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:Ergzay reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: No action; content moved to another article)

Page: Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092138394 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) Change caused citation error"
2. 10:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092133066 by BeŻet (talk) Put back removed sources and also fix formatting bug"
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC) to 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 10:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092116980 by SquareInARoundHole (talk) It does say that, scroll back, stop trying to insert words in his mouth"
   2. 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092120167 by Rosbif73 (talk) It's no more in sources than the POV commentary already used, this properly conveys the context"
4. 06:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Correct with original source and put back clarification"
5. 03:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092083096 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) It's not interpretation, its directly in the original source"
6. Now at 6RR
7. 7th revert at 00:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092148380 by SquareInARoundHole (talk) It is not WP:SYNTH as it's direct quotation, please don't remove content just because you disagree what was said"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Reverts at Musk */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Out of context quoting */ Reply"

Comments:

The 10:45 and 10:46 edits are consecutive, so they count as just one for the purposes of 3RR. Still a 5RR situation. In response to a request to revert, they indicated their familiarity with BRD, but that does not appear to have stopped them from repeatedly restoring their disputed changes without building consensus at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Now at 6RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers It's a completely unrelated change and you know it. Ergzay (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

But just to document it for clarity, that source was removed because the source contains no reference to the content before it. It's simply an unrelated factoid about a company that Elon is CEO of. By putting it there it tries to tell the reader that Elon is personally responsible for spreading COVID all across his company despite the company having very well documented mask requirements and covid protection policies. Ergzay (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is demonstrable false. The source removed in the sixth revert supports the "not at risk" quote. It's a reliable source from more than a year later, demonstrating lasting coverage. Addressing your "completely unrelated" comment, 3RR applies to reverts "whether involving the same or different material". You're an experienced user who has previously been given an admin warning for edit warring. Is this a misunderstanding or a disagreement with the policy? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers How does it support the "not at risk" statement? SpaceX having an epidemic (which companies were having all over this country) is not indicative or relevant of Elon Musk's personal risk. Also I have never received a warning for edit warring before. Ergzay (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You said "the source contains no reference to the content before it". That's not true, as source you removed says Musk "made headlines last year for initially resisting getting vaccinated against the disease, saying in a New York Times podcast that "I'm not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids." And you received an EW warning from EdJohnston in this 2018 message. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That warning wasn't a warning. It was a mistake by the administrator that I didn't want to bother with chasing down the method of getting it reversed as I was just sick of the issue by that point. The decision was to drop the noticeboard request and for me to revert my edits, which I did (if I'm remembering correctly). Then for some reason the administrator misunderstood something and stuck a warning on. Ergzay (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I missed that quote in the article, but it's the same quote used in the other article so it's simply repeated, see WP:CITEKILL which still applies and notably WP:REFBOMB which is what you were doing. Ergzay (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ergzay: I think a plain reading of CITEKILL shows my edit was fine, and REFBOMB doesn't apply at all. Either way, removing a reliable source to avoid a CITEKILL problem is not one of the 3RR exemptions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers misrepresents the situation to his own advantage as I propose multiple alternative edits of adding information that he reverts every time I add the information. No version is acceptable no matter how I source it or write it as it violates his personally held beliefs in his hatred for Elon Musk. He has shown no interest in discussion and just threats of 3RR and then noticeboard action. Ergzay (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your allegations about my personally held beliefs are unfounded and untrue, as are your claims about the reasons for my edits. If you'd like to remove that part of your comment, you can remove this comment of mine if no one else has yet responded (see WP:MUTUAL). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe Ergzay is here to build an encyclopedia. All they do is revert, bludgeon and revert. Schierbecker (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Schierbecker That is simply incorrect. The page on Elon Musk has quality issues and I'm working on fixing them. Ergzay (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's hilarious that you think this is the right way to do that. Schierbecker (talk)

• Not blocked Per the talk page, the dispute that led to this seems to have been resolved with a decision to move the content in question to Views of Elon Musk. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• User:Daniel Case, And yet they persist! Schierbecker (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  He's been doing a lot more discussing on the talk page lately than editing the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Tsarisco reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Warned)

Page: Political status of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tsarisco (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 01:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC) to 01:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */ I fixed a typo"
   2. 01:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092233629 by M.Bitton (talk) This isn't a dead link, this an inexistent link, please stop your vandalism."
2. 00:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Positions of other states */ Added a section that was removed concerning the petition written by 28 AU members demanding the expulsion of the Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic."
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC) to 00:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 23:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */ The sprasd is the "news" agency of the Polisario front it's quality of informantion not only is questionable, but is not even verifiable by any other media, as you can see in this linked article(https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html), the tone of the articles and it's statements make it sounds like propaganda"
   2. 00:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */ Having visited this "spsrasd" it appears too many of their informations are not backed up by any independant media as shown here (https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html), and a huge part of the non SPSRASD sources are links with failed verifications"
4. 23:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Positions of other states */ added more sources"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC) to 22:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */ Not only 99% of the sources come from 1 website, but this website it self is nothing more but the Polisario's "News" agency which is far very far from an obejctif and reliable source"
   2. 22:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Political status of Western Sahara."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Disruptive tagging */ new section"
2. 00:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Disruptive tagging */"
3. Link to the discussion

Comments:

• Please note that they kept ignoring me and editing after I started a talk page discussion and pinged them twice. When they finally replied (after cleaning their talk page history, see diff and diff), they pretended not to understand the concerns and reverted while accusing me "vandalism" (see edit summary). M.Bitton (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Also, judging by their edit history, their POV pushing with regard to Western Sahara and the concerned article goes back as far as 2015, with some of the sources that they are tagging today being there ever since. M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  A quick comment on the wall of mumbo jumbo that they left below: even if one overlooks the repeated baseless accusations of "lying" and assumes that Tsarisco doesn't know the difference between a dead link and a source that failed verification (btw, the two sources that they cited and described as "completely invented" are archived), the fact that they fv tagged these two accessible sources[1][2] (that support the statement) and edit warred over the tagging remains unjustifiable. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

   Note: Believe it or not, they are now edit warring on the talk page. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  "M.Bitton" has been trying to revert the title of my report in the talk page (Wholesale change 2022 about the Wikipedia section of the article "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" which is the subject of my Wholesale change 2022 report in the talk page) which has been fully solved and fixed and therefore no longer relevant... I think this is clearly considered "WP:VANDAL". Tsarisco (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  This last comment by the other editor will explain to you Tzarisco's eagerness to change the title of the section while the discussion is still ongoing. M.Bitton (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Some* of my last comments are about Morocco World News, a source that *I* did not put in fact as I said previously multiple times below in my full explanation 99% of my added sources are completely independents... and have nothing to do whatsoever with the section in question of my wholesale change 2022 report *which is about the section "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" * which M.Bitton is complainng about, the 2 Moroccan sources in question "North Africa Report" and "Morocco World News" that again I did not add, are tied to the previous "Wholesale Change" that was put in 2020 concerning the section "States supporting Morocco's autonomy proposal" Tsarisco (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• The OP is complaining mainly in this report about my addition of the template {{better source needed}} and {{unreliable sources}} in this section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=1092218029&oldid=1092063420&diffmode=source}}, M.Bitton and several activist editors have been putting extremely questionnable and non factual informations about several section on the Page: Political status of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), by not only refusing to provide more than one independent source in the several claims that they are presenting and relying exclusively on just one which is the SPSRASD website, a website fully controlled by the belligerent force Morocco is fighting in Western Sahara which is the Polisario front , and with many articles that are no different than North Korean propaganda as you can all see here (https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html an article written by the Polisario with completely wild statements that aren't verifiable by any third party independent sources same for these ones https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/29/39909.html or this one https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/08/39543.html and many others. Various wild informations about "heavy human and material losses" currently taking place, that no media either in Morocco, Europe, Asia or anywhere in the world for the that matter have confirmed). As for the last section of his complaint "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" I have already answered them (verifiable in the Talk:Political status of Western Sahara - Wikipedia) so they are clearly lying. M.Bitton in that Talk section have been asking me useless rhetorical questions when Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of factually and accuracy (i.e multiples independent AND reliable sources), but M.Bitton seems to be failing to see the difference between an opinion and a fact backed by multiple independents sources , such as his useless rhetorical questions here: "::::Do you, or anyone for that matter, doubt that countries such as Algeria and South Africa support SADR?M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC) (Editing Talk:Political status of Western Sahara - Wikipedia) instead of putting themselves in the shoes of the potential reader who might be potentially misled, and failing to provide more than one source that is at the very least reliable. This report is nothing more but an attempt to discredit me without providing any proof and lying on top of it. They have been trying to revert my edits with that have the tag {{failed verification}} pretending that it's just a dead link here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1092233629&oldid=1092232732&diffmode=source) when in reality it's just a completely invented source (this is the reference number 59 mentioned in the article "https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm%7Cpublisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York" (you can verify it by pretty much just replacing anything that comes after https://www.un.org/News/ in this link by any word the "/org" "https://[www].[un].[org]/[insert word]" which will give the same result which is ERROR 404 and therefore artificially create a source and pretend that it's just a "dead link" ) a tactic used multiple times like here as well in the "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" reference 125 (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/gaspd507.doc.htm ). Some references added such the ref number 154 ("DPRK Diplomatic Relations".) do not even mention neither the Polisario or the Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic if you use the command ctrl+f in your browser which imply that there is quite a lot of false info in this section that I have been warning about hence the two tags "unreliable source" and "better source" needed Tsarisco

And regardless of whether the source is reliable or not (it is not, as it is a press organ controlled by the Polisario that writes many fake news articles such as here https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html without any additional media confirming the various events on the ground and claims presented, same for these ones https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/29/39909.html or this one https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/08/39543.html and many others. Various wild informations about "heavy human and material losses" currently taking place, that no media either in Morocco, Europe, Asia or anywhere in the world for the that matter have confirmed)), one should always at least try to confirm statements through multiples additional independent media, hence why I added (One source|section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarisco (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

And I have added multiple sources that are completely independents from both Morocco and the Polisario front to add more factuality and accuracy in order to resolve the issue related to the tags "This section's factual accuracy is disputed" of the article (in the section "States supporting Morocco's autonomy proposal"), such as theses sources that took me hours to find them all such as ) and Tsarisco

and sources that I have taken directly from the UN website such here and many many others over the course of multiple weeks... You can see all my added sources here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1089733130&oldid=1089718424&diffmode=source), here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1092226247&oldid=1092222393&diffmode=source) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1089714417&oldid=1089710902&diffmode=source Tsarisco

-Just an update on what happened, other editors seems to agree me on the addition of both tags (unreliable source) and (better source needed) and the entire section has been cleaned accordingly (States supporting the SADR/Polisario), the tags have therefore been removed. However M.Bitton still considerer here in this report my addition of new (independants sources from Morocco and the Polisario such as Reuteurs) as.... vandalism.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarisco (talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a lie. For starters, I never used the word "vandalism" (unlike you), and second, the editor that you mentioned is puzzled by your stance, as after making them look for third party sources, you changed your mind about using them and are now trying desperately to give a pro-Moroccan source a pass. Anyway, this is irrelevant to your disruptive editing that I highlighted above (see first comments). M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems like you fail to understand what "disruptive editing" is . As correcting a typo such as here in your first complain in this report "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1092235986&diffmode=source" is far from being considered "disrupting editing" per Wikipedia standards, it seems like this whole report is just about you being proved wrong and having your feeling hurt, I apologized if that's the latter.

This report is mainly about the addition of the tags (unreliable source) and (better source needed) in the section (States supporting SADR/Polisario) of the article and I have arrived to the conclusion with other editors that SPSRASD is not reliable and THEREFORE that entire section has been cleaned today by them...

Good day. Tsarisco (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edit history speaks for itself. As for the report, I said what I needed to say in the first comments (my last was just a response to your lies). I'm done here (unless someone else wants me to elaborate). M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Also to further clarify, as written in my answer above, you can verify all my added sources, The overwhelming majority of my sources are strictly international media and organisations... as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1089733130&oldid=1089718424&diffmode=source ; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1092226247&oldid=1092222393&diffmode=source ; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1089714417&oldid=1089710902&diffmode=source Tsarisco (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• Result: User:Tsarisco is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again (or revert any talk page headers) without first getting a consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

User:5.43.81.203 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Iga Świątek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 5.43.81.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC) "removed scam"
2. 13:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "I think this is improvement; Undid revision 1092284699 by 4TheWynne (talk)"
3. 08:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "improved; Undid revision 1092272258 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Iga Świątek."
2. 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Iga Świątek."
3. 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a high profile tennis player and several of us have had to keep reverting this anon IP. I see the same is happening at the Renault article with this same anon IP. Also at the Renault talk page. Warnings haven't helped as they simply remove them. Can we get a block on this IP? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing has since continued. Also worth noting that the IP has been removing their warnings and they've demonstrated enough Wiki knowledge to prove that they are not a newbie/they know exactly what they're doing. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree that User:5.43.81.203 did violate 3RR and is now Edit Warring Chip3004 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Favonian (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Keshavv1234 reported by User:Jaspreetsingh6 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Sidhu Moose Wala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keshavv1234 (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:

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

91.237.86.201 reported by User:E-960 (Result: No block; being discussed at AN/I and on the talk page)

Page: FB MSBS Grot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.237.86.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FB MSBS Grot#Comment on controversy and Talk:FB MSBS Grot#Will this article ever mention that there is or was a controversy?

Comments:
IP user 91.237.86.201 has violated the 3RR rule within the last 24 hours, despite being repeatedly asked to review the article's talk page, which already contained several discussions regarding the questionable material. Also, since in the past IP user has tried to re-insert that very same text, the page was locked by Deepfriedokra on 28 April, 2022 [10], the protection template was removed on 28 May, 2022 [11] and IP user has returned and re-added the questionable text despite not gaining any consensus and in the process disregarding past talk page discussions. Also, IP user continued to re-add the disputed text while a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [12] case was pending regarding the IP user's disruptive editing (now and in the past) in connection to the FB MSBS Grot article. --E-960 (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked As noted at AN/I, the issue behind this is the reliability of a particular source. There has been edit warring but for now it has stopped. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Arohan19 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked from article space, 48 hours; indeffed as a sock)

Page: Jataka tales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Arohan19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092697331 by C.Fred (talk). Talk never initiated. Reverting to last source that correctly uses language from cited sources. Please refrain from engaging in edit wars."
2. 23:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092695499 by MrOllie (talk). "In any case, Wikipedia goes with what the reliable sources say, not what seems right to us as editors personally". Either find. source for your claim, or stop making unfounded edits."
3. 23:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "MrOllie, I'd recommend you read the sources cited for this article before reverting my edits. the source "Narratives: South Asia" says in its first paragraph "The Indian tradition recog- nized two partly overlapping narrative genres, jātaka and avadāna, which pertain to the biography of the Buddha and his disciples and illustrate the doctrine of the moral causality of actions and that of rebirth in different ways". If you're going to keep reverting my corrections to the article I'll report you"
4. 20:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092670389 by MrOllie (talk) The Jatakas were written in India. South Asia does not refer to premodern India."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from article space. User still has access to talk pages to discuss changes. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the user as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Julian134 reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: )

Page: Dream (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Julian134 (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]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [17]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

Comments:

This editor has nonstop been reverting other editors edits including myself without any good reason. Based on what I've seen, they act like the article is owned by them and no one else can't contribute to the article. Looking through the edit history, this editor has violated the guidelines by reverting more than 3 times. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 04:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Nimazandyf reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Zand dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nimazandyf (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 08:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC) to 10:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 08:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Add the main references of Zand History"
   3. 09:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Add the main references of Zand History"
   4. 10:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "I added a necessary paragraph about Zand territory based on main resources of Zand History."
   5. 10:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Territory of Zand Dynasty in the zenith */"
   6. 10:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "I added a necessary paragraph about Zand territory based on main resources of Zand History."
2. 21:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 17:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 08:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 22:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 08:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC) ""
7. 21:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC) ""
8. 10:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC) ""
9. 18:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ""
10. 17:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ""
11. 17:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "You are not a historian because you could not see the value of main sources! so you are not a worthy user to edit wikipedia pages! @Kailanmapper"
12. 17:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ""
13. 17:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "There are original and main books which pointed out to exact territory of Zand Dyansty. These book was written in Zand and early qajar period : Golshan Murad that i guess you can not read its hard text!: Makran and north of Oman sea is a part of Zand territory and a part of Kerman province. Giti Gusha that pointed out caucasus cities had obied to Zand Power in 1762. from Derbent until Yerevan Majmal o Tavarikh that wrote about obedience of of governor of Derbent to Zand Power in 1776"
14. 17:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "There are original and main books which pointed out to exact territory of Zand Dyansty. These book was written in Zand and early qajar period : Golshan Murad that i guess you can not read its hard text! this book was wrote in Zand period and author said: Makran and north of Oman sea is a part of Zand territory Giti Gusha that pointed out caucasus cities had obied to Zand Power. from Derbent until Yerevan Majmal o Tavarikh that wrote about obedience of"
15. 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ""
16. 19:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC) ""
17. 10:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Comments:

User is bent on adding information in non-coherent English and non-WP:RS sources through sheer edit-warring. They have stated on numerous occassions that they will not rest before having succeeded. Not only have they violated WP:WAR and WP:CON, but looking at the diffs, I'd say there are some serious WP:CIR issues too. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• "your edit is unacceptable. i only put the right and original map. i wont let youto put this wrong map." [19] - LouisAragon (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, I think the other behavioral issues need a little more engagement before an indef becomes appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

User:AnotherGuyThere reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Giannis Antetokounmpo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "This is not even an argument."
2. 14:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Sometimes reading previous edit summaries could be useful."
3. 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "His nationality already exists at infobox, on the lead we care only about very specific info and judging from the fact he has spent little time of his life to Nigeria he cannot be considered as a citizen of the country (at least on the lead)."
4. 11:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Removing non-lead material per MOS:BLPLEAD"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has received multiple warnings already here —Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC) to 15:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Giannis Antetokounmpo

Comments:

At least I were providing arguments for all of my changes. The other user on the other hand none, they were just on a reverting process as you can see [20] and [21]. AnotherGuyThere (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"Just on a reverting process"?! What does that even mean? I was restoring sourced content, while you were removing reliable sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

AnotherGuyThere also appears to be in an edit war at Ed Sheeran over the use of "singer-songwriter".—Bagumba (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

They are the same user though. AnotherGuyThere (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring with the same user is OK for you?—Bagumba (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

See my talkpage and [22], my edit remained unchanged for 2 days since they started the edit war so neither was it a repeated one since substantial time passed between the other user that reverted my change and them nor did I start it judging from this. AnotherGuyThere (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the duplicate report. I got mixed up over exactly which page(s) this user is edit-warring on. In addition to the Ed Sheeran article, they also appear to have a problem with the Thomas Strakosha‎ article, where "Albanian" was being removed. It took literally a minute to find and add sources, but really, if someone is playing for the Albanian national football team, we are into WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Can an admin advise if a separate report is required for that latter article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Irony was unnecessary but yes, if nationality is not applicable then the fact that he is playing for a national team doesn't automatically mean he adopts the citizenship or it's an apparent fact he already owns it. So if you hadn't find the source, it could not have been put in the lead. AnotherGuyThere (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Webberbrad007 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: )

Page: Nupur Sharma (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Webberbrad007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092801636 by TrangaBellam (talk) The topic was discussed and the change was made post discussion. The onus of explaining removal of well sourced RS content is on you. TB - you are much more experienced to do this."
2. 17:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092795850 by TrangaBellam (talk) The Hindu is the newspaper of record and a RS as specified. Please discuss on tp before removing."
3. 14:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Comments about Muhammad */"
4. 23:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092694503 by Kautilya3 (talk) Unwarranted revert of a reliable source. Please stick to facts and WP:AGF. If you have any specific concern with the wording from The Hindu, please explain in the talk page."
5. 19:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Comments about Muhammad */ replaced existing source with WP:RSPSS (The Hindu). Updated wording accordingly."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nupur Sharma (politician)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS */ Reply"
2. 11:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS */ Reply"
3. 13:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS */ Query"
4. 14:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS */ Reply"

Comments:

The user did open a talk page discussion at Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS but it is just an instance of WP:IDHT, stonewalling and self-righteousness. The repeated reinstatement of his preferred version continues. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to answer any questions any admin might have and hope they review the comments and the discussion here. The version by Kautilya3 was violative of WP:NPOV AND WP:SYNTH which they had fixed here after discussion on the talk page. The content I have subsequently added is well sourced and from the Newspaper of record. There is no valid rationale provided for removal of the well sourced content. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• All five edits show the editor inserting his preferred content, something like "criticised the party and the government for abandoning her at a time when she had received death threats over her remarks". In the initial edits (#4 and #5), he overwrote the existing content with his preferred version. In later versions, he just inserted it ahead of the other content, giving it primacy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree - the entire discussion is an exercise in stonewalling. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam are both party to the revert cycle in this case. Please read the discussion on that page, and refer the WP:RSPSS to confirm that the only source in this case which meets the Newspaper of record and generally reliable levels is the one I had used. Irrespective, the material they have sourced from sources not appearing on the generally reliable list has not been removed. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Explaining the chronology so far:

1. I updated wording from the Newspaper of record here with explanation

2. Kautilya3 reverted me here accusing me of whitewashing

3. I reverted Kautilya3 stating that it was an unwarranted revert of reliable source and asking him to WP:AGF

4. Kautilya3 reverted me again here claiming that there is a dispute and asking I maintain WP:STATUSQUO and take it to the talk page

5. I start the talk page discussion here

6. During discussion, another user highlighted that I had used very similar wording from The Hindu, which I acknowledged to be a valid critique and stated that my wording should be updated. However, that wasn't Kautilya3's issue.

7. Kautilya3 accused me of gaslighting on the talk page. He asked me to explain what was my issue with current wording stating that WP:ONUS is on me

8. I asked Kautilya3 to refrain from imputing motives and stick to WP:AGF. I explained WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issues with the current wording with evidence.

9. Instead of responding to those issues, Kautilya3 states that my suggested source was offhand and off-topic. They also claim that there are plenty of prominent politicians who supported Nupur Sharma

10. I respond that this isn't addressing the issues I had raised, which Kautilya3 has asked me to explain in #7. I also stand by my source which is the Newspaper of record and generally reliable per WP:RSPSS

11. Kautilya3 again doesn't respond to the issues I had highlighted in #8. They ask me counter questions about whether their source isn't reliable and whether I will use whatever The Hindu says that strikes my fancy and reproduce verbatim (I had acknowledged this as a drawback of my initial wording in #6 above)

12. The other user from #6 highlighted that two members of the BJP had supported Nupur Sharma and supported the existing text.

13. I responded to this user asking whether he has reviewed the issues I had highlighted with the existing wording.

14. Kautilya3 updated the wording of the existing text to address the issues I had highlighted but didn't mention it on the talk page. I acknowledged it on the tp and suggested that I will now add the non-contentious parts of The Hindu news article asking for rationale if there was indeed any objection now.

15. I update the page adding the so far non-contentious wording from The Hindu article

16. Kautilya3 continued his accusation of my first draft as whitewashing calling that WP:UNDUE Note: their issue wasn't with the latest wording

17. I again ask Kautilya3 to not impute motives. I clarify that I was using an RS and in any case, the wording that they had an issue with wasn't in the update I had made

This is where I had hoped it had ended.

18. TrangaBellam comes along and accuses me of sealioning on this article, accuses me of sealioning on another article and threatens to have me topic-banned. They revert my update.

19. I respond to the accusation stating that I would indeed prefer an admin to review all this. I explain the updates I had made on the other article's talk page (that article I can't edit anyway, given that it is extended-protected)

20. There was no discussion about any objection to the latest wording, so I revert TrangaBellam asking them to discuss on the talk page

21. On the talk page, I ask TrangaBellam what their objection is to the wording I had updated

22. TrangaBellam again reverts me and states that this is WP:VNOTSUFF and only The Hindu mentioned the death threats to Nupur Sharma. On talk page, they state that stating that they support Nupur Sharma because of death threats might be a cover by BJP politicians. They add an opinion piece from thewire.in

23. I respond that it might well be a cover, but it isn't for Wiki editors to determine

24. TrangaBellam questions my comprehension abilities. They ask me whether I saw the opinion piece from thewire.in

25. I state that an opinion piece in thewire.in doesn't disprove the news article from The Hindu. I also ask them to stick to logical arguments and avoid personal attacks. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Webberbrad007, NO ONE can follow what you are doing here, but I think it's plain to see from the talk page that you are editing against consensus. Rather than drop a block on you I have reverted, and I hope that is enough of a warning. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for giving this your time Drmies. Please see the chronology above. I wrote it a short while ago because I had expected that this issue might be difficult to follow for an uninvolved admin. I hope you will be able to understand the situation better then. There was no valid objection to my latest wording, but if after reading the chronology, you still believe in the revert, I will start an RFC for that wording because these two editors have a strange objection based on their opinion and an opinion piece from thewire.in. If you search for the news, you will notice the threats of violence - it isn't a secret or only on The Hindu's news article. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Whether something was a valid objection or not is a question of judgment. My interest here is not understanding your 25-point chronology, but rather stopping the disruption. As soon as you stop reverting/edit warring, which I hope is now, you can hash the rest out on the talk page--not on this forum. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Johnbod (Result: )

Page: Indus Valley Civilisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User_talk:Johnbod#Spelling?, and the bottom of Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Requested_move_8_June_2022, and conversations in the edit summaries.

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

Comments:Nearly all about a drive-by capitalization dispute. Diclyon has never edited this very contentious article afaik, but having tried an undiscussed WP:RM away from the title the article has had for years, absurdly claiming it was uncontentious, he launched a proper RM, which looks likely to fail. He then starts changing the article to his preferred style, away from that in the current title, and edit-warring to keep it that way (and incidentally restore spelling mistakes and ENGVAR breaches). Johnbod (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

My attempts to restore the status quo ante of case within the article while the discussion is ongoing were in 3 of 4 cases not reverts; I was trying to be responsive to comments in JohnBod's reverts, and in one case did not notice the spelling error inserted by the other over-capping editor. JohnBod just kept reverting me, even while I tried to get info from him about what his concerns were. In the end he added a new reason to over-cap, based on more capping back in August (which I have not been able t confirm; looks like it was pretty much equally mixed back then). Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The "version reverted to" is not even close. There is no common version involved. And the only edit warning was the one I gave JohnBod for repeatedly reverting me. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Edit8384 reported by User:Sitush7

Page: Indus Basin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Edit8384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]

1. [27]

1. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:
The last 3 reverts came under 50 minutes. User is not ready to discuss the issue on talk page and keeps reverting without reaching any consensus. User also lacks Competency and ability to cite and comprehend sources properly.

This account is obviously a WP:SPA, only created to push a point of view, because all the contibutions from this account are on the same article or related to it. I think an indefinite page block or topic ban from this topic would be effective.