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 GuruAskew (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 3 January 2021 (→User:GuruAskew reported by User:Sro23 (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:CuriousGolden reported by User:Armatura (Result: No action)

    Page: Battle of Shusha (2020) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: CuriousGolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff

    Comments:
    Looks like 4 reverts over 24 hours period. No signs of the user engaging in the talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Shusha_(2020) - GA review . The user is well aware of the 3RR rule as they were previously sanctioned by 2 week abstinence from editing Nagorno-Karabakh related articles and at that point they claimed that they were unaware of the rule but would follow it from now now. Notified about this discussion on personal talk page and on 3RR violation on article talk page. Regards Armatura (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't notice I had passed 3 reverts. I wanted to revert my 4th revert, but since there's been many edits since my 4th edit, I decided I shouldn't mess things up. Though, I have to say that this diff and this diff were me reverting obvious vandalism which is an exception in WP:3RR. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CuriousGolden You are an experienced user, hence I don't buy the argument that you AGAIN "were not aware of / did not realise / did not notice" your 3RR violation (while diligently counting another editor's reverts and reporting them for the same thing). The rule was explained to you by an admin just two months ago, again in relation to NKR-related articles, resulting in 2 weeks of editing abstinence], yet you continued the bad habit of reverting other users' edits over trying to reach consensus on the article talk page (and Battle of Shusha (2020) and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are good examples of it]. Vandalism is blanking the page or posting offensive stuff on the page, not good-faith changes done by Haydar Pamuk who was reviewing the article for academic accuracy to make it GA article, whom you and other pro-Azerbaijani editors reverted many times without engaging in discussion on talk page and whom you managed to get him blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation. Please take the responsibility for your actions and don't pretend naive this time, I can see signs of WP:GAMING in you activity in NKR-related topic, and it does not look like soft measures like warning / explaining / temporary abstinence resulted in any improvement of your behavior. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Didn't notice" wasn't an argument, it was there to inform that I didn't pass 3rd edit intentionally. And no, I wasn't topic banned as you implied, me and the admin made an agreement to avoid a specific article for 2 weeks, which I did. "and whom you managed to get blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation" The guy reverted 5 times, which means he can't self-revert and he was given 3RR warning before the report or else he wouldn't have got banned. If you have problem with his ban, talk to Ymblanter, not me. And no, I didn't call Haydar Pamuk's edits vandalism. I called this diff and this diff vandalism, both of which you failed to address. The diffs' bad faith and vandalism are further proven by the discussion opened by one of the vandals on the same article's talk page. Rest of your comment is baseless and offensive accusations (which cross the line for WP:ASPERSIONS), so I won't waste my time replying to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CuriousGoldenI am sorry to say this but your habit of reverting rather than trying to reach a consensus goes above and beyond a single article or a single editor's edits, one can just have a look in your contributions log to see how many times you reverted others in various articles in last couple of months in NKR-related articles, pushing your POV, whenever you didn't like somebody else's edits; are you going to claim that all those editors were vandals? I have not "implied" anything, please do not skew my comment, you were given a choice between a ban and abstinence for 2 weeks by a very kind admin EdJohnston, not that you had a better option, and this repeated violation of the same rule within 2 months tells me the first measure did not result in improvement of your methods. I have elaborated about the case of Haydar Pamuk in the discussion above this one, to keep this one focused. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, still no mention of the fact that 2 of the 4 reverts you provided were me revering obvious vandalism, which is an exception in WP:3RR. If you have a problem with any of my reverts on any articles, point them out in the appropriate article's talk page and we'll reach a consensus, like I have done so many times. Unfortunately, when you don't do that and come here and complain about my edits on random articles, I see nothing except WP:JDLI. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CuriousGolden Just one of the possible examples, where you were repeatedly asked by another user Sataralynd to stop repeated reverts and engage in discussion to reach a consensus. Roughly at the same time when you have done 14 reverts within 48 hours in 4 NKR-connected articles as reported by another user Գարիկ Ավագյան. This is despite being alerted to the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions back in April 2020. Also, perhaps before labeling others' edits as "vandalism", I think it would be useful to have a refresher on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism, especially the section on "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" ("Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. All vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism"). Armatura (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Armatura, did you look carefully at the fourth revert you put in the list above?. CuriousGolden was removing this fascinating bit of unsourced speculation by an IP editor who said that Erdogan was planning to settle Syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh:
    There Syrian Jihadists participating in the battle on the Azerbaijani side sent there with weapons after they crossed on foot into Turkish borders. They were sent by Erdogan, where he plotted a plan to settle syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh. It is now a confirmed fact. This article left out everything about the Syrian Jihadists and its a shame they are hiding the fact that Armenia was fight a war against terrorists whom said themselves that the Azerbaijanis stayed at the lines getting drunk while they sent the mercenaries forward to die. If this truth is removed than this article is nothing more than a make believe trophy because all shit floats to the surface one day..
    Armatura, do you seriously think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to keep these words in the article (including 'all shit floats to the surface one day'), and with no source? EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, I definitely don't (I just noticed the fascinating piece you mentioned, sorry, and I have already warned the author of those lines on the talk page for violating civility on talk page, before even reading those lines), but I would still like admins to have a look at the history of reverts by CuriousGolden, please, and not only in this article. As I said earlier, it is not just this article that I worry about (already asked for 1RR limitation for it to admins familiar with NKR topics) , but the user's very low threshold for reverting others' edits in general (e.g. > 10 reverts in various articles just for 27/12/2020). For my information, perhaps the most effective way of dealing with perceived recurring vandalism would be reporting to admins rather than engaging in edit warring? Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Armatura, I have also seen signs of WP:GAMING in CuriousGolden's activity regarding NKR articles over the past few months. Time and time again the user's pro-Azerbaijani agenda becomes more evident. The user has a habit to make edits which clearly have a pro-Azeri bias. I've noticed the user tends to make vague edit summaries while sneakily altering information to tip articles towards a more pro-Azeri stance. In the case of Uzundara, the user and I came to a consensus in September, the editor then made edits in October contrasting the consensus (without engaging in any discussion). I proceeded to leave a message in the talk page of that article, which was ignored. Meanwhile, over at Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the user ended up making changes to the article while on-going talk page discussions were taking place and before a consensus was reached. When I advised the user of this, the user was very quick to point fingers and talk about "maintaining etiquette". The user has been very quick to accuse myself, Laurel Lodged, and others of either POV pushing or edit warring in the past, when they themselves have been sanctioned from editing due to edit warring. Quite hypocritical behaviour. All in all, this user knows exactly what they are doing and I also urge Admins to have a deeper look into their general pro-Azeri bias and manipulative editing tactics. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that gaming is afoot; his modus operandi is to revert edits he does not like, accuse the reverted editor of edit warring and then leave boiler plate, passive-aggressive-official-sounding warnings on the talk page of the offending editor in the hope of bullying him away from making further reversions. See my edit log for a sad litany of these kinds of edits and bullying behaviour. He is protected and supported in this behaviour by a coterie of like-minded editors with Turkish/Azeri sympathies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you think that my reversion log with him is impressive, you should have a look at @AntonSamuel: who must have the patience of Job. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Laurel Lodged. He has been and is unrelenting in pushing his pro-Azeri views; backed by a loyal band of followers. It is more then clear that the user has a biased WP:POV and WP:UNDUE agenda. Glancing at their edit history, this becomes self-evident. The user has switched language translations and de jure/de facto status in several articles to put Azerbaijan first and Armenian second, has removed or re-adjusted wordings to tip information in favor of Azerbaijan, and so forth (often times providing zero explanation). When editors try to restore balance/neutrality, the user is quick to revert and/or proceed with a hostile critique. This uncivil behaviour, backed by their aggressive editing tactics, is by far constructive... yet alone appropriate. Furthermore, nothing has changed since they were sanctioned last- so, "not knowing" cannot justify as an excuse anymore. I fear this behaviour will continue indefinitely. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious to know how this decision was made, considering the above testimony from 3 different editors? Archives908 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am baffled as to how the evidence above could result in a "No action" decision. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I believe this case should be reviewed by another Admin. No valid explanation or rationale was provided why (despite all the evidence/testimony) this resulted in "no action". The biased WP:POV and WP:UNDUE edits, general WP:GAMING, continual violation of WP:3RR, and "bullying" tactics described by 3 different editors deserves recognition. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, do you think we can not see anything? Do you think we do not see that there are requests here against Armenian editors with Azerbaijani editors piling up, and there are requests against Azerbaijani editors with Armenian editors piling up? Do you think we do not know that some of you support the Armenian side in 100% cass, and other support the Azerbaijani side in 100% cases? And that all of you clearly demonstrate battleground behavior? We block the most egregious cases, but, fine, we can start blocking in all the cases for edit-warring or even for disruptive editing - then all of you are going to be blocked within a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement is a tad bit dramatic, and generalizing is very dangerous. While I don't disagree with you that tensions are high, this is more then just simple "vandalism"- we are noticing a pattern of behaviour here. It's best to stay focused and examine the information presented on a case-by-case basis, rather then making generalizations or rash assumptions. Archives908 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, nothing is wrong with asking for explanation as to why this case resulted in "no action". Especially since, no explanation was even provided. Archives908 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Ymblanter, EdJohnston, elaborating on the logic of the decision would be appreciated. It is understandably easier to diagnose/rule out an issue in a given article rather than in the user's general behaviour, but as others mentioned there are systematic signs of gaming the system, article ownership, chronic edit warring in the user's log, have you looked into it carefully? No action is going to mean green light for further reverts, and if the user avoids revert warring in Battle of Shusha, he is going to continue in other NKR/Armenia/Azerbaijan-related articles, as before. I would avoid generalizations please - e.g. the profile / interests of Laurel_Lodged do not look Armenian and I am noticing the profile of Archives908 for the first time here in this discussion, in case you are wondering about some anti-Azerbaijani conspiracy. I would rather be interested to hear what you call the phenomenon when several Azerbaijani editors do the same revert, careful not to exceed the limitation of reverts over 24 hours and yet succeeding to keep the version of the article they collectively like - same Battle of Shusha and Nagorno Karabakh war articles are bright examples of collective reverting, is there no regulatory measure for this? Now please look into my log and find any such behavior. And I don't see why you would treat Azerbaijanis and Armenians differently from the rest of the editors - could you please apply the same WP rules regardless of nationality, race, color, gender, religion and other protected characteristics? Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just know there is off-wiki coordination. In 2010, I was an arbitrator in the Russian Wikipedia, and we had to consider a case about Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination similar to WP:EEML (and some of the current warriors were on the mailing list). We knew about its existence because someone infiltrated in the list and sent the content to us. We never considered a similar Armenian list, though I am sure it exists, just nobody managed to infiltrate there. Concerning your remarks about the editors background, what I see is fully polarized partisan editing, when every user here takes either 100% Armwenian side, or 100% Azerbaijani side. May I please remind you that a few days ago you repeatedly appealed to me to protect a NOTHERE pro-Armenian user with 25 edits, arguing they have not been warned enough? And the user was subsequently blocked (not by me) for sockpuppetry. When I see any of you defending NOTHERE Azerbaijani users, I might change my opinion, but for the time being what I see is a clearly partisan division, and in this episode we see a bunch of Armenian or pro-Armenian editors, who found a way to this closed discussion at an obscure noticeboard to try to block one editor on the opposite side. You see, even if the user is eventually blocked, this is not going to help you as soon as this partisan editing persists. As soon as every side consider reverts the main dispute resolution avenue there will always be someone reverting. The supply is sufficient, and what we (administrators) are doing is to reduce the demand.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter thanks very much for elaborating on your previous replies, I am glad an admin raises the issue of off-WP coordinated action. One can vouch for what one knows, though, not for what one therorises. I, too, have seen Azerbaijani trial of off-WP coordination resulting in violation of WP:CANVAS. May I ask how come people on a known list of off-WP coordination are still allowed to edit? Why is it tolerated by English WP admins? We should look at users' actions, and not nationality: being of Azerbaijani or Armenian nationality/sympathy should not protect any user on WP. Being of Russian background might have resulted in stereotyping Caucasian people from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, etc, but may I ask to avoid stereotyping nationalities on WP, please? The pro-Armenian user was collectively reverted by virtually every Azerbaijani editor in Battle of Shusha 2020 article, and I wanted to make sure admins realise that, even if he violated a rule (for which he was rightfully blocked). I don't support vandalism or "khaltura" from either side. You wanted an example of non-partisan behaviour, you can see me warning a pro-Armenian user who was uncivil against Azerbaijani editors on at Battle of Shusha Talkpage, I asked another pro-Armenian user to self-revert their 4th edit over 24 hours and you have seen me asking for 1RR protection rather than engaging in the battle, are you still of the same opinion? And you said As soon as every side consider reverts the main dispute resolution avenue there will always be someone reverting., can you please look in my log to see the number of reverts? Indiscriminate blaming and stereotyping both sides is not going to benefit Wikipedia, either. Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think we should be discussing this any longer, as soon as you have come to this conclusion. You are welcome to report me to WP:AN or even to WP:AE of course. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The.Barbaryan reported by User:Politanvm (Result: The.Barbaryan blocked from Zero Hedge)

    Page: Zero Hedge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: The.Barbaryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996873996 . Vandalism"
    2. 00:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 996853815. Vandalism."
    3. 13:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC) "Lack of consensus. Vandalism."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 00:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Zero Hedge."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 02:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC) on User talk:The.Barbaryan "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Zero Hedge."

    Comments:

    Edit warring at Zero Hedge with multiple warnings on users talk page and directing user to a discussion on talk page. User has responded with personal attacks at User talk:Politanvm and User talk:Ratel. POLITANVM talk 05:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You EdJohnston do have some nerve to drop censorship on a page like ZeroHedge. Little people like you is what's wrong with society. Enjoy your "wiki authority" from your parents' basement.The.Barbaryan (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Al-Burcaawi reported by User:SultanSanaag (Result: Alerts)

    Page: Badhan, Sanaag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Al-Burcaawi (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. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]


    Comments:
    User actions evidently indicate failing the edit warring policy on multiple account, It appears to me that he is doing WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is driven politically and in favor of the unrecognized de factor State of Somalia (Somaliland) he has refuse to get the point and it's been 4 reverts in less than 24 hours period. Not good faith signs of the user engaging in the talk page discussion. Whereby this matter should have been rather simple and if you ask globally or any community about rightful details about this article here a few external maps as reference Badhan, Somalia or here [6] and here [7]. Please urgently stop this user. Iappreciate your assistance in this matter. SultanSanaag (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Somalia has no jurisdiction over Somaliland, it is therefore misleading to indicate this area as being under Somalia, as that would indicate Somalian control, which is false.

    Just like how Taiwanese towns aren't marked as part of China, Somaliland towns shouldn't be marked as part of Somalia either. I believe a consensus has already been reached earlier in regards to this.

    It seems you're driven by your political affiliation and your bias is at play here. No one is disputing Somaliland's lack of recognition, but marking its towns as part of Somalia is very misleading. Somalia isn't a complete state either.

    Regards, Al-Burcaawi (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doug Weller reported by User:Haerdt (Result: Withdrawn by OP)

    Page: Stop the Steal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Doug Weller (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. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

    Comments:

    My apologies for any errors in the reporting of this incident. Wikipedia user ‘Doug Weller’ aggressively and abusively censored my attempts to contribute in the discussion of the above mentioned ‘Stop the steal’ page. Now, I understand this is a politicized topic, but an editor such as ‘Doug Weller’ should tread carefully. Wikipedia’s reputation is already shoddy when it comes to politicized entries. Aggressively shutting down individuals interested in collaborating to improve the neutrality of the entry is not a good tack. ‘Doug Weller’ posted obnoxiously on my own Talk page and then challenged me to report them. They clearly need a check. I understand that senior Wikipedia editors might revel in their ability to use this platform’s complex system of codes, rules, and procedures to their personal political advantage. I have been bullied by senior editors already. I’m sure ‘Doug Weller’ has done their best to portray themself as a very experienced, very fair moderator of knowledge. Perhaps, to some degree, they are. I’m sure ‘Doug Weller’ has a good deal of respect. However, this person and any editor should never abuse their power for the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda. We are dealing with the organization and preservation of the knowledge of humanity. I urge you to take a step back from power politics and consider what it means to be fair, balanced, and neutral when approaching our task here.

    This is a malformed request which should be promptly closed. Doug Weller has done nothing but patiently point out to the reporting user that we require reliable sources for all material on Wikipedia - that "being "fair, balanced, and neutral" does not mean treating all viewpoints or ideologies equally. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a written lie. Look at Doug Weller’s Talk page. There are multiple reported instances on his Talk page of him overstepping his bounds and abusively interacting with well-intentioned well-sourced contributors Haerdt (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haerdt (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Haerdt: Providing WP:DIFFs would support your case a lot more. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 02:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted his posts off of my Talk. Thanks, I’m doing my best to follow all of these guidelines and codes. Haerdt (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You have not provided a single example of Doug Weller not being a very experienced, very fair moderator of knowledge. To the contrary, they have shown nothing but patience with your bizarre insistence that we take the word of charlatans and grifters over every reliable source and court of law in the United States. We're not going to do that, ever, period, the end. You can stop demanding it, because it's not going to happen. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, and you have three rights here - the right to your contributions (as licensed), the right to fork, and the right to leave. That you disagree with our policies and guidelines as applied to Stop the Steal is unfortunate, but irreconcilable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is NorthBySouthBerenof taking such a passionate stand here? He has been censoring me repeatedly in the past several hours in my attempts to bring some rational balance to one of Wikipedia’s pages. I have reported him separately for bullying me and posting abusively on my Talk page. See the report below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haerdt (talk • contribs) 06:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Balance" does not mean even-handed or 50/50 or taking both sides at their word. That would be a ridiculous violation of core rules on neutrality. Perhaps WP isn't for you if you can't accept that we give due weight based on external sources, not based on editors' desires to see certain viewpoints. That's a problem that can get you blocked. But again, I emphasize that if you are reporting Doug for edit-warring and wanting to see action taken against them, it is your responsibility to back up that concern with specific evidence. No evidence==no action. DMacks (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand, thank you DMacks. I will withdraw my report on Doug Weller. I appreciate the clarification. Haerdt (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jib Yamazaki reported by User:55go (Result: Warned)

    Page: Elaiza Ikeda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jib Yamazaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [8]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:37, 26 December 2020 UTC
    2. 03:45, 27 December 2020 UTC
    3. 05:42, 27 December 2020 UTC
    4. 11:52, 30 December 2020 UTC

    Comments:
    Persistent addition of unsourced content.--55go (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roy McCoy reported by User:Feoffer (Result: )

    Page: Stop the Steal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Roy McCoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [9]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Removes "Conspiracy Theory" from predicate nomitive using a misleading edit summary (talk page does not indicate support for proposed change), reverted by Feoffer: "per existing inline comment and talk page, this change will require consensus that does not presently exist"
    2. Again removes "conspiracy theory", reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof: "that's not consensus."
    3. Roy McCoy removes third time, writing: "It's far closer to a consensus than Stop the Steal is to a conspiracy theory." , reverted by Aquillion: "extensively sourced."
    4. Fourth removal after three reverts from three different editors.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]


    Comments:
    Roy McCoy argues our articles should not be based on reliable sources. They dispute the Five Pillars and they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Feoffer (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an interesting discussion at User talk:Roy McCoy#December 20 with User:Guy Macon where Roy says " Moreover, the actual fringe theory in regard to 9/11 is the official fantasy, which if I'm not in error only a minority of the population believes despite the relentless propaganda in its favor." At Talk:Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist)#No consensus for Page move after failing to get "conspiracy theorist" removed we have "Speaking of sources, Wikipedia's are often duplicitous and unreliable, so one can keep regurgitating the RS policy till the cows come home, and it will still fall flat with anyone aware of the dubiousness of the WP-approved sources and of the frequent value and acceptable quality of the disapproved – for example the Gateway Pundit on the 2020 Election. The graphic at Investment Watch provides a picture of the ideologically motivated division of sources and "explains a lot of the bias". If the purpose of Wikipedia is to serve as a propaganda rag, the childish "conspiracy theorist!" finger-pointing/name-calling may make some sense. Otherwise I'd say that what the encyclopedia actually needs, Hob Gadling, is fewer tired reiterations of the policy of aping often-discreditable sources. I think it could use less of that even if propagandizing is the purpose, since the RS policy perhaps shouldn't be over-advertised given current public disillusionment with "the lying media" – a phrase today yielding over a million estimated Google finds." Doug Weller talk 08:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Feoffer, Doug Weller: I'm not sure there's a violation here, as I don't consider [12] to have been a revert. At least I started counting from what I considered to be the first revert, [13]. I have since seen and understood that the 3RR rule "is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times", but honestly I feel that this is a case in which WP:IAR might rightfully be invoked in any event, as well as perhaps another guideline whose name I don't remember that says (or used to say) that a proper consensus doesn't necessarily require a majority. I've been drenched with this reliable sources, reliable sources recently, and my edit in this case is perfectly in accordance with the RS while Feoffer's totally isn't, as I've clearly established in detail. Thank you, Doug, for saying my posts were interesting. I think Feoffer means "nominative", and if I really must say so my preferred pronoun is "he". –Roy McCoy (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Roy McCoy suggests the first of four edits does not qualify as a revert. That suggestion is without merit. On December 27, McCoy similarly removed "Conspiracy Theory", which was reverted by GorillaWarfare with the warning "discuss on talk page before making this change, per inline note". Anachronist then posted an even clearer warning to get consensus before making the change. Feoffer (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I protest Feoffer's inappropriate reversion to "conspiracy theory". I will do as I said and bring a complaint against him and his collaborators. [Anachronist has changed to "campaign", resolving issue and obviating need for further action.] The irony is that "campaign" doesn't even approach an adequate correction of the sentence; but it will still be recognized as an obvious improvement by any sane, honest, and reasonably intelligent person with a basic command of the English language. "Campaign", again, is in complete accordance with the cited sources, as "conspiracy theory" is not, this having been demonstrated with references to all the cited sources. –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued disruption

    It seems likely this will continue to be a problem until action is taken. Feoffer (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I came here to report the same thing. I suggest a six-month topic ban from American politics, broadly construed. Jeppiz (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Haerdt (Result: Article ECP protected)

    Page: Stop the Steal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (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. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/attorney-sidney-attorney-sidney-powell-releases-270-page-document-on-massive-2020-election-fraud-involving-foreign-interference-releases-270-page-document-massive-2020-election-fraud-involving-foreign/
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:


    The editor ‘NorthBySouthBaranof initially took a stand for his similarly minded editor friend ‘Doug Weller’ — see my previous filed report. ‘NorthBySouthBaranof’ then aggressively twice censorsd my attempt to provide a legitimate link supporting the claim that evidence exists, which has been disputed in the Talk section of this article at length. ‘NorthBySouthBerenof’ then aggressively posted in my personal Talk section citing Wikipedia guidelines and claiming that in his opinion the weblink I provided was not legit. I have linked another website above in the diff section to a website I just discovered was on Wikipedia’s ban list. I will be attempting edit with another news article from The Gateway Pundit. Despite the reality that these are right wing news sites, the article cites only left wing news sites. Haerdt (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I will be attempting edit with another news article from The Gateway Pundit. Q.E.D. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NorthBySouthBerenof is now abusively bullying me across several fronts, while preventing legitimate additions to the StoptheSteal page. He is citing Wikipedia code to support censoring information from legitimate right wing news sites. Clearly this contributor is an activist on the left wing. Haerdt (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    censoring information from legitimate right wing news sites. As clearly expressed by the community, The Gateway Pundit is not a "legitimate" news site, and is in point of fact notorious for publishing fabrications, falsehoods, lies, and patent nonsense. As I alluded to above, that Haerdt believes anything published in The Gateway Pundit is fit for Wikipedia suggests that they lack the competence required to effectively edit Wikipedia, as they are unable to appropriately distinguish between the use of acceptable and unacceptable sources. They're welcome to find some other project to contribute to, such as Conservapedia or Metapedia, where standards for sourcing are... different, and possibly more to their liking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NorthBySouthBerenof is championing a movement among Wikipedia contributors to censor the entire right wing of political news. This is an extremely dangerous practice. Haerdt (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • No action seems necessary other than the ECP protection of Stop the Steal which was performed by another admin as a result of a request at WP:RFPP. @Haerdt: You have not identified which edits are supposed to be an edit-warring problem. A look at the article history shows edit warring but not any problem from the reported editor. Please do not accuse an editor of "abusively bullying me" when it appears that all that has happened is that the basics of editing in accord with policies have been outlined. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:InsulinRS reported by User:Elizium23 (Result:blocked 72h)

    Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: InsulinRS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [14]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]
    4. [18]
    5. [19]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

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

    Comments:

    I am presenting a combined report for 3 articles, because they all involve exactly the same content which has been added by InsulinRS. He took umbrage at my talk page message and a single revert I made of his work, and while I worked at three articles tossing out unreliable sources, he proceeded to undermine that, without reading any diffs of what was being deleted. He doesn't seem to comprehend that this is not about today's edits. Elizium23 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is covering up Henryk Gulbinowicz's burial and is uncooperative. The user has also described this source describing the disciplinary action against Gulbinowicz as "unreliable" in edit summaries. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-gulbinowicz-dies-ten-days-after-vatican-sanctions-67629 I also later included a source from Gulbinowicz's Wikipedia page which noted he was cremated and buried in his family's tomb https://www.onet.pl/informacje/onetwiadomosci/gulbinowicz-henryk-nie-zyje-kardynal-mial-97-lat/2qb37rw,79cfc278 I wanted to report the user for edit warring too.InsulinRS (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Elizium23 reported by User:InsulinRS

    OP blocked as per above

    This is not intended to be disruptive of other administrators. I just don't like edit warring against reliable edits.

    Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: [[User:User:Elizium23|User:Elizium23]] ([[User talk:User:Elizium23|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/User:Elizium23|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/User:Elizium23|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/User:Elizium23|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/User:Elizium23|block user]] · block log)

    If there should be compromise edits, such as consensus, then so be it.InsulinRS (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bishonen reported by User:Haerdt (Result:Not a 3RR report)

    This is not a 3RR report - this is the wrong place to make this sort of complaint. WP:AN or WP:ANI would be better places. SQLQuery me! 21:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Page: Stop the Steal Stop the Steal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bishonen Bishonen (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: Warning Look, you are not supposed to keep on attacking people after my small sanction (a mere block from one article and its talkpage). I'm referring to this (implicitly accusing Beetstra and others of fascism) and this (various offensive accusations against Doug Weller, and why twice?). Quit it or you'll get a sitewide block. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy. Bishonen | tålk 14:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    Excuse me? I make a simple legitimate edit with factual information and I get constantly attacked. Haerdt (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    By six different editors. Haerdt (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1. [diff]
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:

    Bishonen is consistently attacking me for posting legitimate links to factual information that is widely available on the internet, yet suppressed through censorship techniques on websites that he seems to frequent and support. He has banned me for making legitimate edits, and strongly upheld policies that I was not aware existed. Once I was informed of those policies, I abided by them and will continue to. Nevertheless, Bishonen aggressively amd obnoxiously banned me temporarily from editing the oage in question and then posted on my Talk page threatening to ban me further. This is abusive and bullying. I am providing legitimate informational sources to real events and occurrances. Bishonen, do not make your blindness to world events my problem.

    Bishonen has taken offense to me pointing out to other editors that their censorship of my edits is fascist. Well, I am calling a spade a spade. When you throw the book at me for legitimate attempts to provide factual basis for a Wikipedia entry, and then restrict my access, that is a fascist technique. Perhaps you should learn how to hold civil discussion and collaboratively build an encyclopedia with people of differing viewpoints from your own instead of directly applying censhorship techniques. Bishonen, NorthBySouthBerenof, and Doug Weller could have assisted with finding a legitimate source for the information I presented to the community for the above mentioned article. Instead, they harshly applied standing policy and aggressively bullied me. This is not the conduct of an open and free project. Freedom does not necessarily mean you bbully ithers and treat them with disdain. You have the option to be kind and take a supportive and nurturing tact, and others are watching your actions and words. Haerdt (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we're at the point where this user is choosing not to hear what everyone is telling them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Haerdt, I mean this in good faith -- this request is ill-formed, illogical, and vexatious. I understand frustration, but please, withdraw this immediately and slow down. Rash editing is rarely the right move. Best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What a messed up report. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    But to be kind, I will take a supportive and nurturing tact. Haerdt, it is your personal responsibility to read and understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines before editing. I and other editors have repeatedly linked you to those policies - you need to read and comprehend them. Your repeated references to "free speech" are evidence that you have not - Wikipedia is expressly not a platform for free speech and therefore those words have no meaning on this project. We are here to build an encyclopedia based upon what is verifiable in reliable sources.
    It is verifiable in reliable sources that there was no significant electoral fraud in the 2020 American presidential election, and that Joseph R. Biden has been elected by the Electoral College as the 46th President of the United States. That you disagree with these conclusions is irrelevant - they're what reliable sources say, unanimously. You can either edit in compliance with those sources, or you can choose to edit other parts of the encyclopedia, or you can choose to depart from the project. Those are your choices. "Telling Wikipedia readers that the election was stolen and Donald Trump is the real president" is not one of those choices.
    Bishonen, NorthBySouthBerenof, and Doug Weller could have assisted with finding a legitimate source for the information I presented to the community - There is no "legitimate source" for the claim that there was any significant electoral fraud in the 2020 election or that any such fraud affected the outcome. That "information" is false, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Again, that you disagree with that conclusion is regrettable, but not solvable here. If you don't like Wikipedia's content policies, you have two choices: attempt to change those policies (good luck) or leave the project and find something more to your liking. You might try Conservapedia or Metapedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note This is not a 3RR report, and I am not going to take action. Haerdt, if you think your report has merit, you can present the situation, with diffs, at WP:ANI, but have in mind that likely not only actions of Bishonen but also your actions will be investigated.Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NorthbySouthBerenof continues to attack me and bully as seen above in his posts here. RealClearPolitics, a website that is not blacklisted or whitelisted from Wikipedia to my knowledge, yet, provides plenty of accounts of verifiable election fraud. I have linked it on the Talk page for Stop The Steal. Here is another link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/23/propaganda_election_fraud_and_the_death_of_journalism_144705.html -- I will read and understand all of the Wikipedia politics and guidelines that I can find. I have read the ones that i have been linked to by these other editors, in between dealing with their abuse and bullying. I am attempting to provide a legitimate, factual citation to real life world events from a source that is legitimate according to Wikipedia code (to my knowledge at this point in time) and I have been aggressively attacked and threatened by three editors - NorthbySouthBerenof, Bishonen, and Doug Weller. I am extremely frustrated, and I am engaging with you politely using all of the established community guidelines that I am aware of. I am not disagreeing with election results, as I have written before. I am linking to established, widely read, legitimate sources demonstrating verified election fraud that occurred. Ymblanter - thank you for your support. I will open complain at WP:ANI. I do not appreciate the abusive tone from these three editors and I believe that it goes against Wikipedia's purpose and spirit. Haerdt (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I read over the discussion at Stop the steal & TBH, I'm surprised you haven't been taken to WP:ANI. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ivanvector reported by User:Tognella99 (Result:Filer blocked)

    Page: David Prowse

    In co-operation with User:Eggishorn, this user has vandalized the David Prowse page by removing the information that he died of COVID-19 and deleting all sources that state this, while replacing them with others that use the euphemism "short illness". These users have abundantly engaged in WP:Gaming the system, namely:

    1) claiming that this information comes exclusively from The Sun and The Daily Mirror, whose use is discouraged by Wikipedia rules, when in reality there are far more sources claiming the same (and linked in the article, but removed by them) and quoting, among others (but not only), Prowse's own daughter;

    2) opening a discussion in the talk page about what should be reported as CoD; failing to reach a consensus; and then proceeding to change the CoD anyway and rolling back any attempts (by multiple users) to restore the old version while claiming that the matter is to be discussed in the talk page - while they should have waited for a consensus to be reached before changing the page in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tognella99 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The WP:NOTHERE is strong with this one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved user comment: I believe the reporting user needs to be blocked for failing to assume good faith, failing to assume the assumption of good faith and for edit warring. Case in point: they did not assume good faith when they said further vandalism will result in you being reported. when Ivanvector reverted one (1) time because they removed the use of a deprecated source (The Sun, which is listed as deprecated at WP:RSPSOURCES), on Wikipedia, which isn't vandalism by any means, nor should it be reported. They did not assume the assumption of good faith when they said show beyond doubt that you are in bad faith., that one is obvious. They also proceeded to edit war with three reverts in one day (20:42 December 31, 2020 20:43 December 31, 2020 00:12 January 1, 2021), and they have used edit summaries as their form of communication. Considering this was all on a WP:BLP, Ivanvector and Eggishorn are both exempt to 3RR per WP:3RRBLP. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 04:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Eggishorn reported by User:Tognella99 (Result:Filer blocked)

    Page: David Prowse

    In co-operation with User:Ivanvector, this user has vandalized the David Prowse page by removing the information that he died of COVID-19 and deleting all sources that state this, while replacing them with others that use the euphemism "short illness". These users have abundantly engaged in WP:Gaming the system, namely:

    1) claiming that this information comes exclusively from The Sun and The Daily Mirror, whose use is discouraged by Wikipedia rules, when in reality there are far more sources claiming the same (and linked in the article, but removed by them) and quoting, among others (but not only), Prowse's own daughter;

    2) opening a discussion in the talk page about what should be reported as CoD; failing to reach a consensus; and then proceeding to change the CoD anyway and rolling back any attempts to restore the old version while claiming that the matter is to be discussed in the talk page - while they should have waited for a consensus to be reached. --Tognella99 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    While I am amused that I could "abundantly engage" (sic) in anything at my age, this is self-evidently a feeble attempt to weaponize AN3 to settle a content dispute that is currently under discussion. I have made exactly one (1) revert without cooperation, collusion, or coordination with anyone. OP should be blocked for bad-faith reporting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Penepi reported by User:L1amw90 (Result: )

    Page: 2021 PDC World Darts Championship
    User being reported: User:Penepi





    Comments:
    this user is really getting on my nerves. If I add something into the page as a separate article, they will revert the edit, then I will revert it back to how it was when I added it, then they will revert it etc. This has been going on for quite some time now and I'm getting sick of it. I just don't understand what the problem is, and why they just can't leave it as it is. Can someone maybe look into this please. L1amw90 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The user responded to you at their talk page on 15 december, why have not you followed up?--Ymblanter (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what you mean? I don't see anything as to where I should follow up with really. But this edit/revert war is getting a joke now, and it seriously needs to stop before either/both of us end up getting blocked. L1amw90 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:L1amw90 reported by User:Penepi (Result: )

    Page: 2021 PDC World Darts Championship
    User being reported: L1amw90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comments:
    On the page above vandalism after final warning. The user in question is constantly grossly attacking me personally and harrassing me, obviously incapable of controlling his emotions. (diff) Simply put, we can't agree on placement of one (sub-)section within the article. However, the user behaves like the owner of the article, does not allow me to edit it and dictates to me what I can and cannot do. Regards. Penepi (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse me, but I am NOT vandalising the page, nor am I attacking or harassing you, so quit lying. I never said I was the owner of the article, but it seems you have a problem with how one particular section looks to the rest, and where was my "final warning"?. Neither you or anyone else on the above article in mention have issued any warnings. So that's another lie. Also, I have NOT said/done anything to dictate you in anyway. Jesus, how many lies just you come up with?! L1amw90 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As I provided above – (diff) – you are clearly attacking me. Or do you not consider this an insult? "Seriously, get a life and grow up you pathetic idiot". So you are either rude or you are deliberately and brazenly lying. Possibly both. Penepi (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And your point being? You clearly attacked me with the following: (diff) and you're trying to tell me that you DIDN'T aim an abuse at me? Also, would you care to explain this?..(diff) as I'm aware, this is clearly an attack on other users by simply slating them "mentally incapacitated idiots"?... L1amw90 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that was a reply to your insult that I mentioned above, and you know it. So no, I did not aim an abuse at you. It was absolutely justified given the content of your insult.
    Regarding your second point, I hope you are joking. On the opposite, I was defending other readers and telling you to stop making them idiots. Please learn to read with understanding. But this is getting awkward. Obviously you are incapable of having a decent and constructive discussion, so I would end it here. Administrators - or whoever is in charge of these disputes - will be able to evaluate the facts themselves. Penepi (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not incapable of anything, it's you who has an issue with me. All I'm trying to do is assume good faith by adding a completely new section into a separate article, but you keep going behind me and undoing it for no reason. I've told you multiple times about it being the same on 2020 PDC World Darts Championship but you just keep ignoring the fact that it has to be under the draw section etc, whereas if it has its own section, it is much easier to find and less confusing, but no, you just won't have it. Anyway, I'm not going to keep arguing on a page what doesn't even concern neither me or you. If you want to discuss it further, then we can discuss it on our talk pages. L1amw90 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: )

    Page: Antifa (United States)
    User being reported: MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [22]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [23]
    2. [24]
    3. [25]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

    Comments:

    A number of editors have been working constructively and collaboratively on this article, then suddenly because of one disruptive editor we all get blocked from editing (other than admins). Doesn't seem fair to me, surely the fair response is to block the disruptive editor user:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken not arbitrarily block everyone other than admins. Bacondrum (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GuruAskew reported by User:Sro23 (Result: )

    Page: Max Landis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 03:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC) "Self-published."
    2. 03:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC) "The article doesn’t say that, nor does it suffice as proof of current activity"
    3. 03:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 997970941 by Sro23 (talk)"
    4. 03:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC) "The burden of proof is on you. There’s no evidence that he has a future as a professional writer."
    5. 03:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 997968068 by Jorm (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 03:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Max Landis."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This isn't the first time the user has edit-warred on Max Landis (see [28], [29]) over years active. See also similar edit warring on Blake Jenner last year ([30] [31] [32]). User has a long history of trolling and disruption (see this diff directed toward me). Suggest a NOTHERE block. Sro23 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sro23 is a little pussy

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=997973991"