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:DominicReymysterio619 reported by User:Czello (Result: Warned)

Page: Big E (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DominicReymysterio619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "/* The New Day (2014–2020) */"
2. 21:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "/* The New Day (2014–present) */"
3. 12:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "/* The New Day (2014–2020) */"
4. 01:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "/* The New Day (2014–present) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Big E (wrestler)."

Comments: User has been notified his edits are incorrect in edit summaries and as part of the talk page message. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 18:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:DominicReymysterio619 has been warned for edit warring by User:C.Fred. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Akhetan76 reported by User:Tenryuu (Result: Warned)

Page: Ashish Khetan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Akhetan76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048372580 by Tenryuu (talk)"
2. 16:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048367180 by Tenryuu (talk)"
3. 16:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048359007 by Tenryuu (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning"
2. 17:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "Final Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Stop adding promotional content */ new topic (CD)"

Comments:

Reported user is the subject of the article (as declared in this revision's edit summary) who has been adding promotional and unsourced content. There's also an IP whose sole contribution is a reversion; while I can't say for certain the IP is Akhetan76, the timing makes me think it is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've left a COI notice on the user's Talk page and warned them that if they make any more edits to the article directly, they will be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like he's reverted the article after Bbb23's warning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:107.88.177.34 reported by User:x4n6 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Dan Helmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.88.177.34 (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10], [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12], [13], [14], [15]

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

Comments:
IP persists in removing reliably sourced content and refuses to stop despite repeated warnings. X4n6 (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This user has also recently revealed another IP that it uses. 107.88.177.19 That IP also had to be recently reverted by an admin on a different article. See here. X4n6 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Rangeblocked the /24 for two weeks for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Omniscopic reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Block)

Page: Sanjeev Sanyal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC) "Removed politically biased edits based on a single magazine article"
2. 17:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 04:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 03:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sanjeev Sanyal."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "/* DUEness */ Replying to TrangaBellam (using reply-link)"
2. 17:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Disputed Content */ ed"

Comments:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dineshwilson. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring to add promotional language. "Best-selling writer and polymath" is not a phrase often found in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Nazran225 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked)

Page: Malaysian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nazran225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Malaysian language:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. 14:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC) ""

Malaysia:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]
7. [26]
8. [27]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [28] 25 September
2. 15:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [29]

Comments:

Slow moving but persistent and mostly unexplained edit warring across Malaysian language and Malaysia. Also now pushing the same view on Malay language[30]. CMD (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:LucrativeOffer reported by User:Aman.kumar.goel (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Bakarkhani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LucrativeOffer (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. 04:47, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎ 13,142 bytes +1,650‎ restoring sources and image position, revert again and you'll be reported
2. 05:03, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎ 13,142 bytes +1,650‎ do you have consensus for your edit?
3. 05:09, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎ 13,142 bytes +1,650‎ There is no consensus, get a consensus first
4. 06:55, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎ 11,586 bytes +94‎ removing misrepresentation of source as discussed at the talk
5. 07:16, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎ 11,642 bytes +75‎ adding a citation
6. 08:27, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎ 11,640 bytes +346‎ there is no source for other associated cuisines

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:

6 reverts involving the insertion of same POV on lead in less than 4 hours. This is a clear breach of 3RR. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• It's only three reverts, the first three diffs, the rest were regular edits. I was careful not to breach 3RR. On the other hand, User:Aman.kumar.goel has been edit warring and misrepresenting sources in the article. He is already on 3RR, [34], [35], [36]. LucrativeOffer (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• You were careful with gaming WP:3RR as you note that "I was careful not to breach 3RR", but you have ultimately made 6 reverts involving the addition of the same POV i.e. "Old Dhaka in modern-day Bangladesh" on all 6 reverts you have made. To say that I violated 3RR but you haven't violated 3RR just shows your poor understanding of the entire dispute in question. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• These are not reverts. Why are you making a false claim? You are literally claiming every edit is a revert which is not. Reverts have tags like "Undo" or "Manual revert", there is no such tags on three of the diffs you showed. LucrativeOffer (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• You consider only those edits to be revert that "have tags like "Undo" or "Manual revert"". Thanks for proving my point regarding your attempts to game WP:3RR but ultimately failing to do so. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The diff for edit warring warning doesn't show any link to WP:EW or WP:3RR, how is that even a valid warning? Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel reported by User:Za-ari-masen (Result: No violation)

Page: Bakarkhani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aman.kumar.goel (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. Today at 4:21 AM‎ "RM misrepresentation, not restricted to Dhaka"
2. Today at 1:08 AM‎ "Undid revision 1048640976 by LucrativeOffer (talk) Apparently yes if you ignore false smears"
3. Yesterday at 11:40 PM‎ "Restored per WP:STATUSQUO, any further edit warring will be reported"
4. Restored revision 1045386582 by Gotitbro (talk)
5. Undid revision 1046122398 by 107.117.204.58 (talk) unexplained revert
6. Undid revision 1046923452 by 107.117.204.52 (talk) misleading edit summary; TOI is more reliable which you removed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Pinged on this page.

Comments:

@Aman.kumar.goel: has been continuously edit warring on the article, tag-teaming with others and gaming WP:3RR to push POV on the article. The diffs are just the recent reverts, there is a long history of unabated edit-warring by this user as shown by their previous blocks. The user seems to have no intention of listening to other parties and exhibiting clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page which essentially makes it nearly impossible to reach a consensus with them. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:178.143.107.60 (Igec133) reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Igec133 is warned)

Page: Next Slovak parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.143.107.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is Igec133 (talk · contribs) editing while logged out. They have also recently edited from 178.143.123.82 (talk · contribs) (during which they were reported at AIV for disruption but avoided being blocked as the report fell off the page before it was acted on) and 178.143.113.12 (talk · contribs) (on both IP accounts they received warnings for disruption or non-constructive editing). They have been disruptive across a range of articles, including National Council (Slovakia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (where their edits have been reverted eight times by different editors in the last fortnight) and Robert Fico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (where they most recently blindly reverted back in a photo that didn't match the caption). They've now breached 3RR on the election article (diffs below).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:36, 7 October 2021 (a revert of this edit)
2. 21:35, 7 October 2021
3. 21:39, 7 October 2021
4. 05:21, 8 October 2021

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

Comments:
Frankly I'm getting sick of them appearing on my watchlist, as it's rarely a positive contribution and the disruption has been ongoing for some time now. Action would be appreciated (blocking the main account and protecting the articles that have received the most disruption for a while may be the optimal solution as they seem to switch IP every few days). Cheers, Number 57 08:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

– Igec's reaction:

I would like to comment on this.

Regarding the section on IP address and login. I admit, this is happening to me and it is entirely my fault. I don't have automatic login set up, so sometimes I edit not logged in. However, this is not an intention, but an ordinary human error.

As for non-constructive edits. At the National Council, I adjusted its composition and simplified it. I used the official website of the National Council as a source and marked only official parliamentary clubs on the article. In my opinion, this cannot be perceived as an unconstructive edit. The version, which, by the way, had no overall source, I replaced with a version whose source was the official website of the Parliament where its composition was listed.

As for the Next Slovak Elections, I simply pointed out here that only official parliamentary clubs should be in the main template. In Slovakia, the parliamentary club must be approved and it must meet some conditions. If not, party deputies are non-attached. And so they are officially mentioned in the media. At the same time, I would like to point out as an example that even in the template for the German elections, there was no Die Partei, even though it held one seat and was de facto a parliamentary party. And Number57 added non-attached parties there and invented his own abbreviations.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I consider this a normal and ordinary editorial conflict. I would not like to solve it with some blocks and I prefer the debate. I don't find this report fair and I would never do it. But I am willing to defend myself in a cultured way.

--Igec133 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not that you were editing while logged out, but that you have been edit warring and making disruptive edits across numerous articles for the last two weeks, and have now breached 3RR despite being fully aware that you were doing so. And to correct your claim, I did not "add non-attached parties there and invent [my] own abbreviations". I was restoring another version of the article by someone else because your edits were not an improvement. Number 57 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Igec133 is warned they may be blocked if they continue to edit logged out about Slovakian politics. They are also warned not to revert again on Next Slovak parliamentary election or the other articles mentioned here without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

User:English Surname Origin reported by User:Stroness (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Second War of Scottish Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: English Surname Origin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC) "The original wiki result"
2. 11:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC) "To correct the original result that wiki always stated"
3. 00:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC) "The facts!! This I was not a Scottish victory!, BiAS Wikipedia!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Second War of Scottish Independence."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has persistently ignored polite recommendations to go to talk page to discuss in dedicated section. User has also resorted to personal insults towards other editor. Stroness (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Twozerooz reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked two weeks)

Page: Social democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC) "Edit is fully sourced. Use the talk page and do not engage in stonewalling."
2. 01:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 16:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC) "Please use the talk page and reach a consensus before removing sourced content"
4. 16:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC) "Edited preamble"

Other recent reverts

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Let's settle this */ new section"

Comments:

This is the continuation of a long edit war from Twozerooz. They have been reported to this noticeboard before, involving the same page, and it resulted in a block[42]. They have violated 3RR before that though.

After the block they went dark for a few months, but they came back in August, altering the lead by mislabelling it as vandalism[43]. Ever since they've been edit warring over the lead, and meanwhile has been reverted and asked to go to the talk page by no fewer than three different editors: myself, Erzan, and Valjean. Nonetheless, they continue to ignore WP:BRD.

I suggested to them they create an RfC, and they agreed[44] but later backed out. Instead they continue to edit war and make little effort to engage on the talk page. Finally, they've gone over WP:3RR with another lead which contains an unreliable source, and one that they still have no consensus for. Sadly this user cannot accept WP:QUO and insists on meddling with the lead without consensus. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 17:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

User:178.41.240.18 reported by User:Doniago (Result: One week)

Page: The Day After Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.41.240.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comments:

IP repeatedly violating WP:FILMPLOT despite multiple requests not to do so. No communication from them other than edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for disruption on this and other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Adelphopolis reported by User:Interfase (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56][57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User Adelphopolis did not attemt to move to the talk to explain his disputed edits.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours ~TNT (she/her • talk) 08:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Aardwolf68 reported by User:LM2000 (Result: )

Page: Becky Lynch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aardwolf68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

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

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

Comments: It's slow moving, but disputes like these are why professional wrestling articles are under general sanctions.LM2000 (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Dimashlar reported by User:Beshogur (Result: )

Azerbaijani language: Azerbaijani language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dimashlar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [72]

Comments:
This user has been doing long lasting edit warring on the article. I don't argue about the context, however this user's so called sources are not sources. Either linking a website, video or simply a picture. Plain description of WP:OR. Please see sources [70][71][72][73][74]. Beshogur (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Hamkar 99 reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: No violation)

Page: List of Pashtun empires and dynasties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hamkar 99 (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. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [79]

Comments:

User is removing pashtun dynasties off the page, and is disrupting it, pure vandalism.Noorullah21 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Dawnleelynn reported by User:WWGB (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Deaths in August 2021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dawnleelynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]
5. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: numerous attempts in edit summaries to engage with editor

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [87]

Comments:
The reporting user has undone my versions at least a couple of times. His sidekick, Refsworldlee has a 3RR on the same article on my edits this evening. I am confused because I only recall clicking the Revert twice on this article today and not on other articles today. Is there another way I am making edits in the version history that causes reverts and I am not realizing it? I have been here since 2015 and this has never happened to me before. I was sure I only did two reverts today. Anyway, it was definitely not intentional. My history will show I have good behavior and no incidents. And I have been trying to get some edits into the document mentioned above, but the two editors are acting like they own the document. I have been courteous throughout, and patient. I should not have to beg to add at least a comma. Thank you, dawnleelynn^(talk) 05:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

3RR is acceptable, as you well know. Exceeding the three is the violation. (There are no "sidekicks", by the way - in fact, if you examined our editor history you would find plenty of disagreements and arguments between the two of us.) The reversions have been happening in an effort to maintain a consistent style of presenting Hall of Fame credits within entries. The original revert of the edit was designed only to bring the entry back in line with consistency throughout the history of the project. And there are no bragging rights going on here - certainly not on the part of myself. Your use of commas/pauses (which you continuously call "apostrophes") is not in line with good English grammar either - another reason why the reverts have been happening. Nobody owns anything in Wikipedia, but many dedicated editors try to keep articles looking their best, and that's all that is happening in the case of Deaths in August 2021. Thank you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked Dawn for 24 hours for violating 3RR. I don't see any indication of courtesy on her part. Indeed she has been increasingly uncivil in her remarks. As for how many reverts she has made, either she is being disingenuous or she is clueless as to the policy. Assuming the latter, I suspect she believes that she has to make 4 reverts on the same day, as opposed to a 24-hour period.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Sheesh people, this was over two commas. I mean, yes 3RR is a hard line, but I do wish there would’ve been an admin warning that went up first. For one thing, using the revert command versus going in and making hardcopy edits is an area where the 3RR policy is not 100% clear to those who haven’t had to wrestle with it very often. Also, I do see a bit of incivility on both sides, in terms of a bit of a dictatorial walled garden attitude on the part of the maintainers of these lists. Even if somebody is technically right, you can still be civil and polite about it. (As I have been told numerous times when I’ve gotten too sharp with people, by the way.) Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Follow up: if you look at the timestamps, this warning went up very close to midnight last night in the user’s local time zone, and whule she responded, the discussion here occurred around 3am her time, and you have blocked her at about 7 AM the next morning. She put up an explanation for her actions and even apologized at her talkpage, which apparently was unnoticed by the blocking admin. I’d rather wish you could’ve put up a warning, per comments that dawn did not engage in discussion. She did. Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

139.192.151.122 reported by User:ZaniGiovanni (Result: )

Page: Serzh Sargsyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 139.192.151.122 (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

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

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

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

Comments:
IP keeps edit-warring and modifying the lead with grammatical errors incorrect change to the first name. They were notified about edit-warring, but it didn't stop them (see 4th diff). Multiple editors have asked them to discuss and even opened talk discussion, but IP refuses to participate. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: @ZaniGiovanni, Revolution Saga: Wanted to jump in and say that this user has been disrupting the wiki under various IPs since at least June. 139.192.151.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 111.95.5.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 149.108.192.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 149.110.68.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 139.192.226.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 111.95.146.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 114.124.174.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and maybe more. All the IPs originate from Jakarta, Indonesia, and most of their contribution histories seamlessly transition from one to the next (there are likely more that I didn't find). I noticed it when they repeatedly edited Emomali Rahmon's article to Russify his name and/or change his photo and was going to start an AN discussion of my own before I found this one. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  SUM1 That is such a weird edit-pattern and history, literally no improvement to the articles. Yet they're not hesitant to edit-war and disrupt the pages further even after they get reverted/warned/invited to talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:‎192.94.31.2 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: )

Page: Turning Point UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎192.94.31.2 (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. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]
5. [92]
6. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [95]

Comments:

They may not be alone, but they did breach 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Note as I went to post the notice I saw they are any ANI, it was a report made at the same time I was writing this one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Fifth [edit: and sixth] reversion added. Cambial foliage❧ 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Dman170 reported by User:Cossde (Result: )

Page: Radala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dman170 (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. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

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

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

Comments:
The User:Dman170 has been engaged in disruptive edit waring. Cossde (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Rikadon reported by User:Frietjes (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]
5. [105]
6. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107] [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [110]

Comments:

User:CatCafe reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: No violation )

Page: Kathleen Stock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC) "Reverted own edits -"
2. 01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC) "as per talk. No RS stating the LGBT+ society and the Student Union Women's Officer both criticised the Vice Chancellor"
3. 01:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC) "Not noted as nonRS to at WP:RSP Undid revision 1049472755 by Sideswipe9th (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC) "/* 3RR revert on Kathleen Stock */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News */ new section"
2. 02:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News */"
3. 02:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News */"
4. 02:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News */"

Comments:

Earlier I tagged an unreliable source on Kathleen Stock with Template:Better source needed. In response, rather than WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by searching for a better source, as the claim made by the source is verifiable by primary sources, CatCafe has engaged in disruptive editing to repeatedly remove the content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Despite efforts to draw CatCafe's attention to the use of the better source template, and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM in the article's talk page, Cat has now made a fourth revert attempt resulting in an orphaned missing citation, and now a fifth edit sourcing to only a primary source. Given that I've opened this ANI, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to revert them a fourth and fifth time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not appropriate under any circumstances. Stop edit-warring yourself, there have been four or five edits since I closed this. And this isn't ANI. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And I still count only three substantively similar reverts by CatCafe. You may not edit war because you assert that you are correct. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sideswipe9th you are being unreasonable. You criticised my work and you put on CN tags. Then you convinced me that my sources were not RS, so I removed my own additions and cite and I'm in in the process of finding new sources to satisfy you. But then you are reverting my reverts of my own work and putting back nonRS. Why do you want to reintroduce back the nonRS you've criticised - that makes little sense considering you want it gone. Unless you are wanting to editwar? Now you want to make official complaints about me. Please realise that I'm trying to edit to fix the problem you raised, and you're doing the reverting. CatCafe (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)