Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
Incidents (archives, search)
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476
477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329
330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:WatanWatan2020 reported by User:A455bcd9 (Result: Both warned)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (I included reverts from August, before I initiated a discussion on the talk page, see below for more context)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned about edit warring on user talk by Donald Albury, asked to abide BRD and to talk on the article talk page Also previously in different contexts: Oct 2020 & Jan 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Levantine_Arabic#Current_version_and_proposed_modifications

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:
@Oshwah: opened an ANI regarding WatanWatan2020's behavior in January 2021. Oshwah wrote at that time: "I feel like a discussion should be started regarding the issues relating to WatanWatan2020's edits to these articles, as well as this user's overall conduct. Are this user's edits to these articles substandard as pointed out many times on his/her user talk page? Is this user becoming disruptive to the point where actions or sanctions are necessary?"

I opened another in August 2021. @Donald Albury: considered that I engaged, together with WatanWatan2020, in edit warring, which was unfortunately true and I apologize for doing so. Then, I started a conversion on the talk page of the article to get WatanWatan2020's feedback and ask them to provide reliable sources. They failed to do so. Instead, they opened a sockpuppet investigation against me. In a previous SPI report, WatanWatan2020 also made bad-faith and baseless accusations of sock puppetry and meat puppetry against @Ahunt: and The Bushranger (as well as some IP addresses).

Both ANIs were archived without being closed or resolved.

In August, I also asked this user, on my talk page, to provide Wikipedia:Reliable sources. To which they answered:

"This is common logic that does not require a source, as the information itself is a source."
"everything that is added accurate and undeniable information, whether sourced or unsourced. this is because the information is universally known as well. For you to say "add a source for every sentence you want to add" that would mean Wikipedia articles would have a source listed at the end of each sentence throughout articles. this has never happened and frankly seems it will never happen. It is not viable."

WatanWatan2020 adds unsourced content and removes sourced content and they aren't discussing. It is hard to deal with WatanWatan2020's disruptive behavior.

A455bcd9 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is @A455bcd9 second attempt at reporting me to the admin on the issue. In the first attempt, the admin saw the most clearly false information and was warned that he will be blocked should he revert my edits again. He initiated an edit war before complaining also. Because he didnt get his way with admins, this “discussion” he is talking about was his next attempt to reach his goal of re implementing false information on pages and continue pushing his POV narrative. For example, on the Mashriq page, he listed Israel as an Arab country and continued doing so in an edit war. This is flat out false information he was publishing. and to add, he has deleted the edits of other users time and time again in the past on the Levantine page; hes been maintaining a grip over the page and makes sure no one disrupts his pov pushing.

Now, i made a clear compromise with him. the information we were disputing, he re implemented it while i was gone. I said for the sake of ending this dispute, i am making ok with it. i added information myself that has nothing to do with his information, adding that Arabs speak Levantine Arabic in the Levant natively, and he comes deleting that.

Please check the history of this page and Mashriq, the false information he was implementing. and then also see that i made the compromise with him in Levantine Arabic Article. Check the discussion as well.

That is very uncalled for that you bring up past issues from long ago, that have been resolved so that @A455bcd9 can gain sympathy for his goal of getting me blocked so he can go back and maintain a grip over those pages and implement as he wants.

I made the compromise. where is yours? You are the one that has been disruptive. Anyone can view how many edits you have been making on these pages, one will immediately lose count just in the past week alone. and you are only apologizing for the edit war because it didnt work in your favor, as the admin warned to block you shall you revert my edits again.

Please deal with @A455bcd9 accordingly. he has been disrupting for too long on this page, and who knows what other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs)

@WatanWatan2020: You do realize that type of attitude will only get you blocked by an administrator, right? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WatanWatan2020: Do not falsely accuse another user of committing vandalism, as you did here of A455bcd9. I was (and still am) very tempted to block you for that. My advice is for both of you, WatanWatan2020 and A455bcd9, to step back from the Levantine Arabic article for a week. Do not even look at the article. After the week is up, propose any changes you want to make on the talk page. If the two of you cannot agree on the proposed changes, then seek other opinions, using Wikipedia:Third opinion, for example, before edit warring again. - Donald Albury 19:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Donald Albury,

Thanks for your help. I think this is a reasonable advice. I will not look at this article until Wednesday 22nd. On that day, I will ping WatanWatan2020 to know their opinion on the suggested changes (Mine: here and here. Another user's:here. No answer from WatanWatan2020 so far...). I hope we will then be able to have a constructive discussion :) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Both User:WatanWatan2020 and User:A455bcd9 are warned. Either person may be blocked the next time they revert on this article unless they have first obtained consensus in their favor on the talk page. Please see the advice of admin User:Donald Albury above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EdJohnston:,

Thanks for your message. I take note of the warning, even though I regret it.

As I want to avoid being blocked in the future, I would like precision on the meaning of "unless they have first obtained consensus in their favor on the talk page".
Indeed, I thought consensus had already been reached on the talk page before the incident I mentioned in this notice:
- I suggested edits on Aug 22nd,
- AdrianAbdulBaha agreed with them (not active on Wikipedia but really active on Wiktionary where he contributes on South Levantine Arabic entries),
- Nehme1499 answered (one of the main contributors of the article in the past) and said they didn't "have strong opinions" as long as "everything is well-sourced by reliable sources" (WatanWatan2020's edit was not sourced),
- WatanWatan2020, despite multiple pings over ~3 weeks, did not answer any of the points I raised.
That's why, considering there was a consensus, I said on the talk page that I would implement the suggested modifications. Three days later, I did so. In each edit message I made a precise reference to the point(s) raised in the talk page:
- edit
- edit
- edit
- edit
- edit
Ignoring the discussion that happened on the talk page, WatanWatan2020 reverted most of these edits.

As I believed that my edit was the result of a consensus, I reverted their edit and asked them to discuss. They did not and instead reverted my revert and accused me of vandalism. That's why I opened this request.

Did I make any mistake here? And what in my behavior constituted edit warring? (I'm not mentioning my behavior on August 16th when I unfortunately engaged in edit warring)

By the way, a few hours ago, another user gave their opinion and agreed with the modifications I suggested. As I said above, I won't modify this page before next Wednesday. But I'd like to know: at which point do we consider that consensus has been reached and that WatanWatan2020's lack of constructive answer is just disruptive behavior?

Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnbannan reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

12:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044475742 by Tercer (talk) No, you are in clear violation of the three revert rule. I cannot violated said rule because I am reverting my own changes. This matter is currently in dispute, because quite clearly Physics Essays is a reliable source, which you and MrOllie are disputing. Stop reverting my changes, or I'll report you as well."
12:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044473865 by Tercer (talk) You are the one engaging in an editing war - not me. I cannot be violating the three revert rule, when I am reverting my own edit. Physics Essays is clearly a reliable source cited by Wiki and listed by Wiki as being cited by Wiki. I am warning you to stop your edit war, or I will report you."
11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044471064 by MrOllie (talk) Stop reverting."
11:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044467334 by MrOllie (talk)"Physics Essays" is a peer-reviewed reliable source as stated by Wiki and cited by Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physics_journals; Who are you to say this is a fringe position? It's from a reliable physics journal. You're clearly abusing your editing privileges and if you revert it again, I'll report your abuse."
09:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044448937 by Tercer (talk) "Physics Essays" is a peer-reviewed reliable source as stated by Wiki and cited by Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physics_journals"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

11:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Profringe edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ollie has made the false claim that the peer reviewed physics journal known as "Physics Essays" is not reliable and therefore, he has repeatedly reverted my change to the page "Superdeterminism". The change I made was to add an explanatory paragraph and reference to an article written by physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson, which gives a proof under Einstein's Relativity as to why nature is superdeterministic and not random. Clearly, Wiki recognizes "Physics Essays" as a reliable peer reviewed physics journal, and Mr. Ollie is way off base in reverting my changes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays I have requested that Wiki give this page with my changes protection from Mr. Ollie's editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b10c:8f65:cd04:a180:3e9b:76ad (talk • contribs)

Physics Essays is listed here as questionable. User seems to believe the three-revert rule does not apply to them, and has reverted yet again after this report was posted. They are also threatening to report me and MrOllie for edit warring. Tercer (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kar chofo reported by User:DarkMatterMan4500 (Result: Indeffed)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

13:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044483934 by Kar chofo (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 13:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC) to 13:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
1. 13:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044482702 by Kar chofo (talk)"
2. 13:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044482736 by Kar chofo (talk)"
3. 13:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044483327 by Kar chofo (talk)"
4. 13:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044483934 by Kar chofo (talk)"
13:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044481466 by Kar chofo (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* September 2021 */ Reply"
13:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso."
13:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on User:DarkMatterMan4500."
13:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

13:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Kar chofo "/* Please stop: */ new section"

Comments:

This user started to get into an all-out edit war, and is just causing disruption on my user and user talk page by moving it to Dickrider. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as NOTHERE by another administrator. Also likely LTA.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 Alright, thank you and GeneralNotability. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swiftie1313 reported by User:157.46.70.1 (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Swiftie1313 is using another account also User:DaydreamButera--- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swiftie1313. Swiftie1313 is Edit warring to change reviews from "mixed" or "negative" to "generally positive" with other persons. Before this DaydreamButera was also doing same thing with me.[14][15] 157.46.70.1 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse users of being socks, as, it has not yet been confirmed. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry I won't do it anymore157.46.70.1 (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, you have to give them a notice that you have opened a thread about them on their talk page, I have done this for you, but please keep this in mind for the future. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already did it157.46.70.1 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you added it one second before me, thanks. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:93.149.193.190 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: 93.149.193.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC) ""
16:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* 2000–present */"
16:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* 2000–present */"
16:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* 2000–present */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC) on Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy "/* Discovery of differences in incidence of IQ gene variants */ re"

Comments:

Profringe edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MrOllie. You beat me to it! This IP is trying to add some really problematic WP:SYNTH on a controversial topic through fast and furious edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now a fifth revert from the IP in just over an hour: [17]. Generalrelative (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:81.200.82.120 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments:
IP has been edit warring their preferred version, against multiple editors, for the last five days. IP breached 3RR yesterday, but I held off on this report and asked them on their talkpage, in no uncertain terms, to stop. No attempt at communication. – ².O.^Boxing 17:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP continues to revert even after being informed (and probably reading) this report. – ².O.^Boxing 18:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User: Posters5 reported by User:Sportsfan77777 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [25] (It's several different reverts on the same page, so there isn't one good link to an earlier version.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff1 diff2 (by other editors)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff1 diff2 (by other editors)

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

Comments:
Posters5 continues to revert content by several other editors (at least 5 times in the past 24 hours), despite warnings from several different editors. One main example of reverted content relates to including the subject's father's full name without proper sourcing (which is against WP:BLPPRIVACY), or his first name which varies in different sources. The second main example involves whether to include other spellings and pronunciations of the subject's name in different languages. Besides the diffs on the article's talk page and the user's talk page by other editors, I've also warned this user myself in an edit summary. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:188.162.254.147 reported by User:MoonlightVector (Result: )

User being reported: 188.162.254.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 19:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) to 19:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
1. 19:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 19:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 19:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 19:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJlMDAkwLM'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

18:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Restored revision 1042775223 by PrimeBOT (talk): Restored due to 2 fighting over page?"
18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Would you guys stop? */ new section"

Comments:

Self edit-war on own talk page, im trying to stop them but i cant anymore. This ip is blocked too MoonlightVector 19:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sphynxdragon reported by User:Facu-el Millo (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The article is a redirect while it's being developed at Draft:What If... Killmonger Rescued Tony Stark?, the editor in question has been pointed multiple times to the draft to contribute there. There's no place for content discussion, their edits are not incorrect per se, they're poorly done duplicates of what's already at the draft

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

Comments:

The editor seems not to understand the notion of drafts, has been warned twice and hasn't relented or responded to the warnings. —El Millo (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a gross misrepresentation of the truth, and I take particular expectation to this personal attack: "they're poorly done duplicates of what's already at the draft." -Sphynxdragon (talk)

I don't mean that they're intentional duplicates, just that there's nothing of value that isn't already at the draft. It's just an infobox, a very short lead section, a shorter plot summary, one external link to IMDb and the {{What If...? (TV series)}} template. All this is already presented in a better way at the draft. —El Millo (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That "just an infobox" took a good part of an hour of work to make and has more accurate information than the draft that you are only now telling me about. "Telling me" by the way in a spurious complaint to the admins. Had you spent half as much effort communicating directly to me as you did typing nonsense this could have been resolved an hour ago. - Sphynxdragon (talk)

It took much more time to handle you constantly reverting without discussing anything and without hearing what other editors are explaining to you. The existence of the draft was explicitly stated in the edit summaries here by YgorD3 and here by me. You responded to edit summaries at other articles when your edits were reverted so you already knew about the existence of edit summaries. —El Millo (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that I saw or read all edit summaries seems a bit ridiculous. The majority of the reverts had NO summaries, so why would I be checking for them every time? You and someone else posted something on my talk page (which is much more easily read) and didn't mention the draft at all. Just admit you handled this poorly and in a rather very insular fashion. You all arrogantly felt like you didn't have to explain yourselves more clearly because you think you OWN, if not all MCU articles, then at least these "What If...?" articles. - Sphynxdragon (talk)

The first revert (which was by YgorD3) and the first time I reverted you clearly had the draft there. You should read the edit summaries for reversions. The lack of posterior edit summaries was likely because there was nothing else to say, you were just reinstating your edit without addressing or explaining anything. What I posted on your talk page is an automated warning ({{uw-ew}}) for your constant edit warring, which is why the draft isn't mentioned. It was taken you already knew about the draft, having been told so and directed there two times, and were acting disruptively anyway, either deliberately ignoring the draft's existence or not understanding what its existence meant. In any case, if you make an edit and are reverted with an edit summary (as YgorD3 originally did here) you either WP:BRB and try to fix whatever seems to be the reverter's problem with your original edit, or you WP:BRD and discuss it in the talk page. You do not reinstate your edit without saying or explaining anything. —El Millo (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Sphynxdragon's claims to the contrary, El Millo gives a great representation of what happened. Sphynxdragon also seems to have little understanding of policies and no desire to learn. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sphynxdragon has now resorted to personal attacks. [36] They call El Millo "condescending twit" and both of us "arrogant children". JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also find it highly suspect that this user had not edited since April 2021 (and November 2010 before that) before they started this edit war, but that could probably be neither here nor there for this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...yes, it is "neither here nor there" and quite frankly silly for any discussion. I run a non-profit and two businesses, one of which is related to media like the "What If...?" show. I'm married and have a child. So, no, I don't make daily Wikipedia edits. Some of you people have become really insular and lost all perspective outside of your internet group. You should go outside and touch some grass. - Sphynxdragon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sphynxdragon is continuing to edit war on the other What If episode articles. He first kept adding Jeffery Wright to the guest cast list, despite being told that Wright is a main character and doesn't go there. He's now trying to change it from the established "Cast" heading we use on all Marvel shows to "guest cast" without any discussion. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS, I will reiterate this again because you seem not to have understood me yesterday when I alluded to this: These articles don't belong to you. This is a public site, and the pages are meant to be consumed by the public, not just for the cliche you've created. That section of the Infobox template is for the GUEST cast.

Suppose you aren't going to indicate that Jeffery Wright is in the show's cast on the episode page. In that case, you need to make clear on those pages (for the general public trying to get information about the episode, not just your MCU Wiki clique) that the list of cast members are guests. I've mentioned this in my last revision, and a revision from yesterday.

This is a fairly reasonable clarification to add; you are just upset I didn't get your permission because, as I said, you are suffering under the deluded misapprehension that you own these pages. You do not, nor does your cliche. - Sphynxdragon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Canon8 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked sock)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

Comments:
~ Here the editor attempts to advance the argument that the Battle of Saragarhi article is actually about a wider conflict that the British won, despite the recent Rfc at Talk:Battle of Saragarhi#Scope and primary topic of the article? which was closed rejecting that viewpoint, and the editor was informed of this Rfc before their fourth revert. In the same diff they also claim that the sentence The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead doesn't actually reference "Afghan victory", which says they are prepared to argue black is white and white is black if they don't agree. FDW777 (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advancing any argument nor did I make over 3 reverts. I am just stating that there is no information in the references provided that the Battle was "Afghan Victory". There is no such statement that support it. Also it was part of the battle of the whole Tirah Campaign which eventually was won by British. And this editor instead of giving a reasonable explanation just starts posting warnings on talk page. I am not even claiming it to be British Victory either on the article. The references as you can see doesn't support any such statement about victory and above all the editor doesn't try to understand that the references provided are highly unreliable. The editor also discusses about Indiandefencereview.com as a third source but it has already been considered highly unreliable on WP:RSP. This is what the difference of FDW777's reverts:

 Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49] Canon8 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User FDW777 has been previously warned by Administrator (JBW) on Edit Warring : [[50]]

Canon8 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First reference says Saragarhi turned out to be a pyrrhic victory for the Afghans

Second reference says The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead

There isn't even any credible dispute about the result of the battle, since all the Indian defenders were killed and the Afghans captured the outpost. And there are two references confirming the Afghan victory. And we just had an Rfc that explicitly limited the scope of the article to the events of 12 September 1897, not the wider conflict. FDW777 (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above has now been amended to claim the references are unreliable. Indian Defence Review is cited many times on Google Scholar, and while care must be taken regarding any pro-Indian claims it makes, on this occasion they are referencing an Indian loss. The other reference is the BBC, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Any claim of unreliability (on this occasion highly unreliable) there says a lot about the person making the claim. FDW777 (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see we're now also claiming Indian Defence Review has been deemed unreliable as RSP. Per this post on the article's talk page weeks ago, that claim is 100% false. Also please stop editing comments that have been replied to. FDW777 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that we are editing at the same time it seems. First reference [[51]] states that "Unlike Thermopylae, the Battle of Saragarhi was an instance of the self-sacrifice not going in vain. The Sikhs had fought long enough to allow the British to rush reinforcements, who drove away the droves of Afghans essaying to capture Fort Gulistan." The second reference [52]] doesn't make any such statement about victory either. So since there is no reliable information on the result, the whole result section needs to be removed. Canon8 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference [53]] doesn't make any such statement about victory either. Except it does. I've explained to you several times it says The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead. At some point very recently the Indian Defence Review article was changed to remove a sentence, I've already updated the link in the article to an archived version. FDW777 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an article can be changed to remove a sentence then how can it be considered reliable and how does archiving it help? That's just ridiculous.(talk) 12:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canon8 is being tendentious in the extreme over a matter they cannot possibly win. They really needs to drop the stick now. SpinningSpark 14:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about win or lose but about what is right and wrong. I am just having a discussion which is what the Talk page forums are about. So why is term like tendentious even being applied here? If you do not like to have a discussion to resolve issue then you can just state so whether its on your talk page or the article's talk page. Canon8 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, Canon8 has been blocked as a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. FDW777 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eccekevin reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[55]
[56]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. I'm posting this here because after I'd pointed out WP:BRD as the appropriate guidance in an edit summary and posted a warning to his talk page after he'd added an unsourced half-sentence that contradicted the entirety of the existing article, he ignored it and refused to start a discussion.

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

Comments:
The well-sourced article is about a woman acknowledged as the founder of an ancient university. This user inserted the phrase "modern historians doubt she ever existed" at the end of an existing sentence, negating the premise of the entire article and supplying no source to back it up. On later additions, Eccekevin did prefix this with "some", but still provided no sources, other than, in the final edit summary, the name of sample historians, but still no sources for verification. So, essentially, this user is repeatedly adding unsourced content after being reverted and asked to discuss before restoring it.

If it matters, this user, by my count, has five previous warnings about edit warring on his talk page, and has been the subject of at least one previous discussion on this board. Largoplazo (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Eccekevin has made one revert in the last 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for reports on edit warring, not just 3RR violations. If that's incorrect, then the language at the top of this page is incorrect. Largoplazo (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saturnc0rp reported by User:Amaury (Result: )

User being reported: Saturnc0rp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Danielle Savre."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to include WP:COPYVIO image. Edit warring warning also given before my warning. Amaury • 19:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also doing the same at Stefania Spampinato – both of these articles are bad-editing/vandalism-magnets for various reasons. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Also, Pierrr22 may be a sock of the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And still at it, hours after this report filing – really need a block here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mlesch reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044736498 by Cukrakalnis (talk) There is no need for a talk. Passages like that have no place on wikipedia."
19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "There is no edit war. Just remove this false passage. The author of this claim should add it to talk."
18:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "There is no reason to take this kind of politicized statement to the talk page. This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is misinformation."
17:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Biased nationalistic sources that are not neutral. Highly questionable information and overall break of the neutrality of Wikipedia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:DeaconShotFire reported by wolf (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [66]

Comments:
Straight 4RR-vio. This does not involve me, but the this editor vs two other editors. Editor hasn't appeared to engage at all on any talk page. Pinging @Isabelle Belato and Tommi1986: - wolf 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content I am 'warring' to remove violates WP:NPOV which as you may know, takes precedence over any editor consensus. Additionally, I find it rather odd that the other editor hasn't been reported for this, given that they were doing the exact same thing. DeaconShotFire (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qwertyasdf0192363 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: )

User being reported: Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

03:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC) "the contending user is no longer involved in the content dispute. this topic and edit are described and reasoned on the talk page."
19:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "This is about funding the government ministry, which is funded the government by nature. A funding to a ministry that supports a country's entertainment is absolutely different from a direct funding into a privatized entertainment industry. There is absolutely no excerpt in the article stating Korea's pop culture receives help from the government to FINANCE itself. Without proper evidence, stop reverting edits made in good faith and reasoning."
16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "This is about funding the government ministry, which is funded the government by nature. A funding to a ministry that supports a country's entertainment is absolutely different from a direct funding into a privatized entertainment industry."
15:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "This is about funding the government ministry, which is funded the government by nature. A funding to a ministry that supports a country's entertainment is absolutely different from a direct funding into a privatized entertainment industry."
15:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "The article cited is about how the Korean government views its entertainment industry as one of the main economic sectors and does not mention any direct financial funding."
15:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "The article cited is about how the Korean government views its entertainment industry as one of the main economic sectors and does not mention any direct financial funding."
15:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044693636 by Notfrompedro (talk)"
15:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "The article cited does not provide any credible evidence of the government heavily funding Korea's entertainment industry."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Qwertyasdf0192363, Notfrompedro

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Consecutive edits made from 13:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC) to 16:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Notfrompedro

Comments:

I am uninvolved in this dispute. This report should also consider Notfrompedro (talk · contribs). The initial bold edit, the bottom one above, was from Qwertyasdf0192363. This was reverted by Notfrompedro, leading to a rapid back and forth exceeding 3RR. Both were warned after this by third party Ohnoitsjamie. The most recent revert, by Qwertyasdf0192363, (the top one listed above,) was done after these warnings. CMD (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Noorullah21 reported by User:199.82.243.96 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [74]

Comments:
Noorullah21 has been edit warring their preferred changes, against multiple editors, since 05:56, 5 September 2021‎. He has been asked on the article's talkpage to provide sources for his changes but no attempt made. Here are some more same changes by Noorullah21 that he has been trying to add on 5th September 2021 and apparently no one reported him of such edit warring. }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

He has been warned on his talk page by other editor [81] And the discussion ended with Noorullah21 apologizing for his reverts. My apologizes for the reverts as well. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC) But as you can see, he started it back again.[reply]

He has also been warned about making edits while logged out by Administrator. [82]

199.82.243.96 (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards