Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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 {{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

Edit warring on multiple articles by an anonym

Hello, I am new here. I would like to bring to your attention that an anonymous editor constantly reverts my good faith edits on various articles. He had accused me of disruptive editing, although, what I mostly did was changing a dead link here, adding authors here, and removed multiple periods here. He also does some disruptive edits here, here and a complete bizarre edit here.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The above editor is stripping all spaces from the Infoboxes of articles he edits for no reason. His edits are disruptive. See Template:Infobox film, there is no good reason not to keep the same layout, there is no excuse for stripping out all the spaces. I have reverted his disruptive edits. I have made good faith edits to keep his constructive changes such as adding archive URLs. See also Help:List, there's no reason for stripping spaces from lists either. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

He also has some strange habits. He changes citation formatting to this |author=[[Roger Ebert|Ebert, Roger]]| instead of using the citation parameters first and last parameters and author-link, like this |last=Ebert |first=Roger |author-link .[1] (It is a small difference but using first and last is semantically better. I wouldn't criticize someone for using author when adding a reference but deliberate changing a reference back to use author instead of first/last and author-link is not an improvement.) Some of his also edits removed templates from Infoboxes replacing them with plaintext dates, a minor problem but not an improvement.[2] He also actively ignores WP:LINEBREAK.

I don't know what he finds bizarre about my edit to that film article[3] I tidied the Infobox formatting. I tidied the lists. Instead created various subsections, using headings as recommended by WP:MOSFILM instead of putting unrelated information all under one mixed up heading. Also the article already included a Home media section about the VHS further down, it was redundant to include it twice.

I warned 170.135.176.108 that his edits were disruptive, but maybe I could have made my warning clearer but him turning around and accusing me of vandalism is unexpected. Stripping spaces from articles is pointless, readability is the main reason but there are technical reasons too, Wikipedia is compressed in various ways, you gain nothing by stripping spaces out, that the compression algorithms wont do better. I ask him again to stop making disruptive edits. Some of his edits are constructive, best of luck. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No he did not! He undid changes on this article and demanded that I should archived urls instead of changing them. The thing is, is that new url is shorter, and it shows the same content, so I don't know why he insists on reverting.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I too warned the above editor here, indicating that edit warring over spaces is pointless and he gets nothing by adding them.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

By the time I reverted that swimmer article I had seen the pattern of disruptive edits, in that case I did not make the effort to keep any good parts of the edit, but you could improve the links without stripping all the spaces out of the Infobox.

You might personally think spaces are pointless, but why do you think the examples provided by the Template:Infobox film do things that way? Why do you think it is a good idea not to follow the example of the documentation? Why are you actively determined to strip out spaces, what makes you think that improves articles in any way?

I find his edits persistently disruptive and a minor collection of annoyances so I provided a gentle warning on his talk page. He responded by accusing me of vandalism. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Note to administrators please note that Special:Contributions/170.135.176.108 and Special:Contributions/170.135.241.45 IP addresses are both registered to the same group: US Bancorp. They seem to be two like minded editors working together. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I came here to archive dead links, authors, dates, and do good stuff. Other editors from US Bank were vandals, I am at least trying to add something useful, but of course, an anonym won't allow it. He thinks he owns the article or something. The examples in the Template:Infobox film are default settings, and we can change them however we like. I'm determined to strip spaces because most do not have them, and it is pointless to edit an article for that reason alone. So, with that said, you are being disruptive, not me.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And now look: he accuses me of inserting "unnecessary abbreviations". I didn't insert anything.:(--170.135.241.45 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(I did not "accuse" you of anything, but when you reverted my edit you also restored an unnecessary abbreviation which unfortunately many older film articles use, because people lazily copied the runtimes directly from IMDB.)

I have already agreed not all your edits are disruptive. I ask you to stop and think about stripping spaces. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason. I urge you to look at the help documentation and the templates documentation and the recommendations of guidelines such as WP:LINEBREAK. I'm not asking to add spaces, but I am asking you to leave well enough alone and not deliberately remove spaces from articles.

If as you say yourself, you are "determined to strip spaces" and admit you have no intention of abiding by the examples of the documentation I would ask the administrators to put you on a temporary block to give you some time to think over that decision. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) This appears to be occurring across multiple pages. The filer (170.135.241.45) has noted reverts of their edits by the filee (109.76.200.104) on the following pages:

• Mike Kenny (swimmer) (3RR hasn't been violated)
• Milk Money (film) (3RR hasn't been violated, though the filer has self-reverted at one point)
• Suad Nasr (3RR hasn't been violated)
• University of Cologne (3RR hasn't been violated)
• Noni juice (3RR hasn't been violated)
• Where the Boys Are '84 (3RR hasn't been violated)

With how this issue is spread across multiple pages I think WP:HOUNDING can be suspected beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the content being reverted, I strongly recommend both the filer and filee read MOS:STYLEVAR. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I will be out until Monday, can we discuss it then? It it OK not to edit war until Monday anonym? Thanks.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This editor did not have to escalate this and accuse me of vandalism. This editor did not even stop during this discussion and continued to strip spaces from articles.[4][5] He has clearly stated that he has no intention of changing his behavior. I maintain my request that this editor (and his friend) be blocked temporarily. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to present my point of view on this. 170.135.176.108 started later with Mike Kenny (swimmer), but I started from the film article Milk_Money. I usually edit film articles, and removed user ratings from Amazon and IMDB that are not allowed because of they are WP:USERGENERATED and WP:UNRELIABLE.[6] Shortly after 170.135.241.45 (who I will refer to as BankcorpUser45) changed the article with the edit summary "Authors, page and clean-up." [7] where he stripped all the spacing from the infobox and lists, (ignoring the example of Template:Infobox film, and Help:List) and in citations replaced first and last parameters with the author field, containing a comma and wiki links (which isn't so bad but leaving first last and adding author-link would have been better). (It isn't clear why he removed the title from the reference to San Jose Mercury News either.) It doesn't help that the editor was declaring his forcing of his preferred personal style (of no spaces) as "clean-up". So I reverted those changes and fixed a link while I was at it.[8] (Later he did not check before reverting and carelessly removed the URL I added for Janet Maslin.[9])
I then made an effort to see if this was a pattern of edits, and see if I needed to correct related problems on multiple articles, particularly film articles. A pattern of edits was evident, (some bad, some good, some sloppy). I can understand how some editors might think removing unused parameters from Infoboxes might seem helpful but when an film article is only Start class we should for example be working to try and find budget information for that film, not removing the empty field entirely. Stripping out spaces on a very stable Good Article or Featured article is less of a problem because (at least in theory) there is less need for anyone to read the markup to make changes and fixes, but on the kinds of lower quality articles Bankcorp45 and Bankcorp108 have been editing stripping spaces just makes the markup less readable for the next editor who might be trying to improve the article, and removing unused parameters from the Infobox discourages editors from actually filling in the blanks. I thought the pattern of edits were a little naive and aggressive and wished they could make the obviously good archive fixes without all the unnecessary stripping of spaces, and slightly odd reformatting of author fields.
At first I didn't notice that pattern of edits came from both 170.135.241.45 and 170.135.176.108 (Bankcorp108), and gradually realized it was most likely two editors working together. I tried to fix some more of the articles, I warned Bankcorp45 that his edits were not constructive. I made a note on Bankcorp108's page asking him to please follow the recommended formatting of WP:LINEBREAK. Not following the all guidelines or an established style when you are adding to an article is one thing, but actively changing things away from what the guidelines recommend is disruptive.
The response was to cry foul, accuse me of vandalism. They didn't consider my recommendations at all, they didn't politely disagree, Bankcorp108 instead escalated to accusations of vandalism. (I've worked with people like him, goofing off at work editing Wikipedia but immediately cries foul when he thinks others aren't playing by the rules.) They have reverted my edits with little consideration. As you can see above Bankcorp108 has clearly stated that he is determined to continue to strip spaces from articles, even though this isn't in keeping with the examples provided by the documentation, or any existing style in an article. And after rushing to accuse me of vandalism Bankcorp108 then declares he is gone for the weekend! On a personal note I would like them to consider for their own sake that perhaps their employer would not be impressed if they knew employees were editing Wikipedia when they are supposed to be working and that maybe it would be better if they edited Wikipedia on their own time. I'd like them to reconsider their editing behavior, but I don't think they will even recognize that their pattern of editing is aggressive (and rushing to accuse other editors of vandalism is certainly aggressive) without some kind of of short term block as a warning. (For convenience feel free to refer to me as 109 for short). I will continue to check this thread over the next few days. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I learned about WP:BOOMERANG (while checking out other parts of this page). Interesting that it happens often enough to have a name.

I do not like being called a vandal, I hope this can be resolved soon, and would appreciate clarification from administrators on this matter. (I will check again at some point on Monday.) -- 109.79.76.103 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

And I don't like being called a disruptive editor.

Now, I wasted 4 hours of my precious life reverting nonsensical edits by 109. I assumed that I will come here, edit a few articles by adding reception and other stuff (which you all can do too, but non chooses, everybody have something else to do and someone else to blame for their shortcomings). As for your comment:

On a personal note I would like them to consider for their own sake that perhaps their employer would not be impressed if they knew employees were editing Wikipedia when they are supposed to be working and that maybe it would be better if they edited Wikipedia on their own time.

So you know more about my job then I would know about my own mother???!!! Let me guess, non of you are employed, so you can judge anybody?

Also, why are you crying foul? I can't edit Wikipedia on my own time? I need to play according to what you like and what you don't like? Are you my employer? Yes, I was gone for the weekend, so what? How often do anybody of you go on Wikibreaks? How many of you have something else to do besides edit warring here? Do you have other hobbies? Families? I wish I could have ended this debacle sooner, but unfortunately, the site won't allow me to edit anything from my phone. I also have no obligation to disclose why I edit Wikipedia from work, but OK. Have anybody heard of 15-minute breaks? So, during those time, by law, I can do whatever, and, if I choose to edit Wikipedia, there is no code that will prohibit me from doing that. I'm also a manager of this organization, and, as long as no employees are needing anything, I can edit this thing 24/7. Again, there is no code against that either, nor in Wikipedia, nor in the organization's policies.

Speaking of policies, have 109 read on WP:IAR? This policy explains why your WP:HOUNDING of my edits is not welcome here. I can ignore your edits as long as you will ignore mine.:) Also, please read on WP:Harassment. While we are not there yet, hounding of someone's edits is a precursor to that.

As for my sloppy editing, how can edit not sloppy if I am being hounded? I seen it.

And, my note to admins: If editor 109 have a right to question legitimacy of my IP accounts, keep in my mind that there are numerous of editors here under this IP. This leads to suspicion that user 109 is also, either edits from both IPs (which are registered to Vodafone), or is a sockpuppet of user:109.77.151.81 (formerly known as Mieszko 8). Note: In order for an IP to be considered a sockpuppet, the editing patterns and topics are not required to be the same. The IP could have just awoken from a "slumber" and decided to attack a different topic, using hounding tactic instead. I hope that the admins will look into that matter too and make a wise decision.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Admins? Still hoping for answers and clarification here.

Again Bankcorp108/Bankcorp45 didn't have to escalate this by accusing me of vandalism. He could revert and disagree without needing to call me a vandal in his edit summaries. He could try WP:BRD. (I do not have a problem with him using different IP addresses, but it wasn't clear if it was one person or two friends with the same editing habits.)

He thinks he was being hounded, but doesn't accept that it might be that he has been making lots of mistakes, and that not following the examples of the templates and not following various guidelines might be a bad thing, disruptive even. If he looks again at WP:STYLEVAR, it tells us both to leave well enough alone, and that includes his stripping out spaces from Infoboxes (also replacing first and last with author[10] is also the kind of thing STLYEVAR is trying to tell editors not to do). He thinks WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply to the changes he is making, only to other editors.

I do not like how he removes spaces but he's making plenty of other mistakes too that his stripping of spaces makes more difficult to see. Removing URLs does not improve an article.[11] When you add references to The New York Times include the URL too so other editors can easily WP:VERIFY and read the article. Removing (birth) date templates not good either.[12] (He removed an Amazon.com URL[13] but didn't replace it with a better reference, until a much later edit. WP:RSPSOURCES does say Amazon.com links can be used sometimes, and a it is still better than no reference at all.) Other edits aren't wrong, they just seem unhelpful[14] and don't improve the article.

I welcome comments from admins. I choose to edit anonymously, and as far as I know I'm following the rules, but there are a whole lot of rules, and we all make mistakes sometimes. But we don't all accuse people of vandalism when our edits get reverted. -- 109.76.130.104 (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Under different IPs, 109.76.130.104 has received warnings for edit warring, not using sources, unconstructive editing, and removing maintenance templates (and those are what I could find). Their editing under different IPs may not be WP:ILLEGIT, but it's hard not to be suspicious of their reasons for doing so, especially since they cited a humorous essay in response to a suggestion to register as a user. KyleJoan^talk 03:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

People throw those warnings like candies at Halloween, most were spurious. I responded to KyleJoan at length already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:109.79.184.96 and when people raise concerns I DISCUSS on the relevant article talk pages (but not usually on user talk pages), and again here I have tried to discuss and learn more.

KyleJoan accused me of being a sock puppet and was told I was not. I think it is because KyleJoan is very protective of the Charlies Angels article, but it could be something else. You don't need to like me but your suspicions are unfounded. Take a look at the diffs, judge the edits not the user. Tell me you'd be okay with Bankcorp108 stripping spaces or removing URLs from any of the pages you protect. -- 109.76.130.104 (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring is a conduct policy, therefore, it is your conduct that's under scrutiny and not the content you added/removed. I'm merely presenting a theory about your reasoning for editing anonymously, as you put it, which is to give yourself a clean slate every few weeks or so to avoid blocks since registered users won't see past warnings on your previous IP addresses' talk pages. KyleJoan^talk 04:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have called you a vandal, but a hounder, you are. Admit it. My "unhelpful edit here does follow a policy, that is WP:EXTERNALLINK which clearly says that it "shouldn't be a collection of external links". For a stub, one external link is enough. There is nothing illegit about using an IP over a username but there is a problem why you are using it and how. For example, I use my IP to add sources to the content, there is nothing wrong about it. You, on the other hand, use it to stalk me, which is strange because I personally didn't do anything to you. Some articles do come stripped of spaces and as I see, not many editors really care. Edit warring over it is another matter. As for my errors, I would like to apologize, but knowing that 109 will come back, revert, and accuse me of being disruptive, or revert properly archived sources which are put there so that the links can be verified causes me to do all sort of errors. Please, stop following me around as I am here only to cause disruption. If you want to fight vandalism go to other articles/topics. I bet our Covid-19 articles are vandalized more then anything else now. Go do something useful there. :)--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, our anonym is being impatient because admins don't respond to his tantrums. But what he doesn't get is that admins are human beings, they are busy, and I bet many just ignore such impatient editors. You don't own Wikipedia. Nobody owns it, so stop demanding quick resolution, blocks, etc. You are not in charge here. If I would have been your manager, I probably would sent you home without a check for that day. Nobody likes annoying editors/employees who are gathering to cry about their rights as an editor. :)--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: (Now, I don't who will respond first Kyle or Joan? :)), thanks for mentioning on the anonyms' possibly previous unconstructive activities. Should I file an SPI report? Because, how I see it, is that a possible sock have changed tactics. I think, those edits alone (of following users and reverting archived sources) worth an investigation.--170.135.241.45 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

And, after looking at this I can see who 109 really is.--170.135.176.108 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Tym2412 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Warned)

Page: Peyton List (actress, born 1998) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tym2412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985229556 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
2. 18:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985088638 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
3. 20:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC) "Not true. It was more recent. Don't change it again."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Peyton List (actress, born 1998)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They do have three reverts, but their attitude suggests that they will continue to edit-war about the infobox pic in this article. They were informed to take their dispute to the talk page, but have yet to do so. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Tym2412 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Peyton List (actress, born 1998) unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:204:DB00:41B0:E57B:582B:504:6323 reported by User:RedPanda25 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:204:DB00:41B0:E57B:582B:504:6323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Long list of reverts. Click to view The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. 01:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281621 by 2A04:CEC0:1091:D22A:FED5:7EAB:2C03:8DF4 (talk)"
2. 01:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281550 by 2A04:CEC0:1093:14A3:D1:8C58:7D91:B9FE (talk)"
3. 01:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281495 by 2A04:CEC0:117D:241B:9419:C26A:61A5:6C97 (talk)"
4. 01:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281444 by 2A04:CEC0:1005:D34D:4498:4504:F03A:5AAB (talk)"
5. 01:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281398 by 2A04:CEC0:10C0:80A2:4337:75E0:DB85:339B (talk)"
6. 01:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281338 by 2A04:CEC0:1160:77AB:EE0C:B8B3:BBB1:62DB (talk)"
7. 01:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281283 by 2A04:CEC0:1195:F628:21C5:D70E:565:DCF9 (talk)"
8. 01:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281197 by 2A04:CEC0:11DF:2A42:D0A3:97B0:4AD1:29F4 (talk)"
9. 01:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281146 by 2A04:CEC0:1199:C8DE:595B:34EB:A39E:3C11 (talk)"
10. 01:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281090 by 2A04:CEC0:108A:95A9:C4C2:18B0:35D8:FCD3 (talk)"
11. 01:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985281020 by 2A04:CEC0:101A:7346:C068:6D77:D188:8CD3 (talk)"
12. 01:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280958 by 2A04:CEC0:101A:57BF:B6E0:348E:D416:D940 (talk)"
13. 01:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280888 by 2A04:CEC0:11F1:5763:4384:BC33:B2A2:7033 (talk)"
14. 01:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280819 by 2A04:CEC0:119F:F043:BE7F:CA1D:5789:DA59 (talk)"
15. 01:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280747 by 2A04:CEC0:119B:CAAC:ECD1:DFA2:6D1E:441C (talk)"
16. 01:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280689 by 2A04:CEC0:1048:1E6E:755A:8D67:E689:F97E (talk)"
17. 01:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280589 by 2A04:CEC0:10D3:1C3C:EBF5:B6DE:517B:990E (talk)"
18. 01:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280515 by 2A04:CEC0:101A:D185:C22:7170:F2EF:EFBD (talk)"
19. 01:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280476 by 2A04:CEC0:117B:4109:D337:2CFB:B3B:F581 (talk)"
20. 01:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280420 by 2A04:CEC0:1008:DFD8:89A3:3E91:6C77:8A5C (talk)"
21. 01:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280375 by 2A04:CEC0:11CB:E3BC:B553:FBF9:506E:7970 (talk)"
22. 01:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280261 by 2A04:CEC0:11F1:A487:103A:5931:9B7A:3BA3 (talk)"
23. 01:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280183 by 2A04:CEC0:11F3:B9BC:132A:23EF:AFC5:3DD8 (talk)"
24. 01:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280131 by 2A04:CEC0:1198:29E6:F36:4FD7:D57D:8197 (talk)"
25. 01:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280086 by 2A04:CEC0:117F:DA31:5756:DBB2:552A:3784 (talk)"
26. 01:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985280031 by 2A04:CEC0:1198:4216:92CA:CB46:4FD4:CEAD (talk)"
27. 01:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985279959 by 2A04:CEC0:1178:A381:A781:BFE9:E49E:20DA (talk)"
28. 01:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985279853 by 2A04:CEC0:104C:1EC8:360F:392C:112:60A8 (talk)"
29. 01:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985279764 by 2A04:CEC0:104C:1EC8:360F:392C:112:60A8 (talk)"
30. 01:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985279676 by 2A04:CEC0:11E3:9384:A7E:D247:C4E4:CAE (talk)"
31. 01:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985279458 by 2A04:CEC0:11F5:A2F7:C44C:D5D2:F69:A7FC (talk) (Tags: Undo Possible vandalism)"
32. 01:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985279310 by 2A04:CEC0:11E9:66D2:CD09:5B76:BE4D:8A64 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: The page has been semi-protected by Callanecc--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Daveout reported by User:Crossroads (Result: Not blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985275684 by Crossroads (talk) removing misrepresentation of someone's words. she doesn't assert anywhere that terf is a word used merely to denigrate women, and therefore not an actual insult. it is a blp violation, original research, and pov pushing."
2. 18:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985222587 by Haukurth (talk) It is a misquotation and a slanderous BLP violation, please do not put this back. She doesn’t say anywhere that TERF is a “term used to denigrate women”, she says that SOME PEOPLE who oppose the term hold that opinion (and she disagree with them). Read the text carefully. Furthermore, this term was coined by non-transphobic women (how could it be demeaning to women?)."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A: page is under 1RR; once a person starts to edit war on such a page, they've already violated the DS, so a warning is superfluous; plus they were "warned" by the edit notice

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A: per WP:BRD, editor seeking change should start discussion

Comments:

Page is under 1RR per the GamerGate DS, clearly shown on the edit page with a huge notice. [16] Yet, the editor has attempted to change the text a total of 3 times (one original attempt and two reverts). The reviewing administrator is welcome to judge for themselves whether the editor's claim of a BLP exemption is valid or a case of WP:CRYBLP. Note the quote in the reference note in question. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't kwnow it was under 1RR as these notices do not appear to mobile users. I'm self reverting for caution but I do want to ask admins to take a look a this issue and the talk page discussion. I do believe it is a blp violation, as well as original research and pov pushing. - Daveout(talk) 03:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Since Daveout self-reverted there seems to be no action needed. It's long standing text and will be discussed on the talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Not blocked. Violation apparently made in error, self-reverted, and request withdrawn. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

User:88.230.176.163 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Altay (tank) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 88.230.176.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "a kurd user in netherlands active in pkk (terrorist organization) pages is edit warring. None of the sources provided call it a variant. Every single source says "The chassis is based on Korean Panther"."
2. 01:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "It's not a variant. None of the sources say so. Even the new "source" added by a kurd busy in pkk pages says "based on" which doesn't mean it's a variant. By that logic wiki should also call Tesla Roadster 1 a variant of Lotus Elise because it's based on latter's chassis. Please stop agenda pushing kurds in netherlands from edit warring on this."
3. 00:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "None of the sources call it a variant. It could say "Chassis is based on", but calling it a "variant" is straight up malevolent. Like calling Tesla roadster 1 a variant of Lotus Elise just because it was based on the same chassis. All the systems on Altay is indigenous."
4. 00:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "It's not a "variant". Not even close."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking."
2. 01:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 02:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He also attacks on talk page and edit summaries Shadow4dark (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum reported by User:Wikieditor19920 (Result: Both editors involved removed from Andy Ngo for a month)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first set of reverts
2. second set of reverts
3. third set of reverts

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User removed my 1RR notice in between second and third sets of reverts (both of which violated 1RR).

Comments:
This user is now approaching 3RR at an article with 1RR discretionary sanctions, and removed my warning about the 1RR from their talk page. I think a temporary block is in order. We all need to play by the same rules, and the user is well aware of the limitations imposed on this page. NOTE: This user has been blocked numerous times in the past for edit-warring. See block log. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Addition: Bacondrum has previously been warned at AN3 for edit-warring at Quillette, a related page. And here, Bacondrum was also banned by El C in the past year for edit-warring at another page subject to 1RR DS and 3RR at multiple related pages. That time the ban was for two weeks. Given this user's history and the brazen disregard for DS here, and the tone of the comments below, I think a more stringent remedy is needed. I suggest a longer temporary block of at least two weeks. Page-specific blocks won't do it, because this user has shown that they will just keep edit-warring at related pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a retaliatory filing related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_and_battleground_behavior_from_Wikieditor19920. Wikieditor19920 has been so hasty in it that their "first set of reverts" link is a link to one of Wikieditor19920's own edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&type=revision&diff=985126880&oldid=984980274&diffmode=source which says "(12 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)". The second one indicates "(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)", the third one "(16 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)". IHateAccounts (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you IHateAccounts My thoughts exactly. I removed his warning because it was vexatious and frivoulos. This is a vexatious report by an uncivil editor, the report has been filed in retaliation to this ANI report. If you look at the article talk page you will see 140+ comments many uncivil and most bludgeoning the debate, this report is being made as part of an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior from Wikieditor19920. I've urged them numerous times to stop before taking them to ANI, and now this. I think sanctions of some kind are well in truly in order at this point. Bacondrum (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In case it caused any confusion, the I've updated the diffs to start with the pre-revert version or intervening edit, and then Bacondrum's series of changes. Consecutive reverts can be counted together as a single revert, but non-consecutive reverts are regarded separately. There are clearly three sets of non-consecutive reverts shown, and the user was warned about 1RR in between #2 and #3. Edit-warring is a pretty clear-cut matter and not worth the back-and-forth above. Follow the DS, respect good faith warnings from other users, and we don't have to end up at edit warring noticeboards. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first link now indicates "(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)", the second "(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)", the third "(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)". Looking over the edits I remain concerned both by the fact that Wikieditor19920's representation seems less than inaccurate and by the fact that this was obviously filed as retaliation. IHateAccounts (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: You are either lying or do not understand what a revert is. The diffs above properly document three sets of reverts, you are free to go back and count again. You are also free to cut the personal attacks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Now you’re calling an uninvolved editor a liar? At what point does this level of incivility draw sanction? Bacondrum (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would like to point out some things, as another editor of that page:

• First of all, if you look at the history of the page, you can see that's not actually three reverts by Bacondrum (though it is two). The actual timeline is:

• Bacondrum makes edits to the page which they mention on the talk page. Nobody responds or says anything else about these edits.
• Roughly a day later, Wikieditor manually reverses a large portion of them without discussion.
• Bacondrum reverts Wikieditor, restoring their original edits. (Revert 1)
• Bacondrum then makes several further edits to the page, all of which up to and including the previous revert by Bacondrum are reverted by another editor who asks Bacondrum to get consensus on the talk page. This person appears to be unaware not only that Bacondrum did mention the edits on the talk page and nobody had objected, but that Bacondrum was hashing them out with an opponent in the underlying content dispute on their own talk page, although to be fair to them I don't know why they would know that second part. Regardless, Bacondrum basically did have consensus for those edits.
• Bacondrum manually reverses part of that person's edit (Revert 2) and also continues making unrelated edits.

• Second, I'd like to call attention to the fact that Wikieditor has been reported at ANI for disruptive behavior on that same page (by Bacondrum, incidentally), and has already been warned by an admin for bludgeoning of Bacondrum and several other users on that talk page.

My overall opinion here is that these two reverts were justified under the "edits against consensus" exception to the 1RR on that page, since Bacondrum had solicited objections to them on the talk page and had not gotten any. Loki (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: There was no "consensus" because he left the page for a couple of hours and no one gave an immediate response. Each set of the three, not two reverts contains a series of 6 to 12 consecutive edits (which would qualify as reverts individually), none of which fall under any recognized "exception." And this second 1RR violation came after I provided them a warning and asked them to self-revert. You are entitled to agree with and argue for whatever content you like, but that is not an endorsement for DS violations and edit-warring. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If I went over it wasn't my intention. I'm being harangued here. I'm more than happy to volunteer to take a break from that article on the condition that Wikieditor19920 agrees to do the same. Let other editors edit without disruption and let the dispute calm down. Bacondrum (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You've been editing the page for several weeks, are presumably aware of the DS, and were warned before you broke the 1RR several times in a 24-hour period. You called my warning "vexatious" and are now stepping over the 1RR line repeatedly to remove content that you disagree with. This is not personal. You need to stop edit-warring, and clearly light warnings aren't doing the trick. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If I did go over it was by a half (one partial revert) and it was accidental - if it hasn’t already been reverted I’m happy to self revert. Your report here is vexatious, I’m certain of that. Bacondrum (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bacondrum needs to stop edit warring? You're a participant in this edit war! If you look at the page history over the last several days, almost all your edits are reverting other editors! That you don't do this twice within twenty-four hours explicitly doesn't stop it from being an edit war! Loki (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, it certainly is two and anyone who wishes may look at the page history to confirm. The first set of edits you are listing as a "revert" is not, it's just a set of edits that does not contradict any previous edit by any other editor. Second, if you wished to challenge the presumption that Bacondrum had consensus for those edits, you could have done that on the talk page, in the place where Bacondrum mentioned those edits and asked for criticism of them. In fact, earlier when Bacondrum first proposed the idea of significant edits to the lead, you did, but nobody else did. Even Springee, the other person on your side of the underlying content dispute, was ultimately on board. Loki (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

you are correct Loki, I stand corrected and apologise, it wasn’t my intent to go over it just got lost Olin all the squabble (I know that’s no excuse). In my defence, I am being harangued and I believe this report and Wikieditors initial revert that started this were vexatious and disruptive. I’m happy to take whatever steps are needed to make amends, or a sanction if deemed necessary. However I do believe the editor being disruptive at that article is not me (this time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 08:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: The first edit re-wrote an entire portion of the lead and removed language others had added to replace it with their own addition. The same is true for the other two sets of reverts. There was no established consensus that he was enforcing, so no exception applies. I'll also note that in your "blow-by-blow," you characterize some of my recent changes as a "reverting a large portion" when it was in effect only a partial revert. That's why it was performed manually; I left some changes in place. Without establishing consensus, Bacondrum proceeds to restore the prior version, violating 1RR to revert me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a 1RR violation but I think it was done out of an effort to try to respond to live feedback vs edit warring. I would suggest that Bacondrum agrees to be more careful and we move on.

Loki, please do not imply I support the lead rewrite as is. It has a lot of issues related to NPOV/IMPARTIAL. What I support was the general lead structure. When I get some time I want to work with Bacondrum on their talk page to try to come up with compromise text in hopes that we can avoid some of the rapid back and forth with live text. I don't see much reason to post more on the main article talk page until I can come up with an alternative suggestion.

The new account, IHateAccounts, does not appear to be an uninvolved editor. Rather they appear to be the IP editor who had commented on the article in the past. I understand Wikieditor's frustration with this article and the number of editors who don't take things to the talk page and/or make edits that come across as attempts to paint a scarlet letter on the subject in wikivoice. Like Wikieditor, I find it frustrating that one makes an argument based on policy only to have other editors ignore the arguments since they have the numbers to win the revert game. I think this is why a number of like minded editors have given up on this topic. Springee (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: Has a very magnanimous approach, but the intentional 1RR violations at this page are tiresome. IMO persistent, intentional edit warring is a sign an editor needs a break from a page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel it may be worth pointing out that because I observed there were problems with the links provided in this vexatious complaint, Wikieditor19920 threatened me. At a bare minimum that's uncivil behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIHateAccounts&type=revision&diff=985371897&oldid=985241288 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Within an eight day period, (October 17 - 24), Wikieditor19920 accused four editors of violating 1RR at Andy Ngo. 19920 demanded editors self revert their work without explanation and/or threatened to take them to an AN (full disclosure, I was the third of four editors). Edit histories show the first two editors (each with edit counts well over 20,000) self reverted, while the second two editors (with 2,400 and 8,900 edits respectively) were brought to this AN. Wikieditor19920 appears aware that they themselves violated 1RR on October 6 but justified their last revert as "RV random IP restoring errors into article." Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3 This was a deceptive edit summary as the error of a missing "and" was not what they chose to fix when reverting. I ask the closing administrator of this current complaint to consider the very real possibility that many problems at Andy Ngo may be arising from an editor's broader impulse to strenuously enforce policy on others while disregarding its application to their own actions. Cedar777 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate. Cedar777 is the only other user I've reported for stepping over 1RR after a good-faith warning (which was ignored), but 1RR violations are indeed a continuing issue at Andy Ngo. I've never violated 1RR at that page. Reverting vandalism (i.e. an IP inserting errors into the page) is not a 1RR violation. So far Bacondrum's have been the most severe.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee Thanks good sir, I certainly will be more careful, and it was not my intent to edit war. I have not been persistently edit warring as Wikieditor claims, I have been discussing edits at talk. I am happy to let this go, but the disruptive and vexatious behavior of Wikieditor should be noted, if not addressed I'm afraid it will continue, they seem to be incapable of seeing their conduct is highly disruptive. Look at recent edits Wikieditor came along and removed a claim taken verbatim from a reliable source, he's just being disruptive and stopping others from contributing with a slow motion edit war, bludgeoning and seemingly interminable incivility. Bacondrum (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Stop making this about me with vague accusations and insults. If you actually read Springee's comment, you'd see he was pretty displeased with your conduct. You are clearly completely lacking in self-awareness or genuine remorse. It's unfortunate that a small band of editors have tried to personalize this matter to distract from the main issue, but I think any admin would see what's going on here: a repeat offender with no sense of what they did wrong and a clear inclination to do it again in the future. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This user is still edit-warring at the page, just outside of the 1RR window now. Even minor changes to the lead are immediately reverted by Bacondrum [17] even where properly reflected in the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit. You randomly removed a verbatim claim from a reliable source under spurious edit description, this is more of the same from you. More misleading edit summaries and slow motion edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Frankly, I think we might see an improvement if both editors took some voluntary time off from this article. Wikieditor19920's 148 talk page edits aren't helping discussion. O3000 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on this page for over two months consistently (and actually there are users with more comments than me), so I don't think bandying about my number of comments repeatedly is fair (though I've agreed to be less verbose), especially where equating talk page participation with persistent edit-warring. I'm not going to respond to the latest vulgar tirade above by Bacondrum. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 Yes, I've already volunteered to do that, as long as Wikieditor does the same. Regardless, if I am to be sanctioned making 2 reversions, this report must boomerang as Wikieditor has made 3 reversions in violation of 1RR Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3 As I've said earlier, if it helps stop disruption at the article I'm happy to agree to walk away and not edit the article for a period as long as Wikieditor agrees the same. I've also agreed to be more careful and not go over the 1RR again. Bacondrum (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

For the second (third) time, those three-week old diffs are two consecutive reverts (which count as a single revert) and then a reversion of an IP who added errors to the article (reverting vandalism is exempt). Those are not 1RR violations. Three sets of reverts with intervening edits are. This discussion has gone on too long already. What could've been resolved with a self-reversion and an apology has devolved into thousands of characters of denials and counter-accusations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 Why don't we both agree to disagree, agree to take a break from the article for say a week? Calm things down and then when we return after a break we can take disputes to the talk page and conduct ourselves in a civil manner. I think that would make everyone happy. I'm up for calming all of this down if you are. Bacondrum (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've seen this rinse and repeat cycle with you before. I'm not buying it. I'm not the one edit-warring and constantly calling every other editor "disruptive," a sealion, "vexatious," and the like. If history's any indication, in a week or so you'll be back to doing the same thing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

So, for the record, I tried to come to some kind of agreement to calm this down with a civil compromise. There's nothing more I can add. I've not been "calling every other editor "disruptive," a sealion, "vexatious," and the like." that's demonstrably false, you can check the discussions here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo Bacondrum (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as Wikieditor refused to even consider the suggestion that we both voluntarily take a break, I put forward a fair solution: a three week tban for both editors, (including myself) in order to take the heat out and get things back to a level of civility. That should allow uninvolved and non-disruptive editors to go ahead and constructively contribute to the article. It will also give both of us time to reflect on how this all got so heated and how we can change our behavior to avoid these kinds of fights in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. Your repeatedly trying to shift the blame to me for your edit-warring and other conduct is exactly why I am not buying the "I'm sorry and I'll never do it again" line. That and the evidence I cited in the initial comment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, we'll just have to see what the admins say. Bacondrum (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: And here you are, still ranting about me at the talk page in addition to edit-warring, after admitting the edit you called Bullshit here was accurate. You prove again and again you cannot help yourself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Jesus wept. Do you ever stop? Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• It's been brought to my attention that Wikieditor19920 has been Admin shopping: [[18]] Bacondrum (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'd also like to ask that if I am to be sanctioned, that said sanction be applied by an admin that has not been involved/pinged in by Wikieditor19920, specifically El C [19] and Guerillero [20] Nothing personal, I'm just concerned Wikieditor is seeking favorable admins. Bacondrum (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You do not understand the rules of WP, apparently about edit-warring or otherwise. AN3 is a noticeboard for edit-warring, not talk page conduct. I sought Guerillero's input on your continued disregard of talk page guidelines, not this report. You are wasting more and more space with these tirades, and not doing yourself any favors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Given Bacondrum's record of past blocks, I suggest considering an indef block as the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Both editors partial blocked from Andy Ngo and Talk:Andy Ngo for a month. This is ridiculous. We had the RfC, which devolved into people sniping at each other. Then we had the ANI filing, which promptly devolved into editors sniping at each other. And now we have an AN3 filing, which ... you get the idea. There are plenty of editors, both neutral and from both sides of the political divide, who are perfectly capable of looking after the Ngo article while Bacondrum and Wikieditor19920 use their time productively elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

An outrageously irresponsible block by @Black Kite:. Bacondrum was the one who filed the ANI, which was closed without action based on a few out-of-context comments which were not even uncivil. They returned to the page after the ANI thread was closed and violated 1RR twice. I was wholly justified in filing this report for the continued edit-warring (which I have not engaged in, and your approach here is to ignore this disparity and issue a "pox on both your houses" block when there is no parity in conduct? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Well, the alternative was to let both of you continue to snipe and cast aspersions at each other over multiple venues, the inevitable result of which would have been actual blocks, not blocks that still leave you over 6 million articles to edit. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that is not the alternative. I asked Bacondrum to stop edit-warring and stop mentioning me negatively on the talk page. This was a one-sided edit war where the user violated 1RR twice in a 24 hour period, even after I made a good-faith request for them to stop, and you are blaming me for their conduct. Not to mention that this user has been repeatedly banned for edit-warring. This was a wholly justified report, and the "pox on both your houses" for so clearly one-sided irresponsible conduct is completely unjust. You also ignored EdJohnston's pointing out the obvious, that I reported a repeat 1RR/3RR violator for conduct that has gotten them banned in the past. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't go down that route, given that you have a recent 3-month ban from American politics and a partial block from Ilhan Omar in your recent log. Both of you need to go and find articles to edit that you are not so politically involved in. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have filed my appeal. I have no "political involvement" at the page in question. I resent the suggestion. The talk page archives show that you were actually WP:involved in commenting on the wording of the lead, which was the underlying content relevant to the dispute. See archive 5. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a single comment as to the correct grammar of a sentence. Your point? Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Black Kite, I think that is a fair remedy to what you accurately described as a ridiculous situation. I sincerely apologize for my part in it. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

^ The "ridiculous situation" being Bacondrum's refusal to engage on the talk page and repeatedly step over discretionary sanctions to restore their preferred version. Because of Black Kite's action here, future editors will be deterred from filing an AN3 report for fear of being sanctioned themselves over something frivolous, or because something they said weeks ago rubs an admin the wrong way. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm being abused here, this editor just wont stop. All I did was accept the sanction and thank the admin involved. Please help me, this editor has been completely unrelenting in their harassment for days now. Bacondrum (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2605:A000:122C:E2C5:C0D:489C:BFE:F912 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: 48 hours)

Page: All You Need Is Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:A000:122C:E2C5:C0D:489C:BFE:F912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]
6. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Comments:
Also added unsourced content after final warning. Sundayclose (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

User:71.234.178.78, User:2601:180:8200:63D0:CC35:26E9:A53F:19ED and User:2601:180:8200:63D0:144A:184F:107F:9767 (sock) reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Life Support (Madison Beer album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 71.234.178.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2601:180:8200:63D0:CC35:26E9:A53F:19ED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2601:180:8200:63D0:144A:184F:107F:9767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33] (same ones used in SPI as they are all from the same "user" and all from today)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] (I did it on the sockmaster's page)

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

Comments:
They are a suspected sock, hence the three IPs in the title. All these users are from the same house with the same zip code in the same city, please look at the SPI against them. Since not all of the diffs are from the same IP, it isn’t an obvious 3RR violation, but I have rock hard evidence that it is. Please note that this user was also reported ten days ago for the same behaviour (granted I got blocked as well). I will still warn all three IPs mentioned above. Please also note that I did not break the 3RR and should not be punished. All the best, D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 22:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected by Scottywong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 10:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Various IPs of the same user reported by User:Julius Senegal (Result: Page protected)

Page: Template:Clemens Arvay
User being reported: 213.225.35.57 (talk · contribs) 85.126.142.168 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985455011

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:mobileDiff/985597826
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985520498
3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985514948
4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985495526

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See disk

Comments:
A CU due to socketpupperty is running in German Wiki, one user has been already perma banned. I would semi protect the article in order to geht rid of those IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Senegal (talk • contribs)

• Yeah, I agree, and I'd do it but I've already trimmed the article a bit. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Page protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Eldhorajan92 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: )

Page: Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eldhorajan92 (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]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:
I've argued on the basis of the evidence I've got, so it doesn't matter(refer talk page and reference article). They object to false information and do not have the evidence to say what they say! Eldhose ^Talk 04:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:220.238.160.97 reported by User:Callanecc (Result: )

Page: Malek Fahd Islamic School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 220.238.160.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original version and partially modified, current preferred, version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]

It's probably easiest to see by just looking at the page history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: disruptive editing block, unblock decline, specific edit warring warning and further explanation

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my message on the talk page, see also this and this on the IP's talk page.

Comments:

It seems pretty clear that the IP has no intention of following normal editing processes even after their last 31 hour block but instead is regularly coming back to check that their preferred version remains the current version. While they've sometimes been willing to make comments (1 and 2) they have not been willing to engage in discussion about actual issue just picking side elements of it. Their other edits (e.g. 1 and 2, one is a joint edit with 120.151.60.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which I'm confident is the same person) may suggest that they are pushing a particular POV). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Maxim.il89 reported by User:Koncorde (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Sunderland A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Maxim.il89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985631984 by Koncorde (talk)"Informed"? You don't get to "inform" - you get to debate, discuss, and reach a consensus. You can't have a two line section, there's need for more information about the charity."
2. 00:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985618647 by Koncorde (talk)Again, those things belong to the article as they give significant info about the period and what they did. Stop edit warring."
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC) to 22:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985442999 by Koncorde (talk)No, there was no "discussion," it was you edit warring and bullying your view onto the article."
   2. 22:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 985442770 by Koncorde (talk)It's important information. All you do is edit war, and think that because you're an admin you can force your view. Nah."
4. 00:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC) no edit summary
5. 00:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC) no edit summary

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49] [50] [51]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Historic discussions existed about the lack of consensus [52] [53] [54]

Just for clarity, I did ask Rambling man to comment last night as he was directly involved last year both at Sunderland AFC and other articles but could have gone to any WP:FOOTBALL editor as nobody has supported his position.[55][56][57]

Comments:

Item 1: No warning tags put out as user still has 3 existing October 2020 Edit Warring sections on his page, and has just returned from a 48 hour ban for edit warring at List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Maxim continued that edit war by returning immediately after an SPA IP address was reverted by myself and subsequently Ed Johnston put PP on the page to continue his edit warring behaviour to reinsert not only all the content on the talk page that concerns had been raised about, but also content I removed as it was a longstanding COPYVIO violation.

Item 2: Maxim tried to insert the same content at Sunderland last year, in the process raising an Edit War report against myself that saw him warned as an outcome. In between that incident and around a few months ago, he re-inserted the content in an attempt to circumvent consensus. A few days ago I reverted the changes pursuant to what he was told by Ed Johnston here

I have tried working with Maxim, and you can see his passion for certain subjects - but he is unable to work dispassionately and see's any criticism as an attack (per battleground mentality), and shows absolutely no ability to either use reliable sources appropriately, summarise sources accurately, etc. There is a fundamental issue here of WP:Competence at least partially informed about the way he goes about what he does. For the most part I have had no major concerns, although recent GA review on an article he created did highlight the same issues as last year as did his new pet project (Cadenza Piano) where he once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:Notability in favour of a whole bunch of promotional material including content farms that haven't added content in 2 years and directly [https://www.mako.co.il/tv-the-next-star/season7-street_piano/Article-961868d33e65f61026.htm sponsored content ("In collaboration with Mifal Hapayis") by the company responsible for installing them. Koncorde (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

For further evidence of battleground mentality, see this Requested Move discussion that saw him reply to every single user who disagreed.

Historic edit warring last year, same persistent edit summaries accusing others of edit warring: [58] [59] [60] [61] Resulting in WP:FOOTBALL re-stating existing informal guidelines as formal rules against cruftiness Koncorde (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit war and other breaches of polcy

Hello - User:Heiko Gerber has breached multiple policies:

• Adding unreferenced content, see [62]
• Civility, see [63]
• 3RR, see [64]
• Engaging in an edit war, see [65] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that discographys dont need sources, when he have an aritcle available for the respective album, see literally any article by a musician, e.g. Michael Jackson Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that in respect of their unconstructive behaviour User:Heiko Gerber has been censoring debate by removing polite comments to him / her by various users, see [66], [67], [68] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this IP is by a perma-banned user Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)