Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rm w a vu (talk | contribs) at 23:40, 11 February 2019 (→‎User:Rm w a vu reported by User:Drmies (Result: ): ''eyeroll intensified''). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Kashmiri reported by User:Alcibiades979 (Result: Warned)

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

    Page: Juan Guaido User being reported: Kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reported by: Alcibiades979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time of report: 20:25, 21 September 2024 UTC [refresh] Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. "Undid revision 882360179 by Alcibiades979 (talk) Read talk. Please do not start an edit war, and read WP:3RR." 8 February 2019 -21,897
    2. "Undid revision 882350320 by Alcibiades979 (talk) There is aleady a discussion on Talk, and some changes already seem acceptable. Feel free to join the discussion." 8 February 2019 -21,897
    3. "→‎‎President of the National Assembly: This is a section titled "President of the National Assembly" and not "Interim President of Venezuela". Removing irrelevant passages on his recognition as IP and discussions on policies of other countries vis-a-vis this fact." 8 February 2019 -1,556
    4. "→‎Interim President of Venezuela: Removing further deliberations on unrelated developments in the Venezuelan crisis. Removing blatant bias." 8 February 2019 -709
    5. "→‎Recognition: Out of scope of this WP:BLP, especially that there is a dedicated article devoted to the subject. Once again: this is a BIOGRAPHY, not a description of the Venezuelan crisis." 8 February 2019 -4,759
    6. "→‎Recognition: NPOV language. Removing what's in the lead section already." 8 February 2019 -273
    7. "→‎Amnesty Law: For God's sake, this is a BIOGRAPHY, not another article discussing the ins and out of the Venezuelan crisis! Keep the text focused on the subject's views and actions and do NOT delve into what other actors were doing. People who want to read about the crisis should read the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Removing several sentences discussing the issue of humanitarian aid/intervention in the Venezuelan crisis." 8 February 2019 -4,101
    8. "→‎Finance and economy: This is a biography, not an article on the situation in Venezuela. Stick to MOS please." 8 February 2019 -156
    9. "→‎Public perception: Oh, missed this one - WP:PEACOCK. Please do not use Wikipedia for promotion/propaganda)" 8 February 2019 -250
    10. "→‎Human rights: The quote does not talk about human rights. Worse: it implies that the subject has no idea about what human rights are. Leave it out, especially that the entire section is based on a single quote in which the subject uttered the words "human rights".)"] 8 February 2019 -1,826
    11. "→‎Foreign policy: Out of place in a biography. Keep it in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, etc. Read MOS:BIO)" 8 February 2019 -3,958
    12. "→‎Media: Absolutely irrelevant. This is a BIOGRAPHY and not a summary of mass media coverage." 8 February 2019 -4,244
    13. "→‎Public perception: WP:PEACOCK, problems with sourcing (editorials), looks much like WP:CHERRY." 8 February 2019 -3,011
    14. "Upon reading further, it appears that he was detained for a total of... 45 minutes. WP:UNDUE." 8 February 2019 -36
    15. "Discussion of the overall political situation in Venezuela is out of scope of this biography, and particilarly should not be placed in lede" 8 February 2019 -1036
    16. "A more neutral tone" 8 February 2019 -378

    Diff of warning: [1] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Juan Guaidó#Significant removal of well sourced text

    I tried restoring the text twice to what had been previously written, keeping the first four reversions as suggested by SandyGeorgia on the talk page. None of this was spoken of ahead of time on the talk page, only mentioned in passing after over 22,000 characters of content had been deleted and changed, effectively gutting the entire article. I of course won't restore a third time as I myself don't want to run afoul of Wiki's 3R rule. I'm sorry in advance if I've messed this up in anyway, I've never filed one of these before. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is, essentially, a content dispute. Having seen several complaints about bias in the article, and, to be frank, shocked with the surprisingly poor quality of what could be a valuable biography given the plentitude of sources, I spent a lot of time this morning cleaning up the article. Primarily, I removed some of the passages that were blatantly POV, quite a lot of unambiguous promo[1][2][3], and some passages sourced to primary sources, e.g., party friends[4] or Instagram account[5]. I believe I retained all the varied points of views with relation to this politician that were there in the article, and in slighty fairer proportions. However, I removed – and am going to defend it – numerous lengthy passages that instead of describing the person, went on to analyse details of the ongoing political crisis in Venezuela[6][7][8], something that already has its dedicated article.
    I understand that some editors might feel very strongly about the ongoing Venezuelan crisis and may feel tempted to push a particular narrative into this new article[9]. As someone who objected boldly, I am now taken to ANI. Pity. A waste of everyone's time.
    To be clear, I am far removed from the Venezuela context and focus only on quality of Wikipedia. I am not going to fight to death over this article, will just move on elsewhere. — kashmīrī TALK 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, Alcibiades979, you have NOT engaged in the discussion on Talk – your only substantial "contribution" to coming up with a quality text were two reverts and an AN report. — kashmīrī TALK 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandygeorgia and Kingsif, the primary contributors to the article have been publicly commended here for their work in clearing up the article, and were used as an example of their ability in reliably and accurately depicting events in progress: #"(→‎Discussion: response.)" 8 February 2019
    "Example Four, Juan Guaidó had numerous content disputes. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] This is an event where details can change by the minute. If it were not for SandyGeorgia and Kingsif working so diligently to make sure it was accurate, it would be a completely different article. We can't rely on editors like them for every single article, though." Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am away from home for the day, and have been in a car accident to boot, car is gone, on a mobile device, and I have not looked at edits to article. People, please do not edit war. The gutting of the artice, with No previous indication of any problem on talk, was Not a collaborative start, and has led apparently to this, but I am hopeful that discussion will ensue now and items can be addressed more collaboratively when I am home. Sorry I am unable to offer more from mobile device, suggest that for someone to gut an article when there were no previous indications on talk of issues was a bad start and can understand if some were perturbed by that kind of editing (which included false claims of BLP issues btw) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really sorry to hear that, and I hope you're alright. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: I am sorry to hear this, hope you are ok. Actually, there has been quite a lot of discussion on Talk, only you archived it[10]. See Archive 1. The article is barely a month old and it has already accummulated 55 sections on Talk!
    By the way, if this is of any consolation to you, I similarly trimmed Len McCluskey and Craig Murray, and somehow all the editors there seemed fine with it (well, except for the editor who had put all the tendentious details in; but they were later topic banned). — kashmīrī TALK 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of discussion before interruption of posts by Kashmiri. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you both; no one was hurt, but I am now sitting in a coffee shop, with an internet connection, hoping I can get my car tonight and drive the hour back home tonight.

    My main concern in this dispute is not the content, rather the casting of aspersions based on NO evidence. So since those aspersions were cast at me, here is my feedback before admins decide how to handle this case.

    Alcibiades979, edit warring is never OK, even if the "other guy" is wrong. I put my suggestions on talk page to welcome further discussion, point by point. The edit war ensued with no discussion of those points. I appreciate what I sense is you defending my good name, but I'd rather it be defended discussing points on talk, not on reverts.

    Kashmiri, the problem here is not the content you removed, but the statements you made about your removals, and since-- most of which I consider to be casting aspersions on my editing in addition to your edit warring.

    I will respond point by point cutting through yuor text. I know it's frowned upon, but here I think it will be the optimal way as we will avoid another wall of text.
    • You said, "This is, essentially, a content dispute." Wrong. Edit warring is always a behavioral issue; good editors don't do it. You did, for meaningless reasons, because I had already shown on talk that I don't edit war, and we were going to dialogue, point by point. You showed the classic, had to win, edit warring behavior.
    Well, this report is about a content dispute. The lengthy list of diffs above is about content, not about two reverts. You are trying to present it as a behavioural issue as you seem to have an issue that your work was affected.
    • Claiming BLP: this is a serious issue, and you should take care in accusing any editor of breaching BLP. This was quite offensive to me, as I consider breaching BLP to be about the worst thing an editor can do. You made serious cuts to the article, and then claimed on article talk that your edits were for BLP. I welcome you to strike those statements, although I care not if you don't.
    Absolutely, the article did breach WP:BLP in quite a few places, for example by relying on primary or affiliated sources (expresslly prohibited by WP:BLP). Note that in no place did I imply that it was you who added those passages, as I do not usually have time to check for such details.
    • Claiming reasoning for deletions that are not supported by the policy and guideline pages you cited: this is not on, and some of us know those pages quite well (my nickname is MOS Maven in some circles, so I suggest you not cite MOS to remove text that you just don't like).
    Fair enough. This makes it even more surprising that, for example, the lead section was allowed to discuss other subjects (e.g., Venezuelan laws and politics) at length, despite clear stipulations in MOS:BIO on how the context shold be presented.
    • Talk page archival claim: you claimed, here and on article talk, that I had archived unresolved POV threads. But you presented evidence on none, rather evidence of me archiving threads that were resolved-- often topics raised by me. If you are going to accuse someone of covering up evidence (which is what you did, and that is a behavioral problem, called casting aspersions, be sure your diffs back up your claims.
    I did nowhere mention "unresolved". A few editors, however, expressed their doubts about the bio's neutrality. Excuse me that I did not provide links - I thought everyone is able to see these sections by mere glancing through the titles.
    • Talk page content claims: you claim there was evidence on talk of POV issues. You have produced none. And I don't/wouldn't archive threads claiming POV (see the talk page of 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis.
    I did provide some evidence, on Talk and even here on this page (above), but happy to discuss further if you wish so.
    • Editcountitis: After you gutted the article, you asked me (on talk) to leave the article, implying ownership based on my edit count. Please do review Featured Articles like Samuel Johnson, Autism, Asperger syndrome ... I could go on for pages ... to see that I make hundreds of small edits to any article I touch, even if I have added negligible content to them. Where you gutted 1400 words in about 10 edits, I take hundreds of edits to try to preserve and restore and clean up the messes sloppy editors who take little pride in their work often leave in articles. If you consider hundreds of single edits where I clean up trivialities like WP:NBSP, WP:PUNC, WP:CAPFRAG, WP:ENDASHes, citation parameters and formatting, and sloppy prose-- guilty. Someone's gotta do it, and I don't like working on sloppy articles. You came to a MOS-clean article and left it a classic WikiMess. After I had spent weeks and hundreds of edits trying to preserve the mess that was there when I came on board. Welcome to editing Venezuelan topics, where few are fully fluent in English, and no one cares about Manual of Style.
    You will need to forgive me for not counting the number of bytes added by you and by other editors. I admit I cut this short and went for the simplest measure, i.e., the edit count. I did not know that your numerous edits are just single letters or words. I also did not check which of the removed sentences were written by you. But I am not getting why you would believe I considered them yours as I never implied so.
    • And then you used editcountitis to claim ownership, not realizing apparently that your cuts rendered what was left of the article even MORE written by me, because most of what you removed wasn't mine. Thanks to you, I now have an enormous percentage of the article (which I hope you won't use to again accuse me of ownership, since it was MY work you left).
    Trust me, that's perfectly fine with me. For me you are welcome to be the author of 1000% of this article as long as the text at least roughly complies with WP:N.

    What is at issue here is not content-- it is behavior. Edit warring is but one symptom of a behavioral problem. You missed the chance to dialogue, learn some guideline and policy you don't know, and end up with a better article. Yes, you removed some problematic content, but you also left the article with other problems. So, I don't know if you will be blocked for edit warring or not, but I know that if I will notice if I see you engaging in this sort of battleground editing again, anywhere. Now, I don't know when my car will be fixed, or when I will be home, but I plan to discuss edits, and your answers so far indicate you think throwing WikiAcronyms around on talk is going to work. It's not.

    Sorry, shop called and car is ready! My apologies for typos and errors and hasty close ... gotta go. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, I did not miss a chance of dialogue. I hope you do not expect editors to redraft the entire article before starting edits that basically remove bias and promo. That is not going to happen. Promo, unverified claims, and bad sources get removed without prior discussion, especially from newly created BLPs. Here, the process was followed, too: I boldly removed what I considered improper, as normal; you objected on Talk; I responded on Talk. Then Alcibiades979, instead of joining in the discussion, went on for a fight in the mainspace, damaging the dicussed text; and then, when reverted, he came straight here all the time without engaging.
    Glad you got your car fixed. I am sorry I won't be able to respond all day tomorrow as I will be away at a business meeting. I do not think anybody is going to be blocked here; Alcibiades979 might get a minnow slap for bringing an ongoing content dispute to AN. But they seem to be a fairly new editor, and additionally they say they live in the region, so their strong feelings about that political figure can be forgiven. — kashmīrī TALK 03:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, interrupting someone else's post is frowned upon, and also very hard to read when you don't sign each interruption, so I won't try to wade through it. If you remove the interruptions to the bottom of my post you interrupted, I will read. (I see you left the same kind of jumble on article talk). My suggestion is that, as a person who is on this noticeboard because you edit warred, rather than respond point-by-point to your casting of aspersions on my editing, you address your edit warring and what you may have learned that will help you avoid same in the future. Edit warring is a behavioral problem, and it's most often the tip of the iceberg, accompanied by other similar battleground behaviors. I am sensing that you are not getting the message-- edit warring is a bright line, don't cross it. And when you remove very well sourced text (I did not add the instragram and such sources), you would do well to have a policy reason, well justified (not citing the Manual of Style), or consensus on talk. Please respect that I would appreciate that you never break up a post of mine again. Just a leftover from having processed thousands of FAC pages and not enjoying when I couldn't tell who said what because someone rudely chopped posts, and then didn't even sign each piece, so that subsequent additions became impossible to sort. Good luck in your editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Going in to an article which one has never contributed to before, without talking in the talk section and cutting over 24,000 characters whilst accusing the editors who have been working on it of "absurdity", "creation of a crude propaganda machine", 'bias due to geographic location', 'poor editing', 'narrative pushing', 'multiple breaches of wiki rules', etc. is a strange way to begin a conversation. Even stranger when you attempt to bully people who disagree with you to stop working on the article; as well as edit warring. But then again as you pointed out, I am from a country close to Venezuela; perhaps we have different standards on how to conduct civilized discourse! I wouldn't suggest a conversation then immediately tell others that they should refrain from participating. I would, however, not taken a person who does such things seriously. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @WIKI Admin- Would it be alright for me to start repairing the damage that he's done to the page? I tried twice yesterday and was meet by edit-warring, I stopped not wanting to fall afoul of the 3R rule myself. With your permission however, I would like to repair it. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alcibiades979, there is too much fixing to be done to undertake it without discussion and there is no hurry. Before discussing the more serious content issues, I would like to fix the simple (things like hanging references and wikilinking and other sloppiness introduced into the article) and blatant problems (original research in saying 50 countries support Guaido and a weasly introduction referring vaguely to an interpretation of the constitution) introduced by Kashmir. It may be best to take it step by step, but the first thing I will shortly correct is the mess Kashmir left on the talk page, as they apparently do not know how to thread discussions, and an orderly talk page will be needed. Perhaps we can find a third party to help encourage Kashmir to use the talk page correctly, and to always provide a diff for allegations and to avoid casting of aspersions.

    I also noticed the further personalization of issues by Kashmir above (But they seem to be a fairly new editor, and additionally they say they live in the region, so their strong feelings about that political figure can be forgiven.). Honestly, attributing motive. I hope this editor has a good understanding of WP:BATTLEGROUND, but since it appears they may not, I strongly encourage a very slow and methodical approach to repairing and restoring the article. I will try to repair the talk page shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Listo te ayudaré. Dijo que no cambiaría mas la pagina y que la dejaría en paz, ojalá que eso no sea mentira, jajajaja. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ! Working in a battleground editing environment is tedious and time-consuming, but slow and steady is the way to go. I have added sections on talk for discussing each of Kashmiri's deletions.[11] Please discuss under each section. If we can find someone to keep Kashmiri's responses appropriate and well-threaded, we should be able to determine consensus quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: User:Kashmiri is warned for edit warring. They didn't break 3RR since they only made three reverts on 8 February, but they were reverting to enforce their own revision of the article. Their version clearly lacks general consensus. Single-handed rewritings are unlikely to succeed, and a slower process appears necessary for this particular article. If this article falls into chaos, full protection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: I politely object. Alicibiades was the one who interrupted the consensus process that was at the time being worked out on Talk, without bothering to engage in discussion there. I only reverted their interruption. Further, thank you to correctly state the number of reverts I made. — kashmīrī TALK 11:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Korny O'Near reported by User:Ewen Douglas (Result: Warned)

    Page: Steve King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Korny O'Near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]
    5. [17]
    6. [18]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

    Comments:

    While not technically violating 3RR, Korny O'Near has engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on the Steve King article since 23 Jan 2019 while carefully reverting around the 24-hour limit. Multiple editors have reverted his POV edits, including myself, Snooganssnoogans, MrX, and AzureCitizen. On the talk page, a similar war has played out - multiple editors have attempted to explain to Korny O'Near why his edits are not acceptable, and there is no support for his POV edits, yet he continues to try to force them into the article. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: With his latest edit, Korny has now made 6 reversions to the article (4 of them identical) in the last 24 hours and 28 minutes. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I should have paid more attention to the 24-hour timer, although I should note that the text I reverted includes what I believe is copyrighted text from The New York Times, and thus may be exempt from the 3RR rule. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Ewen Douglas and was considering raising this at WP:AE. Korny O'Near's editing is fully tendentious at this point, and his persistent WP:IDHT and edit warring are indicative of someone who is simply trying to get their way in defiance of consensus. In my opinion, a DS topic ban from the article would probably be more effective than a block.- MrX 🖋 17:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, here's the apparent plagiarism that I was trying to revert:

    From the text in the Wikipedia article:

    In 2010, King accused Obama of advancing immigration policies based on race, stating that Obama had a "default mechanism" that "favors the black person."

    From the New York Times article:

    He also accused former President Barack Obama of advancing immigration policies based on race. “The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race, on the side that favors the black person,” he said in a radio interview in 2010.

    Korny O'Near (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The "apparent plagiarism" tack is a new one from Korny. If you look at his earlier reversions of this exact same section (the first three diffs I listed) he did not list "plagiarism" as a concern. He's simply trying to use that as a cover for his edit-warring (it's not plagiarism, in any case). Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by "new" - I mentioned it in some of the edit summaries, as well as several times on the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not mention it until 17:58, 7 February 2019‎, less than 24 hours ago. Stop with the nonsense. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You added that text to the Wikipedia article on February 5, and I first mentioned it on the talk page a few hours later. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first edit summary to mention it was 17:58, 7 February 2019. You've been edit warring on the article since 23 Jan, so yes, it's a new tactic. It's also not plagiarism, and other editors besides myself reverted your edits that used that excuse, which is further evidence of your tendentious editing. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Korny O'Near: Then why didn't you restore the version that was consented to by three editors? ("King speculated that Obama's immigration policies were influenced by racial favoritism toward blacks."). Your sudden concern about plagiarism lacks credibility in view of your edits to the article and talk page discussions.- MrX 🖋 18:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by "sudden concern". As I noted, I first mentioned the apparent plagiarism on the talk page a few hours after it was added to the article. Should I have done it within minutes? And I didn't revert to that previous wording because, non-plagiaristic as it was, it also didn't make any sense, as I've also noted on the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ignoring the fact that IT ISN'T PLAGIARISM. Zero other editors thought it was. You are the only one who stated that (falsely) as yet another tactic in your edit-warring. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now the administrators can decide that. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the extent of the plagiarism is the example listed above by Korny then I don't find it persuasive. In my opinion this report should be closed without giving Korny any credit for the copyright exception to 3RR (WP:3RRNO #5). If Korny would promise to take a break from editing this article for a month, an admin might consider closing this without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. I disagree with the assessment, but I'll accept the warning. I may indeed have been spending too much time on this one article, the problems with it notwithstanding. Happy editing, everyone. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VonWoland reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Inejiro Asanuma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    VonWoland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "Gratuitous indulgence of weapon paraphilia removed."
    2. 21:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "There can be no assumption of "good faith" when a bad faith reason is given for an edit and a revert. As soon as the weapon Oswald used to kill Kennedy is accepted as part of the summary of Kennedy's life, it will be exceptable to indulge morbid trivia here (and that---not a desire to glorify fascist violence---is the best-faith interpretation I can give to insisting on that sentence)"
    3. 17:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "if weapons fetishits belive the type of knife used is so important, they need to start a page about the assassin, and not the man murdered."
    4. 00:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Update: fourth revert - "Put the page under protection and engage in a discussion on the talk page before reverting offensive edits. Thank you."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Not assuming good faith on Inejiro Asanuma. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user seems to have made their stance clear, without violating 3RR they certainly would if reverted again. They have given no indication of a willingness to partake in constructive dialogue per BRD. They also were warned against not assuming good faith and calling editors fascists, behavior which they did not abate in subsequent edit summaries. JesseRafe (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaand, it's four reverts now, and a demand that the page be protected to his version. --Calton | Talk 00:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Five now. Bradv🍁 01:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:153.165.135.190 reported by User:Gaelan (Result: Protected)

    Page
    Hot Sugar (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    153.165.135.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "WP:BLP"
    2. 23:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "WP:BLP"
    3. 23:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "WP:BLP"
    4. 23:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "WP:BLP"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Warned on talk page (but Twinkle won't let me select it, presumably because it wasn't me or because it wasn't done with a template). They made a legal threat (libel) on their talk page as well. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – 2 months. Protection may be lifted by any administrator who is confident that the article will remain free of BLP violations. See Talk:Hot Sugar (musician)#Misconduct allegations for the data to consider, and keep in mind that the charges are mostly allegations that were made on social media, often from anonymous Twitter or Instagram accounts. A couple of publications have done actual reporting (i.e. they interviewed some of the women who complained). Of the four listed web sites, it seems like the Daily Beast is the most credible. See their 22 January report which includes some responses from Hot Sugar's attorney. It appears from the references that Hot Sugar has been busy suing various people, and has obtained settlements. Any admin can undo this protection if they are convinced the problem is over. If we do wind up including a statement in the article, it probably needs to include the denials by Koenig's attorney. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Race666y reported by User:MattLongCT (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Shakir Qasmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Race666y (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]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

    Comments:
    Single-Purpose Account only engaging in disruptive behavoir. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 11:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fcbjuvenil reported by User:R96Skinner (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Fcbjuvenil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

    Comments:

    Fcbjuvenil believes this footballer, Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992), left his ex-club, Independiente, in 2018 but joined his new club, Monterrey, in 2019. That's despite it being a direct transfer, therefore he'd have to of left/joined at the same time; i.e. the same year. My POV was that he left/joined in 2018, as that's when the transfer was announced. However, I get that's arguable as some editors believe its when the transfer window opens (2019). Fcbjuvenil thinks it should be: left in 2018, joined 2019. Which doesn't make sense. However, I'm willing to compromise at 2019 both ways. Fcbjuvenil continues to blindly revert, avoiding a discussion despite my attempts (see above). R96Skinner (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That hardly solves the issue, does it? You honestly believe the user would hold a conversation via the article's talk page when they didn't even respond to direct contact, nor respond here. Interesting. You could probably class Fcbjuvenil's edits as vandalism; therefore making the 3RR void. However, I was willing to find a better solution than that by coming here hoping to resolve the issue in some way. I will open a discussion on the article's talk page, which will likely be futile but hopefully I am wrong! R96Skinner (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use the term WP:VANDALISM unless you are confident that the other party is actually trying to damage the encyclopedia and make it worse, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If a transfer was recorded as of 31 December (as suggested by your source) there might be an ambiguity as to which year he started with the new team. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rmor312 reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: Blocked)

    Page: List of unsolved problems in mathematics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rmor312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diff of the user's revert: [27]

    Diff of the block notification for the same edit war: [28]

    Comments:

    This user restarts the same edit war, just after the end of his block for exactly the same reverts on the same article. D.Lazard (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 4 days. The user previously blanked the AfD discussion of an article they created. If this continues they are risking an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.39.24.212 reported by User:AlanM1 (Result: )

    User being reported: 217.39.24.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Summertime Ball

    Jingle Bell Ball

    Misc

    Comments

    IP user has been given various level 1–3 warnings for problems with three articles, a User talk:217.39.24.212#Welcome!, and a specific request to talk about their latest insistence on having flags where they don't belong, despite my having pointed out how it's againt MOS:FLAG in the original edit summary, their talk page, and the article talk page. The IP user refuses to get it, leave edit summaries, or discuss. I've done about all I can do for them. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Inoteator reported by User:Moxy (Result: )

    Page
    Afro-Dominicans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Inoteator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882742687 by Historiador91 (talk)"
    2. 22:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882713610 by Historiador91 (talk)"
    3. 03:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882560734 by Historiador91 (talk)"
    4. 12:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882477170 by Historiador91 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    was warned days ago when they strated but to no avail.


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:CordialGreenery reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page
    BAMN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    CordialGreenery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "undid possible vandalism. User was warned."
    2. 05:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "undid possible vandalism. User was warned."
    3. 05:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revert without explanation. Please use the talk page to discuss."
    4. 05:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Restored to last good version with extra citation."
    5. 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Repaired lede to previously accepted version."
    6. 10:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Restored to previous consensus."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Talk:BAMN */ new section"
    2. 05:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on BAMN. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 04:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Political violence in the lede */ reply"
    Comments:

    Consistent vandalism, POV-pushing, non-constructive deletionism, and outright aggression that borders on harassment, including open insults on my talk page, make this a WP:Boomerang situation.CordialGreenery (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The hell they do. One editor edit-warred six times against two editors to keep his preferred version and insulted them in the process. And has yet to learn how to sign his name. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this will work out well for you. There's a constructive way to do this, and you're choosing the opposite of that. CordialGreenery (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your faux concern for me is very touching. Sign me Shabby. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I note edit warring warnings last month by three other editors and a DS alert for American Politics. Despite this CordialGreenery he continued to edit war. called Malik Shabazz "Shabby" on the article talk page and asked if Malik he could read on his own talk page. Malik, you shouldn't have responded on his talk page the way you did. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sapphorain reported by User:ZH8000 (Result:Both blocked)

    Page
    Geneva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Sapphorain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882859182 by ZH8000 (talk) ??? I don't see any source with that simple revert"
    2. 19:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882856312 by ZH8000 (talk) Stop that nonsense (or provide an "indisputable" source)"
    3. 19:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882847905 by ZH8000 (talk)No, they are not. Petit-Lancy is part of the municipality of Lancy, and Acacias is part of the municipality of Carouge"
    4. 16:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Suppressed postal codes not for the city, but for other municipalities in the canton"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Geneva/Lausanne */ new section"
    2. 19:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Geneva/Lausanne */"
    3. 20:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Geneva. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 19:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* ZIP */ new section"
    Comments:

    User:92.184.96.18 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: blocked, 24 hours)

    Page
    Dakota Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    92.184.96.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    2. 20:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    3. 19:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    4. 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    5. 15:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    6. 13:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    7. 11:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    8. 00:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    9. 20:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    10. 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    11. 18:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    12. 17:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    13. 16:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    14. 15:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    15. 10:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    16. 23:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    17. 17:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    18. 16:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Dakota Johnson. (TW)"
    2. 19:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User is reportedly removing content without discussion or even edit summary. The content in question is gossip but can be referenced to reliable sources. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    They have reverted again ([29]) after being notified of this report ([30]) Dorsetonian (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rm w a vu reported by User:Drmies (Result: )

    Page
    Mueller, She Wrote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Rm w a vu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [31]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [32]
    2. [33]
    3. [34]


    Comments:
    User has now reverted three times. I could revert again, and get them blocked, perhaps, but I am not interested in doing that--I am more interested in them realizing that this should stop. Apparently they don't want to hear this from me. I might have talked more with them on the talk page, but they had little more to offer than an accusation of bias. Pinging JzG also, who wrote the article and reverted the editor the first time (so we're well past BRD). Note that their added sources are not acceptable by our standards; the only thing that might could be called verified is a bit of trivia about the opening sequence. The rest is links to the actual podcast and fact tags. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been a while since I've been involved in the creation or early stages of a page being created and populated, but in my experience, a fair amount of latitude is ordinarily given to allow a page to be sourced before being whittled down. I made attempts to engage in a civil conversation on the talk page, only to be accused of hyperbole, with an unwillingness to work towards the common goal of Wikipedia. Let's not be lame, let's be bold and get an article off the ground that has enough information and report to warrant it. --rm 'w avu 23:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You have any more insults laying around? Drmies (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You have anything constructive to contribute? --rm 'w avu 23:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=882890477"