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:90.186.249.22 reported by User:Uli Elch (Result: IP blocked for 72 hours)

Page: Air Hamburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.186.249.22 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Comments: User stubbornly attempts to blow up fleet size in contrast to company's own website, which is stating 44 aircraft as of today. He instead quotes "my visits in Air HH Aircraft" as "source" for "56 aircraft".

Blocked – 72 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Berposen reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: User has agreed to stop editing the article )

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

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:

The user was blocked a while ago for this on the same page. Now they are claiming an RFC consensus based upon an RFC, and their opinion of what option had "won" (which seems to be wrong). Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• User:Berposen may be running out of chances. They are back again at this board after a 3RR block for the same thing issued on April 8 by User:Bbb23. Since Berposen became active on enwiki once again in April of this year their edits are almost entirely about the Azov battalion. Berposen seems to be misunderstanding the result of the RfC that the other editors are trying to follow. As before, the dispute is about whether to have 'neo-Nazi' in Wikipedia's voice in the article lead, a thing that was confirmed by the 2021 RfC. Per his comments in the last 3RR complaint, the one on April 8, it is uncertain whether Berposen actually understands our policy and can express himself well in English. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  @EdJohnston: Arrivals at this point, you are right, I must be misinterpreting something because of the google translator. You already as an administrator find shortcomings about my editorial in the enWiki, and you join a group of editors that already exceed 6 people, something must be wrong, I will refrain from re-editing the article. I apologize for wasting make them time. --Berposen (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked per above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Sgphawker reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Pblocked - 1 month)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "WP:VANDAL, WP:VERIFY"
2. 08:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "WP:VERIFY"
3. 07:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "Indonesian (id) isn't Malay (ms), the standard variety of Malay called Standard Malay, Indonesian has its own standard variety called Standard Indonesian."
4. 15:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Indonesian language."
2. 09:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Indonesian language."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */ new section"
2. 09:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */"
3. 09:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */"

Comments: The reported editor has made numerous changes to this highly visible article. Some of them are debatable per WP:ONUS, but many of them violate WP:V, i.e. change of sourced content while leaving the reference unchanged, addition of unsourced content, including factual errors. –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh so adding content with reliable sources that can be verified is considered as "edit warring" now? isn't Wikipedia should be rely on reliable sources per WP:RELY?. Please see the history article page and see who's the one who vandalize the article. And what do you mean by "factual errors" when all my contribution can be verified through the citations that included in my contribution. The administrators should see the Talk:Indonesian language#Recent changes as well to understand these case better. (Sgphawker (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC))

• Blocked from that article only for 1 month. Edit warring and ignoring WP:BRD is one thing, but edit-warring your changes back in over more than one other editor's objection with an edit summary of "vandalism" is simply not happening. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: May I ask for a courtesy revert to the last stable version? This would override some good edits by Davidelit to parts not affected by the edit warring, but there is greater urgency to remove the partially very poor and erroneous content in the lede and infobox. –Austronesier (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  Already done by another editor. I would have done this myself, but I was unsure which the "good" version was. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Asatru Folk Assembly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "improved terminology and fixed some grammar mistakes"
2. 17:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "Republicans accuse democrats of being communists, while a widespread misconception it is popular in media. There is a similar correlation here, therefore I am fact checking the article."
3. 15:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "i understand this assessment. i have not removed references to allegations and ties to certain white supremacist groups."
4. 15:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "note that the AFA does not preach that their race is superior but that their faith is ancestral."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warning given [14] Doug Weller talk 20:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Editor is now using the talk page, so I don't think this needs to proceed. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Kingcutie reported by User:Tol (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Har Mar Superstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kingcutie (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 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC) to 19:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Sexual assault allegations */ Misconduct, not assault. And Sean did not admit to conduct that was "conduct that was harmful, abusive, and selfish" in relation to the accusations. That's very important. Also, that Harold's post has been deleted, so why are we trying to highlight that bit of rhetoric?"
   2. 18:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Sexual misconduct allegations */ These are all anonymous allegations. Not one of these anonymous sources has stood behind their assertions publicly, filed a police report, or initiated court action. Someone lied and others opportunistically piled on."
   3. 18:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */ Misconduct, not assault. Why feature the picture and the award if it apparently no longer exists?"
   4. 19:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Anonymous sexual misconduct allegations */ "The collective of 7" is an overstatement, and apparently includes all the anonymous people who have already been described in this statement."
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC) to 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Sexual assault allegations */ Misconduct, not assault"
   2. 17:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */ misconduct allegations without any police reports, courtroom activity or convictions"
   3. 17:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */ Removed the assertions of a gossipy alt-weekly source that is not only speculative but bases its information off of Twitter speculation."
   4. 17:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Sexual misconduct allegations */ Why report about a Fargo bar severing ties when they erased their facebook message about Sean? This was already addressed in the previous sources."
   5. 18:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC) (comment hidden)
   6. 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Sexual misconduct allegations */ Make no mistake. The allegations that were reported on were all anonymous. No police reports have been filed. No court, no convictions. No people have publicly stood behind their accusations. A cocaine dealer lied and a variety of people piled-on"
3. 17:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ The Harold's "Facebook message" no longer exists, so to report on that facet as if it was a part of enduring history seems overwrought."
4. 17:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */ The award no longer exists, so why feature a description and a photo of it?"
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC) to 16:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Honors and awards */"
   2. 16:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Sexual assault allegations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Editor is abundantly aware of the edit-warring policy, though I haven't given any warnings for this batch of edit warring specifically:

• Edit warring warning at 22:07, 18 April 2022
• 3RR warning at 22:10, 18 April 2022
• 1-week block for edit warring

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The dispute was already resolved after the last round of edit-warring in April. Consensus was formed at Talk:Har Mar Superstar#Edit warring on what to include.

Comments:

After previous edit-warring around 18 April (see ANEW discussion here), Kingcutie has returned to edit-war to minimise the sexual assault allegations on Har Mar Superstar (against consensus formed on the talk page), and to call the allegations "hysteria" and emphasise the accusers' anonymity. The edit summary to this diff has apparently been oversighted, too. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Kingcutie comments: Why is everyone so afraid of qualifying (and truthful) language? These matters are nuanced, so when there hasn't been a single report or conviction but plenty of anonymous sources and gossip, assassinating someone's character is not helpful or ethical. Kingcutie (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User:78.109.68.79 reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Semi)

Page: 2022 Armenian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.109.68.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]
6. [21]
7. [22]
8. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:

This ip continues to edit war on 2022 Armenian protests. Chip3004 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit war was started by this revert. I've added reliable sources on my edit, and these edits reverted by a obsolete version, containing a one day only, when my edit covers May 2-10 period. Article's talk page makes no sense since Archives908 talked about protesters, not detained people. It's very nonobjective to say that edit war was started by my IP, additionally when it's not first time when Archives908 provoking edit war. --78.109.69.86 (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

PeeJay at Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. (Result:Article full-protected for three days)

Evidently party to this tense derby. This editor is desperate to present his team in front of their major rival.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=1087586853&oldid=1087207120 Ordinary edit made a short time ago, and not by me if any admin wants to check.

PeeJay's actions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087586853 First revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087589147 Second revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087589292 Third revert
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_F.C.%E2%80%93Manchester_United_F.C._rivalry&diff=next&oldid=1087589454 4th revert and violation of 3RR - and a false claim that they are reverting vandalism which they are not. The summaries show that I am engaged in content dispute based on how they interpret the article's purpose against the rest of the community.

Invitation for discussion and opportunity to correct themselves

followed by

refusal to withdraw false claim of vandalism which I maintain the edits were not, and also a refusal to conform to wiki.policy. --Marching on Leeds (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If anyone wants to check the article talk page, it was decided not to include the Sheriff of London Shield in Liverpool's list of honours. User:Marching on Leeds' edits are in direct contravention of that, and they are not assuming good faith on my part, accusing me of bias that does not exist. – PeeJay 11:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

One obvious point of concern is that the statement in dispute (either Manchester United and Liverpool are joint most successful sides in English football with 66 trophies or Manchester United lead in terms of total trophies won, with 66 to Liverpool's 65) has four references, none of which actually either of the figures being claimed:

• The first gives a 64/60 split
• The second gives a 64/60 split
• The third gives a 60/59 split
• The fourth gives a 62/59 split.

My question is why anyone is editing a sourced sentence and inserting numbers that are different to the sources? Number 57 11:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

A clear case of personal interpretation. Obviously one is welcome to take the matter to An/I but I see not one case of "vandalism" as claimed, and this project page is about 3RR violations coupled with a stiff-necked reluctance to self-immoderate, and only one editor on this thread is guilty of that. --Ramos Ovenready (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If one editor acts in direct contravention of a talk page discussion, that is vandalism, and reverting acts of vandalism does not count against 3RR. – PeeJay 12:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not WP:VANDALISM, which has a specific meaning. Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so. However, given User:Marching on Leeds' history of adding controversial content to articles ([27], [28]), one has to question their motives here. – PeeJay 13:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't say so, it's in the policy I linked above. Questioning motives is not exempt from 3rr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Except as you pointed out, WP:VANDALISM says "any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism", but we have reason to question whether User:Marching on Leeds' contributions were indeed in good faith. – PeeJay 13:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

One edit is good faith. Being directed to talk page after revert and continuing with antagonising edit summaries is no longer good faith. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the article for 3 days. If after that time expires, any editor currently involved in the edit war resumes the dispute on the article, they risk being blocked without warning. Also, any discussion on the article Talk page should not contain personal attacks, or editors may find themselves blocked for that reason. I have not posted the result in the header as the report is malformed, and I don't intend to fix it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Trophy count

Regarding the trophy count, the issue is very few articles actually discuss the relevant trophy counts until / as / when they are in parallel or close. Many often split the trophies up, excluding specific competitions based on their own criteria (such as Major vs Minor competitions). The sources are the most recent discussions of the trophy count that are complete (otherwise we get into POV articles specifically supporting one interpretation). The conclusion was to report the total count of trophies as presented in reliable sources (which all universally exclude the Sheriff of London) when discussing the rivalries. The lede has then been updated to match subsequent trophy gains as non-controversial statements of fact. This hasn't been problematic until Liverpool began to become closer to equalling the total. As a result we are running into a broader issue:

1. Our List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won decided to use criteria that includes ALL trophies involving the FA. It's a big piece of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as each individual element can be sourced but nobody ever really counts the trophies in such a way.
2. Sites (less reputable user created ones in particular) are picking up on the wikipedia article and starting to duplicate the SoL inclusion. This clashes with then the reliable sources that exclude it (even exhaustive paper resources, or those such as the Clubs websites) as a historic irrelevance from a not fully professional era.
3. Unreliability of trophy counts from reliable sources. For example Talksport state Major honours counted as season-long competitions (Charity/Community Shield and UEFA Super Cup not included), and no one-off competitions tallied towards total. European trophies include: European Cup/Champions League, Cup Winners’ Cup, UEFA Cup/Europa League and Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. Only top flight league titles are counted as major honours. while SkySports definition of Major differs Major trophies include Division One/ Premier League titles, FA Cup, League Cup, European Cup/ Champions League, UEFA Cup/ Europa Cup, Cup Winners' Cup, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, UEFA Super Cup, Club World Cup and Inter-Continental Cup. Neither include the Charity Shield for whatever reason based on their own definitions of "major" which results in further conflict. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

User:TheKinkdomMan reported by User:Bluerules (Result: )

Page: Jamie Collins (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheKinkdomMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments:
Editor has been repeatedly removing reference to the National Football League (NFL) from this article's lead. This editor's arguments for removing the NFL reference hinge primarily on WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - they believe the article must be written a certain way because other NFL player articles are written a certain way ("this is not how any nfl article is styled", "joining the nfl is not referenced in any article", "this is not the style, learn the rules and styles"). The NFL should be spelled out on first reference to provide all necessary information to readers, but this editor believes it is acceptable to automatically assume readers will know what NFL stands for ("yes you can assume"). Bluerules (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

As I shows this user and sent them a link to the right process of how to structure a article with the NFL they refuse to try to resolved the issue as I haven’t reverted there incorrect editing 3 times I pinged them to the correct format, and then they attack me on a talk page Jamie Collins TheKinkdomMan talk 12:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This editor has not cited a single, actual policy to support their "structure" argument. Every time WP:OTHERSTUFF is brought up, they ignore it. They did not create the talk page section to help resolve this issue and deem the talk page section an "attack". It is clear they refuse to follow guidelines. Bluerules (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Look at the reverts this user used the same one twice I only reverted twice not three times which isn’t a violation, not to mention this user has been in a edit war with multiple people over the same situation, look at their edits they clearly aren’t following the rules and not willing to resolve a issue TheKinkdomMan talk 12:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

[36]

[37]

[38]

They clearly reverted three times, which is a violation. Editor accuses others of not following the rules while continuing to make WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments and trying to deflect by bringing up unrelated matters. They continue to cite non-existent rules to justify their edits. As noted above, they refused to make a talk page section when asked and deemed the attempt resolving the issue an "attack". Bluerules (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NFL clearly shows the structure and formatting to the lead, which this user clearly doesn’t understand but insists on using something that is well established throughout the article, I left a warning message before the user did on my page and at no point did they try to resolve the issue, they attacked me on the players talk page and just reported this and used a same revert twice when I only did it twice and not 3 breaking the rules, I was waiting patiently for a response on my page for a discussion but they never made a effort to resolve anything but to resort to lies and this, I did absolutely nothing wrong but try ti help TheKinkdomMan talk 12:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheKinkdomMan: You stated above 'Look at the reverts this user used the same one twice I only reverted twice not three times which isn’t a violation' you don't have to revert three times to violate the edit warring rule (See Wikipedia's policy on edit warring) which states that The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. So you can be classed as engaging in edit warring regardless of how many reverts have been made. --StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 13:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NFL does not "clearly" show "the structure and formatting to the lead". This editor flat-out refuses to acknowledge the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF and that their arguments fall under OTHERSTUFF. They did not create the talk page section on the article, which is how these matters are supposed to be resolved (not on other editor's talk pages), and continue to insist it was an "attack" to notify them of the OTHERSTUFF guideline and why NFL needs to be spelled out. And while accusing others of attacking them, they flat-out accuse me of being a liar. Bluerules (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@StarryNightSky11: yes however I linked the correct structure to this user and they failed to even respond to me but yet attack me when I tried to help, look at their edits clearly edit wars on every nfl article, I gave them the opportunity to resolve the issue with me when I left a warning message however they sent one back and then processed to report me TheKinkdomMan talk 13:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I told you to create a talk page section to resolve this and directed you to the guideline you were violating. You ignored both. It is not an "attack" to inform you of a guideline you are ignoring. It is an attack to accuse another of frequent edit warring without evidence. Bluerules (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

However I never violated any revert rule, a edit war yes, however this user never tried to resolve the issue, I pinged them on WP:NFL to show them the structure and they never responded, only to report something that they didn’t like TheKinkdomMan talk 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You did not properly ping me on WP:NFL, so I was not notified. And that does not show a structure, it merely provides a recommendation for how articles should be structured. You have been ignoring actual guidelines and that is why you were reported. Bluerules (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Both TheKinkdomMan and Bluerules have been edit warring on this. I'd suggest reaching consensus at Talk:Jamie Collins (American football)#NFL needs to be identified.. Consider notifying WikiProject NFL for other perspectives.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

TheKindomMan is citing non-existent guidelines for their edits and ignoring actual guidelines. They are playing victim and accusing me of being a liar. They clearly not open to discussion. Bluerules (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I did create a talk page on WikiProject NFL this user never responded TheKinkdomMan talk 13:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not respond because I was not notified due to being improperly pinged. Bluerules (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ TheKinkdomMan talk 13:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It is clear this editor does not want to engage in constructive conversation. I don't know what else is there is to demonstrate this. Bluerules (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• @TheKinkdomMan: This is a situation where your best course of action is to reach out to other editors rather than edit war. Perversely, you getting reported has worked to your benefit, as I've jumped in on the content matter at the article. (And IMO, the status quo intro that you are editing away from is a mess.) —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

How can you talk to someone who clearly doesn’t respond to messages on the talk pages and yet has the balls to accuse me of not wanting to work things out, first off if you wanted to resolve the issue you should of responded to my messages and pings and not resort to this, I showed this user the structure format and they want to ignore it, I’ve created multiple articles using the correct format and have been doing this for years, check the logs you clearly see BlueRules is lying out their ass TheKinkdomMan talk 13:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"yet has the balls to accuse me of not wanting to work things out"

"BlueRules is lying out their ass"

If it was not clear something needs to be done about this editor before, it is now. Bluerules (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Responding to my messages now after reporting this mess, this clearly could of been avoided TheKinkdomMan talk 13:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This could have been avoided if you made the talk page section when I asked you to. You did not. Bluerules (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Just note this user never messaged me and is clearly lying out their ass to cover there’s, check the logs, and being attacked is a clear violation, at no point did they ever mention guidelines, not to mention WP:OTHERSTUFF has absolutely nothing to do with how NFL articles are written and structured TheKinkdomMan talk 13:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned the guidelines from the start. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to how every article is written and structured. This editor claims they were attacked while simultaneously saying I am "clearly lying out [my] ass". I would greatly appreciate more intervention in this matter because this conduct is completely unnacceptable. Bluerules (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

My conduct is fine, you are clearly lying when your logs show you never engaged with me to resolve the issue, your lying about 3RR and attacked me first, you clearly have no indication of how NFL articles are formatted, WikiProject NFL show the structure, and lying about messaging someone to get someone blocked cause you don’t like what they are saying is absolutely repulsive, I pinged you multiple times and gave you the structure, if it was subject to change others would have changed it, and not reported someone to get their own way, TheKinkdomMan talk 13:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• "My conduct is fine"
• "yet has the balls to accuse me of not wanting to work things out"
• "BlueRules is lying out their ass"
• "clearly lying out their ass to cover there’s"
• "you are clearly lying"
• "lying about messaging someone"

The fact that you think all of these comments are "fine" is what's absolutely repulsive (and you say this right before accusing me of being a liar again). It is not fine to continually make personal attacks and accuse others of being a liar (from someone who accuses others of attacking them, no less). You keep accusing me of being a liar and haven't provided a lick of evidence to support it. I cited all three of your reverts (twice). You continue to insist a recommendation is a rule when it is clearly not. You did not properly ping me, so I was never notified, and even if you did, your "structure" is still a "recommendation". You cannot push a "recommendation" onto every article. I actually did properly ping you and again, you claimed you were attacked. You are not listening to anyone but yourself. Bluerules (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok let’s click you link “ i mentioned from the start” well it clearly shows you didn’t, yet another lie uncovered, as I mentioned b4 they never contacted me to resolve the issue, I sent them the warning message and two minutes later they sent one back and then reverted the edit, and from their on edit war over something I’ve proved the structure to be TheKinkdomMan talk 13:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That link clearly shows me citing WP:OTHERSTUFF. Another attempt at accusing me of being a liar is proven false. I contacted you on the article talk page to resolve the issue after you refused to make it yourself and you claim you were attacked. The issue is supposed to be resolved there, not on another editor's talk page. You haven't proved anything about the structure, you only demonstrated your "structure" is actually a recommendation that does not need to be followed. Bluerules (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m done engaging with this war, clearly I’ve proved I’m right and they continue to lie I leave the decision up to a admin but check my logs and theirs shows they lied. TheKinkdomMan talk 13:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This editor has clearly broken the personal attacks rule they accused me of breaking by repeating accusing me of being a liar. That's all right here. While this editor fails to provide any actual evidence of my "lies", this section alone shows them disregarding an actual policy, insisting a recommendation is a rule, and repeatedly making personal attacks against me. Bluerules (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You didn’t do anything but insert the same revert twice and I’ve provided evidence from the structure of the article on WP:NFL calling you a liar isn’t an attack when you click your link it clearly shows you haven’t provided anything but a edit war, not to mention you have a edit war with everyone on NFL article, when the structure clearly points out the the reference and establishment of the NFL player and NFL and I don’t have to insert any attacks when it’s clearly Visible on Jamie Collins talk page, you’ve been lying trying to get me blocked on here when you’ve been proven wrong, standing up for yourself and calling someone out isn’t a attack and neither is playing victim, your logs are visible to anyone who views them, you never tried to resolve anything, your agenda is clear, report anything you don’t agree with and justify it by inserting lies, reading a structure on the WikiProject NFL clearly shows the the correct format and refusing to go by it gets a revert to the correct edit, if I was to attack you I wouldn’t do it on here I’d say to your face, but you’ve been on here for 15 years and still haven’t properly formatted the NFL article shows, I’m not saying I don’t like change however no article is formatted the way your trying to do it, it’s over kill and unnecessary the NFL is established through out the article, agree or not, I’ve shown you the format and your argument is subject to change when clearly it hasn’t changed, so with that being said I hope you have a pleasant day and a healthy life outside of being on a keyboard, enjoy life get outside more to life than arguing over something that I’ve clearly proved via the talk page on WP:NFL And no rules have been broken by me besides edit war, cut your BS Lying TheKinkdomMan talk 14:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You claim you're "done engaging with this war" and then write this huge block of text. I told you to bring the matter to the talk page and that you were making WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments in my edit summaries. You ignored both. No matter what you say, the "structure" you try defending your edits with is a recommendation. It is flat-out established that this is a recommendation and cannot be used to justify how every article should be written, especially when that is still an OTHERSTUFF argument. "no article is formatted the way your trying to do it" is an OTHERSTUFF argument and as I have repeatedly pointed out, you cannot assume readers know what the NFL is. You may think assumptions are fine, but they are not. And rather than work to resolve this issue, you throw personal attack after personal attack at me. Sorry, but repeatedly calling me a liar is the very definition of a personal attack, all while you accuse others of doing what you do to them. I made the talk page discussion, you did not. What you use to justify your edits is a mere recommendation and nothing more. And you conclude your insistence of not breaking any further rules with even more personal attacks. Bluerules (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheKinkdomMan and Bluerules: It's best to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in these situations. If there was more than two people involved, it wouldn't matter as much if one person was "lying". Of course, WP:AGF, when possible. However, this noticeboard is really not the forum to resolve content disputes.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

A dispute resolution is not going to work in this situation. Just look at this editor's comments. They have been ignoring an actual policy from the start and insisting a recommendation is a rule. They think it is "fine" to repeatedly accuse me of being a liar and use obscenities. This editor does not want to work towards a resolution. They only want the article written their way and will personally attack anyone who disagrees. Bluerules (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Bagumba I agree however the logs clearly show everything and I’m done arguing with this user TheKinkdomMan talk 14:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"And no rules have been broken by me besides edit war, cut your BS Lying". Again, just read this editor's comments. Bluerules (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

My logs clearly point out I made the talk page again another lie, your digging your hole deeper and when every NFL article changes that’s when it can change until then we follow the structure of WP:NFL stop playing victim every time I say I’m done you add to it causing more fire to the BS that you clearly don’t see, in what article has your format been used in, let’s see none, we follow the structure of what it given until it changes TheKinkdomMan talk 14:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You keep claiming you're "done" and then return to continue arguing with me. And you claim I'm digging a hole deeper. You refuse to acknowledge that "structure" is a mere recommendation, you continue to ignore WP:OTHERSTUFF, and you make further personal attacks while still accusing others of what you're guilty of. Bluerules (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

First off I’ve been wanting a resolution you’re still playing victim, you’ve shown no indication of resolving the matter, not to mention you keep adding and adding and adding more drama over something that has been consistently written the same, no Article has been changed to your format like I said it’s over kill and who wouldn’t know what the NFL stands for, like i said b4 overkill to something that is established further more your argument hasn’t shown any article that has changed thus going in my favor of the structure format I suggest we make a talk page for everyone to chime in TheKinkdomMan talk 14:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I made the talk discussion and I've been having a civil conversation C.Fred over this matter. You are in no position to claim you want a resolution when you did not make the talk page discussion and continue to make the same arguments that ignore two key facts: the "structure" for NFL articles clearly says it is a recommendation and WP:OTHERSTUFF prevents you from writing articles a certain way simply because other articles are written that way. And you are in no position to accuse others of playing victim when you repeatedly insisted you were "attacked" by me making that talk page section. You may not think people wouldn't know what the NFL stands for, but there are, and you cannot make assumptions. Whether articles have changed is irrelevant to the fact that your "structure" argument is still a recommendation, invalidating your "structure format". Instead of "suggesting" a talk page is made, you should have made one from the start. Bluerules (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not guilty of Jack Shit, you’ve been lying for the start, the structure isn’t recommended when every Article is written that way, as I see you want to improve the article it just doesn’t, your overstating something that is established when the structure changes then it changes otherwise no article is gonna look like the one your trying to change, if I can be civil here right now so can you, however when an article changes to the format your trying to make it then I’ll admit I am wrong until then we follow the structure, I’m done calling you a liar and such however let’s make a talk page for everyone to comment and voice their opinions Bluerules is that fair TheKinkdomMan talk 14:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You repeatedly claim you were done arguing with me, yet continue to argue with me. The page you cited flat-out says recommendation. How can you even argue this? It is a recommendation, not a rule. And C.Fred agreed with me that NFL should be spelled out and referenced. That's not overstating, that's key information. You cannot base your arguments off of "structure" because of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Focus on the article itself, not how other articles written by many other editors are structured. A talk page section has already been created and it should be made without any prompting from other editors. Bluerules (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I did create a talk page for you and I to resolve the issue you claim I didn’t which is a lie when it’s on WP:NFL sub page structure, I’m trying to be civil but you want to act like a winning key board warrior, don’t lie and try to say things dude, you are not all Mighty on here and you are not a admin, you have been ignoring the structure of every article that hasn’t changed, you’ve been on here for 15 years and choose to argue over something that has a structure that has been followed for the longest time without change like I said stop your lying my logs clearly show I created a talk page and that you messaged back after the fact and clearly say on this message board that I didn’t ping you properly, being caught in a lie is disgusting but yet I’m trying to be civil with you and come to an agreement so enough is enough with the BS TheKinkdomMan talk 14:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You did not create a talk page section the Jamie Collins article. That is a fact. Talk page sections are supposed to be created on the article under dispute, not other articles. That is a fact. You said you were done calling me a liar and still accuse me of lying. That is a fact. You claim you're trying to be civil, but throw personal attack after personal attack at me. That is a fact. You refuse to acknowledge the structure is a recommendation that does not have to be followed. That is a fact. You refuse to acknowledge WP:OTHERSTUFF specifically dictates why you cannot structure articles based solely on how other articles are structured. That is a fact. You mentioned the talk page you created here, which notified me of its existence and allowed me to message you back. That is a fact. You did not properly ping me when you created that talk page - you wrote "@bluerules", which does not ping me. That is a fact. What is disgusting is to repeatedly accuse me of being a liar without a lick of evidence to prove it. You are not trying to be civil and it is clear you do not want a civil conversation when you are unable to stop making personal attacks. Bluerules (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I accuse the facts never the less I left a nice message on your talk page to diffuse the situation and yet I get notified of this, one I never said I left a talk page on Jamie Collins 2 I pinged you to the structure since you were so adamant about seeing the evidence, 3 I mentioned multiple times without inserting the link to WP:NFL so instead of defusing you escalate again after I said to leave each other alone, hmm interesting to see after I suggested to agree to disagree, and for the record I’m replying back cause you keep replying back but I was civil and nice on your talk page until I get notified of this TheKinkdomMan talk 15:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't diffuse an edit war situation through messages on editor talk pages. You're supposed to start on the talk page of the article being disputed. Why is this so hard to understand? I never said you said you left a talk page on the Jamie Collins article. I said you didn't create a talk page section on the Jamie Collins article and that's where you were supposed to have made the talk section, not anywhere else. You improperly pinged me and your "evidence" only demonstrated you were citing a recommendation, not a rule. What are you mentioning is still a recommendation and that hasn't changed. What's interesting is you repeatedly said you were done with me, yet continue to argue. You can't first claim you're done, then claim you're going to keep responding when I respond. If you really wanted to defuse this situation, you would leave and not care about me replying back. If you really want for use to leave each other alone, you would leave and not care about me replying back. If you really wanted to agree to disagree, you would leave and not care about me replying back. Clearly, you are not interested in anything of these things because you are unable to stop replying. Insisting you were "civil and nice" before this does not justify your constant personal attacks. Bluerules (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

By continuing to reply and reply shows how much you clearly don’t want to let it go you want the last word and that ain’t gonna happen, and you can defuse the situation anywhere you started this by acting like a cry baby by reporting, you never once messaged me to discuss it, you continue to try to have the last word when I said leave each other alone, agreeing to disagree would of been fine I left a nice message to you on your talk page but yet you still act like the victim and continue to reply and reply if you wanted to defuse you would leave it alone as well, two wrongs don’t make a right and acting like a child doesn’t either, like others have said make a discussion I have when you asked me to show you evidence which i did, no other article is formatted to what your changing it to be, evidence right there, like I said I’m trying to be civil but you keep pushing my buttons and if you wanted to be civil like I’m trying to be now you’d leave it alone and not reply back and go on with your day and enjoy life instead of being on a keyboard, so if you can leave this message alone then we can go on without further incident TheKinkdomMan talk 15:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to leave your messages alone when you continue to throw personal attacks at me, misrepresent the situation, and demonstrate a complete lack of self-awareness. You keep insisting you want a discussion, but refused to make one on the disputed article. I made it. You've now made it clear that you aren't even replying to add anything constructive. You just want to keep accusing me of everything you're guilty - pretending that you want to be done with this, but unable to stop because you were replied to. And that is childish. Bluerules (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

You are gonna leave it alone I left more than one message check your notifications When your clearly lying if you didn’t lie I wouldn’t point you out as to be, first of all you ain’t gonna have the last word in after I said leave it alone and be civil I left messages but yet you continue to lie and say I didn’t clearly my logs don’t lie, further more if you can’t be civil then go somewhere else and do something constructive with your life, you ignored the structure of the lead bio page on WP:NFL you continue to act like a cry baby and say I’m lying when anyone can see anyones logs and contributions, by escalating a situation that could of been handled with a simple message to me Would of been easier, but no you can’t leave things alone it’s simple don’t reply and look at the message boards to see my replies back to Jamie Collins, I’ve caught you in multiple lies and you back track, enough is enough grow up act like a civil human being and leave it alone, i said I’d agree to disagree which also means we can’t come to a conclusion so by leaving this message alone will give us both peace otherwise it’s gonna go back and fourth until the end of time, just leave it alone I’m asking you nicely to please leave it alone and me, I’m done fighting over something so Fn stupid there is no winner here so just leave it be, if you stopped acting like a winning baby there wouldn’t be any issues here, bitching back and fourth gets us no where so please just leave it be TheKinkdomMan talk 16:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:Humanist poet (Result: Reporter indeffed)

Page: A. James Gregor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grayfell (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] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._James_Gregor&oldid=1087020701
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._James_Gregor&oldid=1084845327
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._James_Gregor&oldid=1084845600
4. [diff]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A._James_Gregor

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

Comments:
Grayfell ignored the ongoing discussion on A. James Gregor's Talk page and intervened without entering the debate, simply imposing his one-sided changes and justifying them as "objective". This behavior is incorrect and denotes an imposing and dictatorial logic. In addition, he has repeatedly modified the section called "Academic evaluations", where the evaluations of academics are displayed, arguing that some evaluations are not independent. This is very strange, as all evaluations are subjective and personal and in a section called "Academic evaluations" nothing different is expected. The intervention of an administrator is required to resolve this dispute. {{Humanist poet (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Humanist_poet}}

• Humanist poet indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Archives908 reported by User:78.109.69.9 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: 2022 Armenian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Archives908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]
5. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

Comments:

Archives908 continuously reverts all added info with reliable sources to obsolete (info) version, taking the opportunity that the page is semi protected. --78.109.69.9 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Article semi-protected for one month by EdJohnston.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Bbb23, this is not preventing Archives908 to revert the article to his/her wanted version. --78.109.69.9 (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)