Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:30, 27 December 2021 view sourceEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →User:217.149.166.11 reported by User:Grandmaster, second report (Result: Blocked): Make header unique← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:33, 27 December 2021 view source 217.149.166.11 (talk) →User:217.149.166.11 reported by User:Grandmaster, second report (Result: Blocked)Next edit →
Line 404:		Line 404:
	This IP has just returned from 48 hrs block, and immediately started new edit wars across multiple pages. For example, removal of Azerbaijani name for a region located in Azerbaijan: Revert warring on ]: Just to note that according to ] Republic of Armenia agreed to withdraw its army from Agdam, so claiming that it was occupied only by Karabakh Armenian forces is false. In general, I don't see that this anonymous editor has made any constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages so far. He sparked at least 3 serious edit wars on ], ] and ]. Community attention is required. ]] 15:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)		This IP has just returned from 48 hrs block, and immediately started new edit wars across multiple pages. For example, removal of Azerbaijani name for a region located in Azerbaijan: Revert warring on ]: Just to note that according to ] Republic of Armenia agreed to withdraw its army from Agdam, so claiming that it was occupied only by Karabakh Armenian forces is false. In general, I don't see that this anonymous editor has made any constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages so far. He sparked at least 3 serious edit wars on ], ] and ]. Community attention is required. ]] 15:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
	:{{AN3\|b}} 2 months. My comment from the last AN3 still applies: "...the continuing problem is an IP making lots of reverts in AA2, an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The IP continues to edit aggressively since their arrival on Misplaced Pages on December 16th." If this were a registered account, we would already be considering a topic ban from ]. In my opinion topic bans of IPs aren't really useful, so the only way to prevent further disruption is a block. ] (]) 16:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)		:{{AN3\|b}} 2 months. My comment from the last AN3 still applies: "...the continuing problem is an IP making lots of reverts in AA2, an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The IP continues to edit aggressively since their arrival on Misplaced Pages on December 16th." If this were a registered account, we would already be considering a topic ban from ]. In my opinion topic bans of IPs aren't really useful, so the only way to prevent further disruption is a block. ] (]) 16:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
			::I have plenty of IP addresses. Do you think this will stop me? :)--] (]) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 16:33, 27 December 2021

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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.

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.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Taharka155 reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Warned)

User being reported: Taharka155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061589172 by Erp (talk) How can a consensus be reached that is completely contrary to the citations provided. Provide a source for the claim that African American is an ethnicity because the two citations listed clearly state that it is category defined by race and contains multiple ethnicities. Having an ethnicity purely defined by race makes no sense.."
14:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061573541 by Rsk6400 (talk) You need to address the uncited claim you have included in this article. Do not edit war please."
14:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1061569785 by Rsk6400 (talk) Undone edit. You need to provide a source for your claim of an ethnic group rather than the two sources your provided that clearly state it is a racial category consisting of multiple ethnic groups."
12:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "changed ethnic group to racial category as neither source describes African Americans as an ethnicity, but explicitly as a racial category that contains multiple ethnicity. - "The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican.*""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on African Americans (ethnicity)."
19:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on African Americans."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC) "/* African and Caribbean immigrants are not African American. Neither are Kamala Harris nor Barack Obama */ Warning: 3RR"

Comments:

We had long discussions at Talk:African Americans, Talk:African Americans (ethnicity), and WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_Americans_(ethnicity), in the course of which they attacked me personally, the worst attack being this one ("Ethnocide ... is precisely what you are doing"). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

I have attempted to resolve disputes and have conversation with the individual Rsk6400, he has ignored and failed to address any of the points I have raised on multiple occasions as can be see in the talk pages for African Americans as well as African Americans (ethnicity). I've never had a long discussion with this person. He has reverted edits I have made repeatedly, followed me to other pages and reverted edits I have made there, and has not made any attempts to resolve the issues raised in maintenance templates that the user added to African Americans (ethnicity). The user has made several assertions that the ethnicity which I belong to does not exist. That is the definition of ethnocide, which he has falsely taken as an insult.--Taharka155 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

At my talk page, we had this conversation in which they equated opposition to their personal definition of the term African American with the Holocaust. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Result: User:Taharka155 is warned for edit warring at African Americans. They may be blocked the next time they revert this article unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. And accusing another editor of 'ethnocide' risks earning you a block for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Chami46 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Users edits have been challenged on not just the mentioned page but numerous other pages too, and rather than get consensus for the changes they just keep reverting back to their version with minimal discussion. They have not yet violated the 3RR, but that is because I stopped reverting because I reached 3 reverts reverting back to the stable version. Editor is currently continuing to edit war.

Now also including insults in edit summaries.

See users history page for more examples. --TylerBurden (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: User has also started editing other talk page contributions GimliDotNet (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@GimliDotNet:, I think it might have been a case of editing the wrong version. I made my comment in two pieces and it corresponds, so I wouldn't consider the interaction on my talk page to be part of edit-warring, just something that ought to have occurred at Talk:Jeff Hardy. They did not revert me when I undid their edit. --SVTCobra 22:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. Edit warring to add the word 'former' to articles about sportsmen who have apparently retired. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

User:217.149.166.11 reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
This IP is edit warring across multiple pages, could be a banned user. Made multiple reverts on other articles too. For example, he made 3 rvs on Harry Sassounian: , misquoting the source, despite other users telling him that the source does not support his claim. In general, most of this IP contributions are edit warring on Azerbaijan-Armenia related articles, which is area covered by arbitration ruling. He was warned about that too: Grandmaster 23:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

”Could be a banned user” - I’ll just let that sit here. Isnt the number one rule to assume good faith? I ask the administrators to review Grandmaster’s record of edit warring and POV pushing on Talk:Shusha and Talk:Stepanakert and Talk:Lachin. That is edit warring, along with ganging up on other users.—217.149.166.11 (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Let us also not forget that you have tried to downplay Azerbaijani-backed sources as neutral. That in itself deserves a mention at another noticeboard, but I wont do it because we already have one open - something that you do not seem to realize--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

As someone who commented in the last discussion regarding IP, I must admit this is getting ridiculous. First, ANI discussion was opened with ban calls accompanied by insufficient diffs, despite IP communicating with every editor and opening discussions . Now, edit-warring report is being opened even tho IP isn't even aware of WP:EW or WP:3RR? There isn't even a single edit-warring notice in their talk page. Without diving into content details which isn't relevant here and is actually being discussed in the talk page (which was initiated by IP), I would like to only point out that we don't shop with reports, especially when relevant warnings weren't even given. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP was given sufficient warning about edit warring with all the necessary links. He was also warned about arbitration ruling. Yet he chose to continue the same behavior on many pages. Grandmaster 23:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you joking? The Robert McClellon thing was in response to a turkish vandalist (Enverpasatr, named after Enver Pasha), to which the user who removed my edit then responded by blocking the vandal --> https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#EnverPasaTr. That is all resolved. Again, you are looking for artificial evidence while accusing me of something you can not support factually--217.149.166.11 (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

How about keeping the discussiom to one noticeboard or one place? you should know better than to start WP:FORUMSHOPING all over the place. It's funny that you edit warred until he made one more revert than you to report The IP. - Kevo (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation at Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907. I think that some semiprotections of WP:AA2 articles might be considered if problems continue. The edits of User:Enverpasatr certainly deserve no credence. But the continuing problem is an IP making lots of reverts in AA2, an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The IP continues to edit aggressively since their arrival on Misplaced Pages on December 16th. EdJohnston (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

User:ZaniGiovanni reported by User:Hsynylmztr (Result: Filer warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ali_Kemal&diff=1061910205&oldid=1061863311

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ali_Kemal

== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#ZaniGiovanni. Thank you. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#DeCausa. Thank you.

Comments: I have read many books on the subject. Since I know Ottoman Turkish, I also read the 20th-century newspaper reports of Ali Kemal. But I couldn't convince ZaniGiovanni and DeCausa not to delete my edit. Since it is an open-source network, I tried to explain my sources to them on the talk page. But he and DeCausa just kept deleting my edits without showing any source. I told them again and again, my sources include Ali Kemal's own posts from the newspaper but they insisted on deleting my edits. After many reverts and long explanations I decided to report the case since it was obvious they were not trying to discuss, they were doing an edit war. The page of Ali Kemal was very pale and uninformative. Because I have read many books and did many researches on the subject, I edited the page with long and detailed sources. User 'ZaniGiovanni' also said that he doesn't count Turkish sources as reliable, which sounds very racist to me. I guess we should convince him first before putting any war reports from the Turkish Ministry of War History(!) I think it damages the open-sourcenes of Misplaced Pages to delete my edit which is a result of months of reading, in a few seconds. I am pretty sure they don't speak Turkish but they are so persistent of deleting my edit by just saying 'your sources are not reliable because they are Turkish'. As a Turkish person I honestly feel like we are being attacked on the internet, on Misplaced Pages specifically. They are editing the page of the Turkish War of Independence and trying to label it as genocide. Every page that includes Turks and other nations is being excessively edited. User ZaniGiovanni is an Armenian person and I respect that but it is clear that's why he keeps deleting my edits about Ali Kemal. Anyways, I don't want to make this report too long. I know not everyone is hysterically racist. Thank you for your help. Hsynylmztr (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for including disputed content, and secondly, no guidelines were broken by me or DeCausa in Ali Kemal article. You've been explained both by me and 3rd party editor why your edit is WP:UNDUE and is essentially a jingoistic WP:ADVOCACY, please read the talk discussion and comment. Also, "I have read many books / I read Turkish" isn't an argument. This whole report overall seems very WP:BATTLEGROUND motivated. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't need fancy words. Just explain how did you decide these sources are unreliable if you do not speak Turkish. I did not say I am right because I speak Turkish, I said I can actually read sources about Ali Kemal because I speak Turkish. Even his own newspapers are not of a source enough for you? Hsynylmztr (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I did actually explain it to you in talk, and it isn't just reliability. You seem to ignore the guidelines that I show you or don't read them. And this isn't a talk page discussion btw, you filed an inadequate report and now came here to discuss content? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I know it is not the place for discussion. I was waiting for an admin to respond, why did you reply to me here? It is not an discussion page. And you didn't explain anything toa anyone. You just deleted my entire edit by saying 'Turkish sources are not reliable'. How come Ali Kemal's own newspaper reports are not a reliable source ??? Is there any other source that is more reliable than his own words? Please stop editing my report. I am sure admins will read both of our edits in the talk section. You deleted all the books because they are Turkish. Hsynylmztr (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Hsynylmztr opened this AN3 thread on their 24th edit. There’s clearly a longer history behind this account. Since May, Hsynylmztr has been attempting to slow edit-war this change into the article despite beng reverted by 4 different editors. Since 22 December they have reverted x3 compared to ZaniGiovanni’s 2 reverts (or my 2 reverts). So unclear the basis of their complaint. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Result: The filer, User:Hsynylmztr is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I provided sources but they didn't. I know you admins are not academicians so I am not trying to tell you about reliability of my sources. With the result of this file we saw which is important for Misplaced Pages, actually having sources or having more people to back you. Hsynylmztr (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Lyndsay Dart reported by User:Andyjsmith (Result: Declined – malformed report)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Ishan87 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 13:15, 25 December 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts:

13:42, 25 December 2021 revert HistoryofIran
15:41, 25 December 2021 revert HistoryofIran
16:08, 25 December 2021 revert HistoryofIran
16:41, 25 December 2021 revert Wikaviani

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle of Karbala#Edit warring

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:53, 25 December 2021

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16:43, 25 December 2021

Comments:

Amongst other things, user keeps adding the 'citation missing template', even though the article is well sourced, hence it's recent GA status. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Nyxaros reported by User:CreecregofLife (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I was just about to warn them on their talk page when they came to mine, threatening me with a permanent ban for daring to revert their unjustified edits. At that point, I wasn’t sure whether to disperse the convo over multiple talk pages, so forgive me if I should have.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion occurred on user talk page

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

Comments:

This is incorrect. The third one is not a revert. User clearly doesn't know how to write an article, and keeps adding unsourced information and accuses me of "vandalizing" and being "unsourced". I told them to stop edit warring and talk, but they keep ignoring the page and edit summaries and continue to write incorrect and irrational "reasons". I didn't threaten them "with a permanent ban for daring to revert unjustified edits". That's a lie. ภץאคгöร 18:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I didn’t write the article, so to say I have no idea how to write one is irrelevant. You can’t cite a single instance of me ignoring edit summaries, and you’re accusing me of edit warring when your edit is the disruptive one. You then call me irrational on my own talk page to cite which reviews don’t mention Tom Holland as a standout performance. You just admitted to ignoring edit summaries because they’re “irrational” and illegitimate reasons, yet I’m the misbehaving one? And as for calling for a permanent ban? That’s this edit. I should also note that they removed their ANEW message from their talk page--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

None of what you wrote makes any sense to me. Even the link you provided just leads to your talk page. You should link the section, where I don't "threaten with a permanent ban for daring to revert unjustified edits". What is the point of continuing to distort the facts and refusing to cooperate? ภץאคгöร 19:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s the comment you left on my talk page. What’s so hard to comprehend about that? Where am I distorting the facts?--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

CreecregofLife, your first revert was without an edit summary. You can't expect someone to cite multiple reviews in an edit summary. You removed it with a baseless claim that the reviews don’t back up what the caption says. You didn’t cite any of the reviews, you just said “the reviews”, the claim is based on the reviews cited in the article, and if you reverted without an edit summary you're not trying to engage in a discussion, and your reversion are likely to be taken as disruptive. If you want it discussed so much, you go to the talk page is needlessly combative, and seems you don't want to engage in a discussion, which is contrary to how Misplaced Pages works. Nyxaros is correct that in fact only one of the reviews considers Holland "a standout", saying Holland remains the best of the cinematic Spider-Men. The rest praise Holland but in the same terms as the rest of the cast, not highlighting him particularly. Then you just said Please stop vandalizing the page, not answering to his arguments and dismissing them as without substance, when all needed was in the article for you to read. —El Millo (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, this talk page comment by Nyxaros (Though some of the info is unsourced. User:CreecregofLife wants to keep the unsourced info by edit warring, ignoring the page and the edit summaries, and writing nonsensical reasons and accusations) is also needlessly combative and just unloading on a barely-related thread. —El Millo (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but based on the information initially given, I didn’t think I needed an edit summary on the first reversion. I didn’t think it would escalate. If I had known I would’ve put the edit summary right away. All I was looking for was for Nyx to identify the publications that didn’t mention Holland as a standout, and Nyx never did. I wanted to discuss it, but then Nyx started with the personal attacks, and I didn’t have to take them. Every time I run into something, I’m the one who’s told that the onus is on me to go to the talk page, never the other person, even though the other person is in the same conflict and supposed to be following the same rules. Because of that, I encouraged Nyx to start the talk page discussion on the subject’s talk page, and I would have followed them there. To say I wouldn’t have been interested in discussion is highly presumptive. It was an invitation to talk about it on the appropriate grounds. Just because something seems some way doesn’t mean it is that way. That’s all.--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Result: User:Nyxaros and User:CreecregofLife are both warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again before getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. The phrase 'needlessly combative' seems to apply to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I am clearly describing what the editor has done. If you look at his edit summaries and accusations ("vandalizing", "disruptive editing", etc.) against me for removing unsourced info, you will see that he was edit warring, ignoring the page and messages, and throwing baseless accusations. This has nothing to do with being "needlessly combative", Facu-el Millo. I can't believe any editor would ignore this user's actions just like he ignores the article he is editing. Apparently it's acceptable to insist on keeping unsourced info on the page and attacking those who remove them. ภץאคгöร 11:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

User:2400:ADC1:14F:1B00:B83D:5DCE:DE0A:2FAD reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

IP socking/hopping reverts through 2400:ADC1:14F:1B00:B83D:5DCE:DE0A:2FAD as well (included in diffs above). Unresponsive to comments on Talk page with no-ES/unexplained disruptive reverts (despite being asked for) and removals on multiple articles (despite attempts at resolution on the IP Talk page). Started using alt IP exactly after being warned and asked response from. Gotitbro (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

See also Rohri, Sateen Jo Aastan with similar warring by both IPs. Gotitbro (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Result: The range Special:Contributions/2400:ADC1:14F:1B00::/64 has been blocked two months for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:AlexReynolds reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

03:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062076258 by Alexbrn (talk)"
03:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062075736 by Alexbrn (talk)"
03:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062075532 by MartinezMD (talk)"
03:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062042738 by MartinezMD (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continued reverting to language that is grammatically incorrect. History page has BRD and request to use talk page. Article is COVID-related and may be subject to sanctions (not sure about it on this particular page) MartinezMD (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Underthemayofan reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Overview */ changed to reflect current sources"
Consecutive edits made from 05:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC) to 05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
1. 05:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Overview */ Removed verifiably false information"
2. 05:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 05:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Changed to reflect current sources"
04:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Removing verifiably false information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

05:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on WikiIslam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC) "/* I've tagged the article as NPOV and taken it to WP:NPOVN */ Replying to Doug Weller (using reply-link)"
18:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Intersect redux */ Replying to Underthemayofan (using reply-link)"
18:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC) "/* New Section on the "History of WikiIslam" */ +Oppose"

Comments:

Single-purpose account (who denies having a COI) devoted to white-washing the subject's (illustrious) history against consensus of three editors (me, Snuish, and Doug Weller) at the talk-page. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Result: User:Underthemayofan is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at WikiIslam unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. I do not believe I have broken this rule, and I am also a relatively new user. May I appeal this ruling in any way?--Underthemayofan (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster and User:Brandmeister reported by User:Armatura (Result: )

Page: Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Version before reverting took place: pre-editwar version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1) invited Brandmeister to participate in talk page discussion with no response, 2) invited Grandmaster to stay on topic and not remove disclosure of conflict of interest as “irrelevant”

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: notice to Grandmaster, notice to Brandmeister,

Comments: Grandmaster and Brandmeister did a total of 5 reverts to Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907 in 48 hours, removing the fact that Polish-American historian Tadeusz Swietochowski, who reports that number of destroyed Tatar villages was much greater than Armenian villages is an honorary doctor at Azerbaijan's Khazar and Baku State Universities, with arguments that those ties to Azerbaijani universities are "irrelevant", that there is "no need to cite his whole biography", etc. The combined reverting was accompanied by reporting by Grandmaster of IP user 217.149.166.11 resulting in block for 3RR violation yet the Grandmaster and Brandmeister themselves hoped to avoid the same fate by being careful enough not to cross the 3-revert-in-24 hours threshold, although what they did together I believe constitutes WP:EDITWARRING nonetheless. Assuming WP:AGF, I nonetheless cannot help noticing elements of WP:GAMING (as the less experienced IP user was baited into crossing the threshold and hence eliminated as an opponent) and WP:GRAVEDANCE (as Brandmeister's last revert was justified as "rv blocked IP"). Brandmeister simply ignored my invitation to talk and discuss at all. Grandmaster ignored my pledge of leaving the sentence he contests alone while discussion is ongoing to reach consensus or RFC or another constructive solution, apparently thinking that keeping reverting is a more constructive method even though 4 users on talk page disagreed with him. --Armatura (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:EDITWAR, reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring. But there's more to it. The assertion that this is "the less experienced IP user" sounds fishy - the IP's early edit summaries already show a certain knowledge of Misplaced Pages, e.g. "clean up becuase of many double spaces" or "efn tag is better i think". So I find it odd that an established user who has been editing since 2007 suddenly starts to defend such IP behavior and even accuse others. Brandmeister 23:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yay! here we go with the "socking" suspicions again, you are the third after Grandmaster and Beshogur. But please, continue, you are only incriminating yourself and your edit warring behavior. Plus, your name and Grandmasters sound very similar - concidence?--217.149.166.11 (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I have used other IP addresses before here in Salzburg. This is not my first time editing. Do not act like every editer besides you is dumb and indexperienced--217.149.166.11 (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As one can see from the report above, the IP is question caused serious disruption across multiple Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, which are covered by arbitration ruling. This was acknowledged by enforcing admin. On the article in question alone, the IP made a total of 4 rvs, which resulted in his block. When the IP got blocked, Armatura tried to restore his edit of highly POV character, despite obvious disagreement by other users. I don't find reverting without consensus to be an appropriate behavior by Armatura in this situation. Regarding the edit in question,Tadeusz Swietochowski is the most prominent Western expert on the history of Azerbaijan. His 2 books on the topic were published by prestigious publishing houses, Cambridge University Press and Columbia University Press, and received positive reviews from other scholars. To my knowledge, no reliable source ever accused him of any bias. What the IP and Armatura do is they slap inappropriate tag, and include in the article about 1905 ethnic clashes information about Swietochowski's honorary titles, which have no relation to the topic of the article. Armatura explains that inclusion of these titles serves the purpose of demonstrating alleged bias of Swietochowski, i.e. he himself admits to engaging in WP:OR, and tendentious editing, trying to undermine reputation of a well-respected scholar by inclusion of irrelevant information. If we are to introduce the scholar, the more important info about him would be him being a university professor and fellow of important think-tanks, but I see no reason to overload the article about historical event by info about this scholar. I advised to take their concerns about Swietochowski to WP:RSN, but he chose to take the issue here. Therefore I find this report here to be an attempt to use this board to resolve the content dispute. As for the IP, I also have a reason to believe that he is someone who knows his way around Misplaced Pages too well for a complete newcomer. Grandmaster 10:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This report is about you and Brandmeister, not me. do not project blame unto others please. I also copy many other editors when they give reasons for reverting, i.e. WP BANREVERT and such. I have read the manuals. So saying that I am a "socker" for the tenth time is not going to bring you anywhere. Also asking admins to review Grandmasters edit warring on Shusha, Stepanakert, and Lachin articles and talk pages.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Those reverts are justified. I have the same concern as well. This "extra information" does not contribute anything to the article itself. Beshogur (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I have serious doubts that a brand new user with only a handful of edits would know how to insert tag. And continuation of edit warring by this IP who just returned from 48 hrs block requires attention. For example, removal of Azerbaijani name for a region located in Azerbaijan: Revert warring on Agdam: Grandmaster 14:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Things like these need attention . For a week, no one objected and contributed to the conversation and Grandmaster marches in and reverts as usual. WP CASTING ASPERSIONS and HARRASSMENT (yes, i did totally learn these because i am a dirty sock and not because i looked at the wikipedia rules) from Grandmaster as well as continued edit warring.--217.149.166.11 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Re Martakert: Removal of a secondary name that is not as widely used. WP COMMONNAME, remember? (again, using this because i am definitely a sock spuppet /s)--217.149.166.11 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Introducing your version of the lead to which at least 3 different editors objected, failing to reach consensus, calling other editors "renowned irredentist" is not how WP:CONSENSUS works. The evidence is here: Grandmaster 15:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:2405:205:1482:E419:0:0:111:28B1 reported by User:Rockcodder (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Unresponsive to comments on the user talk page, the article talk page and the edit summaries. No-ES/unexplained disruptive reverts, despite being asked for on the user talk page. The IP user has not yet violated the 3RR, but that is because I stopped reverting, since I reached three reverts. Rockcodder (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Csp22397 reported by User:DanCherek (Result:blocked 31h)

User being reported: Csp22397 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

06:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Warning: Edit warring and copyright */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Csp22397 is repeatedly restoring copyright text copied from and . DanCherek (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ymblanter (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:217.149.166.11 reported by User:Grandmaster, second report (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , please also see this report:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
This IP has just returned from 48 hrs block, and immediately started new edit wars across multiple pages. For example, removal of Azerbaijani name for a region located in Azerbaijan: Revert warring on Agdam: Just to note that according to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement Republic of Armenia agreed to withdraw its army from Agdam, so claiming that it was occupied only by Karabakh Armenian forces is false. In general, I don't see that this anonymous editor has made any constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages so far. He sparked at least 3 serious edit wars on Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907, Harry Sassounian and Agdam. Community attention is required. Grandmaster 15:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 2 months. My comment from the last AN3 still applies: "...the continuing problem is an IP making lots of reverts in AA2, an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The IP continues to edit aggressively since their arrival on Misplaced Pages on December 16th." If this were a registered account, we would already be considering a topic ban from WP:AA2. In my opinion topic bans of IPs aren't really useful, so the only way to prevent further disruption is a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have plenty of IP addresses. Do you think this will stop me? :)--217.149.166.11 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad reported by User:Heesxiisolehh (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:
There was a consensus formed on the Italian-language desk link on wording of garesa; the consensus-formed wording was implemented by Lambian (link). User Dabaqabad seems to have an aversion to endonymic term garesa in Caroselli source. He says alternative name is "undue". WP policy debunks this as WP:OTHERNAMES says "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph", and the Caroselli sourced text is an extract of a high-level government letter (Dervish-to-Italian). It should be noted Dabaqabad is currently under special editing restrictions, which read "you are to always follow a revert with an article talk page comment explaining it in any and all WP:ARBHORN topic area pages or edits (whatsoever)", and in October a 6 month topic ban on Dabaqabad, partially for removing reliable sources went stale. Heesxiisolehh (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories: