Page: Kathy McGuiness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

1. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
2. [5]
3. [6]

1. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]

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

1. [10]

Comments:

1. Despite repeated requests on the article talk that he edit collaboratively; as well as two requests on the edit log, the user continued to war.
2. The user also reverted during the talk discussion, before any agreement or consensus.
3. The user also dismissed as "Nonsense" the warring warning posted on his talk.
4. The user even ignored the offer on the article talk to self-revert to avoid 3RR and prevent being reported. X4n6 (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• The first diff is not a revert, and the third diff is a removal of the contested content pending the talk page discussion. I am not sure why X4n6 felt it was appropriate to repeatedly restore their preferred version while the talk page discussion was talking place, or why they are refusing to engage in the talk page discussion now. I am also not sure why X4n6 is suddenly so adamant about one particular version of the lead when they have never even edited the main article. It would be nice if someone would talk to them about their behavior. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Wallyfromdilbert: You're right at three clear reverts (1, 2, 3), so any further would put you over 3RR and result in a block. Both of you should know that removing or restoring content pending a discussion is not a valid reason to revert per WP:3RRNO, unless it's a clear BLP violation, which doesn't appear to be the case here. Also, it looks like X4n6 has replied on the article talk page, so I'm not sure why you say they're refusing to engage in discussion. clpo13_(talk) 17:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Clpo13: In response to the world class gaslighting by the user above, I'd simply ask the user, who requested the talk discussion? (It wasn't him.) Then I'd ask who reverted twice in the middle of that discussion? (That was him.) The first revert I listed was definitely a revert. Originally, I chose to only report my interactions with this user. But there were other recent reverts of other editors that I should've also included to establish a pattern. As you can see, the user's efforts to maintain their preferred narrative, and edit war if necessary to achieve it, began well before me:

1. [11] Revision as of 16:05, 12 October 2021.
2. [12] Revision as of 22:26, 12 October 2021. (Reverted 1 edit by Muboshgu)
3. [13] Revision as of 22:45, 14 October 2021.
4. [14] Revision as of 05:06, 17 October 2021.
5. [15] Revision as of 15:34, 17 October 2021.
6. [16] Revision as of 00:15, 18 October 2021. (WP:3RRNO for the 1st time.)
7. [17] Revision as of 03:38, 18 October 2021. (WP:3RRNO for the 2nd time.)

I'll also list all the other recent edits there by this user. The obsessive nitpicking does appear to show this user is sculpting the article to fit their preferred narrative:

1. [18] Revision as of 16:08, 12 October 2021.
2. [19] Revision as of 22:21, 12 October 2021.
3. [20] Revision as of 22:22, 12 October 2021.
4. [21] Revision as of 22:24, 12 October 2021.
5. [22] Revision as of 22:28, 12 October 2021.
6. [23] Revision as of 16:08, 12 October 2021.

Also, it's curious that the user accused me of not editing in the article, just the lead: ("I am also not sure why X4n6 is suddenly so adamant about one particular version of the lead when they have never even edited the main article.")

While, a) that's not really a thing; and b) nor should it matter. But c) it's also, just like the rest of the user's claims, provably false:

1. [24] Revision as of 21:17, 12 October 2021.
2. [25] Revision as of 06:40, 13 October 2021.
3. [26] Revision as of 07:14, 14 October 2021.

I should also note, this user has been doing this regularly on this article since 2019. In fact, the user was literally the first user to work on it after it was created by Muboshgu. [27] Revision as of 05:46, 4 January 2019. So there may also be a long history of OWN behavior involved here. X4n6 (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Protected You need to sort the issue out on the talk page, this shouldn't be a difficult thing to comprehend. No admin is ever going to block someone who is removing material that may fail (note: and may not do so) BLP compliance. Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi @Black Kite:. I'm not really sure what this effort accomplishes. The issue was never one of BLP compliance. Because no material was ever controversial or factually disputed. The issue was about what should go in the lead vs the article. Specifically, the subject was recently indicted on 5 criminal charges: 2 felonies and 3 misdemeanors, and has proclaimed her innocence. Does that go in the lead or not? I believe it does, to be expanded upon in the article. The other user does not. Protecting the page doesn't compel any real collaboration. It also doesn't address the user's bad behavior of continuing to revert during discussion. So please explain what you're hoping to accomplish. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • X4n6, please stop falsely claiming that I have attempted to take the material entirely out of the lead, especially considering that you previously did remove it entirely from the lead: [28]. I later removed the material pending the outcome of our discussion here, while you continued to revert your preferred version into the article. The issue is whether to include the excessive amount of detail you are putting into the lead, including details that you have refused to put into the main body, which you have not edited once. I am not sure if this is a continuation of some vendetta since baseless attacks from when your ANI complaint against me was dismissed, but it needs to stop. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wallyfromdilbert Everything I've said about you I've proven with links. They're facts. You've provided one link, ignoring the basis for it here, still proven nothing and cannot refute a single link I've given. Enough said. Also pinging @Clpo13:, because of the prior comment he made here. X4n6 (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Mark Willacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tokyo Oz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments:
I believe the user may be in someway related to the article's living person, possibly even the person. The user only edits one article and it seems always to push a one-sided POV adding MOS:PUFFERY. The user has been asked several times to determine if there is a WP:COI and has not responded. Aeonx (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Tokyo Oz is warned. They may be blocked if they edit again at Mark Willacy without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. I take note they have never responded to the WP:COI allegations. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Tin Goyenda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1050721705 by Meghmollar2017 (talk) I have violated no rule. I have cited the source and I have added facts. Don't you threaten me. It takes two to tango!"
2. 14:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1050720365 by Meghmollar2017 (talk) I have already added source. Please note that THOUSANDS of lines of information in this article have NO source cited to them. Wake up. YOU should stop the fight."
3. 14:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1050719428 by Meghmollar2017 (talk)"
4. 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1050717023 by আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk)"
5. 13:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048921521 by আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk): This guy আফতাবুজ্জামান is creating trouble going from page to page deleting important edits."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please stop this user. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 16:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if it is relevant or not, the user went to Bengali wikipedia and called me "imbecile". Here the user called me "idiot". --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Note: Meghmollar2017 is right at three reverts, too, but given the unsourced accusations of plagiarism in the edits by Meusha, I'd consider this a BLP violation exemption. clpo13_(talk) 16:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 30 September 2021 revision

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10
11. 11
12. 12
13. 13
14. 14
15. 15
16. 16
17. 17
18. 18

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Redvince1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Modalistic Monarchianism

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:Redvince1

Comments:

I fell for the bait in anger at their sheer rejection of understanding that Wikipedia is about a NPOV, and involved myself in a edit war with them; I recanted deciding to continue further edit warring and even discussing at this rate, then labeled a critic alongside others who also got involved alongside us two attempting to haphazardly discuss the issue at hand with WP:advocacy. If I am blocked as well for a moment, it is justified as I shot myself in the foot while trying to handle this situation. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I am puzzled why TheLionHasSeen is unwilling to include or consider the content with references on modern day adherents of Modalism such as David K. Bernard and logical arguments that are made by those who adhere to the Modalist Christology perspective. I am reverting this article every few days to get more attention to this article so that more editors will get involved in adding content and so that TheLionHasSeen and myself are not the only arbitrators of what content goes on this article. I am adhering to WP:BOLD in doing so. - Redvince1 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you even writing about in your self-proclaimed puzzlement? I use David K. Bernard and placed his citations in that article long before you ever joined Wikipedia; I even assisted with helping Oneness Pentecostalism become a WP:good article alongside a few others. Adhering to WP:BOLD is useless when it comes to even reverting other contributors who remove your faulty citations and blatant WP:POV pushing. There have been at least three different editors on Wikipedia that have all come against your contributions by removing your polemic. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As in the archived discussion in the ANI board, you have blatantly claimed edits made to the article that you never made; on the talk page for Modalistic Monarchianism you have begun personal attacks; and now you are WP:GASLIGHTing and abusing Wikipedia's policies for your own further gain. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this also not reveal that you are negating discussion and the pre ante status of the article, thereby deliberately making Wikipedia a battleground which it is not? After all, you revealed your tendencies to publicly advocate for Modalism prior? Two wrongs do not ever make a right, and I have acknowledged my mistakes in handling the poor communication by becoming angered at your claims of edits you never made, but I am having enough of your brashness and disavowal for what Wikipedia stands for. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Per this ANI closure, I've warned both editors and fully protected the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: MrBeast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edit wiki peadia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]

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

Comments:
This user has been adding an unofficial channel to the channel list of the MrBeast page after repeatedly having their edits removed, and being told to stop on their talk page. They have even gone as far as to make bad edits in other places then fix them in a future edits while adding the channel back again to make their edit seem "in good faith". It hasn't been within 24 hours, so it might not be violating WP:3RR, but it's warring for sure. ― Levi_OP^Talk 12:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Edit wiki peadia is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at MrBeast unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. The Hindi channel they insist on restoring to that article is evidently not an actual MrBeast channel. They also use deceptive edit summaries such as 'Fixed typo'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Raya and the Last Dragon (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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC) "It didn't say anything about him "producing"."
2. 21:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC) "There is no producer credit for this individual."
3. 21:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) "Shouldn't be linked twice."
4. 21:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is trying to unlink someone who worked on the movie on the article, saying that he did not work on the movie, despite there being sourced statements saying otherwise on his page, Paul Briggs (animator). wizzito | say hello! 21:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like I might have been a little too hotheaded and in the moment here to check the pages fully, but I did make sure to stop at 3 reverts and go here. Block me if you want, I don't care. wizzito | say hello! 21:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

For all of this year User:XXzoonamiXX has been reverting changes so that the lead reflects his or her opinion of what is a civilian. (S)he may never have broken the 3rr rule {or (s)he may have, I have not scrutised each edit sequence made in each 24 hour period}, but the reversals by this editor are IMHO tenacious (if not tendentious) editing. See history of Civilian

The reverts have been made despite long conversations on the talk page and against many different editors with little or no support from other editors making similar edits to the article to support User:XXzoonamiXX. Here are some recent edits.

• diff Revision as of 12:58, 19 October 2021
• diff Revision as of 08:35, 20 October 2021
• diff Revision as of 20:16, 20 October 2021
• diff Revision as of 15:33, 21 October 2021
• diff Latest revision as of 18:58, 21 October 2021

Attempts to resolve this issue see:

• Talk:Civilian# Proposed first paragraph
• Talk:Civilian/Archive 1#Lead

As can be seen by the block log of User:XXzoonamiXX, User:XXzoonamiXX is well aware of the probibition on edit warring.

User:XXzoonamiXX has been informed of this post (diff) PBS (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments:
I would suggest that if User:XXzoonamiXX wishes to include his or her wording in the lead that (s)he initiates an RfC on Talk:Civilian to show thag ther is a consensus for inclusion rather than trying to edit war for inclusion. I am slightly involved in that I edited this article's lead some years ago and I have recently commented on the talk page. PBS (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What wording are you talking about huh? Regarding the legal or informal definition that I added sources with, and you guys haven't come up with any proper explanation/sources at all without any consideration for the oppopsing side? And you haven't applied this to Pete since he's engaged in edit-warring too. Biased much? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Not only have you recently been reverting edits made by User:Skyring (Pete), you have been reverting other editor's changes to your preferred wording. I listed one such revert above: diff Revision as of 15:33, 21 October 2021 -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We have been having this discussion for some time - see talk page - and it boils down to this. One editor - User:XXzoonamiXX - wishes to give a secondary meaning of the word - "muggle" - more prominence than the primary meaning of "non-military". We cover this meaning in an adequately-sourced section headed "Colloquial usage" as per due WP:WEIGHT, and give it a sentence in the lede. This does not accord with the views of one editor who spurns consensus and procedure to continually insert his own preferences against consensus. In talk-page discussion he does not address points on accepted wiki-style and process. His behaviour is disruptive and perhaps a topic-ban would be in order here. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't ever listen to anything I say, period. You keep on hiding behind the word "consensus" so much (when in reality, only some users agree to this, hardly a true consensus you're talking about) you don't know what it is at all, including adding blatantly false information for the two sources that don't provide anything you say and you haven't really answered this at all (and you still haven't). Clearly, your leading topic and explanation are excuses to hide the fact you just want to maintain the status quo of your preferred viewpoints, while offering not a single reliable source in backing up your claims against my recent article edits, throwing the article off the balance. The previous article, especially the leading paragraph, leaned more heavily into the strictly military vs. civilian distinction while offering little to none of that for the informal definition for which there is strong evidence and I attempted to define myself. You don't analyze, you just revert without a real explanation. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Skyring (Pete) and XXzoonamiXX this is not the forum to continue the discussion about the information in the edits (that should be restricted to the talk page of the article). This thread is about breaches in procedure (policy and guidelines). Please stay focused on that. — PBS (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The article content should be restored to its consensus status. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:XXzoonamiXX is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Civilian unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Disney+ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HoneymoonAve27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49] [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [52]

Comments:
This user violated the 3RR, ignored the talk page and is obviously pushing an unreliable source, for reasons unknown. This kind of user makes editing Wikipedia impossible. Please stop him. Tuvixer (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Both of you have made three reverts. Although neither has violated 3RR, you're both edit-warring, and, Tuvixer, please don't attack other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Krishnajeev TR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 0"cleopatra"0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The author of the article that is the user which I am reporting is threatening me openly on my talk page. The article Krishnajeev TR is currently in discussion for deletion. He added a comment by himself as ACCEPT. So I just noticed and highlighted his comment to other voters to get a notice that the only ACCEPT vote that appeared there is by the author. After a few minutes, he talked on my talk page that stop vandalizing and he threaten me. you can check it on my talk page. The Article's first name was Krishnajeev. Once the article got nominated for deletion, he continuously removed the AfD template. After some warning, he stopped removing AfD. But he changed the article name to Krishnajeev TR. Actually the artist Krishnajeev is known as Fukru. But creating an article with the name Krishnajeev made me a suspect that there might be a deletion log of the article named Fukru. Anyway the authors interest on the article shows WP:COI and paid edit.

Moreover, he created his account just 16 days ago and editing from a Mobile browser. But his edits and user page do not look like a new user. Onmyway22 (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I take no position on who's right in this matter, it is just that reports to admins, even apparently fake ones, should not be summarily deleted by the reported party. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Declined. This is not the proper venue for this complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Helicopter carrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.184.56.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54] - (edit made after this report was filed and user was notified)
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]
5. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on ip user's talk page (see note at bottom): [60]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [61]

Comments:
Straight 4RR vio with four reverts of two different editors in under three hours. Editor clearly has experience editing Wikipedia, using similar ip addresses and editing other articles. Is experienced in markup, and from their edit summaries, there appears to be no language barrier. This user simply refuses to engage and shows every intention of continually reverting to get their preferred version. - wolf 08:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note 1: this user has now vandalized the article Wolf (name) by adding my username ro the page with the edit summary: "Wolfyyyyy", in an obvious attempt at harassment. This was since fixed by another editor. (fyi) - wolf 09:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note 2: ...and now this user is edit warring/ clashing with two different editors at the Wolf (name) page, in an attempt to continue this vandalism/harassment. - wolf 09:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note 3: This edit then attempted to remove a portion of this report he didn't like. - wolf 11:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Kirby: Right Back at Ya! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.67.136.99 (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 18:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC) to 18:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
   1. 18:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC) to 17:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
   1. 17:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 17:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 17:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC) to 17:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   4. 16:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   5. 16:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   6. 16:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   7. 16:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   8. 16:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   9. 16:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   10. 16:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   11. 16:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   12. 16:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   13. 17:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC) to 16:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked 72 hours by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Meridian Hill/Malcolm X Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: S.mckevitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [68]

Comments:
Per WP:OFFICIAL and WP:BOLDSYN, it makes sense to have Malcolm X Park included in the title and bolded since it is a common, if not more common, colloquial name, and does have common use in official documents. This user has been reverting updates to account for this for years, despite it being in line with Wikipedia convention, and widespread understanding from other editors. Middle river exports (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Hawiye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Hiraab Imamate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ayaltimo (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]

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]

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: This user has reverted changes to the Hawiye and Hiraab Imamate pages despite the use of sources that aren't contradictory as he/she claims, this user has also removed key information put into different sections such as the Rulers section which even at his/her recommendation this was done and he/she still removed it. The user has a bias towards other articles due to clan differences and lets these clan differences affect their opinion despite the article having the best sourced references

•  Declined. Abshir55 has failed to warn Ayaltimo of edit-warring and failed to notify Ayaltimo of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: 1997 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1051680651 by Loriendrew (talk)"
2. 23:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1051679656 by Loriendrew (talk)"
3. 23:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1051673561 by Discospinster (talk)"
4. 22:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1051673439 by Discospinster (talk)"
5. 22:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1051666918 by Discospinster (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 20:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC) to 21:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC) "/* March */"
   2. 21:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC) "/* March */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 1997."
2. 00:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1997."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Other edits do not look very constructive either, questionable nomination for deletions, etc. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: For Latvia's Development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1051305812 by Vacant0 (talk) Dear, Vacant0. Please stop vandalising article and check added reference, your edits are wrong. Sincerely, SMO of political party "Latvijas attīstībai" (For Latvia's Development))."
2. 17:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1051251568 by Vacant0 (talk)"
3. 11:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC) "Party clearly defines itself as classical liberal, and is considered as such in Latvian political spectrum, labelling it just "Liberal" would be incorrect"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC) "/* October 2021 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

violated 3RR, addition of unsourced content and it even might be COI in this case Vacant0 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Both reporter and reportee reverted exactly twice. No violation of 3RR. Suggest both take this to talk page JeffUK (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action. 3RR was not violated, but User:Skroderdienas is warned not to make incorrect charges of vandalism ('Vacant0. Please stop vandalising article'). If Skroderdienas is an official of this political party, he may have a WP:COI and should not edit the article directly. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78] Amongst other edits. edits were made to the lede without gaining prior consensus - as per warning here.
2. [79] Restored same wording without discussion.
3. [80] Straight revert. Warned.
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [83]

Comments:

Two days ago, this user was warned against reverting without prior consensus. He has now reverted twice without gaining consensus. Discussion on talk page on detailed improvements and exact wordings proceeded. This user gained no support for his changes before or after making them. Their edit-warring and lack of substantive discussion - personal attacks and irrelevant diversions aside - is disruptive. This has been going on for months. The talk page is pretty much devoted to this one user pursuing their own battle and using edit-warring as their main weapon. --Pete (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not reverted your edits except once because you add such a repetitive word in the last leading paragraph that comes into conflict with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead, and there's no specific consensus about your preferred wording in in the last leading paragraph in the talk page until the last three reverts. I have not engaged in more than three reverts to most of your claims and all I did is add or delete several things that are respectively clearly and clearly not needed in the article during consensus to move the refs down to body. Reverting my entire works just because you have issue with some minor ones I made is deliberately disruptive.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civilian&diff=1051721785&oldid=1051671002 (Tells me to add refs to body article even though he didn't do so at first when deleting the previous first leading sentence and should have move the refs down earlier himself at first, hasn't made that clear in the talk page and he did it without waiting for reply from others (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civilian&diff=1051654181&oldid=1051305321) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Civilian#First_sentence_in_the_lead)

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civilian&diff=1051722880&oldid=1051721785 (Tells me all the sudden that I'm "reverting" even though he deleted reliable sources relating to police militarization without prior discussion with several others)

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civilian&diff=1051734565&oldid=1051727275 (Now says I'm reverting without consensus despite no formal agreement about the specific leading paragraph wording) XXzoonamiXX (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As per the warning given earlier, one revert without prior consensus attracts sanctions as a continuation of long-term edit-warring. Let's put a laser focus on one point of contention:

0. User:Macrakis adds the word "civilian' to the "colloqual usage" paragraph of the lead.[84] with the edit summary military police are clearly not civilians so the first sentence now reads:

In the United States, uniformed agents of a civilian police or fire department often refer to members of the public as civilians.

Talk page discussion here.

1. User:XXzoonamiXX reverts the addition two and a half hours later. [85]

2. User:Skyring restores the addition[86] with the edit summary of Of course members of the military police refer to members of the public as civilians.

3. User:XXzoonamiXX reverts[87] with the edit summary: Discuss that in the talk page. At this point discussion is ongoing with five editors (including the three above) participating.

4. User:Skyring: the word is restored in a move of the secondary usage definition to below the first within the lede [88] with the edit summary of Move down in lede to reflect coverage in main.

5. User:XXzoonamiXX reverts[89] with the ironic edit summary Go to the talk page, stop edit warring. This is now his third revert within 24 minutes.

6. User:Skyring, seven days later, after some unhelpful editing by User:Carlmaster2020, restores[90] the word "civilian" with the edit summary of Last good version. See talk, please..

7. User:XXzoonamiXX (after some two weeks of turmoil in which the sentence disappears completely in major edits which fail to find support in discussion) changes the word "civilian" to "non-military".[91] At this point User:XXzoonamiXX has been reported for edit-warring and warned not to revert without prior consensus. The sentence now reads

In some nations, uniformed members of non-military police or fire departments colloquially refer to members of the public as civilians.

8. User:Skyring restores previous wording.[92] (TBH, I didn't notice that "civilian" had been replaced by "non-military", as per discussion I was more interested in getting a raft of sources out of the lede and into the body of the article.) My edit summary reads Restore consensus wording. We need to get these refs into the body, not add more to the lede.

9. User:XXzoonamiXX restores "military" (along with replacing a dictionary definition in the lede with one that would be better placed in the body.[93] He makes the point that linking to civilian police (a redirect which goes to Police) is misleading. Nevertheless he is reverting without consensus.

10. User:Skyring restores previous wording (of lede, leaving intermediate edits to article body intact) .[94] with edit summary of Restore consensus wording. Revert this once more XXzoonamiXX, and you will face the consequences)

11. One minute later, User:XXzoonamiXX reverts[95] and here we stand. At no point did User:XXzoonamiXX gain consensus for his reverts of the "civilian police" wording, whether before or after making them.

As an aside, any study of the edit histories of the article and discussion pages reveals that User:XXzoonamiXX considers all police, firemen, and military to be non-civilian, which is clearly absurd and ignores the nuances the article attempts to explain to readers concerning military non-combatants (such as chaplains), legal definitions, paramilitary gendarmerie and so on. I don't mind if this user contributes to and discusses a topic in which he is clearly interested, but I do mind when this goes against consensus and ignores the contributions of multiple other editors and he uses edit-warring as a weapon.

Result: User:XXzoonamiXX is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Civilian unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The pattern is clear and I ask that the warning given a few days ago be enforced as a signal that we are serious about working together rather than as individuals. --Pete (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You're selective of certain edits that simply goes against your POV count as "revert", "edit-warring", or going against "consensus" despite the fact we haven't had anything establishing around the last leading paragraph, and I always add anything that does not revolve clearly, established consensus such as the last leading paragraph. Nevertheless though, this thread is simply not appropriate to discuss edit information as much if it's about actual violation of edit warring policies as some other admin has warned you about before. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:XXzoonamiXX: what User:Skyring (Pete) may or may not have done is irrelevant to this investigation. If the current wording in the article has, or does not have, consensus in your opinion, is also irrelevant. You reverted without obtaining a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. You breached the terms of the warning you recieved from EdJohnston. — PBS (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. User:XXzoonamiXX is continuing to revert at civilian after a prior warning. Mediawiki tags this edit of Oct 25 as a manual revert, so this qualifies as a revert per the terms of my warning of Oct 22. Of course the real issue is that XXzoonamiXX shows no inclination to stop editing until consensus is reached on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Lake Sevan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Schternschnüppe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]

Comments:

More or less all of this new users edits have been reverted, in some of them which he has also engaged in edit warring. I did put a edit warring warning on his talk page, which he along with other warnings dismissed as 'vandalism' [100]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I indefinitely blocked for disruption, and the account was subsequently confirmed and tagged as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: List of chief ministers of Haryana (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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:50, 25 October 2021"There is no consensus to add this on the talk page. Please discuss. see WP:BRD"
2. 18:39, 25 October 2021"Please generate consensus for adding these tables on the talk page. As I have already said, these are totally unnecessary"
3. 18:22, 25 October 2021"This pic is already added twice. Why adding a third time on the same page? Why is this table needed"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101] [102] [103] [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:13, 25 October 2021 18:26, 25 October 2021 18:41, 25 October 2021

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [105]

Comments:
User:JaiHind108, How is this edit 18:25, 25 October 2021 a revert?It is about a different content. I still suggest that you self revert and join the talk page discussion before the admin reviews this. Venkat TL (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TLI tried bro, i tried to discuss a lot of times, see [106], [107] and there are more, but you were the one who was in arrogance of being a senior editor, and not discussing anything with a new and novice editor, btw i have rectified my mistake. JaiHind108 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:JaiHind108, thanks for correction. So you think that I have made 3 reverts, clearly this is not a violation, as I did not make more than 3 reverts. Venkat TL (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• You both appear to be edit warring. Why don't you seek a WP:3O or start an WP:RFC, since it looks like it's just the two of you on that page failing to form a consensus? AlexEng^(TALK) 22:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• What do you say? @Venkat TL, I am ready but dont know how to use these features, please start these features, i will participate. if you agree. JaiHind108 (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  @JaiHind108, the first step in the process is to stop adding the content you are adding again and again. This can only happen if you voluntarily stop adding it or if you dont stop you will blocked temporarily. This choice is yours. The methods are explained at link Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that I had posted on your talk page. Venkat TL (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• JaiHind108 indeffed at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: List of chief ministers of Haryana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JaiHind108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "non-contructive edits, done in arrogance"
2. 18:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "you are nobody to decide about whether it is necessary or not, see other page like List of prime ministers of India, List of chief ministers of Delhi etc, so make consensus then revert otherwise it is a pure edit war started by you"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC) to 18:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
   1. 18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "non-constructive"
   2. 18:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "not necessary"
4. 08:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Timeline */ added info"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
2. 18:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Table of tenure duplicated */ new section"
2. 18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Table of tenure duplicated */ Reply"

Comments: @Venkat TL Similarly how 08:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC), 18:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)/18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC) these edits are revert, because later two are my reverts of my own edits done to correct information per your will. JaiHind108 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@JaiHind108 In all the edits numbered 1 to 4 you are adding this table of statstics, that I had objected to, without first generating consensus to add it. Venkat TL (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is a curious similarity in names and contributions between the blocked sock User:Hindu108 and the new editor User:JaiHind108. Oculi (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• User replied to Oculi on Talk:Faizabad Junction railway station. JaiHind108 (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Smells like sweaty feet... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Run for Cover (Gary Moore album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sandry Sm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108] – no specific release date, just a year per AllMusic.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109] – reinserted poor quality source.
2. [110] – same, whilst telling me to "Don't be stupid".
3. [111] – reinserting it again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112] – not a warning, but a request to use better quality sources.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: continued discussion at User:Sandry Sm's talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [113]

Comments:

This is a report concurrent with ANI, due to conduct issues. The report here pertains to content.

User:Sandry Sm is repeatedly inserting poor quality sources in support of a release date for the album Run for Cover. He first attempted to use Last.fm and Rateyourmusic as sources, which I shot down because they obviously fail WP:NOTRSMUSIC. He then moved onto something called thathashtagshow.com, which is absolutely not a reputable music-orientated site and likely lifted their dates from a previous version of the WP article.

He has taken exception to my calling out his poor sources and dismisses me as being in the wrong, whilst ignoring WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. I then filed the aforementioned ANI report because his conduct has deteriorated to childish insults and incivil tone. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

And he's still expecting me to do the work for him – [114]. I've explained that so far nobody has found a reliable source for the album's release date, but in his view the poor quality source is therefore acceptable in the absence of anything else. Not how WP works. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sandry Sm has been blocked indef by User:TheresNoTime for disruptive editing and personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Halyna Hutchins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stephen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [115]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [116] 04:56, 23 October 2021‎, revert of Roman Spinner's edit [117]

For the record, it should be noted that the photo reverted by Stephen at 04:56, 23 October was not added by me, but by Toadboy123 at 16:50, 22 October. I appended that same photo just over an hour earlier, at 15:42, 22 October and it was indeed reverted two minutes later, at 15:44, but not by Stephen. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

1. [118] 22:46, 23 October 2021,‎ revert of Elli's edit [119]
2. [120] 02:33, 24 October 2021‎, revert of Elli again
3. [121] 11:24, 24 October 2021‎, revert of Tobby72
4. [122] 20:15, 24 October 2021, revert of myself

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning issued. Stephen is an administrator and therefore aware that edit-warring is forbidden.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The question of whether the image meets the NFCC criteria was raised on the talk page here and is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 22#File:Halyna Hutchins.jpg.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [123]

Comments:
The dispute is about whether a fair use image should be displayed in the article while a FfD discussion is ongoing (and opinions there are currently divided). Multiple users including myself are of the view that the image can be used until FfD decides to delete it, but as far as I can tell only Stephen has repeatedly removed it, without an attempt at discussion, and using uncollegial, patronizing language ("as has been explained to you previously"). Stephen should be blocked to prevent further edit-warring unless they commit to not repeat this conduct. Sandstein 10:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears the image has been restored and the reverts are not continuing. I can't see that the policy says anything about keeping the image in place during a deletion discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: 2022 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1051143421 by Joseph2302 (talk) Because Qatar is noteworthy for a change from 2021 to 2022 (same as Portugal, etc.: present in one year, not present in another). Chinese is not present in neither calendar - so not more noteworthy than, say German not being present."
2. 20:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1051139932 by HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) why is it even noteworthy? None of the sources say “it was due to feature on the calendar” - the meaning of the word “dropped” is simply “it won’t be included”"
3. 19:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC) "Because this section is called “ 2] Calendar expansion and changes from 2021 to 2022” - and Chinese GP was not present in either year, so it’s not a change ;)"
4. 09:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC) "No, it’s largely irrelevant: just because it’s mentioned somewhere doesn’t mean there were either plans, or the “major force” as you claimed, was present. Speculation at best. You could as well mention Vietnamese and other GPs not present in the calendar: there are sources somewhere saying they would not be held due to this or that ;)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 20:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Won't WP:DROPTHESTICK about content removal Joseph2302 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a bit of a one sided representation of the issue here. While the reported user did indeed breach 3RR, it takes two parties to edit-war. While no-one on the other side appears to have broken 3RR individually, together they could be seen as a bit of a WP:Tag team. The reality is that this is a simple content dispute and neither party did the sensible thing of starting a discussion on the talk page. I don’t think a block would help anyone further here, let alone bring a satisfying solution. I’m convinced that an amicable talk page discussion is the best way forward. In fact in the mean time, a WP:F1 regular has actually made a revert in agreement with the report user.Tvx1 22:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion started: Talk:2022 Formula One World Championship#Chinese GP, but I don't expect a helpful response from this. I'll probably either be ignored (because their preferred version is being used, so they have no incentive to discuss), or get blasted with a wall of text like their usual way of shutting down discussion and people they disagree with. We shouldn't allow non-collaborative, unilateral removal of text. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Moreover, there is more one person disagreeing with your side.Tvx1 11:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the people disagreeing is discussing it helpfully which is fine. This user has not engaged in discussion (and based on previous interactions with the editor, I don't expect them to do so). AGF is not violated by stating previous problems with an editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has only started hours ago. Not all editors live in the same time zone and have the same daily schedule in their lives. Give them some reasonable time to become aware of the discussion and contribute to it. Their recent contributions show clearly that they do not visit Wikipedia each and every day.Tvx1 13:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Assuming good faith is a good and valuable thing. Too bad you prefer to make snide remarks and wrong assumptions instead. I have commented now in the discussion on the article’s Talk page. As Tvx1 correctly noted, not everyone contributes or visits daily - so it’s unreasonable to expect someone to reply at a moment’s notice. cherkash (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Though the inclusion of the Chinese item is still being discussed on Talk, neither Cherkash nor Joseph2302 has reverted the article in the last five days. An WP:RFC is still an option to consider if the talk page consensus is unclear. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Rama Kirve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jadonbrotherz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [130]

Comments:
Likely this user will be blocked for other reasons sooner or later, but figured I'd report anyway, Some ECP salting may also be in order given the persistent socking. I probably won't be at this IP long enough to sort this due to complicated circumstances that are beyond my control short version the app I'm currently editing through rotates IPs about every two hours or so to something in a completely different range. However I doubt much follow-up is needed here. Regards, 188.168.21.24 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring to remove a G5 speedy deletion template. Anyone who has enough patience might try comparing Jadonbrotherz to the accounts listed in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Anupamaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paras Kalnawat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vucien (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][131]
2. [diff][132]
3. [diff][133]
4. [diff][134]
5. [diff][135]
6. [diff][136]
7. [diff][137]
8. [diff][138]
9. [diff][139]
10. [diff][140]
11. [diff][141]
12. [diff][142]
13. [diff][143]
14. [diff][144]
15. [diff][145]

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]

The user repeatedly do desruptive editing on these 3 pages and openly violates 3RR rule. Removes necessary stuff, plot, cast info and use comments like not following wikipedia rules and unnecessary plot etc. And engage in edit war with every other person

• Digging into the history of the article, it looks like Pra2310 is as guilty, if not more guilty, of edit warring. Involved parties need to take the situation to the respective articles' talk pages. I'd rather it be voluntary than with page protection (which might need to be full) or partial blocks. —C.Fred (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I asked him many times to come on talk page. I agree I'm also at fault. But the user isn't even ready to come on talk page. Just do desruptive edits and claims only his edits are best. And please visit his talk page. He engage in edit war with every other editor. -Pra2310 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Vucien and User:Pra2310 are warned for edit warring. Either of you may be blocked if you revert again at any of the three articles listed here unless you get a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dasc96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC) "Here we go again… You are attempting to equate people getting together in a social group, in this case am I’ll legal assembly, as some form of government structure. I’m sure you will revert this edit and figure out someway to ban me from editing this page. Then, you will go on re-printing the silliness that this demonstration was some form of “government,” although obviously no government system could have been established which would be recognized or legal under the laws of the state, count..."
2. 02:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC) "Again—the activity was illegal; trespass, loitering, property destruction, obstruction of public traffic, jaywalking, etc., etc. Is the person who reverted this edit arguing this activity was not illegal? Illegality here is a FACT... It is not redundant and it is necessary, since some of the content of this article appears aimed at injecting legitimacy into what was completely unlawful activity…"
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC) to 01:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
   1. 01:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC) "Again, it is absurd to say there was a “government”—anarchy, by definition, is not government. There was no form of government as permitted or recognized by King County, Washington state, or federal law.

Having a supposed “organization” is not tantamount to a system of government. Such “organization” had no legal authority or force/legitimacy of law."

1. 1. 01:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC) "Again—the activity was illegal; trespass, loitering, property destruction, obstruction of public traffic, jaywalking, etc., etc. Is the person who reverted this edit arguing this activity was not illegal? Illegality here is a FACT."
2. 01:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC) "It is absurd to say there was a “government”—anarchy, by definition, is not government. There was no form of government as permitted or recognized by King County, Washington state, or federal law."
3. 01:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC) "Clarified that the activity was illegal; trespass, loitering, property destruction, obstruction of public traffic, jaywalking, etc., etc."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [146]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It would appear that this will be their third block for edit warring. They've also returned to edit warring on University Chapel, which they were blocked for in July. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 206.174.198.66 (talk) (HG) (3.4.10)"
2. 15:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 206.174.198.66 (talk) (HG) (3.4.10)"
3. 15:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 206.174.198.66 (talk) (HG) (3.4.10)"
4. 15:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 206.174.198.66 (talk) (HG) (3.4.10)"
5. 15:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 206.174.198.66 (talk) (HG) (3.4.10)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• See the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Serols&oldid=992859347 for a pointless attempt to detailedly explain a very similar problem in the past.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

With all respect and support for Serols's dedication to recent changes patrolling, this type of edits needs to stop. I have interacted with Serols before, not just administratively, and I consider myself too involved to take any action. It might else be a revocation of rollback for a while, or a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello ~ ToBeFree, that was really a mistake of mine. The IP had different sections away, and all goods justified. I apologized on his talk page. Regards --Serols (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the apology. You do still have the last revision in the article. Time for a self-revert? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello ~ ToBeFree, I just did. Regards --Serols (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, no worries left from my side then. Sorry, I should have had a look at the reverted user's talk page and I'd have seen the apology.

 Request withdrawn. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello ~ ToBeFree, without my apology, you had absolutely right, was defenitive my mistake. Regards --Serols (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Resolved, thanks folks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omer123hussain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [148]

* Reverted my reliably cited work, and did not discussed on talk page so restored with corrections

1. [149]

* Same content is repeated multiple times, the person who reverted did not discussed it on talk page.

1. [150]

* You can see in edit summary, i have been requesting to discuss on talk page, instead of reverting reliably cited work.

1. [151]

* Upgraded the statistics of 2011 to 2020, there were no changes, as per recommendation copy edited and restored.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

You may read that other editor could not point any error in my work If he reverts its BRD and if i restore my reliably cited work its edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:India#Constructive editing and Talk:India#Unhelpful edits

Talk:India#Constructive editing-Fortunately I have attempted first to resolve [here], and Talk:India#Unhelpful edits-The editor should know that this attempt is not for related article.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [153]

Comments:
Edit warring against multiple other users at India, despite warnings and ongoing talkpage discussion. During this they placed a custom edit warring warning on another user talkpage. CMD (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments:
I am wrongly accused of EW, my work is done in good faith to restore 17 Years old FA with latest updates (the article have decades old statistics in multiple sections) is being selectively reverted where as other users are making 10's of edits on the same article. Though I had attempt first to resolve, here and and here, Instead of encouraging my good work he/she is adamant to discourage me from working on this article with wrong claims [here]. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours. In his above defense, Omer123hussain argues that he was being 'selectively reverted'. I note that even if this were true, it does not grant you an exemption from 3RR. See WP:NOT3RR for the valid exemptions. There is no substitute for having a full discussion of the disputed items on the talk page. Before reinstating your material, you should wait until the others are convinced. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tejasvi 3094 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 09:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 09:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 08:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 23:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC) "/* October 2021 */ final warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Host in the infobox */ 2"
2. 09:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Host in the infobox */ not 3"

Comments:

This is being discussed at Talk:2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup#Host in the infobox, but the user is continually reverting to versions that are not supported by anyone else at that discussion. They are obsessed that India is the only host, despite the discussion demonstrating that is wrong, but their inability to have a proper converstion about it necessitates this post. 5 reverts is not acceptable Joseph2302 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Also note in the past 24/48hrs they've been edit-warring at Religion in India too, which they've aslo been warned about. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Despite them implying they will stop, they continue to edit war over this days after this was logged. As a side note this seems like WP:NOTHERE to me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely needs a block, as they've continued edit warring after this post. Which makes it annoying that this hasn't been actioned sooner, so the disruption could have been minimised. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Answers in Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 174.57.231.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism by Just plain Bill (talk)"
2. 15:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid vandalism in bad-faith by user who asserts that unproven opinions and community consensus are facts by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
3. 15:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid vandalism which claims unproven opinions are facts by Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)"
4. 15:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid highly opinionated and non-factual vandalism by 1052325093 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
5. 15:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid vandalism by MoonlightVector (talk)"
6. [154] - more reverts post-report here and below
7. [155]
8. [156]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Answers in Genesis."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user is edit warring to remove "pseudoscientific" as a descriptor of creation science. They have been accusing good-faith editors of being vandals in their edit summaries. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

With this edit the user is at 7RR without having said anything on the article's talk page. I believe prompt admin action to halt the disruption would be useful. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours clpo13_(talk) 16:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Jainism and Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [157]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 10:01, 27 October 2021[158]

• 21:07, 27 October 2021[159]

• 08:52, 28 October 2021[160]

• 18:19, 28 October 2021[161]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [162]

Comments:

Totally conduct issue as this user is falsely marking reverts as minor, falsely claiming that revert was unexplained, restoring misrepresentation of sources even after multiple messages and warnings on his talk page.[163] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 60 hours. They've previously been blocked for edit warring. clpo13_(talk) 23:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Carrie (1976 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 172.195.91.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [164]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [165]
2. [166]
3. [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None thus far that I saw.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [169]

Comments:
I wasn't involved in this until the IP's most recent edit, which (slightly) violated WP:FILMPLOT but was also poorly-written, as was the case with their prior edits. Their Talk page currently makes the unlikely assertions that they're allowed to do "whatever it wants" and "otherwise you'll be blocked", so I think it's safe to say they're not editing in good-faith. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for general disruptive, incompetent editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Ik Onkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Suthasianhistorian8 (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. [170]
2. [171]
3. [172]
4. [173]
5. [174]
6. [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [176]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [177]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [178]

Comments:
On the article Ik Onkar, user Suthasianhistorian8 keeps adding literal meaning of Ik Onkar as One Om Maker which I have mentioned to the user and also on the article's talk page that it is not a literal meaning but instead non-literal and figurative meaning. The article already stated the literal meaning in plain ENGLISH as One Supreme Reality but the user keeps ignoring and readds the changes again and again instead of discussing on the talk page. You can also see here on this link [179], and on this link [180], and [181], literal meaning is "There is only one god". Even when told about the difference between literal and non-literal, user reverted the changes without any explaination. Its clear that the user has no interest to resolve the dispute. The user was also involved in edit warring on article 2002 Gujarat riots on 21 Oct 2021 with large scale removal and reverts of the administrators. Prompt action should be taken to stop the disruption and the changes reverted. MehmoodS (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• update - After getting notice on Edit warring, user tried to communicate but fails to get into any agreement. MehmoodS (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• update - User agrees that he communicated only after getting the notice but now fails the "be civil" policy by blaming me for vandalism. [182] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehmoodS (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Update - User still continues to make edits [183], even after warning. User went ahead and also added unreliable sources such as [184], which is in German language and has absolutely nothing to do with his changes. MehmoodS (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Final update: Dispute has been resolved and I would like to withdraw this request please. MehmoodS (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Complaint withdrawn by the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Build Back Better Plan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tbake293 (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. [185]
2. [186]
3. [187]
4. [188]
5. [189]
6. [190]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [191]

Comments:
On the article Build Back Better Plan, user Tbake293 has repeatedly added back the phrase "Dismantle, Destroy, and Distinguish America" to the lede, which is clearly a controversial addition that requires strong reliable sources, and yet no source is given. The phrase was added back at least three times within 24 hours, which would seem to violate WP:3RR. The lede is supposed to summarize content in the remainder of the article and yet the phrase is not found anywhere else in the article. All of the user's edits are to this article, and even the possibly constructive information added is sloppy, unsourced and not neutral. The user has made no edits in the past 18 hours, but this person's actions should be watched in case there are more.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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: [192]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 30 Oct 04:47 – [193] – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
2. 30 Oct 15:22 – [194] – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
3. 30 Oct 15:26 – [195] – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
4. 30 Oct 15:32 – [196] – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [197]

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: [198]

Comments:
Woovee has long opposed the observations of Kevin Haskins. At the RfC held about the issue, Woovee was the lone vote against Kevin Haskins, so the Haskin observation was restored. Woovee was reported twice to ANI for edit warring at the article: User vandalizing article on Bauhaus band in July 2021 and Woovee and Bauhaus band in October. The article was put into protection three times in 2021 because of edit-warring by Woovee against other editors. Now that article protection has expired, Woovee has resumed the edit warring behavior. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. Woovee apparently tampered with the RfC while it was still open by trying to remove the RfC tag. If there is anything worse than an edit war, it's an edit war over the outcome of an RfC. Binksternet posted their own assessment of the war over the RfC at ANI in early October. If Woovee wants to hairsplit over the result of an RfC they should do so on the talk page and wait for other people to agree with them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Mercantilism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Th78blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [199]
2. [200]
3. [201]
4. [202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [204]

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

Comments:

User is forcing a recent change, claiming there is consensus. Their change has been contested before. They only seem to have had a discussion with one other editor about the change, and only fairly recently, therefore they haven't achieved consensus about the change, despite what they say (three people including myself have contested this change now). They are also forcing this change in the article about crony capitalism. BeŻet (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Sexual slavery in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC) "cutting out WP:UNDUE material recently added to the article"
2. 21:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "No that is incorrect. The thesis was submitted at the University of Leeds in accordance with the requirements for the PhD of the author Salma Saad. It meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC) to 21:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
   1. 21:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "sorry but Iskandar's edits are too far-ranging and removal of such material requires long talk-page discussion. For instance, there is no reason to call sexual slavery during armenian genocide, indian partition and sudanese civil war from here "off-topic" and then copy paste them to other articles"
   2. 21:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "/* War captives */ this is what Rodriguez says on page 2 "Dhimmis were required to pay a special poll tax called jizya in return for the protections granted to them. Failure to pay the jizya (or any breach of the dhimmi contract) could result in revocation of the dhimmi status, and offenders could then be given a choice of conversion to Islam, enslavement or death.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sexual slavery in Islam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Salma Saad thesis */ Reply"
2. 05:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC) "/* New edits */ Reply"
3. 05:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC) "/* New edits */"
4. 22:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Salma Saad thesis */ Reply"

Comments:

Mcphurphy is a user with a single-minded fixation on drawing attention to sexual abuse (perceived and otherwise) in Muslim communities. They single-handedly created the page Sexual slavery in Islam in user space and since the article has been moved to mainspace has resisted all forms of input not to their liking and edit war incessantly with anyone who attempts to moderate the tone of the article. They also only seem to come online to block changes to the page, which remains more than 70% authored by this single editor, despite numerous attempts to make changes by dozens of other editors. The only other pages that they have substantially edited are Islam and domestic violence and Rape in Islamic law. You may be beginning to see a pattern. In this 3RR complaint, the first edit I have included, here [205], reverted six separate packets of edits (not including edits by citation bot) by three separate editors. The manual reversion/rollback/restoration, whatever you like to call it, was indiscriminate. The second revert, here [206], reverted the following diff, here [207]. The third revert is of course unambiguous. And then, in classic edit warring style, we see a fourth revert of edits by a completely different editor 1 day and 2 and a half hours after the first revert. If this isn't edit warring, I don't know what is. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that Mcphurphy is reverting the edits of 4 different users, but is careful not to explicitly violate the 3rr rule (WP:GAMING). Here are 4 reverts ([208],[209],[210],[211]) they made between 21:01, October 28 and 08:07, October 30, 2021. A new account with very few edits has mysteriously shown up to editwar in favor of Mcphurphy[212]. They had been warned against edit warring by admin EdJohnston.VR _talk 15:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a serious case of WP:OWN. No external intrusion seems allowed; no cogent replies to queries, if any; no serious use of the talk page; a pattern of reverting to one's favorite text. This is an attack page. And mainly one editor's handiwork. Much of what is documented is well-sourced, except that on checking the sources, it is evident that context is ignored, and a single sentence is cherrypicked to throw Islam in the dourest light possible. There is a very large literature, critical yes, but historicizing, that puts Islamic practice in comparative light. The sensible thing would be to have the editor to stand aside for a month or two and allow several other editors to revise it collegially so that Wikipedia presents this not as an indictment of Islam, but as a neutral overview of the theory and practice of the sexual use of slaves in that religion. The scholarship cited with great density on the page, if closely consulted, managed to do that: the editor harvesting it hasn't. They lack detachment.Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

First off, there's no 3RR violation here. Even according to the diffs shown these "reverts" did not exceed three within the 24 hour span. Moreover, I am not sure why the edit at 21:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC) is being cited as an instance of "edit war" when it was actually an improvement to a citation needed tag. Vice regent had earlier placed the "citation needed" tag there,[213] so I quoted the source in the edit summary to demonstrate that the citation which was removed by Vice regent did indeed support the text.

Secondly, I have tried engaging with these three editors Vice Regent, Nishidani and Iskandar323 on the talkpage.[214][215][216] I request these three editors to continue working out our editorial differences on the discussion instead of edit warring against me and other editors such as Grufo and Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' who are trying to faithfully represent scholarship and relevant facts on the article.

Some diffs of these users edit warring instead of seeking consensus for their changes to the article despite my attempts to engage with them on the talkpage - Iskandar323: [217][218][219][220]; Vice regent: [221][222].

Nishidani has also been very aggressive in talkpage discussions. For example, in this[223] comment they tell me to "desist from arguing and stick to editwarring." With such an attitude, how can content disputes be resolved? Mcphurphy (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

In my knowledge this second very recent time avoidable personalizing of content dispute (IDK previous ones) So this is comment to preferring avoidance of personalizing content dispute as much possible.

Nuanced discussions are time consuming processes can even take years together, and not likely to settle in couple of days discussions. So all of us would need some more patience and restraint and avoid personalizing disputes as much as possible.

Rather than allowing to personalize disputes and some accounts trying get some other accounts banned and so on; I would prefer a system of 3 weeks article locking and 1 week free to edit alternately for a year or so.

I do prefer section by section sentence by sentence talk page discussions with reasonable time to study and put up positions.Thanks.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm my difficulty in dealing with a group of users that seem compact in their actions (Vice regent and Iskandar323 are particularly active in this group). Something similar is happening right now at Talk:Concubinage. As their long-term goal is to avoid using “sexual slavery” to mean “sexual slavery” when it refers to Islam, and eventually use “concubinage” for it, they are POV-pushing “sexual slavery” as the main meaning of the word “concubinage” in the Concubinage article. Reaching the point of trying to redefine the meaning of an English word that has nothing to do with Islam but spans epochs and regions, only for the purpose of avoiding “sexual slavery” in an article that concerns Islam, speaks quite loud for the amount of damage that editing Wikipedia with apologetic intents can cause. --Grufo (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you even hear yourself, Grufo? The damage that is being done in a talk? On the talk page of an article that I haven't even edited? Talk is precisely the place where you are meant to hash out disagreements over content. This simply outlines your own perceptions. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You are quite fresh to this, Iskandar323. Almost all the mentions of “slave concubinage” have been inserted into the page by one single user (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12 – I can't check all the edits). Eventually the page has reached the current state, where an article that was supposed to be about “living together without marriage” is almost only an article about sexual slavery. --Grufo (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I know how to read, thanks, but I'm not as theoretically "fresh" as you, and this is horribly off-topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As Vice Regent notes, this is far from Mcphurphy's first edit warring rodeo - as their talk page makes plain [224], they had to be repeatedly cautioned for edit warring, canvassing and other behavioural issues in rigid defense of their preferred reading of their own content. And even this does not begin to address the rather suspicious IP and new user activity that seems to follow Mcphurphy around. Though an earlier SPI regarding Mcphurphy found no verifiable issues [225], @GeneralNotability noted the possibility of off-wiki collusion. Similarly to these previous patterns, the present edit war under discussion sees the 11-edit [226] Ever Grounded lurch into action after a hiatus of 6 months to appear, deus ex machina, to make a revert that Mcphurphy was at that point explictly barred from making. It is also interesting to note that on Mcphurphy's talk page, despite numerous warnings, etc., the only thing they have ever deigned to delete was a conversation in which they admit to using IPs to edit [227]. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Let's all drop kibitzing, and await for outside input. Tit-for-tat partisan exchanges only serve to make close review of what is actually happening on that page impossible. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring on articles about treatment of slave women by Islamic people. I had previously warned Mcphurphy back in May due to a prior complaint at this noticeboard. Mcphurphy appears to have some knowledge on this subject but has often failed to persuade the other editors. Continued reverting even at a slow pace can become tiresome. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: 2022 California gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:TheXug TheXug (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] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_California_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1052749157
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_California_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1052747144
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_California_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1052746159
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_California_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1052745712

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_California_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1052748037

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] it's all in my edit summaries, which I felt this editor did not even bother considering

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheXug&oldid=1052751003

Comments:

This user keeps characterizing my edits as vandalism and has exceeded 3 reversions. This is not appropriate editing behavior. 2600:1012:B05D:7959:89F0:1563:D9B6:E284 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I did make an error in warning your edits were "vandalism", as I hadn't properly read the changes before moving on. I have, in fact, suggested that we get a 3rd opinion to assist in resolving the conflict at hand. TheXug (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted all of my edits, which while I didn't think they were unfair, it seems to be the only way of resolving this issue so I can continue RCPatrolling. Wikipedia is not the place to argue, so I'll refrain from further discussion on this situation. TheXug (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see my post on my talk page, before my dynamic IP resets, for more statements. 2600:1012:B05D:7959:89F0:1563:D9B6:E284 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. Fast reverting from a dynamic IP doesn't give a user much credibility in an edit war; such editors have no permanent talk page. As for User:TheXug, they self-reverted, per their own edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I am the IP editor who was involved here; you just locked me out of editing that page, when I wasn't the one who surpassed 3RR, and (though less relevant), had the right idea about the edits, which remain. Though the other user has been warned for their egregious behavior, which is all I wanted to happen, this is an insulting and ironic result, in the same crude tradition of the disingenuous reversions I endured by TheXug. 174.193.200.59 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Pages:

1. Concubinage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Concubinage (legal term) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Toddy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to:

1. Link to 1052848783 version of the Concubinage page
2. Link to 1052848783 version of the Concubinage (legal term) page

Diffs of the users' reverts:

1. #1 by Toddy1 19:52, 31 October 2021 to Concubinage
2. #2 by Iskandar323 20:37, 31 October 2021 to Concubinage
3. #3 by Toddy1 20:59, 31 October 2021 to Concubinage
4. #4 by Iskandar323 20:13, 31 October 2021 to Concubinage (legal term)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. #1
2. #2

Diff of ANEW notice posted to users' talk page:

1. #1
2. #2
3. #3

Comments:
This has become really exhausting. I find it difficult to deal with a group of users that seem compact in their actions (Vice regent, Toddy1, Iskandar323, and occasionally others). As their long-term goal is to avoid using “sexual slavery” to mean “sexual slavery” when it refers to Islam, and eventually use the apologetic “concubinage” for it (see Sexual slavery in Islam and its long disputes), they are POV-pushing “sexual slavery” as the main meaning of the word “concubinage” in the Concubinage article. Reaching the point of trying to redefine the meaning of an English word that has nothing to do with Islam but spans epochs and regions, only for the purpose of avoiding “sexual slavery” in an article that concerns Islam, speaks quite loud for the amount of damage that editing Wikipedia with apologetic intents can cause. One month ago Vice regent was “warned against a battleground mentality” together with other users they used to battle with. I have attempted to find a solution for the current unbalance of the Concubinage page by expanding it in other directions (see my Revision 1052914592 of Concubinage), but my edit was reverted by Toddy1. Users Iskandar323 and Vice regent are currently active in filling my Talk page with WP:ASPERSIONS (#1, #2, #3, #4) consisting in advertising as “disruptive editing” my attempt to contradict their unsupported claim that concubinage is a 14th century juridical revival. I have attempted to ask user Iskandar323 to remove their WP:ASPERSIONS from my Talk page, but without success. --Grufo (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:boomerang. Grufo is reverting the edits of 3 different users at Concubinage, as he correctly points out. The only one who supports Grufo is Grufo and a mysterious account with very few edits that is clearly WP:NOTTHERE. Grufo was previously blocked for edit-warring on that very same article. We've been having a discussion on the lead for a week, yet he can't come up with a reason better than "no consensus"[228] to oppose the changes, so Grufo editwars as a means of opposing consensus.VR _talk 21:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I did come with a solution against the current unbalance of the article, Vice regent, but it was reverted by Toddy1. On the other hand you have ignored what I reported as a problem and proceeded your way, lacking any basic ground for collaborative editing. The page has a problem, which is that of POV-pushing history of sexual slavery as its main content, and your solution has been that of keeping POV-pushing the same content. --Grufo (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grufo: You made a bold proposal, and it was reverted. Your next step, through the WP:BRD model, is to discuss the matter at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not make any proposal, I was quite fine with the page as it was. Other editors came with a bold proposal, despite they knew that there was lack of consensus. I proposed keeping the status quo (which was reverted) and the I came with a solution (which was reverted too). Almost all the mentions of “slave concubinage” have been inserted into the page by one single user (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12 – many other edits exist). Does it look like I haven't discussed in the Talk page? --Grufo (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Grufo, this is the longstanding version of the lead. The version you kept reverting to ([229][230]) is quite different from that, which makes your edit a WP:BOLD one.VR _talk 23:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the meanwhile I am still waiting that users Iskandar323 and Vice regent self-revert their WP:ASPERSIONS in my Talk page (#1, #2, #3, #4), consisting in advertising as “disruptive editing” my attempt to contradict their unsupported claim that concubinage is a 14th century juridical revival. --Grufo (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The above is an incomplete version of what happened regarding the lead section of the article and the following should be added to the above.

• Initial controversial edit by Grufo 02:55, 23 October 2021
• reverted by Toddy1 21:25, 23 October 2021
• Grufo reverts edits by Toddy and Vice Regent 19:53, 24 October 2021
• Toddy adds POV tag 14:24, 25 October 2021 (and provides explanation of the tag on the talk page at14:27, 25 October 2021)

There has been a lot of discussion on the article talk page regarding producing a satisfactory lead. There was also discussion at User talk:Vice regent/Archives/2021/November#Suggestion in response to a post by Vice regent at Talk:Concubinage#Lead rewrite.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point, thank you for pointing out that too, Toddy1. In parallel with the POV-pushing of sexual slavery into the article I have found opposition from the same editors against updating the old heterosexual definition of concubinage (consisting of a man and a woman) into the more modern gender neutral concubinage, as concubinage is used in several countries for same-sex marriage.^[1] --Grufo (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Which shows that Grufo did not revert to the version before the dispute, he/she reverted to his/her preferred version.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There was not a dispute about the gender neutral concubinage. There was an opposition, which translated in you asking for sources. I found the sources and the gender neutral was kept. Then a dispute started about POV-pushing further sexual slavery material into the page (again, and again), where I disagreed. You kept following your way and at that point you removed also the gender neutral concubinage too. If this is not WP:POV-PUSH I really don't know what WP:POV-PUSH is. --Grufo (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

In this and many other disputes you try define what other editors are talking about. It is a variant on sealioning.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Grufo blocked for 72h.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Page: Scardust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (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. [1052959428]
2. [1052948030]
3. [1052939901]
4. [1052975384]

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

It was not a discussion, but my friends and I tried reasoning with him via the edit section, so you can see what we had to say there (the edit comments in "View History," if we get blocked for not following protocol, that's fine. I just want the article to remain accurate and devoid of vandalism.' [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [1052975046]

Comments:
This user removed the edit war warning I issued him, as instructed here. He has been extremely aggressive and uncooperative. He keeps reverting the page to a previous edit we made. We keep telling him that he's removing important information, but he's trying to remove something in our most recent few edits but won't tell us what the problem is other than vague sentences that make no sense. For instance, the band never released a single called "Nightmare," as it's actually called Tantibus, and information on their recent concert should be in past-tense, not present-tense...

• Page protected At the accurately worded request of the OP/ip here, I have applied semi-protection to the Scardust page and warned the ip; other ips have been warring with User:Binksternet on this page claiming non-RS. BusterD (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 60 hours for block evasion EvergreenFir (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: The Battle at Lake Changjin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Estnot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [231]
2. [232]
3. [233]
4. [234]
5. [235]
6. [236]
7. [237]
8. [238]

(probably more)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning (reverted by user)

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

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

Comments:
User has severely exceeded the number of allowed reverts. After warning them on their talk page, they just reverted the message. They did not respond to another message on the article's talk page warning them about their actions, and proceeded reverting anyway. BeŻet (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: The Crown (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [239]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [240]
2. [241]
3. [242]
4. [243]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [244]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [245]

Comments:

Editor refuses to engage in dispute resolution, respect WP:BRD. He doesn't like his edits altered or reverted, and this is just bully-tactics designed to avoid established practices in order to win over ONE WORD that makes a perfectly good sentence awkward and grammatically incorrect. Please note, too, that he has four reverts. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It is disappointing that having breached 3RR this editor resorts to a post such as the above. Editors will be able to see that there was nothing ungrammatical about my edit, and the statement that I have made four reverts is simply false - I invite Drmargi to either post four diffs to support her claim, or to apologise for making a false complaint. MapReader (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

MapReader (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Both users were edit warring but only User:Drmargi went past 3RR. Drmargi may still have time to undo their last edit to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. Further study indicates that both editors broke 3RR. (This edit by Mapreader is a partial revert: it changes the 'ever made' just added by User:Asdfghjkl9658 to 'ever'). Both parties are warned not to continue reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston The edit you linked to isn't a revert - the previous versions of the sentence in edits immediately prior were "in history" and "of all time". Changing "ever made" to "ever" is a copyedit, not a reversion. MapReader (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Lodha Altamount (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 202.136.69.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1052893653 by GreaterPonce665 (talk)"
2. 19:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1052340320 by GreaterPonce665 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Lodha Altamount."
2. 14:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Lavale, Pune."
3. 18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism."
4. and several more

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC) on User talk:202.136.69.223 "Final warning: Vandalism."
2. warnings for several other pages were given as well.

Comments:

I have given them multiple warnings and reported to AIV page. A page was protected, but others user has continued to vandalize. No effort on their end. Other pages where persistent edit warring has happened are Kotak Mahindra Bank, iBall (company), and Pimpri-Chinchwad. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 20:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours by User:Ohnoitsjamie for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Yoruba people (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [246]
2. [247]
3. [248]
4. [249]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [250]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [251]

Comments: This war started on an article talk page. Why suppress discussion? My position is to keep my viewpoints and their position is to remove them and we are under the attention of an independent editor who is reviewing each of our claims and working on feedback. Ppdallo has singlehandedly decided, without evidence, that everyone has agreed to his preferred reading of the table [252] which I created, and has been removing any further of my changes. Note points 1b, 1c, and 1d are constantly being removed, and they have changed the points in my numbers 1,3,7, and 11, while accusing me of doing that without evidence. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and asked him to create a new table or produce a diff here but they are also reverting my request here and blindly and asserting things must be done the way they deem fit.

The user's behavior is also under question. See reports [253] [254] [255] and the latest [256] -Oluwatalisman (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oluwatalisman Please see diff here of my reply to UserSnowrise and to you as well, on this issue[257]. I hope administrators start taking notice of all this crying wolf from you and your buddies over my simple edits to what i consider to be misinformation on the Yoruba people article. Ppdallo (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo This report has nothing to do with misinformation on Yoruba people article. You were warned of your 3RR crossing here and persisted. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Oluwatalisman I invite commenters to take a look at the map you "reverted" to, which coused the socalled edit war in the first place[258]. That map had changed the numbering order that commenters made references to. This was my edit summary for reverting that new map [259]. If you had defaulted to the original map[260] i would have no reason to revert it. I will not accept your false accusation of me edit warring. I demand apology from you and you also should apologize here at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[261] for rising false alarm. You have formed that habit of false accusation against me like the one here, which i consider even more serious instance where you willfully and falsely accused me of an edit i did not make, having fully discussed and agreed on the edit with the person that made it, as evidenced in the link[262] (I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[263]. At this juncture, i have to, on a more serious note, draw commenters attention to the fact that right now i feel like an editor surrounded by false accusers and that an alteration of SnowRise's response was seemingly what facilitated this accusation and this was what i told him when i first noticed the alteration and he is yet to respond:"I am just noticing something here" (Yes, I am aware that the table reflects TW's read on the various disputes/issues, but I also followed the links in your response post immediately following the table. Ultimately I agreed with some of Talisman's positions and some of yours, as per the above comments. As to present/past versions, I don't see the value in getting bogged down in the edit history at this juncture: what we're talking about is how the article ought to read from here, so let's build that discussion from the bottom up. Based on Talisman's summary, and your responses I have indicated which enumerated claims I believe are supported by the sources presented thus far and which are not. On claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 I have provided my take on which statements are WP:VERIFIED and WP:DUE and which are not. If you disagree on my read, I'm all ears, but you will have to be more specific than just posting diffs and saying "this version is bad" or "this version is better". I think we can discuss more precise wording once we have a rough consensus on which claims should be included in principle, though you're welcome to make your own suggestions at any point. On issues 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11, I have not seen any evidence that these statements are supported by sourcing, and would need to know what RS you believe support these statements before I could consider changing my perspective). "It seems the the line i quoted above, in your response to me has been altered. Why? please i need to know." Ppdallo (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

A separate complaint about Yoruba-related edits by User:Ppdallo is now open at ANI. It's possible that whoever closes this AN3 might be able to find useful background by reading the ANI. There's also an earlier ANI thread opened in mid-October. Though I have only skimmed these threads, the main complaint about Ppdallo appears to be WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It is also argued that Ppdallo has made personal attacks, such as OramfeIt is no surprise you are making such statements. Anyways, you are birds of a feather with Oluwatalisman in your insults laden and hate-filled statements about ethnic groups different from your own... The original complaint was opened by User:MJL, who is hoping that some careful admin response will be made. At first glance, this AN3 complaint appears to show talk-page edit warring by Ppdallo (removing or reformatting others' talk comments contrary to their wishes). EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnstonSee update here [264]Ppdallo (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: That is all correct (responding to ping) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked - given the above discussion, the multiple ANI threads, a previous 48-hour block for edit warring, and the repeated WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT conduct, Ppdallo is blocked for 2 weeks. This is really a final warning. @Ppdallo: when this block expires, please change your behaviour to engage constructively with your fellow editors, to achieve WP:Consensus, rather than the continual reverting of others' changes and casting aspersions on others. If you resume the behaviour noted here and elsewhere, then your next block will be an indefinite one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: The Daily Wire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Version on 09:47, 27 October 2021 (or 18:13, 27 October 2021)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:12, 27 October 2021 reverts Snooganssnoogans' edit
2. 00:05, 28 October 2021 reverts Llll5032's edit
   1. Warning occurs at this point 00:22, 28 October 2021
3. 16:39, 28 October 2021 reverts Llll5032's edit
4. 17:59, 28 October 2021 reverts Valjean's edit
5. 16:03, 29 October 2021 reverts Llll5032's two edits
6. 16:12, 29 October 2021 partially reverts Llll5032's edit
7. 20:10, 30 October 2021 partially reverts Llll5032's edit
8. 20:11, 30 October 2021 reverts Valjean's edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:22, 28 October 2021 on this thread, and has previously been warned of edit warring by two of these same editors who Buffs is reverting, for similar actions (related to content and citations from Daily Wire): 01:55, 15 September 2021, 02:01, 15 September 2021. Three times I reminded Buffs about his edit-warring in the recent RSN; the latest was on 26 October 2021. There may be more warnings from others (I quit looking). Buffs is certainly aware of the WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR policies.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. Llll5032 told Buffs to "Take it to the talk page" in their edit summary here 00:22, 28 October 2021, but Buffs continued to communicate via edit summaries only, which is Buffs' usual mode of operation.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [265]

Comments:

This is a report about a repeat edit-war offender, currently edit-warring again.

This current flush of edits-and-reverts on The Daily Wire article comes immediately on the heels of a just-closed one-month-long RfC at RSN on the question of whether to change The Daily Wire at WP:RSP from generally unreliable to deprecated, during which Buffs made 88 edits (27 Sept-27 Oct 2021) and for which the closer mentioned in his method explanation: "I then halved the weight I gave to a user on the "do not deprecate" side who I felt was seriously bludgeoning."

Note that the nominator of that RSN/RfC was Valjean, who explained on 30 October 2021 that the reason he/she started the RSN/RfC was because of Buffs' continued edit warring, unwillingness to abide by GUNREL with respect to Daily Wire citations, general unwillingness to discuss/cooperate, and unwillingness to abide by community consensus afterwards when discussions did occur but the consensus results were not in Buffs' favor.

Prior edit wars were committed by Buffs in September (which led to the RSN) on the articles:

• Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, 5 reverts 15-17 Sept
• Trump administration family separation policy, 2 reverts on 15 September 2021‎
• Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. on 26-27 Sept Removed the Daily Wire entry, followed by two reverts when another editor tried to put it back, twice

Buffs followed me around on 15 Sept 2021 to revert my edits where I removed GUNREL Daily Wire citations, 1 revert each, another editor reverted Buffs' revert:

• David Horowitz 15 Sept (1 revert)
• Scooter Libby 15 Sept (1 revert)
• Leaving Neverland 15 Sept (1 revert)

Pinging those mentioned in this ANEW and those who were involved in reverting these mentioned edit-wars: Snooganssnoogans, Llll5032, Valjean, NorthBySouthBaranof

--- Platonk (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly accusing someone of edit warring and bad faith edits without cause is, in and of itself, harassment, which Platonk has done ad nauseum. Calling things "reverts" when, in fact, they are not, is editing in bad faith and a backdoor method to attempt to get me blocked for violating WP:3RR. Making a similar/related edit is not the same thing as a "revert", by definition. I ask for anyone reviewing this to please look at each of these edits and judge them in their individual context as well as the context of the entire article; don't assume Platonk's accusations/summaries are accurate just because there is a link. None of these edits to Daily Wire fall under edit warring and are simply standard editing via incremental improvements. Platonk for example, just made a change to the page, however, that statement is incorrect based on the content of the sources and I made appropriate changes to make the statement accurate; in fact, I even thanked him for the edit as it was a pretty good overall improvement and much more concisely described the articles as a whole. But Platonk would have you believe that this is "edit warring".

Describing my actions as "unwillingness to discuss" is absurd in the extreme. In the same statement he claims I refuse to discuss he also I was bludgeoning others by discussing too much. There is literally nothing I can do to satisfy this user except leave (which appears to be his goal).

Making edits to make WP accurate with regard to WP:RS, WP:N, et al, is what editors are supposed to do. Yes, I'm going to demand that criticism of a site I like is accurate and falls within WP:N and WP:RS as should any editor; that isn't edit warring. Making incremental changes is the best way to do that, in fact it's how WP is run. Reasonable people can disagree about individual edits and, if we can't reach a consensus via editing, we can discuss it further on the talk page, but incremental changes are the most efficient.

• User A: Makes change and explains why
• User B: Reverts change and explains why
• User A: Makes change, but incorporates User B's objection/rationale and explains why
• User B: Makes a slight change to User A's contribution and explains why
• User A: Makes a slight change to User B's contribution and explains why
• User B: Makes a slight change to User A's contribution and explains why. User B agrees, thanks User A for the edits and both people go on editing

Platonk would have you believe anything after step 2 is an "edit war" and a "revert"; it's just plain not the case. Likewise, at no point has Platonk (or anyone else) started any discussion, which I would have participated in. Nor is such discussion an absolute requirement to editing. As noted above, a natural balance can easily occur through a series of edits. It does not require months of discussion to fix a single sentence.

Addressing the baseless accusations on The Daily Wire, NPR did not describe it as "misleading", others did in "The Hill" article, ergo, this statement was misleading and should have been corrected. This article was also later mentioned in the same section as if it was a separate article. My attempt was to consolidate them rather than let it appear as if there were two separate NPR articles, which is where the current article stands today between the edits of Llll5032 and myself IAW WP:NPOV (and specifically, WP:DUE). Almost everything else has been resolved on the article page without extensive and unnecessary discussion.

Everything else here is an attempt to backdoor other baseless accusations of impropriety/guilt-by-accusation and does not belong on this page. Buffs (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• No violation - the reverts above do not appear to contain four reverts within a 24-hour period, so no 3RR violation has occurred. Furthermore, it looks like a constructive talk page discussion has begun since this was filed, so I'm closing this thread and I encourage all participants to work through their differences and come to a consensus there. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Amakuru:, thank you. Buffs (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Paul Philippe of Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 84.65.241.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "That has no mention of him being a member of the house of Romania of which was established in 2011, how can he be a member of someone else’s institution of which he has no links to?"
2. 12:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Do you have a reference which would indicate his membership as a member of the house of Romania?"
3. 08:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Incorrect revert, http://sgglegis.gov.ro/legislativ/docs/2016/06/s8fx50cvmtp6qbwkjh79.pdf"
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC) to 08:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 08:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053149775 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
   2. 08:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053149429 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
5. 06:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "The House of Romania was established in 2011, Paul was not included as a member by the head of the house therefore he is not a member of the house of Romania nor can be a claimant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Paul Philippe of Romania."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 06:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Pipe dream"
2. 06:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Pipe dream */ typo"
3. 14:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "The last King of Romania was Michael I"
4. 14:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Pipe dream */ titles of nobility are not protected"
5. 14:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Pipe dream */ Same applies to the words"
6. 14:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Pipe dream */ whose"
7. 14:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Pipe dream */ courts of law lack any authority"
8. 14:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Pipe dream */ cannot be solved juridically"
9. 14:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Pipe dream */ much ado about nothing"
10. 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Pipe dream */ juridically meaningless"

Comments:

Page: Democracy in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans

Previous version reverted to: [266]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [268]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [269]

Comments:
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with linking diffs and thus was unable to fill all the recommended forms. This person begins an edit war over some dubious claims that the page is undergoing an organised troll effort. I have tried to talk about it on the discussion page.2A00:1FA0:48CE:A323:0:7:C82B:B301 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I made one edit restoring the status quo version. The page is being targeted by a coordinated campaign on Reddit by Mao fanboys/trolls.[270] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I would kindly ask you obstain from such rude attitude, or I'll have to report this behaviour. Wikipedia community should be civil. 2A00:1FA0:48CE:A323:0:7:C82B:B301 (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Close without action and trout the IP editor who appears to be a part of a co-ordinated off-wiki campaign aimed at whitewashing China-related articles. Page protection requested for Democracy in China. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you please provide a couple of examples of this 'attack' on other pages?2A00:1FA0:48CE:A323:0:7:C82B:B301 (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand...

Diffs of the IP's reverts:

1. 14:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053378977 by Denisarona (talk)Please abstain from further vandalism and come to the the discussion page. Your refusal to communicate will be reported"
2. 14:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053378220 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)Please abstain from further vandalism and come to the the discussion page. Your refusal to communicate will be reported"
3. 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053375245 by Kashmiri (talk)Please abstain from further vandalism and come to the the discussion page."
4. 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053373049 by Kashmiri (talk) Please abstain from further vandalism and come to the the discussion page."
5. 14:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053372309 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) Edit warring and vandalism will be reported accordingly"
6. 13:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Reverting the edit war"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Democracy in China."

Just putting this here by way of demonstration-to the IP if no one else!-who the actual edit warrior is... ——Serial 15:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It' s not me who started the edit war, I am currently trying to preserve the page's original version before the edit war. I have left a report on this page already. I kindly ask all edit warriors to proceed to the page's discussion in the edit nores, but my messages are left unanswered. Please come to the discussion page, and I'll introduce you to the matters.2A00:1FA0:48CE:A323:0:7:C82B:B301 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, ongoing trolling from the CCP online affairs bureau has been noted. On the other hand, we have WP:PACT. ——Serial 15:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be very grateful if you provided some examples of such 'trolling' from other pages. Thank you beforehand. 2A00:1FA0:48CE:A323:0:7:C82B:B301 (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Surely enough trolling here to be getting on with? So, China is a "people's democratic dictatorship" and not an "authoritarian state which has been characterized as totalitarian surveillance state, and a dictatorship" after all? That was your first change at 08:49 this morning? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:2A00:1FA0:48CE:A323:0:7:C82B:B301/64 has been rangeblocked for 1 week. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Owen Paterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:3CA2:41E7:196E:796F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "He was cleared"
2. 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "He was cleared"
3. 23:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "He was cleared. You may not like the fact he was cleared, but you’ll just have to get over that"
4. 22:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "He was cleared. Read the source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Message re. Owen Paterson (HG) (3.4.10)"
2. 22:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Owen Paterson."
3. 23:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Owen Paterson."
4. 23:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Owen Paterson."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) on User talk:2A01:4B00:8449:3900:3CA2:41E7:196E:796F "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Owen Paterson."

Comments:

I have tagged the article with a Political POV maintenance tag and also requested temporary page protection for the article due to its current political controversy in relation to current events. John^talk 23:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Stale As Owen Patterson is all over the news at the moment, plenty of other editors are keeping tabs on this, and things have moved on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page: A Matter of Time (Star Trek: The Next Generation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

1. 05:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "another day on Wikipedia where indisputable facts need to have to have a consensus of support because some people can't live their lives seeing an uppercase "Of" ..."
2. 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC) "rvt, restore actual episode title"
3. 07:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC) "restore actual episode title, article title is correct per current policy"
4. 03:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC) "restore actual episode title, Wikipedia policy does not change what a subject is called no matter how much some editors wish it did apparently :/"

A Matter of Time (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

1. 01:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053283925 by Alex 21 (talk)"
2. 05:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "hem and haw all you like, the episode title is clear as day, and the current article title is incorrect/invalid and fails WP:V, it is quite literally MADE UP by people who wish to impose their style choice onto a subject which clearly made its own"
3. 07:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC) "restore actual episode title, article title is correct per current policy"
4. 03:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1052949641 by 109.76.200.55 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on A Matter of Time (Star Trek: The Next Generation)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Episode is now at the wrong title */ Reply"

Comments:

Editor continues to edit-war over stylistic grammar of episode titles, across multiple articles and in the face of a currently-running discussion where the consensus is against their edits. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Your first second diff for A Matter Of Time is not the same as the other edits, and not a revert to be sure. Your claims are malformed and incorrect. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's a revert. Doesn't matter what for; you've been edit-warring. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed, the 2nd diff in that listing is not a revert. At any rate, stop lying to try and get me blocked. I honestly wish people who submitted false 3RR claims were subject to a block of their own for putting people through the process unnecessarily to try and gain an upper hand in a dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Warned - technically there is no violation of the 3RR, as the initial edits in these cases were not reverts but bold changes to the article text. However, it is clear that Locke Cole is editing against consensus here, and WP:3RR is clear that "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring". Locke Cole is therefore warned to stop this warring, and a block will follow if they edit war on any of these or related articles again, even if they don't break the 3RR. Furthermore, please engage in the discussion with civility. Labelling other editors as "truly crazed grammar nazi's" is a personal attack, and you will also be blocked if you engage in such attacks again.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  The first revert at Cost of Living (Star Trek: The Next Generation) ([271]) reverted this edit. Gonnym (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ah yes. Well technically it's still not a 3RR violation, as the fourth revert was not within a 24-hour peirod. But could be very close to gaming the system. I'm probably being over-generous here but let's see how it goes... if Locke Cole continues edit warring or using personal attacks against you or others then please let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Except the last diff (first in the listing) was not a revert. I get it, you guys hate having an accurate encyclopedia. But stop lying about my edits in an attempt to get me blocked just because you like having things wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  It doesn't need to be a revert; it was an edit related to the grammar of the title, and is thus relevant. You've been warned in the face of overwhelming consensus against you; you now know your responsibilities. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Alex 21: It doesn't need to be a revert It kind of does, actually, or maybe you aren't aware it's called the THREE REVERT RULE, not the "edits I don't like rule". —Locke Cole • t • c 00:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  I reported you for edit-warring, not violating 3RR. There's a difference. Please read up on your policies (plural), or read the definitions and differences between the two at the top of this noticeboard. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Good luck trying to convince anyone that making compromise edits is somehow "edit warring". And yes, please read up on the policies of Wikipedia, particularly WP:V and not "making stuff up" just because you don't like something written a certain way. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Repeating yourself isn't going to fix your issues here. You've been warned by an administrator. Happy editing! -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Amakuru The editor has continued ([272][273] with these edits, despite the warning. Further action is required. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  You unilaterally moved a page from where it has been for over six months and I moved it back. WP:RM is the correct venue for your change, not you deciding on your own. I also followed guidance in MoS about noting stylistic differences in article titles. You really should keep abreast of guidelines and policies before you report people here. I do agree that something needs to be done about you though. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  You were very clearly told: Locke Cole is therefore warned to stop this warring, and a block will follow if they edit war on any of these or related articles again, even if they don't break the 3RR. All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when making corrections to Wikipedia for accuracy is something that people are willing to edit war over to maintain incorrect information. But hey, WP:IAR, right? Happy editing! —Locke Cole • t • c 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Locke, the page was moved to that title by you on 27 February 2021‎, which is fine as a bold move (as in, not through RM). However, as any bold moves go, this can be reverted. There is even a process like that at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  It's not a "bold move" to have something at the accurate title for that thing. That's following WP:V, and good editing practice. And, even if we follow that it's a "bold move", 6+ months of stability at that title suggests it is no longer something one can simply come along and decide to undo because... they want to make Wikipedia worse (we used to call that vandalism)? That process you describe would be used for something that was recently moved, not something with months of history behind it. And a group of editors on some far-flung talk page do not get to change site-wide policy just because they don't like capital "Of" in a title... I'm sure your proposal to "Let Wikipedia be inaccurate because I don't like how words are styled by the authors of works" will go over great... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  It is a bold move, as you moved it without consensus (yes, WP:CONSENSUS is a policy), and when it was restored to conform with MOS:CT, our long-standing guide in regards to grammar, you reverted it and made further edits against an administrator's direct warnings. There was no "stability"; it not being noticed does not mean you have a consensus. You keep talking about WP:V covering grammar, and you have had multiple editors disagree with you and zero support for any of your changes. It's that simple: no matter how right you think you are, you are in no place to edit-war. If you, yourself, file an RM for each of the "affected" articles, you'll find your clear consensus through discussion. Otherwise, you're beating a dead horse.

  And now you're accusing long-standing editors of vandalism. You're just piling on the personal attacks, and I remember Amakuru stating: Furthermore, please engage in the discussion with civility. Labelling other editors as "truly crazed grammar nazi's" is a personal attack, and you will also be blocked if you engage in such attacks again. You have zero support here. Learn to work collaboratively. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Wilmington, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 107.10.140.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC) "The New Yorker has a -12 point left wing bias (https://adfontesmedia.com/new-yorker-bias-and-reliability/). It is known for cartoons."
2. 11:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC) "Not a "whitewashing of history", the content was blatantly incendiary and dubious at best, also iirc The New Yorker is *not* considered a credible news source here on wiki"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC) to 11:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 11:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC) "Removed over-wordage"
   2. 11:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC) "Removed parapraph with purpose ostensibly only meant to create racial hostility. The sourcing was also dubious at best."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor engaged with edit warring across several articles. Equine-man (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

lol

107.10.140.224 (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours for generally disruptive editing, rather than edit warring as such. Bishonen | tålk 12:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Milo dinosaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Source does indicate its origins Milo Dinosaur was born in Malaysia by the mid-1990s, around the same time. Stop the gastronationalism"
2. 10:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Read your sources again, Milo Dinosaur was born in Malaysia by the mid-1990s, around the same time. But it was served under a different name and this name was the Milo Shake. It is a shared heritage, stop gastronationalism."
3. 11:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053009510 by PeterRang (talk) Rv unexplained changes"
4. 11:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053008355 by 96.60.113.141 (talk) Rv WP:BLOCKEVASION"
5. 10:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC) "Revise appropriately and phrasing per consolidated citations." (Edit summary was copied by someone else)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Already warned by a different user.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has never attempted in making any resolutions to engage in talk pages.

Comments:

User is incessantly trying to push a specific nationalist POV despite citations indicating otherwise. Already on their 5th revert, it seems to be similar behavior based on their entire edit history.

They also seem to be copying the edit summaries of others so that it seems more "justified", as well as writing "Rv unexplained changes" whenever other users gets involved by reverting their disruptive behavior. Canzeelia (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This page is frequently vandalised by Ineedtostopforgetting sock-puppets. It is not a coincidence that these Ineedtostopforgetting sock-puppets suddenly become active in November, the moment I reverted the edit made by an unregistered user. This is definitely to create an illusion of supports. This happened before when I was editing another page.

Hi @Chipmunkdavis, let me know your thought Robepang (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely this is a sock-filled wasteland, including the 218.152.133.108 that started this who is absolutely quackers. I suggest this page is semied for continuous disruption. However, please do report such things to WP:RfPP or WP:SPI, and I would suggest getting more editing experience outside of this topic. CMD (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months due to apparent IP socking. This appears to be a nationalist edit war about food. User:Robepang is advised to be careful. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Jang Won-young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 70.105.239.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
2. 22:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have warned this IP user but they have kept reverting my warnings and they continue to edit as they please. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you! Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Professional wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: WWE Lover21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 13:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 19:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 19:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Sports */ new section"
2. 13:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Professional wrestling."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 82.25.126.28 (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 19:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC) to 19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 22:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 22:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 22:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sydney."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The proposed image is copyrighted anyway. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. Warring to restore an image copyright violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston the IP does not appear to have beenblocked. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Now done. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Back in Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Josemontoya558 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 16:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 16:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 16:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I made this attempt [274] to inform the guy that his edits were wrong. Since he has never used his talk page I did not expect him to engage, but I thought it was worth a shot. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments: He visited several articles changing the recording dates of various albums and songs to one year prior to the actual date. Pure and simple vandalism. I attempted to engage but he continued at this article and one other [275]. I've reached 3RR at Back in Black and cannot revert again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef for vandalism. This user has never posted on a talk page. He must not sincerely believe all these date changes are correct. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Amiram Goldblum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ar2332 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [276]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1053188640 by RolandR (talk) WP:UGC only calls FB "generally" unacceptable and WP:BLPSELFPUB specifies an exception to that rule, which applies here. In any case FB is not the only source, and text from the FB post is quoted in the other sources, so the paragraph is sources even if FB specifically is deleted."
2. 12:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048040222 by RolandR (talk) FB is an acceptable source in this case per WP:BLPSELFPUB, and in any case FB is not the only source give. If you think the translation is inaccurate, please propose a better one on the talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: A-I discretionary sanctions notification: [277]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violation of discretionary sanctions, 1RR restriction; user notified previously -- I'll add diff in a moment. Note now added. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That alert is more than one year old (coming on two years, actually).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity. Of course I read further. The "third parties" in question are presumably Judaism, the settlers, etc. From context of my edit, it is clear that the quote is not being brought to prove a point about the third parties, but rather about Goldblum's opinion of the third parties (this opinion could be right or wrong). Which is why I thought it was justified to use this particular Facebook post as a source. The other sources I brought (from mainstream Israeli news sources) give the text of the Facebook post verbatim, so the Facebook post does not actually prove anything not already proven by the other sources. Ar2332 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Not only is Facebook an unacceptable source, this is a false translation. Ar2332's edit quotes Goldblum as writing "The Jewish religion is destroying all of us, just like it helped Hitler destroy the Jews in Europe" - but these words do not appear in the Hebrew original to which he links. Nor is the name Hitler mentioned anywhere in the Facebook post ascribed to Goldblum. So this edit is both a breach of 1RR, a severe BLP violation and falsification of source material. RolandR (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've brought back this complaint from the archive, since User:Ar2332 still wants to reply. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Hi. Check the edit history of the Facebook post. The Hitler part appears in the first version - exact text חברים לפייסבוק - הדת היהודית מחסלת את כולנו - כפי שגם עזרה להיטלר לחסל את היהודים באירופה. My English was a literal translation of this line (minus the greeting), as can be verified with Google Translate (which however makes some grammar mistakes). This version of the post was discussed by Israelis at the time (see for example here). It is also quoted (without giving its source) in the Maariv newspaper reference that was also part of my edit. Ar2332 (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Labrador Retriever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 118.102.68.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [278]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [279]
2. [280]
3. [281]
4. [282]
5. [283]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: have linked to the still open discussion [285][286][287][288]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [289]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bishonen | tålk 20:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Conor McGregor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jaconsurto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_McGregor&diff=1052482029&oldid=1052481893

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [290]
2. [291]
3. [292]
4. [293]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [294]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1053985700&oldid=1052266269&title=User_talk:Jaconsurto https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1053989623&oldid=1053989558&title=User_talk:Jaconsurto

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jaconsurto#Report

Comments:

I have also attempted a compromise (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_McGregor&diff=prev&oldid=1053989445), but that was also reverted.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't really mind if i get banned because i do deserve it but i do hope NEDOCHAN​ gets banned as well as he has also broken the three revert rule. Regardless just wanted wanted to say the reason i reverted the "compromise" edit of NEDOCHAN​ was because "(The) Notorious" was unsourced in the entire article. Not a single source cited called him that for the nickname. Thank you. Jaconsurto (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I did wonder. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kolma8 (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. [295]
2. [296]
3. [297]
4. [298]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [299]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [300]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [301]

Comments:

NOt a lot to add, they are edit warring. And seem to be refusing to accept the fact they are (and have even left me a titi for tat warning for edit waring).Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven deleted the whole section because he did understand the relevance of it. Most content in the section was there for weeks and was verified by other editors. So, I really think Slatersteven is exercising disruptive editing techniques by deleting verifiable content from reliable sources. And this is not the first time he does this. Kolma8 (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No I deleted it (as I said [[302]]) because it is down to you to make a case at talk. If I do not "understand the relevance of it" it is because you have not stated what it is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, prior to escalating it to this board you shunned from controverting my contribution on the talk page, but I think you are more about making your point than collaborating with others. I challenge you to have enough self-reflection in the future to understand that being an obstinate editor goes contrary to the WP project. Cheers. Kolma8 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think "controverting" means. But it is down to you to make a case at talk, not me (did you even bother to read WP:ONUS?). I have also explained this to you on your talk page and the articles talk page, you need to explain what the relevance is, you are still to do so.[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You can look up meaning of the words that you don't know in a dictionary, such as m-w.com. Here is I did it for you: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controvert.

What I was saying is that you apply WP:ONUS selectively, so you are WP:CHERRYPICKING based on your biases or political/personal views. And I don't think you actually aware of it. At the end, it is what it is on WP and this back-and-forth is really not adding to anything at this time, so we can just leave it there and move on creating something productive. Feel free to have the last word here. Kolma8 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Thomas H. Brylawski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:5c4:c400:4a0:65a0:bb2c:df36:d603 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1053934246

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1054059289
2. Special:Diff/1054073326
3. Special:Diff/1054075911
4. Special:Diff/1054076322

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1054077661 (It would likely have been better to use the template; this is my first time reporting 3RR.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1053985925 and ensuing discussion.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1054081397

Comments:
IP user persists in adding information about assault charges to Thomas H. Brylawski, with sourcing to a campus newspaper and no sign of a conviction or similar. If this were a BLP, this would be a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME; for a non-living person, it still seems WP:UNDUE. I pinged other editors with experience in similar articles. David Eppstein responded, and agreed on due-ness (and has now reverted the IPs last edit). Rather than trying to build consensus or find sources, the IP user preferred to revert.

I'm a bit concerned about whether the user is WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, as there is certainly some pretty strong WP:SOAPBOX behavior. But in any case, this looks like a WP:3RR violation.

Other experienced editors might also want to look at the recent history of Karl H. Pribram, and the IP editor's part in it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Special:contributions/2601:5C4:C400:4A0:0:0:0:0/64 blocked 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: House of Hohenzollern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 84.65.241.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC) "The Romanian house is now extinct as it was abolished in 2011, the house the Romanian royal family belong to is the house of Romania which is not associated with the house of Hohenzollern! If you disagree, provide an official source"
2. 09:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC) "Romanian royals exist, King Michael I however severed all dynastic ties to the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and established a new house which is why the Romanian branch is now extinct since 2011"
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC) to 09:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 08:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1054140586 by MrHerii (talk)"
   2. 09:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 08:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1054115913 by MrHerii (talk)"
5. 20:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "The Romanian branch was abolished in 2011 and there is no such Russian branch"
6. 01:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Other editors have been warning since the beginning of November. Equine-man (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

You need to provide an official source which explicitly states that ‘a new house between the house of Romanov and the house of Hohenzollern’ will be created and that Grand Duke George Mikhailovich is a Hohenzollern, which he is not; An official source would be a statement published by the House of Romanov, not an article by Russian media. ‘When Grand Duke George succeeds his mother as dynastic head, the Russian dynasty will continue to be called the House of Romanoff (Romanov)’ - http://www.russianlegitimist.org/is-grand-duke-george-a-romanoff-or-a-hohenzollern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.241.74 (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: User:MrHerii is also edit warring on this page - 6 reverts today. The IP and MrHerrii have also been having a massive edit war on George Mikhailovich Romanov today: MrHerii at 16 reverts and the IP at 16 reverts (I think - I may have lost count!). DeCausa (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yep, was just about to drop a template on his talk about this. Completely unacceptable behavior from both of them. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• IP and MrHerii blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Kelli Stavast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Banana Republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [303]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [304]
2. [305]
3. [306]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was first made aware of edit warring policy in 2007 via a talk page message that still remains on their talk page [307]. An additional warning was made October 27, 2021 in regards to this article specifically, which was reverted. [308]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This entire report is in regards to an open RfC on the talk page of the article, which the user and myself have !voted in. [309]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [310]

Comments: I am submitting this report on the advice of MER-C [311]. There is an open RfC on Talk:Kelli Stavast. Banana Republic, who has !voted, is now trying to claim that consensus has been reached and is trying to implement their version of the article. The editor is trying to cite WP:NOTBURO as their reason for doing this, despite having started this less than 9 days into the 30 day RfC. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• The consensus on the talk page is clear and there are tons of WP:RS citations for the material that GhostOfDanGurney is removing (Mikehawk10 has listed no fewer than 13 of them on the talk page). GhostOfDanGurney is clearly gaming the system to push their own agenda, refusing to the consensus that has formed and playing tricks such as this AfD withdrawal following a concession that their behavior can be interpreted as agenda driven. Their gaming of the system has been pointed out to them on their talk page. This should be a WP:BOOMERANG. Banana Republic (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, I almost forgot, there have been recurring aspersions that I only tried to nom the article for deletion because of Let's Go Brandon, despite me nominating 4 other NASCAR articles the same day! Didn't think that'd be relevant here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Jumping in here, I see three reverts; where is the WP:3RR violation? I agree that it's imprudent to make the change to Kelli Stavast right now (the WP:STATUSQUO version did not mention LGB), but I'm not clearly seeing a 3RR violation (4 reverts) actually being alleged here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, there doesn't need to be a bright-line violation to make a report here. The user is clearly being disruptive, being an involved !voter trying to force their perceived consensus into the article (with no regards for any concerns of WP:WEIGHT made by other support !voters) and I was advised to cease reverting them and to come here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) On top of that, the three reverts noted by OP aren't even in a 24-hour period. The first and second listed reverts are on the same day, but the third revert is nearly two days later. I really don't understand the alleged 3RR violation. Perhaps GhostOfDanGurney could better explain their rationale for taking this here; I don't quite understand it. (explained by the edit conflicting edit) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. Any admin can lift this protection sooner if the RfC gets closed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Jasper's Riddle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 105.112.58.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (IP address, the user hops between various addresses in a general vicinity)

Previous version reverted to: [312]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [313]
2. [314]
3. [315]
4. [316]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [317]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [318]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [319]

Comments:
The user's IP is already blocked from editing many other articles on Nigerian celebrities for being a "persistent self-promoter". HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: Even after I filed this, the user is still repeatedly removing maintenance templates under different IP addresses, so I'm not sure a single block will be enough - this page may need semi-protection so only registered users can edit it. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: IP /16 range partial blocked by User:Clpo13 per this link. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Last Night in Soho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [320]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [321]
2. [322]
3. [323]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [324]
• [325]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [326]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [327]

Comments:
The person keeps removing the full names of the United States and United Kingdom and inserting their acronym names instead. Even after having their proposed change was reverted they keep edit-warring, when they should avoid reverting and only discuss on talk page per WP:BRD.

They cite MOS:ACRO1STUSE as the reason, and claim exceptions but the policy clearly says the exceptions are for using the acronyms when a particular name is mentioned the first time in an article: Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article.

Also the same policy cites the reason for using acronyms. To save space in small spaces (see Use sourceable abbreviations), acronyms do not need to be written out in full.

It also says using the full name in some cases, example in case of United States is more formal. Using United States instead of an acronym is often better formal writing style, and is an opportunity for commonality.

And despite being reverted after making his changes the editor refuses to stop reverting, due to which I had to avoid reverting them again. They have also been warned by me multiple times about WP:BRD which they undoubtedly noticed. I think they were already aware of BRD due to their knowledge of Wiki policies, regardless they keep on reverting. Please intervene. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Long discussion. Click to view
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. I have reverted three times (so this doesn't breach 3RR, just goes to the limit - yes, I know that's not great, but I stopped at 3); 2. User:AbsolutelyFiring has also reverted three times: 07:42, 9 November 2021‎; 09:36, 9 November 2021; 09:55, 9 November 2021‎; 3. Warning on edit warring given to him here; 4. I was the one who opened the talk page thread here; 5. I don't intend to rehash the thread about the Exemptions listed in MOS:ACRO1STUSE, but it's clear he hasn't quite understood that "exemptions" means they are exempt from some of the other rules; 6. The thread on the talk page is continuing and no further reversions have been undertaken. As there has been no breach of 3RR yet, there is no need for any action: a consensus on the talk page will settle the matter, as it should do. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 1. You didn't stop at 3. I stopped after you reverted me the third time. [328] So there's no way you could revert me more than thrice as I reverted you first. [329] 2. You made the changes first due to which I reverted you. [330] And then you kept edit-warring. 3. I warned you after you reverted me the first time to take your issue to the talk page and not edit-war. But you instead decided to edit-war. [331] I warned you another time [332] So I decided to stop reverting you after three reverts, as me telling you anything and reverting wasn't going to work. 4. Again MS:ACRO1STUSE is not an exemption for using acronyms in all cases, just in specific cases like mentioning something the "first time" in an article. This is from the same page and same line about exceptions you keep citing, so I'm not misunderstanding anything. 5. When you keep reverting and doing what you want, while repeatedly denying when others try to point out that you are misunderstanding the guideline, I won't call that a real discussion. More like stone-walling. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 1. Of course I stopped: I know the limits and I would not have reverted a fourth time; 2. I made a Bold edit. That is not a revert: you were the first one to revert; 3. I opened the talk page thread at 09:44; you reverted at 09:55 (after which, yes I reverted again). I don't think there is any disagreement that you are equally culpable in edit warring - we have both reverted three times. I left an edit warring message on your talk page (which is where it is supposed to be left) and I opened the talk page thread. I don't think anyone disagrees with this, do they? 4. Continuing the thread here is pointless, there is a discussion on the talk page where you show you don't understand it; 5. I'll turn that point round back at you. You do not seem to understand what the word "exemptions" means. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC) You can't stop (at least not on your own) when you can't do something anymore. You made a bold edit and you were reverted after which you should have discussed and not reverted. I reverted hoping you would listen and I warned you about discussion and to stop reverting after your change was reverted in two of my reverts: [333] [334]. But when it became clear you won't listen I stopped. In fact I didn't even know I had reverted thrice as I didn't count. Also you reverted twice first at 9:20, second at 9:41 before you opened a discussion at 9:44. This shows how you only intend to revert and not discuss anything in reality, also of course you reverted again at 9:56. Others reverting you is not an excuse. Not talking about the exceptions part because you obviously won't listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsolutelyFiring (talk • contribs) 11:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Please don't change comments I've already replied to, as you did here; it makes it look like I've replied to a different comment than the one that is there. I don't think there is anything I can constructively add to this thread that will bring any clarity to an admin having to read through it. The various steps taken by both of us are rather clear (three reverts each, and a conversation on the talk page that isn't going anywhere). I am obviously not convincing you on the talk page, and you're obviously not convincing me, so I think I'll wait for third parties to chip in the discuss what the Exemptions section of MOS:ACRO1STUSE means to them and hopefully a consensus can be reached. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Me changing my comments is to add something I missed the first time. Which is why I added them later so others know the full context [335] Since the section is for the admins and not really you. You already know about our discussions and my warnings to you so you can describe the picture accurately and won't be misled if I missed something. Sorry if adding something is problematic, I'll be more careful in future. I'm not adding something that didn't happen like you claiming you stopped reverting, when it was me who stopped reverting and you couldn't revert me again [336]. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC) "Since the section is for the admins and not really you": incorrect. It's for both parties, any interested third parties and the admins. You may want to add some clarification, but you need to make it clear you are adding different information. Please see WP:TALK#REVISE for the accepted formats for the future. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC) This is an edit-warring noticeboard, nothing else. You are free to defend yourself here and others are free to make observations, but that isn't going to decide the outcome. Btw I'm not adding anything new which I didn't already mention. I already mentioned about me warning you about your reverts in my first comment itself [337]. Also WP:TALK#REVISE does not mandate explanations every time. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. Best practice of course, but it's not necessary. Especially when I simply missed out on what I already said earlier and it's not changing the meaning of your reply. That said I'll try to follow it anyway. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Also can you answer why you wrongly claimed you stopped reverting when you never did [338]? That's against WP:TPNO as it was me who stopped, due to which you couldn't revert anymore. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

No violation – Each party only reverted three times. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A question. Did you mean to close my whole complain which involved both edit-warring and BRD violation, or just that of the IP who complained as well about edit-warring? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, both of you are as bad as the other, even though discussion is going on. BRD is not a policy, so violating it isn't technically a problem. Basically both of you stop it. Canterbury Tail talk 16:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't try to impose what I wanted by all means. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Page: Cortés Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Lirafranklin5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1054369929 by Kashmiri (talk)"
2. 17:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1054369453 by Kashmiri (talk)"
3. 17:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1054369043 by Kashmiri (talk)please not the stub"
4. 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1052927980 by Kashmiri (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Cortés Department."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New editor. Edit warring in Cortés Department – removing the stub tag (unwarranted – the article is very short, well below 250 words). Much like they have been doing in several other articles lately. Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Can be closed now – BD2412 has now sanctioned the editor. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked the editor for 31 hours for their later exercise in blanking the page. BD2412 T 17:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)