Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Skyerise reported by User:Asarlaí (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous!
• Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal
• Talk:Witchcraft#Requested_move_19_July_2023
• Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:
I don't like having to do this, but Skyerise keeps making sweeping changes against consensus, while discussion is ongoing. They removed the longstanding section about Wicca three times. Having failed to keep it removed, they began simply deleting the statement that malevolent magic is "the most common and widespread meaning" of "witchcraft", along with the five high-quality academic sources supporting it (see here). I undid that, they removed the sentence again, I restored it, then they removed it again. Also, Skyerise and Randy Kryn seem to be planning to tag-team on this article so they can keep pushing their POV without breaking 3RR. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I did do some self-reverts that don't seem to have been included. Voluntarily taking 48 hours away from this particular article and its redirects. Hope that is sufficient remorse. Thanks Asarlaí for bringing my overage to my attention. Skyerise (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Another relevant link is when @Skyerise removed a comment asking them to stop. Explanation for that? El Wikipedian (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

How is that relevant? It's well established that users may remove warnings from their talk page. It's my regular practice to do so, and I always comment "read" or "ackknowledged" when I do so. Skyerise (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure...you are allowed to...but its a tad odd to do in the middle of discussion here...it just feels a bit shady...like your trying to hide something. You did not comment read or ackknowledged (and id be surprised if you always commented with a typo). @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take a closer look at the chronology. I removed that comment an hour before this complaint was opened. Also, I don't believe I made any reverts after that warning either. Skyerise (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Having read the missive, and responded to it calmly in an edit summary (indicating that it had been read, and offering an explanation), the editor was perfectly within their rights to remove the message from their own user talk page. Also see WP:GOODFAITH. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by involved admin: Look at her block log. Skyerise has been blocked for this behaviour many times before. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd like to say that since those blocks that I've realized that a collegial atmosphere is way superior to a battleground attitude. I admit that I lost count, and if my reverts hadn't already been reverted, I would do that now. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for leniency from involved editor: Skyerise is a thoughtful, sensible, knowledgeable, resourceful, studious, intelligent, approachable, and pleasant editor who has made a great many useful contributions across so many articles. I think perhaps her errant behaviour might be a measure of her frustration in the face of concerted, and at times adversarial, opposition. She has initiated and engaged in discussions on the article talk page.

Ask yourself which is the more collegial, if errant:

• "remove the primary example of systemic bias; this is also not cited correctly - it is not sufficient to provide five citation to prove "most widespread now", it would require say a linguistic survey, etc" (Skyerise).
• Or "what the hell is this?" (Asarlaí).
• Or "establish that most reliable academic sources don't consider malevolence part of the definition of witchcraft, but rather a stereotype projected by others" (Skyerise).
• Or "unexplained removal of detail supported by numerous academic sources" (Asarlaí).
• Or "NOT removed, rather QUALIFIED" (Skyerise).
• Or "Skyerise, respect the consensus we've reached through this process." (CorbieVreccan).

For essential context, see:

• Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Colapsing, sockpuppet making trouble. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I disagree, there seems to be a repeated pattern of edit warring here @Esowteric El Wikipedian (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Do review the blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." How would a block be preventative if I have admitted my fault and voluntarily stopped editing the article for 48 hours? Are there complaints of me edit-warring on any other articles at this time? I am certainly open to suggestions that 48 hours is not enough, but there is currently no disruption being caused that needs to be prevented. Are you suggesting that blocks are punitive rather than preventative as policy dictates. Skyerise (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC) To prevent you from going back and doing it again maybe @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I'd think you'd have to establish that that was likely. I do actually do my best not to edit war. Sometimes I mess up. In the past, when I've messed up I've argued about it, so I got blocked. That didn't work very well so I am happy to freely admit that I messed up and even voluntarily discipline myself. I really think you'd have to show that my admission or self-discipline are insincere and that I have some grand plan to engage in intentional edit-warring the moment my self-imposed discipline expires. Do you have evidence that that is the case? Skyerise (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I believe that as sincere as they might be you continue to edit war @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) So you have no evidence to present to support that belief, then. Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I have a pattern of edit warring and your block log@Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) For a newbie, you sure seem to have done your homework. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Ive been reading on wikipedia for years @Esowteric El Wikipedian (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) And I've had several harassing stalkers over the years, mostly IP editors, but sometimes they make accounts to hide their location, since their locations are known. Skyerise (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Are you suggesting hat im stalking you!? Im not btw. I just like to read wikipedia. relax. @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I didn't make any such suggestion, but since you bring it up, one of your early edits was to edit the article Sky-Watcher. Here's the diff. Skyerise (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Sorry, that was my fault. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Umm...how is that related. Also I found that from the user homepage @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Oh, I admit it is probably not related, but my most aggressive stalker would use "Sky" or "Skye" in their user names and also edit related articles so I would know it was them. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Skyerise (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the actual reports? All but two of my blocks are from 2015 or before. There are only two recent ones, and I admit I was heated at the time and argued and deserved to be blocked. But in none of the cases did I actually go back and edit war on the same article immediately after the block expired, so why would I do so when I am voluntarily refraining. Block logs actually tell one very little, and the actual context is hard to extricate. It's all situational. Skyerise (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Esowteric, edit-warring with what reads to you like a "polite" or "collegial" edit summary is still edit-warring. When people disrupt with a smiling face it can actually be more disturbing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I followed a notice on Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias[7] to find what is apparently a perennial concern (raised with various levels of quality) being dismissed[8] along with attempts to add some semblance of balance to a main space topic.[9] Since I have engaged on the topic it appears @User:Asarlaí and @User:CorbieVreccan have sought to wp:tag team the subject and target me.[10] I feel they have sought to wp:own the page[11][12][13] and broadly influence Wikipedia to indicate their particular point of view[14] while accusing others of the same, misusing policy,[15] and doing so with cover of adminship[16]. It seems like I for one am having to make almost every edit twice because I'm essentially guaranteed to be reverted regardless of how basic the edit is,[17] or how well sourced.[18][19].

Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me at this point to see one of these two make a formal accusation against another editor in this dispute. The fact it's @User:Skyerise, who I felt had largely tried to be relatively measured on the issue, is surprising. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

DD, all of this is irrelevant to Skyerise's 3RR violation. You have been very disruptive on these articles, and people have talked about it and warned you. That's what we do here. Do you understand that this is the edit-warring board? Skyerise violated the edit-warring/3RR policy, and has admitted it. Are you saying you think that it's fine to repeatedly violate policy in your quest to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that you and Asarlai have repeatedly edit warred and more in your attempt wp:own the article and to shut down collaborative processes to make improvements. While User:Skyerise's violations may be problematic, I was under the impression that admins are supposed to be at a higher standard of conduct - not flout policy more egregiously. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: Skyerise is back to hitting undo on Witchcraft. I made a minor tweak to a sentence to make it less unwieldy, and she hit undo, with a bizarre and misleading edit summary: ([Undid revision 1166785522 by CorbieVreccan (talk) let's not interrupt the collaborative process which is how we arrive at a new consensus; improve, don't revert). I don't think she's able to stop. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Note : CorbieVreccan neglects to mention that I reverted a revert that undid all of this morning's collaboration by other editors or that they themselves executed this revert. Also, my voluntary 48 hour withdrawal is over. Skyerise (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted no one. I tweaked a sentence to remove excess verbiage and a word that I don't see in the sourcing. I did not change any meanings. You are the one who hit undo. This is ridiculous. You clearly can't be trusted to voluntarily restrain yourself. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting again for another 24 hours. That's not an edit war. Just because your revert was a partial revert doesn't make it not a revert. Nor does it mean you are edit-warring. (or does it?) Skyerise (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

In the lede, one contentious sentence now has seven citations back-to-back. Skyerise quite rightly tagged that as "excessive citations" and was promptly reverted by CorbieVreccan with the edit summary, "The lede has a lot of cites because they were demanded to prove the most common definition. Flagging as over-cited is a common POV push move, because the next move would be to wait and then say it's not sufficiently sourced. All anyone has to do is wade through talk and they will see why every one of the cites is there. The flag was disruptive and I have removed it."

This is not collegial, it is an example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I have pointed out that to avoid an "excessive citations" tag, they can be grouped together: ref *cite1 *cite2 ... /ref, with the bullet points each on a new line. Or pruned. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That makes his second revert. Any removal is always a revert of the editor who added the tag or material, even if combined with other edits. Skyerise (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup: Skyerise merely reverted after a whole heap of people changed and reverted and re-changed that part of the lede, and she used the edit summary "let's not interrupt the collaborative process which is how we arrive at a new consensus; improve, don't revert". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Note about sockpuppet: User:El_Wikipedian. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I collapsed that entire tangent. I’ll let another admin answer this ANEW since I’m doing CU stuff here. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Dangdude11 reported by User:Raladic (Result: Page protected)

Page: 2023 Bud Light boycott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dangdude11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral. This edit has been discussed at length for days and no sources have been shown to justify the characterization. Advocates for the current language are injecting opinons."
2. 12:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I added a statement characterizing the outlets that referred to the backlash as “left wing”, given their left wing bias. I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
3. 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
4. 01:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is pushing their WP:POV on a marked contentious topic and despite warnings on the article talk page then went today immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status and multiple times tried to edit and was subsequently reverted, passing 3rr. Raladic (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the article is not in compliance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Despite much discussion on the topic, no one can point to any reliable source. I was not warned about this Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule until just now. Dangdude11 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The topic is clearly marked as a contentious topic on the article talk page, which comes with extra warnings for users before editing. You should familiarize yourself with them before making edits.

It also doesn’t look like your exchanges on the talk page have been particularly constructive as multiple users have refuted your claims and promptly reverted your edit (which you made immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status to even make them - which may be further seen as a way to WP:GAMING the system) as well.

The article protection was now raised under the arbcom enforcement for WP:GENSEX to avoid further disruption. Raladic (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel that you reported me because of a viewpoint that you are advancing. You say that I have been “refuted” in the talk page, but no one can point to a source that supports their position, even by their own admission. In any event, I don’t plan on making any more edits to the page as Wikipedia is showing a systemic bias towards a partisan viewpoint as evidenced by your partial comments here. Dangdude11 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I had included another comment quoting rules for interacting with new editors and for some reason it disappeared. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

"Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value."

"Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value."

"If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well."

"Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!"

"Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not."

I would think that someone who has been around a while would be aware of these rules and should follow them. I indicated that I wasnt aware of the rules and you assumed bad faith.

I am also adding in this exception to the warring policy that justifies my actions

"Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

The material I removed and was reported for removing was obviously biased. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  I request an appeal of this decision. My actions were based in part upon not having a full grasp of the rules. I also think my actions are supported by an exception to the three revert rule.

  I did not realize there was such an ideological bias at Wikipedia either. In the future I will be more careful to avoid offending entrenched viewpoints to the point where they feel the need to arbitrarily report me without discussion. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  See above where I was gently guided regarding the characterization of an edit as minor and havent made the same mistake again. That did not happen in this case. I was not made aware of the rules and therefore no sanction is warranted. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:93.159.183.71 reported by User:Wikipedialuva (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Planetary science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.159.183.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166697746 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism by editor who is spamming my talk page with dishonest templates"
2. 06:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166697647 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism"
3. 06:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166696676 by The Herald (talk) yes, do that"
4. 06:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166630757 by GeogSage (talk) user clearly just dislikes IP edits. no convincing rationale for including this material"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Planetary science."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly blanked their usertalk as well. Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This user has no interest in the content of the page. They have made zero edits to the article or its talk page. They obviously haven't made any attempt to resolve the "dispute", because they have no interest in it. They are merely hoping to "bag" a block. I find such behaviour to be inherently disruptive. Editors should edit to improve articles; this editor is not doing that. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The irrelevant comment that I have removed comments from my own talk page is also malicious in intent. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user: This IP editor sounds a lot like WP:LTA/BKFIP. Sharing the same characteristics of edit warring, arguing in edit summaries, subtly attacking other editors, and removing warnings from their talk pages as previous BKFIPs I have seen and dealt with in the past (e.g. see this archived ANI thread). — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Total nonsense by an editor I have never encountered before, who also has no interest in the content of the article, and whose intent seems to be purely to disrupt. They also clearly do not understand WP:OWNTALK. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, didn't know about the category Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Active. Impressive that you can actually recognize individuals like that. Reading the messages you linked does sound quite a bit like the guest user being discussed in this thread. They immediately assumed my first revert was because they were an IP user, ignoring that as the one who wrote some of what they deleted, I might have legitimate objections. That hostility was a bit of a surprise. Interesting to see this might be an infamous user I crossed paths with. I hope they can stop being hostile to differing viewpoints, as they do seem to be a bit knowledgeable. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This vandal continues to violate WP:3RR on Planetary Science. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:87.6.189.15 reported by User:SpaceEconomist192 (Result: Both blocked)

Pages: User talk:SpaceEconomist192 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Regional power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.6.189.15 (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:

• User talk:SpaceEconomist192:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]

• Regional power:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]
6. [31]
7. [32]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:
IP user consistently making disruptive edits to the regional power article, was already previously blocked under a different IP for the exact same behaviour, after getting his actions reversed the IP then proceeds to edit my talk page, which I revert and the IP reverts back and a loop begins. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 09:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:24.7.128.156 reported by User:Psychologist_Guy (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Arnold Ehret (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.7.128.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [40]

Comments:
IP is repeatedly removing reliable sources from the lead. This seems to be POV editing as the IP wants reliable sources removed that criticize Arnold Ehret's pseudoscientic views. The IP is making false edit summaries such as claiming "false information" and "vandalism". The IP does not engage on the talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Varoon2542 reported by User:SashiRolls (Result: )

Page: Killing of Nahel Merzouk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Varoon2542 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: not sure what is being asked here. 9 July, 18 July, status quo ante: 23 July

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 12:13 23 July
• 12:49 23 July
• 12:55 23 July
• 13:32 23 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
request to undo their 4th revert and to remove personal attacks from talk pages: 23 July,
link to their deletion on 23 July of the previous warning (19 July): [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19 July, 15 July
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:
Insofar as there are claims of edit-warring on three different pages this month on this user's talk page, as well as a very clear habit of making personal attacks, it seemed to me best to file this report. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I)

User:SashiRolls was previously banned from Wikipedia

He was unbanned on the 15th of January 2023 on the condition of staying away from conflict

To quote User:ScottishFinnishRadish

"Stay away from anything contentious, and stay away from any conflict. I suggest you self-impose 0rr, and unwatchlist and leave any article where you're involved in any conflict. You have vanishingly little rope left, and many that supported the unban also made it clear that this would be the last chance."

To quote User:Starship.paint

"Welcome back. Now, please, no more comments on your opponents. Stay away from anything remotely controversial. I very much hope I made the right decision to vote to unban"

User:Jusdafax, User:Buffs, User:Objective3000 might want to confirm

II)

I have participated on the talk page of the article "The killing of Nahel Merzouk" at the request of User:SashiRolls

Nobody else has. It seems there is Wikipedia:Silence and consensus on the [version] of the introduction.

To have a proper idea of the issue. I highly recommend to read the explanations given for the edits and what has been discussed on the talk page

Him calling me the (Indian) person was deemed as irrelevant and inappropriate by User:Starship.paint and was asked not to repeat the ethnic slur by user:Nil Einne

III)

[[43]] Here is the talk page of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, the other article he is mentioning and where he isn't involved. As you can see, a discussion is already taking place.

IV)

Contrary to User:SashiRolls, I've never been banned from Wikipedia even if some have very quickly sent me warnings when it's not in my habit to do so.

The only time, I was seriously bothered. The editor who did so, Satrar, was ultimately himself/herself banned from Wikipedia ZLEA can confirm

Before any decision is taken, I would just like everyone to have a look at the edits made by User:SashiRolls and me and judge who's warring and who is reverting what can be qualified as activism if not vandalism

I'm tired Varoon2542 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

[44] people from Harigaon in Bhojpur district, the ancestral village of Ramgoolam, however, rejected the claim and said he was a Koiree, a backward caste considered lower on the caste ladder than Kurmis. Their argument: Mohit Ramgoolam, the grandfather of the Mauritian Prime Minister who had migrated from the village was called Mohit Mahto before he went and Mahtos are Koirees.

User Varoon has some WP:CIR issue, as I can guess from Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. The above quote is from a good source (Indian express newspaper is considered WP:RS). Now this source tells us that caste of Seeosagar Ramgoolam was Koeri as claimed by his native villagers. However other source, put by user there says that he was Kurmi. Now as per policies, we need to put both views. But this user is doing WP: SYNTHESIS on the basis of another source which says that on island of Mauritius Koeri and Kurmi both are denoted by term 'vaish'. So he is completely ommiting the reference of Koeri origin and putting only one view by joining both sources himself. I tried to discuss on talk page of article, but he is probably not aware of WP:3RR and WP:AGF, continuosly edit warring on that article[45] without reply. He even neglected the advice of two admins [46] and continuously reverting it, this user should be banned.-Admantine123 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Varoon2542: While SashiRolls's comment on you was unacceptable, it's been removed and AFAIK SashiRolls has never repeated it. In any case, even if they did, the place to deal with that would be at WP:ANI not here. It seems clear that you've broken 3RR so I strongly suggest you self revert. Neither SashiRoll's previous comment on you nor anything else you mentioned is an excuse for a bright line violation. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw that I was pinged in this discussion. You don't need me to confirm that Satrar was blocked (not banned, there is a difference) as a sockpuppet. I know nothing about this dispute, so I'll stay out of this discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Just commenting since I came across this due to the ping, AFAICT, the first diff shows an edit not a revert so it's not a bright line violation. I'm not sure if even the second edit is a revert. Of course the lack of a bright line violation doesn't prevent sanction for edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously inaccurate. Admins are encouraged to ignore this erroneous statement. All four reverts are the same reverts that Varoon2542 has been repeatedly making since 9 July (in the case of the lede) and 16 July (in the case of the Ivan Rioufol op-ed being mentioned in the body), restoring his preferred text verbatim. It is to be noted that CNews has been warned by the French audiovisual regulatory body for failing to respect its "obligation to honesty and rigor in the presentation and treatment of the news" as a result of this same Rioufol. (Cf. CNews) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you're right I am mistaken. I got confused since you linked to a "status quo ante" version as the previous version. But this is not what the editor is reverting to which we would expect in that field but instead is what the editor is reverting against (which is unimportant since it can be seen in the diffs). Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, like I said, I didn't understand what I was being asked there. Basically, the main problem is the use of "French people of Arabo-Islamic background" which Varoon2542 has edit-warred into the lede a shocking number of times now, despite the term not being used in any sources. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Sutyarashi reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Khanate of Kalat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sutyarashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [54]

Comments:

The content dispute here is regarding whether the Khanate of Kalat remained under the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire. User Sutyarashi does not regard the sources in my dispute well, and even warns me of 3:RR despite them fringing it themselves as you can see in this diff, [55]. They also were not truthful in quoting text from different sources such as in Iranica. You can see on the talk page where I concluded that Sutyarashi was not being truthful about their quotes, such as this Iranica citation they added on the page, claiming that it attained independence after the rebellion, you can see the diff here: [56] However, after looking into the source, it says this:

""Because Aḥmad Shah needed Naṣīr’s support elsewhere, the new treaty was more equal. The khanate no longer paid tribute or maintained a force at Qandahār. Instead, Kalat provided a fighting force only when the Afghans fought outside their kingdom, and then the khan would be provided with money and ammunition. The new treaty was sealed by a pledge of loyalty to Qandahār and the marriage of the khan’s niece to Aḥmad Shah Abdālī’s son. In the settlement with Qandahār the final accommodation was that the shah gave Naṣīr the title of beglarbegī while the khan recognized him as suzerain." [57]

This very clearly stated that they were still in the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire and this user was not being truthful. Noorullah (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, some of the sources added may fail WP:RS on their behalf, such as the one from Taj Mohammad Breseeg, and another one of his sources, under Siddiqi, makes no mention of Kalat still holding independence after the rebellion, it even says that the rebellion was subdued by Ahmad Shah. Other sources like Jonathan Lee and Ashiq elaborate that Kalat was in the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire which you can see on the talk page discussion I linked. [58] Noorullah (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In another diff, this user reverted my edits because it said that Kalat declared independence in 1758. That wasn't what the dispute was about, the dispute was about the rebellion having been settled in an agreement in which Kalat re-entered Afghan suzerainty. I believe this shows initially that the user was not properly taking into consideration the edits I added, you can see the diff here, and claimed the citations I added only supported their argument, despite it very clearly stating that the Khanate of Kalat remained in Durrani suzerainty. (per the quotes I added, and on the talk page references) [59] Noorullah (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This user has also had run ins with edit warring before, such as at [60] in the edit warring subsection.

I'm not sure if this is of further concern, but they were found to be a sockpuppet as seen here [61] per this investigation diff: [62], which if I am not wrong in, should be an indefinite block, and not a 1 week one? You can also see it in their block logs. [63] Noorullah (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Aoidh since they appear to be handling this. See the above for a possible sockpuppet issue. Noorullah (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours . Both editors have violated 3RR. Sutyarashi with the diffs above, and Noorullah21 by undoing (in part) the vassalage wording added by Sutyarashi and then making 3 reverts back-and-forth with [64][65][66]. Per WP:EW The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Aoidh (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also as a note, the SPI from a year-and-a-half ago was resolved at that time the way the blocking administrator felt appropriate; per Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Blocking there is no requirement for an indefinite block for the "main" account. The SPI is not relevant. - Aoidh (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment - I have also unblocked both editors as they have agreed to not make any reverts on that article for at least the next 24 hours, and to discuss on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Calbruce67 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Takbir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Calbruce67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Usage in Islamic rituals */ Eleven functions of the use of 'Allah Akbar'"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) to 03:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "CAIR would be so pleased with Wikipedia advising the world that 'Allah Akbar' is just a cinematic trope."
   2. 23:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Beall's List is discredited. The Journal of Academic Librarianship has confirmed Beall's bias against OA journals."
   3. 23:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Wikipedia can no longer be trusted says co-founder Larry Sanger."
   4. 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Wikipedia is anachronistic says AI."
   5. 02:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Usage by extremists and terrorists */ The New Crusades: Islamophobia and the Global War on Muslims"
   6. 03:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Adding cite"
3. 13:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Sorry - read the discussion."
4. 13:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "No no! The agreements following the Talk-Discussion are to: 1. Not to include these issues in the Lede and 2. Not to reference specific instances in the text. This highly, RS, inclusion does not conflict with those agreements in the Talk-Discussion."
5. Consecutive edits made from 09:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) to 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 09:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society position"
   2. 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "MOS:ALLAH"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Warning: Edit warring on Takbir. */"
2. 13:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit warring to impose the UNDUE POV */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This "new editor" who keeps edit warring over their POV refuses to join the discussion (despite multiple invites to do so: in the edit summaries, a ping from the TP and a clear message left on their own TP just to make sure that all the bases are covered). Their edit summaries about Wikipedia speaks for themselves. In their last edit, they restored their previous edit which was removed here (by Austronesier, who left a valid explanation on the TP, again ignored by Calbruce67). It's also obvious that Calbruce67 is not "new" given their use of the usual wiki jargon (RS, etc.) that only experienced editors would be familiar with. M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I may be overlooking it, but I see where numbers 1, 3, and 4 above are obvious reverts but I don't see what numbers 2 and 5 are reverts of. @M.Bitton: can you help me out and point out what those diffs are reverts of? - Aoidh (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I don't know if the other two are obvious reverts or no, but one thing is certain, they keep targetting the same section with the same UNDUE POV and refuse to discuss the issue (leaving the others with no choice but to either revert them or let their POV stand). M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Examining number 2, it's obviously just another attempt at introducing the views of International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society (which was reverted previously). M.Bitton (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I don't see an outright 3RR violation but even outside of the above diffs there is a lot of edit warring for an account with only 18 edits, and not a single use of a talk page of any kind. Aoidh (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Martdj reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166958526 by MrOllie (talk) Stop this. Your behavior is unworthy of a Wikipedia editor. This paragraph has no place in this article."
2. 20:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166952721 by Newimpartial (talk) This is poorly sourced contentious content. I've explained why in the talk section. Following guidelines, I've removed it. Please, don't undo, but actually discuss."
3. 20:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166918736 by Reshadp (talk) by Wikipedia policy => 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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
4. 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) (IP edit) "Removed a defaming paragraph with false claims. The given reference is full of errors and lacks any credibility. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Not a political bulletin. I suggest that the author of the removed paragraph refrains from trying to push his political views and using Wikipedia for this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Proposed statement */ Reply"

Comments:

Profringe edit warring on COVID-19 related article. IP address is obviously the same user, so including that revert as well. MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Martdj (Result: )

Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Template:MrOllie

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:59, 24 July 2023‎ MrOllie talk contribs‎ 30,910 bytes +744‎ Reverted 1 edit by Martdj (talk): Stop edit warring to delete properly sourced content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [70]

Comments:

Wikipedia's policy states that when 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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In accordance with this policy, I removed a paragraph which clearly matched this description and opened a discussion. MrOllie, regretfully, is not up for discussion and hides behind the domain of his source, claiming that his source is credible only on the pretence of the domain that it's hosted on, despite the fact that in the talk section multiple people have already pointed out serious flaws in his source. Also, scientific studies contradict his source. He refuses to discuss further and immediately reinstated the old version with the disputed paragraph, violating Wikipedia's policy on contentious material.

I picked up this matter as recently someone described Martin Kulldorff to me as untrustworthy, basing his opinion solely on this single paragraph in his Wikipedia article. It shows how important correct wording is in this matter.