Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Feed-icon.svg 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.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:Moylesy98 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4767 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Moylesy98 is an editor who edits within the area of British steam railway locomotives. They have one-by-one exhausted the patience of all the other editors working in that field, with a series of edits that are usually relentlessly trivial trainspottering and show no regard whatsoever for most WP policies, such as WP:UNDUE or WP:V. They have been repeatedly reverted and admonished for this. Today they exhausted my patience too.

WP:REDLINK is there to encourage the growth of the encyclopedia. Double chimney is a redlink to an obviously WP:Notable topic for an article which we need, and which we might get if only the likely editors for it weren't wasting their time here. Today's edit-warring is to 4RR remove that redlink as "Removal of link to page that doesnt exist", including edits that do nothing but.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5] Still at it, 13 January 2019
  6. [6] same link, another article
  7. [7] and again, once the block was lifted

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

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


  • I was all up for blocking and then I noticed that you are both edit warring and this report is a blatant attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. I suggest you with draw it before you're both blocked. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This sort of nonsense, Guy (just one example), (Personal attack removed). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The edit summary may be found relevant [8]SovalValtos (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. There was a previous comment by User:JzG which we should take into account when closing, but Moylesy98 continued to remove the 'double chimney' link after JzG's comment and while the report was still open. A review of User talk:Moylesy98 shows warnings from four different people already in 2019. Moylesy98 should consider taking account of some of the feedback they have been getting. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
[9] Clearly no change. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Doc James (Result: Semi)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Dishonest report: the user has reported my initial edit as a revert, which it clearly was not. Meanwhile here are their reverts on two different articles: (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The first change counts. Otherwise one could edit war any new text they want into an article with the claim that the first change does not count. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. With my first edit, what previous edit did I negate the effect of? (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
agree w/ Doc James in regards to Streptomycin article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This page is about edit warring. Comments about the article content are not relevant or useful here. (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
no the comments Im referring to are the pattern of edits, consensus should be sought on the talk page, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking into the article history, I find that since December 2017, six previous editors have made the change that I made.[16][17][18][19][20][21] Every time, it has been reverted by one user, User:Doc James.[22][23][24][25][26][27] It's clear that User:Doc James is editing disruptively at this article and apparently feels that his opinion trumps all others. (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
well I just reverted you[28] b/c I agree with a different editor(Doc James)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you unhelpfully decided to revert against consensus without any discussion. What's your point? (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
My edits are in fact supported by WP:MEDMOS
This is a perfect example of why the simplified wording is important[29][30] A few editors have used a term that was not a synonym. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Seven different people over the course of a year have all removed the execrable phrase "Common side effects include feeling like the world is spinning". As you reverted any attempt to replace it with the easily understood "vertigo", they tried something else. Your obstinate rejection of that alternative too does not in any way suggest that your preferred wording is best. Your repeated edit warring, refusal to listen to other people, and filing of this dishonest report, all suggest to me a very disruptive editor. (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not break the 3RR. Why lie? And why specifically prevent me from editing the article while the disruptive editor is free to do as they please? (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Your edit at Streptomycin at 00:44 on 13 January shows you undoing a 'spinning world' change done by Doc James in July, 2018. Beginning with that one, I get a total of four reverts of that article on 13 January You have also made three reverts of the same thing on 13 January at Menière's disease. If you are unhappy with Doc James' effort to reduce the grade level of the ledes of medical articles, why not participate in discussions, or open an WP:RFC? EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
No, my first edit was not a revert. It was my first edit to the article and of course I did not check whether someone had made a similar edit six months ago. Again, why lie? And again, why take action specifically designed to harm me, and favour the person who thinks they own the article? (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:RhinoMind reported by User:Ewen Douglas (Result: No action)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]
  5. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Attempts to remove unsourced original research were met with a straight revert with no discussion. Edit summaries included "no it's not" and when pointed out that "no it's not" is not a valid reason for reversion, next edit summary was "yes it is, because what you say is obviously wrong". I then attempted a compromise edit (here), which was also reverted with simply "stop edit warring". I feel attempts to compromise have failed, and User:RhinoMind also appears to have some WP:OWN issues, as he asked me on my talk page "what your background is in relation to the Jutland subject? Do you have any knowledge of the subject?" He also stated "You are being pretty annoying" after I simply was trying to remove original research for which I saw no source; I saw that as a personal attack. Ewen Douglas (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reported user's comment

Whoever reads this report, please take some time to go through the actual edits on the Jutland page. And please notice the edit summaries. Thank you.

I don't want to escalate the wild accusations by the reporter, as this whole issue is already "way out there". I do have a need, however, to state that I feel hurt as an editor. RhinoMind (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The actual edits and edit summaries are exactly as I have stated they are. My attempt at a compromise was met with a straight revert again. That's why I came here. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
User:RhinoMind seems to have broken WP:3RR and is risking a block. They might avoid this if they will agree to make no further edits until consensus is reached on the talk page. Please note that mentioning that someone is a living person does not give you license to revert unsourced content back into the article. The question was whether someone spoke with a particular accent, an item that needs a source. Other Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources ("You can read his wiki-article"), you need a reference. Per WP:V "Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I can see that the Niels Hausgaard article lacks good proper refs, I recognise that. Do take note that the Talk on TalkPage was initiated by User:Ewen Douglas, AFTER all his deletions and unconstructive behaviour. I find this whole circus absurd and a waste of peoples time.
Anyway, I'll add all the sources needed in the article soon, no problem. They are not hard to find. RhinoMind (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not even sure that WP:WEIGHT is being followed here, as in, I don't know that two musicians from the region are so hugely notable that they need to be mentioned on the main Jutland page. The Jutlandic dialect article seems like it would be a more appropriate place for the whole sentence. But this is a content point, better debated on the article talk page. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. It looks like the previous problems aren't continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Lmmnhn (Result: Filer warned)[edit]

Page: 2016 Taiwan general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [40] [41] [42]

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

Comments: He has been reverting the "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" in election pages from 1978 all the way to 2020 (for example 2016 Taiwan general election in which he has already violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule). The official name of the government that administrates NOT only Taiwan but also Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu is called the Republic of China and the president of that government is called the President of the Republic of China. When swearing in to office, the President swears in as the President of the Republic of China not the President of Taiwan. Reverting without discussion with several threats to block me (see user talk:lmmnhn) is intimidating and unacceptable. The wikipedia does not belong to one user or one perspective. I hereby request the temporary block of the mentioned user. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Firstly I haven't violated 3RR as I've only reverted three times. And that reverting was of POV/disruptive edits by Lmmnhn, who has attempted to change "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" on several election articles, despite the community deeming Taiwan to be the appropriate title for the country and election articles (see latest discussion specifically on election articles here). Unfortunately they continued to revert on a couple of articles after being warned,[44] although they seem to have stopped after a second warning.[45] If any actions is required here, it's probably a WP:BOOMERANG. Number 57 12:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
As for as I concern, I was not been included the mentioned "community" which included no more than 12 users in the discussion to address my point of view and the so called "consensus". Second of all, I have not changed the titles of the those article as I am well aware of the Taiwan is more common to describe the country and it can be justified as the "presidential elections in Taiwan". I was merely changing the header of the election infobox as to the "Republic of China presidential elections", which is a factual and official title of the election. That has not violated the "consensus" of the so-called "community". Please refer to the Chinese wikipedia, which they uses the "Republic of China" to address the presidential election titles but not "Taiwan". Lmmnhn (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The infobox heading is supposed to match the article title, so changing it is disruptive. And this is not Chinese Wikipedia, so any consensus there does not apply here. Number 57 13:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, How many users were involved in the so-called "consensus" of the so-called community you hold so tight on again? Why should a consensus with such a small number of users participated with insufficient discussion involved and with controversies remaining be held as the absolute policy and cannot be questioned? Secondly, what kind of "consensus" suggest that the infobox heading is supposed to match the article title? Thirdly, how is an official name of that country inappropriate to mentioned in the article's infobox? Fourthly, how is an edit to the name "Taiwan", not the official name but rather a POV pushed by the supporters for the Taiwan independence not a POV/disruptive edit while a edit to the "Republic of China" the legal and official name is only considered to be POV/disruptive? The Chinese wikipedia is a good reference to show certain users here that not only one kind of perspective is there while the others is necessarily to be seen as disruptive. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many users participated; the discussion was closed with a certain outcome and you have to respect it. If you have a problem with the outcome, you're expected to start a new discussion. The fact that you're claiming Taiwan is "a POV pushed by the supporters for the Taiwan independence" suggests you might have a problem with recognising WP:NPOV. The last move discussion on Taiwan → Republic of China was unanimously rejected by all participating editors. Number 57 14:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact you don't directly respond to my question show how you are not willing to participate in the discussion. Firstly, the "consensus" only agrees that the TITLE of the articles involving with the elections conducted in the Republic of China after 1971 were to change to Taiwan, in which I have a problem with but not intend to challenge it right now. However somehow it was changed to even in the articles before 1971, which has no respect to the "consensus" you hold so tight on. Secondly, you are not able to tell what kind of "consensus" you are based on with the argument that the infobox has to be consistent with the title. Look at Taiwan, where the name of the title is "Taiwan" but the name of the infobox is "Republic of China" as it is the legal and official name of the country. I do not see why the same rationale cannot be apply to the election articles and the title "Republic of China" has to be eliminated in every possibility, even if it is the official name of the respected election. Referencing the "Taiwanese independence" example is just to show you how you are biased on favouring one perspective over another by labelling the other as "POV/disruptive" when both perspectives have certain POV. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: The filer of this complaint, User:Lmmnhn, is warned for warring against the outcome of an RFC about Taiwanese elections. If you read that RfC carefully, you'll notice that it applies to all elections on the island since 1949, not 1971 as you have argued above. If you think it's likely that consensus has changed recently, you could open a new RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I object your decision. The outcome of the RfC is the titles of the election articles, which I did not attempt to change, not the infobox of the election. Same with the Taiwan article in which the infobox is titled "Republic of China". As I did not violate the the so-called "consensus" of the mentioned RfC, on what ground am I to be warned? If you read the content of the discussion more carefully, you would see that the remarks by User:RGloucester on the 1971 question as I quote in the following – "I assume you are not aware of the history of the RoC, but until 1971, the RoC was considered to be the only legitimate government of the entirety of China by the UN and most of the international community, and indeed, those elections were for 'the entirety of China' according to international law as it stood at the time." The issue however was not resolved in the RfC but I do believe it is worthy of re-exploring. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @EdJohnston: Unfortunately Lmmnhn has started being disruptive on this topic again. After creating some new articles on Taiwanese elections by splitting existing ones, they used "Republic of China" to the infobox title,[46][47][48][49] then reverted it back in when this was changed to Taiwan.[50][51][52][53] Given they are also failing to respect WP:BRD with respect to the split (see this article history), some action against them would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 10:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I've left a further message at User talk:Lmmnhn since I believe this editor's time is running out. Mass conversion of 'Taiwan' to 'Republic of China' isn't going to be accepted, and the creation of the new articles looks abusive (trying to circumvent the RFC decision). It looks like he is making over 100 edits a day to reorganize the Taiwan election articles, using a method that is lacking in any obvious consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: my understanding the "consensus" of the article is to keep the title of articles of the elections held in Taiwan "Taiwan" but no the "Republic of China", on which I have never intended to step over. The changes I have been making merely to change the title of the election infobox from "Taiwan" to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which is the official name of the respected country (See the inaugural address of the President Tsai Ing-wen on May 20, 2016 [54]) Not only did User:Number 57 disruptive reverted the title of the election infobox in which no consensus has agreed upon but also erase the term "Republic of China" from the article by removing it from the lead section, keep reverting on my edits, and then requesting me blocked when I have been making comprehensive edits and improvements on the Taiwan election articles. However, such intimidating behaviour has not yet been addressed by far. Lmmnhn (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:AveTory (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Volodymyr Zelensky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Constantly getting involved into edit wars using one scheme: he removes sourced content he personally doesn't want to see and then suggests the original contributor to "convince" him that the information should be in the article, coming up with new excuses why he is "not convinced". I encountered him several times, it is always the same. In this case he started by removing a short translation of a sourced text with a comment "true, does not require a direct footnote quotation", and the next day removed the whole sentence with links along with another sourced addition as "unimportant". From then on he has been involved into edit warring, manipulation and removal of clearly sourced and stated facts and free interpretation of Wikipedia rules. He has a long editing history and knows what's included into biographical articles, yet in his attempts to remove the content he ended with straight personal attacks. I've no idea what's his motivation in this case, but he shows obvious bias and complete lack of neutrality. I don't see his edits as "good-faith" and have no interest in discussing anything with him. AveTory (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, there is no 3RR violation. I made one revert during last three days. What is going on? User AveTory is trying to include a poorly sourced and hardly relevant information about a Ukrainian presidential candidate to his BLP page. I explained AveTory the policy [64]. He responded with personal offenses [65]. Yes, I had previous discussions with AveTory about BLP. For example, here he inserted a really ridiculous claim that a famous actress "is covered in blood", meaning she is guilty in death of people, which is nonsense. Once again, the inserted content was poorly sourced, telling politely. I am not sure he can edit BLP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
P.S. If you "have no interest in discussing anything" with me or other contributors, that's fine. But then you should not edit anything that has been challenged by other contributors because editing controversial subjects does require discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
While this is irrelevant to the topic, in case of Liya Akhedzhakova ‎I went through another exhausting discussion filled with complete removal of sourced material (in the process it was revealed that he didn't even check most of the links), claims of "unimportant facts", "poor sources", "demonization", obscure "Wikipedia rules" and involvement in offtopic, yet we finally agreed on the final version of the article. Which he now simply reverted as "nonsense", 2 years after. This is the kind of editing policy I'm dealing with. AveTory (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The filer of this report doesn't seem to understand WP:BRD. If your content is reverted, you then discuss on the talk page, not blindly restore it; they have edit-warred just as much, if not more, than the party they reported. Add to that fact that the talkpage discussion was started by User:My very best wishes and, the filer accused them of bad faith (not to mention "You keep proving your complete inadequacy"), I am minded to close this without action at the very least. I am also noting edit-warring at Liya Akhedzhakova. Other admins may wish to comment. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I already explained why it's impossible to lead a normal discussion with the user. He clearly demonstrated it on the talk page, starting with "unimportant information" (since when ethnicity/religion/education grant is not important at a public person's page?) and ending with accusations of me being a follower of a "Jewish conspiracy". All this because I added information on his parents being Jewish (among many other facts and sources - before that 90% of the article linked to one questionable source, yet he was perfectly fine with it). Yes, I find this to be an inadequate behavior. And I commented on Liya Akhedzhakova above. He reverted a whole paragraph he himself had approved before. Yes, it's bad faith. AveTory (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, here is the diff [66]. In this edit you insert a qualifier ("a Jew himself") for an author and an opinion that "the financial power in the country was controlled by Jews". Now you edit war about something similar in the BLP of Zelensky. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
How is it similar? A clearly sourced quote from a famous article by the popular post-Soviet author who described his meeting with a leading oligarch? His self-identification as a Jew? A mention of the word "Jew" on a page related to politics at all? Maybe you will now remove all mentions of Disraeli, Lenin, Trotsky, Sanders, Ukrainian prime minister and many others having Jewish background? Is it all Jewish conspiracy? Ethnicity/religion is mentioned on every celeb's page when such information is available. Yet you went to all this trouble simply to remove a mention of his roots - an open secret in Ukraine which Zelensky never tried to hide and constantly mentioned. AveTory (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If AveTory is revert warring to insist on Zelensky's Jewish descent, that seems peculiar, though I don't know the entire background. There is nothing elsewhere in the article to imply that Zelensky's religious convictions (whatever they may be) are relevant to his career or to the accomplishments that make him notable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
There is an opinion [67] that Zelensky is a puppet of Jewish oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. This opinion is actively promoted by RT (TV network). My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I left several links on the talk page to serious political and Jewish websites where he is discussed as "a Jewish candidate for Ukrainian presidency" (from the positions that this is not a problem for Ukrainian voters). But I seriously don't see how this is a problem in a biographical article at all and I don't know how someone's origins could influence his/her career. It's just trivia. AveTory (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. MVBW did a self-revert. It looks as though agreement has been reached on the talk page, per the discussion with User:Icewhiz at Talk:Volodymyr Zelensky#Unimportant details. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The user clearly stated in the comment above that his reverts are motivated not by good faith, but by his own political paranoia and bias (on Black Kite (talk)'s request). And he continues edit warring, now at the Liya Akhedzhakova's page. As I mentioned before, he reverts the paragraph he himself suggested as a "compromise version" 2 years ago after another similar long discussion. Now he claims that "I would never include myself things like that to BLPs. I removed this stuff to make clear that I do not endorse it". I stand by my words: his edits are non-neutral, motivated by his own political or whatever views, he has been manipulating Wikipedia rules to remove whole paragraphs of sourced text for years and will continue doing so unless some action is taken. AveTory (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • You do realise that, having been noted for alleging that MVBW is "completely inadequate", you now double down on it with "his political paranoia and bias"? This is really not a good idea. I suggest you strike it (and your previous personal attacks), or this filing might end up with a block after all. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Maybe you will take notice of the user's actions first? Read his comments and his editing history? He has been removing chunks of text for years using whatever reason he comes up with, manipulating rules, calling me names, accusing of being a bot, a follower of conspiration theories, a paid promoter of political opinions, putting other people's words into my mouth, etc. How is it not "inadequate, political paranoia and bias"? AveTory (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Any diffs? I never said that you are "a bot". Yes, I do believe you do not respect BLP policy when it comes to BLP pages of people who oppose to Putin, and some of your edits (like that one) are questionable. Other than that, I think you are doing good work around here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
What other purpose did you have by constantly bringing up the banned user on this thread on my talk page? And what does Putin has to do with Zelensky's background (I didn't even edit anything regarding his political views since I don't follow Ukrainian politics), Akhedzhakova's famous speech (at least in Russia) from back 1993 or the history of seven bankers, when Putin was still a nobody? I'm rarely getting involved with articles even remotely related to modern politics, unlike yourself. And in 99% cases I'm adding information, not deleting it. AveTory (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hence, you was unable to provide any diffs to support your claims above that I accused you "of being a bot" and "a paid promoter of political opinions". Please strike through your comments above. And BTW, asking someone if he was a paid contributor is a legitimate question, but I never asked you this. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I provided both in the comments above, though you didn't ask for the diff on a paid promoter ("There is an opinion [13] that Zelensky is a puppet of Jewish oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. This opinion is actively promoted by RT (TV network)"). I'm not striking anything on your request and expect you to acknowledge that your reverts were not triggered by any of the reasons you voiced at the talk page, but were politically motivated, and revert the Akhedzhakova's page back to the consensus version. AveTory (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
          • While I agree Zelensky's Jewish roots should be mentioned (and interjected on the article talk page after seeing this filing) -this diff (12:16, 18 January 2018) by AveTory, presented by MVBW above, is alarming. Jew-labeling has a long history in political discourse in this part of the world and is still an issue in the fringes (right and left) - sometimes paranoia is justified regarding certain issues. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not Jew-labeling, it's a topic that had been widely discussed in Russia at the time, I practically quoted a British journalist and a famous open letter by a Jewish writer while also added a lot of other info (basically wrote the article from scratch). People who edited it since always contributed something and I didn't mind at all, but then My very best wishes came and reverted this one particular paragraph. And what's the point in bringing it up during the discussion of a completely unrelated article where I simply added info on Zelensky's parents? How is it Jew-labeling, especially since I provided a link to his recent speech where he self-identified as a Jew? I also created articles on the Brumberg sisters, Rolan Bykov and other people with Jewish background, nobody found it problematic. AveTory (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Speaking about this diff, I disagree. Simply citing Harding (left part of the diff) might be OK, although I doubt this quotation is important on the page. However, your version (right part) tells essentially, in context of the page, that the robbery of Russia has been accomplished by Jewish oligarchs. This is a conspiracy theory on par with Jewish Bolshevism. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
No. The right part says that 1) most bankers had Jewish roots and that 2) it led to a rise of antisemitism. Both claims were confirmed by the links and the bankers' biographies, unlike the "Jewish Bolshevism". AveTory (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Unitedphoenix reported by User:Shoy (Result:Blocked account for 72 hours )[edit]

Rajmohan Pillai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Unitedphoenix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878391474 by Shoy (talk)"
  2. 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878388949 by Shoy (talk)"
  3. 15:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878387649 by Phil Bridger (talk)"
  4. 15:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878361205 by Dorsetonian (talk) - enough citation available. Only facts."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Edit warring to include overly WP:NPOV/promotional language. No attempt to engage on article talk or user talk page. shoy (reactions) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. May also need a SPI together with User:Geethusivakumar1995. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Aykhan Zayedzadeh reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Protected for 72 hours. Talk page needs to be used.)[edit]

Page: History of Alam Aray Abbasi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aykhan Zayedzadeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [69]
  2. [70]
  3. [71]
  4. [72]
  5. [73]
  6. [74]
  7. [75]
  8. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

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


This user has made 8 reverts within few days and refuses to discuss on the article's talk page when i asked him to do so. He has been warned by another user for personal attacks months ago. Persistent edit warrior, refusing to dsicuss his changes. I would welcome an admin's eye here. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  1. The discussion for the page was finished, and ended in my favour. Black Kite can confirm. This user accuses me of not wanting to discuss my edits, while he's known for doing the same (he also labeled my discussion request as "troll edit"). Also, I've always insited on discussing my edits. Sincerely: A¥×aᚢZaÿïþzaþ€ 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't see how "the discussion was made" while the article's talk page is empty : Talk:History of Alam Aray Abbasi ... Also, you need to read WP:OWNTALK i think. You have been reverted on my talk page by user serial number for this reason too. Your above comment does not justify your edit warrior behaviour and refusal to discuss anyways.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay there is zero discussion here Talk:History_of_Alam_Aray_Abbasi? I have reverted the page to the last stable version and protected the article for 72 hours. You both need to use the talk page and determine what references support what version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine for me, cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Sakura6977 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Nizam of Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sakura6977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. first attempt to delete unwanted content on 16 December 2018 and 17 December 2018
  2. then attempting to water it down by adding cherry-picked evidence 27 December 2018
  3. again on 29 December 2018
  4. then again on 11 January 2019
  5. finally today.
  6. Another editor Crusader90 also helped him with a revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments: The editor has edit-warred over certain well-sourced religious community discussion in the article for a long time. What makes today's revert egregious is that the editor has apparently read the talk page discussion and archived it. The time lag between the revert and the archiving event was 15 minutes!

The editor has also archived the edit-warring notice and the DS alert on his user talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 week. It looks like people disagree, but the talk page isn't being used effectively. Question 1: Which sources about the life of the last Nizam should be considered reliable? Question 2: How should we report on the various rumors as to his number of children? Question 3: What is the best way to summarize the Hindu vs. Muslim differences which affected the government? If necessary RfCs could be opened for these questions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Yellow Man 1000 reported by User:TJRC (Result: Warned)[edit]

Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Yellow Man 1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878563105 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Already)"
  2. 15:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878498778 by Moxy (talk) Was reverted action vs Wikipedia (user removed relevant info). He did it discreetly. Instead of clicking UNDO, he did otherwise. If this will be repeated, the trouble will be subject of attention of administrators or even Jimmy Wales. I got advice."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John Lennon. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


The user's talk page has two additional warnings on edit-warring in the last several weeks, on this page and on John Lennon; one from me and one from another editor; a total of four warnings. His response has been to blank the page.

See lengthy discussion on Talk:John Lennon ("Right of Kolya Vasin for tribute"). TJRC (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Yellow Man 1000 is warned they may be blocked if they again restore the claim that Vladimir Putin is a Beatles fan unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Manboobies (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: On the Jewish Question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (this is my version initially that he reverted).

Diffs of the user's reverts:


After he first reverted my changes and demanded I go through each one of them and justify them to him one by one, I listened to feedback from another editor and removed “citation needed”s from the intro that I added (and uncited text not justified in the body). He then reverted this version made based on feedback:

Because he said he didn’t understand it. It’s surely not my onus to explain Marxism and citations to him?

He suggested I was refusing to discuss this with him. I simply said it was not in fact policy that I had to justify every single one of my edits to him. He then reverted me again:


In response I posted a summary of my changes to the article with him, however I think it’s totally unacceptable for him to Gaslight me suggesting that I’m refusing to cooperate with things that aren’t even policies and trying to force consensus when it’s only him that’s complaining. Since I’ve posted a summary of my changes he’s not even replied. I looked at his talk page and he brags of being known for being argumentative and unhelpful.--Manboobies (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


Please see my comments above. Additionally I find it very annoying to try and genuinely make Wikipedia better and more sourced, only for someone with a political agenda to revert out the changes and then go silent when I offer to discuss the changes. At any rate he has made 3 reverts with no differences and should be blocked. Manboobies (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Only two of those are reverts. Per WP:BRD, since you made the initial WP:BOLD edit, it was then up to you to start a discussion per the "R" in BRD once you were reverted by another user. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There are 3 reverts:
2. BRD is not policy. I have however started a dialogue and he has gone silent. He is only looking to be beaurocratic and argumentative. He brags of it on his page. Manboobies (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Editor made extensive changes to article, [81] I reverted [82] because I felt that such extensive changes needed to be discussed, and opened a discussion on the talk page. [83] The editor partly reverted, [84] and, at first, refused to participate in the discussion. They also insisted that they had to approve of all changes. (See edit summary here) The editor then, under duress, posted a comment, but said that they would restore the edits in 1 day if a consensus wasn't reached. [85] I responded to this unreasonable and non-policy-based stance. [86]. At some point, the editor (who has recently returned from a two-year period of no edits whatsoever) filed this report.
In short, my actions were to
  • (1) Revert edits that I disputed
  • (2) Call for discussion
  • (3) Open a discussion
  • (4) Inform the editor on their talk page about the discussion [87]
  • (5) Uphold WP:STATUSQUO
Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Editor says he posted a comment, and I "went silent".
  • He posted his comment from 23:00 to 23:07 [88]
  • I did not edit between 22:56 and 23:43. [89]
  • When I returned, I checked by watchlist, made one short edit, and then responded to their comment. [90]
  • The editor seems to feel that things must be done on their timetable, and that they can set deadlines for other editors to come up with a consensus.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
How long I have been absent from editing is irrelevant. Despite an opportunity to discuss the issue, you still have not. Only now you are reported are you discussing properly. You have done 3 reverts and should be banned. You are creating drama and stopping me from improving a terrible, unsourced article. Frankly you make no decent contributions and seem to make reverting others your day job. I looked at your contributions. Do you even work?Manboobies (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:NPA sometime, you might find it interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
“They also insisted that they' had to approve of all changes. (See edit summary)”
That’s not true. I said “Please discuss with me before making significant changes based on a lack of understanding”
That doesn’t say I have to approve. It says please discuss with me. Please don’t gaslight. It’s quite clear you’re looking to wind me up and then get the upper hand to manipulate the situation, rather than improve the article. I have been editing that article for years and I am the only reason it has references like it does.Manboobies (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
as for your comments about forcing things on my timetable - are you suggested we wait weeks on a unpopular, poorly written article, for a few people to post things? There’s nothing stopping anyone editing the article to improve or add more. You are stopping me making improvements - quotations, improving the body of the article to make it clear it lacks citations. Pulling technical publishing history down so it doesn’t obscure anti Semitic criticism of Marx. Or is that the issue? Do you have a problem with criticism of anti Semitism? Manboobies (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
"Or is that the issue? Do you have a problem with criticism of anti Semitism?" Real subtle, and boy, are you barking up the wrong tree, friend. In fact, you;re not even in the right forest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
If a consensus takes weeks, then, yes, we wait for weeks. There is nothing I can see in your edits that requires immmediate changing. The article has been in the state it is in for quite a while, and the world has yet to end. There are no BLP or COPYVIO issue. Please see WP:NODEADLINE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
That's not how BRD works. And no, it is not optional, as people have been blocked for violating it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I am going to hold off any further on commenting until an admin posts. He has broken the 3 revert rule, he is manipulating what I am saying, and he has made no attempt to discuss the changes I have made, only arguing with timetabling. I’m not surprised close friends including admins left Wikipedia if this is what is happening. It’s actially crazy. Furthermore he suggested I deleted sourced information which is a bold faced lie. I’ve only deleted conclusions made from source material. We’re not here to interpret sources, Wikipedia is not an essay.Manboobies (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
My gosh, everything has to be done immediately for you. As a matter of fact, I was writing and posting a comment while you were writng and posting the comment above. [91] Chill out, please. If your edits are improvements, they'll get into the article, don't worry, although it may not happen as quickly as you'd like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
"We’re not here to interpret sources, Wikipedia is not an essay." Yes, that's absolutely correct, we don't interpret sources, analyze and give opinions, but if subject experts do, and their work is published in reliable sources, then we absolutely do include their opinions, analyses and interpretations in the article. We are not subject experts, and neither are the vast majority of our readers, do the views of real subject experts is vital in understanding a subject. Replacing the work of experts with long passages from the subject of the article is not an improvement to the article, it actually decreases its usefulness to our readers, who, if they want to, can find the entire text for free online. What they need is more than that, and removing expert opinions will not help them to find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:WikiInspector42 reported by User:Lasunncty (Result: )[edit]

Page: List of countries and dependencies by area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiInspector42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [92]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [93]
  2. [94] (This one reverted an edit from 29 Dec.)
  3. [95]
  4. [96]
  5. [97]
  6. [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]


Not all of WikiInspector42's edits have been disruptive, but most within the last few days have been. I was not involved in the discussion or warning process, but I didn't feel it was necessary to repeat what other users had already done in that regard. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I first became aware of WikiInspector42's edit-warring at List of countries and dependencies by area after he made a rather peculiar edit at Australia. My understanding is that he had made a number of edits, including addition of the content that prompted this report, and some of his edits were opposed by Subtropical-man who was subsequently and inappropriately referred to as a vandal by WikiInspector42, something for which I had to warn him. Before I arrived though, Escape Orbit warned both editors on the talk page about edit-warring. While Subtropical-man stepped away, WikiInspector42 continued edit warring, twice since reverting Lasunncty's edits without discussion. At Australia, he replaced the infobox image showing Australia and the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) with the edit summary "not serious claim", which was a rather silly thing to say given that Australia's claim to the AAT is obviously quite genuine. When his change was reverted he simply reverted that without any attempt at justification, instead simply claiming "unjustified".[101] When he was again reverted, he reverted again and tried to argue on the talk page that he didn't need to discuss the edit. I left a second-edit warring warning on his talk page, which I later expanded. While WikiInspector42 hasn't breached 3RR at either page, he has been edit-warring despite warnings and my advice about how to act when edits are contested. I don't think he gets the point, or doesn't want to. --AussieLegend () 12:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This user does not respect the rules and guelines of the Wikipedia. If he thinks something and if he wants something, the whole Wikipedia must to adapt. For him, there is no discussion or consensus. He used several personal attacks lately. He is still conducting editing wars in many articles. He removed templates like {disputed} or {fact} from articles (without improving problems or consensus). He inserted lying content into articles, including inserted contents without sources. The warnings on the user talk page does not help (also as "last warning"). Unreformable user. As I see the actions of this new user, I have the impression that the account was created for edit-warring. I recommend blocking for a longer period of time or indefinite. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Tantan08 reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Pinoy Big Brother: Otso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tantan08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  1. 01:51, January 12, 2019 - Stable version of the article

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 06:59, January 13, 2019
  2. 17:19, January 14, 2019
  3. 07:05, January 15, 2019

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

  1. 21:58, January 11, 2019 User issued a Level 3 warning by Oenix2nd
  2. 08:54, January 13, 2019 User issued a Level 4 (last warning) by myself

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

  1. See "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" of previous report over same issue
  2. 08:54, January 13, 2019 - In my last warning I specifically ask the editor to stop the behavior in question and discuss it on the talk page.


  • After Tantan08 came off their 24 hour block the user resumed the same edit behavior that lead to the ban in the first place. I linked the previous report in the section above instead of reposting the many times the user was asked to discuss disputed edits on the article talk page. This is clear edit warring and disruptive editing especially when the user removes sources and other editors even IPs are restoring them. It doesn't seem like the user's behavior is going to change. They will keep reverting the changes back to what they think the article should look like, remove all valid sources and keep adding fake sources (from that pose a security risk. (When I clicked on a link from this domain it tried to install a browser hijacker posing as a security checker.) Despite various times asking the user to go to the talk page of the article the user doesn't do so. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 09:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

可愛い reported by User:Belbrabas (Result: )[edit]

Page: Viktor Prokopenya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 可愛い (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 15:19 December 13, 2018
  2. 20:49 January 15, 2019
  3. 09:12 January 16, 2019
  4. 10:21 January 16, 2019
  5. 15:03 January 16, 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103] [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [105] [106]

This edit warring user seems to be connected to Viktor Prokopenya as he pro-Prokopenya, insists only on his POV, makes original research statements, and activates in WP on the dates when events happen connected to Prokopenya Belbrabas (talkcontribs) 11:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:可愛い is risking a block for long-term edit warring. The user reverted out the 'Multiple issues' template a total of four times, once on 13 December and then three more times in January. (Diffs 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the list above). The last of these removals was done while this report was open. One of the claims in the 'multiple issues' is that this is an autobiography. Such a cautionary template flags an article problem; it ought to be removed only per discussion or if there is no evidence for it. A review of the talk page does indeed show the possibility of insider editing or paid editing, and suggests a lack of frankness by the main editor. That editor, User:可愛い was queried in November by User:Drmies about the possibility of a COI but he denied it in in a post on 16 January. He stated in December 2018 on Talk:Viktor Prokopenya that he had made edits to 40 biographies. What account do you suppose he was using for these articles?
We should also consider the possibility of sockpuppetry. An SPI was filed recently against 可愛い but declined without prejudice to refiling. The person who opened this AN3 report and filed the SPI, User:Belbrabas, has surprisingly few edits. If Belbrabas was previously active as an IP on the Viktor Prokopenya page, this would be a good time to make that known. (It can be done discreetly if desired). When one person with no track record reports another person with a similar level of activity, a sock charge is not always very credible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I edited as IP in the article, no edits were done under another account. If someone wishes details on IP, please let me know how I could state this discreetly.
I suspect that previous mysteriously disappeared author - ELindas - who self-confessed that he "knows Prokopenya from his previous work" [107] and User:可愛い, who makes the same edits on "arrest" article section [108] like ELindas previous edits in the article [109] are the same editors, or at least one team of editors having COI.
Information on arrest is supported by sources like Deutsche Welle [110] and Vice News [111] apart from numerous local news outlets like,
I don't understand why information on POV of Prokopenya on death penalty is inserted into criticism/controversy section? There is no any controversy or dispute around Prokopenya's POV on death penalty, since this is a POV which no one criticizes. Obviously, whole current "Controversies" section is edited from Prokopenya reputation management POV. No any alternative POV's are even allowed.
User:可愛い explains his original research, as to why no one cannot write the word "arrest" in the article despite such sources like Deutsche Welle and Vice News here. I tried to explain him that the main thing are reliable sources, but nevertheless he pushes his standing and doesn't want to change anything. Belbrabas (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:JesseRafe reported by User:Rbrenton (Result: )[edit]

Page: Dime Community Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JesseRafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [113]
  2. [114]
  3. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]


I have made every attempt to resolve this without escalating it, but the user has a strong history of edit warring, documented on their talk page. They have broken the COI edit request process for me, by continuing to revert edits by other editors. The last official response to my COI edit request was to report this behavior here. Further, after breaking the COI edit request process by edit warring, the user opened a COI report here. Again, I ask you to look at this user's history of edit warring, and the simple logic of the change we have been trying to make; I think the reverted edits are simply excessive and lack any attempt at collaborative effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbrenton (talkcontribs) 16:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is exhausting. I've written a novella on this issue on 4 talk pages now and am being drawn into a 5th. This user is wantonly violating the COI edit request process. It's been discussed what needs to be done again and again. User also has a tenuous grasp on the reality of the facts and is constantly lying about plain meanings of words and what they've been doing. It's exhausting. I've kindly given them ample opportunity and advised them that 3RR has a specific meaning, and asked them to self-revert numerous times. This is absurd and waste of Wikipedia's resources. JesseRafe (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this is a waste of resources. Please permanently block this user for a long history of edit warring. There are numerous others complaining on this user's talk page. -Brenton (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's my summary of the situation:
I hope Rbrenton will explain why he shouldn't be blocked for violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User: reported by User:SummerPhDv2.0 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Gangs in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Added sources. I placed a source last time or can't you look. Again why is Big Circle Gang in the see also contents?. WP:3RR warning on IP's talk page SummerPhDv2.0s page."
  2. 03:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Added a source. SummerPhDv2.0 you did an undo and you leave ol' Big Circle Gang in the see also content of the page. Helping? I don't think you are."
  3. 03:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Redo, don't need a source for this."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on People Nation. (TW)"
  2. 03:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Gangs in the United States. (TW)"
  3. 05:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gangs in Australia. (TW)"
  4. 22:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Issues regarding your edits */ new section"
  5. 22:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "ow, including recent 3RR warning"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 months Bbb23 blocked 154.x for proxying and disruption. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring - removal of content at Geolycosa pikei[edit]

@Signedzzz: removed content from the article Geolycosa pikei with no discussion and the edit summary "pointless / WP:UNDUE". I forgot that there was anything other than the 3 revert rule and reverted him twice. I don't want to get into any trouble so I'm trying to resolve this here. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about "anything other than the 3 revert rule"? Are you intending to explain your edit on the article talk page? zzz (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean 1RR and 2RR. I already posted on the talk page. SL93 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)