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 Oea the King (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 19 October 2020. 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:Addicted4517 reported by User:Walwal20 (Result: protected, Walwal20 blocked for 24 hours following protection expiry)

    Page: Hartley Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Addicted4517 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hartley_Jackson&oldid=983278668

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    (same problem in The Mighty Don't Kneel [6] [7] [8] [9] [10])

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
    This is one of the complex cases.

    • [11] the general discussion begins here, in the AfD
    • [12] discussion on whether Hartley was a member of The Mighty Don't Kneel begins here
    • and continues in the talk page here [13]

    Comments:
    I tried working as a third opinion (maybe non-neutral; I had voted delete and later keep on the AfD) after Jammo85 asked for guidance in properly sourcing the article. The reverts actually began earlier [14] and [15]. After this last revert, I took some time to research the topic, the results are all in User:Walwal20/RfC_Hartley_Jackson. The RfC also contains Addicted's arguments against. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 10:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The complainer is trying to seek allowance for sources that are under WP policy not reliable, and inserting unrelated innuendo (per Melbourne City Wrestling) to back his case. Walwa refers to his draft RfC and has completely ignored the points I have made. His latest excuse is WP:BLPSELFPUB in which he seeks exceptions when in fact the sources are indeed unduly self serving and there is doubt as to it's authenticity. For example the Twitter tweet relies on original research to establish some sort of connection where none is proven. As it stands presently based purely on WP policy, Hartley Jackson was never a member of The Might Don't Kneel and my reversions are wholly acceptable to maintain this in the absence of appropriate, neutral (per the core rule of WP:BLP and independent. All of the sources violate the last one in particular. There is considerable controversy over the claim which is why sources have to be the appropriate ones. I believe I have done nothing wrong and at this point I am only reverting what amounts to vandalism of both articles. It is not unreasonable to expect appropriate sources, especially in BLP's. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Additional re Alaxa Bliss edits - Wrestlinginc is listed at WP:PW/Sources as not reliable. This is due to their use of people who are listed as unreliable. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems like a rather complex content dispute. In my opinion it may have been better to seek more input on the wrestling project first before doing an ANI.★Trekker (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This ANI is not about the content dispute, it's about the violation to WP:3RR. If you're outnumbered, you should never keep reverting others. The content will be discussed in the post that you mentioned, which was created by me, even though Addicted should have been the one to do it, since he's outnumbered. Addicted does not want consensus, he wants to enforce his view only. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 06:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, @*Treker:. You are correct to call in assistance for what is definitely a content dispute. Note also that Walwa is trying to use pure numbers (two vs one) to overcome clear policy issues with their edits that I am rightly reverting. I would like a consensus, but when policy points are totally ignored this becomes impossible. Policy will always trump numbers and I do not feel restrained by numbers when policy is not being held to. It's called being bold in the firm belief in the absence of any contrary information enforces my actions as correct. Perhaps there has been a touch of edit warring, but when one is faced with edits that is totally ignoring policy it constitutes vandalism, and that is a valid exception to 3RR (along with the fact that I never reverted more than three times in 24 hours). Now that both pages have been protected with my version in place perhaps the content can be addressed properly and finally per policy. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Addicted4517, it is not clear policy issues, and you have myself, Jammo85 and DrewieStewie [20] against you. You placed your ego and beliefs above WP:CONSENSUS. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 08:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes it is policy issues because now three users are claiming the sources are reliable when it is clear according to policy that they are not, as I explained fully on your RfC draft. You are yet to fully explain how these notes are not correct through policy. That is why we do not have a consensus and as long as you persist with this line there will never be one - and that's a bad thing. Instead of POV pushing to get your way, discuss the issue on your draft RfC. Start by showing in policy how I am incorrect. It's a simple task. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected by someone else --slakr\ talk / 07:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Slakr. I was the one who requested protection here, specifically so that there is time for this ANI to be answered. Can you not make it the result of this ANI, please? Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Noting that I am here because of User talk:GorillaWarfare#Little help (permalink). The page protection seems to have addressed the edit war for the moment, so now is the time to try to come to an agreement on the article talk page. While Addicted4517 would probably have been better off requesting admin intervention rather than continuing to revert the edits themself, I do not see the need for additional admin intervention here. I'm personally sympathetic to Addicted4517's request for reliable, independent sources to verify the contested claim about a BLP. Surely there are sources besides Facebook pages and blogs that could be used? If you are unable to reach an agreement among the three of you, WP:3O might be useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've also restored the "Result: protected" that was removed by Walwal20. Walwal20, you're welcome to continue the discussion even after the discussion has had a result recorded, but please don't remove the result that another user has recorded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      GorillaWarfare, "Surely there are sources besides Facebook pages and blogs that could be used?" really offends me in many ways. I went to extra miles, at Jammo85's request, to find archived official sources such as [21], let alone [22] [23] and [24], which are not social media sources. Addicted is focusing on social media specifically to manipulate your opinion, and you have fell for it. The whole story is told User:Walwal20/RfC_Hartley_Jackson, together with Addicted's comments, if you want to take a look.
      Finally, this ANI is not a discussion of sources, it is a discussion of a violation of WP:3RR, which has not been addressed yet (could very much close it as no violation was observed, or something of the sorts, if you will). Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 04:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @GorillaWarfare:, I think this comment clearly shows the lack of good faith in this ANI. He is now casting aspersions against both of us (especially me) in a vain attempt to garner sympathy over sources that are not reliable for reasons I have already addressed - to be honest this is close to a violation of WP:NPA. This matter is about a content dispute, not 3RR which I never violated anyway per the limits mentioned. EW is of course beyond that, but the core is the said content dispute. Further, there has been a development on the talk page of Hartley Jackson that also has an effect on the TMDK article. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a noticeboard on Edit warring and 3RR, so yes it is about WP:3RR/warring. If it happened or not, that should be something for the admins to judge. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 07:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Edit warring happened, it's been addressed, and now it's time for you to come to an agreement on the content of the page so that when the protection expires this doesn't reoccur and result in sanctions. It might be worth seeking outside input on the acceptability of the sourcing, since it appears you can't agree. Moving that draft RfC to the article talk page and filing it as an official RfC seems like a reasonable choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @GorillaWarfare: I regret to advise that the moment the page became unprotected, Walwa promptly re-started the problem without a consensus on the talk page. I have warned him formally on his talk page and if he reverts again without discussing it appropriately I will be returning here and starting a new report. Just a heads up. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Addicted4517: Feel free to notify me directly if it happens again. @Walwal20: consider this a warning: achieve consensus FIRST, then make the agreed-upon edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi GorillaWarfare, there is consensus. The discussion has been up since 27 September, and there are walls and walls of discussion already. There must be a limit to discussions where unanimity cannot be achieved (Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not unanimity). I intend to revert per support of Walwal20 at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, Jammo85 at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, SeosiWrestling at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, HHH Pedrigree at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, DrewieStewie at User_talk:DrewieStewie, Ravenswing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 07:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no consensus. Most of the users only provided sources and did nothing else. The reversion is against instruction from an admin. I will leave that there. Action should now be taken, and in order to preserve the page against another edit war I will hold on reverting myself for now. The current edit on both Jackson and TMDK as it stands contains unreliable sources and should be removed with the claims they are attached to. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If consensus had been achieved, as you claim, there would not have been a need for intervention at this noticeboard. I have Blocked Walwal20 for 24 hours for continuing the edit war against my express warning. I don't understand why you have chosen to continue edit warring rather than moving your draft RfC to be live, so you can gain formal consensus with outside opinions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:36.71.139.150 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: User:Danu Widjajanto/Vandal Langsa Log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 36.71.139.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983598223 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) TW Tidak Vandal Langsa Log"
    2. 04:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983597986 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
    3. 04:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 3 edit by 983597702 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
    4. 04:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 983293565 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 04:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs on User:Danu Widjajanto/Vandal Langsa Log."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    User:159.146.14.20 and User:159.146.10.13 reported by User:Cardace (Result: )

    Page: Sandboxie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 159.146.14.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 159.146.10.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [25]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [33]
    2. [34]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

    Comments:

    For 2 months now, this user has been using multiple IP addresses in order to continually vandalize the article.

    In addition, this user actually used one IP address to delete the warning from the other IP address' talk page (see last Diffs of the user's reverts: above), which is vandalism on its own.

    User:LordRogalDorn reported by User:Borsoka (Result: )

    Page: Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: LordRogalDorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [36]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [37]
    2. [38]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39], [40] (edit summary)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He was already blocked for the same reason. He was explained why his edits were problematic. I think he is unable to understand one of our basic policies even if three editors from three countries try to explain him in three different way. Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    As I explained user Borsoka here: [[41]]. I was blocked for a different reason. It was not the edit itself, but the fact that I did not mention I made that edit in the absence of explicit opposition [[42]]. "you could have left a note on the article's talk page that, in the absence of explicit opposition, in a few days you would have repeated the edit. If you had done any of those things, I would not have blocked you". The Admin did not say that my edits were problematic. In fact, the admin said [[43]]: "The point is not that you were right or wrong on the merits, the point is that, when your edits are reverted, you should discuss and find consensus, rather than simply keep reverting back". I was temporarly banned strictly because of the edit warring (not mentioning I'm reverting back after days of silence from the other user), it was not a temporarly ban based on vandalism and disruptive editing.
    Meanwhile, another user took my old edits and reposted them [[44]], user Borsoka opposed him just like he opposed me [[45]], but that user quoted a part of the policy "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" (WP:PRIMARY) and turns out he was right [[46]], then user Borsoka made no further objections and did not oppose his edits for 15 days, so my original edits remained part of the article and became the new status quo.
    As it stands right now, user Borsoka is undoing the status quo version arguing "OR", when in fact the content he tries to remove is sourced.
    1.Last status quo version: [[47]]
    2.Borsoka's first revert: [[48]]
    3.My revert of his revert: [[49]]
    4.Borsoka's second revert: [[50]]
    5.My second revert of his revert: [[51]]
    6.LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I need to comment on the above message? I think it is clear: WP:NOTHERE. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does the WP:NOTHERE come from? I didn't have bad intention in either cases. In the former case, as I mentioned, user Borsoka stopped replying on the talk page. After a few days I assumed he dropped the conversation and reverted the edits. The rest was explained above, the point I'm trying to make is that I didn't know that I have to mention 'in the absence of explicit opposition' as I thought it was evident from the talk page. Then, the status quo version was the one enforced by Borsoka, I was the one coming with new edits, so the edit warring was on me. But in the present case, the situation is the opposite. I am the one enforcing the status quo version, while Borsoka is the one coming with new edits. As for the policy, I quoted him part of the policy that shows I'm right, his response was to quote me back the same policy I quoted him, saying "you misunderstood our policy" with no further explaination even after I asked for it. I may not have experience on Wikipedia, but I understand that Wikipedia's policy is a set of rules all users should follow, and from the previous incident that in the case of an edit war the status quo version should be the one standing until consensus is reached, this looks to me like WP:BOOMERANG. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to me that User:LordRogalDorn isn't going to stop, and is not receptive to advice. In the above, he seems to be insisting that anything which is sourced can be included in Wikipedia, making no assessment of whether a primary source from the 16th century is a good source for what actually happened in history. Trying persuasion at this point seems unlikely to work. It could be time for a longer block or a topic ban under WP:ARBEE, since they are already alerted to the sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: Given that Borsoka LordRogalDorn was partially blocked for one week on 25 September for edit warring, I think you have a point about the topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC) corrected 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred:, I was not blocked on 25 September. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borsoka: My deepest apologies. I put the wrong user name there. LordRogalDorn was partially blocked that date, not you. I'll go get another coffee before I edit further. :) —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We are humans. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston, please, explain me why am I still at fault when Borsoka broke the status quo? Isn't the status quo version supposed to be the one staying on the page before an edit war starts? Not to mention that Borsoka made no attempts to discuss this on the talk page. Just because I am the one who got bocked for edit warring in the previous report, it doesn't mean I'm automatically the one in this report as well. Especially when the situation is reversed. I am literally asking for advice right now, to explain it to me so that I can understand the way Wikipedia works, the reasoning. As it appears to work randomly at the whim of some users. I made no assessment because user Borsoka never asked me for such a thing, he didn't accept the fact that I was using a primary source from start, let alone ask the reason why it would make sense in this particular case. If you wish to, I can provide an explaination why. Persuasion was never tried, I was hit with "it's like me" despite the policy's text and when I asked for further explaination was ignored. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple: other editors are not here to play your game and to entertain you. If you have not been able to understand a basic policy, copied word by word and explained by multiple editors, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Just for the record: it was you who wanted to place two sentences in the article quoting two 16th-century scholars without establishing their relevance - so I have been the one to restore status quo after waiting for verification for days. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I played no game. Please provide a diff with "basic policy, copied word by word and explained by multiple editors" as this didn't happen. I told you the policy [[52]], you just quoted the same text I refered you to back to me with no other explaination [[53]], imagine how helpful that was, then said "you misunderstood our policy" [[54]], how is this even explaining? it is mockery at best. The 2nd user only made one single comment on the issue [[55]], that was his whole contribution. I replied to him with this [[56]], and he didn't reply. Would you call that explaining? I wouldn't call it. And the 3rd editor didn't even side with you. These are your 3 editors who apparently have been trying explain me in three different ways. While your argument for reverting my edits was "OR" (which was not the case), as opposed to "use of primary sources is not always allowed" as it seems to be the real reason, hardly any explaining. I am here to build an encyclopedia and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia. Just for the record: I explained their relevance in the talk page, multiple times. And it's not like I didn't ask for an explaination [[57]]. The page was called "Origin of the Romanians", the chapter "Origin of the Theories", the section about middle ages historians talking about the origin of the romanians. After that user told you the policy, you stopped discussing with him and reverting his edits for 15 days. No verification was needed as "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". This is not to say that "anything which is sourced can be included in Wikipedia", there are certain conditions: "Unless restricted by another policy" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", the quotes I added pass both of these concerns: they are not personal interpretations and don't need specialized knowledge to understand them. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTHERE: either because he does not understand the quoted text, or because he pretends that he does not understand it. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain me, how the quoted text does not make my primary source material fit to be used without a secondary source? and this will likely end all discussion. As I believe this is where all this divergence comes from. You originally told me that all material on Wikipedia requires a secondary source (the reason is obvious, we need the opinions of specialists). I looked into the policy and saw that under certain conditions, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia. I already explained here and back then why I believe the quoted text says my primary source is good to be used in Wikipedia (the conditions it meets). You did not explain me, [[58]], [[59]], even when I asked for it [[60]]. Explain me using the quoted text how I "you misunderstood our policy"? What does the quoted text actually mean and what part from the text I got wrong? As for WP:NOTHERE, really? My addition to the article were two paragraphs with sources to back them up, regardless of whether the policy is or isn't in my favor (I think it is), it's pretty safe to say that I was far from attempting to vandalise or destroy the page. What WP:NOTHERE am I gulty of? I didn't promote any products or myself, obviously this isn't a socializing website, my edits were not for laughs, I obviously don't enjoy this and would have rather avoided this battleground alltogether, dishonesty, where? I literally asked you to explain it to me so you can't tell me that I didn't attempt to collaborate, no threats or harrassment, if I was in it for the "productive editor" badge I would have avoided all conflict. What is really the WP:NOTHERE that you accuse me of? LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I will not explain it to you again. There were two other editors and an administrator who also made an attempt to explain it to you. Sorry, I will ignore your remarks here. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to explain it to me again, you would have had to explain it to me in the first place. Unfortunately, you don't know what you are talking about. As explained above, the so called 2 editors that you keep invoking don't exist, one only made one comment and the other did not even side with you, the diffs are above to prove, and when it comes to the admin, beside him also saying that your three people three explainations for days is a hoax, I already said in the first comment that he never criticized my discussion with you, only the edit war, but keep insisting on things that didn't happen, I've seen the way Wikipedia works and you might win, given the fact that I wrote paragraphs to explain myself while in your case a few one liners is enough to believe you, despite insisting on things that are shown by diffs as not true. Funny how you claim that I misunderstood the policy but avoid explaining how I misunderstood the policy, I think it's clear what happens next. Honestly, I expected a lot more from Wikipedia, a place for knowledge. Not saying it's impossible that I'm wrong when it comes to policy, but you can get away with saying false things about what happened and not having to explain yourself, so much for justice. And since you're an experienced user of Wikipedia you probably know this WP:AFG, brilliant assumption of good faith you made right there, congratulations for being a shining example of Wikipedia's assume good faith principle. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to hear comments from anyone on the idea of an indefinite block of User:LordRogalDorn. An alternative might be a topic ban from WP:ARBEE but that would risk filling up WP:AE with thousands more words of unclear protest about the behavior of others. People don't have the right to complain indefinitely on admin boards when it is so hard to understand them, and when it appears they don't understand our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: From this thread and the one at ANI, I see WP:BATTLEGROUND and a refusal to WP:LISTEN. With only one month and 284 edits, they have been blocked twice. There edit history shows only 14% of their edits in articles. I wish it were otherwise, but unless there is a willingness to change (and work with an uninvolved willing mentor), I don't see how the editor will be a net positive contributor.   // Timothy :: talk 
    I understand now that no matter what I say you won't believe me. I can guarantee that I won't push this issue with another wall of text like this as I realised from this discussion that it's useless. I wish to avoid any possible reports from now on, as such, I will always ask on talk page and relevant pages before editing, and won't revert back without talking on the talk page if someone reverts my edits. I am willing to change and to work with an uninvolved willing mentor. I never wished for WP:BATTLEGROUND and I believe WP:LISTEN is a mutual issue, as nobody has explained me yet how the policy is against my edit, but don't worry, I won't push this issue further, I got the point. There are only 14% my their edits in articles because I wished to finish the current dispute before venturing on other edits, and would like to point out that out of those 86% non-articles edits, not all of them were about arguments, some were offering 3rd opinions, others were asking questions, others were thanking other users. LordRogalDorn (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest a topic ban from WP:ARBEE. Yes, he will likely again describe us as liars, but there is a slight possibility that he will able to add value to our projects in other areas. If not, he will be blocked indefinitely. Borsoka (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also suggest a topic banfor LordRogalDorn from the topics of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User KIENGIR is putting words into my mouth, what can I do? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: Based on the above reply from LRD and input from others, I switch my support from a site ban to support a topic ban from Central and Eastern Europe broadly construed.   // Timothy :: talk  07:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:Lordpermaximum (Result: Filer indeffed)

    Page: Stephen Thompson (fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: NEDOCHAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [61]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [62]
    2. [63]
    3. [64]
    4. [65]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66], [67]

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

    Comments:
    This editor constantly violates WP:RS and reverts references from green sources at WP:RSP such as The Independent.Perm 16:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Observer comment:

    • NEDOCHAN made an edit [68]
    • Lordpermaximum reverted [69]
    • Lordpermaximum added content [70]
    • NEDOCHAN reverted [71]
    • Lordpermaximum reverted [72]
    • NEDOCHAN reverted [73]
    • Lordpermaximum reverted [74]
    • NEDOCHAN reverted [75]

    I count 3 reverts for each participant, while noting that NEDOCHAN began a talk page discussion on Talk:Stephen Thompson (fighter) to discuss the issue, but Lordpermaximum has not participated in it. Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1. You counted wrong. He reverted it 4 times in the span of 7 hours 17 minutes. You forgot to count this one.
    2. The last and the 4th revert was done at 15:36. He opened the talk page section at 15:40.Perm 16:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider this an edit to fix the infobox per WP:MMA. Schazjmd (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial edit was not a revert; it was a fix to bring the article into compliance with the project guidelines. I don't see clear evidence of it being a revert. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Karate" part of the fighter's style was deleted by NEDOCHAN 4 times in the span of 7 hours 17 minutes by referencing to an almost inactive project thus overriding WP:RS and disregarding a green source from WP:RSP. If it can't be counted as a revert than I accept that there has been 3 reverts by him.Perm 16:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lordpermaximum: And why have you not discussed this matter at Talk:Stephen Thompson (fighter)? —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was counted as 4 reverts. If you don't count it as a revert, I'm happy to discuss it there.Perm 16:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to say I discussed this matter with him at my own talk page here: User_talk:Lordpermaximum#Style_in_MMA_fighters'_articles. Best, Perm 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I would sincerely ask whoever assesses this complaint carefully to view the edit history of Lordpermaximum. In their short time editing, they have started BLUDGEONING their points in RS Noticeboard, on the BLP noticeboard, started an RFC -the replies to which they have edited and moved. Their heavily edited talk page shows several editors pleading with them, only to get more BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I haven't time to do this properly, as their editing is so disruptive listing it all would take ages. A simple look through their edits shows just how exasperating it has been.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was given a warning from an administrator for the editing I've done to my posts after others saw it. I did not know it was not permitted and I haven't done anything like that again. Why did you bring it up here? It's irrelevant.Perm 16:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also a text book example of WP:HOUND. Why did the editor suddenly review my edit to Stephen Thompson?NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Lordpermaximum is now indef blocked by User:KrakatoaKatie for reasons stated in the block notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nandorfehervari reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: [76]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [77]
    2. [78]
    3. [79]
    4. [80]

    Comments:
    User Perryprog notified Nandorfehervari about the issue of adding unsourced information on their talkpage[81], and I have asked for a reference multiple times as well. Instead of simply adding a reference, Nandorfehervari replied Reference already sent[82] which is untrue. Semsûrî (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

    I believe they were referring to their reply to the message I sent on their talk page. I would also would like to note that I feel it could have been worthwhile to have left a note on their talk page sooner—there were five reverts made of the user's change before I brought it up on their talk page. Finally, I feel like this is a bit of a weird edit-war: while I am not well-informed in this topic, after doing some research it does seem like the attack was performed with the purpose of targeting Alevis, regardless of ethnicity. Would adjusting the sentence to state "[...] more than one hundred Alevis [...]" be sufficient to resolve this conflict? Perryprog (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This would also match the wording used in the linked article about the Grey Wolves: "Their most notorious attack, which killed over 100 Alevis [...]" Perryprog (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Perryprog: Whether their ethnic background played a role depends on who you ask, but Turkey does tend to minimize the ethnic aspect in every domestic social disturbance. New Statesman wrote in 1989: In 1978, several hundred Alevis were massacred in the town of Maras. This March, the man who is widely held to have been connected with the massacre was elected mayor of Maras, on an explicitly anti-Kurdish platform[83] Even if their religious beliefs was the sole cause and the victims were Kurds coincidentally, I still don't think mentioning ethnic background should be neglected. If the user above has reliable references about Alevi Turks also being the victims, it can be added. It should be mentioned that most Alevis in Maras are Kurds. --Semsûrî (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Semsûrî: Thanks for your response. This makes sense to me, and also matches the sources I read—I (now) ultimately think you're right on the necessity of a source stating that Alevi Turks were victims of the massacre, which so far has not been supplied. Perryprog (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Perryprog: If the user does not intend to take part here, I don't see a path forward but simply revert their edits. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jatin1234567890 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: )

    Page: Sher Shah Suri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Jatin1234567890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 13:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC) to 13:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      1. 13:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "No historical proof of destruction of cities"
      2. 13:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "False info , No reliable citations"
    2. 13:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "No historical record for Sher Shah Suri ever doing any religious persecution"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 13:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC) to 13:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      1. 13:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Building of Grand Trunk Road and cities in India"
      2. 13:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Religion integration"
      3. 13:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ""
    4. 13:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Sher Shah Suri never had any religious campaign ."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 13:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "/* New user blanking/removing referenced material */ new section"

    Comments:

    User:184.58.230.245 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Roberta McCain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 184.58.230.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 23:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984230239 by Ivar the Boneful (talk)"
    2. 22:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ""
    4. 11:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ""
    5. 20:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 984040394 by Less Unless (talk)"
    6. 19:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""
    7. 18:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""
    8. 18:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""
    9. 14:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""
    10. 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [84]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [85]

    Comments:

    Warning was issued on IP's talk page earlier. ZimZalaBim talk 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 1 year. Escalation from 3 months, 6 months, now one year. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cedar777 reported by User:Wikieditor19920 (Result: )

    Page: Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cedar777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [86]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [87]
    2. [88]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

    Comments:

    This page is subject to 1RR. User violated the 1RR and refused to acknowledge or cure the violation on warning at their talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grayfell reported by User:Oea the King

    He has broken the three revert rule on a talk page after a crazy conspiracy theory about me.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind&oldid=984388798

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind&oldid=984387548

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind&oldid=984381605

    This seems to clearly violate the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=984389970"