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:107.115.243.38 reported by User:CreecregofLife (Result: Semi)

Page: 2022 Major League Baseball season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.115.243.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This was the last one before he showed up

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. "There's going to be a regular season this year"
2. "Games are not canceled"
3. "Opening Day saved" and there's this too, which starts a broader attack
4. No edit summary
5. Also no edit summary
6. Another one
7. Gone completely silent in the insistence

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring warning preceded by Disruptive1, Disruptive2 and Disruptive3

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: I don't know if I'm supposed to submit with this blank, then notify, then edit it in after, so forgive me

Comments:

The user has attempted to maintain a false narrative that the ongoing MLB lockout was resolved, pretending that the cancellations did not occur, a denial of reality.--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats fair, they did seem to finally leave it alone.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Morgoonki reported by User:LongLivePortugal, second complaint (Result: ECP added )

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

Previous version reverted to: First (bold) edit

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First reversion
2. Second reversion
3. Third reversion
4. Fourth reversion (this last one inserted the material in a different way and place, so it was not rigorously a reversion, but it was the same controversial material)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Between first and second reversions — Between second and third reversions — Between third and fourth reversions

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:NATO#The promise by James Baker (US Secretary of State) to Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9 1990: “NATO will not move one inch further east”

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

Comments: I reported this user yesterday, following the second reversion, after which the administrator assessing the case considered that there was no violation. If a breach of the 3RR is necessary for intervention, it has now clearly occurred. The problem remains the same as yesterday: the user keeps inserting the controversial material in spite of a discussion being taking place in the talk page. It seems that the user wants the discussion to take place with the controversial material showing. This should not be the case. Please take action this time; this is clear edit warring behaviour. Please restore the original stable version of the page (which I am afraid of doing myself for fear of breaking the 3RR). Thank you. LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to raise the issue that this user was created one month ago, has 30 or so edits, mostly on talk pages, and is already nominating the article they're edit-warring over for Good Article Review. That's not something brand new users typically do, so, besides the edit-warring, admins might consider a sockpuppetry investigation. It might also be worthwhile to look at temporarily increasing the page protection for the article in question, NATO, which is receiving a certain amount of new attention in the past week due to the news.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 15:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment to the Administrators. The situation seems paradoxical to me since I could just as well have accused the three long-time editors of the NATO page LongLivePortugal, Patrickneil and Anastrophe and the less known editors BilCat, Chip3004 and FAHIMJOBAYER786 of edit warring. In fact, they have iteratively reverted my edits, for example here, here, here, here, and here, without providing any reasonable motivation in the talk page. If you read carefully through the talk page, in fact, you will notice evident problems in their way of discussing. If you further check on the archive of the talk page, you will notice how they have discouraged a number of other editors (see just one example here) who finally simply gave up (see for example the case of 2014, 2015, and 2018). If you think I am not behaving as WP requires, please lock me. I am afraid however that we are assisting to a systematic manipulation of history and censorship of facts probably motivated by a political belief (or worse). Morgoonki (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Morgoonki: It doesn't matter you were editing warring and you are on the verg Violating WP:3RR as of March 2nd. Chip3004 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected I've increased the protection level because of this disruption and due to current events. Morgoonki, you are the one edit-warring here - don't blame others. You're getting a break with the protection, you could be blocked for the slow edit war you've been promoting. Acroterion (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Brightstarrrr reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Warned)

Page: 41 Cumberland Road (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 13:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 12:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 12:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Manual of style (RW 16.1)"
2. 12:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Manual of style (RW 16.1)"
3. 13:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "Final Warning: Manual of style (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC) on 41 Cumberland Road "Reverting edit(s) by Brightstarrrr (talk) to rev. 1018923895 by GreenC bot: NOV Issue, MOS:EUPHEMISM (RW 16.1)"

Comments:

Have directed editor to WP:MOS twice, editor apologized on talk page, but went straight back to making the same edits. Level 4 warning issued and ignored Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks like you reverted a MOS:EUPHEMISM ("passed away" instead of "died") but you also reverted multiple times a sourced piece of information added by User:Brightstarrrr, without explaining why you removed it. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  That bit, I missed, my mistake there. I have re-added the sourced edits. I will also add an apology on user talk page for the reverting of sourced content. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 14:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Brightstarrrr is warned. A consistent pattern of ignoring Wikipedia's style rules, if you are reverting to enforce your own preference, may lead to sanctions. The issue that was reported here is WP:EUPHEMISM, 'passed away' versus 'died'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:JMwins19 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Warned)

Page: Sour (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JMwins19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075421466 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
2. 16:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "The work that this article covers has nothing to do with that world event, it is not mentioned lyrically to any capacity. So no, it is not."
3. 15:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "Completely unnecessary information to include i. the opening paragraph. Shall we also include how it was recorded during the 2020 US Presidential election and the Beirut explosion? The intro paragraph is for information key to understanding the topic. Talking about whatever world events were taking place at the time is not necessary for a pop album with no lyrical mentions of them."
4. 23:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC) "This information in this clause is better suited for the background section than the introductory paragraph."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sour (album)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disputing content in the lede of the article, and decides to restore instead of taking to the talk page for further discussion about the content they are removing/changing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment After seeing this edit summary, as well as the contents of the user's user page, are there any female-identifying experienced editors who would be willing to mentor the reported editor? I maintain that gender doesn't make a bit of difference in editing capability, but this is a rare case where a female voice could go a long way in building a constructive editor. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to point out that this editor is trolling/threatening editors (See 1 and 2) who try to correct them, and uses uncivil words (3). The second link, especially, has made me very uncomfortable after I translated it to English. ℛonherry☘ 03:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I get the feeling the user is not exactly to collaborate constructively. Threatens users and often argues the point she is being oppressed by male editors. Based on Ronherry's links, this goes back to at least 2021. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:JMwins19 is warned for edit warring at Sour (album). (Their 3RR violation is now stale). They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Their own warning to another editor should get an award for chutzpah. That tasteful remark was in response to someone who correctly removed a personal attack. If, as her user page declares, JMwins19 considers that any reversal of her edits is silencing the voice of a woman she may be headed for more conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Danosauruscreck reported by User:General Ization (Result: Warned)

Page: South Lebanon Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075481187 by General Ization (talk) see talk page"
2. 01:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "It says "Opponents". Read before reverting."
3. 01:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "Unsourced and incorrect. UN, Ireland and Netherlands not enemies of SLA."
4. 01:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "Absurd. Ireland an enemy? Yeah, sure. The UN was a neutral party."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on South Lebanon Army."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Opponents */ re"

Comments:

3RR violation after LV4 warning. Also note that the article South Lebanon Army is subject to active arbitration remedies, including 1RR (which I acknowledge even I did not notice until after the edit war stopped). General Ization ^Talk 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is also subject to a 30/500 edit restriction, criteria that Danosauruscreck does not meet. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Danosauruscreck is warned they may be blocked if they make any further edits at South Lebanon Army, which is restricted to extended confirmed users under WP:ARBPIA. I don't intend to block for the edits listed in this report because Danosauruscreck was removing nonsense (A prior edit by User:Eagleye1001 had classified the Irish peacekeeping force, officially neutral, into an enemy of the South Lebanon Army). This claim is what Danosauruscreck was removing). I will notify User:Eagleye1001 that they were mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Brightstarrrr reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: Partial block, 31 hours)

Page: List of awards and honors received by Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 15:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 03:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 03:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion */ reply to Brightstarrrr (CD)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "list needs some type of order applied"
2. 16:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Messy article */ commercial entries"
3. 16:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Messy article */ reply to Bbb23 (CD)"

Comments:

• I just noticed that this editor was recently reported for behavior on a related article; see section WP:AN3#User:Brightstarrrr reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Warned). Schazjmd (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours from article space. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User:C.Fred reported by User:Brightstarrrr (Result: Declined)

Page: List of awards and honors received by Bruce Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Bruce_Lee

My version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Bruce_Lee&oldid=1075626636

The current version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Bruce_Lee&oldid=1075627173

My complaints: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:C.Fred#Awards_and_honors_received_by_Bruce_Lee

Dear editors,

Please, don't delete any piece of information from my last version! I've worked very hard to compile all those awards/honors. It took me long to finish it.

It wasn't a good behavior to delete information related to top brands such as Nike, Nokia, Xiaomi, Casio and Hublot. I've been wise and careful enough to write an article that meets all generations' needs/expectations. For instance, teens find Bruce Lee Xiaomi smartphone a more interesting honor than a statue. Moreover, that kind of honors are recent. It's important to have an up-to-date article. Please, pay attention to sources dates/years. I had into account past (e.g. statues), present (e. g. Xiaomi smartphone) and future (a suggestion: Bruce Lee should be awarded with an Honorary Doctorate Degree).

Thank you for your understanding.

Cordially, Brightstarrrr

C.Fred, did you see the difference between my version and the current one? Did you see how many pieces of information have been deleted without permission? The editors who should be blocked are the ones who delete information, not the ones who add information like me. Brightstarrrr

Block page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brightstarrrr?markasread=241740171&markasreadwiki=enwiki#March_2022_2

I've worked really hard to improve this article, and some users simply delete my sourced and up-to-date version and block me for 31h. This is unacceptable...

Thank you for your attention.

Cordially, Brightstarrrr

What kinda of messed up report is this? GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

One that won't go anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Declined Your behavior, based on your edit history, is problematic, and C.Fred was generous in only blocking you for 31 hours and for only issuing a partial block. You would do best to seek WP:CONSENSUS for the edits you want to make rather than edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User:LVTW2‎ reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Blocked)

Page: Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LVTW2‎ (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: Talk:Taiwan#location description

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

Comments:

Not their first time edit warring on Taiwan, however the disingenuous use of a preferred "status quo" vs the actual status quo that is their justification for this edit warring means that this can't be ignored. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:Horse Eye's Back has refused to compromise with other editors in several occassions over the talk page and arbitrarily impose his version that many editors has disagreed about. What I am trying to do is to sidestep the issue and refrain from lingering into senseless edit conflicts, and making more constructive move for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LVTW2 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That first revert is of User:ImChessFan21 not myself and I don't believe that I am the author of the status quo version although I've been editing that page for a long time so I could be wrong about that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Besides, I made the descriptive change to the lede on 21rd February [8], which has since remained stable for the past two weeks, until a rapid altercation raised by @User:ImChessFan21 and then @User:Horse Eye's Back in the last 24 hours for their attempts to revert back to the disputed version. I did not intend to cause any edit war, and in every single one of my edits, I have described in details about my purpose in edit summary . LVTW2 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:CanadaLibertarianAccountablility reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: blocked indefinitely)

Page: Politics of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Partisan Censorship fixed with viable source added"
2. 07:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 07:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Fixed partisan vandalism by Walter, PPC is a growing party that was in participation in the recent federal election, making it viable to be listed under these conditions."
4. 07:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Even though the PPC had not elected a member in parliament , The PPC is a fast growing party in Canada, regardless of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's partisan opinion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Politics of Canada."
2. 07:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Politics of Canada."
3. 07:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Unnecessary political bias */ new section"
4. 07:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Unnecessary political bias */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have also informed WP:AIV that the editor is not here to create an encyclopedia but to win political points. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately, Materialscientist (talk · contribs) stepped in to revert one of the four edits so I am at three reverts, granted it is appears that CanadaLibertarianAccountablility's edits could constitute vandalism as I explained on the editor's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I initially blocked for 48 hours, but following a personal attack directed at Walter, I extended the block to indefinite. PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Hsynylmztr (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20][21]

Comments:
I added the word 'Turkoman' before the name of the Afsharid dynasty. It is also mentioned on the Afsharids[22]. But this user was angry at that and reverted my edit even though ı had sources. So I opened a talk page and another user agrees with me on 'nothing is wrong with this brief mention', but he keeps deleting it and reverted it 3 times without any consensus. He asked me to reach a consensus but in fact, I opened the section, and he made the constant reverts.Hsynylmztr (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not a violation of the 3RR rule. WP:OUCH, I will be reporting this user to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:EDIT WARRING. Not a violation of the 3RR rule only because of it was not done within a 24-hour period. Yet, that's still an edit warring.Hsynylmztr (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll let the admins explain it to you. Also, enjoy [23]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• No violation EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Atlantico 000 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

Page: Lukas Podolski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Atlantico 000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075776850 by Walter Görlitz (talk)VANDALISM! Lack of content + the user himself got a warning for withdrawing content in the discussion. See discussion."
2. 16:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1075771857 by Walter Görlitz (talk) per: MOS:ETHNICITY, more: I saw your application and addressed it in the form of an objection. I do not understand your problem, since compliance with Wikipedia policy (MOS:ETHNICITY) has been established, and you yourself wrote that you have no problem with it (hence my surprise)."
3. 07:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "Two times renewed readiness to implement changes + compliance with the MOS: ETHNICITY policy. (see discussion)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC) to 21:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
   1. 21:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "remove nationality per MOS:ETHNICITY + per consensus reached in here Talk:Lukas_Podolski#Revived_in_2022"
   2. 21:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC) "ref for Podolski's birth name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Lukas Podolski."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Revived in 2022 */ r"
2. 16:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC) "/* Revived in 2022 */ +"

Comments:

Editor is attempting to be WP:POINTY and refusing to back-down. The editor is also reverting WP:GF edits along with the point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Objection, please read the discussion about Lukas Podolski. There, for many days, there has been a discussion about whether to remove the footballer's nationality from the lead. It has been shown that nationality should be removed in line with Wikipedia policy. There had been no consensus before; and I was deliberately waiting until the end of last week to make changes, and there was no vote against. It is more the user of Walter Görlitz who should be banned from further editing (per not referring to the arguments, forcing his point of view). Atlantico 000 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The editor warned me that I was edit warring and then went on to make the fourth revert. The editor seems to know the policy, yet elected to walk over the line. I am not sure how an objection can be offered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And if you don't break the rules, what is currently on Podolski's website will be in line with Wikipedia's policy, the content of the discussion and the practice (per Matty Cash). Why write "the removal of nationality suits me well" (my paraphrase of your statement), and then be offended in a matter that is cosmetic and obvious. Atlantico 000 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I broke no rules. You were bold and made a claim to apply what you thought was the consensus. I reverted you and asked you to wait for an uninvolved editor to determine (which is what just happened).

I would like to remove nationality from all biographies. I think it breeds division and hatred (as you have demonstrated quite well) but I believe that consensus is more important than my own opinion. The project has determined that nationality is important (in some cases) and so I fall back to what the group want, not I want.

Now that the editor has commented, would you like to self-revert and avoid a block? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, abstaining from editing the article, I will opt for the changes while debating the discussion of the article. Atlantico 000 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The request was not to abstain from editing the article, it was reverting to the earlier revision, which is an option discussed at 3RR. By the time I posted here, that would have been difficult due to a single, intervening edit, and within a few minutes, impossible without a lot of effort due to two others. You then edit warred to remove the uninvolved editor's closing of the thread, three times, and found yourself blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Saiful Trismegistus reported by User:MarshallKe (Result: )

Page: Cat meat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saiful Trismegistus (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]
4. [28]
5. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

Comments:
User has also been making repeated reverts on Dog meat. MarshallKe (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Added latest revert MarshallKe (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)