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:Theonewithreason reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Zachlumia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theonewithreason (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]

Additional diff's of the user's reverts on the same sentence of earlier date:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [8]
2. [9]

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:
Diffs of Santasa reverts [15] [16] [17] [18] Additional diff's of Santasa reverts on earlier dates: [19] [20] Comment If I am to be blocked for 3 reverts (even though it is 4RR rule) then this sanction should be involved to the editor that reported me since they made 3 RR in the same way, not just that, on tp one more editor confirmed that the source clearly states what it is written in source, as you can see it also since the source is open access, page 20 [[21]] so you can see what I posted and you can see what this editors posts on 3 reverts, [22], [23], [24], [25], with additional editing warring on previous dates [26], [27] which caused page protection by an admin [28] please read source before decision making. Diff from another editor involved on tp [29], diff that add more citation from Fine [30] and diffs that explains guidelines [31], [32] and diffs that clearly explain sources and and their usage [33],[34],[35],[36].Theonewithreason (talk) 02 January 2021 (UTC)

Article is under WP:ARBEE. Contested issue is within the scope of WP:AGEMATTERS guideline, with editor's persistent insistence on using older book of the same author, whose last book on the very subject matter in question is 20+ years younger and in which author completely refutes the editor's argument and everything they read in to author's earlier works.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Age matters does not implies in this case especially if there are other books newer or older that only confirm Fine. Which is in this case. Zachumlia was inhabited by Serbs since the arrival of Slavs here is just one of examples [37] from the book from 2018. and all other historians confirm that. This editor uses WP:SYNTH thinking that if Fine writes something in one book that does not have anything to do with Zachumlia, that they can apply that on other articles. The last book of Fine deals with Croatia and not with Zachumlia. The editor draws they own conclusion based on that completely ignoring the fact that our job on wikipedia is to follow the sources, not making our own conclusions.Theonewithreason (talk) 03 January 2021 (UTC)

Guideline WP:AGEMATTERS is preeminent on all scholarship used as a source in English Wikipedia, especially if author is one and the same, and please, follow your own good advice.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am doing that, and I am following sources what they say and in no case does Fine denying himself or his previous work. Theonewithreason (talk) 03 January 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors are warned. Either User:Theonewithreason or User:Santasa99 may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Cblambert reported by User:Moxy (Result: Pageblocked indefinitely)

Page: Louis Riel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063420577 by Moxy (talk)Reverting to enhancements per Talk. I consider this revert by Moxy to be vandalization."
2. 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063419221 by Moxy (talk) There goes Moxy again"
3. 23:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063415657 by Nikkimaria (talk) I don't agree. The issues needs to be escalated to some higher authority."
4. 23:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063268505 by Nikkimaria (talk) Last stable version is not agreed to in Talk. I stand by proposals made in 16 Riel Father and/or Founder of Manitoba about substance of enhancements made. The onus is of course on you to defend why enhancements should not be made."
5. 03:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063079040 by Nikkimaria (talk) We talk then change"
6. 02:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063077318 by Nikkimaria (talk) Cleanup in not appropriate response"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned multiple times by different editors

• [38]
• [39]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: At the point where even being blunt is not heard [40].

• We lock up the page to facilitate discussion to no avail....once unprotected back to edit war.

Comments:

Have been dealing with this for a few weeks now. Editor has not gained consensus to re-add the content or many sources. Editor has been explained multiple time the process for dispute resolution. Moxy- 01:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reversed the editor's changes. He should respect WP:BRD & get a consensus for the changes he wishes to make. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I guess that I am the "higher authority". I have indefinitely pageblocked Cblambert from Louis Riel although they still have access to the article talk page to try to build consensus for any proposed changes. Let me know if this editor engages in disruption elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That works fine.....more administrator should do this.Moxy- 02:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Moxy, here is my thinking: If an editor is being disruptive on one article, then pageblocking that editor from editing that one article indefinitely is a better solution than blocking them temporarily from editing the entire encyclopedia. That gives the editor the opportunity to advocate for their changes on the article talk page, and improve the encyclopedia in less contentious areas. Of course, if their disruptive editing spreads more widely, a general block may be called for. But my observation is that some people have "a bee in their bonnet" about some specific topic, and keeping them away from directly editing that topic and forcing them to discuss with other interested editors is a good thing. We will see how it goes in this case. By the way, I have been observing the Louis Riel situation for weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Going by his reaction to his page-block notification. I don't think he's going to be in any kinda mood for discussing the topic. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Edsandeggs reported by User:CreecregofLife (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Spider-Man: No Way Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edsandeggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41] (trying to find one where all the littler, acceptable edits remain intact)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 2

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:

This is adapted from an incident report from @Facu-el Millo:, who stated "This user keeps changing the plot summary, making it way too long and over the 700-word limit per WP:PLOTBLOAT, also poorly written and editorialized. The editor doesn't use edit summaries and does not respond to warnings at their talk page."

Then I came in with my take: On the ones I reverted, I put the full summary that Eds tried to put in into a word counter. I got 2200+ words. I wanted to check before I reverted just in case somehow the 4800+ character addition didn’t exceed the 700 word maximum. Keep in mind that it’s triple over the limit. So I revert it (including my observations in the edit summary) and soon find that it was readded with 100+ characters more than the previous version. No communication, just readded. And then there’s the fact that these are carried out over 30+ edit stretches. There’s obviously no use of the edit preview button. Granted, I’ve been neglecting it too, but this case is to an incredibly extreme extent. And I doubt it’s to save progress on a slow-responsive computer. The concerning behaviors are not just on NWH, but a few other pages he’s worked on, according to his contributions.

From @Jolly1253::To add on(as someone that is watching the page and have contributed), apparently the full summary that Eds tried to put in is copied from the MCU Wiki fandom page for NWH under 'Plot'. Prior to this, Eds had also tried to insert the same full summary on 31 December 2021, which was reverted

Then we were told that that was the wrong venue, and this was the proper one. We don’t know if he will be back, but this was getting ridiculous--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging remaining editors mentioned in the ANI report:@Adamstom.97 and InfiniteNexus Jolly1253 (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The length of the block is partly based on the disruptive nature of many of the user's other edits and their failure to respond to warnings. Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Zizek Rocks reported by User:Ivar the Boneful (Result: Blocked two weeks)

Page: Zali Steggall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063508434 by Playlet (talk) Edit removed material from three primary sources and endorsed reversions by suspected candidate campaign operative."
2. 12:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063303427 by Playlet (talk)"
3. 04:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063283571 by Jack Upland (talk) Corrects misleading impression fostered by Steggall and Gardner in reference immediately prior."
4. 04:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063254315 by Playlet (talk)"
5. 23:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063133590 by Playlet (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [43] Warned by User:El_C 11:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Zali Steggall "/* Modelling etc */ new section"

Comments: Edit-warring to add in a pretty clear BLP violation which has previously been discussed on the article talk page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks for edit-warring, BLP violations, and personal attacks. Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: )

Page: Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1063537518 by Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk): Shite"
2. 15:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1063535285 by Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk): Shrine built was explicitly cited by shite traditions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Legendary nature of the later story about Abu Lu'lu'a's miraculous transportation to Kashan */ new section"

Comments:

User refuses to engage at talk page after having been explicitly asked to do so. The same has recently happened on another article [44] [45]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no 3RR violations and only a few instances where there's a back-and-forth. I'd call this a content dispute at this point, not edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir! The problem is that I disagree with their latest edits, have rendered that very clear on the talk page before they made them, and don't know what to do now. Should I revert again? Come back here when they have reverted 3 or more times without answering at the talk page? Please advise, thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Bryan296 reported by User:SNUGGUMS (Result: Blocked)

Page: Katy Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bryan296 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063616152 by Mediafanatic17 (talk)"
2. 00:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063615938 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
3. 00:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063615636 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
4. 00:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063615197 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
5. 00:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063614879 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
6. 00:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063614593 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
7. 00:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063613629 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"
8. 00:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063610675 by Hassanjalloh1 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk page notice following thread on image use

Comments:

8 reverts in the past half hour alone, and user ignored talk page warning as well as thread on infobox image. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: More reverts have come up, and Hassanjalloh1 has made a bunch as well to undo this, most recently here along with these other instances, but at least that user tried to engage in talk page discussion first. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 60 hours by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• While I was investigating, Ohnoitsjamie shortened the block to 48 hours. I've now indeffed the user as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Tinkvu reported by User:Sabeelul hidaya (Result: No violation)

Page: Darul Huda Islamic University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063313558 by Sabeelul hidaya (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Tinkvu is one of the Suspected accounts. He is constantly trying to establish his point of view on Wikipedia. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for understanding! Tinkvu (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

2600:6C51:4A7F:E9EE:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Template:Los Angeles Clippers roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:6C51:4A7F:E9EE:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:55, 19 December 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:40, 31 December 2021
2. 03:35, 2 January 2022
3. 17:23, 3 January 2022‎
4. 23:25, 3 January 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:29, 3 January 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:35, 3 January 2022, which directs to discussion ongoing since 27 Dec at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Covid list

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

Comments:
IPv6 range, presumably one user, is continually re-introducing new notation without consensus—an "L" footnote—for basketball personnel unavailable due to COVID-19 safety protocols. There has been a related ongoing discussion at WikiProject NBA since 27 Dec.

The user's address keeps changing due to the nature of IPv6, but an edit warring warning was left at one of the addresses. A discussion was also started at the affected template's talk page, leaving notification regarding the WikiProject discussion. Still, their reverts have continued.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:MrMan9700 reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Blocked one month)

Page: List of ethnic groups of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MrMan9700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063540772 by Rsk6400 (talk)"
2. 15:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063530508 by Rsk6400 (talk)"
3. 15:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063470483 by Austronesier (talk) I am willing to discuss. If that is the case, then Africans need to be added as contemporary groups in Europe and Asia. Let's discuss. The dutch, french and british are not conte"
4. 02:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1063391032 by Rsk6400 (talk) Africans and African languages have been spoken in Europe, Asia, and the Americas for 500 years... yet they are not ethnically those languages. Who do we need to talk to in order to resolve this. Afrikaans is not a language that belongs to an AFrican ethnicity. Especially if it is labeled INDO_EUROPEAN."
5. 19:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC) "Update linguistic groups--Indo European is not an indigenous African language. It is not tied to any African ethnicity. There are Africans living in Europe in considerable numbers, that speak African languages, but they are not identified as European languages."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [47]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC) "/* Indo-European languages */ new section"

Comments:

Their first four reverts violated 3RR, but yesterday I was too lazy to report them. I do so after they reverted a 5th time, not engaging in the discussion I started at the article's talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:BarrelProof reported by User:SFBB (Result: )

Page: Technical University of Berlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BarrelProof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]

Comments:
Moves of the article's title have been requested four times. Every time, the result has been no consensus (neither for the current nor for the proposed name), and the current name has been maintained just because it was the status quo. A constant is that BarrelProof (talk · contribs) has vehemently led the opposition to every move request over the years. The reason for the request is that the current title of the article Technical University of Berlin is a free translation not accepted by the university.

After the last requested move in 2020 (the fourth one), whose result was too close to tell, a new section called name was added to reflect the fact that the university considers the name Technical University of Berlin as inappropriate (which is obviously relevant for the readers, as they deserve to know that using the name Technical University of Berlin in considered impolite).

The section was repeatedly edited by me and BarrelProof (talk · contribs) [51] [52] up until a version arisen we both could live with. Surprisingly, however, BarrelProof (talk · contribs) let a couple of month passed by, just to delete it when no one noticed (as it was). I know I've got to Wikipedia:Assume good faith but the user is making it very hard for me. Now after undoing the deletion, the user insists on deleting it. I know, that 3R within a day have not occurred, but it's a clear case of edit warring by an experienced user, who knows how to go around the rules. It's behavior in this article over the years has shown the every discussion is futile.

I'm open to more opinions, but any discussion cannot start from the version that BarrelProof (talk · contribs) has been trying to impose by force. So I request that the consensus version including the section be kept up until further notice SFBB (talk)

— Above comment submitted at 00:51, 5 January 2022‎ (UTC)

I welcome this discussion and I'm looking forward to hearing how others feel about the content dispute and the article naming issue, which have been repeatedly disputed (although they are really rather minor matters in the grand scheme of things). Just to correct the record, it looks like I did not participate in the first two RMs, and I believe there have been five of them. And the most recent disputed matter had been stable for the last year and three months until a couple of days ago. My view, of course, is that Wikipedia does not need to really worry much about what name for it is "accepted by the university" (to use the complainant's phrase, if indeed the university's view is being properly interpreted by the complainant) – e.g., per WP:OFFICIALNAME. Since things like WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:IRS are part of Wikipedia's well-supported guidelines/policies, I feel pretty confident of my opinion. I also believe that the so-called "consensus version" of the article was not really supported by any evident consensus. Concerning 3RR, there have been only two reverts in two days on my side (and three reverts in two days by the complainant), and this content dispute just arose a couple of days ago after more than a year of stability, but it would be nice to get input from others to help resolve it. Please note that the first of the three reverts by me that were shown in the complaint was from more than a year ago, so this has not an especially heated recent battle. More commentary can be found on the article Talk page, so I will try to avoid repeating everything I have said here. I also somewhat have the impression that there's been a bit of attempting to prevail by insistence, and recently a threat to report the incident here; that's really not much of a threat, of course, as I welcome opening such a discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Hajoon0102 reported by User:GadgetsGuy (Result: )

Page: Samsung Galaxy S21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hajoon0102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [56]
2. [57]

Attempt to resolve dispute on an article talk page:

1. [58]

Attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

1. [59]

Comments:
Reverts any addition to the Galaxy S21 FE on the main S21 article despite continuing talks on Talk:Samsung Galaxy S20 FE regarding merge. Already warned the user to keep status quo on both articles to which the S21 FE contents on the Samsung Galaxy S21 article remains together with the Samsung Galaxy S21 FE article created by Hajoon0102 (talk · contribs). The user has vehemently opposed the merger of the S21 FE without being too constructive on the reasoning as to why they do oppose and instead would resort to edit warring as seen above and would spam my talk page of warnings that reverses the story constituting a WP:HUSH.

To add further insult, the aforementioned user would reply in an unintelligible statement (possibly due to google translate as user is originally from Korean Wikipedia) and would retaliate by doing a counter-reporting, that while it is within their right, is done in bad faith given how the user goes as far as as to claim that "I damaged Samsung Galaxy S21 FE and reverting his edits without discussion" [60] when clearly I have been politely and constructively discussing the matter in Talk: Samsung Galaxy S20 FE as per WP:ETIQUETTE wherein I instead included S21 FE instead for a merge proposal template retaining the status quo in both the S21 FE article and my earlier edits in the main S21 article until a consensus has been made.

Clearly, the discussion is ongoing and as such I am being open to arguments from both sides but the other user would only sporadically chime in without much discussion on their opinion. I'm open to more opinions, but any discussion cannot start from a user who barely expounds on their point and rarely engages in a constructive dialogue. So I request that the Samsung Galaxy S21 FE and my edits including the S21 FE in the main Samsung Galaxy S21 be kept up until a consensus has been made in the Talk:Samsung Galaxy S20 FE as an act of WP:DGF. GadgetsGuy (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@GadgetsGuy: Talk:Samsung Galaxy S20 FE is not complete. Do you understand? --Hajoon0102 💬 06:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I prevented a WP:EDITWAR by doing a report instead since you have breached 3RR and I wouldn't want to do the same. Plus when something is not done, the best recourse is to keep both at status quo ergo my edits in the main S21 article and the S21 FE article you created. Also user keeps on insisting I am reverting his edits [61] when he was the one that keeps on reverting to the point of violating the 3RR .GadgetsGuy (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@GadgetsGuy: I reverted my edits in Samsung Galaxy S21. --Hajoon0102 💬 07:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Yousif gang11111 reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Cyrus Cylinder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Yousif gang11111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 04:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
2. 05:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "/* January 2022 */ WP:BRD"
3. 05:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuation of edit warring prior to 31 hour block. HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) and I have requested that the user try to resolve the issue on the article talk page, but this editor has failed to respond & just keeps edit warring. Peaceray (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Yuvraj rathore2424 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: )

Page: Atrangi Re (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Yuvraj rathore2424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Gerald Waldo Luis "/* Atrangi re cast */ new section"

Comments:

User was blocked on 12/30 for edit-warring on this article. After returning from the block, they continued to push their version. They started a user talk page discussion but it was more of a demand. They haven't responded further in that discussion. Also worrying signs of similar behavior on Mujhse Shaadi Karogi. Ravensfire (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)