Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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 oder 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:Beyond My Ken reported by User:BrightR (Result: BMK will voluntarily refrain from reverting on the article for a week)

Page: Exhibitionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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. 853348853
2. 853364073
3. 853364498
4. 853372348

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 853373259

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 853364609

Comments:

User:Beyond My Ken repeatedly edit-wars to put tags at the bottom of the article and to move images above their section's header. He accused me of hounding him, but he's done this on many articles which I have not participated in. Currently he's doing that in at least three other articles. He's going to argue that because of our previous interactions (most of them are about MOS:IM and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR reverts) that I'm hounding him; see the other articles where editors are telling him the exact same thing: MOS:IM is consensus and if you want to implement your own style the onus to achieve a new consensus is on you. Bright☀ 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Can I point out that less than 4 months ago, when BrightR was being considered for an indef block, they pledged that "I will not cite WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and request that editors give a non-owner reason for their reverts.". [1]. Unfortunately, as a voluntary statement made while an indef-block discussion was being held, [2] I don't think this is enforceable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Cite" as in "post excepts from", not "cite" as in "name a policy and ask people to follow it." As discussed in the very discussion you linked, using Wikipedia policies to explain your edits is advised. I was talking about posting large excerpts from policy, as in Talk:12 Monkeys. How is this relevant to your edit warring, though? Bright☀ 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Let the Wikilawyering begin! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: You've already had your annual block for edit warring. This year's block was cut short with "time served" but it's expected that the behavior won't repeat, yet here we are, less than four months later. Is there a good reason why you shouldn't be blocked, this time for a week? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• NeilN: Take a look at the edit summaries, please. I was upholding the strictures of WP:BRD, while the OP -- who has a habit of following me around and provoking disputes with me -- was totally ignoring them. Yes, he started a discussion on the article talk page, but he completely ignored that articles are intended to remain in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing.
  If you check my editing history, you'll see that I'm always willing to discuss editorial disputes on the talk page (just hadn't gotten around to responding on this particular one), and I always abide by a talk page consensus, but, on the other hand, I do not accept that simply citing an editing guideline is a "get out of BRD free" card. Except for BLP and copyvios, all editorial disputes are subject to discussion and consensus, and that is simply the path I was urging the OP to take, as opposed to reverting to their preferred version over the established status quo version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: There's no 3RR-exemption for "upholding the strictures of WP:BRD". I recall probably saying this to you before, but cannot remember exactly when or where so you're escaping a probably deserved block right now if you voluntarily agree not to revert again on the article for a week (you can still use the talk page) and realize if you use BRD to excuse breaking 3RR again, you're probably looking at a week's block at least. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Neil: I cannot recall you saying that, but if you think you did so, then I'm sure you did. I probably would have replied something on the order of "There should be one". My larger question -- beyond whether I am blocked or not -- is how can one insure that BRD is followed when the other editor adamantly refuses to do so?
  Yes, I have already removed Exhibitionism from my watchlist, so I won't be tempted to wade back in again, and will probably keep it off the list for much more than a week, as I find tussling with the OP to be a trial, and to considerably reduce my enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia - so I willingly and voluntarily agree to your conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Neil, if you let this go Beyond My Ken is just going to do the same in striptease, lapdance, ogopogo, and other articles where he is currently edit-warring. A block would prevent the continuation of the current edit wars, and ever-increasing blocks will eventually discourage Beyond My Ken from article ownership behavior, just as standing up to him now discouraged him from his against-consensus no-discussion article ownership of exhibitionism. Bright☀ 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And what, if I may ask, will prevent BrightR from using my contribution list to follow me around to harrass me, as he just did at WT:EW? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I was in good faith answering your question. You asked if BRD is a get-out-of-edit-warring-free-card. I replied, per BRD itself, that BRD is never a revert reason. This is intimately related to this discussion. Your frame of mind suggests that you intend to use BRD as a revert reason, despite BRD explicitly stating it is not a valid revert reason; more importantly, Wikipedia policy states that reverting to "status quo" is not a valid revert reason. Perhaps you would edit-war less if you accepted that. I also suggest that, after ten years of trying to force your own against-MOS image position and cleanup tag position, you accept MOS, as it represents consensus, and all of your attempts to reverse it has failed. Bright☀ 18:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

To quote a perhaps not very wise, but still stalwart editor of Wikipedia: We're a project based on consensus, and discussion is a necessary part of the process of reaching consensus -- but consensus means nothing if random changes can't be undone to restore the staus quo.

If everyone involved is (hopefully) going to agree to abide by the eventual consensus of editors, then the only question is which version of the article should be maintained while consensus is being established. The only one which makes any sense is the status quo version, because it is the version that represents prior consensus, whether actual or de facto. The changed version represents only one editor's opinion, and therefore does not have the weight of the previous versions.

Those who wish to ignore BRD and take matters into their own hands are fond of tarring BRD-upholding editors with charges of exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behavior, but it's not "owning" an article to wish it to stay as it was until editors decide on the talk page which course should be taken, it is, in fact, the best conservative choice. If the changing editor is correct, then consensus will likely support their version, so all they need to do is wait, taking part in the consensus discussion in the meantime. When that is reached, the article will be changed (or not, depending), and there is no longer any dispute. Not following BRD prolongs the dispute, and removes it from the realm of consensus determination, which is more akin to "ownership" then is preserving the status quo while discussions are talking place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You still got it all wrong. You can't use BRD as a revert reason. You can't use status quo as a revert reason. I don't know how you got it in your head. The BRD essay itself states it is not a revert reason. The consensus policy doesn't talk about a "status quo" version but a consensus version. The ownership policy explicitly cautions against reverting to a status quo version.

None of what you're saying is valid on Wikipedia. You claim to support BRD but ignore that BRD says not to do exactly what you're doing. The changed version represents only one editor's opinion This is perhaps the worst of your reasoning. Your above-heading image placement represents your opinion. The MOS below-heading image placement represents consensus. Your bottom-of-article tag placement represent your opinion. The RfC top-of-article tag placement represents consensus. If you revert the placement of images and tags for no reason other than "to uphold BRD", you are acting against Wikipedia policy.

The fact that you use BRD to justify edit-warring, when BRD explicitly warns against using it as a revert reason, should tell the admins that you intend to keep edit warring. In order to prevent that from happening, you need to be blocked. Bright☀ 19:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The entirety of this discussion is well worth reading, for an indication of what an encounter with BrightR is like. It seems that nothing much has changed since April, when he made grandiose promises to reform his editing behavior, and by doing so avoided an indef block. Maybe some beneficient admin can just put me out of my misery and impose an IBan between the two of us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You can self-impose an IBan on yourself if you'd like. You still need to be blocked to prevent you from further edit-warring. As Neil said, you were unblocked with the expectation that you will cease edit warring. But you keep edit warring. Bright☀ 20:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If BrightR is agreeable to a two-way IBan, then I am as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's more important that you learn from your mistakes than run away from them. Bright☀ 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Or, you know what? If you just acknowledge that BRD is not a valid revert reason, that your image placement directly above headers is against consensus, and that your tag placement at the bottom of articles is against consensus, you would become a better person and less of a detriment to Wikipedia. Bright☀ 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Less of a detriment to Wikipedia" Come, come, you can do better than that. One editor called me "The worst thing to ever happen to Wikipedia." You really must try harder to disparage me! Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

But I'm not trying to disparage you. I'm trying to better you. Admit that putting images directly above level-2 headings is against consensus, and admit that putting cleanup tags at the bottom of articles is against consensus, and admit that BRD is not a valid revert reason, and you will become a better Wikipedian and a better person. Bright☀ 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh pish tosh, that's completely disingenuous on its face, and I'm surprised you expect anyone to believe it. Now, how about the 2-way I-Ban? We could be out of each other's hair forever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why won't you admit those things? Are they not true? Bright☀ 21:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask you one more time, in the hope that I'll get a straight answer instead of sanctimonous twaddle. If not, then I'm through talking with you.

Will you agree to a 2-way Interaction Ban between us? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I already answered: no, I'd rather you face your mistakes than run away from them. An IBan will allow you to ignore everything and continue edit-warring. If you admit these three things—

• that placing images below (and not directly above) level-2 headers is the consensus
• that placing cleanup templates at the top of articles (and not at the bottom) is the consensus
• that BRD is not a valid revert reason (and not an excuse to edit-war)

—then you will become a better Wikipedian. Otherwise, you'll just continue edit-warring, and you'll have to be blocked as a preventative measure. Bright☀ 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I don't know why I expected you to do the reasonable thing. I guess, the next time you follow me somewhere, I'll just go to AN/I and ask there for a one-way IBan, from you to me, as I've never followed you around or attempted to interact with you, the impetus has always been on your side. It'll be easy enough to provide the necessary evidence.
  As for your "concern" for my being a "better Wikipedian", I really can't see that as anything but complete and utter bat guano. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion -- at least the part of it between you and I -- is over.
  Outsiders looking in on this conversation should read this pledge made by BrightR in April 2018, and then re-read the current discussion (if you can bear to), to judge just how well BrightR keeps his promises to the community.
  BrightR, you may have the last word to sanctimoniously trash me to your heart's content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"bat guano" - I guess that means you're going to continue edit warring. If you don't accept consensus and keep using BRD as an excuse to edit war, you'll have to be blocked. Bright☀ 22:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here -- this is the War Room!" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Obvious violation of 3rr. If I wasn't involved in that exhibitionism mess I would issue a block, but 'twas my image size edit that sparked the reverting. Vsmith (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BRD instructs that editors take the dispute to the talk page. If somebody BRD's me in an edit summary I expect them to start a discussion, or at the very least join the existing one. In other words invoking it without observing it strikes me as a tad disingenous. Personally I think Neil is being very lenient here (five reverts in a 24h period and no attempt at resolution on the talk page), so if BMK is going to be let off froma block I would like to see a firm commitment here that he will start or join a discussion on the talk page if he intends to invoke BRD in the future. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I guess there's no particular reason for you to believe me, except that I rarely lie about matters such as this, but I had every intention of joining in the discussion on the talk page, and if BrightR hadn't continued to revert to his preferred version, I would have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do actually believe you, because you do often participate in discussions. The problem here though is that you notched up five reverts before joining the discussion. Whenever I invoke BRD in an edit summary I always make sure I have commented in the discussion first and then either link to the discussion (if I have started it) or refer the other editor to my reply if they have started it. The problem here is that you have made it very difficult for the admin not to block you because your reverts have not been accompanied by a realistic attempt at resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a valid point, and a consideration I should hold onto for the future -- I'll try my best. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

BrightR has quite the history of hounding. They have no business coming here to report editwarring on one of the people they like to follow around. This should be closed with no action. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor) At this point, a block would be punitive rather than preventative. Let's put the pitchforks down and allow all involved parties to cool down and move on. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering Beyond My Ken has been edit-warring about the same image placement and tag placement issues for ten years, I doubt he'll stop now, especially since he ignored my requests to admit that he's editing against consensus. Bright☀ 22:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have recently had similar exchanges with Beyond My Ken over placing images above headers. At Otto von Bismarck he has shut down attempts to change his layout by at least three editors, generally reverting without providing a reason. Two threads on the talk page protest and detail reasons the MoS style layout is preferable. He answered one to say that the MoS is optional, and proclaimed that his version is “superior” (despite other editors disagreeing). At Nazi Germany, he reverted me twice over the same layout issue, then used BRD to impose the status quo. Again I gave substantive reasons why the MoS layout is preferable at that page, but he demands I gain consensus without further reasoning – gain consensus, to institute a MoS style layout. (Ironically, he also has an IAR banner on his talk page.)

Beyond My Ken shows a clear pattern of imposing his unique, non-MoS image layout on pages, then edit warring to impose it even against talk page discussion. Do MoS policies – developed by consensus, as pointed out above – apply to everyone? Or can IAR and BRD be used alternatively to steamroll others off of pages? And if he gets an “annual block,” yet is back after a few months, how is one week off going to change anything? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I guess I must have dropped off to sleep there for a few days, and in my absence MOS became a mandatory policy, instead of what it has always been, a guideline, a suggestion about to how to edit in the absence of other circumstances, to be understood and followed whenever practical, but be interpreted with common sense and editorial discretion. I guess all those MOS hardliners who never understood that finally stormed the palace gates and raised MOS to the exalted status of policy. ... What? You say that never happened? MOS is still a guideline? Well, then, that pretty much invalidates most of what these folks have to say here, doesn't it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And thus it is BRD for everyone else, IAR for Beyond My Ken, whatever keeps his version in place. While he sidesteps the fact that there is a clear consensus against his layout at Bismarck. He never gives any reason why his version is better, even though there are clear substantive reasons why it is not (like putting an image in the pertinent section when there is room). This sort of behavior has a chilling effect on other editors. When I see BYK is active on a page, I move on because it isn't worth the strife. This does not create a collaborative atmosphere and precludes potential improvement of pages. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: isn't this tirade about MOS a clear indication that BMK intends to keep his against-consensus edit wars? He fails to admit that MOS represents consensus and his pseudo-headers, image sizes, image placement, tag placement and so on are the ones that require a new consensus to be formed. Thus he can only enforce them with edit wars. Bright☀ 05:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well, this discussion has progressed, hasn't it? Beyond My Ken up above you ask how to ensure BRD is followed. The short answer is, you don't. BRD is not a policy or guideline but an essay on an optional method of reaching consensus. If other editors don't want to follow it then you'll have to find another way to reach it. You also need to pay particular attention to the first five points of WP:BRD-NOT. Just reverting and parroting BRD or "status quo" in your edit summaries is not acceptable and is in fact in direct opposition to our content creation philosophy. I can see there are a lot of editors watching your reverts and I'm pretty sure they won't hesitate to drop me a "told you so!" note if you continue this type of reverting. If that happens, then I'm going to agree with them and look at a block. Follow the advice you've prominently placed on your talk page: "Let shit go." (I would add, "before you get dumped in it.") --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Undoubtedly good advice, NeilN, let's hope for everyone's sake that I can follow it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: I'll add onto this and say that while BRD is optional, it is also a pretty fundamental mainstay of Wikipedia culture and I think every admin who works this board is acutely aware of its importance. If you're the "R" in BRD, you're not doing anything wrong, whereas the person you reverted is in the wrong if they choose to revert back. However, should you engage them in an edit war, you have a first-mover disadvantage as you will breach 3RR first, and then you're the bad guy who winds up blocked with the usual lecture that "it takes two sides to edit war". If, however, you're in the same situation, and disengage before you breach or even hit the 3RR brightline, and report the situation here, we will very much recognize the fact that you're showing self-restraint while your opponent is showing none and you will receive substantially more sympathy and assistance from administrators. Your opponent ignoring BRD is not something that carries any weight if you engage in edit warring, but if you disengage, it's still something we will understand and sympathize with and will take into consideration. Just my 2 cents. Swarm ♠ 12:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Although I was aware of all of this intellectually, it's clear that with certain editors and in certain circumstances it was (is) difficult for me not to react quickly with little aforethought and put myself in exactly the situation that you describe. I've taken a few steps that -- I hope -- will encourage me to stop at the "R" phase and not blindly blunder ahead with further knee-jerk reverts. We'll see if they work, and if this old dog can learn these new tricks or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN:: Beyond My Ken argues that the MoS is merely a guideline, which may be overridden by “common sense and editorial discretion.” The MoS is developed by consensus and intended to provide consistency across pages. Certainly there are exceptions, where the MoS should not or cannot be followed. But it should be up to BYK to explain why an exception to the MoS guidelines are preferable on a given page. Substantive reasons are given to support the MoS design, so it should be up to him to detail why his version is preferable in a given context. It should not be up to those attempting to implement universal guidelines to re-litigate the policy locally, simply because one editor declares his design superior, without elaboration or agreement by other editors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:A.Musketeer reported by User:Editor General of Wiki (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page

2018 Bangladesh road safety protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

A.Musketeer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 20:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "The report of rape are there in the videos shared by Dhaka Tribune in the link, you are violating wp:EDITWAR"
3. 20:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "reorganizing under a new subsection"
4. 20:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on 2018 Bangladesh road safety protests. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Adding a news of rape of 4 female students with a fake source, which do not mentions anything about rape of 4 students. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24h Swarm ♠ 07:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Editor General of Wiki reported by User:A.Musketeer (Result: Declined)

Page

2018 Bangladesh road safety protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Editor General of Wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC) to 20:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Attack on protesting students */ This source does not say anything about rape of four girls. Please don't add WP:OR"
   2. 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 853440690 by Editor General of Wiki (talk). (TW)"
   3. 20:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Government response */"
   4. 20:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Government response */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC) to 20:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 20:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Government response */ This source does not mention anything about rape of 4 students"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on 2018 Bangladesh road safety protests. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is repeatedly reverting all the edits and expressing an ownership over the article. The user is disputing the source of a news which is already explained in the edit summaries. A.Musketeer (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Declined I cannot possibly block EGoW given the edits of yours they were reverting. You were using Wikipedia's voice to present unconfirmed/unclear reports and rumors as facts, despite the lack of reliable sources. Swarm ♠ 07:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:Dilpa kaur (Result: No violation)

Page: Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

Article is under 1RR restriction. User broke this restriction and reverted twice. Son of Kolachi (talk · contribs) was blocked recently for the same offence. Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: Please self-revert without delay so we don't have to sully your clean block log over this. You've received an alert about the discretionary sanctions within the past year, and there was an edit notice about the 1RR restriction. Swarm ♠ 12:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'm only seeing one revert here: the second diff brought forward by Dilpa Kaur. Their first diff is Kautilya's original edit and there's nothing in the recent history to suggest that there was an edit, or a series of edits, of which this could be construed as a revert. – Uanfala (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, Kautilya3 has already been warned for edit warring on this noticeboard twice by @Bbb23:.[7] I don't see any need for favouritism or extra chances here which were not given to new users such as Son of Kolachi. Kautilya3's "clean block log" means nothing. He has gotten away with all his previous disruption by sheer luck, favouritism and elaborate deception (for example he escaped sanctions for abusing multiple accounts some years ago[8])

Uanfala, The first diff presented was a revert of this user who originally added the content.[9] So its two reverts, not one edit followed by 1 revert. The user was aware that the first edit was a revert of another user, as indicated by this comment.[10] Obaid Raza (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit you've linked to is from 2013, and though the text it introduced seems to have been at the core of the paragraph that Kauitulya removed five years later, the two texts are quite different. Please note that a "revert" refers to the undoing of the edit of another editor, it doesn't apply to any removal whatsoever of text. – Uanfala (talk)

• Yeah, like Uanfala said, I wasn't edit-warring. I redid my removal only after I concluded that the editor that raised an objection was not going to respond to the talk page discussion. If Dilpa kaur or Obaid Raza like this content, they are welcome to reinstate it and join the discussion on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

An edit war is an edit war and a policy violations is a policy violation regardless of irrelevant excuses such as "only after I concluded that the editor that raised an objection was not going to respond". As already explained these 2 edits constitute 2 reverts. The first edit reverted Nursingxmajor. The second edit reverted Adamstraw99. Swarm I firmly recommend you not to show this user any leniency due to their history of warnings for edit war on this very noticeboard and for reasons of justice with Son of Kolachi. If Kautilya3 does not get the same treatment as other editors, this may become a WP:AN issue because this favouritism has gone on far too long. Obaid Raza (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I sincerely apologize. I was in the wrong here. Uanfala is correct. That content was added at some point in 2013 and the removal of longstanding content does not constitute a "revert". I've undone the self-revert I forced Kauitulya to perform in error. I apologize again. This is No violation. Swarm ♠ 14:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• And to be clear, this is not remotely an issue of favoritism. I do not know this editor and I have no opinion of them. Ruining an editor's clean block log over something minor like a 1RR violation is a big deal however, and I take no joy in doing such a thing, not to mention the damage it does to the editor's morale, and the ensuing drama and outrage that I don't particularly feel like dealing with. Self reverting in lieu of a block is perfectly normal and reasonable, as any other admin here will confirm for you. What's not reasonable is your attempt to present a warning from 2016 as an aggravating factor, and your threat to take this to another forum if you don't get your desired result. Lastly, reverting means restoring a page to a previous version, and there is a distinction between a revert and the removal of content. The removal of a single paragraph that's been in an article for years would be considered the bold edit in the bold, revert, discuss cycle. It is not automatically a revert just because content is removed. Swarm ♠ 14:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Swarm's evaluation. And I'll just add for the record that this report appears to be part of a pattern in the India-Pakistan topic area, of editors from one "side" filing reports trying to catch editors from the other "side" in technical (or sometimes, spurious) violations. Often there are pile on supports or opposes from clique-members (as here with User:Obaid Raza's input) and even concerns of proxy-edits on behalf of some banned users. Of course, sometimes the reported violations are violations, and need to be judged on their merit, but admins patrolling these area need to be aware of such patterns of complaints. Abecedare (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikaviani reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: Protected)

Page

Caucher Birkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC) "You were already told on your talk page by an admin to stop your Kurdish propaganda. Nobody denies this mathematician's Kurdish ethnicity and this is stated in the relevant "Early life and education" section. However, "Kurdish" IS NOT A NATIONALITY as numerous users already said. Take a look at Laurent Schwartz, a French mathematician of Alsatian ethnicity. His ethnicity is not in the lead of his article but dealt with in the relevant section. If you want to discuss this ping me on the talk."
2. 03:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) "Corrected his nationality according to the sources cited"
3. 01:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:646:8100:7FE5:DC97:D582:12C4:7A1C: Rv, Face book is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS. Also, avoid qualifying as "facist" the contributions of other users. Thanks. (TW)"
4. 01:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:646:8100:7FE5:DC97:D582:12C4:7A1C (talk): Obvious vandalism, will ask for page protection. (TW)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 00:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC) to 00:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 00:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:646:8100:7FE5:DC97:D582:12C4:7A1C: Rv, vandalism pro Kurdish nationalist agenda. "Kurdish" is NOT a nationality, it's an ethnicity. (TW)"
   2. 00:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC) "Added another source in French for his Iranian nationality"
   3. 00:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC) "Added a source"
6. 00:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:646:8100:7FE5:DC97:D582:12C4:7A1C (talk): Rv, POV editing by disruptive IP. (TW)"
7. 23:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "Again, this is already said in the "Early life and education" section. Please stop your Kurdish nationalist agenda."
8. Consecutive edits made from 13:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC) to 13:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 95.159.89.139 (talk): Rv, Kurdish is not a nationality. (TW)"
   2. 13:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "The fact that he is a Kurd from Iran is already dealt with in the "Early life and education" section, no need to write this in the lead."
   3. 13:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC) "Changed source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Caucher Birkar. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Broke the 3-revert rule many times over. Most of these reverts are about this mathematicians' ethnicity. The user is evidently PoV, probably of Iranian ancestry, tries to remove any mention of Kurdish origins of this scientist, accused multiple editors of "Spreading kurdish propaganda". tldr Battleground behaviour pushed by the users strong ethnic/political opinions+breaking the 3 revert rule P.S. This is my first report via twinkle. Sorry if I mess up somewhere/misunderstood the rules Openlydialectic (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I was just trying to follow an admin's demand about pro-Kurdish misinformation : [11]. Adding "Kurdish" to the nationality of this mathematician is vandalism and as far as i know, the edit warring rule does not apply in this case. More, i opened a Rfc on the talk page about this issue. cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – 24 hours. The term 'Kurdish' is used in reliable sources. Whether that should be included as a nationality in the article is a matter for editor consensus. Addition or removal of 'Kurdish' does not count as vandalism, though warring about it might violate 3RR. Similar issues arise about Catalan, Basque or Scottish nationality. Usually we need RfCs or other dispute resolution to decide such things. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, actually i already opened an Rfc about this case on the article's talk and will wait to see what conclusion we'll get. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikimandia reported by User:Cbratbyrudd (Result: Protected)

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

Hello, I am a new user and recently created an article for Ebony Flowers. I purposefully put categories based on WP:GHETTO, and another editor also responded on the page with an affirmation that my categorization was indeed correct. Wikimandia has been repeatedly reverting these categories on my page and using personal insults. For example, they stated, "What is wrong with you?" (which seems like a WP:No personal attacks violation) In order to solve the problem, I requested that the user communicate with me on the article's talk page--which I was advised to do from another more experienced editor, and they have not responded and continue to revert the changes. Can you please address this issue or at least reach a consensus? It seems that the user was upset that I transferred the conversation to the article's talk page, but as I said I am a new user and was trying to follow the protocol that was explained to me by a more experienced editor (on my talk page). I am still confused because they did not address the concern voiced in the article and only used personal insults. I added the template above to the editor's talk page.

When I looked at this user's talk page I have noticed they have used personal attacks in the past. See posts:

June 2015 Re: WP:BLP/N https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Telalim&diff=665194683&oldid=665168448 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents friendly advice

First, all edits are from August 4th. At the worst, both editors need to look out for the WP:3RR police. Otherwise this looks so much like distressing inexperience on the part of cbratbyrudd and stressed dismay on the part of Wikimandia.

In checking around you may see some anguish expressed by Wikimandia at this edit, along with the intense response to the other's wrongful copying of user comments. Comment copying by cbratbyrudd could be excused as lack of knowledge.

I myself have not seen WP:GHETTO before (as mentioned to cbratbyrudd by Rosiestep after all the edits), and I am taken aback at the resulting ambiguities. Now that cbratbyrudd has seen that they know not to reinstate cat:American Writers, but I now wonder why not add cat:Human. In any case, I can readily see how the additions looked insane to Wikimandia and against policy/custom, and revertible. It could have been me! I suppose an education for all.

If "What is wrong with you?" seems a personal attack, I fear for cbratbyrudd's ability to work with others here. It was not an ideal question, but the proper response by either party should be "Can you explain why you said/did that?".

Of course Wikimandia should be able to take all manner of confusion and misfeasance in stride, with the constant awareness that the 'normals' of Wikipedia are shifting quicksand at best. cbratbyrudd needs to realize that not everything here is as obvious and transparent as they seem to think. For instance, if they didn't know about WP:3RR, they need to be a lot more cautious. Shenme (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I find this supposed policy at WP:GHETTO to be very suspect and extremely offensive, and should be inspected to see this is not POV-pushing by a few editors, and it should be discussed by the wider WP community. This complaint against me seems to me to be a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. The overcategorization is completely unnecessary when there are categories like category:21st-century American women writers‎ that have nothing to do with race or imaginary category "ghettos". WHAT is the point of having subcategories in the first place if they also have to go in all the parent categories? I also don't think "what is wrong with you" is a personal attack but a legitimate question. You don't have to be an experienced Wikipedia use to know it's wrong to copy and paste someone else's words, with no context, making it look like they wrote it (complete with copying the signature). If I deliver a personal attack, you will know it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor (never dealt with either of these users, never heard of the article subject) - I came across the notification here when I was going to Wikimandia's talk page to warn them for flagrantly violating 3RR. He has made five reverts in 24 hours, while also blanking the talk page containing feedback from other uninvolved editors. This is appalling behaviour from a user as long-term as Wikimandia and he absolutely knows better. This warrants a block in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 days. The warring editors are advised to get consensus before making further changes. See WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. If anyone disagrees with the WP:GHETTO guideline it can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:31.205.8.101 reported by User:XYZtSpace (Result: )

Page: Mohammad Shahabuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.205.8.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(all times in UTC on August 6th)

Previous version reverted to: 04:04

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:16 by IP, reverting to an edit which was originally reverted by another user for violating NPOV policy.
2. 05:20 by XYZtSpace, also added a NPOV warning to IP's talk page
3. 05:24 by IP, no notes
4. 06:07 by XYZtSpace, added clarification on talk page & edit summary.
5. 06:51 by IP, no notes
6. 07:08 by XYZtSpace, added further clarification in edit summary. Wrote another explanation on talk page.
7. 07:31-7:56 by IP. Added another news article as a citation. IP said in edit summary that the edits does not reflect personal opinions.
8. 07:59 by Juxlos, no notes
9. 08:01-08:24 by IP, added a couple more words
10. 08:25 by Juxlos, claims NPOV vio

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Did not resolve dispute on article talk page. Though I did provide one NPOV warning template, another one with further clarification, and a third, standalone explanation on user's talk page. User talk:31.205.8.101

Comments:

• The new source that IP provided did not reflect the claims IP made in the article. Two paragraphs of the edit are still without citations. I'm unsure whether or not to revert the latest edits, though I think they do violate the Neutral Point of View policies.

• One example of the personal opinions present in the edits, which was never stated in neither of the articles cited:

Even after many controversial or criminal records, Shahabuddin has done some work of development specially in the field of education and women safety.There was a day when girls were afraid to go to college because of safety concerns but Shahabuddin took strict action and initiative to make all college campuses safe for girls

User:Spartawasdope reported by User:Grayfell (Result: )

Page

Proud Boys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 07:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 07:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853668436 by Edaham (talk)"
4. 06:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Added citation to UW paragraph and edited with information from each cited source."
5. 05:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853622679 by Grayfell (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Proud Boys. (TW)"
2. 07:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Proud Boys. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Spartawasdope is blanking all attempts at communicating the issue on their talk page. Grayfell (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:91.110.126.179 reported by User:Yilloslime (Result: )

Page: Nicole Maines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.110.126.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

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

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

Comments:
Yilloslime (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: )

Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Internet of Garbage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Please stop making personal attacks"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) to 15:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "No Personal Attacks"
   2. 15:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "formatting"
3. 15:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "No Personal Attacks"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC) to 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853721978 by Openlydialectic (talk) No Personal Attacks"
   2. 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Internet of Garbage. (TW)"
2. 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Internet of Garbage. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has nominated a page for deletion. Then started removing comments (that supported keeping the article) from the AFD as seen in the report above, claiming that they are personal attacks against him. Removed a comment [19] from that AFD that stated that he is removing other people's comments. Was warned twice on his talk page, I tried to explain to him what he is doing wrong as best as I could in my second warning, but evidently he doesnt want to listen Openlydialectic (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Just for admins' easier navigation, here's the comment the user claims contains a personal attack against him: " I feel like the authors allegations break Wikipedia rules such as the Assume the good faith rule, No crystal balling rule and the Don't offend other users. If anything, he is trying to make a point here because he is obviously politically motivated against the hero and that's why he's created this nom. The article passes notability guidelines too." Openlydialectic (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Has been blocked already by User:Bishonen for disruptive editing, for reasons that go beyond these particular edits. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)