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:173.53.32.131 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Semi)

Page: The Secret Life of Pets 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.53.32.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user was warned twice in their user talk

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User claiming with no source that these are the names of the characters these actors will be voicing. Similar situation to that one months ago that ended up in me having my username changed -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 14:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG? [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] ST47 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. Edit warring to add unsourced information about the voice roles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Solkarn reported by User:Paulmlieberman (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:
This user makes the same changes every day or so starting March 31 (initially changing it on March 21, after which User:Fish_and_karate semi-protected the page). This user also edits a page Wakhan which is much less viewed, and which, perhaps, should be merged with the Wakhan Corridor page. The apparent reason is to assert a claim by Pakistan to this territory. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Solkarn is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the Wakhan Corridor article unless they have obtained prior consensus on the talk page. The reliable sources are in agreement that the Wakhan Corridor is part of Afghanistan. Hence, edits such as this one appear to be inserting wrong information, perhaps through some nationalistic motive. The user may believe that the area should belong to Pakistan. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:93.177.75.254 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: blocked)

Page

Bunny FuFuu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

93.177.75.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891528754 by Praxidicae (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891525988 by Praxidicae (talk) Take the criticism to the talk page, before you undo primary sourced edits"
   2. 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Gaming Romances */"
3. 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891518951 by Praxidicae (talk) This is balanced with firsthand sources"
4. 09:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Romantic Engagements"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bunny FuFuu. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is actually possibly just blatant vandalism, continuing to add blpviolations stating that the subject is in a sexual relationship with someone with no source that supports this (and also, no relevance.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Nick — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Netoholic reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Ben Swann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "rmv WP:SYNTH per WP:BLPREMOVE: "is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources""
2. 22:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "resolve edit conflict, and again WP:BLPREMOVE several examples of WP:SYNTH that do not mention Swann, CBS, etc."
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 20:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "rmv recently added dog-whistle word to lead per WP:BLP"
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to 12:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 12:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "prior edit wasn't complete and accurate per ajc.com source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Ben Swann */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"
2. 21:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"
3. 21:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"
4. 21:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"
5. 22:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Synthesis */"

Comments:

Last diff is a revert of the alt-right language put back in by User:Kuru here after it was removed without discussion by an anon IP. They again reverted it out in one of the consecutive diffs after I restored the well-sourced language, while the first two are clear-cut wholesale reversions after their edits were objected to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The 12:10 edit was just an edit, not a revert. There was also an edit conflict that I mentioned in the 22:06 edit summary - I was working on the 22:02 edit on the pizzagate section and saved, not seeing an intervening mass-revert by NorthBySouthBaranof. Likewise, these are WP:BLPREMOVE-based edits which are pretty obvious to an outside observer as I am removing SYNTH sources which fail to mention the subject of the article itself (Ben Swann). These sources seem to have been included to build up some form of "refutation" of Swann's reports, but don't mention him specifically and in some cases pre-date his. Inclusion of these sources is an exceptionally clear BLP violation, so I would encourage admins to enforce the removal of them per WP:BLPREMOVE. -- Netoholic @ 22:3622:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The 3RR exemption applies to unsourced or poorly-sourced material, and none of the material in question is unsourced or poorly sourced. Your belief of what is "synthesis" is debatable, and you have refused to discuss it on the talk page. Moreover, your removal of the well-sourced words "debunked" or "false" from the description of malicious bullshit like Pizzagate is a BLP violation the other way - multiple named living people were falsely accused of serious crimes and we are required to be clear that Pizzagate is false. Your edits suggest that it could be true, which is literally insane. The "alt-right" description is in multiple reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"poorly-sourced material" includes material which doesn't even mention the subject of the article. I'm not going to debate specific content concerns related to labels here. The problem is the SYNTH created by using irrelevant sources. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not SYNTH to use a source which says something is false to support the statement that something is false. SYNTH involves creating novel conclusions not found in reliable sources. The conclusion that Pizzagate is false is found in a million reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is why we link to the conspiracy theories, not re-litigate them in every other article. -- Netoholic @ 23:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The word "false" or "debunked" is not "relitigating" anything, it is a simple and well-sourced statement of mainstream reality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Before the admin buttons come out here, @Netoholic:, what is your rationale for removing sourced relevant material? It clearly isn't SYNTH for an article to point out that a BLP subject's claims are refuted in multiple reliable sources. Otherwise we run the risk of suggesting that such claims are reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It is SYNTH because those sources do not mention Swann or his "claims" (if such exist) at all. He is fundamentally a reporter that covers controversial topics, not necessarily that he makes "claims" about those topics. If he does, then surely there are sources which mention him, his claims, and offer refutation of them all in one source. To string together unrelated sources to draw any conclusion is the heart of WP:SNYTH. -- Netoholic @ 23:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not a proper reading of SYNTH. There is no requirement in policy that every source in a biographical article has to mention the article subject. We can use sources of general applicability anywhere. What SYNTH prohibits is novel interpretations of sources. It is not a novel interpretation of a source to say that 9/11 was not an inside job and that Pizzagate is manufactured troll bullshit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not how SYNTH works. Obviously, for major figures (i.e. Trump), when they say something false a reliable source will automatically come along to point it out. But for far less important figures that would suggest that for material to be included in Wikipedia, a reliable source would need to specifically debunk his false claims, even when they're obviously false. But there are so many thousands of people in the media, social media and the Internet peddling false information that it would clearly be impossible to find reliable sources for every single one. No, if we have a BLP who is known for doing this, all we need to do is provide reliable sourcing to point out that many of his claims are false. We need nothing else. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"A makes a news report about widgets. B, C, and D say widgets are fake news." (But do not mention A specifically) - This is pretty clearly SYNTH which is designed to disparage A and imply something about A's reporting which no source is independently saying. If there is criticism or doubt about A's news reports, then find sources that give a review of A's work. You'll know them when you see them because they'll actually mention A. (Heck, did you even notice that I added a source like that during the time I was removing this SYNTH?) What the WP:TRUTH is doesn't matter, and it sounds like you are more trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by "getting the word out" about these conspiracy theories. -- Netoholic @ 23:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about Ben Swann (who incidentally I'd never heard of before tonight - I'm not American). I'm pointing out that you are removing sourced information that is relevant to the article and you aren't giving a good reason for doing so. Pointing out that someone has published claims that are false is not a BLP violation if their claims are refuted by reliable sources. Now, I strongly suggest that you seld-revert your fourth revert (as NBSB has done), and then both of you head off to the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: "if their claims are refuted by reliable sources" IS THE ISSUE at hand. I only removed sources which had no mention of Swann. If there is no mention of Swann in a source, there can be no refutation of his "claims" either within it. Since this is a WP:BLP, the burden is on editors to use sources that mention the subject, or that are used in a way which is less WP:SYNTH. Also, as I said, the 12:10 edit was clearly not a revert, it was a re-write of a small section. So no 4th revert is present. -- Netoholic @ 00:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You aren't seeming to understand the concept that we don't need a source to mention Swann in order to cite that a claim is false. Normally I would protect the article but in this case, since you're not going to self-revert, I am not going to do this as it may be seen as rewarding edit-warring. I am going to post at WP:ANI for further admin eyes. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: - But you DO need a source which describes Swann's claims. In most cases, we have only sources that say he reported on some subject. That's all. Here is a really good example of one item. We have a source that only says he hosted a segment on the topic of “5 Problems with CIA Claim That Russia Hacked DNC/Podesta Emails.”. That's it. The source I removed made no mention of Swann or his segment. I'm not even convinced that second unrelated source was even about the same aspect of the news story. -- Netoholic @ 00:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• peanut gallery comment If Jeff Rense says tomorrow that "vaccines cause autism" we don't have to wait until someone specifically refutes Jeff Rense to note that this is incorrect. @Netoholic: you were, at a minimum, edit-war-adjacent at The Great Replacement really recently. Maybe you should just follow WP:BRD in relation to conspiracy theory articles from here on out. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS doesn't mean WP:WRITEWRONGTHINGSNblund ^talk 00:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Question: How is this a (4th) revert? El_C 00:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It specifically and clearly intentionally removed, among other things, the word "alt-right" from the lede, which is a revert of the immediate prior edit by User:Kuru, which had just restored it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. User failed to self-revert, as was suggested. I don't see how the BLP exemption (due to SYNTH) applies in this case — as it all seems to fall within the scope of mainstream sources. Also, reverting the closing admin in the report below (authored by the user) is disconcerting. El_C 00:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This block was heavy-handed. I dispute the idea that this edit was any kind of revert. It was a rewrite of a small section. Apparently the grounds for it being called a "revert" was based on the incidental, unintentional, removal of a single term "alt-right" which, if it had been explained clearly to me and if given the opportunty, I would have self-reverted to put back that term. Despite repeated asking, El_C refused to unblock me for the duration, so I was not given the chance to show good faith to rectify this perceived slight. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Netoholic (Result: Closed)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• Presence of the term "alt-right" in lead as of 11:07, 8 April 2019
• Presence of various sources in the ‎"Controversial views and claims" section as of 14:33, 8 April 2019
• Presence of the term "false" related to Pizzagate added by NorthBySouthBaranof at 22:05, 8 April 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:33, 8 April 2019 - restores "alt-right" term to lead found in 11:07, 8 April 2019 version (moved slightly)
2. 21:47, 8 April 2019 - straight revert to 14:33 version
3. 22:07, 8 April 2019 - straight revert to 22:05 version
4. 22:43, 8 April 2019 - reverts to restore "false" term found in his 22:05, 8 April 2019 edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19] given at 22:17 before 4th revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ben Swann#Synthesis

Comments:

That Pizzagate is false is indisputable. Removing that word, or the prior "debunked" wording, as Netoholic has repeatedly done, suggests that it could be true that named living people are guilty of serious crimes. It is, factually, not true. That Netoholic wants to suggest to our readers that it could be true suggests they may not be able to edit articles on this subject in a policy-compliant manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've self-reverted because apparently Netoholic desperately wants everyone to know how much they believe Pizzagate is true; why else would they defend such utter freaking crazy libelous nonsense? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got a couple of potential policy violations in that comment that you should consider striking when you've calmed down. 199.247.46.74 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Closed. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Black Kite has posted at ANI to request more admin opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I, too, would have gone with No action, as the user has self-reverted. El_C 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Black Kite reported by User:2600:1003:B01A:191F:C453:4015:1BFA:C31D (Result: No violation)

Page: 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]

No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3rr. Also, you failed to add the field Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page—which I suggest you do (discuss your edits on the talk page, that is). El_C 00:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• @El C: Yes, I've reverted three times because the information being added is speculative or simply false (especially after the vote in Parliament tonight). The IP has reverted four times - twice as User:198.200.181.196, once as User:204.153.79.113 and once as the IPv6 reporting here. All three IPs geolocate to Maryland. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Page protected. Page also semiprotected for 10 days. El_C 00:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:144.138.81.21 reported by User:Vivvt (Result: )

Page

Rocketry: The Nambi Effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

144.138.81.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "DO YOUR RESEARCH! ANANT MAHADEVAN IS NOT PART OF THE MOVIE ANYMORE!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Rocketry: The Nambi Effect‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Co-direction credit */ new section"

Comments:

IP is not discussing anything on talk page even when the discussion is started and keep reverting to their version, in spite of sources. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The dispute is on whether to include the name of Anant Mahadevan as director. What about this article from India Today (21 January) which claims that Anant has dropped out as director of the film? The sources currently in the article that mention Anant as director, which include the trailer, are mostly from 2018 or earlier. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:PaganPanzer (Result: No violation)

Page: MS-13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [25] [26]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

There are multiple users raising issues with the neutrality of the article on the talk page [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

A number of users have tried to improve the neutrality of the article by removing biased text or changing the language to be more neutral [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

All of these edits were immediately reverted by the user in question without any attempt to resolve the issues in the talk page. I believe the political text in the article is very clearly not neutral and is bordering on pushing an agenda and should not be allowed to remain in its current state.

• Comment from uninvolved editor - 3 minutes after filing this report, and despite clearly understanding what edit warring is, PaganPanzer made their 3rd removal of the disputed content from the page in less than 9 hours. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did. PaganPanzer (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • PaganPanzer, can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring while your own complaint is already open? EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Reverting contentious and biased material is exempt from edit-warring policy. PaganPanzer (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• No violation by Snooganssnoogans. But PaganPanzer, watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The user in question is very clearly holding the page hostage in a non-neutral state and is refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page. If he is not violating an edit-warring policy then fine, but then where should I report him for this behaviour? His behaviour is seriously damaging to the neutrality of Wikipedia. PaganPanzer (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

    PaganPanzer, your best bet might be to bring your concerns to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:D92AL reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked for 1 week)

Page

Greeks in Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

D92AL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 14:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC) to 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 14:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891630576 by 125.236.128.202 (talk)"
   2. 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891028124 by Dr.K. (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As soon as he got unblocked for edit-warring, he started exactly the same disruption. Please see report 4 days ago when he got blocked for 72 hours for reverting 7 times. Dr. K. 15:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User has already been blocked, for 1 week. ST47 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Soarwakes reported by User:My Lord (Result: No violation)

Page: Cow vigilante violence in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soarwakes (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. 04:41, 25 February 2019 Undid revision 884564684 by My Lord (talk) undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
2. 05:00, 2 April 2019‎ Undid revision 890324188 by Abhi88iisc (talk) Deletion is not done by consensus undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
3. 14:02, 4 April 2019‎ Undid revision 890901349 by My Lord (talk) consensus not required to create page undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect
4. 04:20, 9 April 2019‎ To delete an article consensus is required. Please refrain undo Tags: Undo, Removed redirect

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:

As per discussion at User talk:Soarwakes#Spinning out articles, this user is clearly not understanding that there is a established consensus at Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014/Archive 1#The main problem with this article is not the title, that we should not create a POV fork on Cow vigilante violence in India, because that subject is same as Cow protection movement. This editor continues to edit war against the established consensus claiming that you need no consensus to create an article and that we can't redirect a POV fork without initiating an AfD. Admin should either block this user for engaging in a lame edit war by reverting 4 times by disregarding the established consensus or restore the redirect and fully protect the redirect in order to avoid this WP:POVFORK. ML ^talk 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleting article without consensus is wrong. I have posted it in the talk page. Instead of using WP:AFD, you have redirected the article, feel free to take the article there. No need of consensus to create an article, you can use various allowed methods to delete it. It is you who is doing edit warring. Soarwakes (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

No violation. Please take it to WP:RM if you want to move the title elsewhere. El_C 08:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Joshi punekar reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Goud Saraswat Brahmin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joshi punekar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Diet and culture */All book reference only mentions saraswat,but this is particularly for Goud saraswat Brahmins.If you find that sentence in any book reply me in the talk page ."
2. 13:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Diet and culture */Hope I have given proper citation for justification.Alway variety matters .I have given justification in talk page"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Exclusive page is there for cuisine “Saraswat cuisine “ so this information will be redundant.All content mentioned here is there in that page.Feel free to message me in case of any clash."
   2. 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* History */Formatting the sentence"
4. 19:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Same citations which I found in saraswat brahmin page.

1.Firstly all citations should be neutral to biased. 2.News paper cannot be a neutral source. 3.For this page food section has been created separately so if you want to contribute so please go to that page. Simply don’t vandalise instead drag this to Talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Goud Saraswat Brahmin. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Etho-POV pushing re. Brahmins on multpile pages. ——SerialNumber54129 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note:See my edits and concerns before talking decision.Just for someone they are going away from wiki policy of neutrality. Joshi punekar (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. It appears that Joshi punekar wants to remove all mention of fish being part of the diet of the Goud Saraswat Brahmins. At first glance, the mentions of fish in their diet are sourced. He is implying that the people reinserting fish to the article are vandals. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)