Page: 1Up (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maxbmogs (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]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:

Page: Pinocchio (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.125.65.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts: These are just four that took place within less than 20 minutes:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

The last one was made in two edits ([15]), but there were around 16 instances where he edited or reverted to their preferred version against reliable sources and other editors, the first one dating back to August 8, 2021 (diff).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [16] (removed by user [17])
2. [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's a discussion on the subject at Talk:Pinocchio (upcoming Disney film)#Comments after the move requests were merged, where the editor has not participated

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

Comments:
The editor keeps insisting on adding 2022 as the film's year of release, when sources say the film was delayed to be released in "2022 or later", being clearly ambiguous regarding a release in 2022. The editor didn't try arguing for their position, with edit summaries such as I said the film now confirmed released in 2022 (diff), No, please! Just one time! I said we can't say 2022 or later by itself (diff), and No!! Let it stay in 2022 (diff), with slight variations and other reverts without edit summaries.

The editor was blocked for edit warring for 31 hours (block log), after which they made a further revert, the last one so far. The editor appears to have been edit warring at Wendell and Wild (see article history) as well. —El Millo (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has continued edit warring at Wendell and Wild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]), all these reverts in the span of four hours. They've used edit summaries such as Please! That film has been confirmed for 2022 and No!! I don't need a source! Here!!! —El Millo (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: 71.112.240.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "This was just added the other day and DMY date format does not equate solely with British English. Stick to the facts."
2. 17:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "Please see my response pointing out where your argument is flawed. Undid revision 1055047939 by Chaheel Riens (talk)"
3. 13:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "The article wasn't created with British English. You just made that change yesterday. Just stop your nonsense. It is an article about an American product and there would be no valid reason to write it in any form but American English. You put YOUR proposal to discussion. Undid revision 1055029329 by Chaheel Riens (talk)"
4. 00:28, 16 November 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 (talk)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Unnecessarily changing between British and American English on Cyanoacrylate."
2. 10:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cyanoacrylate."
3. Talk page discussion where I also state that we are both at 3RR. [28]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */ new section"
2. 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */"
3. 15:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */ Tire or tyre?"
4. 15:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */ ce"
5. 10:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC) "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */"

Comments:

I'll admit straight up that I have also made (but not passed) 3RR, and made it clear that I won't, but this editor is refusing to allow the original phrasing to stay in place while discussion is being attempted. I have engaged - with some valid responses acknowledged - but the editor is pushing their version regardless. Warned about 3RR on both their talk page, and in the article talkspace.

Editor is not using "undo" function, but has clearly passed 3RR, and shows no intention of stopping. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to CHAHEEL RIENS' comments above, from WP user 71.112.240.132:

As I stand accused in this notice board, please allow me to point out a few things from another perspective and with needed context. What Chaheel Riens is purposely omitting here is that there are actually two edits in this article that should be considered, one is mine and one is his/hers/theirs. I will admit that I initiated an edit that consisted of changing two words from British English to American English, for the sole reason that; from my observations, the great majority of WP articles concerning (but not limited to) inventions and prominent individuals from the respective countries mentioned above also tend to be written in their respective dialects. This seems to follow an unwritten, but, widely acknowledged and practiced convention in WP. My edit does not reflect a lack of respect or tolerance, as my accuser would have you believe, but; is merely my attempt at pointing out and reconciling inconsistencies that exist on WP. That I also engaged in 3RR *on the content of my edit* is true as well and I now regret that I didn't go to Talk earlier.

However, please also allow me to point out that my accuser, User Chaheel Riens, that through an edit of his/her/their own, is also guilty of the same thing of which he/she/they is/are accusing me; namely, unilaterally editing this article Cyanoacrylate, **just three days ago** and continued to do so as recently as yesterday, without first reaching consensus in Talk, in what appears to be an attempt to retaliate against my insistence that this article about an American invention should be written in American English, by tagging the article as British English, when that doesn't reflect the reality of the article in the least. Any fair reading of the article quickly demonstrates this, as most of the article is written in American English. Chaheel Riens attempted to justify this edit with what I feel is a weak argument that goes as follows: In November 2020, someone edited the article to tag it with DMY date format and from that, Chaheel Riens now conveniently surmises (incorrectly) that the DMY date format is exclusively of British usage and from that, believes the article was always intended to be written in British English. Not sure whether or not Chaheel Riens' edit is also meant as an attempt at irony, or, perhaps as an attempt to bait me closer toward 3RR, but; the DMY date format is far from being an exclusively British calendar format and by acknowledgement of UN recommendation, is used in countless American-originated articles, especially in the realms of academia, engineering, medicine, law and among other disciplines, science, which, of course, is the basis of this article. In light of that well-known fact, one cannot honestly deduct that because of the usage of DMY format, this article was meant to be, or should be in the future, written using British English. Yet it is Chaheel Riens that made the initial edit to this effect, just three days ago and **it is also Chaheel Riens** who also refuses to also stop inserting said edit, as he/she/they re-inserted the British English tag as recently as yesterday, 14 November 2021. I have, by default, stopped editing the two words in question from British English to American English days ago, despite the ill-defined claims of Chaheel Riens. However, he/she/they, for the same reason, should not be allowed to continue to unilaterally tag this article as British English, an edit initiated just three days ago and continued as recently as yesterday, for what appears to be a misguided attempt to corral my POV on the issue.

In conclusion, it appears to that Chaheel Riens is demanding that he/she/they may engage in unilateral, non-consensus-based editing, but; I should not be permitted to do the same. If that were to stand, how would such a decision be fair to all concerned? 71.112.240.132 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Please also note Chaheel Riens' selective documentation here of only my reversion diffs, to the exclusion of his/hers/their own, is very telling, as he/she/they was/were, quite contentious, at times, as well. While one might guess at that likely possibility I felt it needed to be pointed out, nonetheless. 71.112.240.132 (talk)

PS - As of just fifteen minutes ago, about an hour after the publication of my rebuttal, an anonymous unregistered WP editor just tagged the WP Cyanoacrylate article with the British English tag again, a tag that just three days ago did not exist. This is a clear act of provocation, the timing of which seems to indicate that this tag was re-posted in reaction to the content of this rebuttal. In that possibility, the identity of the anonymous editor may not be that hard to guess, either. Request WP administrators that this tag be removed immediately. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a content dispute: this IP wishes to change the apparent status-quo WP:ENGVAR of the article prose (spellings of certain words). One or more other editors opposite this idea, and there is an on-going talkpage discussion about it. But simultaneously, the IP is edit-warring over the past 5ish days to implement their desired change prior to getting consensus. Bold changes are fine and discussion is good, but pending the resolution of the discussion, the article itself should be left alone, back at the state prior to the first attempt at change. WP:BRD, not WP:BR(RD)(RD)(RD)(RD)(RD)(RD)(RD). I'm involved as I made the first undo of the IP the first time they made the change, but have made no other edits to this article in a long time (and none previous that were related to this aspect that I can recall). DMacks (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...the identity of the anonymous editor may not be that hard to guess..." - this appears to be a subtle accusation of sock-puppetry. Please reconsider and redact such an accusation. What reasonable grounds do you have (apart from disagreement with you,) to make such a claim - even if oblique? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: India national cricket team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Shooting Spirit 007 (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 on 16 November 2021
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC) to 08:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 08:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Squad */"
   2. 08:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055332043 by Spike 'em (talk)"
3. 06:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Squad */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 04:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC) to 04:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 04:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Squad */"
   2. 04:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Squad */"
   3. 04:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Squad */"
5. 14:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Squad */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC) to 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Squad */"
   2. 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Squad */"
7. 08:25, 13 November 2021

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC) to 13:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 13:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */ new section"
   2. 13:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */"
   3. 13:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */"
   4. 13:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */"
   5. 13:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */"
2. 16:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on India national cricket team."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is persistently editing article in violation of MOS:HEADINGS and has failed to respond to edit messages / discussion on talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is WP:NOTHERE with continued false information being added to articles, such as the article for the 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads and other related cricket pages. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Momements after posting the above comment, they continue to edit-war/add incorrect information to the article I mention with this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a further revert. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: No Time to Die (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Einheit947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:47, 15 November 2021 (This is his first revert, having previously made a bold edit at 03:31, 15 November 2021 that was subsequently reverted)
2. 14:23, 15 November 2021‎
3. 15:05, 15 November 2021‎
4. 15:32, 15 November 2021‎
5. 15:42, 15 November 2021‎
6. 15:58, 15 November 2021‎
7. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (at 15:46, 15 November 2021‎) - they also received subsequent warnings

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:No_Time_to_Die#Bond_dies, in which Einheit947 was pinged three times ([30], [31] and [32]) to join in the ongoing thread and has not done so

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

Comments:

Page: Bess Rous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sta6727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

Comments:
Editor is removing references to Millburn, New Jersey, the town where the article subject was born. They are falsely claiming "Short Hills, New Jersey is its own town" and "independent" of Millburn, despite the Short Hills article explicitly stating it "is an unincorporated community and census-designated place (CDP) located within Millburn Township" and Short Hills not having a mayor or governing body. This editor may be a sockpuppet of User:Facts2020, who made the same edits and used the same zip code argument in attempting to remove the Millburn references. The IP 2600:8802:6408:9F00:FD86:91C5:C41E:247B may also be a sock. Bluerules (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Talk:2021 WTA Finals – Singles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sod2500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Undid revision 1055407517 by Mandraketennis (talk): "clear WP:SNOWBALL; looking forward to the WP:BOOMERANG" This last edit Sod2500 went on to challenge me after i advised anyone that any further edit (the 6th incoming) would led to me reporting the edit war in here. Please note that he went on suggesting that actions would be taken against me, instead. I'm fine with that, if admin finds any, but i need to put a foot down and stop the edi war which is completely out of control on the tennis section. See more about it down.

1. "WP:Snowball speedy keep - deletion nomination had 0 chance of success". This come after i have explained twice to fyunck that wp:snowball doesn't apply automatically to any non-admin AfD closure, but as per guidelines speedy keep is the right tag to be used. Fyunck went on and insisted that "any other user would have called it snowball" and i explained that this was not a discussion=votes case, and even if he has the right to have his opinion, that doesn't automatically converts a speedy keep into a snowball.

1. [diff]
2. [diff]

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:
Hi, i am a newcomer, not even a month in here and a multi-year expert on tennis who used these pages and thought about adding some contribution in collaboration with the other editors in here. And i don't know were to start with the hostile environment i found on tennis section. So i start from the last. I put up 4 articles for AfD ( all other 3 are very similar to the one in the title: [45] has the same exact edit war of the title above and so [46]). I could report also those cases, but the warriors are the same so i skip that part to be coincise. My rationale for deletion of that article [47] was the lack the main ingredient: a working reference, which as per guideliens should be verifiable, that is working, and coming from a reliable source. And well, i was furiously attacked and called out by pretty much anyone as you can see in the right above link to the discussion, in particular by fyunck and wolbo who (both) accused me of.. "This seems simply disruptive behavior from the proposer after not getting their way in a recent discussion.", (i quote from the same Afd discussion link). That discussion he was referring to was about a proposal [48] i myself dropped because he and adamsett9 pulled out a wall of technical and specific requests a one-week subscribed user like i was could not possibly have known and solved, plus that happened a week before i upped the 4 AfD so that was not me acting "resentful" as fyunck called me still in the same Afd discussion above, and not me acting out of spite, otherwise i wouldn't have enraged that very moment, instead i didn't make an edit on wiki at all for one week. Fyunck went to such a lenght with his thinking that i was resentful and disruptive that he posted on my talk page about it and to the point he suggested i could have been very possibly banned [49] ). Following that and after i offered multiple explanations and the same rationales i am writing here on the discussion pages of the AfD linked above (there are plenty in any of the for Afd discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_WTA_Finals_%E2%80%93_Singles and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_Upper_Austria_Ladies_Linz_%E2%80%93_Singles in particular) nothing seemed to satisfy their rage. So i asked for help on the Teahouse on how to deal with this problem with senior editors in the post entitles "editors war"[50] and for a change "David notMD" said that the problem "it's you", that is me, and my edits. Enough to say he went on along with the other senior editors and proceeded to sistematically revert every.single.edit i made in here. I just mention, but you can choose whatever contribution you want, they didn't left a rock unturned, adamsett9 (who was very vocal against my proposal) who proceeded to change the technical name [51] of the surface, which i reported exactly as it was in the official draw [52] in the reference list of main page [53], look closely to the date of the tag:reverted and you'll see that was the same time he opposed my proposal, talking about being resentful..the same goes with David notMD [54] please keep looking at the timestamp, again, same period as his explosive reply on my teahouse post[55], and Wolbo [56] just after calling me "disruptive and acting out of spite" on the discussion of the AfD of the title, to be precise, 20 minutes later [57] he went on and reverted an old page i have edited a week later. Now, what can i do since they offered me the roman/egyptian treatment of erasing any contribution of mine? I'll do nothing, i feel sorry for the people who came here to look for info and are robbed of that because some senior editors have imposed a status quo's rigid practice. I came here and wrote this message to ask you to take some action about toward those editors who are pratically keeping a tight leash on tennis section ( who know since when?!). With this group of the status quo, you cannot make a change positive ( a proposal i made) or negative ( those 4 AfD) without incurring into their very much coordinated wall of editors ( yes, i suspect they are coordinating their move, because also they strategically appeared about the same time and take the same actions against me, so pardon me if i'm wrong on that), in my view they need to have a weaker grasp on the tennis section, probably nominating some experienced supervisor who could take a deep look into their action. I happen to notice, for example that fyunck has a tendency to jump the gun with anyone who doesn't comply with his thinking him, either by threating them with reporting to admin or through loaded replies on his talk page. Wikipedia was to me as a subscriber and editor a collaborative effort, but I have seen only a commandering one on tennis section, it's either you keep your head down and follow the flux, that is fill the templates, or the wall of senior editors is going up in no time. Today i 've just written my first two articles, on tennis section. I have the chronometer running since then, you know why. Mandraketennis (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Mandraketennis was indefinitely blocked at 21:23, 15 November 2021. As I am mentioned above, I reverted several of Mandraketennis' edits (each, once) for having added factual information about the nature of the hardcourt surfaces being used in tournaments without providing references. As to the two articles mentioned being created, those skipped AfC. Whether Bahrain Ministry of Interior Tennis Challenger and 2021 Bahrain Ministry of Interior Tennis Challenger will remain or be draftified for inadequate referencing will be someone else's decision. David notMD (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: The filer, User:Mandraketennis, has been blocked indef by User:Bbb23 for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Kyle Bobby Dunn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Henchren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AndrejFaustin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been a prolonged dispute on the Wikipedia page regarding the "Controversies" section. The last version prior to the dispute is here, where the "Controversies" section was intact. Since then several users have removed and restored it, with the most recent bout of edits occuring today between the two reported users.

• Henchren's removals:
  1. [58]
  2. [59]
  3. [60]
  4. [61]
  5. [62]
  6. [63]

• AndrejFaustin's restorations:
  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. [66]
  4. [67]
  5. [68]

Both users have few or no edits outside of this topic, and similar edits have been made by other usernames along the way, so there may be some footwear involved as well.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Both users were warned about the edit warring on their respective user talk pages: AndreyFauchin Henchren. Henchren responded on my user talk page making arguments about WP:BLP violations which may or may not be valid, but which don't, in my opinion, rise to the level of violating 3RR.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHenchren&type=revision&diff=1055448092&oldid=1055430232 Henchren notice]; AndrejFaustin notice.

It should be noted the AndrejFaustin has not (at this point) edited the page after the 3RR warning was posted.

Comments:

Page: Resident Evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.150.75.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]
5. [74]
6. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [78]

Comments:
I do not think anon's edits are in bad faith, but anon has not attempted to reply to other editors or leave meaningful edit summaries. After a few more reverts, the Anon IP finally reached out the discussion page and is making contact with other editors. ---  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's good news, StarScream1007. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Ganges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bitter Writer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]
5. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86], etc., etc.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [87]

Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Bauhaus (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Woovee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16 Nov 03:01 – [89] – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
2. 16 Nov 12:59 – [90] – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
3. 16 Nov 14:17 – [91] – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
4. 16 Nov 14:19 – [92] – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
5. 16 Nov 14:22 – [93] – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bauhaus_(band)#RfC:_Quote_from_Kevin_Haskins

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [95]

Comments:
Woovee was blocked two weeks ago as a result of the previous ANEW report which described the same activity seen here. Woovee has not dropped the stick and is still edit-warring over the same material. Woovee was the lone "no" vote the RfC Talk:Bauhaus_(band)#RfC:_Quote_from_Kevin_Haskins, but Woovee has since insisted on a novel interpretation of that RfC in an attempt to void its result. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I've ever seen a clearer boomarang. Both blocked for two weeks, entirely obvious double 3RR. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jpgordon: You blocked Binksternet for two weeks but Woovee for only one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  thanks, misclicked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: NarSakSasLee (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 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC) to 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055574201 by Echo1Charlie (talk) You are the one making the claims against inclusion, the onus is on you to reach consensus with others. You're cross article reverting is also problematic and goes beyond WP:3RR"
   2. 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055573648 by ZebraaaLounge (talk) They are allegations under the legal umbrella"
2. 16:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055568571 by Echo1Charlie (talk) RV. User is engaged in cross article edit wars over the same issue."
3. 15:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055553067 by ZebraaaLounge (talk) RV. See WP:TOI - TOI is biased towards Indian government, but it quotes an organisation from Pakistan. Use of sources is allowed when it comes to quoting."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"
2. 17:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Responses by Hindu Organisations in Pakistan */ new section"

Comments:

I find it funny this user has reported me here when he's the one that is actually engaging in edit warring. He has violated WP:3RR numerous times and refuses to engage in good faith editing or even attempting to reach consensus. He has now resorted to using these tactics to threaten me into submission. I will be providing evidence here gradually as it will take some time to gather the diffs. This user has been warned plenty of times to stop engaging in edit warring but absolutely refuses. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence of consensus not going to his way (which has resorted to him opening this against me)
• Evidence of me engaging with the user to attempt to reach a consensus (but because things are not going his way he has now resorted to opening this against me).
• Evidence of threatening behaviour, user leaves 3 warnings within the space of mere seconds (and is now trying to use these as evidence that I'm falsely engaging in vandalism. I've been on Wikipedia for 12 years.