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

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:EditSafe (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954722784

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954597895
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954707070
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954715784
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toxic_masculinity&oldid=954722784

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Toxic_masculinity

Comments:

It takes two to edit-war. This user is ignoring WP:BRD and trying to force contentious material into the lead section (Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4) and disruptively tag the article (Diff 5) by insisting NPOV means including "both sides of the argument". Do not reward this blatant attempt at gaming 3RR to overturn both WP:GEVAL and WP:ONUS; I suggest an immediate WP:BOOMERANG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to increase the neutrality of the article by adding cited information, with the intention of removing bias from the article, not "forc[ing] contentious material into the lead section" as User:Sangdeboeuf claims. My edits have repeatedly been undone, and I have explained my point thoroughly in the discussion section. I admit to having initially misspoke in the discussion article, which User:Sangdeboeuf continues to quote, but I clarified my point as a reply to the discussion, which User:Sangdeboeuf seems to have ignored. Further, I added a tag to inform readers that a dispute is ongoing - which it is - and did not insert this tag disruptively, as User:Sangdeboeuf has claimed. EditSafe (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Note that when temporary full protection expires, the protection is lifted entirely. As this article is under an AE protection, the full protection is indefinite to prevent this. The full protection must be lifted manually so that the AE EC protection is restored rather than being inadvertently lifted. This may be done by pinging me once the protection is no longer necessary; otherwise, I will lift it at my discretion. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello user:Swarm, thanks for your input and page protection. Just one though: wouldn't it make sense to leave the tag in place while the page is protected, to let viewers know that a dispute is ongoing? That was my whole purpose with placing the tag. EditSafe (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not and cannot "take sides". Reverting to a stable version is not a judgment call. It is nothing but a procedural reversion to the pre-dispute revision. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Can you briefly explain why the 3RR violation was ignored? I don't see any of the exemptions mentioned at WP:3RRNO here.--Pudeo (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Soroushia reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked)

Page

Crash Landing on You (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Soroushia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 03:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 03:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 11:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Crash Landing on You. (TW)"
2. 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Crash Landing on You. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is not only edit warring but also involving into WP:SOCK. See the similarity of edit of [1] and [2] Amkgp (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:MA Javadi (Result: )

Page: Maryam Rajavi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:36, 4 May 2020
2. 05:38, 2 May 2020
3. 08:51, 30 April 2020
4. 08:07, 29 April 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [3] [4]

Cautioned user on article's talk page that his edits were controversial and needed consensus. User has been slowly edit-warring instead.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments:
Kazemita1 is trying to add a controversial edit without first trying to reach consensus. Kazemita1 was recently indefinitely blocked for edit warring and sockpupetry in People's Mujahedin of Iran (an article connected to this current one), but that was changed to 3 months after he stated he would better conduct himself. - MA Javadi (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

See a recent ANI discussion about Kazemita1. It is arguable that his indefinite block should be restored. I'll ping the last two admins who may be familiar with him, User:El_C and User:RoySmith. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Many of the edits shown above are not even reverts. For example, my last edit on that article (first shown above) was simply a past version of the article proposed by user HistoryOfIran, that at least 3 users seemed to be OK with (me, Pahlevun and HistorOfIran). That is a relative consensus given the number of active editors in the article at the time (5). Moreover, none of the users that actually reverted my edits ever stated any reason for their objection towards inclusion of some of the contents. For example, MA Javadi, or Barca never say why including "*List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom" in the "See also" section is a problem and yet they blankly removed it from the article.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I did reply to your query [6], and so did HistoryofIran [7]. There was never a "relative consensus" as Barca also informed you [8]. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

HistoryOfIran's statement was after my edit! At the time of my edit 3 versus 2 agreed with that version of the article. The same is true about your response; it is after the conflict. --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Kazemita: prior to your last edits, it was explained why your edits were controversial and that you needed to discuss your edits and stop edit warring:[9] [10][11] - MA Javadi (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Amkgp reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Warned)

Page

Crash Landing on You (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Amkgp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Soroushia (talk) to last revision by Amkgp (TW)"
2. 03:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Soroushia (talk) to last revision by Amkgp (TW)"
3. 03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Soroushia (talk) to last revision by Amkgp (TW)"
4. 03:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 79.127.1.103 (talk) to last revision by Amkgp (TW)"
5. 03:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Soroushia (talk) to last revision by HeartGlow30797 (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "May 2020 We are getting on the verge of edit warring, please confer the Talk page for a resolution."

 Comment: This was the request/invitation from the fellow editor HeartGlow30797(as we were both involved in reverting un-sourced data inclusion at that moment) for a resolution against vandalism.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[12]
 Comment: It's the warning given by me to stop adding un-sourced information without references, as per WP:CITE. Amkgp (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

See report above. These edits were not exempt from 3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Toddst1, I prevented edit warring by Soroushia on the page "Crash Landing on You" by placing the level-wise warnings after every revert and finally reporting after level-4 warning as evident/proof from the notices at User_talk:Soroushia. As a result, the user Sorooshia was blocked for vandalism and edit warring. The reports are available at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Soroushia_reported_by_User:Amkgp_(Result:_Blocked) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soroushia. The decision to report to WP:SPI and WP:AN/3 was taken after a consensus see [here] . With due respect I find Toddst1 is attacking me using false accusation without any reason or there must be a misunderstanding regarding this issue only. I am reverting that are inappropriate as per guidelines to stop vandalism Amkgp (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

JJMC89, Oshwah, El_C, MelanieN and ToBeFree I fee I am being attacked. This may be an attempt to defame my image in Wikipedia community according to my limited understanding. Please help. Amkgp (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I am very strict regarding to vandalism and I do report and thereafter actions are taken if found justifiable by the Administrators. Toddst1 you can see from the previous reports posted above (if still available). You even thanked once for many of my anti-vandalism works including handling WP:DOY issues after warning and rectifying my mistakes recently. It seems that Toddst1 is eager in defaming/blocking. I request the administrators to help me though this may not be the correct forum to do so, but I have no proof except this. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Warned. Please do not mass ping admins — that is inappropriate. An admin will attend to the report in due time. Amkgp is not being "defamed," as they claim, this is a proper report, one which shows that they violated 3RR in a manner not exempt from that policy. They are cautioned to do better next time by observing 3RR and reporting any edit warring violations, instead, before they exceed a bright line rule. Noting the promotional nature of the edit they reverted, however. As for Toddst1, they are an editor in good standing. Any violations that are attributed to them require documentation —otherwise, it's an aspersion— which this isn't really the venue (use ANI instead, but beware the boomerang). El_C 15:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, OK, But how did I violate when I reported those diffs mentioned as a valid 3RR violations proofs for edit warring by Soroushia? Edit warring was initiated by Soroushia clearly mentioned in the comments and in BLOCK notice at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soroushia and User_talk:Soroushia respectively. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a note: I placed the edit warring today Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Soroushia_reported_by_User:Amkgp_(Result:_Blocked) after a discussion Talk:Crash_Landing_on_You#Resolve_Dispute. Thank you Amkgp (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to facilitate a discussion on the talk page after reverting the same edit two times from two different users. After 10 minutes of no reply from the pinged parties involved, I placed a warning on their respective talk pages warning them that I would call for admin intervention, including Amkgp_'s. Amkgp_ then accused of sock-puppetry and reported them. An admin banned both accounts for edit-warring, and I closed the discussion leaving the article as it was before the edit-war.

User:Lobsterthermidor reported by User:DrKay (Result: )

Page: Charles II of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 12 July 2018 [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 4 March #1 [14]
2. 4 March #2 [15]
3. 4 May #1 [16]
4. 4 May #2 [17]
5. 4 May #3 [18]
6. 4 May #4 [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

• So, two highly established editors, clean records, no 3RR vios. Discussion via edit summaries. Disagreement is over the interpretation of a source, an archaic book which describes an anecdote in which Charles went to the room of a "woman he admired". Lobster contends that the archaic wording of the source is suggesting that she was a "probable mistress", which I don't think is particularly unreasonable, while DrKay contends rather straightforwardly that the source does not explicitly make that claim, which seems equally reasonable. However DrKay falls back on WP:OR, which states rather unequivocally that independent "analysis" of a source is prohibited. I don't think Lobster's addition is unreasonable or in bad faith, but Kay's reversions seem to be in line with the overarching policy guidance. At the minimum, Lobster should be able to understand this and proceed to DR, rather than simply edit warring. At the same time, Dr Kay did not opt for direct engagement either, instead issuing templated warnings for "disruptive editing", which seems a bit unreasonable. @Lobsterthermidor: can I simply ask you to self-revert and engage in discussion and dispute resolution? I don't particularly want to take any action against an editor who I should be able to trust to self-correct on their own. Regardless of DrKay's less-than-ideal approach, he has now stated his objection on the talk page, and there should be no reason that you can not engage going forward. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In DrKay's favour see the discussions at Talk:Francis Walsingham which immediately preceded the edits made on this article. My own attempts to help Lobsterthermidor abide by Wikipedia's standards date back to 2012 and 2013, with much more interaction from then up to 2016. There are several notices about edit warring and tendentious edits on his talk page.  —SMALLJIM  13:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:祖正石 reported by I dream of horses (Result: Blocked)

Page

Gravitational wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported

祖正石 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitational_wave&diff=prev&oldid=954584049

Diffs of the user's reverts

Undid revision 954883304 by Deacon Vorbis

Undid revision 954884471 by Deacon Vorbis

Undid revision 954886696 by TwoTwoHell

Undid revision 954888793 by Deacon Vorbis

you can write now rubbish trump

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning: Edit warring on Gravitational wave. (TW)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page

Adding reverts subsection

Comments:

It seems that the tradition to ending edit wars is to compromise on the article talk page; however, I think the comment from Newty23125 fits the spirit of the rule. I dream of horses (t) (c) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 22:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC) (fixed template at 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC))

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:37.152.231.22 reported by User:Cryptic Canadian (Result: )

Page

Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

37.152.231.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954917372 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) no consensus for violating policies and guidelines. Now stop trashing my work just for your own perverse kicks"
2. 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954915370 by PamD (talk) I really did not expect that after I carefully went through the article and fixed its serious failings, three separate people would decide to trash all my work for no reason at all."
3. 22:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954909421 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)"
4. 22:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "rv vandal"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warning given here but reverted by user. —{ CrypticCanadian } 23:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That really is quite something. I found an article with serious problems, and I spent some time carefully fixing them. I imagined that if anyone noticed, they would be pleased that a poor article was now better. But no! Instead, three people have simply trashed my work entirely, without any hint of an explanation. And now a fourth person has brought this up here. That is some really ridiculous behaviour. No wonder a lot of articles are in a bad way, if this is how you react to people improving them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.231.22 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I actually think this IP editor has been trying to make some helpful, good faith edits which do, genuinely, improve the article. My thanks to them. But I'm so sorry to see that they've gone about interacting with us all in quite the wrong way, and have got into edit warring and even a bit of swearing. If everyone can first use the talk page to discuss and agree on smaller, more discrete changes - and none of us get on our 'high horses' we can all contribute to making improvements. The IP user could certainly be blocked for edit warring -which is horribly disruptive - but I think their views on improving the article are worth hearing. Please, IP, can you undertake to discuss changes on the talk page because I feel you have views that are worth us listening to. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

They are up to 6 reverts now (with some personal attacks tossed in); I'd block them myself if I wasn't involved as one of the editors who reverted them. Yes, there are some MOS questions, but the MOS guidelines do do not have the "bright line" that our 3RR policy does. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Holy hell, what the hell is going on here? Agree with Nick 100%, I see nothing to indicate that the IP's edits are anything other than good faith, non-disruptive improvements, nor any specific objections raised at all. Restoring to "consensus version" or "stable version" is bullshit, there's no such thing, see WP:STABLE#Inappropriate usage. GAs are promoted by one person, and GA status does not represent a consensus that an article is not to not be edited going forward. If a GA is changed, and you think it no longer qualifies as a GA, you file a GAR, or articulate the specific reasons when you revert, you don't simply "lock down" an article because it's a GA, what the hell. Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy. Obstructing bold editing without citing any specific objections is disruptive editing. The IP is 100% correct in saying "have the fucking courtesy to explain yourself". I'm honestly embarrassed by this, and I deeply apologize to this IP user for the treatment they're receiving. I would not block an editor for this in a thousand years, come on, you guys. Jamie you're a great admin and I 100% respect you but surely you must know that this is wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Block them all(except Britishfinance) for one day. The IP has been uncivil(assuming vandalism, this edit summary) and violated 3RR; Jamie, PamD and David Biddulph have been edit-warring over a content dispute and given policy-deficient reasons for their reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting viewpoint, from an account with little evidence of serious contribution to the encyclopaedia - 224 article edits since 2016, of which 70% are reverts. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments of User:Swarm. I am disappointed to see that User:Ohnoitsjamie did not bother to respond to them. I note again that four different people restored grammar and style errors to the article, falsely claiming "consensus" for this. There can obviously never be a consensus for the concept of not using correct grammar. Not one of the four reverters outlined any serious reason for their actions, nor any specific objection to any of my edits, either at the time or since. The lack of input here or on the article talk page from any of the four is very telling. 37.152.231.22 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:186.170.127.72 reported by User:Ed6767 (Result: Blocked 31 hrs)

Page

God of War: Ascension (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

186.170.127.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954939837 by Ed6767 (talk)"
2. 02:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954939675 by Ed6767 (talk)"
3. 02:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954939540 by Suffusion of Yellow (talk)"
4. 02:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954939435 by Ed6767 (talk)"
5. 02:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954939088 by Ed6767 (talk)"
6. 02:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954938754 by Ed6767 (talk)"
7. 02:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954938325 by ToeFungii (talk)"
8. 02:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954937947 by ToeFungii (talk)"
9. 02:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954937754 by Suffusion of Yellow (talk)"
10. 02:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954937055 by Suffusion of Yellow (talk)"
11. 02:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954936875 by LuK3 (talk)"
12. 02:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954936207 by LuK3 (talk)"
13. 02:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954936021 by LuK3 (talk)"
14. 02:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954935921 by LuK3 (talk)"
15. 02:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954935764 by Zman9600 (talk)"
16. 02:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954935665 by Zman9600 (talk)"
17. 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954935389 by Zman9600 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Upmost priority please. clearly troll only. wasting all our time constantly undoing then rollback Ed6767 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hrs Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:89.205.129.220 reported by User:Grandthinker (Result: Blocked and protected )

Page: Baruch_Spinoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 89.205.129.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
the user carries on involving himself in other edit warring and now he start to call "idiots" the other users as you can see in the same page's Revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Spinoza&action=history Besides, there are a whole section of discussion on the talk page that the user reported did not pay attention by viewing the majority of other users have a different position. Here is the section in the page's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABaruch_Spinoza&type=revision&diff=954958000&oldid=954915082#Dutch_or_Portuguese?

Blocked IP for continuing edit war and fugly protected page for 2 days. IP was previously blocked on 89.205.133.87. See rest of 89.205.128.0/17 as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Rambo Apocalypse reported by User:The4lines (Result: one week, partial)

Page

Racial views of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rambo Apocalypse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 13:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Restored NPOV in lead, POV in the rest of the article, so I've re-added the POV tag. Other users have expressed concerns over POV (see Talk), not legitimate to remove it because a user disagrees."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[29]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[30]

Comments:

The page is Under the 1RR Rule The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Made every effort on the talk page to establish consensus, gained agreement from two people, no disagreement, made edits which addressed concerns made by other editors and they were reverted.

Another user noted that the article had POV issues, I concurred and added a POV tag. Someone else removed it without gaining consensus, so I re-added it, twice. I'm not entirely familiar with the wikipedia rules because there are so many of them, so I'm not sure what the hell I'm supposed to do to be honest. All I'm trying to do is ensure that the article gives appropriate weight to facts - i.e. the facts of what Trump has said and the fact that the NPOV status of the article is disputed. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Rambo Apocalypse, I drew your attention to the 1RR restriction, and to the 24-hour BRD restriction, and advised you on my talk page to self-revert before anyone noticed what you'd done. You refused to do that, so here we are. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth SummitI'm not going to hide in the hope that nobody notices something I've done. If I broke the rule then I broke it. The changes I made to the article were in accordance with proposals I made on the talk page, they took into account the concerns of those users who disagreed with me re: length. The POV issue is a point of fact and should not have been removed in the first place. I don't know how to report people for removing POV wrongly, I tried to look it up but it seemed ungodly complex and I don't have the time to learn all these procedures.

As I alluded to on your talk page, the worst they can do is block me, and there's no disadvantage to being blocked if people will revert my edits anyway. It's not going to break my heart if I get banned from Wikipedia. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Rambo Apocalypse, the point is that I gave you the chance to un-break the rule. Nobody minds if an editor breaks the rules because they didn't know about them, provided they're willing to undo their action and abide by them afterwards. There are ways to go about discussing a change in an article without edit warring about it; if you're going to edit in a subject area like this, you need to be willing to abide by the rules. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I don't even know if I did break the rule. The re-adding of the POV tag was the only direct reverting I did, the others were either reverts after a month following no response other than agreement on the talk page, and an attempt to include it while ensuring that concerns over length were met. I thought re-adding POV would be one of the exceptions since it's so clearly true.

In any case, if deleting a POV tag because you don't agree with it is in accordance with the rules then the rules are not worth paying attention to. The nature of a POV dispute is that some people will disagree, removing it within hours like you did is absurd. I did try to discuss the change in the article, I did everything I could, but I hit a brick wall, now I have people trying trying to batter me into submission with regulations.

The truth is that there are a large number of editors on that page who are so convinced that Donald Trump is a racist that they want every paragraph of it to be pushing that narrative as much as possible, and anything which goes against it to be relegated as low as possible. They want the opinions of people who agree with them to trump his words. Maybe there are better ways to deal with it but I don't know what they are, the process is too opaque. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Friendly advice: This is not a good place to attack editors. (As if any place is.) WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a limit to how much good faith one can assume. I've tried very, very hard, but when people are removing facts, not responding to legitimate points, then reverting edits and trying to get people banned it's very difficult, if not impossible. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. If they are to engage the article talk page while blocked, Rambo Apocalypse is reminded to conduct themselves with due moderation, or further sanctions may be applied (including but not limited to a sitewide block). El_C 18:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

== User:Urabura reported by User:The4lines (Result: Already blocked for Personal attacks or harassment ==)

Page

Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Urabura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955032202 by Oliszydlowski (talk) You don't know the meaning of the word vandalism, so don't use it!"
2. 15:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955030112 by Oliszydlowski (talk) I also informed you and you ignore her too."
3. 15:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955028283 by Oliszydlowski (talk) Fourth warning. This is an article about the history of Poland"
4. 15:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955027170 by Oliszydlowski (talk)"
5. 15:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth */"
6. 15:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955026026 by Oliszydlowski (talk) important in my opinion"
7. 15:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954869282 by Oliszydlowski (talk) 1611 - from the period!!!"
8. 15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "There is only one such position in Poland, so important information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[31]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

N/A

Comments:

• Comment I don't see any reverts after the warning for 3RR was given. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  (Hi C.Fred, the user doesn't seem to need another warning; they have been blocked twice for violating the three revert rule before.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Urabura is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Poland unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: 2 weeks, partial)

Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJE (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
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, diff, diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• The Delsort talk page was not used, but the matter has been discussed on my talk page (diff) and on WilliamJE's talk page (link). I hesitate to start a third discussion about the same matter on another page, although I will if others advise to do so.

Comments:

• This user has engaged in WP:OWNERSHIP actions on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America page for quite some time now. I and another user, CJK09 both disagree with the user's personal stance regarding the subject that was recently listed at the page (diff, diff, diff), but the user has continued to revert, five times now. These rapid-fire reversions constitute overt edit warring. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial block. El_C 18:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:JimKaatFan reported by User:Sulfurboy (Result: )

Page

Henry Masterson III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JimKaatFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955100033 by SamHolt6 (talk) see talk page, you've already violated a bunch of wikipedia policies, all to remove a template that doesn't need to be removed"
2. 21:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955083114 by Sulfurboy (talk) according to Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_to_remove, message should not be removed without consensus"
3. 20:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955070858 by Sulfurboy (talk) I guess next step is just go straight to a deletion discussion?"
4. 19:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "probably not notable"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Henry_Masterson_III. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Notability tag */ Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction"
2. 20:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"
3. 21:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"
4. 21:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"
5. 21:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"
6. 23:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Notability tag */ Replying to JimKaatFan (using reply-link)"

Comments:

User and I had a disagreement about the placement of a notability tag. I reverted once stating why on the TP per WP:CYCLE. I reverted a last time with the edit summary recommending it be taken to AfD. After the second revert, I sought a third opinion to build consensus here User_talk:SamHolt6#Third_opinoin. SamHolt6 agreed the tag should be removed and to take it to AfD if they have an issue. Instead of taking it to AfD or discussing it further at all, user immediately reverted Sam's edit and then further removed stuff from the page. I sent a warning for 3RR as they had committed a third revert. Users response was to send me back a warning and ignore the request to undo their most recent revert. It doesn't seem any recommendation or course of action will satisfy this user. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The first diff that Sulfurboy lists above, 19:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC), is not a revert. It was the notability tag that I added to alert editors that the sourcing for this article was extremely weak. On the template's page, it says in plain English, "If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag." Sulfurboy did not find any in-depth, independent sources, but removed the tag anyway. The template's page then says "If the template is re-added, please do not edit war over it." Obviously, he continued to edit war over it.

He then attempted to circumvent the rules on edit-warring by pretending to ask for a third opinion - except he didn't ask for a third opinion in line with the procedures at Wikipedia:Third opinion - he contacted an editor that he had worked with before, here. I looked this up because this didn't seem right to me, and sure enough, there's a policy against it - Wikipedia:Canvassing. He attempted to frame his canvassing as a good-faith attempt to ask for a 3rd opinion, which it clearly wasn't. Lastly, the "friendly editor" that he contacted did ANOTHER removal of the notability template, here. The whole process was apparently geared towards goading me into this discussion about edit warring - and yes, it worked, because here I am. My apologies for it getting this far, but I let my emotions get the better of me when Sulfurboy told me "It'll be a good learning experience for you" in his condescending way. Either way, the bullying and the maneuvering are pretty petty. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:70.51.208.217 reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Battle of Loznica (1941) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

70.51.208.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955073382 by Peacemaker67 (talk)"
2. 11:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 954740506 by ClueBot NG (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Adding of unsourced material and changing wording of sourced material */ new section"
2. 07:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Battle of Loznica (1941) is covered by discretionary sanctions */ new section"
3. 20:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Battle of Loznica (1941). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is a continuation of the IP inserting unsourced POV material into a para of a contentious Balkans article which is reliably sourced. I have attempted to discuss this on the IP's talk page, have alerted them to DS, and also warned them about edit-warring, but they have refused to engage at all, and just continue to edit-war. Earlier diffs are [32] and [33]. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Glen. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:203.54.187.246 reported by User:Amkgp (Result: Blocked)

Page

Tiger Leaping Gorge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

203.54.187.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Geography */"
2. 05:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Geography */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC) to 04:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
   1. 04:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Geography */"
   2. 04:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Geography */"
4. 04:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Geography */"
5. 04:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Geography */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Tiger Leaping Gorge. (TW)"
2. 05:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Tiger Leaping Gorge. (TW)"
3. 05:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tiger Leaping Gorge. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The IP user is constantly vandalizing article even after multiple warnings and a 3RR warning. This IP account was blocked recently. Amkgp (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:David Bani reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Ten Lost Tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

David Bani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
2. 06:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
3. 01:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
4. 01:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
5. 23:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* References */"
6. 20:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"
7. 19:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Speculation regarding other ethnic groups */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ten Lost Tribes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I think he's also reinserted the copyvio, I need to check. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

He has, despite my warning. It's unequivocal copyvio from here. I'm probably within my rights to indef this guy, but maybe better from someone else. WP:NOTHERE Doug Weller talk 09:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Erzan reported by User:Rathfelder (Result: )

Page: Health Service Journal
User being reported: User:Erzan

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:

User:82.3.47.254 reported by User:Megainek (Result: )

Page: Diane Lane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: [[User:82.3.47.254|82.3.47.254]] ([[User talk:82.3.47.254|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/82.3.47.254|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/82.3.47.254|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/82.3.47.254|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/82.3.47.254|block user]] · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Lane&oldid=955154813

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]

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

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

Comments:
Anon user keeps adding back "Oscar nominated" to first sentence without explanation despite this being discouraged per style guide on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#On-going_projects/to_do_lists. Also done on List of Diane Lane performances.

User:Messiisking reported by User:Talleyrand20 (Result: Declined)

Page: List of busiest container ports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Messiisking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments: The user is an activist for the independence of Hong Kong, I explain to him that Hong Kong is part of China and that although I respect his ideas, they cannot erase the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talleyrand20 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Talleyrand20: Why have you not engaged in discussion about this at the article's talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Declined I encourage both parties to engage in discussion at the article talk page about whether the flag should be included. I have restored the article to the status quo ante version. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Eminemmusictobemurderedby reported by User:Galendalia (Result: Already blocked)

Page

New Super Mario Bros. U (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287478 by LuK3 (talk)"
2. 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287421 by LuK3 (talk)"
3. 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287380 by LuK3 (talk)"
4. 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287335 by LuK3 (talk)"
5. 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287280 by LuK3 (talk)"
6. 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287227 by LuK3 (talk)"
7. 23:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287169 by LuK3 (talk)"
8. 23:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955287071 by LuK3 (talk)"
9. 23:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955286959 by LuK3 (talk)"
10. 23:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955286858 by LuK3 (talk)"
11. 23:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 955286807 by LuK3 (talk)"
12. 23:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings were given to user by LuK3 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eminemmusictobemurderedby Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 23:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Already blocked as a vandalism-only account. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:LuK3 reported by User:Galendalia (Result: no violation)

Page

New Super Mario Bros. U (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

LuK3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
2. 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
3. 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
4. 23:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
5. 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
6. 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
7. 23:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
8. 23:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
9. 23:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
10. 23:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
11. 23:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by LuK3"
12. 23:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Eminemmusictobemurderedby (talk) to last version by Path slopu"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

With the rights this user has, they should be very well aware of edit wars, but yet pursued in one with the user listed above in the diffs. Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 23:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia, Eminemmusictobemurderedby was indefinitely blocked by Black Kite for being a vandalism-only account. According to WP:3RRNO, "reverting obvious vandalism" is an exemption from the edit warring policy. I believe the editor's changes are examples of obvious vandalism which I reverted appropriately. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries LuK3 but you should mention that in your reverts. I saw that right after the report that was what was going on. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galendalia (talk • contribs)

Galendalia, that's the point of WP:ROLLBACK — it is indicative of that. El_C 00:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No violation. Edits covered by WP:3RRNO are exempt. Thanks you, LuK3, for doing your part. El_C 00:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)