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 Plunging (talk | contribs) at 15:33, 23 September 2020 (→User:Plunging reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: )). 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:The359 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Blocks, Semi)

    Page: 2020 24 Hours of Le Mans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: The359 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 15:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979230255 by 1.152.107.8 (talk) Self-confessed block evasion. WP:DUCK"
    2. 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979227142 by 1.152.107.8 (talk) Block evasion"
    3. 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 1.159.72.170 (talk) to last version by The359"
    4. 14:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 1.159.72.170 (talk) to last version by The359"
    5. 14:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 1.159.72.170 (talk) to last version by The359"
    6. 14:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 1.159.72.170 (talk) to last version by The359"
    7. 14:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 1.159.72.170 (talk) to last version by The359"
    8. 14:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979217371 by 1.159.72.170 (talk) WP:SPA"
    9. 14:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 1.159.72.170 (talk) to last version by The359"
    10. 13:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 1.159.72.170 (talk) to last version by The359"
    11. 13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 1.159.72.170 (talk) to last version by The359"
    12. 13:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979214363 by Fungchilong (talk) I see a Taiwan flag on the car, and Taiwan listed on the official entry list."
    13. 12:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979192643 by Fungchilong (talk) Official FIA/ACO entry list and the car both say Taiwan and has been sourced."
    14. 01:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979140720 by Fungchilong (talk) Le Mans entry list has the nationality listed as TWN https://web.archive.org/web/20200916145908/https://assets.lemans.org/explorer/pdf/courses/2020/24-heures-du-mans/entry-list-24-heures-du-mans-2020.pdf"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. User talk:Fungchilong#September 2020

    Comments: The359 has been edit warring with Fungchilong as well as two IP's and has already made 14 reverts within 24 hours with regards to the same content. One of the IP's was blocked but sadly the edit warring continued.Tvx1 17:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fungchilong has been altering the flags of the article since the 18th, as has been reverted by User:IMSA E320 twice (1 2) before I reverted it a third and fourth time because Fungchilong continued to alter the flags again. Fungchilong has continued to alter the flags since then. The IP address appeared to do the same things and I believe is a WP:DUCK WP:SOCK. The second IP admitted to being a WP:SOCK so was reverted for blatant block evasion. The359 (Talk) 17:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly even after I warned you not to do it and were having a discussion you carried on edit warring, I was reluctant to come here and almost wrote on your page that you were giving people no choice but to block you for a while. Well someone decided to take action. Sorry The359, this is pretty much a slam dunk, I cannot see any justifiable way as to how you avoid a block here. Games of the world (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting a meatpuppet that is block evading is not WP:3RR, per exemption #3 "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." So the later reversions of a blocked user were made after your "warning". The359 (Talk) 18:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That still leaves 12 reverts that are not subjected to the exemptions.Tvx1 18:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption." Entered as WP:SPA per revision #8, for an IP that was blocked for disruption after I myself reported them to AIV. The359 (Talk) 18:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting a single-purpose account is not an exemption.Tvx1 20:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An SPA that was providing no source, was warned twice, and still rapidly reverting is not here for a discussion. Hence it was reported to AIV. The only other choice would be to call for a lock of the article, which I believe you are against. The359 (Talk) 20:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m against full protection. However semi-protection would have been a good solution. Allways better than 10+ reverts.Tvx1 11:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: User:The359 is warned for edit warring and the page is semiprotected for one month. I won't block because the IP editor who was being reverted is most likely a sock. But for User:The359 to go past 3RR is still risky unless you are reverting plain vandalism, which is not the case here.

    User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Nemo bis (Result: )

    Page: Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: special:permalink/979397121

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. special:diff/979395635
    2. special:diff/979396533
    3. special:diff/979397121
    4. (not yet?)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: special:diff/979397752

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: special:diff/979400696

    Comments:

    Francis Schonken refuses to explain the reasoning behind their reverts. After reverting an edit, Francis Schonken typically sends a 3RR warning to the reverted editor, but then refuses to discuss those warnings when told they are incorrect ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]). Several admins and other users have already pointed out this behaviour is not constructive ([14] [15] [16] [17]). One-to-one discussion therefore seems unlikely to be productive. Nemo 14:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion is currently at Talk:Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)#Closed access redundant URL. I'm sure the issue can be settled amicably there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello User:Nemo bis. In your opinion is Francis's optimism justified? Will the linked thread allow the issue to be settled? It seems to me that one or both parties may have crossed 3RR, so this reverting had better not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't share such optimism. Francis Schonken has been edit warring with dozens of users and administrators, always throwing around heavy-handed and misguided readings of policy. We might find an amicable solution on the specific case, but the user needs a third party opinion on the overall pattern if we want to break this vicious circle. Nemo 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:2C6:4680:6750:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:Gengis Gat (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Chess Olympiad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2601:2C6:4680:6750:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User keeps altering the team ranking without consensus. Another contributor and me have tried to discuss the issue in the talk page, but the user refuses to engage there. In the last diffs they even deleted the reference (made in the article's comment) to the discussion in the talk page.

    --Gengis Gat (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [18]
    2. [19]
    3. [20]
    4. [21]
    5. [22]
    6. [23]
    7. [24]
    8. [25]
    9. [26]
    10. [27]
    11. [28]
    12. [29]
    13. [30]
    14. [31]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chess_Olympiad&diff=977093644&oldid=862982103 (and following comments in the paragraph)

    • Blocked – 48 hour block of the /64 range. The IP editor has been making lots of reverts since 31 August but has never posted on a talk page. Let me know if semiprotection becomes needed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GorgeCustersSabre reported by User:LucrativeOffer (Result: )

    Page: Shah Ahmad Shafi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 979419893 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk): Referenced needed please"
    2. 17:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 979418427 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk)"
    3. 17:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 979410596 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk)"
    4. 15:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC) "But you have to provide evidence to demonstrate that"
    5. 15:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User is edit-warring to include pejorative terms like "Tetul hujur" in the article about an Islamic scholar. Looks like a deliberate vandalism. LucrativeOffer (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am happy not to edit this page. I don’t want to edit war and will take more care not to exceed the 3RR. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:Telsho (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: –

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [32]
    2. [33]
    3. [34]
    4. [35]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

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

    Comments:
    User also refuses to make use of the edit summary despite being told as to why their edits were being reverted. According to the block log, they seem to have been blocked for similar behaviors in the past. Telsho (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I (the user in question) have started a discussion concerning removal of the source in question on the talk page of that page (Talk:Uqturpan County). I had originally seen the take down of this source as a kind of 'trolling'- the justification given for the initial removal was arbitrary ("Use a different source"). I have taken that source down during the period of our discussion. The user also removed a 'citation needed span' without adding a source on the Hawaii page, leaving unsourced information both unsourced and written with Wikipedia's voice, in direct conflict with Wikipedia:UNSOURCED (see Talk:Hawaii where the user attempts to justify inclusion of admittedly unsourced and therefore unverified material on Wikipedia mainspace), further evidence to me that there is a trolling element involved. Later, the user removed useful information that happens to mention Taiwan from a page without discussion- later a discussion was started (Talk:Original equipment manufacturer). The user seemingly spuriously tagged for deletion about thirty-one of my long-standing fair use uploads related to Taiwan. Seems to me like the user may want to arbitrarily diminish coverage related to Taiwan, a troll-like agenda. I am not sure what to do exactly. Thanks for any help here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
    Firstly, you resorting to personal assumptions that I am 'trolling' you isn't really a good start. Secondly, all of these instances happened after this edit warring report was made, which would mean you reverted my edits on other articles that had no connection to Uqturpan County, and could possibly be seen as WP:HOUNDING. Now, benefit of the doubt can be said for Hawaii as you had edited there previously, but I can't say the same for Original equipment manufacturer and also Shake Shack.
    Lastly, your file uploads were not of fair use either, and there's no indication that those websites had allowed permission for their logos to be used on Wikipedia. Therefore, I don't see what point you're trying to make here. Telsho (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally thought you were just a troll because it seemed you were removing a legitimate source for a claim without providing any valid reason ("Use a different source"). I had never seen you editing in this area before, so I assumed this was a drive-by deletion, like what's currently in process with the attempted thirty-one fair use images I uploaded related to Taiwan. I urge you to withdraw those attempted deletions. I understand you may personally view that source on the Uqturpan page as illegitimate, which is why I am trying to engage you on the talk page there. As for other claims, I am responding on those talk pages to your responses. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you have done with Shake Shack- you added a source. That actually changed the content of the sentence in question. I have thanked you for that edit, which was good! I am not here to get into silly internet fights, I am here to make a reliable encyclopedia. Some deeper understanding of the use of sources relevant to Xinjiang may result from the discussion on the Uqturpan page, but in my mind, no such understanding would ever result from the phrase "Use a different source" followed by revert. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me, I'm not here to fight with you either nor do I have any personal grudges against you. The problem here now is that it took you quite sometime after this edit warring report was made to only start discussions on the talk page, and so I had assumed you were initially not willing to discuss any of it. I'm sure had you not made those multiple instant reverts without anything on the edit summaries on Uqturpan County and Akto County (where you eventually added a different source, which is great), this report wouldn't have even been created and we wouldn't be wasting our time writing any of this that doesn't benefit the both of us. Obviously, I'd love to move on from this too. Telsho (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kevinjonavoraza reported by User:Jacob Gotts (Result: blocked 48h)

    Page: Edward Iacobucci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 10:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ Bmf 051 edit war; COI violation; BLP violation"
    2. 10:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ ==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion==
    3. 10:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ Suspected conflict of interest."
    4. 10:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ Biased media allegations are not valid sources, and clearly constitute BLP violations and a form of vandalism. If and when a duly constituted investigatory body examines all of the aspects of this controversy, and issues a report, that information then becomes admissible."
    5. 10:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* International Human Rights Program hiring controversy */ removed for blatant violations of BLP and NPOV violations."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 11:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "/* Report on ANI */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments: I earlier blocked the user for 48h for edit-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    User:BH72 reported by Kent Bargo (Result: Warned)

    Page: Khamzat Chimaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: BH72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    REPORT : Kept putting the unnecessary changes back on the article and removing reviewed picture. Kent Bargo (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lima Bean Farmer reported by User:Namiba (Result: No action)

    Page: List of Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign endorsements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [37]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [38]
    2. [39]
    3. [40]
    4. [41]
    5. [42]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

    Comments:The user refuses to engage with an ongoing discussion and instead removes cited content.

    User:Namiba, it was you who was edit warring. Once there is reason for the deletion of an endorsement, it should be deleted. Then you can use the talk page and come to a consensus on inclusion. Instead, Namiba continued to break standard endorsement policies and continued to add this back, even after another user explained on the talk page why it should not be added. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the other user wrote. Regardless, you failed to discuss the matter on the talk page and continued to engage in edit-warring and ignore a call to discuss the matter.--User:Namiba 17:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Namiba, you did not give me the chance to discuss. After the first time I deleted it, and the second and third time, you had the opportunity to use the talk page and continued to add it back. Even when you finally used the talk page, you still added it back. The other user quotes the rule for adding groups which says independent sources or official sources of the group should be cited which you did not. When you continue to add Crystal ball edits, they should be deleted before discussion. Not providing a proper source provides means for deletion, adding it back is edit warring. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is currently in the status quo ante condition. I see where Namiba asked about the source two weeks ago, and another editor said it was unreliable. Nonetheless, Namiba re-added the material yesterday. I don't think any administrative action needs taken, provided Namiba goes back to the talk page and gets consensus among editors before trying to add it again. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to the talk page on September 8 and it sat uncontested until the user removed the content again on September 21. How can you say that I did not give the user a chance to use the talk page?--User:Namiba 11:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EnoughBLS123 reported by User:TJMSmith (Result: )

    Page: Antonello Bonci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: EnoughBLS123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "Quoting allegations without evidence constitutes libel and defamation. This is against wikipedia rules."
    2. 15:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC) "quoting allegations without evidence constitutes libel and defamation. This is against wikipedia rules"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 20:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Antonello Bonci."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 20:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC) "connected contributor"

    Comments:

    Subject is a single purpose account. The information they are removing is cited in reliable sources. TJMSmith (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At User talk:EnoughBLS123 I've suggested that the editor respond here if they want to avoid a block. The material appears to be well-sourced and relevant. The headline in Science (journal) was that the subject "resigned after sexual misconduct probe". EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grufo reported by User:Vice regent (Result: )

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

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 02:50, September 23, 2020, undid this revision. Basically moved most of the article's sections under the heading of "Slavery and concubinage". As Grufo's edit summary indicates, this was a revert.
    2. 02:55, September 23, 2020, undid this revision
    3. 03:23, September 23, 2020, this edit removes some of the content I added to a different section. Might not count as a revert.
    4. 03:44, September 23, 2020, undid all the content added in this revision

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:Concubinage#Concubinage_and_slavery

    Comments: Grufo was blocked for edit warring on this very article by Oshwah a mere 10 days ago. They appealed their block on the grounds that they technically didn't commit 4 reverts. That's WP:GAME. 331dot declined their appeal as "You don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring". Similarly they may not have committed 4 reverts (#3 may not be a revert) but they have made at least 3 reverts in less than an hour. I have suggested they seek an RfC for their changes but they clearly prefer to edit-war.VR talk 04:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we are again. Let me collect the data, because I think I would like to point out that the edit-warrior is Vice regent and not me. --Grufo (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs of Vice regent's reverts:
    1. 03:53, 21 September 2020 undid the attempt of re-organizing the page as per Talk:Concubinage § Common features of pre-modern concubinage
    2. 02:52, 23 September 2020 undid the same content as before, without discussion but only an announcement
    3. 03:28, 23 September 2020 re-inserted what had been previously disputed at Talk:Contubernium § NPOV
    4. 03:36, 23 September 2020 undid the split concerning ancient Rome between concubinatus and contubernium
    I have tried to develop a useful discussion with Vice regent, but I have found a war instead. --Grufo (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of those, only #1 and #2 are reverts and they are days apart. In general, I try to limit myself to 1RR.VR talk 04:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides that re-merging the paragraph about ancient Rome is a revert, and so it is re-inserting a disputed content elsewhere, if you go to my Talk page and see the block you talk about, you will probably notice that I had contested it with exactly the same motivation: I had not violated the WP:3RR rule. You know what the answer was? “You don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring”. --Grufo (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion on the data presented by Vice regent
    1. 02:50, 23 September, 2020: As mentioned in the summary, my edit is a revert of Vice regent's revert (03:53, 21 September 2020) – see point 1. discussed in my list
    2. 02:55, 23 September, 2020: My edit is a revert of Vice regent's second revert (02:52, 23 September 2020) – see point 2. discussed in my list
    3. 03:23, 23 September 2020: Moving a text freshly inserted into the page to a different paragraph does not count as a revert or anything, and I don't even know why this edit is mentioned here
    4. 03:44, 23 September 2020: The edit concerns the text already disputed at Talk:Contubernium § NPOV and copied here by Vice regent
    --Grufo (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Other problematic examples of Vice regent's destructive approach concern their re-insertion or revert of disputed content without searching for consensus, but only leaving announcements. See for example:
    Vice regent's announcement Vice regent's controversial edit Action Discussion
    02:15, 20 May 2020 02:30, 20 May 2020 Moved the page Sexual slavery in Islam to Concubinage in Islam (a four-month long dispute has followed at Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam)
    14:55, 14 September 2020 14:55, 14 September 2020 Changed the first sentence of the page Sexual slavery in Islam in a way that would have raised concerns – as it in fact happened 15:25, 14 September 2020
    16:40, 14 September 2020 16:40, 14 September 2020 Restored a very dubious and poorly written text in Concubinage – for the discussion see Talk:Concubinage § Roman 18:36, 14 September 2020
    12:16, 19 September 2020 12:17, 19 September 2020
    12:30, 19 September 2020     		Restored the same dubious text + POV about the fact that the WP:LEAD of the Concubinage article should be about sexual slavery 16:04, 19 September 2020
    03:53, 21 September 2020 02:52, 23 September 2020 Removed the current differentiation between voluntary and involuntary concubinage from the Concubinage article 02:50, 23 September 2020
    11:35, 23 September 2020 11:34, 23 September 2020 Restored what had been opposed by several editors at Talk:Sexual_slavery_in_Islam#Source_needed 12:06, 23 September 2020
    --Grufo (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your content is safe at Concubinage in China. Do you actually read the edit summaries and the discussions? --Grufo (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow-motion disaster going down on Vicente Gómez Umpiérrez‎

    A bunch of people seem to be going ham on this article reverting each other to change the name of the football club this guy is from. Might warrant looking into (I have no clue who's right). {} 10:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:96.241.151.80 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: )

    Page: Sunny Hostin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 96.241.151.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [46]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [47]
    2. [48]
    3. [49]
    4. [50]
    5. [51]
    6. [52]
    7. [53]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

    Comments:
    96.241.151.80 keeps adding superfluous details to the personal life section even after they were told that said details violate WP:DUE. KyleJoantalk 11:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Plunging reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: )

    Page: Margot (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Plunging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) <--- — Plunging (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Note added by GizzyCatBella🍁 15:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this slanderous material against Wikipedia ethical policy."
    2. 14:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
    3. 14:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
    4. 14:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
    5. 14:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy. Subtropical slandered Margot on the talk page."
    6. 14:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME. No consensus on talk for inclusion of this material against Wikipedia ethical policy."
    7. 13:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP due to libelous content and sources, MOS:DEADNAME"
    8. 12:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "WP:3RRBLP: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". Unreliable sources nczas.com and radiomaryja.pl. MOS:DEADNAME."
    9. 12:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979903446 by Subtropical-man (talk) WP:3RRBLP Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
    10. 12:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 979902254 by Subtropical-man (talk) misgendering removed in accordance with MOS:DEADNAME. Sources of ill repute: nczas.com, twitter, radiomaryja.pl removed. This is a living person, and this can not be on this page."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Subtropical-man reverted more times than me. All of my reverts were made following WP:3RRBLP, removing libelous and violent material directed at a living breathing person. User:Subtropical-man added this material to the page, and has been slandering Margot on the talk place calling her a criminal and dehumanizing her by calling her worthless.--Plunging (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempts to discuss with Subtropical-man have been met with violent abuse not only towards Margot, but also towards me: [56].--Plunging (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Following Gbear605's advice directed at me and Subtropical I will stop and let other editors assess Subtropical's abuse toward Margot and editors.--Plunging (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plunging - this is new user, account created practically only for vandalism: delete sections from article, delete sources, edit-warring. 99% edits of this user are destructive edits. Yes, I have undone his vandalism many times. This user does not know the rules of Wikipedia. This user gives absurd arguments like: removes 18 sources and whole section because they sources show the real name of the person. This user believes that sources by giving the real name of this person attack and defame the person. With this user not possible discuss. The user did not give a single argument in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Subtropical's "sources", [57], include twitter, Najwyższy Czas!, and Radio Maryja. These are not sources, they are sites of slander against LGBTIQ+.--Plunging (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I added new many sources [58]. Again: stop manipulating. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, this is part of a lengthy discussion about various aspects of referring to Margot (activist), a non-binary Polish activist who has been previously arrested. Subtropical-man prefers a certain page state because it abides by NPOV as they see it, while Plunging prefers a different page state because it abides by NPOV and BLP as they see it, as well as abiding by a certain code of ethics that they prefer. At this point, at least Subtropical-man seems to be blatantly in violation of WP:3RR and Plunging might be as well, although they were acting in the belief of WP:3RRBLP.
    There is discussion about this edit war at Talk:Margot_(activist)#Edit_war and discussion about the rest of the issues makes up the rest of the talk page. Gbear605 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Subtropical has clearly reverted more than anyone else and has described the page's BLP subject as 'worthless', so clearly has a problem with her and wants to highlight her deadname. Plunging was protecting the subject. Malick78 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Typical ordinary slanders and conjecture. You have no right to guess what I think. This breaks the rule of Wikipedia:NPA. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that this user believes that sources by giving the real name of this person attack and defame the person. With this user not possible discuss. The user did not give a single argument in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but it is not allowed to delete article sections with 18 sources based on their opinion. A new user should respect experienced users, respect the rules of Wikipedia - account of Plunging created practically only for destructive edits. I think it makes sense to block this user indefinitely. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The real name is Małgorzata. Subtropical is pushing the deadname, which is violent, disrespectful, and dismissive towards Margot and all trans, queer, intersex, and non-binary people.--Plunging (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=979925580"