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:Cherkash reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: )

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)

User:Skroderdienas reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: No action)

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)

User:0"cleopatra"0 reported by User:Onmyway22 (Result: Declined)

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)

User:85.67.136.99 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)

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)

User:49.184.56.196 reported by wolf (Result: Blocked)

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: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] - (edit made after this report was filed and user was notified)
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on ip user's talk page (see note at bottom): [8]

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

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)

User:Sandry Sm reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )

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: [10] – no specific release date, just a year per AllMusic.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11] – reinserted poor quality source.
2. [12] – same, whilst telling me to "Don't be stupid".
3. [13] – reinserting it again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14] – 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: [15]

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 – [16]. 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)

User:S.mckevitt reported by User:Middle river exports (Result: Stale)

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: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

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)

User:Ayaltimo reported by User:Abshir55 (Result: Declined)

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: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]

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)

User:ChilisMontrose reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked sock)

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)

User:XXzoonamiXX reported by User:Skyring (Result: Blocked)

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: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33] Amongst other edits. edits were made to the lede without gaining prior consensus - as per warning here.
2. [34] Restored same wording without discussion.
3. [35] Straight revert. Warned.
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

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.[39] 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. [40]

2. User:Skyring restores the addition[41] with the edit summary of Of course members of the military police refer to members of the public as civilians.

3. User:XXzoonamiXX reverts[42] 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 [43] with the edit summary of Move down in lede to reflect coverage in main.

5. User:XXzoonamiXX reverts[44] 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[45] 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".[46] 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.[47] (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.[48] 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) .[49] 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[50] 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)

User:Stephen reported by User:Sandstein (Result: )

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: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52] 04:56, 23 October 2021‎, revert of Roman Spinner's edit [53]
2. [54] 22:46, 23 October 2021,‎ revert of Elli's edit [55]
3. [56] 02:33, 24 October 2021‎, revert of Elli again
4. [57] 11:24, 24 October 2021‎, revert of Tobby72
5. [58] 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: [59]

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)

User:JaiHind108 reported by User:Venkat TL (Result: )

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)

User:Venkat TL reported by User:JaiHind108 (Result: )

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: [60] [61] [62] [63]

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: [64]

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 [65], [66] 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)