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:Alexikoua reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Himara Revolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "see tp, avoid POV. If you add Xhufi, I'll add Giakoumis, Tsaknakis, Vakalolpoulos"
2. 17:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Greek also participated - LEAD"
3. 16:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "take it to RSN, Vakalopoulos is also widely used by Albanian editors so far"
4. 01:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "it's sourced and verified"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1] has received several 3RR warning recently on their talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion on the talk page of the article, sth also on my tp

Comments:

• First reverted Alltan, then Çerçok, then Alltan, then Alltan again. The editor has received several 3RR warnings lately, as they breached the 3RR on August 24 at Margariti (There he first readded Këshilla to the See also section after FierakuiVertete removed it [2], and then removed the Albanian name from the lede 3 times [3][4][5]) and on August 26 at Template:Greeks in Albania too ((First reverted Alltan [6], then rv SuperDro [7], reverted Ahmet Q. [8], reverted Alltan again [9]). There are also several articles where Alexikoua made 3 revertes within 24 hours recently, such as Himara. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The example provided does not demonstrate a fourth revert inside a 24-hour window, and from what I can tell, User:Çerçok and Ktrimi991 are heavily involved in the opposing revert each time. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The admins can check the diffs and ask me if need be for clarification. Years ago you tried to derail an SPI report I had filed but the reported editor got blocked anyway; from that I assume that responding to you here will only produce some walls of text. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You were involved that time in trying to purge an opponent to your agenda, and you're involved this time as well. Please don't try to pretend that you are someone who stands above the dynamics and is only interested in upholding policies. The very page for which you accuse Aexikoua of edit-warring despite him not being in violation of any rule is one to which the revision sits as you last reverted, and it's the second time alone this day that your signature is on the revision history having reverted. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat previous actions by producing a wall of text and provoking TLDR but I will merely urge whichever administrator who takes action here to apply the same sanctions to the other two or three persons to have contributed to the disagreement. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"and it's the second time alone this day that your signature is on the revision history having reverted" In 6 years of editing on enwiki, I have made 2 reverts at that article - those today. Not sure what do you mean, but whatever it is not surprising at all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean what I said in my last post. The comment stands and I withdraw no part of it. I didn't ask how long you've edited. You've come here to report a person who has not violated EW policies and against whom you have militated twice in the past hours, and it is not the first time you have resorted to this antic in the hope of eliminating opponents. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• To the closing admin Check the diffs for the 3 cases of the 3RR breaches carefully, and do not rely on comments by non-admin editors. In the Balkan topic area it is common that some editors comment to derail the report with misleading comments. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• To the closing admin. I have struck out comments where I said 3RR has not been breached. I mistook an "18" for a "16" due to the colour coding settings which confused me. At the same time, please consider that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himara_Revolt&diff=1110998757&oldid=1110986863, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himara_Revolt&diff=1110970605&oldid=1110969857 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himara_Revolt&diff=1110894589&oldid=1110864223 constitute a classic case of WP:TAGTEAM. Nobody is upholding policies here and nobody has issued edit-warring templates to anyone, and the timing of Ktrimi's second disruptive revert did not give Alexioua a fair chance to self-revert. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment [10] I personally gave Alexikoua a warning about EW just 3 days ago. He's a very experienced user who is aware of the situation when he's edit-warring and when he breaches 3RR. The rules should apply to everyone. I'm about 2 years on wiki and I've always tried to never do more than 2 reverts at any given dispute. I just calm down and go to the talkpage. This didn't happen here and there should for once be consequences. It's not even the first time that Alexikoua is reported about placing 4 reverts [11], and a long time editor should know better than that.Alltan (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with certain statements above by Ktrimi991. I am among the main contributors of the specific article since 2016 but this is the first time I am part of an edit war [[12]]. An editwar has always two sides but Ktrimi991 performed two reverts [[13]][[14]] without the slightest participation in talkpage [[15]]. As already described above there is a clear wp:TAGTEAM pattern, with editors even reverting without posting anything in the correspondent talkpage.

When the situation is getting hot I'm always used to self-revert ([[16]], [[17]]) and carefully avoid any further edit before reaching consensus in talkpage. However, Ktrimi didn't offer me this opportunity here. Instead he jumped into action [[18]] and I wonder why he also reverted an obvious copy-edit correction in 'aftermath' section.Alexikoua (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You have breached the 3RR three times in less than a month, not to mention other cases with 3 reverts within 24 hours. A "self-revert" after being reported does not solve that, reflection on your long-term behaviour does. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. A self-revert does annul the last of the actions potentially bringing an editor back to within a state of pre-3RR. It's all in the guidelines. It is a clear fact that Alexikoua is presently at odds across numerous articles with the same two-three accounts and all over the same Greek-Albanian disputes (not sure anyone means by "Balkan" here), and so it is completely inappropriate to impute the finger of blame at one person and to cultivate the opposite lobby as the white knight of the project. He mentioned TAG TEAM which is another guided policy and this has not yet been addressed by any one of Alexikoua's detractors. I know bullying when I see it. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You can be edit warring even if you do not breach 3-rr. The three-revert rule is a bright-line test, but you can be blocked even if do not approach that level of reverts, as long as there is evidence that you are edit warring. So, while a self-revert can be taken into account, it's not a get out of jail free card. Now, moving on to the case at hand, @Alexikoua:, there is evidence that you were edit warring. I don't particularly like blocking productive editors, especially in the light of the fact that the edit war has apparently stopped for the moment; so I'm amenable to closing this with a warning, but I'd like to be reassured that, going forward, when you are reverted you will start discussing the issue on the talk page immediately, instead of first reverting a bunch of times and then moving on to the talk page. Salvio 10:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: I see your point about being reluctant to block an old editor, but 3 breaches of the 3RR in less than a month and edit warring on other articles are not a small thing. To give Alexikoua a chance to avoid a block while making sure the edit warring does not cause more mess on controversial Balkan articles, could an "official" revert restriction be imposed on Alexikoua? In the past such Balkan issues were often solved by imposing on the editor 0RR or 1RR which were removed after 6 months if the editor respected the rules. Can sth similar be done here; Alexikoua is aware of the ARBMAC rules regarding the Balkans. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that I saw it, in 2010 a revert restriction was imposed on Alexikoua [19]. A similar one IMO could be used again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is probably a matter of different editing philosophies, I try to stick to the principle that blocks are preventative and not punitive as much as possible. So, if there is no disruption occurring right now, I prefer a discussion to restrictions and sanctions, especially when the editor in question is productive. Furthermore, even if I blocked him, the block ought to be lifted as soon as he gave credible assurances that he understands what the problem was and that he will no longer violate the relevant policy. If we can obtain the same result without resorting to blocks or restrictions, in my experience, it's better for all the people involved. Then again, this is only the opinion of a single administrator; any other passing administrator can decide that I'm being too lenient and impose a block or a restriction himself. Salvio 12:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Ofc restrictions should not be used to "punish" but to prevent disruption. I am supportive of "official" restrictions because they provide clarity. For instance, I need a clarification: lets say that after 2 weeks Alexikoua makes 3 reverts within 24 hours on an article and stops there to not breach the 3RR. That would be edit warring given Alexikoua's history. What would you do in that case? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, every report is actioned on the basis of its specific circumstances, so I can't make predictions concerning hypothetical future violations... However, I'll say that, as I'm sure you know, there is also WP:AE, which takes a different approach. This board is meant to address active (or recent) edit warring and the administrator actioning any report will usually take into account previous incidents, to decide whether sanctions are appropriate and their duration; AE, on the other hand, deals with long-term problems and can impose sanctions and restrictions even in cases where a hypothetical WP:ANEW report might be closed as stale. Salvio 13:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

At least to report here I use Twinkle; to prepare a whole AE report with all the diffs and explanations that are needed I will have to sacrifice my free time. Or to just let Alexikoua edit war if they choose to do so. I did not report Alexikoua's two previous 3RR breaches because I did not have enough time, and you are suggesting to me to report them again at the time-consuming AE if they edit war for a fourth time. Anyways.... Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge the fact that I was edit warring in this case and I have to apology to the community for this. My general contribution shows that I'm focused on improving articles in a multitude of topics and on cooperation with co-editors. As such in case I'm reverted I'll always resort in discussing the disputes on the talk page ASAP as the only possible way to establish a new version. I have also to thank @Coldtrack: for providing a detailed neutral picture on the dispute as an uninvolved editor.Alexikoua (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Salvio giuliano: Time to close this. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks, I'd say we can close this as Warned Salvio 09:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Dallavid reported by User:Viewsridge (Result: Both users partially blocked from article for 72 hours)

Page: September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [27]

Comments:
Changing the article lead without proper references. Reverted by multiple users over a period of days. The proposed changes are being opposed at the article talk page. Not self reverting despite notification. Viewsridge (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Viewsridge, there are multiple users opposed to the reverts you are making. You claimed the sources I added were opinion pieces and never replied when I explained they aren't. You haven't replied to me in the talk page for days, and you revert all of my changes instead of just the ones you disagree with. You never responded to User:Knižnik's reply either. I wish you would've been more active in the talk page if you still had any concerns.

Also, the first two diffs you linked are not reverts. And I didn't even edit the article after your "warning", which you made this report 10 minutes after. I had also warned you of edit warring after you made 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. --Dallavid (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article, so as to work things out on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Lofogirl and User:Kzqj reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Both blocked indef)

Page: Yonatan Netanyahu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Lofogirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
and Kzqj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Last revert by Lofogirl
2. Last revert by Kzqj
3. Lofogirl
4. Kzqj
5. Lofogirl
6. Kzqj
7. Lofogirl
8. Kzqj
9. Lofogirl
10. Kzqj

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Kzqj and Lofogirl

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a. I have not edited this article so don't think it would make sense for me to start the Talk page discussion. There is nothing recent on the Talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Kzqj and Lofogirl

Comments:
I haven't edited this page but have tried to work out what the actual content dispute is and failed. There are around ten reversions before the diffs posted above, the whole thing appearing to start on 16 September 2022. I posted to both users' Talk pages (using softer wording as one editor appears to be new and the other fairly new), but both have reverted each other since I posted on their Talk pages. Tacyarg (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The account "Lofogirl" seems to be purely devoted to disruption, having done literally nothing except for making ten identical reverts to this article. I do not think there is a content dispute. I think the edits of User:Lofogirl are vandalism. Kzqj (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Lofogirl is Blocked indefinitely as a NOTHERE SPA, Kzqj is Blocked – for a period of 24 hours because Lofogirl's edits are not obvious vandalism, and because they never did any of the things that responsible editors are expected to do in this situation, such as initiate talk page discussion or warn the other editor directly, they just kept on edit warring (In fact, it is only because I indeffed Lofogilr that Kzqj is getting the minimum block time ... their reverts would otherwise IMO have merited a week-long block). Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I have upgraded Kzjq to Blocked indefinitely as it seems they may be yet another sock of the Best known for IP LTA. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Michael.C.Wright reported by User:MrOllie (Result:Blocked)

Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111224163 by MrOllie (talk) Removing a poorly sourced and misleading, impartial truth. See Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#Collective_action_of_edit_warringtalk page"
2. 23:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "Back to the drawing board (or the talk page in this case)."
3. 23:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "WP:BOLD and census-driven, per discussion in talk."
4. 14:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "As a biography of a living person, it is very important to get it right and contentious copy should remain in the talk page until consensus has been reached. Bon courage is not participating in the discussion and is instead resorting to repeated and disruptive reverts of good faith edits."
5. 03:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "FFF is right; none of the things mentioned as control measures were identified as control measures by any of the articles sourced and therefore that statement should be revised by consensus before being replaced. See talk page for more."
6. 22:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110958692 by Hob Gadling (talk) "age-targeted viral testing" might be considered fantasy by some editors but that doesn't change the fact Kulldorff supported it and that fact was documented by a previously accepted source. See talk for more details."
7. 14:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110902452 by Bon courage (talk) See talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "/* September 2022 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "/* We have a source which says just this anyway */"

Comments:

• Please note that MCW was already formally warned once, by EdJohnston for edit warring at the same article in January. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• I'd also note the user has created an entire subpage dedicated to the theme of how they're a lone voice of truth battling with a cabal of misguided editors wrt Martin Kulldorff. That mindset seems to be manifesting itself with the renewed behaviour/arguments in evidence at the article. A partial block might be called for and/or this might need to go to ANI? Edit summaries like this suggest this is not good-faith engagement but some kind of trolling against the "organized and collective"[29] foe that is perceived.Bon courage (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC); expanded 09:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• The timeline presented by MrOllie does not include the entire incident, which I have provided below. The core issue as I see it is that I placed a pertinent, cited addition with the first edit. That edit was repeatedly deleted in violation of this ArbCom ruling. These deletions made the copy biased. My reversion of the biased statement was to pare back to a policy-compliant version of a BLP. Any discussions had were because I first created the Talk page section and initiated discussion (good-faith editing).

1. My original edit, which was an addition to the original statement. This statement was properly sourced and written in a neutral point of view:[30]
2. Llll5032 reverted, then self-reverted (Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources, Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[31], [32]
3. Bon courage reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[33]
4. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[34]
5. Hob Gadling reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[35]
6. I created new talk section to discuss Age-targeted viral testing[36]
7. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[37]
8. Firefangledfeathers reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[38]
9. I created new talk section to discuss What is a control measure?[39]
10. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[40]
11. Bon courage reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[41]
12. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[42]
13. Llll5032 reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[43]
14. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[44]
15. MrOllie reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[45]
16. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[46]
17. MrOllie reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[47]
18. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[48]
19. —Edit warring complaint submitted—
20. Bon courage reverted and continues to disruptively edit around the same subject (i.e. only what Kuldorff opposed)[49]

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ; edited 16:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Some of those edits above, which Michael.C.Wright claims are libelous or biased, to not appear to clearly be. Thus, the whole of this user's defence hangs on whether he qualifies for a 3RR exemption for BLPs. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred, is that a determination you're willing to make? Are you seeking diffs or comments to help you make a decision? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rules are for comments and replies in this process. Please forgive me if it's not my turn to comment. If there are rules or general guidelines for how we proceed, please let me know.

Regarding assertions that "age-targeted viral testing" was "new, untested and rejected by scientific consensus"; a few months before Kulldorff and Bhattacharya's article in which they talked about it, the CDC had published recommendations that included this:

Clinicians are encouraged to consider testing for other causes of respiratory illness, for example influenza, in addition to testing for SARS-CoV-2 depending on patient age, season, or clinical setting...

Timing and context matter. As late as August of 2020, the CDC felt that testing based on age was a useful measure. The statement penned by Kulldorff and Bhattacharya indicates their support for what was, at the time, a CDC recommendation—not a fringe theory. I think that is important enough to be included in the lede, alongside Kulldorff's opposition to other measures.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 22:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling talks about removing statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. The statements in question were not written in a neutral narrative according to WP:NPOV, which does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Listing generally accepted measures such as masks and lockdowns in the same sentence together with a measure that is new, untested and rejected by scientific consensus without mentioning the fringe status of that measure would present it as if it were of equal validity. The addition was WP:PROFRINGE and subject to WP:BRD and WP:WAR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Back in January I had warned User:Michael.C.Wright against continuing to edit war on this article. Now, between September 18 and 20 he has made eight reverts. His claim that he is reverting to protect BLP seems implausible. The BLP exception (item #7 at WP:NOT3RR) is intended to exclude really scandalous material and not to prevent plausible restatements of the publicly-known views of Kulldorff. Such restatements fall under WP:DUE rather than BLP, so far as I can tell. Disagreements about DUE are to be worked out on the talk page. In case of failure to agree, consider an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:196.206.162.32 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Semi)

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

User being reported: 196.206.162.32 (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 01:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC) to 01:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 01:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 00:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC) to 00:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 00:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 00:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "warning about edit-warring"
2. 01:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Invited them to discuss on the talk page in this edit summary, but not much else I can do to bring an IP user to the talk page when they've already ignored all other warnings and feedback.

Comments:

IP has also edit-warred with disruptive edits at History of Morocco and has been warned on their user talk page about it. Similar IPs also did the exact same edits at that article earlier this month (see this and this). R Prazeres (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

My personal thoughts: I think that the information DEFINITELY needs more sources, but if it can be cleaned up and vetted to ensure that it follows WP policies, there might be a chance that the info can stay. However, if the guy isn't providing RS's, sadly the information has to go to the trash bin. I'm a little unsure whether BLP would apply either; since this is a ruling dynasty, I think BLP could apply and warrant the immediate removal of the content. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree there's room within the scope of the article for this kind of content, but the IP is going the wrong way about it and refusing to discuss their edits. When I sent this report the issue was more urgent because the IP's edits had compromised citations throughout the article (see this version). Thankfully, another editor (Quebec99) has since fixed that problem (as far as I see). The new material still has WP:VERIFY and WP:OR problems, and maybe WP:NPOV issues in the mix, but some of it can probably now be moved and corrected instead. The relevant topics are already covered more carefully in other articles. But little will get done if the IP continues to edit disruptively. R Prazeres (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. The two-day-old IP seems to be warring to add promotional language to the article; They have never used the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:9000:830B:9E04:F085:6B50:F0AD:1B37 reported by User:Beccaynr (Result: Semi )

Page: Melissa DeRosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2603:9000:830B:9E04:F085:6B50:F0AD:1B37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50] 17:43, 15 February 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51] ‎14:03, 19 September 2022
2. [52] 16:03, 19 September 2022
3. [53] 02:12, 20 September 2022
4. [54] 03:54, 20 September 2022
5. [55] 13:25, 20 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56] 02:20, 20 September 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Request at their talk page to discuss at the article Talk page [57] 16:20, 19 September 2022

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

Comments:

• I reported to RFPP at 16:25, 19 September 2022 and was advised to Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. I followed up at RFPP [59] at 02:33, 20 September 2022 and have not received a reply. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As an update: I got a reply at RFPP [60], and the admin has edited the article and recused from taking administrative action to avoid any appearance of being WP:INVOLVED. Beccaynr (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected indefinitely. An IP range has been steadily reverting this article over a nine-month period without waiting for agreement on talk. Note also the current partial block on Special:Contributions/2603:9000::/32 by User:Daniel Case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Jules Agathias reported by User:Sormando (Result: Both warned)

Page: Battle of Abukir (1799) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jules Agathias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Version before reverts took place, showing differences with the 1st revert by the user Jules.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1110615658
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1110789911
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1111148429
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1111336503

3RR warning on user's talk page -----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Agathias#Edit_Warring_Report_Notice

Attempted to discuss dispute and understand why the user has reverted my information -----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Agathias#Battle_of_Aboukir

ANEW Notice posted on user's page ------> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Agathias#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:
The user claims the information I have added "does not constitute a source", at first. I misunderstood this a problem with the formatting. To this end, I re-added the information, and re-added the sources, this time properly sourcing them. The user then haphazardly removed the information again and reverted the page. To this end, making a confusing comment about contemporary sources and academic sources, even though the information I have added is backed by authorities I provided both original and academic. I re-added the information, this time taking care to include page numbers and links to archive.org where the user Jules can verify the information for himself, but he reverted it once again, and the user then added a comment about the lack of verification for a specific point I added to the page (the participation of the British in the battle to be specific), which I've referred to him previously, included in one of the authorities I have linked (correspondences by W.S.D), to this end, my 4th edit of the page I had copied lots of contents from the authority to the page, and added page numbers with each citation (the user Jules had, for some reason, removed all my citations to one authority and replaced them with "citation needed", then later on decided to re-add this authority, claim he purchased the book and will be looking into it, but nevertheless he still removed several of the citations I have included from that specific authority while "properly formatting" others). The user Jules stood corrected after I copied contents from one authority, but still went ahead and reverted the page in its entirety and told me that I can add the British as a belligerent in the battle. It is also worth mentioning that the user Jules has arbitrarily removed another authority from the page, not added by me, for reasons unknown, but I cannot trust that they are made in good faith since he has removed my citations, before conceding and adding them back in his subsequent revert on a selective basis, and his refusal to verify the information I had previously added despite being given direct links to pages on archive.org. The sum-up of what I understand from this altercation is that the user Jules wants to remove any source or authority from the page, academic or first-hand, that gives the number of the Turkish army as being smaller than 10,000, the agenda behind this I believe is bias, the user having many comments to his biases on their talk page.

To be honest, it is a rather complex and chaotic situation, owing to the difficulty of understanding what the user Jules wants to do. It is worth mentioning that there are "edit warring" warnings plastered across his talk page, so this user has a history of edit-warring and headbutting over topics of this matter. Sormando (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Addendum; to highlight the ignorance and odd behavior of this user using one microcosm, the user Jules has questioned an addition I have made to the article, the historian Paul Strathern has mentioned in his authority that Muhammad Ali had been rescued from the waters in Aboukir bay during the battle, with a reference attached to this piece of information. The user Jules had removed the citation and replaced it with "Citation Needed" selectively, but other portions of information I had added, were removed outright, citation and all. The user Jules later on decided to re-add some portions selectively, while claiming to be "properly sourcing them" (I had already done so), but he left some parts up with "citation needed" while, once again, selectively removing other portions. Then, in a truly perplexing move, the user Jules then decided that, despite me providing a direct citation to this information, went out and apparently tried to verify it himself on the internet, and replaced the citation required tag he had dutifully added with a source, which I have went to verify myself and found no reference to this information.

Links:

The aftermath section, paragraph one, the last few sentencies; "Among the Ottomans rescued from the water was thirty-years old officer of Albanian descent Muhammed Ali, who six years later would rule and transform Egypt"

The source I had added originally as a citation for this information, Page 397, 2nd paragraph last sentence.

Reversion dated 17 Sept. by user Jules, showing his citation needed tag next to sentence.

The user Jules then provides a different source to this information that I had added, although this source makes no mention to this whatsoever, which the user Jules claimed are pages 51-55 in this 1991 Johns Hopkins University Press print of "The history of modern Egypt : from Muhammad Ali to Mubarak".

Sormando (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Jules Agathias amd User:Sormando are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is no consensus to be reached here. Jules is removing verified information from the article, and even taking it a step ahead and inserting false sources for information I have added. What "consensus" can be reached other than removing my cited information to the article over a user's obvious biases against them? I wish you to take a proper look at this matter, I'd love to reach a consensus of some kind if there was one, but the user Jules has re-angled the reasons for his revert twice (first claiming my citations "do not constitute sources", then claiming some bits in my sources do not contain what I have added to the article which I've shown to the contrary).

  It is worth mentioning that I am not removing anything from the article, I have simply added information to it. My position is one of consensus (presenting all possible information in the article, cited and sourced). The user Jules' position on the other hand is pruning information due to personal biases, both by me and other users, and as stated above selectively adding false information to some that aren't pruned.

  
  

  05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Sormando (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:IagoHughes reported by User:Jr8825 (Result: No action here - filer taking complaint to WP:ANI)

Page: Owain Glyndŵr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Welsh Revolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Royal Marines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IagoHughes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1111343109 - revert, no edit summary (as it happens I agree with this revert, but Iago makes no attempt to explain to the reverted editor their action, a common theme here)
2. Special:Diff/1111332164 - revert without acknowledgement of a talk page thread and article tag being recently added to make them aware of the policy on lead length, and the reverted editor already explaining their change on the talk page
3. Special:Diff/1111023164 - revert, a particularly clear case of POV-pushing
4. Special:Diff/1110112197 - revert, no edit summary
5. Special:Diff/1110112197 - revert, no edit summary
6. Special:Diff/1104083861 - revert, no edit summary
7. Special:Diff/1094474415 - revert, no edit summary
8. Special:Diff/1110353453, Special:Diff/1110353553 and Special:Diff/1110353553 - batch reversion without edit summary or participation in relevant talk page thread
9. Special:Diff/1110831356, Special:Diff/1110831732 and Special:Diff/1110838998 - edit warring to restore recently added content I had contested as unreliable (see attempted talk page resolution below).
10. Special:Diff/1111235406, Special:Diff/1111235655 removal of inline cleanup tags without resolving them

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Special:Diff/1109577506/1110354901 - see previous warnings, too

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Special:Permalink/1111300338#Breverton does not seem to be a good source, discussion only relates specifically to warring at Welsh Revolt and Owain Glyndŵr. See my comment below for further explanation

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

• Special:Diff/1111363901

Comments:

• Previously blocked for edit warring on the same topics in April. Immediately resorts to reversion despite ample warning. Generally refuses to engage with other editors, particularly when they disagree; to their credit they did reply to one thread about an unreliable source they've been pushing forward, but then stopped participating when the evidence challenged their stance. Competence issues combined with nationalist POV-pushing and a disregard/disinterest in understanding policies brought to their attention makes their edit warring even more disruptive. Jr8825 • Talk 16:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Jr8825: I don't get it. With respect to Owain Glyndŵr, they've only edited the article twice today; before that, you have to go back to September 15. With respect to Royal Marines, they haven't edited the article since September 13. I see no basis for taking any action. If you're interested in sanctioning the editor for more generalized misconduct than recent edit-warring, you should seek such sanctions at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  I reasoned that as the main part of their disruption is consistent misuse of reverts and warring below the 3RR bright-line (and given their previous block for this), this would be the simplest and most direct forum. If you think ANI is more appropriate given the complexity of their disruption, I'm fine with taking it there. Jr8825 • Talk 17:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• No action - filer to go to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Elephanthunter reported by User:HappyMcSlappy (Result: )

Page: Wikipedia talk:No Nazis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elephanthunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66], also a prosaic warning here: [67] also user used the edit warring template on my page when they were at 2RR, here: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] user reverted: [70]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [71]

Comments:
User posted the EW template on my talk page after my first revert, and then immediately after (or before,, I haven't checked timestamps) performed their second. Has been reverting rotely ever since. Happy (Slap me) 23:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I self-reverted before this noticeboard post was made. See [72]. That being said, I would recommend WP:BOOMERANG. Happy recklessly deleted comments. Editing other user's comments is, generally, disallowed. Happy made no attempt to cite policy for their belief that the conversation should be closed. Closing discussions is strictly a matter of consensus or policy. A conversation about closing could have continued on the talk page. Instead, Happy's actions made civil talk page discussion impossible. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is very much a case of "it takes two to edit war". I'd note that Elephanthunter had self-reverted their last revert three minutes prior to this AN3 report being submitted, which can be taken as a sign of good faith that it was a mistake per WP:3RR.

However that still leaves the actual edit war, for which I believe both editors are at fault. While Elephanthunter's reverts were in the wrong, so were HappyMcSlappy's second and third reverts. That particular talk page has seen much activity over the last few weeks, and I'm fairly certain that another editor would also have removed the comments per the seventh bullet point of WP:TPO. And while I realise my issuing of the 3RR notice only to Elephanthunter could be seen as one sided, when going to issue the notice to Happy I noticed in his talk page history that Elephanthunter had already issued a notice, and made the judgement call that even if the notice was possibly issued in bad faith, it still counted as awareness of the 3RR and EW policies.

As both editors have now ceased reverting each other, and have contributed here, I'm not entirely sure if any blocks are necessary per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. If they are not, I would suggest a strong warning to both editors as an alternative. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: An edit war begins once there is repeated override of content. The edit war began with Happy [73], hence the warning. Also, there is no justification for Happy's deletion of my comment (nevermind their attempt to archive the entire conversation). That is not a way to have civil discussion on Wikipedia. Crazy idea: Maybe we should keep on-point and discuss the content, rather than treat the talk page like a scorched-earth WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll tell you what: Give me one good reason why that discussion should have been re-opened, several editor's comments hatted (including one calling for a close) per your own judgement and your continuation of a disruptive argument permitted, and I'll admit I was wrong and self-revert. Just one good reason why your desire to get the last word in justifies continuing a time sink like that discussion. That's all it'll take. And I don't mean some procedural wonkery. A real, rational reason.

I'd also love to hear your explanation as to how a single revert constitutes edit warring. Because it was you that was reverted? Happy (Slap me) 02:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• (Comment in non-admin capacity.) I would note that HappyMcSlappy is now edit-warring at this noticeboard to remove a comment pointing out a previous account he edited under and was involved in relevant controversies under, calling it harassment even though WP:CLEANSTART explicitly describes such comments as the likely consequence of returning to a topic area one edited under a previous account. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please note that HappyMcSlappy is almost certainly the same individual as user:MjolnirPants, the creator of that essay, operating a not-really-clean start account. See [74] and the accompanying discussion, as well as this comment [75] by user:Tamzin. 174.212.168.189 (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@174.212.168.189: Reverting other user's comments seems blockable all on its own. It seems a pretty gross violation to do so on essay created by the old account, in violation of WP:CLEANSTART (if this is in fact accurate), and on the administrators noticeboard [76] [77]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that I've removed this comment twice per WP:HARASS, (this is not the IPs first time doing this) and Elephanthunter has reverted it back here. Between the edit warring template placed on my talk page in response to a single revert, the making of four reverts (with evidence that the user was well aware they were going over 3RR to begin with) and now this, I don't think they have any leg to stand on to complain about civility.

I would also note that Tamzin, who has commented above, has a history of incivility with me which can be seen (along with ensuing criticism for it from El_C) here Happy (Slap me) 03:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

El_C took exception to my vagueness regarding why I felt you were violating WP:CLEANSTART—evidence I had omitted for your sake. You've since made clear that you have no intention to comply with that policy, so I'll be clearer: You are engaging in disputes on a page you previously engaged in disputes on, over an essay you wrote, while refusing to disclose either of those facts. I haven't looked into the details of this edit war, and frankly don't really care, but if you are going to stay involved with NONAZIS to the extent of bringing people to noticeboards, you need to disclose your previous account. It is not okay to bring someone to ANEW while seeking to obscure your own history of disruption on the very page in question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. You're upset or off-put or whatever you'd like to call it because you think you can tell I had a previous account. But you've also been making a point of trying to publicly link me to that account from our very first interaction.

And you're doing so in concert with IPs and involving some off-wiki coordination. That's some quality admin work, right there. Happy (Slap me) 04:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@HappyMcSlappy: I beg your pardon? I was pinged to this thread. If you have evidence that I'm engaged in off-wiki coördination of some sort, please send it to ArbCom. Otherwise, please retract that accusation.

Also, from "you think you can tell" and "our very first interaction", do I take it you're saying you are not MjolnirPants? Because taking the Fifth is one thing, but if you're outright denying your past history regarding NONAZIS, then this is just regular sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:MCRainbowSupernova8196 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: )

Page: Ozymandias (Breaking Bad) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Ffs. It literally means third-to-last"
2. 02:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Jesus Christ."
3. 23:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "Fuck off. It means the same goddamn thing. Stop making this a fucking problem when it means exactly the same thing. Is it my fault your vocabulary's limited? No."
4. 11:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "This is ridiculous."
5. 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "It's not unnecessary. It means the same thing, it's a one-word way of saying that."
6. 16:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "Yeah, it does. Also, this is an internet encyclopedia, so why should I?"
7. 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "And you have the nerve to call the word "preantepenultimate" absurd."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Ozymandias (Breaking Bad)."
2. 02:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on To'hajiilee."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring, uncivil edit summaries, etc over various articles. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• (comment from uninvolved editor) This is not the first time MCRainbowSupernova8196 has edit-warred over some obscure terminology. See the fiasco regarding the use of the French term carambolage here and here. They were given a final warning by an administrator regarding edit warring and other combative behaviour in July 2021. This, however, did not deter them from repeat violations of the MOS when changing "is" to "was", see here and here. This is not an isolated incident, it is repeated and deliberate behaviour despite an utter excess of warnings and extensive explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Bverji reported by User:PopoDameron (Result: )

Page: Wing Chun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111461336 by LilianaUwU (talk) This is last time reverting this, but please refer to wikipedia instructions on how list within articles are suppose to be formatted before changing and discuss on talk page. g"
2. 03:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111262998 by PopoDameron (talk) Please refer to talk page. Unsourced and lists should have their own pages via wiki instructions about lists."
3. 02:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */ section is a list, should have it's own page."

Note: not a revert, but against discussion in the talk page. PopoDameron (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "/* re Wing Chun */ new section"

Other relevant diffs:

1. 03:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC) on User talk:PopoDameron

Comments:

Bverji first went to the talk page of Wing Chun to propose the removal of the 'in popular culture' section, but they were met with another user's opposition. Nevertheless, they performed these changes without consensus, and when their edits were reverted, the persisted to undo the reverts twice. They claim that no consensus is needed because some of the material in the section is not sourced, but instead of simply removing these items, looking for sources, or seeking consensus once more, they reverted edits again. PopoDameron (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion in the talk page did not include a discussion on how lists should be conducted within articles. I was unaware of how lists should be done 9 months ago when removing the popculture section was discussed 9 months ago on the Wing Chun talkpage. The revert on Sept 20 mentions that it was deleted because it needed to be moved to a new page not removed. Because of this it does not go against what was previously discussed, the part of the article was removed so it could be redone. The section on practitioners on the Wing Chun page had also been changed to this format and yet no one had any problem with it. This format should be consistent within the article. I invited Popodameron to discuss this on the forum and rather than try to discuss it rushed to report me. Later, LilianaUwU reverted and I again undone the revert with a message that I would not change it again, but was inviting them to please refer to the section on how to include lists in the article and please discuss it on the talk page. I don't see how someone claims an edit war when I didn't break the 3 edit rule and explicitly stated I would not change it again, only asking for future edits to read the rules about lists. In my view people started reverting without actually reading and considering why it was reverted and assumed it was removed for the same reason as I attempted to remove it 9 months ago (I believe their explanations support this conclusion). I admittedly have a bias against lists, I think they junk up pages (and this is essentially what the rules on lists conclude as well). All I was looking for was someone to clean up the lists and make it follow the guidelines provided. Bverji (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I "rushed to report you" because even though you were trying to explain your reverts, you were also reverting again at the same time. While looking for consensus, you should stop reverting and move to discuss. As for what you say about formatting and lists, this section was not a list. It may appear somewhat as a listing of items, but this does not warrant deleting the whole thing. You could have instead tried to add more prose to help it flow better. PopoDameron (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

But I did say I would not revert it again and I was obviously trying to get people to come to the talk page to discuss it in good faith. So I was obviously doing what you were suggesting I should do. I said I was going to stop reverting and asking people to discuss. As for how to handle changing the section that is something that would be great to discuss on the talk page. If a section is done wrong it is also not incumbent of me to change it. Bverji (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, giving context this mostly happened within a short amount of time. In hindsight I realize it would have been better to approach this change on the talk page before editing (but I was thinking someone would just make a link page like they did for other things on the page). But the idea that I got reported for edit warring when I didn't break the 3 revert rule, said after the 2nd revert that I would not be edit warring, and was seeking others to form a consensus is absolutely absurd. I am not claiming I couldn't have handled it better, but this was an over reaction. The second revert clearly was aimed to inform new comers on what bases this revert was done and to invite people to change what I had added because I would not be changing it back. The second revert was just for communication (because people often don't even look at the talk page) and was given clear indication I would not change any further changes to the page. Bverji (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Wing Chun is not the only martial arts style related entry Bverji has done this at; there are many others - see Special:Contributions/Bverji. He has also been involved in some degree of edit-warring at the Krav Maga entry and it's talk page circa 2020. --TrickShotFinn (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There have been an editor that has consistently been adding pop culture sections that have no sources to many martial art pages. I have cleaned these up when I come across them. As for edit waring in krav Maga I wholly dis agree with that characterization. The Krav Maga page is a target of vandalism and changed often without any sources provided for such changes, that is not edit warring.Bverji (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)