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.

Update this 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:Mplsnirvana reported by User:MPLSpolitico (Result: No action)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillipe_Cunningham&diff=1073617290&oldid=1073469159
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillipe_Cunningham&diff=1073443775&oldid=1072461838

Edit warring with an agenda to paint the subject of the article in an overly negative light. Looking at other contribs for this user, they seem to have task of creating additional content to paint the subject of the article in an overly negative light:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Powderhorn_9

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MPLSpolitico (talk • contribs)

• See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Phillipe Cunningham. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. There is more about this dispute on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Mikythos reported by User:Mann Mann (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:
The reported user just removes sourced content per their POV. I warned them and tried to clarify it for them. They insulted me., and refused to collaborate. Even another user warned them. They just ignored the warning messages and continued disruptive edits after 72H. In the last diff, they even removed WWE-related content too. The content they try to remove is notable material per WP:PW/SG and WP:PW/Sources. Mann Mann (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

More incivility after I posted noticed on their talk page. Should I take this case to WP:ANI? The reported user was registered in 2005 but acts and behaves like a WP:NOTHERE account. Mann Mann (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

As the user who warned this user for his incivility I support this report. The notification as noted has been seen and removed - and presumably ignored. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:BrickMaster02 reported by User:YoungForever (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Promised Land (2022 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrickMaster02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

I have attempted to resolve it, but the editor refused to talk and also decided to delete the entire discussion that I have started . — YoungForever^(talk) 01:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted to my edits because they cleanup the episode table. This is going too far, if you ask me. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not, you have changed the citation style to your personal preference. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

So? Other TV articles have that, because it's more streamlined. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHER and per WP:CITEVAR, Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The citation style has been established since the start of the article. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. The length of the block is warranted for the following reasons: the edit-warring itself, the refusal to discuss the dispute (reverting YoungForever's discussion initiation on the article Talk page), and personal attacks (BM02 filed a report at WP:AIV against YoungForever), and a previous block last year for 72 hours for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:196.135.110.209 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Page semiprotected)

Page: DNA history of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 196.135.110.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC) "/* 2012 Ramesses III */“Original research” which did the same thing: entering the markers in a predictor?

Is that the only argument you have? Nevgen predictor is the most widely used at the moment and most updated on the different lineages while whit athey's is basically a dead tool Nevgen predicts a different result with a probability of 92% and the result mentioned by you at 0%

https://ibb.co/CMpyq4S

What a joke"

1. 13:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC) "/* 2012 Ramesses III */Expand text with the other prediction"
2. 12:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) "/* 2012 Ramesses III */Expand text with the other prediction"
3. 12:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Ancient DNA */

The "original research" is also a prediction with a haplogroup predictor, this too is a prediction based on another haplogroup predictor which is arguably better

The study is still presented as it is [Only obtained a few STR and Y dna markers (https://ibb.co/ypbLrzT, https://ibb.co/rQjfT9m)] and the text expanded with the other prediction."

1. 10:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Ancient DNA */"
2. 10:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1073915000 by WikiUser4020 (talk)"
3. 10:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Ancient DNA */"
4. 10:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1073913862 by WikiUser4020 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on DNA history of Egypt."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note this seems to be User:Pullbasket logged out to continue the edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pullbasket Doug Weller talk 15:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Note this seems to be User:Pullbasket logged out to continue the edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pullbasket Doug Weller talk 15:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)"

No I'm not this user. Most people actually familiar with the study would argue the same.

Highly unlikely. I think you are. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

And I seem to be wrong. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I should have said that the IP was adding obvious OR as agreed at NORN. Why my report has been ignored so long is puzzling. Doug Weller talk 07:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected. Johnuniq has semi'd the article for a month. Bishonen | tålk 08:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Its not an unrelated study. It is the same exact Y-chromosomal data in the 2012 Hawass study put into the most advanced up to date haplogroup predictor there is today (Nevgen). E1b1a is also absent in Christian period Nubian genomes (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.17.431423v1.full) indicating it was not native to the Nile valley as a whole not just Egypt. WikiUser4020 made 43 edits on that article in the last 31 days possibly vandalizing that article.Pullbasket (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been told that Pullbasket is a sock of an editor I blocked a while ago, so I'm striking their edit (which ironically shows that they've been doing original research. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad, User:Clarityfiend, reported by User:Korwinski (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Russia (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bkonrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Clarityfiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Korwinski's version
2. Bkonrad's and Clarityfiend's version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See talk and edits pages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Russia_(disambiguation)#Russia,_only_Russia

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: @Bkonrad:, @Clarityfiend:

Comments:

Hi! Situation is as follows:

There were multiple regions and countries named Russia throughout the time. I added these regions, but they were objected by the two users mentioned above on the grounds of "partial match" rule. I found sources confirming that confirm that these countries/regions were named or named in literature as Russia. With the exception for one to which I will get back later. Moreover, both users confirmed that at least some of my entries can be kept in this disambig pages. Yet they still remove all of them just because.

What I did from my side to resolve this issue:

1. I refrained from edit warring and went to talk page to start discussion.

2. I found sources for each entry to confirm full or partial match of Russia name usage.

3. Clarityfiend asked me to submit request to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, which I did and received no objection.

4. I participated in Dispute started Clarityfiend and ignored by Bkonrad. No objection to my edits from other users there as well.

5. I asked Clarityfiend to open similar dispute on similar disambig page - Roman Empire (disambiguation), which as well includes all countries with full, partial or NO "Roman Empire" match whatsoever. Which he did, but in the end failed to receive any support despite the rules that these both users tend to "stick" with right now. Based on that resolution I decided to keep Lithuania-Russia as well, since it would be the only place in Wiki to include all countries with such name which is exactly what they had decided with Roman Empire countries.

6. I had given more than plenty of time for each party to find any other form or sources before I return my entries back to the page.

Issues with these two users:

1. They provided 0 (zero) sources to confirm their point or to dismiss my sources.

2. After dispute and my request, all they do is reverting. I had asked them multiple times to get back to the discussion, but all they do is reverting and pointing to the "rules". And all I get is silence when I mention Roman Empire (disambiguation) with similar situation. I mean I would get the point if they were editing only Russia-related topics or they did not have time for any other. But no. You can see that from their edit pages. For some odd reason they wish to fight this specific disambig, but not the other.

Based on all of that I considered consensus to be established regarding this. And it's not just my opinion, but Wikipedia:Consensus: Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Yet still these two editors without any further discussion, without any sources etc. still try to undo changes just because.

At the moment I ask to:

1. Revert page back to consensused one.

2. Review these editors behaviour to see how it meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

3. In case needed, I ask for their temporary or permanent suspension until they will understand how Wikipedia works. Korwinski (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, could you please clarify which part of my diffs is incorrect? Korwinski (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • You have provided no diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      • But I did? I added entries that you can see under "Korwinski's version" and other party simply does "undo" and switches back to "Bkonrad's and Clarityfiend's version". I can add multiple examples of that, but I'm not quiet sure how will that help. Korwinski (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:HeroicSSD reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

This user continues to Edit War on MeidasTouch Chip3004 (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:2001:EE0:4370:701C:A053:D4D9:3DD5:128C reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Mickey Mouse (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2001:EE0:4370:701C:A053:D4D9:3DD5:128C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 12:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1074097556 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
3. 11:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1074097556 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
4. 10:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1074093650 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 10:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC) to 10:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 10:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1074093501 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
6. 10:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1073999409 by 69.27.12.22 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mickey Mouse (TV series)."
2. 11:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mickey Mouse (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User thinks that Doreamon was on this show but he wasn't at all. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP is also edit warring on List of Mickey Mouse episodes and has reverted to their preferred version four more times on each article in the five hours since this report was filed. CodeTalker (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Zlogicalape reported by User:JJNito197 (Result: EC protection)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page:

Zlogicalape is ignoring warnings about using WP:Synthesis, insinuating me being "biased" through a customized template, trying to insert unsourced material with no regard for the sources already provided, and removing sourced material. This user wants to change the text to "Middle-East", even though the source (multiple) specifically states "Arab world" and "Arab cuisine". The user also added unsourced content that accentuates the Lebanese origin of the dish, also unsourced. (diff 3.) The user seems to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. JJNito197 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

JJNito197 is ignoring encouragements for WP:VOICE, and has shown bias through cherry picking, opting for a complete disregard of inclusion and striving for segregation. This user wants to use "Arab world" and "Arab cuisine" in place of "Middle-East" and "Middle-Eastern cuisine" even though the sources state "Middle-East" and "Middle-Eastern cuisine" (alongside multiple other terms), leading to segregative effects.

"Middle-East" and "Middle-Eastern cuisine" is not only stated in the sources but is also inclusive of the countries without segregation hence achieving neutrality.

As per the policies in WP:NPOV, I made it clear to the user that multiple non-Arabian countries are included, such as Cyprus, Israel ..., which is why the terms "Arab world" and "Arab cuisine" would exclude other countries. (as is mentioned in the sources. NOTE: that the user has removed the latest sources that mention some of these countries)

Yet the user still chose to ignore neutrality accentuating that the foods are only part of the Arab world, possibly in favor of some form of Arab-centric views. Possible WP:FANATIC

Note: the sources use multiple terms such as Middle-East(inclusive term), Arab World(exclusive & segregative), Levantine (even more exclusive & segregative)... If segregation is the aim then why not use "Levantine", as this term excludes much more countries ?!

Regarding the allegation made in his report that I added "unsourced content that accentuates the Lebanese origin of the dish", I mentioned the country that introduced the foods through its diaspora (as per the source which the user as removed !) The user seems to be trying to WP:AOTE. Zlogicalape (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The source you added calls it an Arab cracked wheat salad. I didn't add Arab world or Arab cusine, its added there because it is sourced. I will be finding further sources to support this factual statement now.

Wikipedia is not a place to set the record straight, its about sourced content. You are ignoring those from North Africa that also eat tabbouleh by changing it to "Middle-East". May I remind you that the term "Middle-East" is vague and not informative.

You added "tabbouleh has become a popular food in the United States (through the Lebanese Diaspora" which was unsourced as it is not in the source you added, and you also added "mainly Lebanese Cuisine" which is also sythesis and NOT in the source. You need read through WP:Synthesis because you clearly don't understand how things work on wikipedia. You have insinuated me being bias, fantatical and more, and all I have been doing is sticking to whats in the source. You getting riled up is a perfect example of you not understanding how wikipedia works. JJNito197 (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Btw, Arab world is more inclusive because it includes North Africa and the Middle East. If you call it a Middle-Eastern dish you have to call it a North African dish too. I have added in "Eastern Medditerranean" as it is less vague and ARCHAIC per source, and for the record Arab cusine doesn't mean Arabian cuisine. JJNito197 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: I have EC protected Tabbouleh under WP:ARBPIA. See the existing notice of that decision on the talk page. Debates about the origin of various founds eaten in Middle Eastern or Levantine countries tend to verge quickly into nationalism. For example, see Hummus which was mentioned in an Arbcom case about the I/P conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Ogidigada reported by User:Rathfelder (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

User:121.121.57.31 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )

Page: Bride of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 121.121.57.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. 13:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Other interpretations */ Nuns are not the bride of christ"
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC) to 13:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 13:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 10:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bride of Christ."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Resolution not needed. WP:CB or WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. WP:SOCK is Davidgartery. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bride of Christ."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Add to. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Another WP:SOCK: Meylaroseymeylia. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:TThor reported by User:JoJo Anthrax (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This, and all other sections on the article Talk page.

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

Comments:
Not at four reverts, but the edit warring and disruptive WP:IDHT behavior of this SPA is clear from their edit summaries and their comments on the article Talk page. Note also their personal attacks/aspersions on the article Talk page; e.g., this, this, and this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:188.148.70.209 reported by User:Avilich (Result: )

Page: Second Persian invasion of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.148.70.209 (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff (with an accusation of vandalism and POV-pushing)
4. diff

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:
IP refuses to use the talk page despite being asked several times, and is obstinate to the point of accusing me of vandalism and POV-pushing, despite the edits in question being rather trivial. Avilich (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit in particular is not really trivial. It is important that the Commanders and Leaders section be complete as it has been in all articles pertaining to the Greco-Persian Wars. Removing commanders from one side only, and doing so in just one of the sub-articles, because of an arbitrary decision of what/who is or isn't "important", goes against NPOV. 188.148.70.209 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Then it warrants discussion. I strongly suggest the IP engage in discussion at the talk page and get consensus before attempting to add it again. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I never added anything. It is user who wanted to have certain Commanders removed. Important to make that distinction. 188.148.70.209 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You added them back, which is still reverting. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• This IP doesn't seem to have a knack for discussions. See Talk:Second Persian invasion of Greece#Arbitrary removal of relevant commanders. "drags it to the notice board for a biased judging". "you have a convenient excuse for it". "i am convinced you did for other reasons whilst using a clever smokescreen". All while I tried to address the issue with as few words as possible. Evidently he thinks I'm causing some sort of mischief, or is taking it too personally, or simply doesn't get the point. Avilich (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC) @C.Fred: pinging you since I have to call someone's attention here. Avilich (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

IP has been cautioned about personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It gets funnier: "Gosh, how daft could you be". Avilich (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Tbx3571 reported by wolf (Result: Page move-protected)

Page: List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)/ (Polish Land Forces Equipment)
User being reported: Tbx3571 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:
Straight 4RR+ vio, albeit with page moves instead of edit reverts. Tbx3571 has moved the page 5 times in the space of 61 minutes, against three editors, GraemeLeggett, Eurohunter and myself. Tbx3571 also moved the page a 6th time just 3 days ago. They have refused to engage on the article talk page, their own talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#List of equipment of the Polish Land Forces where they were also pinged by another editor trying to bring attention to this disruption. Tbx3571 had been very active with edit summaries however, calling the page moves "vandalism", "grammatically incorrect", "BORAT STYLE grammar", "insulting to Poland", "racist", "trolling", and "incorrect & inappropriate". They also claim to be "a native expert english speaker", so... - wolf 20:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

-|

response: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbx3571 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

-I explained edit the title is inappropriate, it's grammatically incorrect and this insistence of making my country look unintelligent with insulting titles is racist, the users who are changing the title back to "list of equipment of the" are bullying and showing no consideration for the insult that they're making against my country. They list "guidelines" - but they don't have any proof of the "guidelines". When I look at the other Polish service branches - they don't say "List of equipment of the" for the Polish Gendarmie and Polish Special forces. Keeping with the guidelines visible for the Polish Armed Forces - the general guidelines are "Service branch name" + "equipment". I'm appalled at the people vandalizing Poland's title system, disregarding the insults that they're making towards all Polish people, and being hell bent on having contributing users banned. user "Eurohunter" presented NO GUIDELINES, made grammatical errors in his comments, and I simply explained that I'm a native english speaker, and that "List of equipment of the" is simply improper english, and the end result is that it sounds like Borat is talking with major grammatical errors, and I'm not calling anyone "borat" - I'm saying the title sounds like something Borat would say, and if the guidelines have such grammatical erros - then they need to be changed. It should be "service branch name" + equipment - it's simple, clean, and proper grammar. NOT ONE user wanted to acknowledge this - and because of that it comes across as VANDALISM - THE RULES SAY THAT VANDALISM DOESN'T REQUIRE AN EDIT COMMENT but I explained it anyway, and they responded with threats and no dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbx3571 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected – full move protection applied to the page for one week. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Ficaia reported by User:FDW777 (Result: )

Page: William Wolseley (brigadier-general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ficaia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:

Editor refuses to accept MOS:DERRY and persistently restores the term "Londonderry", inventing exemptions that aren't part of the MOS. FDW777 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is in fact User:FDW777 who has thrice reverted to his preferred edit on this page. I reverted to the original edit several times, and then, after responding to FDW777 on the talk page, proposed and implemented a compromise wording, which he promptly reverted. Ficaia (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed an absurd compromise that's firstly historically inaccurate and secondly a MOS:DERRY violation. Even ignoring that, you don't get to own your article by insisting your compromise must stand. FDW777 (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The compromise is not a violation of MOS:DERRY because it is not using an equivalent form for the city ("Derry or Londonderry"), it is adding an explanatory clause to the end of the sentence. To be clear, you were the one who commenced edit warring on this page. I have compromised by keeping "Derry" per the MOS, and adding an extra clause to the sentence. Ficaia (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect once again. I made a single edit to correct a MOS:DERRY violation. As diff#1 shows, you reverted it without any explanation thus it was you who initiated the problem. FDW777 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You made an edit. > I reverted the edit. > You thrice reverted to your preferred edit. > I offered a compromise to stop the back-and-forth. Ficaia (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to add that as this is a brand new article there is no pre-existing consensus. The only consensus that does exist is at MOS:DERRY (which Ficaia is subverting), and the sol-called compromise has been rejected at the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Derry again. FDW777 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jedorton reported by User:Zefr (Result: )

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

User being reported: Jedorton (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 03:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC) to 03:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 03:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC) "/* History */"
   2. 03:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC) "/* History */"
2. 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC) "/* History */"
3. 22:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC) "/* History */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC) to 17:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Watermelon."
2. 02:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Watermelon."
3. 04:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC) "/* February 2022 */ WP:3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC) "/* History vs. systematics */ new section"

Comments:

Jedorton appears to be determined to provide careless editing and duplicate source(s) as integrated into a Systematics section. No engagement on Talk:Watermelon or on the user's talk page. Suggest a temporary block and encouragement to collaborate. Zefr (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User:138.94.155.32 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: )

Page: NWave Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 138.94.155.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1073389929

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1074331856
2. Special:Diff/1073314375
3. Special:Diff/1072922681
4. Special:Diff/1072225694
5. Special:Diff/1070185303
6. Special:Diff/1068903518
7. Special:Diff/1067178061
8. Special:Diff/1065252986
9. Special:Diff/1063183139
10. Special:Diff/1061010908
11. Special:Diff/1057448341

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was warned twice in their talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1074519740

Comments:

IPs from Brazil adding the same unsourced info into the article, sometimes with the same cryptic edit summary -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 18:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Shamrock2020 reported by User:10mmsocket (Result: )

Page: Dublin Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Shamrock2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1074519998 by The Banner (talk)"
2. 17:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1074502132 by The Banner (talk) restored official airline source"
3. 15:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1074376508 by The Banner (talk) The Banner, you can't get a reference any more accurate than those published by the airline in question therefore, you need to stop depriving Wikipedia users of up-to-date and accurate information. You are being disruptive yet again."
4. 18:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1074325159 by The Banner (talk) Blah blah blah I just undid your revision hehe"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Three warnings given , , and .

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User seems to have WP:OWN attitude towards this article, is repeatedly inserting poor references, and deleting maintenance templates, and is not responding to any messages on his/her talk page other than agressive / snide messages in edit summaries. Has been a problematic user in the past. Need some timeout to reflect on poor behaviour. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Shamrock2020 seems afraid for independent sources. Almost from the beginning he is trying to source info with the websites of airlines or even booking websites. Both types of websites are contrary to WP:RS. And this is definitely not the first time he is edit warring over the introduction of related sources. In this case: the replacement of an independent source by a related one. The Banner talk 20:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)