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. 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 than 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:Maxbmogs reported by User:Draynor9 (Result: Filer warned)

Page: 1Up (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maxbmogs (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: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9] Comments:

User:Maxbmogs was previously reported here in October: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive442#User:Maxbmogs reported by User:Wizzito (Result: ). That report expired with no admin action. The October dispute was about the film Raya and the Last Dragon. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This report was filed early on November 13. Both User:Maxbmogs and User:Draynor9 continued to revert on November 16 while the report was open. Can they both respond and say why they should not be blocked? I see seven reverts by one and six reverts by the other since November 11, so this qualifies is a long-term edit war. Without admin action (or some assurance by the participants) the reverting could go on forever. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I should like to respond, that Draynor thinks it necessary to put down the real name and pseudonym of the actress in the upcoming film while I tried to explain to him/her that it wasn't. Maxbmogs (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved simpleton who just happened to read this at this moment, it would appear, looking at the brief contribution history of Draynor9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. They seem fixated on adding this trivial information to this article and nothing else. The lack of a comment here in the initial report is also concerning. I cast no judgment on Maxbmogs, however, they should be reminded to use edit summaries much more often. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Filer User:Draynor9 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at 1Up (film) unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:69.125.65.171 reported by User:Facu-el Millo (Result: Blocked)

Page: Pinocchio (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.125.65.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts: These are just four that took place within less than 20 minutes:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

The last one was made in two edits ([15]), but there were around 16 instances where he edited or reverted to their preferred version against reliable sources and other editors, the first one dating back to August 8, 2021 (diff).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [16] (removed by user [17])
2. [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's a discussion on the subject at Talk:Pinocchio (upcoming Disney film)#Comments after the move requests were merged, where the editor has not participated

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:
The editor keeps insisting on adding 2022 as the film's year of release, when sources say the film was delayed to be released in "2022 or later", being clearly ambiguous regarding a release in 2022. The editor didn't try arguing for their position, with edit summaries such as I said the film now confirmed released in 2022 (diff), No, please! Just one time! I said we can't say 2022 or later by itself (diff), and No!! Let it stay in 2022 (diff), with slight variations and other reverts without edit summaries.

The editor was blocked for edit warring for 31 hours (block log), after which they made a further revert, the last one so far. The editor appears to have been edit warring at Wendell and Wild (see article history) as well. —El Millo (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The editor has continued edit warring at Wendell and Wild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]), all these reverts in the span of four hours. They've used edit summaries such as Please! That film has been confirmed for 2022 and No!! I don't need a source! Here!!! —El Millo (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 1 week by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Einheit947 reported by User:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1072:7EE8:D50F:6D69 (Result: Warned)

Page: No Time to Die (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Einheit947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:47, 15 November 2021 (This is his first revert, having previously made a bold edit at 03:31, 15 November 2021 that was subsequently reverted)
2. 14:23, 15 November 2021‎
3. 15:05, 15 November 2021‎
4. 15:32, 15 November 2021‎
5. 15:42, 15 November 2021‎
6. 15:58, 15 November 2021‎
7. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (at 15:46, 15 November 2021‎) - they also received subsequent warnings

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:No_Time_to_Die#Bond_dies, in which Einheit947 was pinged three times ([29], [30] and [31]) to join in the ongoing thread and has not done so

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

Comments:

• Result: User:Einheit947 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at No Time to Die unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston - Thank you for the warning. My apologies for any disruption caused, I had no idea how to participate in the entries talk pages at the time - communication s on this platform aren't exactly intuitive. I have, subsequently been made aware of the need to gain concensus.

I'm sorry the person who reported this matter couldn't have taken the time or trouble to explain what these terms entail or point to instructions necessary in order to understand first. It would at least have been constructive and prevented the matter going as far as it unfortunately did.

Ideas concerning the end as reported concerning this movie appear hugely fixed based on no real evidence other than opinion. I did introduce frame-by-frame frame footage of the scene in question proving that Bond is not shown to actually die on screen, hence the move to change the entry from "killing Bond" to "presumed dead" - however this was rejected, even though it's the same footage seen by the editors on screen which gives them the impression Bond is actually killed.

I have to be honest, I find the distinction about acceptable evidence a little odd. Evidence proffered for the opposite conclusion, that Bond isn't seen to die on screen, is the footage actually shown in the cinema, just presented in such a way what actually takes place can be clearly seen.

For your refference - https://ibb.co/smGFYgc

Once again, my apologies for my conduct, thank you for taking the view it wasn't malicious in intent. I shall endeavour not to give anyone cause to regret not punishing me further. Like I say though, a simple "word to the wise" on the part of the person reporting would have resolved the issue immediately. I genuinely had no idea correcting an error would cause quite this much fuss.

Thank you for the notification, won't happen again.

D

Einheit947 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 22:21 17/11/2021

EdJohnston, thanks for taking the appropriate step here. As you can see from the above (and from the editor's talk page), this editor isn't taking on board the fact we have policies and guidelines (despite people pointing out the various pages that need reading). I suspect this editor will either be back here, or at ANI, given their WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude on the talk page, lashing out at people who are trying to explain how things should be done. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:50F5:ADFA:E981:296 (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Sta6727 reported by User:Bluerules (Result: Warned)

Page: Bess Rous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sta6727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:
Editor is removing references to Millburn, New Jersey, the town where the article subject was born. They are falsely claiming "Short Hills, New Jersey is its own town" and "independent" of Millburn, despite the Short Hills article explicitly stating it "is an unincorporated community and census-designated place (CDP) located within Millburn Township" and Short Hills not having a mayor or governing body. This editor may be a sockpuppet of User:Facts2020, who made the same edits and used the same zip code argument in attempting to remove the Millburn references. The IP 2600:8802:6408:9F00:FD86:91C5:C41E:247B may also be a sock. Bluerules (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sta6727 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Bess Rous without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Henchren and User:AndrejFaustin reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: AndrejFaustin warned)

Page: Kyle Bobby Dunn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Henchren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AndrejFaustin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been a prolonged dispute on the Wikipedia page regarding the "Controversies" section. The last version prior to the dispute is here, where the "Controversies" section was intact. Since then several users have removed and restored it, with the most recent bout of edits occuring today between the two reported users.

• Henchren's removals:
  1. [43]
  2. [44]
  3. [45]
  4. [46]
  5. [47]
  6. [48]

• AndrejFaustin's restorations:
  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]
  5. [53]

Both users have few or no edits outside of this topic, and similar edits have been made by other usernames along the way, so there may be some footwear involved as well.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Both users were warned about the edit warring on their respective user talk pages: AndreyFauchin Henchren. Henchren responded on my user talk page making arguments about WP:BLP violations which may or may not be valid, but which don't, in my opinion, rise to the level of violating 3RR.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHenchren&type=revision&diff=1055448092&oldid=1055430232 Henchren notice]; AndrejFaustin notice.

It should be noted the AndrejFaustin has not (at this point) edited the page after the 3RR warning was posted.

Comments:

• Result: User:AndrejFaustin is warned not to restore the Twitter accusations of misbehavior by Kyle Bobby Dunn before getting a consensus of editors that these tweets provide a reliable source for the accusations. Consider using WP:BLP/N or WP:RSN to get opinions. These tweets appear to be from publishing companies but nothing relevant has been posted on those companies' own web sites. In particular, the Low-Point web site appears to still be listing Kyle Dunn's albums for sale, contrary to the tweet: "Low Point have also removed the remaining KBD LPs from sale." Also the twitter accounts are not verified accounts. Pitchfork (website) is one place where you might think that KBD's activities (good or bad) might get attention since they have published multiple reviews of his work. Pitchfork has reported nothing about this controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:NarSakSasLee reported by User:Echo1Charlie (Result: Fully protected one week)

Page: Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: NarSakSasLee (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 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC) to 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
   1. 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055574201 by Echo1Charlie (talk) You are the one making the claims against inclusion, the onus is on you to reach consensus with others. You're cross article reverting is also problematic and goes beyond WP:3RR"
   2. 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055573648 by ZebraaaLounge (talk) They are allegations under the legal umbrella"
2. 16:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055568571 by Echo1Charlie (talk) RV. User is engaged in cross article edit wars over the same issue."
3. 15:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055553067 by ZebraaaLounge (talk) RV. See WP:TOI - TOI is biased towards Indian government, but it quotes an organisation from Pakistan. Use of sources is allowed when it comes to quoting."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"
2. 17:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Responses by Hindu Organisations in Pakistan */ new section"

Comments:

I find it funny this user has reported me here when he's the one that is actually engaging in edit warring. He has violated WP:3RR numerous times and refuses to engage in good faith editing or even attempting to reach consensus. He has now resorted to using these tactics to threaten me into submission. I will be providing evidence here gradually as it will take some time to gather the diffs. This user has been warned plenty of times to stop engaging in edit warring but absolutely refuses. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Evidence of consensus not going to his way (which has resorted to him opening this against me)
• Evidence of me engaging with the user to attempt to reach a consensus (but because things are not going his way he has now resorted to opening this against me).
• Evidence of threatening behaviour, user leaves 3 warnings within the space of mere seconds (and is now trying to use these as evidence that I'm falsely engaging in vandalism. I've been on Wikipedia for 12 years.

NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please refrain from removing part of report (warning given) as you did here [54] —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I will remove it when you're making false allegations against me. You pasted in those templates within mere seconds of one another and are trying to falsely portray me as having been warned sufficiently. Myself and other users have repeatedly been trying to reach consensus with you but when you're finding things aren't going your way you're resorting to this threatening behaviour. User:NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Admins he again removed part of this report [55], please note this behaviour. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• I fully protected the article for one week. NarSakSasLee, if I see you refactor a report at an administrative noticeboard again, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Admin Bbb23 you fully protected the article with content (disputed content) cited with WP:TOI, https://www.ucanews.com/news/a-family-at-war-blasphemy-and-religious-conversion/88353, and https://www.voiceofsindh.com.pk/marriages-between-hindus-and-muslims-a-result-of-love-affairs-not-forced-abductions-aphp/ — are they reliable to be retained?? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Echo1Charlie, it was due to Bonadea's edit. They have high edit count and experience. NarSakSasLee has lots of POV problems as can be seen from his talk page messages.ZebraaaLounge (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Why did you fraudulently and deliberately delete my signature and replace it with someone elses to make it look like someone else wrote my edits rather than me? Not only did you correctly sign your own signature in that edit you deliberately deleted mine. Do not ever do that to my signature ever again. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mztourist reported by User:Lightburst (Result: Declined)

Page: William E. Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Milton Crenchaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Jerome Edwards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Theodore Johnson (Tuskegee Airman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Elwood T. Driver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: I cannot provide any preferred versions

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff removing notes and reference
2. diff removing notes and reference
3. diff removing notes and reference
4. diff removing notes and reference

For my part I am going to step away and

1. Diff I reverted myself here

The editor refactors many other edits to fit their interpretations or they revert my edits with angry edit summaries. The following reverts involve a medal which was approved by congress in 2006 and awarded in a ceremony and an unveiling with Tuskegee airmen present in 2007. I am not willing to engage in an edit war regarding 2006 or 2007, but the editor has no consensus for this change.

1. Diff Date change
2. Diff Date change
3. Diff Date change
4. Diff Date change
5. Diff Date change

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not taken up discussion. The editor has criss crossed the project showing disdain for me and for my edits. It is a non-starter. In addition, I am also unsure if I can even engage in a discussion with the editor about notability or credibibility, I am Tbanned from deletion discussions - so I spend my time improving the articles: this editor seems to be refactoring my edits to favor deletion so it is a catch 22.

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

Comments: The editor is doing the same thing on an article I started. But I am not going to continue the reverts. Diff And then the editor went to another article I started Diff Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Declined. This report should be filed at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23 It is an edit warring report, please reconsider. The edits are disruptive to the project. ANI is not an neutral place which can evaluate the context of edit warring. Additionally I have been prohibited from going to ANI per a warning on my talk page from an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Though Ritchie can clarify it. I believe he meant stay away from ANI, concerning anything to do with retention/deletion of articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

He can clarify, but that is not what the warning involved. It was about me staying away and made no mention of that issue. Lightburst (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I wanted a break from admin stuff to focus on some content creation. Anyway, I think the only options are a) do nothing and suggest that Lightburst and Mztourist just avoid each other, b) suggest an interaction ban between Lightburst and Mztourist c) drag everyone off to Arbcom. For now, I'm going with a). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:EastonM25 reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Partially blocked 72 hours)

Page: Luke McDonald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: EastonM25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC) "/* People */"
2. 14:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC) "/* People */"
3. 06:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Luke McDonald."
2. 06:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC) "/* November 2021 */ expand"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 06:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC) "/* Basketball player */ new section"

Comments:

EastonM25 is repeatedly adding the same entry to this disambiguation page with zero communication or responses to attempts at discussion on the talk page and their user talk page. DanCherek (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Partially blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:Trackratte (Result: )

Page: Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Alternate Name or Other name parameter has existed for at least 10 years in this template, is the longstanding status quo, and removing the paremter breaks the rendering of that information on a variety of pages that make use of that parameter.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57] Paremter removed, restored by User:Nikkimaria 27 May, reverted by Moxy 20 June.
2. [58] Restored again by Nikk, reverted by Moxy, 12 September.
3. [59] Restored, reverted by Moxy again, 18 November.
4. [60] Reverted by Moxy again, 18 November.
5. [61] Reverted by Moxy again, 18 November.

3RR violated.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

No evidence of previous Talk discussion to remove parameter until today.

[63] Request to cease edit warring and to undo third revert.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [64]

Comments:
As I made clear at WP:CANADA. We should use french along with english 'only' in the infoboxes of Quebec & New Brunswick. Use the required native (Inuit, etc) language 'only' along with english in Yukon, Northwest Territories & Nunavut infoboxes. The eight other provinces infoboxes, should be in english only. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That may well be. As there is no "one size fits all" these issues need to be tackled at their respective pages. As what applies to Ontario might not apply to the NWT for example. And deleting paremters out of templates that have been in place for 10+ years does not resolve these specific content issues and is not the way forward. And to then subsequently edit war over a template to get your way at the Manitoba Wiki page (or whatever page) is a highly disruptive and counterproductive method to so, and doesn't serve to tackle gaining consensus on those specific content issues at those pages. trackratte (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We already have a place in the infoboxes of the provinces & territories, for listing official languages. Therefore, we don't need an extra parameter at the top of the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you keep the conversation in one place, either at Can or here. I would say at the Can page as this conversation about parameters is what should be happening at the Template talk, and has nothing to do with what constitutes edit warring.

And place names have nothing to do with official language, places can have multiple (equally valid) names, and those names can be in a language other than an official language, or not be in any language at all. For example, Ottawa is an Aboriginal language word, which isn't an official language of Ontario or of Canada. Saint-Louis-de-Ha-Ha isn't in any language at all. Baton Rouge in the US has nothing to do with the language in use. Etc etc. Official language and place names are two completely different topics.

We also have an official national names database rooted in law, that all Provinces tie into. So what a place is named in Canada is ridiculously straightforward, as is if a place as multiple equally valid names.

All of which is to say feel free to talk about content or templates at those respective talks, but this is not really the place. trackratte (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's do keep the content dispute in one place. Rideau Hall & Citadelle of Quebec past-disputes were so much fun. Particularly when compared to the governors-general residence articles of the other non-UK commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Editor seems upset they were not around when original talk's happened...and now is demanding back to how they like it...not good ...that said they are now joining talk about the topic...this is a good way forward. Also would be best to read over WP:3RR before filing.--Moxy- 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Iaof2017 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: No violation; Khirurg warned)

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

User being reported: Iaof2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055909864 by Khirurg (talk) rv, on going discussion"
2. 14:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055904090 by Alexikoua (talk) rv POV"
3. 21:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC) "rv ip vandalism"
4. 20:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC) "rv ip"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC) "/* November 2021 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In his last edit summary, he claims that there is a discussion in the talkpage and lectures others to go there, but his only contribution is to fan the flames and hurl personal attacks.

Comments: Brightline 3RR vio, he even reverted after I warned him. Minimal, perfunctory, talkpage participation, and generally uncommunicative, hostile behavior with lightning fast reverts. Topic area is subject to DS sanctions. I offered to withdraw the report if he self-reverts, his response was "nonsense" [65]. Khirurg (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Khirurg: How do the first two reverts count toward 3RR if they were vandalism (see WP:3RRNO)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP's edits are certainly POV, but it is not clear that they are outright vandalism. Khirurg (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg when will you finally stop with your absurd and nonsense reports? 3.[66] and 4.[67] was part of a disruptive IP user who was also reverted by other users [68][69][70] for his tendentious nationalistic POV editing on numerous other articles. IP user further removed Albanian names on numerous infoboxes on different articles such as here [71] and [72], the definite Albanian form here [73][74][75][76] and idiotically replaced the names of several mayors to unexplained Greek names here [77] and [78]. I assume that you agree with these edits? And what about you and your disrespectful behavior? [79][80][81] What is there to say about your absurd and useless report, its a typical attempt by you to report user when your arguments stay out!--Iaof2017 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The IP 77.29.129.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalism-only and does the same thing regularly. It has been blocked for 1 year 77.28.13.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it's evading a block. The whole range needs to be blocked. The other two reverts of Iaof2017 are a content dispute which involves several editors - including Khirurg. The content was added today and it's disputed. Maybe RfC can be a solution for Khirurg and others who may still want to add it. 3RR violation in the dispute hasn't occurred by any editor. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Iaof2017, you've made a mess of this report by interpolating comments in various places. Also, bringing up old diffs of Khirurg's behavior is not helpful. Finally, you should change your sig so it includes your actual username; it's misleading.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

He's edit warring at other articles now [82]. Not only that, but the edits themselves are very clumsy, as he is deleting a map of tribes and replacing it with a map of regions, in an article that is about tribes. Khirurg (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted map is controversial and has many inconsistencies also being involved in numerous disputes. Don't pretend you didn't know about it.--Iaof2017 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg, you are both in a content dispute and reverting each other. still no 3RR. You Reverted him once and he reverted you once at this article. you should not have used a the report to include vandalism reverts as a means to demonstrate that he reached 4 reverts. The IP he reverted has caused a lot of trouble with its vandalism. [83] Durraz0 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: I suggest that this report is closed before the accusations become walls of text and more Balkan editors come to "contribute". Such Balkan reports have a long history of becoming a waste of time with accusations with weak evidence, and efforts to find a reason to get another editor blocked. The editors can, for the zillionth time, choose to follow WP:RfC to propose changes that are not gaining consensus. This Himara dispute has already become an eyesore. @Iaof2017: do not forget to solve the issue with your signature for all discussions, not only for this one. Also, someone needs to deal with or report the vandal IPs that Iaof2017 reverted - some of their IP range has been blocked for months. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment @Bbb23: The situation at Himara [84] is an "eyesore" because a well-coordinated tag team (of which Ktrimi991, Iaof2017 and Durazz0 are all part of) is stonewalling to prevent the inclusion of reliably sourced material they happen not to like. The situation has gotten out of control lately, as this group now has enough numbers to prevent the addition or removal of any content the like or dislike, and there is simply nothing anyone can do about. Any attempts at discussion in the talkpage are met with stonewalling and outright derision [85]. Khirurg (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I am a part of a tag team with those, or other, editors? Hahaha I hope you are trying to reduce tensions between editors with a few nice jokes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Khirurg You and some other editors who want to add this edit, have supported similar edits many times and reverted the same edits. Many others oppose your edits. I am not even a part of the dispute at himara yet you include me in your comment. You started a report of a 3RR and now you are accusing others just because they oppose your edits. Please do not do that. You can start a RfC for your proposals. Durraz0 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg seems to believe that Durraz0 who has 0 comments and 0 edits about the dispute is "tag-teaming" with others against his edits. The report was about 3RR violation and no 3RR has occurred. The discussion should be archived to prevent further WP:FORUM. Admins have a huge workload to deal with, they shouldn't be subjected to Balkan debates too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I just came here to report the IP 77.29.129.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (range), and I find that is already ongoing discussion. As for the "Himara" issues I would support WP:RFC and especially the Talk Page discussions before some changes are done or undone. We had the case of @Çerçok: who for some changes opened a discussion in TP and the edits continued during the discussions, but fortunately a consensus was reached in WP:GF. So I would suggest staying strictly this way of editing topics like the one mentioned above.Bes-ARTTalk 19:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• I am closing this report as no violation because there has been no 3RR violation, as many editors have correctly pointed out. However, I have warned Khirurg about filing this report and their behavior on this page. As far as the IP, please take that up somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It's really disappointing that Iaof preserves battleground mentality at this scale. A pattern combined with straight personal attacks in edit summaries in addition to minimal participation in talkpages: hostile tone ans off course blind reverts in a wide variety of article. I admit he crossed the line in the case of Himara which is technically a 3rr breach and he does not hesitate to launch another wp:NPA violation [[86]] directly shouting at co-editors. Unfortunately Iaof can not follow NPA regardless how many times he has been reported in various noticeboards in the past.Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  The report is over but it is problematic that the same thing which is obviously false is being claimed by Alexikuoa who opposed Laof's edit. When you have a content dispute with someone try to solve it. Do not come to this board and try to report them for a 3RR which is not there. "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring". @Bbb23 I really apologize for my exacerbation but we are on a public noticeboard and we are debating if edits which would be recognized by 99.99% of users of Wikipedia as reverts of vandalism are actually edits that technically constitute 3RR. Durraz0 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:24.161.120.233 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: )

Page: Erwin Chemerinsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 24.161.120.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055956460 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) The national review has been around since 1955. The subject of the article repeatedly interjected himself into public issues. You seem to be interested in suppression of free discussion. And why is the CHIEF JUSTICE of the state of California not a reliable source?"
2. 20:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055954299 by Firefangledfeathers (talk). All changes are supported by footnotes."
3. 20:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055943455 by 69.242.68.113 (talk)"
4. 17:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1055917416 by 69.242.68.113 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Erwin Chemerinsky."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps reverting to add a massive block of negative info into the BLP's lead, with no discussion in the body. Firefangledfeathers 21:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 reported by User:Coretheapple (Result: )

Page: Dachau liberation reprisals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]
5. [91]
6. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94] [95][96]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [97]

Comments:

• Multiple reverts against clear consensus asserted by multiple editors to add "war crime" to lead. User commenced edit warning several days prior to this latest flurry of reverts, and was given a 3RR warning prior to these latest reverts. Though the editor initiated a discussion on the talk page, they received no support for their position and continued to edit war. Note from last diff that the revert-warring by this user continued while this report was being written. Coretheapple (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)