Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Cornerstonepicker reported by User:RogueShanghai (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

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

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

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

Comments:

Hi, I'm an editor at the Nicki Minaj article, and I'm here to address a concering level of what seems to be complete disregarding of WP:HANDLE, disregardment of consensus and constant WP:BIAS.[User:Cornerstonepicker] seems to have a history of unconstructive edits to articles about female rappers he seems to not like in music. [9] [10] [11] [12], especially Nicki Minaj. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

He seems to have a WP:AGENDA for the female rappers he likes, and doesn't like. [18] This seems to have been ongoing for quite some time now, with his agneda seemingly to discredit Nicki Minaj and her legacy in the female rap game. [19] [20] For the Minaj article specifically, he completely disregards talk page consensus (especially for the honorific nickname of "Queen of Rap.") that was already decided by multiple editors [21] and seems to edit onto how HE thinks it should be, breaking WP:Handle. He seems to always revert everything and never discuss it on the talk page, so I've given up hope of ever trying. [22] [23] [24] [25]

A really good example of this is the Barbie Dreams article. There was sourced information about it being critically acclaimed by music critics, and Cornerstonepicker removed that. [26] However, he didn't remove the *unsourced* critical acclaim claim from Bodak Yellow, which by his logic also breaks policy. This shows how he seems to only enforce Wikipedia "policy" (we'll get to this later) when it comes to other female rappers, but not the female rappers he seems to have bias for. This is another really good example of straight up false information. He changed "one of two" to "one of five" despite the source stating outright that Minaj is one of two. In the Megan Thee Stallion article, he directly removed a statement BY MEGAN saying she was inspired by Nicki Minaj. [27] I added information about Minaj's unofficial online remix to Single Ladies since there seems to be no information about it at all online. And yet, instead of helping me add a source or get better information on this remix from her mixtape days, he removes it. [28]

He seems to be pro Cardi B and Lil Kim, given by the fact that he always consistently tries to make them look better. [29] [30] [31] [32] Notice how when it comes to Kim and Cardi, he always adds positive stuff about them, but when it comes to Minaj and Doja Cat, it's always removal or adding stuff about their controversies? [33] [34] There is a clear pattern here.

It isn't just me either. He's been accused of making unconstructive biased edits by other editors to Megan Thee Stallion [35], Normani Kordei, [36], and Nicki Minaj [37].

He's also seemed to personally attack me for my open transparency about being a fan of Minaj [38] and consistently accuses me of "revenge edits" [39] when there's no place for personal attacks here, going as far as to misgender me, whether intentionally or unintentionally. [40] (I had they/them pronouns on my old talk page and was open about being non-binary. It's only blank right now because I'm waiting on a friend to help me out with my talk page, visually.) This seems to be much more than just edit warring, this seems to be geniune bias that hasn't been called to attention at all yet.

Paging @AshMusique, Maxwell King123321, Cybertrip, Yikes2004, and Bgkc4444: since they've all had an interaction with Cornerstonepicker at some point. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 04:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The user RogueShanghai that wrote this essay has a long problematic history, as anybody can see on the user's talk page. The user is undoing ChicagoWikiEditor's edits and somehow battling with a reviewer as we speak. My explanation for this is that there's an ongoing consensus happening (proposed by me to solve this stuff) that has bothered the user's behavior. By the way, I want to invite more experienced users from ANEW to leave a comment there. I don't think I have anything else to add. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This dispute is also being discussed at WP:ANI#User:RogueShanghai. There was also a prior ANI discussion on 8 July at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1071#Ignoring WP:ONUS and potential COI. At first glance, it appears that RogueShanghai is reverting to keep promotional language in the Nicki Minaj article. RogueShanghai has made 53 edits at Nicki Minaj since July 1st. In the current ANI thread, User:Black Kite has stated "RogueShanghai is clearly a big fan of Minaj and is very clearly trying to peacock the article whilst displaying severe WP:OWN issues.." EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Lewnwdc77 reported by User:Saucy (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Lewnwdc77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036561050 by Saucy (talk) difficult to tell what "1 edit" was deleted; appears hours worth of editing was removed. Please specifically identify the 1 edit you wish to make."
2. 08:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036530941 by Saucy (talk) not appropriate to delete all edits over a concern that some content wasn't properly sourced. In fact, all references point to reliable sources. All info presented was properly referenced."
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC) to 03:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
   1. 03:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036525137 by Prcc27 (talk) do not remove new section about Federal Transportation Mask Mandate and legal challenges thereto. All sources are cited. Edits do not violate Wikipedia policy."
   2. 03:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036525291 by Prcc27 (talk) do not remove balanced statements regarding scientific evidence showing masks are not effective and harm human health. Original article was biased in favor of pro-mask opinions."
4. 03:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036524543 by Prcc27 (talk): edits are permitted under the Wikipedia policies cited. Original task was biased in favor of masks and did not include anti-mask views."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC) "/* POV pushing edits */"
2. 09:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC) "/* POV pushing edits */"

Comments:

Broke 3RR. Insists he is fixing the neutrality of the article, in my opinion he's making it worse. I've tried talking about it on the talk page, but he hasn't made a direct response to my specific concerns. As it is a COVID-related article, sanctions may apply; I checked if 1RR applied but couldn't find anything about that. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 10:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I just added the diff of edit warring warning to Saucy's comment. Lewnwdc77 was warned by me about edit warring, on their talk page, before breaking WP:3RR. Prcc27 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. The block is for violating 3RR but also for having a clear political agenda with respect to COVID and mask mandates. If after his block expires, he continues to edit any COVID-related articles, I recommend a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions, which, Saucy, do not include 1RR restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Have you considered the more easily enforceable indef-partial block from Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and its talk page? They have a clear conflict of interest (they've been pushing pdfs from what is clearly their own site, complimented with pre-prints and the like)? That would at least prevent the COI POV pushing, and might be more effective than a broad topic ban by preventing the disruption, which so far seems only to be limited to that page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:SlySneakyFox reported by User:Ryk72 (Result: Blocked one week)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036692221 by Ryk72 (talk) As reliable as a French vice article"
2. 04:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036691953 by Ryk72 (talk) refer to my comment and WP:RSN"
3. 04:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC) "Even if you disagree let this stay up for WP:RSN to look at." and later..
4. 23:56, 2 August 2021 "Undid revision 1036711984 by Czello (talk) can't have a consensus with 2 people with different views."
5. 00:09, 4 August 2021 "" Similar content; differently sourced; but no consensus for inclusion on Talk page.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:19, 3 May 2021‎ "Warning: Three-revert rule on Otokonoko."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC) "/* Trap section */ - re"
2. 07:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC) "/* Trap section */ - re"
3. 11:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard "/* Otokonoko (again) */ new section"

See also: Talk:Otokonoko#Trap section, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2021/07#Otokonoko

Comments:

Long term edit warring to include poorly sourced content, despite objections by multiple editors - close to 20 reverts adding essentially the same content. Editor is an SPA editing solely on this topic. Participates on Talk pages, but only to repeat the same argument while also reverting the article; does not actively engage with other editors arguments. Ryk72 ^talk 08:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Frankly, I think this should have been taken to ANI to evaluate the conduct of SlySneakyFox. An edit-warring report in and of itself doesn't look very good. On July 29, El C fully protected the article for a few days because of the dispute. As soon as the protection expired, you and SSF started edit-warring again. From that perspective, you look just as guilty as SSF. I'm not taking any action against either of you, but you have made it more difficult to take action against SSF (I might be inclined to indefinitely block them as WP:NOTHERE based on their history) because of your own conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Consider me suitably chastened. I'll come and knock on your door if there's a repeated reversion without a consensus having been established for inclusion; and continue to work towards establishing a consensus one way or the other. - Ryk72 ^talk 14:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Additional revert added, above. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Please note that the additional revert, #4, above, was made after the comment by Bbb23. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: and @EdJohnston: Please note revert has been undone as I have learned of it. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ryk72: If you wish so much to report first on your own edit war then I'll wait and see WP:RSN comments (if any do appear) before re adding. But I will stand that it would be easier for them to judge said sources with the added information up. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional diff added, above. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• An extraordinary amount of chutzpah. Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Samsonite Man reported by User:Piotr Jr. (Result: Warned user)

Page: Alicia (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Samsonite Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48], [49], [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51], [52]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [53]

Comments: This editor has repeatedly refused to discuss the content dispute, ignoring my pings to the talk page or messages to their talk page, instead reverting back to their changes. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor is just continuing to remove content that had been established through the article's FA review. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor appears unwilling to discuss this openly and civilly. ([54], [55]). Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsense! My edits are self-explanatory. I've only done constructive edits to the article and moved info to other related articles. This editor stated an "edit war", but he's the one persistently removing sourced and relevant content. After threatening blocking me, he's now complaining that I can't have a civil discussion. Preposterous!Samsonite Man (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Warned. Samsonite Man, please use the article talk page to discuss your changes. You reverted three times before your first talk page comment and you have yet to seriously engage with Piotr Jr.'s objections. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Scott Burley Did you read my edits? Define "seriously engage". I've left a message on the article's talk page.

@Samsonite Man: You left a message complaining about being warned for edit warring. Address the other user's points and explain why your changes improve the article. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Danny B MT reported by User:Ravenswing (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Bobby Orr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danny B MT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Orr&oldid=1036696533

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60] [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [63]

Comments: Edit warring and 3RR violation by SPA. Ravenswing 22:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Ravenswing. The SPA seems to be pushing some kinda anti-Bobby Orr agenda. Also, note that the editor had went 12-years without a single edit & suddenly re-appears. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Danny B MT did not violate 3RR (only 3 reverts). Nor was he properly warned. However, his edits were fairly serious BLP violations, which is the basis of my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:103.155.118.24 reported by User:IdreamofJeanie (Result: Blocked)

Page: Pink Floyd – The Wall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 103.155.118.24 (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:

aggressive, foul language insults, and threats. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

had to revert some threats on the talk page and warn for personal attacks Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:LTA/NS we're talking about here too. IanDBeacon (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked as a p2p proxy. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 23:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@SQL: can this IP's TPA be yanked or at least semi-protected? IanDBeacon (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Shejsisijdwjdj

This user with a keyboard-smash name repeatedly removes Kurdish information from Iraq-related articles in a very short time and accuses others of vandalism. See [64], [65], and [66]. Cubhic124 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 23:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:DonaldObamaBiden reported by User:新世界へ (Result: Warned)

Page: Slavery in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DonaldObamaBiden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [73]

Comments:

User refuses to provide reason for removing content from the page. Seems to be only interested in being confrontational, in the edit summary of his last revert he copied mine "Last warning, remove this again without reason and you'll be reported" im not attempting to remove anything from the page, he is. He also removed a warning I left on his talk page and copied and pasted it onto mine. 新世界へ (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:DonaldObamaBiden is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Slavery in Japan without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Since 5 July they have removed the see also links to Slavery in Korea and Slavery in China from the article five times, while never using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikinotmyname reported by User:Filetime (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Los Altos Hills, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikinotmyname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78][79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [81]

Comments:
See also: Atherton, California Filetime (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for edit-warring across multiple articles and being WP:POINTy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Logare reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC) ""no valid reason"? the points provided are left hanged. I did not start the edit war and I'm reverting the other editor who primarily refused to discuss: if you don't have a complete understanding of the situation, don't engage, you are taking side and also taking part in warring edit"
2. 15:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036931697 by M.Bitton (talk) irresponsible reversion, the change is explained and supported by obvious and already-stated Wikipedia's guildlines, remember, the onus is not on me, you're the one that is seeking to initiate an edit war"
3. 14:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "you still re-add irrelevant and poor sources (from a 3rd party) not supported by any official statement, please stop and discuss if you wish to continue"
4. 14:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "what you are doing is addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content, tagging isn't required if this is the case, you even just admitted that there is no source for what you're trying to keep"
5. 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "the newly established provisional government hasn't stated anything regarding the official religion or the LGBT law, the source you kept is based on a verdict implemented by an obsolete political entity (by the HoR in 2014 when the country's political structure was unsettled and divided between multiple political forces), please provide an actually relevant source officially stated by the current unity government."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "/* Blind revert */ new section"
2. 14:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "/* Blind revert */"
3. 15:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Libya."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "/* Persistent content removal Logare */ new section"
2. 15:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "/* Persistent content removal Logare */"
3. 15:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "/* Persistent wholesale content removal by Logare */"
4. 15:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "/* Persistent wholesale content removal by Logare */"

Comments:

They keep removing properly sourced content while refusing to engage in a discussion. When the easily attributed content (such as Libya's state religion and the fact that homosexuality is illegal there is illegal) was sourced, they removed the sources again without a valid reason. In fact, if you look closely, they literally gutted the article and are edit warring over all attempts to restore any of the content that they removed. M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: They decided to use talk page only after I reported them, and still they refuse to answer the questions, insisting that they won't repeat what they Explained via edit summaries. M.Bitton (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"...refusing to engage in discussion"? Various points are made here and here, not to mention the summary boxes. None have been addressed by M.Bitton (up to when this comment is made), and while not replying anything, they kept their fists on the edit tool. "...properly sourced content"? Confirmation bias? It's the other way around. The content was added not through discussion and if this is the case, it will be anyone's right to remove the content if it's deemed poorly sourced or irrelevant.

"...decided to talk page only after I reported them", wrong, talked and stated points here, before the second revert, and M.Bittion did not answer those given points. And it's not "only explained via edit summaries", as said, it has been spoken of in the talk page, prior to your report. Logare (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"refusing to engage in discussion"? The unanswered questions on the talk page (that you used after being reported) speak for themselves.

this edit that you reverted is properly sourced, and the fact that you keep banging on about "third party" (as if the article is meant to be written according to what the Libyan government says) makes me believe that you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedi'a policies. Finally, the idea that Libya's state religion is not Islam or that homosexuality is not illegal there is frankly risible. M.Bitton (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Define "properly sourced"? What the government says (aka 1st party source) is not always needed, true, but it is required in this specific case: we're talking about legal proceedings. And about the source "illegal there" you provided, as said, is from an obsolete unofficial entity, during the time of division and civil war, and it's a personal statement out of thrust, not a legal document. For more details, let's leave this for the relevant article's discussion page. Logare (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't split my comments by adding yours in the middle of mine.

it has been spoken of in the talk page, prior to your report There is no trace of you using the talk page prior to being reported.

Like I said, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and what constitute a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, don't remove the comment that I replied to and quoted (like you did here). M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"...There is no trace of you using the talk page prior to being reported". Actually yes, there is a trace in here, you asked, I answered. The problem is? You did not continue replying after that and instead switched on to the editing area and press the reverting button. So who's warring edit? Logare (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt at removing the comment above is the ultimate proof that you know perfectly well well that I'm referring to the article's talk page and the questions that are still left unanswered. M.Bitton (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Take a breathe. That's not your comment, it's my comment and is copy-pasted out of error so I removed it. Logare (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: :Sadly, Logare has once again removed their comment, even though I asked them not to given the fact that I replied to it and even quyoted some of it. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? I'm not trying to hype up the tone but can you stop making me chuckle? There are constant edit conflicts here due to your interruptive replies, some of my comments are often misplaced or falsely repeated, so I just have to remove and replace them, what's so strange about that? Logare (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: They have now reverted ValarianB's edit. At this stage, there is no doubt in my mind that they are on mission to blank any content they disagree with. M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging ValarianB, the other involved editor. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours to User:Logare. A brand new user seems quite familiar with Wikipedia and gets into an edit war on their first day of activity. Then they continue to revert while the AN3 report is still open. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Would it be possible for you to restore the stable version, please? M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not propose your change on the article talk page and see if others want to comment? EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It's not a change and we are already two editors (I and ValarianB) who want it back to the stable version. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Br Ibrahim john reported by User:Mugsalot (Result: Both blocked one week)

Page: List of maphrians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Br Ibrahim john (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1036603401

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2 August
2. 2 August
3. 3 August
4. 3 August

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1036981657

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1036710557

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1036984964

Comments:
Please also see user's previous ban for edit warring on the same article. Mugsalot (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Avilich reported by User:BaylanSP (Result:)

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

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments: