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:Лобачев Владимир reported by User:Rgvis (Result: Two editors warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [8]

Comments:
Despite all the presented evidences, the user continues to delete the references provided and modify the content with data without any reliable source. Unfortunately, during the discussion, the user constantly refused to take into account absolutely any presented reference. Thank you. (Rgvis (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC))

@Rgvis: This looks like a content dispute. As the editor initiating the change, you really should be taking this to the talk page to get support for the change. I also note that the reported editor has not broken 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a matter of content, but the user constantly removes even the cited sources (without any explanation and invoking a false consensus), and replaces it with personal content that is not confirmed by any reliable source, only to promote his/her POV (in the last period of time, he/she constantly tries to change a content that has remained unchanged in the last 13 years; of course, I agree that the new content can be added to the article, but supported by reliable sources). Anyway, in the meantime, the 3RR has been violated. (Rgvis (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC))

I want to note this behaviour is common in Лобачев Владимир. They seem to revert based on their personal preferences using vague justifications such as "WP:CON". I had a discussion with this user some time ago at Romanian-language schools in Transnistria. I had to provide LOTS of sources for my change to remain uncontested [9] and this user later just stopped replying. Even after that discussion I had to have another one at Wikidata [10], again having to provide many sources only to remain unanswered again. The behaviour of this user represents a huge waste of time for others. Super Ψ Dro 18:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Colleague, your actions also take a lot of my time, but this is just a way to reach a consensus. There is no other way. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting page protection won't help a consensus to appear. Super Ψ Dro 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Moldavia. War of edits again.

There was a war of edits on the page. On April 13, the page is protected from editing until April 20. Already on April 20, there was an attempt to return the non-consensual symbols of the principality again.

A consensus option was proposed. However, User: Rgvis starts a war and removes the consensus symbols: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Please protect the article again. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I also ask you to cancel the unreasonable warning from this user – User talk:Лобачев Владимир#Moldavia. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if you have ever read WP:CONS. Few of the times we have discussed were with a consensus in between. A discussion was not made before regarding which flag and coat of arms should be used. The long-standing version is the one you are opposing and the one restored by my "attempt to return the non-consensual symbols of the principality again" [11]. And the discussion you are having with Rgvis apparently hasn't ended yet or doesn't seem to reach any point. There's no consensus, and even if there was, consensus is not permanent and can change, something you appear to fail to understand many times. "WP:CONS" and "WP:WAR" are not valid revert reasons.

For any admin that decides to look this up, please don't just protect the page again as the last time was done, that won't solve anything and conflict will start again once the page is unprotected. Please look at the article's history and at the discussions that have been made, particularly at Talk:Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia. I am thinking of starting a WP:RfC because discussions don't seem to be leading to anywhere. Super Ψ Dro 18:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: You're right, in that for any long-term solution, there will need to be a RfC to get wide buy-in for the flag and coat of arms that appear in the article. The short term is how to deal with these two editors that are in the short-term edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Things appear to have calmed down. Anything that any user has to say will have to be discussed in the RfC, which I will open in some time. I oppose any administrative action for now, such as a page protection, because there's still not any kind of consensus worth defending with a protection. Super Ψ Dro 19:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Лобачев Владимир and User:Rgvis are warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. I hope that someone will open an actual WP:RFC on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: )

Page: National Fascist Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nick.mon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Diff of version being reverted to: [16] (from 27 November 2020)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [19]

Comments:

Straightforward 3RR violation concerning the size of the logo for the National Fascist Party. Nick.mon -- who appears to have some WP:OWNERSHIP problems with the article -- constantly wants a very large logo, while I prefer a more modest one, still easily seen, but not dominating the page or advertising a Fascist organization. Nick.mon rejected my recent compromise, and, although they responded to the discussion I opened on the talk page, continued to edit war after being specifically warned on their talk page that they would be reported for a 4th revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Judging by the dates this was over several days not 24 hours. I am not seeing a 3RR violation. PackMecEng (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Don't you ever get tired of monitoring my contributions so you can stick your nose in whenever anything involves me? Isn;t there something more constructive you could be doing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ha! Isn;t there something more constructive you could be doing? Says the relentless edit warrior of the pointless. PackMecEng (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Someday you should actually look at my contributions here and on Commons to see what I actually do, instead of just using them to harass me. Like the almost 300 articles created, the hundreds of images uploaded, the vandalism deleted, the PoV edits reverted. I suggest that you stay the hell away in the future, lest you find yourself sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Are you really talking about harassment? Really? You accuse other editors of being fascist just because they want a reasonable size for a logo and not a tiny size of 75px and now you're accusing PackMecEng of "harassment"? Maybe I made some mistakes, we should have started a discussion some days ago, but I hope we'll find a solution. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• The situation is quite simple:

1. A few months ago, User:Beyond My Ken and I had a brief confrontation regarding the PNF logo’s size and we agreed to use a 120px size. He proposed it first and I supported his choice, even if the previous version of the logo was quite larger (160px, if I remember well);

2. A few days ago, he unilaterally decided to reduce the size, using 75px, without any consensus;

3. I reverted his edit, trying to restore the previous long-established compromise;

4. He undone my edits, accusing me of advertising a fascist party;

5. Now, he’s proposing a size of 100px. I think it’s too small, but I can live with it. Anyway, I bet that after a few months, he’ll return on this page and reduce the size once again, because this is how he works.

Maybe I broke the 3RR, if I did it, I'm sorry for that, but Beyond My Ken’s way of editing is quite disruptive for this community, and I’m not the first one who noticed that (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Beyond My Ken disruptively editing). We reached a compromise months ago, and now he changed the article just to find a more favorable compromise. Is this fair? Moreover, he accused me of advertising a fascist party, this is quite childish and offensive (WP:OFFENSIVE?). I don’t want to advertise anything, I just want to have good and readable articles, and I hope you’ll agree with me that a reasonable size for a logo is fundamental in an article about a political party. Anyway, there’s an ongoing discussion on the talk page, I hope we’ll find a solution. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There's an obvious solution, which is to stop edit warring and let a consensus develop on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between the neutral presentation of an organization's logo so it can be viewed by the reader, and advertising the organization:

My choice, which I believe is large enough to be clearly seen and yet does not overwhelm the page

The compromise I offered, which Nick.mon rejected

Nck.mon's current preference

Nck.mon's original preference (although at one point he attempted to make it even larger)

Please note that the above is part of my comment, and should not be changed by another editor, as it was changed on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, stop accusing other users of advertising a fascist organization, don't invent false informations (like the one I attempted to make the logo even larger, because as you can see 160px was used for years before your edits) and let's see how the discussion will evolve. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your refactoring of my comment. You're free to say or show anything you like in your own comment, but per WP:TPO you are not free to change my words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, unless you deliberately change the facts at your purposes (160px was used for years as you can see here: September 2020, or even December 2018. I've never ever tried to use a larger size, I just reverted your edit to the previous version, which was used for years, as I said before). I'm sorry BMK, but this is just another proof of your bad faith... -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This diff speaks for itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, sincerly, I don't know if you don't understand or if you don't want to, but how many times do I have to tell you that, in the November 2020's edit you posted, I was just restoring a previous version used for years (for example, here's a previous version of May 2017, where a size of 160px was already used). -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ezscr reported by User:Kaseng55 (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 02:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "I added info"
3. 02:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 02:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 02:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user kept on reverting the edits back to his vandalism. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:8000:FE01:DA96:34F6:B7FA:EF2A:23E9 reported by User:Kaseng55 (Result: )

Page: Adelina Patti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:8000:FE01:DA96:34F6:B7FA:EF2A:23E9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
2. 02:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
3. 02:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 02:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Biography */"
5. 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Oh dear, another one of these days... Kaseng55 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Marvic 256 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: 1 week)

Page: James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Marvic 256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1019945793 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) English is a more accurate description, so reverted to the previous."
2. 08:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1019944377 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
3. 08:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 20:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke."
2. 09:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Twinkle only loads the last four reverts in 24 hours, but Marvic256 has been reverting the same material on this page for the last week ([20],[21]), and has been making-and reverted over-the same edit on multiple other pages ([22],[23]; [24],[25]; [26],[27]). Basically, to them, everyone has to be English. Not British. Not Anglo-Norman. But English. Aside from the edit-warring (which is the immediate concern), I suspect their entire editing pattern demonstrates a behavioral pattern more suited to another noticeboard. ——Serial 10:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Seagull Productions reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: )

Page: Brighton Palace Pier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seagull Productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not done, left a personalised talk page discussion thread instead.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [33]

Comments:
User repeatedly adding unsourced and questionable content, violating the good article guidelines. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Newzild reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: this was the previous stable version of the article

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 05:30, 26 April 2021 - this is the initial change of already sourced text, changing its meaning
2. Revision as of 05:30, 26 April 2021 - the last of four edits essentially reverting and expanding the previous edit
3. Revision as of 07:24, 26 April 2021 - the last of three edits essentially reverting and expanding the previous edits
4. Latest revision as of 08:23, 26 April 2021 - more of the same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] post-facto, but the editor is a long-term editor and should know better and has another edit-warring warning at the bottom of their talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision of the article talk page as of 07:18, 26 April 2021

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [35]

Comments:

User:Heba Aisha reported by User:Ayushsinha2222 (Result: Warned user(s))

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [39]

Comments:
The user named "Heba Aisha" has always been into defaming the castes and communities of India. Ninety-five percent of the edits made by the user are relevant to caste-and community-based articles. There is a common pattern saying that the user has tried to malign the statuses of all the communities altogether with a certain communal motive, for the last few years. This user has persistently been into disruptive editing, where most of her edits have been repudiated by other editors, where older revisions have always been far better. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

So, you call this edit warring. Please, be aware with some of the policies of wikipedia. WP:HSC specifically, by this edit [40], you have removed S. N. Sadasivan, the writer whose book comply with WP:HSC and added Swami Vivekananda, who is not a historian or sociologist. The source is just used to do caste related WP:POV pushing. Also one source from Taylor and Francis Publications was also removed. Please note Swami Vivekananda is a spiritual leader and the person from same Kayastha caste. His views on his own caste was put by you to remove third party independent sources.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@HebaAisha, you couldn't remove a well-sourced content. You are free to add any content, but I beg you not to remove any well-sourced content. I beg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayushsinha2222 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, I have never reverted you untill now, you have reverted me and that too on malicious grounds, so this report is gonna end soon (as I haven't violated WP:3RR and probably, we never came across on wiki, so how can you call me an edit warrior). I can also see you canvassing with other editors, with whom, I engaged in edit conflict over Kayastha related article.[41] And, i ensure,they will find their way here, sooner or later. Also, the editors who called me maligning their caste's image were all policy violators,or sockpuppets and all of them are blocked. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Heba Aisha, I am open to a completely transparent enquiry by the administration. Let the administration decide upon it now. Take care of yourself during this gloomy time, in the pandemic. Wish you constant well-being, friend! Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Books, book chapters and articles by social scientists and scholars in the humanities, working within their area of expertise.

This is what WP:HSC and WP:POV say, don't they? Swami Vivekananda was a social scientist and a social reformer. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It is you who have removed an old content sourced to Swami Vivekananda. You should have discussed on the talk page before directly removing the content. This itself goes against the policies of Wikipedia. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, according to you, every secondary source is POV, isn't it? I request you to understand the policies better. I am sure you are unable to understand what a POV or secondary source actually is. You quoted Arun Sinha on Kayastha Page. [42] Is that not a POV? Your intentions aren't pure, Heba Aisha. I wish everyone could see it clearly on Wikipedia. Ayushsinha2222 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Heba Aisha
Let me make it simple for reviewing administrator. The user has some WP:COI with Kayastha caste. It can be seen clearly here [43], when he tried to add this on Birbal article, but was reverted by Alivardi. WP:NOTCENSORED implies and for such users who belong to same caste, anything which is not glorifying the caste is considered as disruptive. The recent edit on Bengali Kayastha by user removed one source from Taylor and Francis Publications and another by a Social historian, to add the view of a monk Swami Vivekananda, who belonged to same caste. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Some other vandal edits are:-

Trying to link Kayastha with Brahmins, without any source here.[44]Heba Aisha (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, opinion based edit [45], they lack competency. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Once Swami Vivekananda rightly said if Kayasthas were not to be taken into account then there would be nothing significant left in the modern Indian civilization " .

[46]

This says, that he was a reformer of Kayastha caste, his views are not neutral. Inclusion of his views against a third party independent source from Taylor and Francis and by a social historian is problematic.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Warned I'm not convinced there was an edit warring violation yet, but this disagreement is getting to the point where it could be disruptive. I think everyone needs to make greater use of the article talk page and (failing that) dispute resolution or users may find themselves partial blocked from editing that article. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:ThecentreCZ and User:Concus Cretus reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: Two editors warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: version before the edit warring took place

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. April 22
2. April 23
3. April 25, 1st time
4. April 25, 2nd time
5. April 25, 3rd time
6. April 25, 4th time
7. April 26, 1st time
8. April 26, 2nd time
9. April 26, 3rd time
10. April 26, 4th time

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:

Today I've noticed this edit war that has been ongoing for past couple of days, users ThecentreCZ and Concus Cretus have been constantly edit warring without even discussing this situation on the talk page. I was generally not sure who to put in the report but in the past, I also had problems with ThecentreCZ because they were reverting constructive edits and weren't participating in a discussion about their edits. Concus Cretus did change the colors to gray to begin with, ThecentreCZ started the revert war, but even though both of these colors (gray and green) are unsourced as far as I know. Diffs for Concus Cretus' edits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I accidentally reverted this edit (I selfreverted second after seeing what I page was on) thinking it was the Czech Pirate Party's page because they added unsourced content for "Progressivism", user Concus Cretus then promptly added sources for Progressivism and I thanked their edit. In my opinion, both of these editors have to get warned/sanctioned, they have been editing here on Wikipedia for years... Vacant0 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Hello, the user Concus Cretus have been casually changing colour code from Viridian colour, which is already normalised and used on some other pages like charts and graphs connected to this page, like opinion polls and other political lists. Editations from his initiative were normally reverted as user who is not familiar to the cause. There was even no try to include all of these. He changed colour to gray, which is in experience of users familiar with political articles used for unaffiliated and independent groups. We are used to distinguish entities even with customary colours, which is not this case as we know this may change in the future with any data from these political entity. Not connected tho the main dispute, there is possibility this user is connected to the marketing or supporters unit of that party. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Ed2: And I would like to inform you, that the user Concus Cretus have been reverting the article here even after your issue if this ticket. Even if this ticket have been issued as solving. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that it makes sense that gray is being used for independents/other candidates and Concus Cretus might not know that. I'm curious why you or the other editor didn't start a discussion? Instead of endlessly reverting their edits you can explain to them the reason why it should remain green on their or PaS' talkpage.. Vacant0 (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed ThecentreCZ reverting constructive edits in various articles repeatedly and my experience discussing with ThecentreCZ in the past is that it leads to nowhere. As in this case, his rationale is based in no rules or norms and it decreases the article's quality be using similar colors for two different entities based on his personal opinion. I do realize, however, that repeated reverting is not constructive anyway and starting a discussion would be more meaningful instead.--Concus Cretus (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Lets see what does this user have to say about his informal color scheme (of using two greens in a three-color context) that he has been vigorously enforcing; I started a discussion here: Talk:Pirates and Mayors#Coalition color --Concus Cretus (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Your edits wasn't constructive as I informed you, as you are member of Public Relations division, you might know that. I have long experience with diversive editations with user Concus Cretus, as he is biased and assumed to be alleged member of public relations of political party, surprisingly frequently editing one particular political party and related articles. As concerned for rationale, there is used norms of Wikipedians concerned about political field and infoboxes, that your colour is not used. It is not point of any hard rules and regulations, for you maybe close to your alleged political views. Article quality is something you are concerned, we can see that. That might be suprise to some. In reality, this is just normalised colour used on other pages in Wikipedia as I informed you. Viridian colour is used on polls you haven't edited to gray, which is unaffiliated colour. You still doesn't take it into account, still repeating your biased personal rights. Viridian is just used as mark for distinguish forces, as we are used to with Wikipedians and editors normally. Not your green assumptions, in your biased brain. Its just used anywhere, nobody cares about STAN colour or anything like that. Its not even invetion of mine, as we can found in the article. This was firstly introduced in the article by user Bedivere.cs in his [first edit] as he created Wikipedia page Pirates and Mayors. So its was just returning to the original version without your disurption. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, unless you present a tangible color scheme you are referring to, I am not sure how it can be used or followed by anyone except yourself, without you personally enforcing it. It seems like an attempt to WP:OWN, while discussion in article talkpage is being ignored.--Concus Cretus (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Both User:Concus Cretus and User:ThecentreCZ ought to be blocked. They seem to be up to nine reverts apiece. If either one will promise to stop warring until consensus is found they might escape sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I already transferred to Talk:Pirates and Mayors#Coalition color, so my edit warring is over. So far, the other user has ignored that discussion.--Concus Cretus (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Discussing followed up here. Who has more eddits is Concus Cretus, he didn't yet reacted on my points. Pulling out of WP points have nothing to do with the matter as we know that in this relation, customary colors are not point of referentions in any case. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can decipher your statements, your point consists of a claim that there is some color scheme that should be followed. My reply to that has been repeatedly (as requested in Talk:Pirates and Mayors#Coalition color): present that tangible color scheme instead of just talking about it in riddles (MOS:WEASEL).--Concus Cretus (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Concus Cretus: Tangible colour scheme is just aggregate summary of all pages used with the components of colours of the main article. As we solving in Talk:Pirates and Mayors#Coalition color. Adequate arguments was presented and probably cannot be solved without opinion of other users. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:ThecentreCZ and User:Concus Cretus are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:มิตรภาพ reported by User:Paul 012 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Franco-Thai War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Thailand victory​ is​ True​ not​ edit."
2. 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "On Japanese decision, disputed territories in French Indochina ceded by France to Thailand[3]:22[4]:78"
3. 02:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Thailand victory"
4. 13:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC) "Block edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Franco-Thai War."
2. 09:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism."

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Franco-Thai War#Infobox result

Comments:

SPA editor repeatedly changing infobox value to one which contradicts cited source, without engaging in talk page discussion for almost two weeks, and resuming edit warring after page protection expired. (They've just now posted to the talk page the first time, but but not before continuing to revert.) Paul_012 (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• note: Whichever admin handles this report, should also be aware of this attempt to delete the whole thing. (fyi) - wolf 14:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Since they tried to remove this report, I have placed a site block, rather than an article block. If we could concurrently place an article block, there would have also been a longer article block, which I will try to do after the site block expires. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:47.201.194.211 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: )

Page: Quantum entanglement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 47.201.194.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: last good version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first reinsertion of content
2. restored disputed content with insignificant changes
3. reinserted the insignificantly-changed version
4. reinserted again after revert by a second editor
5. and again
6. and again, after a third editor removed it
7. and again, after a fourth editor did so
8. and again, after a fifth editor did so (while declaring in the edit summary that there was No more opposition to restoring)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion at Talk:Quantum entanglement has been editors disagreeing with 47.201.194.211 and them now resorting to personal attacks

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: the latest item in a Talk page that is nothing but warnings

Comments:

User:Warlighter reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

Page: Python (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020189495 by MrOllie (talk) it does not introduce any grammatical errors. it fixes blatant violations of guidelines."
2. 18:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020189100 by Akeosnhaoe (talk) irrelevant. If you want to change a particular word, change that particular word. But you are obviously reverting just to be disruptive."
3. 18:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020188400 by Akeosnhaoe (talk) incorrect"
4. 17:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020167158 by Akeosnhaoe (talk) rv vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I also reverted a number of this user's edits on other pages which I felt were removing useful information which they re-reverted as well. This user is constantly insulting articles in their edit summaries, it's all pretty strange honestly. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Akeosnhaoe has clear disruptive intent and is undoing edits for no reason whatsoever. See [48], [49], [50]. With regards to the article on python, they claim to have a problem with one particular word that I introduced when fixing appallingly bad writing, but their "reason" is nonsense and they are undoing my changes entirely. This is clearly not someone editing in good faith. Warlighter (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Samuel D Rowe reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Blocked)

Page: Darius the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Samuel D Rowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Threats and argument from authority - the sources are right there and correct, and remove modern Iranian nationalistic bias."
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC) to 19:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020200341 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
   3. 19:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   5. 19:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   6. 19:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "/* Family */"
   7. 19:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""HistoryofIran" has written a biased article, with sentences that are at best historically biased (anti-Bardiya, etc) and at worst completely biased ("Darius loved Atossa the most", "he was a good king who quelled many rebellions"). I suspect they are writing out of Iranian nationalism and are in any case not neutral enough to be allowed to continue to edit such pages, as all of the Persian history-related pages drip with similar bias."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC) to 19:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020199527 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
   2. 19:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 19:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC) "Gaumata's identification with Bardiya, even in Darius' propaganda, is problematic. I do not believe "History of Iran" is acting in good faith in reverting it."
5. 17:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 19:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User "Samuel D Rower" abruply initiated an edit-war at Darius the Great as of today, and is persistent on pushing his desired revision into the article through sheer edit warring. Doesn't seem to be accepting any sort of WP policy (including WP:BRD, WP:CON and WAR), and he instantly removes every warning from his talk page. He recently opened a talk page section, but I don't blame anyone for not responding to it, as its loaded with more WP:BATTLE similar to the rest of his edit summaries directed against veteran user HistoryofIran, and not a single word of it is written in a constructive manner:

• "I do not believe "History of Iran" is acting in good faith in reverting it."[51]
• ""HistoryofIran" has written a biased article (...) I suspect they are writing out of Iranian nationalism and are in any case not neutral enough to be allowed to continue to edit such pages, as all of the Persian history-related pages drip with similar bias."[52]
• "HistoryofIran" has written a biased article, with sentences that are at best historically biased (Briant quite clearly cautions to accept neither version of the Gautama story, and the article presents other anti-Bardiya sentiment as has already been mentioned above) and at worst completely biased ("Darius loved Atossa the most", "he was a good king who quelled many rebellions" - things uncritically lifted from 40 year old monographs or the primary sources themselves). I suspect they are writing out of Iranian nationalism and are in any case not neutral enough to be allowed to continue to edit such pages, as all of the Persian history-related pages indicate similar bias."[53]

- LouisAragon (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran and LouisAragon are well known for their pro-Iranian bias infringing on Wiki:NPOV and bad faith edit warring. See Wikipediocracy: "I noticed that a generally pro-Iranian editor, LouisAragon (T-C-L)". Samuel D Rowe (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Well known"

That's pretty big coming from a user with supposedly 50 edits in total. You really think this is helping your case? - LouisAragon (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I shall take it as a compliment, as Wikipedia is well known to be an unreliable source at best and a terrible and biased mess at worst. You are a sad, sad man - and threatened me, which surely qualifies as WP:BATTLE. Veterancy hardly makes you correct. Samuel D Rowe (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging El C as he's aware of this harassment campaign. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not aware of any campaign - I just see two Iranians living in the Netherlands (elsewhere, it is pointed out that you use several suspicious IP addresses) making biased edits and edit-warring to keep anyone from correcting the pages they "curate". I have not been the first to pick up on this: "User:LouisAragon inserts his biased edits and personal analysis in many..." starts another discussion opened up on Wikipedia. Louis is further known to be a racist.[54] Samuel D Rowe (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Quid of the rampant racism and bias shown by LouisAragon?[55] Samuel D Rowe (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment : For the record, this "user", Samuel D Rowe, who i definitely don't believe is new, has somehow dug up a 7 years old (!) diff posted by LouisAragon as a response to a sockpuppet (from 2014 !). Given that Samuel D Rowe only registered in 2020, that sounds really strange and like a desperate (and almost stalkerish ...) attempt to get LouisAragon and HistoryofIran blocked. I had some disagreements with both LouisAragon and HistoryofIran in the past : [56], [57], but in my humble opinion, any editor who is here to build an encyclopedia can see that LouisAragon and HistoryofIran are two big net positive editors for this project.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

1RR violation by User:Terjen reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&type=revision&diff=1017887609&oldid=1015632229

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&type=revision&diff=1017887609&oldid=1015632229
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1017893124
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019868082
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019887084

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They are aware of discretionary sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Terjen and have also been warned before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terjen

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Terjen&action=history

Comments:
They've been warned about edit warring and disruptive editing before, there's an ongoing Arbitration Enforcement request etc. They're continuing being generally disruptive, but they've clearly violated the 1RR sanctions on the page - so I think these 1RR violations should be addressed as a priority. Bacondrum 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments:
Reported user here. This issue is already in arbitration (my first ever - I have edited since 2006) making this report seem redundant. I have on my own accord self-quarantined from editing entries since the arbitration was filed, so there is no "continuing being generally disruptive" - and it is not a fitting description for my time on wikipedia. I have no history of frequently being "warned about edit warring and disruptive editing". Possibly the report filing is related to this exchange between me and the filer. As to the diffs above, they're all adding tags to bring attention to new postings in an ongoing discussion on a Talk page, most of them days apart; The last one is a different tag bringing attention to a newly posted argument on the talk page arguing MOS:LABEL. Please let me know if you like more details or have other questions. Terjen (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring, 1RR is 1RR. Bacondrum 07:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum is a party to the arbitration enforcement filed against me. They reverted my addition of the final tag in this edit:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019911538

The editor that filed the arbitration against me, NorthBySouthBaranof, was officially warned by admins about their edit warring just last month. Terjen (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:MikeJones19888 reported by User:Retrotechexpert (Result: )

Page: DeLorean time machine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MikeJones19888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1020223518

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1019529062&oldid=1019232940
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1019851800&oldid=1019813145
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1020149886&oldid=1020077206
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1020167607&oldid=1020161883

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeJones19888&oldid=1020162033

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1019811721#Replica_Solicitations_and_Advertisements

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeJones19888&oldid=1020223844

Comments:

This user has been attempting to replace a valid reference to a database showing empirical data of the number of DeLorean Time Machine replicas in existence with a link to his own web address where time machine replica services are offered. A review of the articles history identified this user and other named variants (see article talk page link above) have made similar modifications to this article in an attempt to advertise their services. The data on his commercial web address is also incorrect, but the intention is to use SEO page rank provided by a link from Wikipedia to improve his page traffic instead of for the benefit of provided substantive information to wikipedia visitors. Advertisements of this type have been regularly scrubbed from this page to provide a neutral observation and presentation of the facts. User has been warned multiple times and continues to circumvent edits by replacing links to his personal web address. An edit earlier today went so far as to add a full blatant advertisement for this user's web address soliciting the aforemmentioned replica rental services. Retrotechexpert (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This user apparently is using another account (GullWing88) to make the same edit as well. Previous similar edits that advertised this same web address were also made by an now blocked account Mikemonroe88 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikemonroe88 -- See this identical edit diff from GullWing88 from earlier this evening: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1020230585 Retrotechexpert (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Further evidence that GullWing88 is the same user as MikeJones19888 -- user made edits to Back to the Future (Franchise) article and added blantant advertisement to aforementioned web address advertising rental services. ClueBot reverted this change. All contribs from this user appear in the same vein -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GullWing88 Retrotechexpert (talk)

Same user continues to make identical edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1020312194&oldid=1020255702 Retrotechexpert (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:31.166.38.73 reported by User:KoizumiBS (Result: )

Page: Rouran Khaganate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Proto-Mongols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Donghu people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.166.38.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:
False information and WP:OR is added from this IP 31.166.38.73 (talk · contribs). The user writes about the Turkic origins of the Donghu referring to these sources (Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (2000). "Ji 姬 and Jiang 姜: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity", Early China, p. 20; Wei Shou . Book of Wei. Vol. 1; Tseng, Chin Yin (2012). The Making of the Tuoba Northern Wei: Constructing Material Cultural Expressions in the Northern Wei Pingcheng Period (398-494 CE) (PhD). University of Oxford. P . 1 .; Wei Shou. Book of Wei. Vol. 91 "蠕蠕 ， 東 胡 之 苗裔 也 ， 姓 郁 久 閭 氏。" tr. "Rúrú, offsprings of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ"; Wei Shou. Book of Wei. Vol. 91 "蠕蠕 ， 東 胡 之 苗裔 也 ， 姓 郁 久 閭 氏。" tr. "Rúrú, offsprings of Dōnghú, surnamed Yùjiŭlǘ"). But the sources say about the connection of the Rourans with the Donghu and the Xiongnu, not with the Turkic peoples. Previously, the user was engaged in similar activities in the article Tatar confederation. As a result, the article was protected, and the user was blocked. Previously he edited from here: 169.148.68.144 (talk · contribs), 31.167.235.14 (talk · contribs), Osamaorf (talk · contribs). Request to protect articles (Rouran Khaganate, Proto-Mongols, Donghu people), as well as take action against the user 31.166.38.73 (talk · contribs).

Gross violation of WP: CIVIL rules: diff. I ask the administrators to remind the user about the inadmissibility of such edits, and also to take appropriate measures against the user Osamaorf (talk · contribs).--KoizumiBS (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Nuclear Milkman reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: )

Page: Talk:Race and intelligence (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020326902 by JayBeeEll (talk) disruptive personal attack. Comment on CONTENT"
2. 13:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020324949 by NightHeron (talk) take it to the talk page. Oh wait people like YOU are there"
3. 13:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020323588 by NightHeron (talk) rv pathological liar"
4. 13:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020321530 by MPants at work (talk) rv moronic charlatan"
5. 11:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020310468 by NightHeron (talk) lying about a consensus is unconstructive"
6. 11:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1020309172 by Rsk6400 (talk) Mean words vs. lying about academia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warring is taking place on a talk-page.

Comments:

Trolling SPA edit-warring to include personal attacks on a talk-page; presumably a sock-puppet of someone or other. JBL (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Was commenting on the misrepresentation of a scientific consensus and the MO i.e. editing patterns of editors. Not a personal attack. Flimsy effort to silence criticism. Nuclear Milkman (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me add this diff, where they call a specific editor "some other clown". --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly provoked by your involved and unwarranted deletion of comments critical of misrepresentation of the consensus regarding the validity of IQ, which is infinitely more serious than calling someone a "clown". Nuclear Milkman (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of lying are a clear violation of WP:NPA (as I am sure you well know, as you know far too much about how to edit wikipedia to be a first time editor). Such accusations are at best unconstructive, so of course they will be deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that editor RSK6400 apparently edits Wikipedia to "fight racism" (whatever that means) rather than edit based on a fair selection of academic sources. Nuclear Milkman (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This user has now been indef blocked for personal attacks / violations of the harassment policy: [62] Generalrelative (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Page: Social Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: [[User:<Erzan>|<Erzan>]] ([[User talk:<Erzan>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<Erzan>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Erzan>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<Erzan>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<Erzan>|block user]] · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]
5. [67]
6. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69] [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [72]

Comments:

• Comment both editors are at fault here. While Erzan has a long history of edit warring, Twozerooz has also spent the past week edit warring and appears to have violated the 3RR. I can see a WP:BOOMERANG incoming. Both users need to spend more time on the talk page. — Czello 14:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Also, given the number of new accounts engaging in edit warring I suspect there might be some sock puppetry going on. — Czello 14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  I have susepcted there is more than one user. Because some of edits have been fixing my clusmy edits and adding sources over time. One user was undoing my edits fast, even my very minor one's to fix an error. For example I was adding sources from Harvard and Stanfard, engaging in the talk page as well. Then after several edits, a second user is engaging in undoing my very minor edits, which again had plenty of sources. Erzan (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Many users trying to undo your edits is a sign of something, but it is not sock puppetry. --Twozerooz (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I have spent quite a significant amount of time on the talk page, as have numerous other editors. While we are all doing our best to keep the page truthful, Erzan's relentless edit warring needs a better solution. --Twozerooz (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Erzan has also spent a lot of time there. Honestly I'm tempted to do a huge rollback and say that you should both be following WP:BRD, but it's difficult for me to see what the "status quo" version of the article is as it's been edit warred for months. By the looks of things, Erzan's version is the WP:QUO. — Czello 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    The statuos quo was the edit you see now. I was simply adding minor edits, adding sources from Havard, LSE, Stanford. This page has been under assault, sections that have been on this page for a long while are being removed and it's the same theme. An attempt to remove any edits that refer to socialism. It's bizzare because again, despite credible sources to all my edits, 2 users have been undoing very minor edits on the exact same sentence in 2 days. Is that not vandalism or something? Erzan (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    • 1016874772 is the WP:QUO version. It should be reverted back to here. All users prior agree on the subject. You'll see a few 'thanks' between the other users. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Some of the edits were a clusmy attempt to prevent vandalism. The disputed sentence had plenty of sources and the edits from User:Twozerooz have ignored them and the talk page comments from the user have been very personal. Erzan (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes there have been plenty attempts from numerous users to revert the on-going vandalism. Plenty of sources have been provided to User:Erzan by myself and many other users, however they have been ignored. It appears Erzan's long history of edit warring has now spilled over on to this page as well --Twozerooz (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • While I can't endorse Erzan's edit warring, WP:BRD maintains that you need to get consensus for your changes first. You should have left the article as it was and discussed it on the talk page until you had consensus. — Czello 15:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • There was consensus from everyone except Erzan. Erzan should have left the article as it was, and discussed it before editing.--Twozerooz (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I can see a consensus on the talk page, just you two arguing. Although perhaps I'm just missing it; can you direct me to anything more specific? — Czello 15:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

      There was no consesus. I have seen this page for months if not years and all of a sudden the 'socialism sidebar' was removed without anyone mention of why in the talk page by yourself. There is a pattern emerging and it is an attempt to remove references to socialism. This is why I provided plenty of creddible sources to edits to avoid looking like there was a bad faith edit. Erzan (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

      • There was consensus on the things that Erzan is trying to edit. e.g. even the discussion between Godless Raven and TFD were based on miscommunication and were largely superficial in nature, and ended with TFD saying "IOW it already said what you wanted it to say" --Twozerooz (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

        I have read the talk page, over and over. I do not see those users agreeing with one another on the particular edit that is being disputed here. Erzan (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

        The first clue wasn't the fact that we're trying to revert your edits? Regardless, I suggest a way to break the stalemate: Both Erzan and Twozerooz be banned for edit warring, for a period of time that will give plenty of time for other users to decide the course of the article. Seems like an appropriate compromise. I also suggest someone clean up the talk page given how messy it has become, which is likely a serious roadblock to allowing proper discussion on the subject--Twozerooz (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

        Hold on.

        They who? it was only 1 user and then yourself who kept undoing the same very minor edits which expanded the list of sources.

        Czello I am increasingly susepcting an attempt of sock puppetry. How do I go about raising this? Erzan (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

        @Erzan: Your edits were not "minor" edits. They were incorrectly flagged as minor edits. Please see here for how correct use of the Minor Edit flag. --Twozerooz (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

        @Erzan: Go to WP:SPI and click the "How to open an investigation" dropdown; that'll show you how. However, if you want a checkuser request you will have to be prepared to present some compelling evidence. — Czello 16:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)