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:Drmargi reported by User: MapReader (Result: Warnings)

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: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

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)

User:Buffs reported by User:Platonk (Result: No violation)

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: [8]

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)

User:202.136.69.223 reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: Blocked)

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)

User:Binksternet reported by User:2601:44:C27F:83A0:49DB:A2D5:7892:F59 (Result: Nominator blocked 60 hours)

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)

User:Estnot reported by User:BeŻet (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]
6. [14]
7. [15]
8. [16]

(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)

User:Ppdallo reported by User:Talisman-white (Result: Blocked for 2 weeks)

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. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [21]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [22]

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 [23] 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 [24] [25] [26] and the latest [27] -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[28]. 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[29]. That map had changed the numbering order that commenters made references to. This was my edit summary for reverting that new map [30]. If you had defaulted to the original map[31] 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[32] 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[33] (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)[34]. 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 [35]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)

User:Ar2332 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

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: [36]

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: [37]

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)

User:84.65.241.74 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

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:

User:Robepang reported by User:Canzeelia (Result: )

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)

User:Locke Cole reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Warned)

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 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)

• 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)