Page: Battle of Abukir (1799) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jules Agathias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Version before reverts took place, showing differences with the 1st revert by the user Jules.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1110615658
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1110789911
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1111148429
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1111336503

3RR warning on user's talk page -----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Agathias#Edit_Warring_Report_Notice

Attempted to discuss dispute and understand why the user has reverted my information -----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Agathias#Battle_of_Aboukir

ANEW Notice posted on user's page ------> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Agathias#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:
The user claims the information I have added "does not constitute a source", at first. I misunderstood this a problem with the formatting. To this end, I re-added the information, and re-added the sources, this time properly sourcing them. The user then haphazardly removed the information again and reverted the page. To this end, making a confusing comment about contemporary sources and academic sources, even though the information I have added is backed by authorities I provided both original and academic. I re-added the information, this time taking care to include page numbers and links to archive.org where the user Jules can verify the information for himself, but he reverted it once again, and the user then added a comment about the lack of verification for a specific point I added to the page (the participation of the British in the battle to be specific), which I've referred to him previously, included in one of the authorities I have linked (correspondences by W.S.D), to this end, my 4th edit of the page I had copied lots of contents from the authority to the page, and added page numbers with each citation (the user Jules had, for some reason, removed all my citations to one authority and replaced them with "citation needed", then later on decided to re-add this authority, claim he purchased the book and will be looking into it, but nevertheless he still removed several of the citations I have included from that specific authority while "properly formatting" others). The user Jules stood corrected after I copied contents from one authority, but still went ahead and reverted the page in its entirety and told me that I can add the British as a belligerent in the battle. It is also worth mentioning that the user Jules has arbitrarily removed another authority from the page, not added by me, for reasons unknown, but I cannot trust that they are made in good faith since he has removed my citations, before conceding and adding them back in his subsequent revert on a selective basis, and his refusal to verify the information I had previously added despite being given direct links to pages on archive.org. The sum-up of what I understand from this altercation is that the user Jules wants to remove any source or authority from the page, academic or first-hand, that gives the number of the Turkish army as being smaller than 10,000, the agenda behind this I believe is bias, the user having many comments to his biases on their talk page.

To be honest, it is a rather complex and chaotic situation, owing to the difficulty of understanding what the user Jules wants to do. It is worth mentioning that there are "edit warring" warnings plastered across his talk page, so this user has a history of edit-warring and headbutting over topics of this matter. Sormando (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum; to highlight the ignorance and odd behavior of this user using one microcosm, the user Jules has questioned an addition I have made to the article, the historian Paul Strathern has mentioned in his authority that Muhammad Ali had been rescued from the waters in Aboukir bay during the battle, with a reference attached to this piece of information. The user Jules had removed the citation and replaced it with "Citation Needed" selectively, but other portions of information I had added, were removed outright, citation and all. The user Jules later on decided to re-add some portions selectively, while claiming to be "properly sourcing them" (I had already done so), but he left some parts up with "citation needed" while, once again, selectively removing other portions. Then, in a truly perplexing move, the user Jules then decided that, despite me providing a direct citation to this information, went out and apparently tried to verify it himself on the internet, and replaced the citation required tag he had dutifully added with a source, which I have went to verify myself and found no reference to this information.

Links:

The aftermath section, paragraph one, the last few sentencies; "Among the Ottomans rescued from the water was thirty-years old officer of Albanian descent Muhammed Ali, who six years later would rule and transform Egypt"

The source I had added originally as a citation for this information, Page 397, 2nd paragraph last sentence.

Reversion dated 17 Sept. by user Jules, showing his citation needed tag next to sentence.

The user Jules then provides a different source to this information that I had added, although this source makes no mention to this whatsoever, which the user Jules claimed are pages 51-55 in this 1991 Johns Hopkins University Press print of "The history of modern Egypt : from Muhammad Ali to Mubarak".

Sormando (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Both User:Jules Agathias amd User:Sormando are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no consensus to be reached here. Jules is removing verified information from the article, and even taking it a step ahead and inserting false sources for information I have added. What "consensus" can be reached other than removing my cited information to the article over a user's obvious biases against them? I wish you to take a proper look at this matter, I'd love to reach a consensus of some kind if there was one, but the user Jules has re-angled the reasons for his revert twice (first claiming my citations "do not constitute sources", then claiming some bits in my sources do not contain what I have added to the article which I've shown to the contrary).

  It is worth mentioning that I am not removing anything from the article, I have simply added information to it. My position is one of consensus (presenting all possible information in the article, cited and sourced). The user Jules' position on the other hand is pruning information due to personal biases, both by me and other users, and as stated above selectively adding false information to some that aren't pruned.

  
  

  05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Sormando (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wikipedia talk:No Nazis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elephanthunter (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], also a prosaic warning here: [7] also user used the edit warring template on my page when they were at 2RR, here: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] user reverted: [10]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:
User posted the EW template on my talk page after my first revert, and then immediately after (or before,, I haven't checked timestamps) performed their second. Has been reverting rotely ever since. Happy (Slap me) 23:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I self-reverted before this noticeboard post was made. See [12]. That being said, I would recommend WP:BOOMERANG. Happy recklessly deleted comments. Editing other user's comments is, generally, disallowed. Happy made no attempt to cite policy for their belief that the conversation should be closed. Closing discussions is strictly a matter of consensus or policy. A conversation about closing could have continued on the talk page. Instead, Happy's actions made civil talk page discussion impossible. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much a case of "it takes two to edit war". I'd note that Elephanthunter had self-reverted their last revert three minutes prior to this AN3 report being submitted, which can be taken as a sign of good faith that it was a mistake per WP:3RR.

However that still leaves the actual edit war, for which I believe both editors are at fault. While Elephanthunter's reverts were in the wrong, so were HappyMcSlappy's second and third reverts. That particular talk page has seen much activity over the last few weeks, and I'm fairly certain that another editor would also have removed the comments per the seventh bullet point of WP:TPO. And while I realise my issuing of the 3RR notice only to Elephanthunter could be seen as one sided, when going to issue the notice to Happy I noticed in his talk page history that Elephanthunter had already issued a notice, and made the judgement call that even if the notice was possibly issued in bad faith, it still counted as awareness of the 3RR and EW policies.

As both editors have now ceased reverting each other, and have contributed here, I'm not entirely sure if any blocks are necessary per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. If they are not, I would suggest a strong warning to both editors as an alternative. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: An edit war begins once there is repeated override of content. The edit war began with Happy [13], hence the warning. Also, there is no justification for Happy's deletion of my comment (nevermind their attempt to archive the entire conversation). That is not a way to have civil discussion on Wikipedia. Crazy idea: Maybe we should keep on-point and discuss the content, rather than treat the talk page like a scorched-earth WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what: Give me one good reason why that discussion should have been re-opened, several editor's comments hatted (including one calling for a close) per your own judgement and your continuation of a disruptive argument permitted, and I'll admit I was wrong and self-revert. Just one good reason why your desire to get the last word in justifies continuing a time sink like that discussion. That's all it'll take. And I don't mean some procedural wonkery. A real, rational reason.

I'd also love to hear your explanation as to how a single revert constitutes edit warring. Because it was you that was reverted? Happy (Slap me) 02:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyMcSlappy: "Because it was you that was reverted?" Really. Why are you making personal and argumentative comments? Your very first interaction with me was to say that I should "Stop playing silly games" [14]. Then, you said my WP:EW notice was "Childish nonsense" [15] (a notice for, mind you, a revert of a revert). And now, you say my actions don't make sense... unless I interpret the rules to apply differently for myself? I don't understand the combativeness here.

Also, I should give "one good reason why that discussion should have been re-opened"? Maybe like in my comment that you reverted [16], where I gave constructive, actionable advice? My goal was not to "get the last word" at all. Quite literally my edit was to keep the discussion open. And there's a fair likelihood the user who started the thread would have responded. We could have discussed your concerns there too. But that's right, there's nowhere to reply because you deleted or closed all the talk page discussion.

What is so pressing about removing the suggestion of an alternative essay? That you engaged in an edit war, deleted my talk page comment, closed the conversation, and reported me to a noticeboard? --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (Comment in non-admin capacity.) I would note that HappyMcSlappy is now edit-warring at this noticeboard to remove a comment pointing out a previous account he edited under and was involved in relevant controversies under, calling it harassment even though WP:CLEANSTART explicitly describes such comments as the likely consequence of returning to a topic area one edited under a previous account. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that HappyMcSlappy is almost certainly the same individual as user:MjolnirPants, the creator of that essay, operating a not-really-clean start account. See [17] and the accompanying discussion, as well as this comment [18] by user:Tamzin. 174.212.168.189 (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@174.212.168.189: Reverting other user's comments seems blockable all on its own. It seems a pretty gross violation to do so on essay created by the old account, in violation of WP:CLEANSTART (if this is in fact accurate), and on the administrators noticeboard [19] [20]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I've removed this comment twice per WP:HARASS, (this is not the IPs first time doing this) and Elephanthunter has reverted it back here. Between the edit warring template placed on my talk page in response to a single revert, the making of four reverts (with evidence that the user was well aware they were going over 3RR to begin with) and now this, I don't think they have any leg to stand on to complain about civility.

I would also note that Tamzin, who has commented above, has a history of incivility with me which can be seen (along with ensuing criticism for it from El_C) here Happy (Slap me) 03:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C took exception to my vagueness regarding why I felt you were violating WP:CLEANSTART—evidence I had omitted for your sake. You've since made clear that you have no intention to comply with that policy, so I'll be clearer: You are engaging in disputes on a page you previously engaged in disputes on, over an essay you wrote, while refusing to disclose either of those facts. I haven't looked into the details of this edit war, and frankly don't really care, but if you are going to stay involved with NONAZIS to the extent of bringing people to noticeboards, you need to disclose your previous account. It is not okay to bring someone to ANEW while seeking to obscure your own history of disruption on the very page in question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. You're upset or off-put or whatever you'd like to call it because you think you can tell I had a previous account. But you've also been making a point of trying to publicly link me to that account from our very first interaction.

And you're doing so in concert with IPs and involving some off-wiki coordination. That's some quality admin work, right there. Happy (Slap me) 04:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyMcSlappy: I beg your pardon? I was pinged to this thread. If you have evidence that I'm engaged in off-wiki coördination of some sort, please send it to ArbCom. Otherwise, please retract that accusation.

Also, from "you think you can tell" and "our very first interaction", do I take it you're saying you are not MjolnirPants? Because taking the Fifth is one thing, but if you're outright denying your past history regarding NONAZIS, then this is just regular sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the connection seems to be the unanimous consensus at SPI. At the time the SPI was filed, the SPI folks thought that there was no attempt to evade scrutiny, but, like Tamzin, I find it really hard to conclude that there's not any attempt to evade scrutiny in light of the way that the editor has continued to edit on that talk page and the implicit denial in their response to Tamzin on this page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the page in question. We must be strict in dealing with edit warring on talk pages, perhaps stricter than we are with articles because there is less room for good faith, and the consensus above seems to be that both editors went too far. That is, before the discussion veered into the question of the relationship between Happy and MP ... which, while it seems ripe for reopening, is not within the scope of this noticeboard to decide, and should preferably be taken up, if not at SPI (since it seems the "whether" question is settled) at AN/I or AN as that seems to be the best forum for settling the CLEANSTART question. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Ozymandias (Breaking Bad) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Ffs. It literally means third-to-last"
2. 02:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Jesus Christ."
3. 23:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "Fuck off. It means the same goddamn thing. Stop making this a fucking problem when it means exactly the same thing. Is it my fault your vocabulary's limited? No."
4. 11:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "This is ridiculous."
5. 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "It's not unnecessary. It means the same thing, it's a one-word way of saying that."
6. 16:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "Yeah, it does. Also, this is an internet encyclopedia, so why should I?"
7. 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "And you have the nerve to call the word "preantepenultimate" absurd."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Ozymandias (Breaking Bad)."
2. 02:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on To'hajiilee."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring, uncivil edit summaries, etc over various articles. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (comment from uninvolved editor) This is not the first time MCRainbowSupernova8196 has edit-warred over some obscure terminology. See the fiasco regarding the use of the French term carambolage here and here. They were given a final warning by an administrator regarding edit warring and other combative behaviour in July 2021. This, however, did not deter them from repeat violations of the MOS when changing "is" to "was", see here and here. This is not an isolated incident, it is repeated and deliberate behaviour despite an utter excess of warnings and extensive explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The other articles they are currently edit-warring on are The Second Coming (The Sopranos), Kennedy and Heidi and To'hajiilee (where they have been reverting other editors since 10 July). They: have said "You wanna know why my edit summaries have been "uncivil" or "personal attacks"? Cause it's goddamn ridiculous that I have to revert so many edits removing a word that is literally a one word saying of either "third-to-last" or "fourth-to-last" because so many of these people have a 10-letter limit on their vocabulary. It's infuriating." This does not look like an attitude compatible with collaborative editing. 109.144.16.251 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Indefinitely blocked (see block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wing Chun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111461336 by LilianaUwU (talk) This is last time reverting this, but please refer to wikipedia instructions on how list within articles are suppose to be formatted before changing and discuss on talk page. g"
2. 03:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111262998 by PopoDameron (talk) Please refer to talk page. Unsourced and lists should have their own pages via wiki instructions about lists."
3. 02:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */ section is a list, should have it's own page."

Note: not a revert, but against discussion in the talk page. PopoDameron (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* re Wing Chun */ new section"

Other relevant diffs:

1. 03:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC) on User talk:PopoDameron
2. 03:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC) on User talk:LilianaUwU
3. 03:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC) on User Talk:Wing_Chun

Comments:

Bverji first went to the talk page of Wing Chun to propose the removal of the 'in popular culture' section, but they were met with another user's opposition. Nevertheless, they performed these changes without consensus, and when their edits were reverted, the persisted to undo the reverts twice. They claim that no consensus is needed because some of the material in the section is not sourced, but instead of simply removing these items, looking for sources, or seeking consensus once more, they reverted edits again. PopoDameron (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in the talk page did not include a discussion on how lists should be conducted within articles. I was unaware of how lists should be done 9 months ago when removing the popculture section was discussed 9 months ago on the Wing Chun talkpage. The revert on Sept 20 mentions that it was deleted because it needed to be moved to a new page not removed. Because of this it does not go against what was previously discussed, the part of the article was removed so it could be redone. The section on practitioners on the Wing Chun page had also been changed to this format and yet no one had any problem with it. This format should be consistent within the article. I invited Popodameron to discuss this on the forum and rather than try to discuss it rushed to report me. Later, LilianaUwU reverted and I again undone the revert with a message that I would not change it again, but was inviting them to please refer to the section on how to include lists in the article and please discuss it on the talk page. I don't see how someone claims an edit war when I didn't break the 3 edit rule and explicitly stated I would not change it again, only asking for future edits to read the rules about lists. In my view people started reverting without actually reading and considering why it was reverted and assumed it was removed for the same reason as I attempted to remove it 9 months ago (I believe their explanations support this conclusion). I admittedly have a bias against lists, I think they junk up pages (and this is essentially what the rules on lists conclude as well). All I was looking for was someone to clean up the lists and make it follow the guidelines provided. Bverji (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I "rushed to report you" because even though you were trying to explain your reverts, you were also reverting again at the same time. While looking for consensus, you should stop reverting and move to discuss. As for what you say about formatting and lists, this section was not a list. It may appear somewhat as a listing of items, but this does not warrant deleting the whole thing. You could have instead tried to add more prose to help it flow better. PopoDameron (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I did say I would not revert it again and I was obviously trying to get people to come to the talk page to discuss it in good faith. So I was obviously doing what you were suggesting I should do. I said I was going to stop reverting and asking people to discuss. As for how to handle changing the section that is something that would be great to discuss on the talk page. If a section is done wrong it is also not incumbent of me to change it. Bverji (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, giving context this mostly happened within a short amount of time. In hindsight I realize it would have been better to approach this change on the talk page before editing (but I was thinking someone would just make a link page like they did for other things on the page). But the idea that I got reported for edit warring when I didn't break the 3 revert rule, said after the 2nd revert that I would not be edit warring, and was seeking others to form a consensus is absolutely absurd. I am not claiming I couldn't have handled it better, but this was an over reaction. The second revert clearly was aimed to inform new comers on what bases this revert was done and to invite people to change what I had added because I would not be changing it back. The second revert was just for communication (because people often don't even look at the talk page) and was given clear indication I would not change any further changes to the page. Also, PopoDameron presents this as if this was a massive edit and it was not. After having edited for having many things not sourced it was a list of 2 items, this method of deleting the the list on the article page and requesting someone fix it is exactly how the practitioners link page was developed. Bverji (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that Wing Chun is not the only martial arts style related entry Bverji has done this at; there are many others - see Special:Contributions/Bverji. He has also been involved in some degree of edit-warring at the Krav Maga entry and it's talk page circa 2020. --TrickShotFinn (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been an editor that has consistently been adding pop culture sections that have no sources to many martial art pages. I have cleaned these up when I come across them. As for edit waring in krav Maga I wholly dis agree with that characterization. The Krav Maga page is a target of vandalism and changed often without any sources provided for such changes, that is not edit warring.Bverji (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The reverts stopped after this report. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daniel Case: I agreed with your decision and reasoning at the time, but now the user has seemingly forgotten their promise to stop deleting the section, and they have once again (with no new attempt at building consensus, as far as I could find) deleted it. So, I would like to request that this report be reopened. PopoDameron (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from editing the article, as they do not seem to be creating issues at the moment on other articles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Gabriel Boric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A01:C22:9053:B400:38BA:8A59:22C6:8C47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dentren (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gabriel_Boric#Antisemitism_2

I have tried consistently to prevent edit warring on this article. Lately some users have pushed for the article to be added a NPOV tag when it is perfectly fine as it is. I have taken their issues to the talk page, but the antisemitism one remains unsolved (one user proposes calling Boric an antisemite without there being proper sources calling them like that) and the other, about calling them a left-wing politician in the lead, has not attracted much attention. Despite that, some IPs and user Dentren have started edit wars on the article, despite, as I said, efforts against such occurrences. I ask for the admins to take action such as protecting the articles and/or warning the involved users. I have already performed three reverts today so I can no longer take action, and that is why I come and ask for your intervention.

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

Comments:
Please, read the comments of user Bedivere in the Talk page:

• He wants to make the human rights in Israel as Issue in the article of G. BoriC :There are flagrant human rights violations commited by Israel against Palestinian people [21]
• He self is looking for I am yet to find a statament of Boric against the Jewish people. All I've read is that he's all against the State of Israel's actions, not that he hates the Jewish or is taking action against them. [22] He seems not to understand that reliable sources should find such statments, not the Wikipedia editors.
• He said I did not find anti-semitism claims, other than the protest of the Chilean Jewish Community (which is not the same as an anti-semitism accusation) but before he said While I agree and have never denied some people have claimed Boric is an antisemite [23]

--2A01:C22:9053:B400:38BA:8A59:22C6:8C47 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the history of Gabriel_Boric shows that it has been Bedivere who has been warring and engaged in behaviour akin to Wikipedia:Ownership of content. He has previously warried himself on the same article for which I warned him [24]. In a nutshell; Bedivere is trying to impose his preferences in the articles relating to Boric and his government disregarding Wikipedia policies (for example deleting content on the pretext of "not news" when it is not favourable to Boric's government). Dentren | ^Talk 22:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators may see Dentren's last comment on the article talk page (which is completely uncivil) and please note they've just reverted me. also note they were blocked for edit warring precisely in that article and has been recently warned for making stale warnings. They've also just sent me a pointless warning on my talk page, which I've promptly responded. I hope his disruptive behavior gets stopped for once and for all. The IP, in contrast, at least seeks to be constructively work and collaborate. Can't say the same about Dentren. Bedivere (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism is not the sole thing. Bedivere's comment is missleading. Its about sourced content you have been party successfull to remove, withour concensus, since April, and the omission of other content that is missing see Talk:Gabriel Boric Dentren | ^Talk 23:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no consensus to add such contentious content. I wrote earlier this year, and stand with it today, that there is no problem against adding neutrally-written content. Giving undue weight to (minor) controversies and issues about other people (such as his former Minister of the Interior) is not correct. Bedivere (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An now Bedivere is set to start a new edit war in 2022 Chilean national plebiscite.[25] .. Dentren | ^Talk 23:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment. This report wasn't meant to be responded by you or the IP anyway, nor me either. Such clarify tag is completely pointless as I have explained in my edit summary. Bedivere (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bedivere has now been warned to stop warriing [26] to which he answers with this (!). Dentren | ^Talk 00:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been edit warring and I am calm and waiting for the administrators' action. Whatever will come, I'll stand for it. Bedivere (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Three months ago, almost to the day, I blocked Dentren for a week for edit-warring on the same article, right off a previous block, and they have been blocked longer since then, also for edit warring. However, neither they nor the IP seem from my review of the history and the talk page discussions to be the one at fault here. Over the past week or so, it has been Bedivere who has constantly been reverting, with various other editors on the other end. It seems that the talk page discussions are not going anywhere; I suggest it's time for DRN or RFC or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: International sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Osterluzei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

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

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

Comments: This user writes with a huge bias towards Switzerland and even when I tried to discuss it, it took multiple attempts (I also wrote on the users German page [34]) till the user responded but the user kept undoing my edits. Some of the biases included only stating half of the information of the sources (e.g. the allegations but not the response by the government) but also things which were not even true according to the sources that were used. If I include the critic points towards Switzerland and also the fact that only this one agency makes these accusations and no one else from the US government, the user just removes it (there was also a backstory before the war in Ukraine btw.). The user also only refers to one single article and not the articles of the discussion in the Swiss newspapers.

The article is no longer as biased as before, because I completed some of the missing information that was left-out by Osterluzei, but still everyone who reads the article thinks that Switzerland is one of the main places for sanction evations, which is not true (and not one government said that this is true). Switzerland was also put on the list of "unfriendly nations" by Russia because of the implemented sanctions. By law Swiss people have to report the money of sanctioned people. That is why a lot of the money went to places like Dubai. This should be mentioned in the article, Switzerland follows the sanctions. The user deletes it. There is a critic point regarding the attorney-client privilege, which made it possible for Swiss lawyers to move money to offshore entities without noticing the government in the past (e. g. panama papers) - which should be of course mentioned - but that is not the same as hiding sanctioned people's money on Swiss banks. The user deletes it again. The user also broke the 3 reverts in 24 h rule--Tensorproduct (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify further things, there was a conference hosted by the Helsinki Commission where also a Swiss law professor talked and they mentioned some explicit critic points (I posted the source). One explicit critic point was that Switzerland should do more by applying its own sanctions (not just the EU sanctions so that more money is frozen) and a second point was the mentioned attorney-client privilege.

I think these explicit critic points that are part of the basis of the accussation are important. However Osterluzei doesn't want them to be included with the argument that: a) it's bad style and b) quote: we have defined the scope of these entries, Switzerland or the Helsinki commission do not account for such a big part in this discussion. - Which in my opinion is neither a valid nor a qualitative argument (besides where was this defined explicitly..?). This quantitative argument is solely an excuse to not include information that Osterluzei doesn't want in the article.

That the user did not want to discuss things until I warned him several times to not only revert long edits is for me proof, that the user doesn't want to write an encyclopedic article but rather creating a certain political picture about Switzerland. And again, before I started rewriting this section, only half of the information of the sources was included and things that were not even true (see the talk page: for example that "the report by the embassy was from 2022" - which is nowhere stated in the sources). And before I edited, the highest estimate that exist on total Russian wealth in Switzerland was used as "a fact" in the article, even though it's just an estimate and there are multiple of these estimates.--Tensorproduct (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And edit warring has not resumed. No prejudice against reporting in the future if this recurs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, no comment on the subject itself and the reverting of long edits without having a proper discussion? Reverting on the basis of shady reasons? As far as I know this is against the rules of Wikipedia. At least this is what it says in the German WP rules. I thought if it takes 24 h to solve this case, there would be at least a comment on the content itself and the unsubstantiated reverts of long edits, not just the argument of not breaking the 3 revert rule.--Tensorproduct (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Critical Role (campaign three) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 208.92.185.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:47, 16 September 2022; First revert by IP Editor
2. 02:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Main */ Laudna is confirmed dead in episode, and won't be back till they decide to bring her back to life. This is correct and needs to be left alone."
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC) to 02:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 02:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Main */"
   2. 02:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Main */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Critical Role (campaign three)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "/*Character deaths in cast list*/ Speculation around plot shouldn't be in the cast list"

Other relevant diffs:

1. 20:57, 11 September 2022; Message about previous character death speculation on their talk page
2. 16:14, 16 September 2022; First addition of plot speculation to article around this character's death
3. 16:20, 16 September 2022; First message about this round of character death speculation on their talk page

Comments:

IP Editor is adding plot speculation into the cast last. They waited several days before doing a 2nd & 3rd revert (so not reverting 3 times within the 24 hour bubble) & haven't responded to any messages on this. This IP Editor previously added incorrect speculation around character death & did not respond to a talk page message on it (essentially adding that E33 was 2 characters last episode before E34 & then these characters were immediately resurrected in E34; the IP editor did 2 reverts on that). Until the cast makes an announcement or it comes up in a future episode, I don't think plot speculation should be in the cast list. Additionally, there was coverage in reliable sources when previous permanent character deaths resulted in a cast member introducing a new character. If E34 was this character's last episode, I'm sure the show will make that clear in upcoming episodes & it will then receive media coverage. Until then, this is just WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC) (Added other diffs Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Page: Cracker (term) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. 04:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)‎ "Cracker is seen as a slur these changes are meant to represent that"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111610361 by SomeBurnerAccount (talk)"
2. 04:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111473705 by General Ization (talk)"
3. 04:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111473445 by General Ization (talk)"
4. 04:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111473156 by General Ization (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cracker (term)."
2. 04:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "/* September 2022 */"
3. 04:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cracker (term)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Pretty much self-explanatory.General Ization ^Talk 01:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about this is "self-explanatory" I edited a biased article that General_Ization seems to not agree with and instead of talking it out he goes straight to reporting me

Thats without even mentioning the user SomeBurnerAccount just so happened to edit the article that Ization and myself had dispute over [[User:|Caspian Delta]] (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caspian Delta: What part of "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" did you not understand? See the multiple warnings on your Talk page, along with an explanation as to why your edits at this article were non-constructive. General Ization ^Talk 03:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about I only undid the article 3 times. You thought it would be funny to use your burner account so happened to be named "SomeBurnerAccount" to change my edit. This is not the gotcha you think it is making multiple accounts while not being part of Wikimedia Foundation or against wikis tos and can get your account terminated Sockpuppetry Caspian Delta (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to this report unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and personal attacks, as well as basic lack of competence reflected in the editor's inability to read the list of reverts documented above. General Ization ^Talk 03:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about this is unfounded the account SomeBurnerAccount is extremely suspicious considering the amount of edits the account has at this time and one of the 4 so happening to be a reversion of my edit on the article that we had a disagreement about only a few hours beforehand. If you really want to verify that you don't operate account we can ask the admins to check the accounts ip if your certain that your not the one operating it. The other accusations you list are also quite absurd coming from a 15 year wiki veteran that's not willing to discuss disagreements on the classification of a slur and instead baits me into undoing an article 1 time over the limit Caspian Delta (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caspian Delta: You were not baited into anything; you were warned twice about the 3RR limit, and yet you chose to exceed it. I have no objection whatsoever to a checkuser investigation, as I have nothing to hide, but that is not what we are here to discuss. General Ization ^Talk 03:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Death of Mahsa Amini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111626619
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111583463
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111581943
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111575757
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111553249
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111552995
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111533134
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1111533013
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1110922107
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1110921706

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Mahsa_Amini&diff=1111689802&oldid=1111550547

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HistoryofIran&diff=1111692294&oldid=1111684907

Comments:

I didn't see the 3RR warning as a necessity, because the related section in the talk page should answer everything. Also, this notice on the reported user's talk page might be useful which was put there before the time of this report. — Roj im (talk)

I didnt violate 3RR. You might want to read the guideline again. Note: This user has been edit warring in the article whilst WP:STONEWALLING in the talk page of the article, so it would be very convienent for them to attempt to get me blocked. Will post more when I am home. HistoryofIran (talk)

I am confident enough to say that I did not involve in any edit war. The history can be referred by the administrators :) — Roj im (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a brief:

1. My first revision on that article: I undid your unreasonable revision of removing her name in Kurdish.
2. HistoryofIran reverted it.
3. I added her name in Kurdish to the box. (Unrelated to their previous revert. I was not aware about that. Also, the box is another location from the first paragraph.)
4. HistoryofIran reverted it.
5. I started discussing the matter in the article's talk page.
6. We were not agreeing.
7. I added a cleanup tag.
8. We got a third opinion from @Ideophagous suggesting to keep her name in Kurdish.
9. I re-added her name in Kurdish because of the third opinion, and stopped editing from this point.
10. HistoryofIran reverted.
11. HistoryofIran continued editing.

Roj im (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the history, but I agree that @HistoryofIran: is being unreasonable in refusing to let her name in Kurdish feature in the article. The conversation on the talk page can be used as reference.-- Ideophagous (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Roj im wrote that I apparently violated the 3RR with 10 reverts, now it's 3 (which even isn't a violation of 3RR to begin with)? So which one is it? If this is not a desperate attempt at trying to get me blocked, then I don't know what it is. Not to mention that these are largely different reverts (some even being "casual" removals, several days between, or removal of unsourced info even [35]), made largely towards different info and different users. Moreover, Wikipedia is a not WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; just because Ideophagous supported this addition, does not mean that it should be added. We have something called WP:CONSENSUS. Also, Roj im is clearly cherry-picking, since I was not the only opposing this [36] [37]. Roj im claims that he is confident that he did not WP:EDITWAR, so what is this then? [38] [39]. Roj im claiming that "we were not "agreeing" is certainly one way to put it, as they actually haven't taken part in the discussion at the talk page yet, instead resorting to textbook WP:STONEWALLING, as seen in the start of the talk page ([40], read the comments from 15:35, 21 September 2022 to 19:19, 21 September 2022).

As for Ideophagous claiming that I am "unreasonable", they are more than welcome to discuss it in the talk page. Except that they did, where they ended up violating WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA by accusing me of "ultra-nationalism" twice and then leaving the discussion [41] [42]. A quick look at Ideophagous' talk page shows they have at least have some history of attacking other users [43]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you politely to "not be ultra-nationalistic about this (the particular point we are discussing)", i.e. I wasn't making a general statement about your opinions or beliefs, of which I know nothing to begin with. Your refusal to concede any points, and disruption of reasonable edits (adding a simple name in a relevant language) is the obstacle here. As far as the Iran/Kurdish debate is concerned, I'm a neutral party, since I have no direct relation to these cultures, and ultimately I don't care about the result as long as there's consensus by the Wikipedia community. My sole purpose is that a solution would be reached, and the cleanup tag at the top of the page be removed, because it's undermining and reflecting badly on everyone's efforts to improve the quality of the article.-- Ideophagous (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How was that ever going to sound polite? And it doesn't have to be a general statement to be an accusation - see [44] [45]. What points am I not conceding? Who are you to decide that I should even concede those alleged points? And now I am disruptive too? There's no need to be rude just because you find the other party to be disagreeing, something you will commonly find in Wikipedia. Comment on the comment, rather than the user. Again, you're free to re-participate in the discussion. Moreover, you seem to care enough to attack me and even comment here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As the edit war has continued and is now up to, by my count, 8 "belligerents", I have fully protected the page for 12 hours. When those 12 hours end, it's going to be PBLOCKs and WP:ARBKURDS sanctions for people who keep this going. This is a petty dispute undermining constructive contributions, and it must not continue. That applies to both sides, but in particular HistoryofIran has made 7 reverts here [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52], the last 6 of them within a span of 12 hours. I looked at that briefly last night before I went to bed, and by light of day, somewhat regret stopping short at DS notices then. HistoryofIran, I want to be clear: If others' continued edit-warring hadn't forced me to fully protect this page, I would be blocking you. And I'm not sure I'd be wrong to even now, with five previous (non-rescinded) edit-warring blocks, even if not recent. 6RR on a sensitive topic in a high-visibility article is not acceptable. Please consider this a warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Raju Srivastav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:19, 22 September 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 24,546 bytes −1,474‎ Big boss incident is relevant due to the coverage. The career section needs expansion not trimming. List of condolences are expected and generally not included. If state funeral etc is given then that may be included.
2. 12:02, 22 September 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 24,616 bytes −1,404‎ Undid revision 1111697905 by Dympies (talk) broke chronology, discuss the new additions on talk page first before forcing them here.
3. 12:15, 22 September 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 24,440 bytes −1,580‎ Undid revision 1111699516 by Dympies (talk) revert multiple problematic edits. He is not the king of Comedy. It is the name of award he got in one of the comedy show. Several other problems have been raised on the article talk. Please respond there and get a consensus first.
4. 13:54, 22 September 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 23,023 bytes −2,997‎ Undid revision 1111704448 by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) While this is being discussed, source misrepresentation and disputed content should not be restored until a consensus has emerged. None of the source say :He is widely called King of Comedy. The lookalike of Amitabh is his own claim. Disputed on the talk page. List of people who wrote condolence is not encyclopedic, see talk

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned and he also warned another editor.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54][55][56][57]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]

Comments:

Restoring his own edits which he made in violation of WP:BLP and apparent POV pushing.[59][60]

He is also being disruptive on the talk page by removing others comments critical of his edits.[61]

Clear-cut violation of WP:3RR and behavior on the talk page is making him look even more disruptive.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 14:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff Aman kumar restored several blp violations and source misrepresentations.

The fourth diff in the list above 13:54, 22 September 2022‎ is where all the disputed content being discussed in the talk page has been removed. It is BLP Violation to claim that he is "Widely claimed as king of comedy" when none of the sources say that, so It has been removed. The bit about him being a lookalike of Amitabh is also controversial as it is the subject's own claim. It should not have been restored without consensus on the talk page.

In this 13:54, 22 September 2022‎ obvious BLP Violations were removed hence it is not WP:NOT3RR. I have not violated the 3 revert rule and I am discussing all the disputes on the talk page. . Pravega should join the talk page discussion instead of trying to get users blocked by filing these cases. Venkat TL (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no "BLP violations and source misrepresentations" other than from you as correctly described here. Falsely accusing others of misconduct is a personal attack.

"King of Comedy" is supported by two of the attached sources. [62] Calling it a "BLP violation" speaks of your own WP:CIR. ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 14:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted the BLP violation above above and explained on the article talk page too. And even after reading my response an admin believes that 13:54, 22 September 2022‎ is not covered in WP:NOT3RR. Then I am willing to self revert. My major concern is that this page currently on Wikipedia mainpage should not be having lines that are BLP violations and insufficiently sourced. These were added today morning. Had these issues and poor sources been there in the article yesterday, then the article would not even have been posted on WP:ITN, and others would have asked to fix these Issues. The article version at the time of being promoted to the main page yesterday should be restored and any new edits added after the review if disputed should be discussed for consensus first. The admins should check and restore the article version at the time of this being promoted to main page. Check the time stamp here. Special:Diff/1111562412/1111562810.Venkat TL (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1111721235 And now Pravega has again restored all the problematic BLP violations and insufficiently sourced claims in Wikipedia voice despite no consensus on the talk page to restore them. Venkat TL (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The only comment I have at this point is that Venkat TL's claim of a BLP exemption for edit-warring is at least procedurally invalid and probably substantively as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bbb23 Compare the 4th diff above Special:Diff/1111713656 with the 3rd diff Special:Diff/1111700372. You will find that in this 4th diff, I have not restored my edits that others had challenged. In this fourth I have removed controversial content added without consensus. Anyway, if you disagree that it is not BLPV, then I would have self reverted to avoid 3RR violation. Since Pravega has already reverted my edit I cannot self revert my 4th edit anymore to avoid 3RR violation. Pravega has removed all the other improvements too, that I have not restored. I have raised all the disputes on the talk page. At this stage, what do else do you suggest I should do? Again, My intention is to not edit war but to make sure that only widely supported content remains on the article. I have no intentions to make any more reverts. Venkat TL (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: The Amazing Race 34 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111792516 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) "teams encountered a new obstacle called the Scramble" It's an obstacle, not a task."
2. 23:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Leg 1 (Germany) */ Not misleading as we include obstacle even in parentheses."
3. 23:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111791837 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) Suðurland is Icelandic for Southern Iceland"
4. 22:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111782705 by EyeStanCirie (talk)"
5. 03:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111642122 by 2600:1700:243D:26D0:94E3:34B3:631E:8779 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Amazing Race 34."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear violation of WP:3RR across multiple editors. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of the IP and EyeStanCirie edits were to comply with MOS:ACCESS. Ask Bgsu98. The Southern Iceland revert was done as Sportsfan 1234 removed cited information. Sportsfan 1234 even added it back [63]. Sportsfan 1234 made no attempt to diffuse situation on article talk page. Xoruz (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: The Amazing Race 34 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Results */", which was a revert of my edit 23:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
2. 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111793087 by Sportsfan 1234 That looks ridiculous."
3. 23:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111792954 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
4. 05:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1111647361 by Bgsu98 (talk): This cast table is, in fact, being rolled out on all of the previous seasons."
5. 04:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1111647361 by Bgsu98 (talk): Table changes violate MOS:ACCESS."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Amazing Race 34."
2. 00:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Amazing Race 34."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Bgsu98 "/* September 2022 */"

Comments:

Clear violation of WP:3RR. Asked for clarification/started a discussion, which was returned with more reverts and removal of 3RR templates.Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Talk:Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Second time that this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akshaypatill deleted a section, single handedly deciding that it must be removed, without following up on it whatsoever. I had posted a warning https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1111876827 on his talk page when he did it the first time. There are multiple previous occasions when he has been warned by others as well

Diffs of user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahm%C4%81stra:_Part_One_%E2%80%93_Shiva&diff=prev&oldid=1111621995

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahm%C4%81stra:_Part_One_%E2%80%93_Shiva&diff=1111878896&oldid=1110730136 undid revisions by several editors

Warnings on user's talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1065083022 (by another user)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Akshaypatill&oldid=1111876827

There are several other instances when this user makes unanimous decision about what should and should not be on wiki. Excuse my imperfect editing it's the first time I am making this type of post. 2A01:E0A:911:1070:18C9:4CA2:565:E1F4 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections @Bbb23. Can you help me add the warnings with a proper link to the specific section? Also, this user has so many other edit wars but I am not efficient in sourcing them. If you have the time, will be super appreciated. I haven't quite seen such a vandal before. People delete edits, sentences, but removing entire sections that too on talk pages! Never seen before. Thanks a lot to you again! 2A04:CEC0:1184:58FD:257B:49B:2DFD:ABFB (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]