Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR Update this page 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 {{ 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. Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1135	1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144
1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
462	463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:10, 9 December 2022‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 1126519849 by Virgilanthony (talk) I am sure that the 2011 census does not contradict the 54 000 mark. Feel free to find it and prove me wrong."
2. 20:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1126519191 by Virgilanthony (talk) nope, because the official number could be given only by Albania, the state where ethnic Greeks lives. His number are OFFICIAL. Do you understand what this means?"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC) to 20:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1126518368 by Virgilanthony (talk) it does not work this way. The official information must be presented always as first, then the various estimates. The 200,000 is still there."
   2. 20:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Refrain from doing what you did last time."
4. 19:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1126517436 by Virgilanthony (talk) your personal opinion about the census doesn't matter. The source clearly mention that it "is difficult to say how many ethnics Greeks there are in Albania". You cannot put down an official information just beacuse you don't like it. You are disruptive editing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Greeks."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Greeks "/* Jeffries quote */ Reply"

Comments:

Editor has returned to edit-warring over the infobox figure for the number of Albanains in Greece. I thought we'd reached consensus on this last month at Talk:Greeks#Jeffries quote and Talk:Greeks#Albania source quote is incorrect. NebY (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for a week, in full, so presumably this can be further hashed out on the talk page. Fortunately for Fierakui, this action was taken shortly after his third revert. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

an ANI report rather than these ones, and by then the two editors had made 36 edits between them, almost all reverts. NebY (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The protection came nine minutes after the revert. That's within my definition of "shortly". Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Mmm nine minutes but after FierakuiVërtet's seventh edit marked as "undid revision" in four hours [1][2],[3],[4][5][6][7] and at least some of their other ten edits in that time qualified too [8][9]. The other editor's actions were similar, but this one had already been blocked for edit-warring back in October so it was sad to watch the editwarring continue for three hours and 22+ edits after they'd both been warned and then notified of these reports. NebY (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... I thought his name was familiar, and it turns out I was the one who had blocked him in October. Like I said, he is fortunate that the page was protected when it was. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1126521299 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) A merr vesh anglisht? The source is including all numbers, if you want neutrality - which you said you do - then the previous edit is perfect."
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC) to 20:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "You are not using the term neutrality correctly, so either do so, or drop the editing."
   2. 20:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 20:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1126519712 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) Then you have no credibility on the term neutrality. In the case of the census, you should be using the most recent census source which is 2011."
4. 20:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "It does work this way. The source is a source that discusses the 200,000 mark as it's focal point while mentioning all other estimates. So either this remains as it is, or it's changed to reflect ALL estimates in the source e.g. 60,000 to 300,000. This now reflects all estimates, from the 1989 census through to Greek estimates, and the footnote of source mentions the 200,000 western mark."
5. 19:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1126518137 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) The source focuses clearly on the 200,000 mark. This is the overwhelmingly accepted estimation. It's peculiar after your previous issues you are back again, trying to reframe. The source clearly explains it all, and focuses on 200,000 as the standard of Western estimates. If you want to be neutral you'd have to put 60,000-300,000."
6. 19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1126517008 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) this is not how it is a neutral, the previous posting which has been the norm for a very long time is. Not to mention, the census is from 1989, when Albania was in communism. It is clear this is more a political desire to change. The previous number and explanation is suitable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Greeks."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I thought we'd reached consensus on this last month at Talk:Greeks#Jeffries quote and Talk:Greeks#Albania source quote is incorrect but the other editor has returned to the issue and both have edit-warred after being warned again. NebY (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected in full for a week, as noted above, shortly after both editors' third reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Hottentot (racial term) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10] - As IP

1. [11] - As another IP

1. [12] - First since creating account

1. 08:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "/* Usage as an ethnic term */ The term hybrid race is not correct and never used. It is called mixed in English or bastard in Afrikaans."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew
   (RW 16.1)
   "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "/* Changes to article */ new section"

Comments:

Enaging in a 1AM edit war. Comments include The article will be monitored and false information removed until reliable sources are provided, which I interpret as an explicit commitment to continue edit warring. Has shown no interest in practical discussion, just accusing everyone of adding false information. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User also reported at

WP:UAA, as "spaz" is an offensive term for disabled people in a number of English-speaking countries. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User has made a retaliatory AN3 report below. I don't see any way back for them now. I'm done here. Cheerio, I'll be back in maybe an hour or so. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well close this, they were hard blocked for a username violation. Whilst I don't have an issue with investigation of my own conduct here, the report below this one doesn't seem to make much of a case for being suitable for this noticeboard. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Bangladesh International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Greatminton (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 16:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC) to 16:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "no external links disguised behind text"
   2. 16:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 10:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC) "/* Past winners */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Bangladesh International."
2. 15:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bangladesh International."
3. 16:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Bangladesh International."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC) "Sources."

Comments: Seems Stvbastian does not know how to cite sources properly but instead disguise external links behind text. And then blame me for tidying up the article. Greatminton (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greatminton never tried to communicate to resolve the problem, neither on the user talk page or article talk page. And, after i gave the user level 3 warning, the user started to defend his editing. Tidying up the article by removing secondary sources? Secondary sources really need to support GNG for the article, but you always remove secondary sources and replaced them with primary single sources. You did that for 3 times in that article. Try to communicate first not just revert, revert and revert.Stvbastian (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the

3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And, please, discuss this. I note that there has been more of this than there yet has been on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Page: Moorgate tube crash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2a00:23c7:2b86:9801:0000:0000:0000:0000/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:50, 11 December 2022
2. 09:53, 11 December 2022
3. 10:05, 11 December 2022
4. 12:28, 11 December 2022
5. 15:31, 11 December 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:31, 11 December 2022 plus there's this entire AN discussion about this LTA's edit warring which links the 64 range together as mostly coming from the user formerly known as SchroCat

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:PermanentLink/1126893640#IP reverts today (diff)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 16:48, 11 December 2022

Comments:

This user has been warned many times about edit-warring, but has done it despite all this in order to restore their preferred versions of their favorite articles, of which this is one such example. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours since they reverted six times in the last 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Final Fantasy XVI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Higg27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC) "/* External links */"
2. 23:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have very strong suspicions that this is a block evasion by Teader (talk · contribs), who has been blocked for doing the exact same thing again and again, removing a category on Final Fantasy XVI. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 03:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Professional wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: WWE Lover Fan Forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 22:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 22:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 20:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 10:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[14]

— Czello 08:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User has also deleted other users' talk page comments and also engaged in personal attacks. — Czello 11:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WWE Lover Fan Forever has been blocked indefinitely from Professional wrestling as well as its talkpage for edit warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks. Bishonen | tålk 11:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Page: You Belong with Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tree Critter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

Comments: Though I tried to resolve the conflict by presenting my arguments at the talk page [22] this editor seems to not understand (or at least ignore) my explanations, and went on to revert back their edits. In this case, I and

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Template:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONMEBOL table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bicepcurls200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Version from December 6 before any edit warring [23] Version from December 11 before 3RR violation [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]
6. [30]
7. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by Eagleash [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

It was not brought up on the article talk page but has been brought up on the project page [33]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]

Comments:
The users only contributions to date have been to remove this information from the template above and the parent article despite a reliable source being provided. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are still reverting on the article and have made no reply to multiple attempts to reason with them. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours due to making 8 reverts in the last couple of days. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 165.140.54.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's been no discussion. I have not made any reverts personally.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41]

Comments:

Now continuing to edit as 165.140.54.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/165.140.54.16/29 rangeblocked 3 months by Favonian. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Heinrich Reuss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "His views on debt were removed without explanation; also Wikipedia does not pre-judge subjects' views as conspiracy theories, or co-mingle them; Reuss has a set of views that are perfectly legal to hold; monarchism is not a conspiracy theory"
2. 22:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127103994 by JayBeeEll (talk)If you disagree about inclusion, seek consensus on Talk; it was included long before you came around to edit this article"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC) to 22:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127099886 by JayBeeEll (talk)1st minute of the Youtube video of his Zurich speech (0:49)"
   2. 22:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 21:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC) "Guys, flat tax is important; second, it is said by him in his Zurich speech (I'm pretty sure - this factoid was properly referenced from the very start of this article, more or less)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Heinrich Reuss‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: JBL/JayBeeEll did not try to resolve the issue on the Talk page (which was their responsibility); I started a topic for them there and look forward to their responses.Elmenhorster (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response. Elmenhorster (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I've been on Wikipedia long and this is the first time I got reported. Seems the other party feels very strongly about the subject of flat tax and whether an alleged coup mastermind can hold bona-fide views on economics, and that Wikipedia should say it about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmenhorster (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It is worth noting that the reverts above are not comprehensive since Elmenhorster is almost surely the same person as 213.203.182.254, see [42] and the discussion here where they participate together. --JBL (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also relevant: their problems with edit-warring are not restricted to one article, at Mikhail Fridman over the last two days we have 10 December 09:56, 10 December 14:52, 11 December 18:19, 12 December 17:19 -- not a 3RR violation, but unambiguous edit-warring. --JBL (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverts on Mikhail Fridman led to me being proven right (see Talk on Mikhail Fridman article earlier today) after mediation by a more experienced Wikipedia editor. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a rather novel reading of a discussion in which you started by casting aspersions and (seemingly) still fail to understand WP policy and it's application with respect to the differences in basic meaning between the content of the sources and what you wrote (which was overlooked by the 3rd party). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I remember it was you who ran into trouble with another (more experienced) editor about your possible whitewashing (his words).

    Aspersion you're referring to was literally 2 words: "Odd, no?" Elmenhorster (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like you are posting using 2 alliases: JBL and JayBeeEll. JayBeeEll seems to have a history (on their Talk page) of aggressive editing that has led to a few disputes in the past. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, he isn't posting using 2 alliases, that is his signature. Chip3004 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh...ok, thanks. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please address your Talk page history and why you seem to be receiving near-constant backlash for your aggressive editing tactics? Elmenhorster (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Daily reminder 2: you still have not engaged with the discussion on the article's Talk page. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Third-party comment: Elmenhorster has not been on Wikipedia terribly long. However, they have managed to decided "blanking thee but not me" is an appropriate strategy, particularly for removing reliable sourcing identifying the subject of the debated article as antisemitic. I think Elmenhorster should receive a slap on the wrist for
  WP:SOAPBOXing and edit warring, but anything more would be excessive towards a new editor that could learn from these mostly trivial mistakes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Pbritti: There's actually way more than that -- since I filed this report, they've done some Jew-tagging and some antisemitism apology (also a feature of their edits at the Reuss page, as you note). I felt like it would be poor form to open an ANI report while this is still waiting for administrator attention, but this editor should not be allowed here. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JayBeeEll: If admin attention isn't given within the next couple hours, this is plenty for a full ANI. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am Jewish. I have done a great deal of "Jew-tagging" on Wikipedia before I registered. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I note that my edits have had nothing to do with Jews or anti-Semitism on Reuss article. On its Talk page I did say in the context of another topic-discussion that none of the references back Reuss being anti-Semitic, which is true. One reference, maybe same Reuters, says, in a veiled way, he used anti-Semitic trope, but noone has been able to locate what it is yet; in the Zurich speech he does not mention Jews even once. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am happy to see you are completely twisting the facts. Anybody can see following your own link my edit had nothing to do with anti-Semitism or apologizing for it. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I asked you to clarify your baseless accusation on the article's Talk page but you are still to respond. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the edit warring continued following the initial report, and I've added another diff above. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My edit stands, having been reviewed by many other users, and it is literally one sentence on Reuss economic views referenced from Reuters. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have initiated a thread at ANI in case anyone who commented here wishes to comment there. It is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Elmenhorster. --JBL (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User Freoh is undergoing apparent

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

Comments:

• Not sure why I was notified of this discussion, since I am not a party to the editing history at the article or the debate on this article's Talk page and, as noted, my only contact with Freoh — an EW3 warning and followup discussion still available for review on that editor's Talk page — concerned a different page 4 months ago. General Ization ^Talk 03:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This report is both stale and malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Amritpal Singh Khalsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jagraj Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jattlife121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

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

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

Comments: I asked user Jattlife121 multiple times to stop reverting edits that they don't like but the user is keep removing contents by giving baseless comments. I suspect they are here to promote Amritpal_Singh_Khalsa and related articles by adding biased content using unreliable sources. 113.193.45.26 (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that the user accused me of citing "false sources" without providing any evidence Diff. 113.193.45.26 (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep accusing me of "vandalism" for my valid and sourced edits diff this is harassing. 113.193.45.26 (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They again accused me of vandalim on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 and I'm not able to reply there so I would reqeust admins to take strict action on his repeat harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.45.26 (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [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:
Violation of 1RR. No response to the dispute resolution at article talk page. No response to the 1RR violation warning at their talk page. Ecrusized (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User was warned by five other users for adding original research [55], [56], [57], [58] content and making personal attacks. [59] Ecrusized (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shadowwarrior has self-reverted. No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  respect for the disputing editor

  aggressively mining against me years back and doing everything to not discuss the topic at hand.

  Just to clarify regarding my erroneous conduct in that 1 edit [60]:

  I only wanted a genuine discussion in a positive, academic tone; which the aggressive nature of the account's response [61] in the talk page alarmed me. Hence, I immediately reverted their edit which i deemed unconstructive here [62]. ( and since it was spontaneous I forgot 1R/24 hr policy in the Template page)

  But this doesnt mean I wasnt responding in the talk with the account. Rather I was posting my response here [63] which was posted at 13:53. (a response with sources). They notified all their warnings, reports quickly and agressively in a span of around 6 minutes without giving me time for my response. Their report was posted at 13:50; (when I was writing my response in the talk page).

  Even in their latest response in talk; [64] they dont seem to care about any sources; rather than aggressively throwing wild accusations and making

  ad-hominem Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

@Bbb23: Shadowwarrior8 has self reverted. It would still be appropriate for an administrator to inspect Shadowwarrior8's edits as they seem keen to continue reverting once 24 hours has passed, without citing sources. As I have stated above Shadowwarrior8 was warned by multiple users about original research yet still continues to add it. Ecrusized (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the user beyond the now-removed violation of 1RR, you need to take those issues to a different noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Samsat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Urfa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127270580 by Semsûrî (talk)"
2. 20:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127270420 by Semsûrî (talk)Explain why an unofficial survey from 1998 = today's modern population? Just stop."
3. 20:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127270256 by Semsûrî (talk)?"
4. 20:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Source is from 1998 and unreliable, you can't just use a survey from 25 years ago and try pass it as the city's current demographics."
5. 20:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127268424 by Semsûrî (talk) Not every URL = reliable source fyi"
6. 20:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127267851 by Semsûrî (talk) You are the one unwilling to explain why it deserves to be there when I clearly and concisely explain why it doesn't, you take it to the talk page."
7. 20:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127267110 by Semsûrî (talk) I just explained what is wrong with it. The first source was by someone who referred to the area as Kurdistan even after 1923, and second was by someone was dozens of papers with the sole purpose of bashing Turkey. Sources are meant to be reliable and content is supposed to be relevant."
8. 19:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "/* Demographics */ For concision. Was completely irrelevant to the city, more relevant to Edessa if anything. On top of that, both sources were extremely unreliable and biased. Since when do city pages contain "demographic history" of their predecessors anyway? Keep it on their main page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Samsat."
2. 20:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Page: Sheikh Hasina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: AMomen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC) ""Undid revision 1127275852 by LucrativeOffer (talk) The status quo ante bellum should be maintained until consensus is met on the talk page. I have decided not to add content, you should do the same while discussion continues on the talk page Please refrain from taking premature unilateral measures."
2. 18:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127230512 by LucrativeOffer (talk) consensus has not been reached"
3. 14:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Reverted to status quo ante bellum, contentious edits under discussion on talk page"
4. 23:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC) "removed POV cited with opinion pieces which are not reliable sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sheikh Hasina."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments: User has been edit warring to remove sourced content critical of the subject. A warning has been posted in his talk page while a discussion has been started but didn't stop the edit war by the user. Additionally, the user has also been making personal attacks against other editors. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war began when LucrativeOffer removed my cited content and added material which was bias as it was derived from opinion pieces. I did not remove the content because it was critical of the subject, in fact if you read my edit summaries I have stated on numerous occasions there should be negative content about the subject, but it should be balanced. I have not made personal attacks against any users I have criticised the nature of the edits the said user made. The attached reversions I made were after the talk page discussion began, I reverted the article to its state prior to when me and the said user edited it until after the discussion on the talk page concluded. It seems odd reporting me for edit warring when LucrativeOffer has done the same and has reverted the cited content I inserted on moot grounds. An ongoing discussion is occurring on the talk page, everyone is welcome to comment.—AMomen88 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Fantasia (performance) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "The modification is arbitrarily cancelled by Mr. Bitton without any concrete explanation. The mention of the Tbourida inscription (which is the performance of the Fantasia, subject of this article) exists in the majority of the other versions of the same article, and it is essential that a mention of such importance appears in the summary. I invite those who do not necessarily agree with this to share their reasoning with us so that we can better understand and arrive at an unbiased solution)"
2. 23:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Hello. I reorganized the countries' order since an alphabetical order makes more sense. But I don't think why shouldn't a crucial information figure on the summary? It does for other languages such as French, Arabic & German, why not in the English version. Have a good night, and once again if you're not okay with it request a 3rd party commentary."
3. 23:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1127261488 by M.Bitton (talk) Hello again. We can request a 3rd party opinion if you think this is POV. I believe that a very important information should figure on the page's summary."
4. 19:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1125398920 by M.Bitton (talk) Because the UNESCO inscription wasn't in the summary (the part that 99% of Wikipedia readers read of an article) like the same Wikipedia page in other languages. This is completely unbiased, but Morocco should be the first mentionned as it is recognized by UNESCO, the largest and most reputatable organization in these matters as Moroccan. Please do not start an unnecessary editing war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Fantasia (performance)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:M.Bitton#Fantasia

Comments:

• Fully aware of what edit warring is (see their first edit summary), they continued to revert after blanking the 3R warning on their talk page, while pretending to ask questions on my talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I won't be surprised if they're using an open proxy or vpn (given that they're obviously not new). M.Bitton (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that what I was trying to do was a BLD, but you were far from collaborative, although I think you were acting with good intent and misunderstood the meaning of my edit.

I openly admit that I am acting on Wikipedia in an effort to preserve my country's culture and heritage, but I do not do so under any circumstances without using irrefutable sources. The cancellation of your recurring edits was in no way abusive in my opinion, but it was an attempt to discuss and exchange in order to come to a solution that suits the users of Wikipedia, and that will allow the readers to get a MAXIMUM of information from the article - To do this, it is essential to put the crucial information (objectively) in the summary of the article, which is the part most consulted by the readers and which allows these readers to form an idea Elkhiar (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD* Elkhiar (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you know about

WP:BRD too (something you clearly weren't interested in when you were edit warring to push your country's interest). M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, how is it possible for you to know if I know something or not? Why are you making this assumption with such confidence? Elkhiar (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned edit warring (in your first edit summary) and BRD (above). It's fair to assume that you knew both right at the start (quite an achievement for someone who theoretically has made 5 edits). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned edit warring. It is clear that it is now impossible to collaborate with you. While waiting for the moderators' answer, have a nice evening. Elkhiar (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]