Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnonWikiEditor (talk | contribs) at 12:33, 7 August 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.

    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:Errejay reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result:)

    Page: Petra Conti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Errejay (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]
    5. [6]

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

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

    Comments:
    I and another editor were both reverted multiple times by Errejay. I had reached out on the article talk page and the user's personal talk page, after which the reversions continued to happen and my request to start a discussion were ignored. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale. This happened over a week ago. That having been said, Errejay's responses to the dispute were underwhelming to say the least. Their expanded version lacks citations and fails Wikipedia style and format conventions. Please feel free to relist if this edit war continues. El_C 18:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    They are continuing to edit war and ignore the messages about reaching consensus on the talk page. [8] -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bankster reported by Anynomus User:202.166.73.171

    Page:202.166.73.171 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bankster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comments:
    Hi i have noticed Bankster have been deleting edits make by me. It is not the first time that this user have been doing this as i dont think i am the only user that is facing this issue. I believe he is not too sure of what he deleted is it a correct information. Please look into the matter of this user that is involved in the many deletion on multiple Wikipedia pages.

    User:Join Sags reported by User:Nice4What (Result: Blocked)

    Page: 2019 El Paso shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User-multi error: "User:Nice4What" is not a valid project or language code (help).

    Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [10]
    2. [11]
    3. [12]
    4. [13]

    Editing warring on my user page in response to a 3RR warning ([14] and [15]) and at another user's talk page ([16] and [17]).

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18] (warned by two editors)


    Comments:

    Looks like the user was just blocked by an admin. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 09:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring by User:Randykitty. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cognissonance reported by User:Mclarenfan17 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Tenet (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cognissonance (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]
    5. [24]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

    Comments:
    Cognissonance seems to be completely unwilling or unable to accept that other editors are capable of editing or improving the article in any way—even when those edits are clearly cases of copy-editing aimed at improving the clarity and cohesion of the article such as moving the text from a passive voice to an active voice. Some of this feels alarmingly like ownership behaviour. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation the diffs above seem to relate to different areas of the article, so I don't think a breach of 3RR has occurred. Looks like a content dispute to me, which you should work through on the talk page before escalating. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SashiRolls reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: )

    Pages: Jill Stein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SashiRolls (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:

    Jill Stein (article covered by DS):

    1. [27] 17 July
    2. [28] 17 July
    3. [29] 21 July
    4. [30] 21 July
    5. [31] 21 July
    6. [32] 5 August
    7. [33] 5 August
    8. [34] 5 August
    9. [35] 5 August - 3RR violation

    Tulsi Gabbard (article covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD):

    1. [36] 21 February
    2. [37] 21 February (1RR violation - self-reverted[38] after warning[39])
    3. [40] 21 February (a different issue)
    4. [41] 21 February (second 1RR violation of the day - made after the warning for the first 1RR violation - a second warning was made on the talk page, but no self-revert)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jill Stein warnings: [42] (17 July warning), [43] (5 august warning - SR responded, saying he refuses to self-revert[44]). Tulsi Gabbard warnings: Made on the talk page with pings[45].

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46][47][48][49]

    Comments:

    • SashiRolls has a history on the Jill Stein page: The editor was "topic banned from Jill Stein and related pages for six months" in September 2016[50]. In the case filed by Tryptofish, SashiRolls engaged in edit-warring and ignored multiple warnings about violations of edit-warring policy, ultimately leading to a 6-month block. Other relevant sanctions include a 1-week ban in June 2019 for personal attacks and battleground behavior[51] and an indefinite ban which was lifted in November 2018 with the disclaimer, "there is considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, so SashiRolls should expect a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior."[52] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SS has a long history of uncivil, bullying behaviour all throughout AP2. They are well-known for copyright violation on Jill Stein and for misrepresenting sources (cf. 3 recent examples given below). Between the first bold edit and the second edit on 5 Aug I went to recover the reference SS had deleted in their haste on 23 July (leaving a sentence unreferenced). In the six minutes it took me to validate one edit and go dig up the ref in another section, SS had already disrupted my work by reverting. (NB: they were in such a hurry they left "nowiki" tags in the entry). This is their standard strategy, disrupt ASAP to control the text of entries they seem to think they "own", because they have fought off any other editor. In summary, the first two edits on 5 Aug are in fact a single bold edit (conflicted due to the disruptive strategy). Snooogans has not discussed on the Talk Page with regard to removing the three unnecessary wikitext references to the Daily Beast nor concerning the misleading use of a clickbait headline to source BLP material rather than the more careful text in the actual article cited. (The language they use is not supported at all in the article, only in the muckraking headline, whereas the verb I used is used twice in the article.) This is pretty clear cut, I am at 2RR, maximum 3RR (if one accepts their disruptive edit 6 minutes after I started editing the page, while I was digging up their lost reference for them). They, on the other hand, are at 3RR, without any doubt. They are also without any doubt in violation of WP:CIV on multiple occasions starting with this section. I apologize to administrators that SS prefers to waste your time rather than discuss the issues on the talk page and follow BRD. (Funny how they have time to try to get me blocked, but not to check they haven't deleted references by mistake, misread an article (as here, here, here or on the present page), or left nowiki tags in their text in their haste to disrupt...) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further data: SS has made 4005 reverts on en.wp (17% of their contributions). I have made 220 (2% of my contributions). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your logic of reverts is backwards and wrong. Hypothetically speaking it could be 2 percents of your edit reversions is from edit wars and theirs is from fighting vandalism...just one way it is a false equation. You also don't have to get to 3 reverts for it to be an edit war, past behavior and blocks can be taken into account. I don't say that is needed here just pointing out two very bad points of logic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... 62 appearances at noticeboards from the looks of it. [53] is that smoke? Think there's a fire? I would recommend paying specific attention to the misrepresentation diffs given and the copyvio of the Daily Beast the very same day it was published (Yashar Ali). In the specific case here, each time I provided different text, trying to respond to their complaints left in edit summaries. Each time they reverted to exactly the same demonstrably mis-formatted text still sourced to a headline (but which has been entirely unsourced for two weeks prior to my intervention). Also, you should be aware of the authorship on the page. Also, check out the revert patterns of the reporter/prosecutor here (navigate at that link by searching for "undid revision"). I actually know what I'm talking about concerning Snoog. His methods are known. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author of the page is irrelevant. I think you are defensive and my comment wasn't to put you on the defensive just that those aren't nec a good justification for the reverts. My suggestion is focus not on the contributor but the merit of your edits, the spots will show themselves in due time once that happens. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got your message on my TP, thanks for letting me know your comments above weren't aimed at me. (I'll admit I'd misuderstood them as being directed at me. ^^) Rather than feeling that defensive, I'm actually feeling more like pointing out the obvious: in the "revert patterns or the reporter/prosecutor" diff provided above, please look through the 30 tokens of (reverted) and the 48 tokens of (Undid revision). Count the editors, and notice the names. That tells you a lot about SS's collaborative habits. Here, the question is: did I revert any new text that Snoogans added to the article at any time today... other than the <nowiki>Daily Beast<nowiki>, the answer is no. SS on the other hand reverted each new formulation I presented (responding explicitly to their concerns). They stopped at 3RR to bring it here, then disappeared, once they were sure I would be busy defending myself. As you say you do not have to violate 3RR to get sanctioned. The admins could certainly give SS a lifetime achievement award...
    • Ive been on the receiving end of one of Snoogans long term revert wars before and it gets so old. I don’t see any attempt by Snoogans to gain consensus on the talk pages. Why are reverts from February even being discussed here? This is a bad faith attempt to get Sashi sanctioned. It is incredible to see how Snoog can continue to behave like this. There are many, many examples of Snoog edit warring but never exceeding 3RR to get their preferred version to stick. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hari-kiri Te Kanawa reported by User:Cassianto (Result: No violation, protected)

    Page: Moors murders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hari-kiri Te Kanawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [54]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [55]
    2. [56]
    3. [57]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

    Comments:

    No violation. You need four, not three, reverts in order to violate 3RR. El_C 22:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fascinating. I wonder how much more you actually know than you're making out. CassiantoTalk 22:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are you talking about? El_C 22:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you know. CassiantoTalk 22:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I did, I wouldn't bother asking. Please try to assume good faith. You listed three reverts, you need four to violate 3RR — what is unclear about that? El_C 22:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You asking proves nothing. I have AGF but it's been shot to bits by your administrative incompetence. Any fool can see that this was a sock on a mission to war their version into place. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then guess what... CassiantoTalk 23:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, file an SPI, if you must. I'm not willing to make the determination that the new account is EEng. El_C 23:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What, to then have you appear into view like Superman with a chip on his shoulder? No thanks. CassiantoTalk 23:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said elsewhere, this interaction is over. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 23:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious? If you think I want to to even remotely involve myself in that SPI you are sadly mistaken. El_C 23:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Happypaper reported by User:Adam9007 (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Mishawaka High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Happypaper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909518317 by John from Idegon (talk) Read the description of the video it gives full acess to the wikipedia article by Happypaper"
    2. 23:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909516926 by Adam9007 (talk) The links are needed for the Fight song as it is its own fight song that was written for the school and not a copy of a college song as it is unique. False Copyright infringement as it is my recording of the fight song and im giving this fair use also the revision undid corrections to the Principal and Superintendent! If you'd like click the fight song link and in the description of the video it"
    3. 22:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909514559 by John from Idegon (talk) False Copyright infringement as it is my recording of the fight song and im giving this fair use also the revision undid corrections to the Principal and Superintendent! If you'd like click the fight song link and in the description of the video it gives fair use as i made the video!!"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mishawaka High School. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User keeps reverting and is seemingly ignoring concerns about his edits. User has strictly speaking violated 3RR here. Adam9007 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:1011:B00B:48C9:38D9:726C:BB19:37A reported by User:Tom94022 (Result: Semi-protected)

    Page: Moore's law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2600:1011:B00B:48C9:38D9:726C:BB19:37A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [60]
    2. [61]
    3. [62]
    4. [63]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

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

    Comments:
    Multiple editors have asked this IP to remove puffery from lede and start by adding non-puff RSed material to body. Tom94022 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kbb2 reported by User:Womtelo (Result: )

    Page: Near-open front unrounded vowel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kbb2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [65]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. First massive removal of content, with no justification or discussion on Talk page
    2. First revert
    3. Second revert
    4. Third revert

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

    Comments:
    Deleting massive amounts of content without proper justification or discussion on the Talk page is irrespectful of all the work that's been put into previous editions by various WP editors. Such decisions should not be made by a single editor on a whim. -- Womtelo (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neither of the involved editors show exemplary behavior here and I'm very disappointed in both of them. Both kept reverting and arguing in summaries while telling each other to "take it to the talk". While I sympathize with both Womtelo's concern about bias and Kbb2's concern about creep and sourcing, I reckon the two need to be strongly warned against editing the article (and possibly others with similar topics) before it is sorted out. Nardog (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    hello Nardog, thanks for your point of view. If I may add a note, I'd say that the situation is not symmetrical here. I personally have no agenda with that page, and was doing nothing else than reverting to a consensus version of the page, making zero other change; in that sense, I can't see why it would have been my role to take to the Talk page when I had no specific request to make. By contrast, I believe the burden of opening a discussion really befalls on the editor who actually intends to make a change, especially if that change involves deleting massive amounts of content. Shouldn't they look for consensus in the first place? In the end I'm the one who opened the discussion, but I don't believe this is how Talk pages are supposed to work on WP. Thanks, -- Womtelo (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TeeVeeed reported by User:General Ization (Result: Warned)

    Page
    2019 El Paso shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    TeeVeeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "Manifesto: req. rm of double-metion and ref. sorry" (which did not revert the editor's edit but removed the content moved to another part of the article by me)
    2. 20:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Manifesto */ I thought we agreed about this content? If not my bad and back to TP"
    3. 19:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909651409 by General Ization (talk) okay well you said to look down and I did and I don't see where this was discussed here? TP?"
    4. 18:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909651001 by General Ization (talk) let's discuss on the talk page please"
    5. 18:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "in lede"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 20:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2019 El Paso shooting. (TW)"
    2. 20:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* August 2019 */"
    3. 20:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* August 2019 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan calaim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    2. 19:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    3. 19:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    4. 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    5. 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    6. 19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    7. 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    8. 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    9. 20:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    10. 20:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    11. 20:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    12. 20:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    13. 20:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC) "/* 8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto */"
    Comments:
    I'm going to pleasd not guilty here. I made a mistake thinking that what the edit-warring complainer said was in the edit summaries and said so. Also the complaining editor had numerous "reasons" besides my mistake of duplicating content for not liking 8chan and not wanting to highlight that 8chan's owner said that they did not post anything from the killer.--So I was not sure what the complaner's problem was with my edit. Is this resolved now? OP demanded that I rv and I did.TeeVeeed ([[User

    talk:TeeVeeed|talk]]) 21:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

    Also a quote from the complainer here "I don't think any of us are particularly concerned about appearing to be critical of 8chan at this point, and I'm not sure the CEO's claim is especially credible (or even important)." I have a problem with this kind of thing sneaking into the projectTeeVeeed (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, that has absolutely nothing to do with this report concerning your edit warring (since there was never any effort to remove the information from the body of the article, only the duplication you introduced in the article lede), and secondly, please stop referring to me as the "complainer." "Reporter" or General Ization will do just fine. General Ization Talk 21:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. You violated 3RR, which your comments above do not address. Please don't do that again. I understand the article brings up a lot of emotions, but you still need to edit by the rules. El_C 21:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not intentionally violate 3rr. (1) It was demanded on my Talk Page to immediately undo one of my edits. (2) It was unclear to me what was meant by "duplicated content" and we had agreed on the article Talk Page to take the disputed content out of the lede. so ONE of my alleged 3rrs was a mistake I guess, since I thought that we had both made an error and taken the content completely OUT of the (other) section. It was NOT even a revert--I thought I was fixing a deletion of content that had not been discussed.TeeVeeed (talk)
    Intention aside, 3RR was violated. Which is a problem. Please just try to be more careful in the future. When in doubt, stop editing the article and discuss on a talk page. Thank you. El_C 21:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Warned, RfAR note)

    Page: Islamophobia in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: complex - new article - present each revert below in context. Almost all content in the article is new (from 3 August onward)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. revert1 19:55, 6 August 2019 - large removal of content added 3-6 August.
    2. revert2 19:59, 6 August 2019 - using the false edit summary "put ref back in" - Volunteer Marek removes the intervening edit from 19:58, 6 August 2019.
    3. revert3 20:05, 6 August 2019 (note intervening edit from 20:02) - re-instating spurious who tag (when group is referenced by three separate academic journal articles). Note previous insertion of who tag - 09:49, 5 August 2019 (which I attempted to resolve with this edit expanding on the group + adding refs - [67]). See also Talk:Islamophobia in Poland#Tag removed where three journal articles have been provided.
    4. revert4 20:07, 6 August 2019 (note intervening edit from 20:06) wholesale removal of several paragraphs of sourced information.

    4 separate reverts in the span of 12 minutes.

    I will also note that 5 August VM performed 3 separate reverts - 09:03, 5 August 2019, 09:05, 5 August 2019+09:06, 5 August 2019, and 09:27, 5 August 2019.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Volunteer Marek has requested I stay off his talk page. Furthermore, he had issued a warning to me - diff - a false warning I will add, as I reverted precisely twice (one full, one partial - moving information from the lede to the body) since creating the article on 3 August.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Islamophobia in Poland (newly created article) - where I've been calmly attempting to address Volunteer Marek's concerns with material sourced from mainstream media and academic journals and books.

    Comments:
    Per WP:3RR, a "revert" is "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". Volunteer Marek has been repeatedly removing different sections of well-sourced on-topic content (sourced from academic journal articles discussing Islamophobia in Poland) to a newly created article. While I have been writing this article - going from a 2.6K stub (copied from material previously in a different article) to 17K (well - prior to Volunteer Marek's mass reverts tonight) in the past 3 days - Volunteer Marek has been challenging mainstream media (e.g. - [68] - the Washington Post and BBC) and on-topic academic sources (e.g. [69] - the Patterns of Prejudice journal - article title - The battlefield is in Brussels’: Islamophobia in the Visegrád Four in its global context. (one of the four being Poland, which is covered therein) - which is really WP:NOTTHERE behavior given the quality of sources used here. Volunteer Marek has added precisely zero material to the article (his positive byte diffs are adding tags or re-adding a reference he cut out elsewhere.

    I want to stress that I have been discussing, and that I performed precisely two reverts (both on 5 August, the second one combined with attempting to address Volunteer Marek's concerns (moving material from lead to body, addressing who tag)). I have not reverted on 6 August. I am trying to write an article - and this is quite difficult when each time I add well sourced on-topic material it gets reverted.Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    OMG, I was *just* writing about this on the talk page [70] - about Icewhiz's WP:GAME tactic of "jumping in" when someone else is making edits to the article to insert his own (relatively minor) edits in between the other editor's edits so that there edits would be non-consecutive so that he could then pretend that these are separate reverts. I mean, freakin a', I explicitly say "Icewhiz, I know you're jumping in between my edits, creating edit conflicts and sticking in your own edits between mine so that you can run to 3RR and file a spurious report" and then... that's exactly what he freakin' does! The WP:GAME is just shameless here. He's used this tactic before (gimme a few minutes to dig out the diffs) and has been admonished for it by administrators (User:NeilN and User:TonyBallioni iirc), per WP:GAME. In fact, if you look at the time line here it's pretty obvious that that's exactly what he's attempting to do here. He made no edits to the article between 9:58 and 19:55 but then when I made my first edit at 19:55 he started jumping in between my edits all of sudden within seconds. If he had laid off, these would all be consecutive edits which at most would count as a single revert. This is dishonest, cynical and WP:TENDENTIOUS and the fact that he's doing it at exactly the same time as I am complaining about it on talk (and outlining the strategy he plans on using) makes it obnoxiously transparent. WP:BOOMERANG please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to write an article - inserting what I read in academic journal articles - this evening from Gender, Place & Culture. As I'm doing so - Volunteer Marek reverts these new additions - e.g. diff - using the odd, and false, edit summary of "put ref back in". And no - I have not been admonished for any such behavior. Adding material from academic journal articles is what editors are supposed to do on Wikipedia. It would be nice if Volunteer Marek tried to actually contribute to articles (as opposed to just removed content sourced to academic journal articles). Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. On the one hand, those technical reverts could be viewed as consecutive, due to confusion. On the other hand, Volunteer Marek should be more cognizant of the edit history to avoid technically violating 3RR. Anyway, I'm just going to make a note of this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland, so that the Committee is aware this is happening while the case is open. El_C 21:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    These are edits made within minutes, seconds of each other. Usually when I'm editing I don't check the edit history in between every single edit I make. All four edits could've been made consecutively if Icewhiz hadn't "jumped in" to create impression of false reverts. There is ONE revert here and that's it. Icewhiz has tried this tactic before [71] [72] [73]. He was admonished for it by either User:NeilN or User:TonyBallioni (you'll have to give me a bit of time to dig out that diff) because it was such a transparent attempt at WP:GAMEing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (note I got an edit conflict) when writing the above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    False assertions - no such admonishment (VM did place walls of texts on the talk pages of multiple admins). The last time I reported VM (a while back - a year ago?) to AN/EW - he was warned IIRC. In this 19:59, 6 August 2019 edit - VM removed stuff I had just added - 19:58, 6 August 2019. He should have seen the edit conflict (assuming he didn't purposefully select an old revision (which also generates a warning), the Wiki Software opens the edit conflict dialog) - instead - he just saved over on top of it - at the very least that's careless and inconsiderate. If you have an edit conflict - you are supposed to resolve it. That VM is complaining that I am adding content from an article in the Gender, Place & Culture journal (to an article I started on 3 August, after some editors decided that in their opinion Islamophobia is not racism - and excluded Islamophobia content (then small - 2.5K) from Racism in Poland) - is really quite astounding. Much of my on-wiki time in past couple of days has been spent building up Islamophobia in Poland from scratch.Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All your obfuscation in the world won't change the fact that you're disingenuously trying to pass off one revert as four reverts, and that you're doing this with full knowledge that you are being disingenuous, because about 20 minutes before this report I specifically predicted that that's what you were trying to do by jumping in with minor edits in between mine to create the impression of false reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Meters reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: No violation)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [74]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [75] -Revision as of 06:19, 5 August 2019
    2. [76] - Revision as of 22:28, 6 August 2019
    3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Cross&diff=next&oldid=909679811[ - Revision as of 22:35, 6 August 2019
    4. [77] - Latest revision as of 22:55, 6 August 2019 ]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

    Comments:
    While one edit is just outside the 24-hour range, WP:EDITWAR considers that gaming the system or showing a clear pattern of edit-warring behavior is actionable. I would also note that while policy allows an exemption for "clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons", this editor is edit-warring based on his objectively inaccurate perception of BLP, which does not contain the blanket prohibition he claims it does. Indeed, this very editor is in the midst of a discussion about this exact thing at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Names and birth dates of non-notable children (again), demonstrating this is in no way a settled issue or "clear". In the meantime, he is edit-warring to revert longstanding non-violative status quo.Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation, good-faith usage of BLP exception. Removal of a child's name is within the scope of WP:BLPPRIVACY and qualifies for exemption. Tenebrae, your best course of action is to show, on the article's talk page, that the name is so widely published in multiple sources that the privacy exemption no longer applies. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding quickly, C.Fred. The existing citation is that of the parent announcing it on a TV talk show to millions of people. I could certainly add four or five magazine and newspaper citations encompassing millions more. In all seriousness I ask: If I supply, say, four additional citations indicating that the name is that widely published, may I restore the article? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thisi s not the place to discuss that. There are threads open on the article's talk page concernignthis edit, and on the policy's talk concernign the interpretation of the policy, the essay,. and the RFD from 2015 that you have used to justify such previously undiscussed personal information content. Meters (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please respect the admin enough to let them answer themselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tenebrae: As I stated above, your best course of action is to discuss that matter on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do so. No need for boldface; I was simply seeking guidance.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bathtub Barracuda reported by User:General Ization (Result: 48 hours)

    Page
    2019 El Paso shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Bathtub Barracuda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909721375 by QuestFour (talk) This is not concensus, this is POV editing, from your part. Information length and format has already been condensed and Macron's mention deleted. Japan stays."
    2. 05:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "Middle ground."
    3. 04:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909718560 by Ianmacm (talk) Then fix the plethora of inclusions already within the "US" and "Mexico" which consitutes 70% of the section's length, or dismiss altoghether the "Reactions" section. Travel warnings are state issued documents, and are quite relevant."
    4. 04:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909717810 by Ianmacm (talk). See talk section and stop POV editing."
    5. 04:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC) ""
    6. 04:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 909715385 by General Ization (talk) Keep the format consistent."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2019 El Paso shooting. (TW)"
    2. 05:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2019 El Paso shooting. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 04:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Reactions */
    2. 04:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Due weight of reactions */"
    3. 04:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"
    4. 04:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"
    5. 04:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"
    6. 04:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"
    7. 04:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"
    8. 05:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Reactions */"
    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C 05:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by User:AnonWikiEditor (Result: )

    Page: List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 193.115.86.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [80]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [81]
    2. [82]
    3. [83]
    4. [84]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

    Comments:

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=909758647"