reported: Benarnold98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002937555 by Bowling is life (talk) I have explained in the Talk Page, please see."
17:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002930314 by Walter Görlitz (talk) You are the one edit waring over this. These artists belong here."
17:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1002920750 by Walter Görlitz (talk) - This shows that talk clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Illangelo has produced and written a huge number of Abel's songs. See https://genius.com/artists/Illangelo"
16:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on The Weeknd."
17:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */ +"
17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "+"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Associated acts */ new section"
18:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Associated acts */ r"

Comments:

Previous discussions on the subject's talk page have formed WP:CONSENSUS that Benarnold98 does not support. Multiple edit wars have ensued. A topic ban may also be required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walter Görlitz keeps bullying me, and has now reported me for no reason. I am correct in this matter, and he keeps removing my editing for no reason. He is the one edit warring, not me. His bullying methods have been seen before through his use of language in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shania_Now_Tour&diff=800386330&oldid=800346352 Please consider he is just as much, if not more, involved in edit warring as myself. Benarnold98 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You went past WP:3RR and you keep insisting you, and only you, are right when two members who have been on the music project for at least a decade each are not. You used the term edit warring to try to bully me away from 1) correctly alphabetizing the list and 2) removing artists that do not meet the associated acts criteria, but now you claim to not know why you were brought here. Do you really not know what edit warring is or how WP:3RR works?

Explaining the way the documentation reads is not bullying you. I am open to seeing diffs of how and where I bullied you.

The discussion on the talk page of the article in question is clear. Binksternet (talk · contribs) and I have both tried to show you and another editor the documentation, and how it is interpreted. Binksternet's claim is that the editor "found nothing to support Lil Uzi Vert as an artist closely interconnected with the Weeknd". You have pointed to other articles and your only support is a list of songs that the artists or producers have worked on together. That does not really meet the criteria.

As I suggested on the talk page, I am happy to take each subject you think is an associated act but I do not think that the current content supports, to an RfC and let the community decide.

If you self-revert your final revert and continue the discussion on the talk page, this may go away, but then again, nothing at all may transpire if you leave it. I do expect that over t he next few days it will be reverted to the previous state until the additions are vetted and agreed-upon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I notice @Ponyo: warned you about edit warring about seven minutes after your fourth revert on The Weeknd and well over an hour before I opened this report. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:96.55.58.157 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 6 months)

User being reported: 96.55.58.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Identity */"
22:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Identity */"
21:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Identity */"
21:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Identity */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[36]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pure vandalism-only account. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. Maybe a school? Anyway, I decided on the duration after reading their block log. Bishonen | tålk 22:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.46.214.217 reported by User:Steven (Editor) (Result: )

User being reported: 82.46.214.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC) ""
17:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC) ""
08:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC) ""
08:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC) ""
18:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC) ""
18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC) ""
18:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC) ""
06:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) "Their previous name isn’t relevant at the start of the article and is explained in detail below, giving clarity and removing any confusion"
22:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC) "" — This is the first edit and only edit where "Everything Everywhere" was removed from the intro by another IP, however I believe the other 8 by the IP being reported is the same person.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on EE Limited."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Consecutive edits made from 18:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC) to 10:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC) on Talk:EE Limited

Comments:

9 times this IP (one with a different IP) has reverted mine and two other editors reverts of this IP's persistent removal of "Everything Everywhere" from the intro text of the article. IP already warned and discussion on the inclusion of this already initiated on the talk page of the article. Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two other editors for reference and notification of this discussion: Devokewater, Wire723. Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rafaelosornio reported by User:Mr. bobby (Result: )

The WP-user Rafaelosornio reverts all of my new changes and information in the article Padre Pio. Rafaelosornio obviously is a religious fundamentalist believer, writing from a strictly Catholic point of view. He deleted several of my information and sources. He claims f.i. that a whole passage would be sourced with the historian Luzzatto, which is in fact sourced by Urte Krass. Additionally, he even cites long passages of interviews and puts that in Wikipedia, which itself is an encyclopedia. It is not a textbook of fundamentalist Catholic believes. I also think, that Rafaelosornio in several cases does not understand the true meaning of whole passages in the originals texts. So he obviously often distorts the content of theses sources. Mr. bobby (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mztourist reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

09:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003084473 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) my wording is better"
09:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003083280 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) the consensus was what was there before your edits, stop edit warring or you will be blocked"
09:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003081490 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) revert non-consensual change, stop edit warring"
08:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003072492 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) take it to Talk and stop edit warring A Bicyclette"
08:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003071513 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) take it to Talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: It would be great if you were as diligent about stopping socking as you are about edit-warring. Please look at the page and review the actions of IP: 216.209.50.103 against whom I am preparing an SPI as we speak. I don't believe that I have breached 3RR as my edits were made selectively to different sections of the page. Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep calling me a sock? This is so absurd its hilarious. This was some night, I do now have a glimpse of who you are, as someone who likes to call reports of sexual assault 'wartime romances', you clearly have an agenda. This is both disturbing and comical. I pity you, honestly. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. I believe that the IP actually breached 3RR. Mztourist (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mztourist reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

10:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "sexual assault is disputed so it should not be referred to as a given in the lede"
10:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "reverted stable into language, follow WP:BRD and take it to Talk Page, some are due to sexual assault, some are due to wartime romances, all covered in detail further down in the article"
09:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003084177 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) not colorful at all, stop edit-warring"
09:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003083377 by XiAdonis (talk) not sneaking anything, Lai Dai Han are a pressure group and Straw's role is irrelevant to the points being made; stop edit warring of you will be blocked"
09:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003082024 by XiAdonis (talk) the link doesn't exist, they are a pressure group and Jack Straw is irrelevant; take it to Talk per BRD, don't edit war"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:It would be great if you were as diligent about stopping socking as you are about edit-warring. Please look at the page and review the actions of IP: 216.209.50.103 and User:XiAdonis against whom I am preparing an SPI as we speak. I don't believe that I have breached 3RR as my edits were made selectively to different sections of the page. Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as he made this comment, he proceeds to revert my edit. Which was fairly neutral; I was summarizing the key issues in the article he took issue with. Here # https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003087709&oldid=1003087213 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC): Here are a few more edits the user did, he has a history of guarding certain pages, blocking all edits. On just that page, Lai Dai Han alone, he engaged in several edit wars with several users. seems to have an agenda in denying reports of sexual assault and calling it 'wartime romances' and other colorful, bizarre language. also keeps accusing me of being another user and thinks I am edit warring him when I have not reverted his edits a 2nd or 3rd time.[reply]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Early in Dec, on same page with another user.

Early in Dec again, another user.

As can be seen from the above diffs this IP and others (who I believe are all socks) have been periodically edit-warring the page, while I have tried to maintain an NPOV and remove biased material. I have opened the SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is. "If they disagree with me, they must be a sock." I am just going to stop there. I am already quite disgusted with you, since you have the audacity to just conduct original research and characterize things reported by BBCNews as fake information, and labelling reported sexual assault as 'wartime romances'. Clearly you never understood what romance means if you want to believe that. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing my edit history I see that I inadvertently breached 3RR by reverting the IP after reverting the same point 3 times. Mztourist (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was inadvertent. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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