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 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:Sychonic reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Warned)

Page: Origins of the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. 17:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Contemporaneous explanations */ This quote now includes references from several "secondary" sources, though the existing ones were sufficient; two recent books, and one from John A. Logan, an American politician and soldier, a general in the war. His work on the conflict treats it in broader historico-political terms."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments:

Although this is slow edit warring, I took it here because I'm deeply worried by their comment ":Even though much recent scholarship on American history suffers from the well-documented politicization of academia"[6] Rsk6400 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the accusation of edit warring is unfounded. I have given a good deal of time and effort over this simple addition of a quote -- one that is not disputed as to accuracy or reliability. At first the reversions of my edit were claimed to have been done because I did not make a proper reference -- that because it appeared in Atlantic Monthly, and I referred to that publication, it was hence unacceptable, even though accurate. I then added a second source, from the NY Times, thinking surely that would be acceptable, but was again informed that it was not. Apparently no matter how many primary sources I added it would still not be enough. I added a third source, one that had been used in other places in the same article thinking that would bring it over the bar of acceptability. It did not. I even pointed out that under Wiki guidelines that sometimes, specifically quotes, primary sources were acceptable. Again, this was rejected. Apparently this is not the case. My last attempt was to rewrite the edit with additional secondary sources -- three of them: Two from recent historians, and one from a Civil War Union General (as noted in my explanation). The edit now has half a dozen sources listed on it.

The person making this accusation seems to be concerned about my view of the state of scholarship in academia, and gives a quote of mine (I suppose it's always nice to see yourself quoted), but that was from a different article, about a different subject, and really has nothing to do with whether this is a valuable addition to the article. I have given my reasons in the talk page on why I think that it is, and these can be reviewed there, though I am certainly willing to elaborate on the case. I indicated on the talk page that I was happy to discuss the matter, and I made quite a number of attempts to accommodate the objections made, even though I disagree with the necessity. It is unfortunate that this has been brought here since I believe all my actions have been made in good faith, something I find quite important in all areas of life, not just Wikipedia. Thank you. Sych (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Sychonic is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. (Since April 11 they have restored the Jefferson Davis quotation five times). The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Good faith is not enough; you also need to persuade the other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:NikolaosFanaris reported by User:Springee (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Candace Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NikolaosFanaris (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: Several recent instances, 3 April, this is failure to observe BRD, content was reverted by 3rd editor NF makes original add[7]

other editor reverts [8] NF restores [9]

The next article edit is a second editor reverting. [10]

Starting 13 April

NF adds "alt-right" to lead 24 Feb [11] and is reverted [12]

1. NF Adds "far-right" and citations to opening sentence [13] Given 24 Feb edit this is a revert vs a new edit

Other editor reverts [14]

2. NF restores disputed edit [15]

other editor reverts "far-right" (leaves citations) [16]

• Editor is warned about edit warring [17] and discretionary sanctions [18]

NF self reverts [19]

other editor removes disputed content [20]

3. NF again restores [21]

The final edit is just over 24hr but is part of a pattern of combative editing based on the assumption that consensus is required to remove new content and editors who don't agree are acting in bad faith (see similar behavior here [22]). This is a new editor with around 100 total edits.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion to resolve issue [23] The combination of bad faith accusations and edit warring is problematic. For example, "I just re-read Springee's original post. It is quite misleading to claim that the two sources I added cannot be accessed because of paywall." The articles in question are behind a paywall. "calling the GAL/TAN scale 'POV' shows that you don't understand political science. " No one said the GAL/TAN scale was POV.

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

Comments:

I reversed the removal of cited content which occured without consensus in the discussion page. Therefore, I acted on attempts by Springee to vandalise the article. In regards to the second point, Springee appears to demonstrate a history of removing similar labels (especially the far-right one) in Republican-related articles [1]. For the record, I never used the alt-right one - that's misleading. He did refer to the label and the GAL/TAN scale as POV to justify their removal. His contribution is open to interpretations, but a thorough look at the discussion page can verify my claims [2]. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Added "alt-right" to lead [25]. Springee (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• The filing editor Springee has also violated 1RR:
  • 07:34 15 April 2022: Reverting 15:09 14 April 2022 edit by X-Editor
  • 07:36 15 April 2022: Reverting 15:00 14 April 2022 edit by X-Editor

I'm not sure that Springee's edits rise to the level of vandalism, but there does appear to be some whitewashing/stonewalling going on. For example here they claim that an actual quote of Owens "does not really clarify her views on the subject", and that the opposing RS view is somehow undue. This looks like an effort to undermine the contested "far right" label by removing sources that support it. And Springee has been here long enough to know that a source being behind a WP:PAYWALL is not a legitimate complaint. All involved should be mindful of the 1RR restriction. –dlthewave ☎ 16:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect though it is interesting that once again you have shown up to a notice board discussion that doesn't involve you but does involve me. Anyway, I made a series of 3 edits that were meant to be back to back. FN reverted one of the edits as I was making the 3rd. Note the edits are just 2 minutes apart (07:34 and 07:36) and FN's edits occurred at 07:34 and 07:35. Are you really going to claim that as edit warring when I could have made all three changes as 1 edit? Your other claims are an attempt to poison the well rather than a reasonable description of both the edits and the concerns raised on the talk page. Finally, I did not say that content behind a paywall is unusable. Rather the paywall makes WP:V difficult for other editors (see my diff here[26] "...requiring a subscription. That doesn't mean those sources are unusable.") Please do not falsely accuse me of claiming sources behind a paywall are not usable when that is clearly not what I said. Springee (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what point you were (and still are) trying to make about the paywall, but I never "(accused you) of claiming sources behind a paywall are not usable". Please either strike that statement or provide a diff where I said that. –dlthewave ☎ 15:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks like whataboutism and in any case is not equivalent: it's obvious those were intended to be edits in a row (which count as one revert per WP:3RR). Those latter two edits are perfectly in line with good faith editing. The WP:ONUS for inclusion lies with inclusionists, always has. Quotepicking can still be bad or UNDUE, and removing sources that are redundant is fine (the label "far-right" was already gone). Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

One structural note, NikolaosFanaris when you said "reversed the removal of cited content which occurred without consensus" that implies that citing gives a material a special status that then requires a consensus to remove. Sourcing or sourcability is a requirement for all article space content and does not give it special status such as requiring a consensus for removal. In reality (potential) removal is guided by other policies and guidelines, those centering around wp:burden and wp:BLP being amongst those being very applicable here. North8000 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure - but I still think that the removal should be considered vandalism and POV, hence my reversals. Springee deliberately removed cited content that was backed by reputable sources and contained actual quotes. I sense heavy POV behind some of actions, including the continuous removal of the far-right label. Owens' ideology sits on that side of the political spectrum - there is absolutely no doubt about that. Everything in the views' section already points towards that direction, but somehow this is debated by one user who has a history of removing labels in WP. First the label, and now the removal of actual quotes. Please read WP:IMPARTIAL NikolaosFanaris (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The common meaning of "far right" in the US is either the whackiest, most extreme end of that political spectrum or else a pejorative term applied to any conservative by a political opponent. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the aggressive statement, which is clearly targeting me, I have to point out that top academic journals have been used to back the term in the case of CO. I don't care how you or anyone else in the American context use the term. Those are all hypothetical scenarios. With that said, we are currently participating in this encyclopedia and my understanding is that we have to somehow(?) value political science and terminology. And to answer to your previous statement: no, you are wrong! Far-right does not automatically imply (even in the American context!) that someone is sitting on the most extreme end of the political spectrum. That's called extremism (or extreme-right) and is not always related to the far-right family. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

My statements do not devalue political science And we do summarize what is is said in (hopefully good) sources, and summaries are typically done using the common meanings of terms, so those are relevant. My post was also pointing out two different context-sensitive meanings in sources; such may assist in that effort. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a volatile statement and implies that I am adding the far-right label (backed by academic sources) as a pejorative term: The common meaning of "far right" in the US is either the whackiest, most extreme end of that political spectrum or else a pejorative term applied to any conservative by a political opponent. Nothing more, nothing less. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

First, adding to my previous post, regarding your statement that far right does not mean the most extreme end of that political spectrum, IMO that assertion obviously doesn't sound correct.North8000 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Next the first statement in your post makes two claims about me. 1. That I said that in this case it is a pejorative term. I didn't say that, but agree with it. 2. That I implied a certain motivation of yours for making the addition. I did not say or imply that. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Which proves my point that you don't really understand this terminology. The difference between far-right and extreme (or radical) right lies in the ideological compliance with liberal democracy. In most cases, the far-right term is able to accurately describe ultraconservative actors or parties who still operate within those limits. On the other hand, radical or extreme right indicates strong undemocratic notions and a highly authoritarian stance. With that said, I believe that the majority of authors who have come here to accuse me of reversals are driven by clear POV and a lack of understanding of terminology, which shows that certain ideological criteria may cloud their judgmement. To give you a different example, I don't understand astrophysics, which means that I would never express an opinion on such theories. But most importantly, I would never go around trying to enforce my opinion on other OR accuse users I disagree with of attacking conservatives by using a certain terminology. In regards to Candace Owens - no she is not a conservative anymore - she is actually ultraconservative, which effectively makes her far-right because of her clear ideological approach. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

NF accusing others of "vandalism" is a bad sign, as is the stonewalling in this back-and-forth as linked above. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree that saying or implying "vandalism" and other negative generalizations and implying bad motives about another editor is out-of-line at best. IMO doubly so about an editor who, from what I've seen has been has been a cautious, courteous and very Wikipedian editor. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but lots of editors don't understand our strict definition of that term. Bad, but not an ongoing behavioral problem. That link you cite, Crossroads, comes after a very long thread in which the issue has been identified clearly several times. For that editor to clueless ask "what's the problem here?" is a lazy, incompetent, or disingenuous question. I can understand the accused's frustration and snarky response. Not an ongoing crime either. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely not vandalism per SPECIFICO. What I'm seeing is a relatively new editor who is not as familiar with the ground rules as they should be, especially when editing the highly volatile AP2 topic area and even more so when it's a BLP. A firm word of caution would definitely help but if it doesn't, then a 6-month t-ban would allow time for the new editor to learn NPOV, BLP, dispassionate tone, REDFLAG, NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and the difference between media opinion and statements of fact. Atsme 💬 📧 20:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme: given that they decided to bull-in-china-shop with these exact same issues at Lauren Boebert [27] while this discussion was active, I think a t-ban to encourage them to get experience in a less volatile area is looking increasingly like the best option. They're just not listening. VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, VQuakr. DIDNTHEARTHAT is an undesirable position to be in. I was not aware of the other BLP, but after some research, I am now inclined to agree with you. Atsme 💬 📧 01:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme:...aaaand they're edit warring there, too. [28]. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Inclined to support a six month ban because I simply moved the label, which was already mentioned in the article, further up in the intro? Is that how bans are proposed? How is this even an issue? [1] I think I am being attacked unfairly here without serious evidence. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you didn't just move it. You changed it from "per such and such source" to a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE, which is policy. This has already been explained to you, but rather than learn or ask for clarification you're continuing to edit war. Which means you aren't experienced enough (or don't have the patience in general) to be editing WP:BLP's. VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO, for their own wiki-benefit and than of Wikipedia NikolaosFanaris needs to learn how the the alternate universe of Wikipedia works before they try to jump in so heavily on difficult political articles. @NikolaosFanaris:, in the event that you agree, do you have an idea on a self-administered plan to do that? If not I would suggest a tban on the articles in question which might be an impetus for the described evolution and also solve the immediate issue at the article raised here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I will not edit Boebert's page again, but I am not going to back down on Owens. There is some consensus on the talk page anyway. Cheers. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. I propose a close with trouts for OP and the accused. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What did I do? FN violated 1rr and shown a battleground attitude. At minimum a warning is in order. Springee (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Trout's a warning. You reported a newbie, overreacted on talk page and with needless EW report. Neither did anything too terrible. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Are you for real RN? NF's most recent post here [29] is a commitment to keep edit warring, and the OP did exactly what they're supposed to. VQuakr (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's misleading - I never said I will keep edit warring. I said that I will pursue my request for the far-right label. You need to chill bro 🤭 NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

NF is continuing to edit war and restoring disputed edits without consensus [30]. I think a block or similar is in order. Springee (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading and immoral statement by Springee. I brought back academic sources from reliable journals that were removed by them without explanation [1]. He brought up two irrelevant reasons: cite-overkill and paywall. Nobody disagreed in the discussion page about the academic sources as they have been used here to back the claim that CO is an influencer! Not sure what Springee is trying to achieve here, but this is getting close to character assassination. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Does the edit have consensus? If it was removed without explanation then why would you cite (incorrectly I will add) my explanations? Springee (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Springee, you ignored my direct question to you concerning the central issue with respect to sourcing. I don't see that you are engaging in good faith on the talk page. You are both repeating yourselves and drowning out any chance of constructive progress. I've opened a new section on the talk page and you should both take a trout and move on. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Cause the only disagreement came from you. Both explanations are misleading and untruthful. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking through the article history, several editors including Springee and NikolaosFanaris have repeatedly added and removed reliably-sourced content and sources that might be viewed as critical of Owens. Calling for a tban based on a small 1RR violation and making accusations of POV pushing, when Springee's own behavior is very similar even though they insist it did not cross the 1RR line, is not a good look and has the effect, if not the intention, of trying to remove a voice that they disagree with. I would note that Springee is once again pushing back against the paywalled source, claiming that "The problem with the part wall sources (sic) is we don't know if they actually support what NF claims" [31] which is very concerning behavior from an experienced editor. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I can't help but notice that you seem to come out of no where when I report an editor for something like this. When you come out of no where you invariably make excuses or downplay the behavior of the other editor and try to find a reason why I'm at fault. I'm also noticing that you are falsely presenting my paywall argument. My concern is that, without being able to read the reports, I can't see if they actually support the claims in question. Endwise did have access to the reports and confirmed my concerns [32]. It is false to claim I refuse to allow sources that are behind a paywall. However, it is quite reasonable for editors to challenge claims that can't be readily verified when the editor making the claim is making blanket statements vs providing detailed quotes. That isn't "very concerning behavior", it is very reasonable concern. Springee (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is in the edit warring page and about an alleged edit warring violations on a 1RR article and an allegation that it is continuing. I see a lot of stuff that is off of that topic, including unfounded accusations of the reporter (including of vandalism, "character assassination", and of making an immoral statement) Also seeming to say that it's OK to edit war if the person feels that it's a good edit. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Springee has needlessly and vacuously been provoking a vulnerable inexperienced editor when one as experienced as Springee should be addressing the core problem and trying to engage and deescalate. And boomerang is never off limits. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sathyalingam reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked from article space, 72 hours)

Page: Beast (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sathyalingam (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 03:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC) to 03:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 03:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Box office */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 05:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC) to 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 05:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 05:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) to 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC) "/* Box office */"
4. 10:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disruptive editor. Deliberately changes financial data (as seen here) and ignores warnings on talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from article space. Hopefully user begins discussing edits. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:AbsolutelyFiring (Result: )

Page: The Suicide Squad (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33], [34], [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Reverting the film is a box-office bomb:

1. [36]
2. [37] - partial revert

Restoring the "Future" section:

1. [38]
2. [39]

Reverting over Ratcatcher's place of origin:

1. [40]
2. [41]

Reverting Buh6173's plot changes:

1. [42]
2. [43]

Reverting me repeatedly over home media sales and box office:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]
7. [50]
8. [51]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53], [54], [55]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]

Comments:
The user has engaged in long-term edit-warring and I'm tired of him removing my edits and that of others. And he hasn't done this only on one edit, but multiple ones over months. I don't want to keep edit-warring with him and it's clear he won't stop, I've already self-reverted multiple times or let the situation go so as to not create more of a dispute: [57], [58], [59], [60]

The user is displaying ownership behaviour and doesn't allow an edit other than what he agrees with.

He also denies engaging in an edit war because according to him the edits he is reverting are bad [61]. As he has a lot of experience, I highly doubt he doesn't know his statement is wrong and don't fall in any exemptions of WP:3RR as far as I see. Regardless him thinking the edits are bad isn't an exemption since it's a personal view. I'm tired of arguing with the individual and him reverting me so many times, please take action. Even when I mentioned it to him, he claimed I'm talking nonsense and he made uncivil comments [62].

Also I haven't included many other reverts he has done since he hasn't repeatedly reverted them (although they would qualify under ownership behavior since he decides what is right like [63] or [64].) AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You can't go through a page's history looking for every time someone has reverted any random thing to make it look like they are engaged in an edit war. The above diffs cover many different issues involving many different users and many different talk page discussions over several months, and presenting them in this way is very deceptive. Like it or not, reverting is a normal part of editing Wikipedia and especially happens a lot at popular articles such as this where many editors are involved and many changes get made. I know that it is frustrating when your edits get reverted, but you are going to have to get used to that happening if you want to make bold changes to popular articles that a lot of other editors are also working on. Repeatedly re-reverting and not following good faith approaches such as WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO is not the answer. All of the diffs above have clear justification and all of the previous issues that you are referencing were either supported by policies and guidelines (Future, Ratcatcher), talk page consensus (box-office bomb), or were part of a process that led to new consensus (plot changes, home media stuff). The answer for the latest disagreement is to stop making your bold change (which you did 1, 2, 3 times without attempting any discussion at the talk page) and start discussing why you think it should be made. Jumping to ANEW when we haven't even had a basic talk page discussion about the issue is not the right approach. I have clearly demonstrated to you in the past that I am happy to come up with compromises and make things work, but that can only happen if you actually participate in discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I can when you have reverted multiple people and it shows a pattern of behavior. Also although WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO are not policies, I did discuss with you several times or let you do what you want and refrained from further reverts regardless [65], [66], [67]. Because there's no point in simply reverting. However, as I have pointed out you keep reverting whenever I make a change, even on minute things like removing repeated text that might be WP:SYNTH.

You are abusing the revert function by reverting every time. And it's not just me you revert. Although I don't want to seem as if I'm accusing someone of bad faith, your edits do seem to display ownership behavior. So it's high time you were blocked or banned or at least warned. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Drprasad30 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Blocked)

Page: Hizbul Mujahideen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Drprasad30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "HuM has conducted many terrorist attacks on innocent civilians as per their own claims. Their activity falls under the definition of terrorism. They have been added to terrorist list of all major security forces around the world. You have not produced any evidence to dispute any of those evidences."
2. 03:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "hibzul mujahidin is a terrorist organisation based on us dept of homeland security"
3. 23:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 22:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "/* January 2022 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please note multiple policy violations by Drprasad30 in disregard of multiple warnings – WP:ARBIPA, WP:1RR, and WP:TERRORIST among others.

• Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User:82.32.196.160 reported by User:Alex B4 (Result: No violation)

Page: Jackson Carlaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 82.32.196.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC) "Once again removed the superfluous arithmetic of Alex Carlaw, son and longtime editor of this page. While it is appreciated that the Carlaw family may have an inherent inability to work out simple arithmetic, the rest of us are well aware that 13-7=6, Wiki readers can presumably work it out for themselves. It is requested that Alex stops attempting to dumb down Wiki arithmetic to the Carlaw family level, as the average Wiki reader far surpasses them."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Already warned by many other editors on the user's talk page, and already blocked for vandalism and edit warring. Alex (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:159.196.12.71 reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: 159.196.12.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "Updated page, correct usage of grammar, article and mention for notable people."
2. 11:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "“Notable people” serving 23 years in the army accounts him as such, Leave your PC, touch some grass and leave it alone."
3. 11:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "For the love of god, mods, this is not your family history or tree, Let the drtina family write out own wiki page."
4. 10:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "As a member of the drtina family, i have added more of the family tree which is used for history.

- Jake cody DRTINA"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Drtina."
2. 11:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Drtina."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to add links to nonexistent articles. Has disregarded efforts to discuss. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Note that the IP edits by mobile, and hence presumably has not seen any warnings on their talkpage. On the other hand, they use edit summaries, and appear to see 331dot's edit summary explanations. In any case, blocking them seems the only answer here. Bishonen | tålk 12:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Kielcerin reported by User:Pseud 14 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68] 1R of adding unsourced content
2. [69] 2R; adding content that has coverage in a different list article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71], User has a long history of refusing to communicate when warned for disruptive edits, adding poorly sourced and unsourced content despite numerous instances/warnings from other editors independent of the article being reported above. See examples [72] [73] [74]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [75]

Comments:
It is evident that User has a history of not engaging with other editors' when warned. It took me some time before bringing it up here just to check if there has been a change in behavior or editing pattern(s). I seem to observe that there is none and warnings have proven to be futile. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. This is apparently a long-term problem and should be taken to WP:ANI. If you do, you should mention that the user never talks. Failure to respond to so many warnings is not conducive to constructive editing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Holliganman123 reported by User:Czello (Result: )

Page: Seth Rollins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Holliganman123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

Holliganman123 was blocked for edit warring on this article less than a week ago, report here. He has now resumed edit warring since his unblock, adding the same disputed content. Editor refuses to communicate on either his own talk page or the article talk page. Looking at their contributions they appear to be a WP:SPA — Czello 07:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)