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

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

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

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

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

Result: User:Aardwolf68 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Becky Lynch without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Look, I didn’t want this to be an issue because I believed that this was fairly obvious. If you just search in “Becky Lynch Heel Turn” you’ll find multiple sources confirming the heel turn and multiple opinion pieces about the subject. I don’t know why this has to be an issue Aardwolf68 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Dimashlar reported by User:Beshogur (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]
5. [13]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

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

• The four reverts in question were not made within 24 hours, so there isn't a 3RR violation here. Also, both parties here have been edit warring without seemingly attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page or seek a WP:Third opinion. Please do not edit war in future.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] [24]

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

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

Comments:

• It doesn't appear that this user is here to build an encyclopedia, they have repeatedly added nonsense to the said page despite repeated warnings, and have no useful edit history. Blocked indefinitely.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:179.177.173.112 reported by User:89.172.79.221 (Result: Semi)

Page: Zachlumia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 179.177.173.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

• Result: Page semiprotected three weeks by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:WatanWatan2020 reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Levantine Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WatanWatan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36]

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

Sections to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:Levantine_Arabic#Contentious_points_as_of_Oct_10th
2. Talk:Levantine_Arabic#Current version and proposed modifications

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38] [39]

Comments:
Two uninvolved linguists commenting on the discussion (Taivo and Austronesier) have agreed that the consensus is against WatanWatan2020, and one of them (Austronesier) reverted one of WatanWatan2020's blanket reverts, only for WatanWatan2020 to revert them in turn. I'd say three, but I'm involved in the sense that the other editor in this dispute (A455bcd9) has adopted some of my suggestions for improvement, including compromising with WatanWatan2020 on some points (in the layout of the info box). The only independent complaint about the opposing editor A455bcd9 is a 'wall of text' objection by Austronesier, and my agreement that I wasn't going to read all that in order to comment, which is why A455bcd9 started a 2nd discussion thread.

I offered to not file this ANI report if WatanWatan2020 self-reverted and brought their points of contention to the talk page instead, or to cancel it if they self-reverted after I filed. They refused to self-revert and said they'll explain themselves here. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello there. I suspect that there was an in-tandem effort to get me to revert the page back to its original form at least 3 times in order for the excuse to be made that i violated the 3RR rule, thereby having a complaint put up against me here.

The page was returned to its original form, where the contentious points that were being discussed in the talk page would not be changed. There was no consensus on those points, hence no legitimate right to change them. This user who is reporting me has disregarded the talk page discussion and rules of WP:Consensus to make the changes on his own merit. This is a violation.

To discuss the core issue in detail, the matter revolves around 9 points that was proposed by another user @A455bcd9. Mind you now that this user has had practically de facto control over this article since he edits and deletes as he wants. I have no issue with it. Although when i implemented information myself, he took issue with it and made deletions. An edit war broke out and he reported me to Admin. Upon getting looked at by Admin. We were warned not to edit each others contributions, especially him since the contributions getting deleted were mines only. So he started a discussion on the talk page, and proposed 9 points to make changes to. After contesting them, i decided to compromise with him and allow for 7 of the 9 points to be implemented in the hopes of reaching an overall consensus and putting the matter entirely behind us. Yet, he maneuvered again to have the 2 remaining points changed in his favor.

So an online discussion has been had since he proposed the 9 points. He has pinged users personally to come join the discussion which proposed their thoughts on the matter, some even agreeing to certain points. Again the compromise was made by me to accommodate that.

Although, A455bcd9 has been engaged in “SEALIONING” (check wiki for definition) for the longest time. He recently changed edited the page while disregarding the talk page discussion results and the general WP: Consensus policy. Thereafter, 2 more users, including the one doing the reporting here doing the exact same thing. Although, one of them (not one of these two) seems to have understood when i explained to him that no consensus has been reached for a change to be made.

So the user reporting me to ANI here and A455bcd9 are in violation of WP:Consensus. I have the personal suspicion that this effort was made in tandem where they edit the page to A455bcd9’s version in which i then revert the page back to its original form at least 3 times to have the excuse of me violating the 3RR rule, so that a report could be lodged against me.

And to add, user A455bcd9 claimed to have spoken to some of these users outside of wikipedia which helps increase the count on his side regarding the matter. Since when did speaking to people outside of WP count towards a consensus? and may this be a case of some form of meat-puppetry?

With full honesty, i tried to reach a wide enough agreement as possible. I compromised on 7 of the 9 points he wanted changes to. He has made 0 compromises. He has also added to the page continuously during the discussion and contention and i have no issue with it, never opposing it. It is only when i or someone else has made the changes, did he take issue with it.

It is all documented, whether in the edit logs or in the talk page discussion. Please see.

To conclude, This was not a matter of edit warring on my side. I reverted back to the page’s original form, that doesnt include changes to the points discussed in the talk page. Any other addition to the article is not being reverted, removed or challenged. I am sorry in advance if there has been such, but only because the user is looking to implement material during a conflict like this, maybe in the hopes of portraying me as deleting everything that is being implemented? to make me look guilty? I am not too sure. But i welcome it and have no issue with it.

The users changing the article should see no consensus has been reached, especially from the situation within the talk page. Thanks.

PS: the mention of 2 linguists being a good reason to “reach consensus” is not a good reason. I myself am an Arabic speaker with native knowledge and study in this field. For any linguist to challenge and claim that Levantine Arabic is not indigenous to the Arab countries and communities in the Levant.. should not be considered a linguist. This is literally what is being challenged and proposed to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

To add after reading @Kwami post here recently, that is why there is an issue. He mentioned that he wasnt going to read the original discussion because of ‘walls of text’ … this means he did not read the original discussion which is directly linked to the new one started (both the discussions are the same, the newer one is just a short, cleaned up one that shows only A455bcd9’s side and argument). This is the reason why he did what he did, which was to disregard the WP:Consensus and the core discussion altogether. And the claim by @Kwami that @A455bcd9 made compromises with me is flat out false. O compromises were made with me. He has engaged in WP:SEAlIONING and has bothered me with repeated inquiries and questions -the same ones practically - to which i answered multiple times in the attempt to wear out my patience so that i may make a mistake of some sort. O compromises were made with me, while i made 7 with him.

I urge anyone to actually read the discussion, and not say “i wasnt going to read it” and then make a decision based off of that.

Thanks

WatanWatan2020 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, to add for a third time here… my suspicions were right. On Kwami’s talk page, user A455bcd9 and him have a discussion under the title “third opinion request”.

After A455bcd9 inquires “what should I do next?” , Kwami responds: “Pretty simple, really: if they refuse to accept consensus, then they need to rv each of us, which runs afoul of 3RR. It would be better of course to resolve issues through discussion, but if they insist on escalating, they're likely to lose. They just reverted you twice and Austronesier once. I've now restored the consensus version, and warned them about 3RR. (That's the 2nd warning 3RR for this article, and they've been blocked before, so it's not like they don't know how this works.) I haven't touched this article in years, so these aren't my contributions, except indirectly through the discussion. If they rv me, report them to ANI, or I can”

This goes to prove my suspicion that there was a joint effort to get to me to violate the 3RR rule to put a complaint on me. This has to carry some form of consequence, really. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated at all. There was no consensus either.

PS: I am sorry that i cannot link directly to Kwami’s talk page. I dont know how to but i am learning to do these things.

WatanWatan2020 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if you revert multiple editors who are enforcing a consensus, you'll have 3RR problems. That's part of what consensus involves. This wasn't a trick: you'd already violated 3RR before I made those comments to A455bcd9 on my talk page, explaining to them what was likely to happen if you continued to edit-war, and I warned you on your talk page, and then when you edit-warred yet again, offered you another chance -- the option to revert yourself, so as to avoid ANI. You chose not to. And I see below that you've continued to edit-war even after you've defended yourself here on ANI claiming that you aren't edit-warring -- that's pretty blatant. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an overwhelming majority of editors commenting agree against you is a WP:CONSENSUS. You don't have to agree. You don't have a correct understanding or appreciation of consensus. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm involved in the dispute so I won't comment it but I'd like to note the previous reports regarding WatanWatan2020:

• 3RR, Sept 2021. Result: both WatanWatan2020 and I warned,
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive335#WatanWatan2020, Aug 2021. Result: archived without being closed or resolved,
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#WatanWatan2020, Jan 2021. Result: archived without being closed or resolved. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Update Another revert[40]. –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The intention after Kwami and A455bcd9 was to engage in edits in order to get me to violate the 3RR rule. This is clear in the statement there. The excuse above by Kwami is trying to deduce from the exposure of this intention and subsequent action. He didnt start the edits until you informed him of this plan, right?

And what does WP:Consensus state? for example, “it is not unanimity or the result of a vote”… “Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority”

What are you guys not understanding from the above statements quoted from WP:Consensus??

There is literally a challenge to “Levantine Arabic is indigenous to Arab countries and communities within the Levant”.. this statement right here is what A455bcd9 takes issue with. What is wrong with it?? Is this statement being denied as not true?

This is an in-tandem effort to get me violated. It is the number one intention here. Once i am violated, they can operate with free reign on that article. This is the plan it seems.

To add, user A455bcd9 has been harassing me for quite some time now. WP: Sealioning. This could be seen in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment As background: The article is on my watch list for years, but I haven't edited it for a long time and I'm not involved in any way. It's clear WatanWatan2020 is in the wrong here, and their battleground behavior and many personal attacks above only make it worse. I would consider an indeff as per WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Please also note previous warnings on WatanWatan2020's talk page:

  • User_talk:WatanWatan2020#August_2020: unsourced content
  • User_talk:WatanWatan2020#October_2020: edit warring on Lebanon
  • User_talk:WatanWatan2020#Your need to adjust your approach: edit warring on Jordan
  • User_talk:WatanWatan2020#December 2020: edit warring on Arab Air Carriers Organization
  • User_talk:WatanWatan2020#January 2021: edit warring on Saudi Arabia
  • User_talk:WatanWatan2020#Edit warring: August 2021 on Levantine Arabic
  • Levantine Arabic: October 2021, edit warring

  Previous contributions show WatanWatan2020 regularly accuses other of "vandalism" and even attacks other contributors in edit comments (bold mine):

  • [41]: "The continual false changes by an arrogant Israeli onto the page of an Arab nation that does not recognize the “state of Israel” in its entirety should not vandalize such a page. The Lebanese Republic does not recognize such a state, it only recognizes Palestine in its entirety. Understand the fact that even by including “Israel” here, it is a goodwill gesture. Palestine is to the south of Lebanon, it borders it. Do not come on Arab countries’ Wikipedia pages to invoke personal arrogance."
  • [42]: "Who does the West Bank belong to? Palestine as well. Yet in the arrogance of an Israeli, such person will not put the name Palestine, but rather the West Bank. Buzz off to your own Wikipedia pages, do not interfere in the pages of Arab countries. Enemy bias should not be allowed on such pages." A455bcd9 (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

These were in the beginning when i first started my journey here on WP. Also, it was in response to massive POV pushing against Arab articles, which happens quiet alot on here. A455bcd9 has been engaged in the very same thing.

He has also published false information on Arab articles. An example is on the “Mashriq” article. He listed Israel as an Arab country. When i went to edit that, he reverted it back to the false information. Please check the Logs on the Mashriq article.

He has also repeatedly harassed me with the same questions and inquiries in the form of WP:Sealioning to wear out my patience. When I made the changes or brought citations as he was requiring, he would fish for another excuse to get his way. Everything is on record there in the logs. There is nothing to hide. That is why I am firm in my responses here.

And if i was wrong to the extent that i am made out to be here, I would have been dealt with long ago. Although time and time again Admins have seen that i was not in the wrong, rather equal disputes had come about.

And besides A455bcd9 was warned that he would be blocked had he touched my edits once again. He has been defacto controlling this article for the longest time, and has deleted the contributions of others as well. I dont understand why this is not concerning anyone here. This is a big time issue.

WatanWatan2020 (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: Another revert. (This time at least, WatanWatan2020 only reverted a few sentences and not the whole article...) A455bcd9 (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, since this is the first time the user has been reported blocked for edit warring. @WatanWatan2020: when this block expires, please accept that consensus is not with you in this case and do not resume edit warring. Any concerns or suggestions you have should be discussed at the talk page, rather than repeatedly imposing them on the article when others disagree. If you continue edit warring in this fashion then the next block is likely to be much longer. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Amakuru:, as mentioned above, please note that this is not the first time the user has been reported for edit warring. First time here. Related warning by Donald Albury on WatanWatan2020's talk page here. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  @A455bcd9: true, I meant the first time they have received a block over it. Amended. Hopefully this will be a wake up call for WatanWatan and they'll start engaging constructively to find consensus with others at the talk page, but if not then a longer block will certainly follow. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Interfase reported by User:Adelphopolis (Result: Filer indeffed)

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]

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

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

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

Comments:

• The filer was indefinitely blocked by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Cristiansr 99 reported by User:Ïvana (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: List of most-viewed YouTube videos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cristiansr 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 2 3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User didn't attempt to resolve the dispute and simply reverted the corrections.

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

Comments:
Four different users warned Cristiansr 99, 3 on the article page and one on his talk page. There was already a consensus to delete the section he is repeatedly trying to add. He was notified about edit warring and ignored it. - Ïvana (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Dealmaces reported by User:Didelphi (Result: )

Page:

1. Mephisto (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. List of Spider-Man enemies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Doctor Octopus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. Venom (character) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5. Eddie Brock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Mephisto (Marvel Comics)
• List of Spider-Man enemies
• Doctor Octopus
• Venom (character)
• Eddie Brock

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

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

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

Comments:
User Dealmaces keeps persistently listing Mephisto as "one of Spider-Man's four archenemies" or his "true archenemy" in Spider-Man-related pages, but no source has ever considered Mephisto as such. The user has cited a number of sources (which I list below) to support this claim, none of them primary (they're opinion blogs), and none of which actually refer to Mephisto as such either; therefore this is own research. The only actual matches when googling for "Mephisto Spider-Man archenemy" are these Wikipedia pages they're editing.

The user's edits have been reverted many times by several contributors, but they keep restoring them; usually mixing them with other edits on the page which makes them harder to revert (not stating that this is the user's intention, but noting it as a caution as regular revert is not possible, and explaining why most of these reverts are manual).

• https://www.cbr.com/miles-morales-one-more-day-deal-mephisto
• https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/marvel-superior-spider-man-doctor-octopus-mephisto-deal
• https://screenrant.com/spiderman-green-goblin-origin-kindred-harry-mephisto
• https://screenrant.com/spider-man-greatest-villain-mephisto-sinister-way

Didelphi (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Didelphi I already removed that yesterday. Check the pages. Dealmaces (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I still reverted some of those edits today right before submitting this report, and you restored a few even after your above reply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mephisto_(Marvel_Comics)&diff=prev&oldid=1049881310

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Spider-Man_enemies&diff=prev&oldid=1049881717

Also you seem to be removing mentions of the other archenemies now as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venom_(character)&diff=prev&oldid=1049881148

Didelphi (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That was a mistake. WP:TOOSOON. Dealmaces (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Georgi1 reported by User:Steverci (Result: )

Page: Vrats dasht (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Georgi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [54]

Comments:

The Vrats dasht article was created last month by User:SonofJacob, who is now indefinitely blocked. Though the name of the subject may constitute a small article, SonofJacob filled the article with wildly undue claims that were not even verified by the sources he was citing. Some of the sources were even bizarrely out of place, such as one about Oxford music. I have explained on the talk page the all of the sources failed to verify their claims, but Georgi1 continues to keep restoring them. --Steverci (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I was the first to point out to Steverci that he was edit warring. It is a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG.

• He is the one who violated the 3RR rule :

First revert of Steverci

second revert (my first revert)

third revert (Steverci's second revert and violation of the 3RR rule).

I then kindly asked him to come on the talk page : "Steverci (talk) raise it in talk please. There is no consensus we need to discuss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vrats_dasht"

Stareveci has been reverted twice by two different users on this :

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vrats_dasht&diff=1048738192&oldid=1048573137
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vrats_dasht&diff=1049658289&oldid=1049658032

So I didn't revert the same user three times in a row, because I also made improvements in the sources and added more relevant sources.

WP:BOOMERANG

He also uses these methods very often on wikipedia, which damages the encyclopedia.

--Van Gogia (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:VarmtheHawk reported by User:ItsKesha (Result: Both warned)

Page: List of chess grandmasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC) "Please follow the processes outlined in the linked articles before posting the template."
2. 18:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC) "Being the longest article is not in violation of Wikipedia policies."
3. 15:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC) "Nonsense. None of the statements in that warning are true."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

asked user to discuss the process on the talk page, flat-out refused All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC) I have no problem with the template being placed at the top of this article as long as the approved process is followed. As no proposal was placed on the Talk Page, there was nothing to discuss. The complainer and their collaborator saw fit to change the article repeatedly without coordination, all of which were reverted, it is incumbent on them to coordinate the changes with the other editors.VarmtheHawk (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There's four discussions already on the talk page about this issue? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous proposals on the talk page which are ongoing. This is not relevant to this noticeboard however, as you've violated 3RR. If you have concerns about other editors for issues other than edit warring, there are other places for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The talk page has become so toxic that I see no way any progress can be made on the content dispute. Basically, User:ItsKesha has pissed so many people off with their confrontational and uncivil approach that any suggestions they make are likely to be rejected out of hand. Not saying the page can't be improved, just that any future improvements are probably best done without the involvement of this editor. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Max, can you pack it in with the personal attacks and try discussing this on my talk page? And let's be honest, it wasn't me who, when asked to give an example of a Wikipedia article, opted to respond by saying "the phone book". FYI, that was the first interaction we had with each other. I guess that's an example of civility? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

VarmtheHawk has now performed a fourth revert:
01:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC "The issue of this warning has been elevated to the Administrators' noticeboard and adding it back is counterproductive. No proposal has been made on the Talk Page". — All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR normally requires four reverts, rather than three. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

For the purpose of making sure that everyone has been notified of this discussion who ought to be, I note that Onetwothreeip has also participated in the edit war. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have made one revert to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have formally asked VarmtheHawk to self-revert on their user talk page here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:VarmtheHawk and User:ItsKesha are both warned. If either of you reverts again without getting prior consensus for your change on the article talk page, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:DrKay reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: Current Version (DrKay's preferred version), Previous version (my preferred version).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 06:29 10 October
2. 2 19:37 11 October
3. 3 19:40 11 October
4. after removing sections after edits I made so one full revert couldn't be done 06:54 14 October
5. 4, another revert was again made 21:10 14 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: manually-added 3RR warning link, Twinkle-added 3RR warning link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: diff

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Manual notification of this Report, diff

Comments:

• DrKay is an admin, a user since 2006, with almost 140,000 edits. This editor should know better than this. I should not be filing an AN3 report against an admin, yet here we are. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge University is in Cambridge, England, not Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University is in Cambridge, Massachusetts, not Cambridge, England. The United Kingdom of Great Britain ceased to exist in 1801. Cite journal requires a journal name. Correcting the locations, correcting the country name, and adding the journal names should not require explanation. They are obvious improvements and clear corrections. Neutralhomer needs to explain why they are undoing these edits, none of which meets the bright-line rule. It is reasonable to assume that their refusal to accept these corrections is because their reverts are being performed indiscriminately as part of a personal vendetta and not because they have examined the edits with care or given them any thought. DrKay (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Pinging User:Rjensen and User:AManWithNoPlan, who can provide third opinions on whether editorial boards should be listed in citation templates. DrKay (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, if y'all carry on reverting without discussion, there will be blocks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion DrKay is correct in reverting the disruptive edits by The Exterminating Angel. They are degrading the quality of major artricles. Rjensen (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

i asked on the citation template talk pages and everyone agrees that editors are only useful for things like books. I would add that for editorials by the editors, they are authors. Just becsuse a parameter exist, do not mean it should always be used. For example there is a parameter to include where the author physically did the writing which is silly almost all the time. Also, execessive weight is given when there are 5 editors and 1 author. Lastly, overfilling of parametes is a problem: do we really need to know that the NYT is in NYC in NY in the USA and published by NYT corp. With them all linked and USA fully spelled out? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:113.21.228.238 reported by User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång (Result: )

Page: Capital punishment in the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 113.21.228.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC) "How is this not related to the topic? It clearly shows Jesus couldn't abrogate the capital offences since the story is inauthentic."
2. 22:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1049904513 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)"
3. 15:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1049730544 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Some guidance you should look at */ new section"
2. 13:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Capital punishment in the Bible."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Nearing WP:EW territory */ new section"

Comments:

113 and I are both at 3 reverts (BRRRRRDR), so 3RR hasn't been broken, but we are editwarring. Based on ES and refs they seem to edit from some specific Christian POV, and won't discuss on the talkpage. Would like an admin to say or do something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not used to reporting here, I used twinkle and did my best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)