Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:86.175.111.238 reported by User:FlightTime (Result:Blocked by Drmies )

Page: Stevie Nicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.175.111.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Revert unexplained and unhelpful edit"
2. 22:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */As used by the themselves. This is official. This trumps whatever Wikipedia considers correct"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) to 22:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Personal life */What does 'putting him through college' mean?"
   2. 22:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */The Corra use a capital (see their website) and is also widely use elsewhere"
4. 22:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Legacy */Has a capital"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Stevie Nicks."
2. 22:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Stevie Nicks."
3. 22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "/* February 2022 */ Well, not here"
4. 22:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "+ {{ow}}"
5. 22:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Stevie Nicks‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• IP's comment at AIV - FlightTime (open channel) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Drmies for violation of MOS:THEBAND - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User:197.89.19.211 reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Warned)

Page: WrestleMania 38 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 197.89.19.211 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments: This is has been going on since February 4, and it is Edit Warring by the ip

You neglected to mention that I was the one who started the discussion on the article's talk page. And, read the sentence the way you prefer it. It is the longest-running professional wrestling event in history. That can only mean one thing. I tried rewording it, to correct it. And, for whatever reason, you prefer it to sound like WrestleMania 1 is still happening. But I won't bother trying to correct very badly worded articles like that again. So, you "win", for what that's worth. And anyway, I'm off to MSG now to watch the still-running WrestleMania 1. 197.89.19.211 (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• The IP is warned that if they resume editing at the article, they risk being blocked without further notice. Your aggressive/attacking style is separately sanctionable, and you have been blocked before for it. Chip3004, reports here require diffs, not links. Your presentation forced me to do all the work myself. Also, your messaging at the IP's Talk page is dreadful. First, with the exception of one edit that was reverted by ClueBot, the IP's edits were not vandalism. Second, you insisted on repeating messages after the IP removed them, which was their right. Third, you double-messaged making the IP's Talk page a mess, all of which they blanked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User:JimmyCrow reported by User:RossButsy (Result: )

Page: Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JimmyCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1069864778: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070261615
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070261370
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070246348
4. [diff]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070260937: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1070260937

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing before and is seemingly unwilling to engage in discussion.

User has also engaged in edit warring on Sergio Busquets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Updated the diffs. This user is risking an indefinite block for long term warring. I am leaving them a note to see if they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me. It was not my intention to get into an edit war; It will not happen again. In the case of Sergio Busquets, he was following what the source says. If you notice, it was an anonymous user of changed. I put it right and this user who denounces me went and reversed it just because it was me. In the case of Auba, you don't use Spanish La Liga, it's just La Liga... that's a consensus, I think. JimmyCrow (talk) 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If nobody else supports your removal of the word 'Spanish' I don't see how there is a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Loverofediting reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: Warned)

Page: Dhu al-Qarnayn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Loverofediting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15] [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

Comments:

User was blocked for edit warring on the same page before. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Loverofediting is warned for long term edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Loverofediting reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: EC protection)

Page: Mu'awiya I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "See talk page. Removed baseless opinion."
2. 19:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "“Tide turned” is baseless and incorrect. Please read what I wrote on the Talk page."
3. 19:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Removed a baseless opinion that the “tide turned”."
4. 19:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Not a fact. An opinion."
5. 18:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Tide turned? Not a fact."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "/* The intro */ reply"

Comments:

Says "See talk page" after not replying to talk page comment. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruption continues [19]. Requested temporary EC protection at RPP in case they get to this first. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Where are the admins:/ This has been here for 24 hours now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page EC protected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Asfedayn reported by User:Atlantic306 (Result: No violation)

Page: James Pallotta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is the first change here, their first revert of my restore here, this is their second revert of my restore here which is the present iteration. Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We had a discussion on their talk page my main point here. Although I was incorrect in suggesting a pro-Pallotta coi when they have now shown to be very critical of him in regard to his interests at AC Roma.diff

Comments:

User:Asfedaynan spa removed referenced material from Boston magazine that Pallotta is a billionnaire changing it to millionnaire. I ve reverted twice theyve reinserted twice and I don't want to go to three. Ive tried a discussion on their userpage but it became ill-tempered. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – The same issue was raised in another report. See my closure there. Both sides should consider following WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:DudeFromTheBaltics reported by User:Moxy (Result: EC protection)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "I still don't understand why do you all want Latvia look like a Russian state. I bet, add this also to Estonia, since they also have a lot of Russian speakers. This literally makes me angry by knowing how biased some of the editors are."
2. 01:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Excuse me, are you threatening me to ban, because I said this one guy to stop posting in Latvia's wikipedia page that Latvia's minority language is Russian? Latvian constitutional law doesn't put Russian as the minority language and by that I will stand. Also, you should put this exact sentence to Estonia and Lithuania, not only Latvia. Don't threaten me, this is free encyclopedia after all, and I will work to put it as neutral as possible."
3. 20:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070312450 by Denis tarasov This source doesn't show Russian is a minority language. Stop this or I'll have to report this as vandalism(talk)"
4. 20:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070307023 by Denis tarasov Why you're adding this to only Latvia? There are more than one language. Also your sources doesn't say about Russian language. (talk)"
5. 19:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070269734 by Denis tarasov Unsourced data (talk)"
6. 16:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070125027 by Denis tarasov Unsourced data (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Latvia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Russian language in infobox */ new section"

Comments:

Having no luck in getting editors to talk about edits. Moxy- 02:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: The Latvia article is EC protected indefinitely under authority of WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Atlantic306 reported by User:Asfedayn (Result: No violation)

Page: James Pallotta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Atlantic306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is the first change I made here, here, After Atlantic306 reverted the change this is the second time I edited the information here which is the present iteration. Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We had a discussion on my talk page my main point here. Regrettably, the discussion was almost immediately made personal by Atlantic306, given almost right away I was accused of having a conflict of interest. Other instances, such as "I am not your mate" further heighten the suspicion that the edit was mistakenly taken personally, when that was not at all the intention of the edit. Even in the report, Atlantic306 seems to suggest an undermining of my position as just someone critical of Pallotta, which again, ignored all the arguments put forward - see below. As I stated on many occasions, the core of the inquiry is on accuracy and truthfulness, which is not personal. I tried to put forward many reasons for why using the word "billionaire" was inaccurate and misleading, but as evidenced by the discussion, all of the arguments were ignored. I tried informing Atlantic306 that the source is an old article from a 2006 issue of the Boston Magazine, which cannot consider the 2009 crisis in which Pallotta lost most of his assets. Further, I pointed out that the magazine itself offered no source or evidence of where how the information was obtained. I tried to inform Atlantic306 that Pallotta is also not present on the Forbes list, which was ultimately ignored as well. While the source might have been accurate over 15 years ago, currently it would be dangerously misleading to suggest Pallotta is a "billionaire" without any evidence of it. I believe we should strive to put out accurate and truthful information, which was the point of my edit - regrettably, an edit war was initiated by Atlantic306 because presumably the edit was taken as a personal attack and no efforts were made in trying to resolve the issue, other than personal attacks such as the insinuation of a conflict of interest.

Comments:

User:Atlantic306 continued to revert that Pallotta is a billionnaire, despite evidence to the contrary. I have tried a discussion on my userpage but as shown above and by the discussion itself, it was made personal by Atlantic306 and, at least presumably, never entered with a bona fide intent to come to a resolution, as the attacks and ignoring of arguments regrettably confirm. Asfedayn (talk) 6:50, 6 February 2022 (PTC)

• I have not edit-warred or I wouldn't have kept your version. As for you calling me a mate that was not sincere and I haven't attacked you in any way at all,Atlantic306 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

As can be seen by the searches on the talkpage there is recent coverage that calls him a billionnaire and there is also some coverage that calls him a millionnaire so it is not a clear cut case you have suggested, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Asking if you have a coi is common practice if you have only edited his article and saying you were critical of him as shown here is not a criticism, just stating the facts. Also I have no coi myself, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• No violation – I encourage further discussion on Boston Magazine's claim from 2006 that Pallotta is a billionaire. It seems that Pallotta has not made it into the Forbes list of billionaires. When there is conflict of sources, some qualification may be needed. Actual billionaires tend to be conspicuous and be widely covered in the press. There is at present no discussion of sources on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Cedar777 reported by User:Hemantha (Result: Self-revert)

Page: Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cedar777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1070050132 by Sriramk750

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Context:
05-Feb-2022, 11:44 - Sriramk750 adds allopathic to IMA sentence in lead (while removing some other text)
05-Feb-2022, 11:49 - Black Kite reverts

User's reverts:
06-Feb-2022, 06:46 - Cedar777 adds "allopathic" back in the lead sentence while moving it down, along with other minor (ce,ref titles) edits
06-Feb-2022, 10:47 - I revert the "allopathic" addition and the lead sentence move
06-Feb-2022, 18:33 - Cedar777 repeats their edit (including the word allopathic), but in the body. They don't touch the lead sentence.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Page subject to 1RR. Notice at the top of edit window and talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There was a talk page discussion on the same day where multiple editors explained the consensus about this issue to a new editor. Cedar777 hasn't participated in that discussion, but has commented upon others in the same time.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1070377315

Comments:
Page subject to 1RR. There's longstanding consensus about the sentence in lead - IMA describes Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine as quacks. Occasionally, IPs and new editors wish to change it to - practice allopathic medicine as quacks. hemantha (brief) 05:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action due to a self-revert. Cedar777 undid their last change after my request on their talk page. This edit broke the 1RR restriction on the page which had been applied due to WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for leaving a note on my talk page. My job is intermittent and it can completely interfere with any opportunities for screen time (sometimes this is for very long periods of time). I appreciate the opportunity to self-revert. Cedar777 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: It is clear that the reporting user and I have different views. This was a content dispute. The reporting user left an edit summary stating "there is clear and longstanding consensus against these changes - specifically against allopathic - in talk. Reverting to previous version of the lead". However there is NO RELEVANT RFC (open or closed) at Ayurveda that forbids the use of "allopathic", in the lede or in the article body. Please note that the reporting user did not limit their revert to removing the term "allopathic" - they also removed reliable sources without explanation. User Hemantha did not address the matter in any capacity at Talk:Cedar777, at Talk:Ayurveda, nor did they provide the date for a closed RfC or a direct link to a open RfC for discussion related to "allopathic" prior to coming to this noticeboard to escalate the content dispute; their sole communication was an edit summary when reverting. Cedar777 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

User:49.195.81.81 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Page protected)

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

User being reported: 49.195.81.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision you don't reply for over a week. And USDA trust the analysis and you're speculating that USDA is irresponsible."
2. 04:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070370666 by discuss on Talk First. USDA database is reliable."
3. 03:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Uses */Added in USDA database for nutrition information and analysis. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/173032/nutrients"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Goji."
2. 06:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Goji."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Vitamin A? */ r"
2. 04:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "/* Really? there needs to be a Nutrition chapter */ r"

Comments:

User is edit warring within last 12 hours and in recent history on Goji, using at least 4 different IPs on the talk page and article, despite 4 experienced editors offering numerous explanations for what appears to be inability to understand USDA data presentations and nutrition contents, and need for WP:RS sources. Zefr (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Based on your own count. I didn't break the 3 RR rule. So nothing to discuss. Today is the first time I specifically added in the USDA database. Never have I ever done that before. So I reverted twice only today and not three times.

49.195.81.81 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected See note on talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Fewspeed555 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Pages: Pheu Thai Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Democrat Party (Thailand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Thai Liberal Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Palang Pracharath Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fewspeed555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25]
6. [26]
7. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

Comments:
Long-term edit war accross several articles on Thai political parties. RJFF (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• With the exception of a few edits in 2014, the editor has only edited since January 2022. Apparently they change the position of the party in the infobox or elsewhere in the articles. They have never responded to any warnings; indeed, they have never talked at all. I have blocked them indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:Twsabin (Result: Warned)

Page: 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Axxxion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: revision (4 Feb revision immediately preceding the addition that is being reverted); alternatively construed: diff of 6 Feb revert (being reverted back to)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st
2. 2nd
3. 3rd
4. 4th

     Earlier reverts (not within 24h):

1. 6 Feb

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd (link to talk section)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (link to talk section)

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

Comments:

The discussion involving multiple editors is ongoing, the removed section is both praised and scrutinized, and incremental improvement is being considered. tw^sabin 22:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The objection (not only mine) is that the recently introduced subsection is off-topic and therefore should not be in the article pending the ongoing discussion. The matter is quite plain. Instead of participating on the TalkPage, Twsabin keeps re-introducing the dubious material under discussion.Axxxion (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There had been no consensus that the table should be removed pending discussion. Your edit warring is egregious. tw^sabin 23:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that you were both edit-warring but are now participating in a discussion at the article talk page. I'm not a regular admin at this noticeboard so I'm not going to respond with any penalties, just commenting after looking over this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not breach 3RR and my intent was to maintain the discussed section, so that it may be discussed and improved further, while the here reported editor tried to impose their preferred state of the article (and enforce it by edit warring), bypassing discussion, based on a defective reasoning that something that is undergoing discussion can't also be included in the article at the same time. Seeing how their removal was disruptive in the context of an ongoing discussion, I consider my three reverts to be helpful and generally consistent with policy. I can't accept the conclusion that our conduct was roughly the same. I request preventative action, so that the reported editor understands their error. tw^sabin 01:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Axxxion made four reverts starting with 20:53 on 7 February, each time removing a section called 'International treaties and negotiation structures'. All four of the diffs listed at the head of this report are reverts, since the disputed section was added only recently. A discussion of whether to include the table has occurred at Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis#Structure of table on structures though so far with no clear result. There is nothing in WP:EW that says whether disputed material should be kept or excluded during a discussion. Axxxion's belief that his removals were 'generally consistent with policy' has no basis that I can see. Oops! Corrected my comment in the light of Twsabin below. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: you replied to the above comment as if it had been made by the reported editor, Axxxion, but it was made by myself, the filer, in response to a suggestion of WP:BOOMERANG made by Liz (when "penalties" [plural] were mentioned). Sorry if my last comment made this section harder to parse (it does at a first glance seem like a generic defense of someone accused of edit warring, making it inherently ascribable to the reported party...) My claim to policy-correctness rests on WP:EDITCON: as long as multiple editors have been discussing the section days prior, and have been editing it, instead of removing it, their dispute around specific points did not equal a consensus to remove the section. Axxxion, and only them, tried removing the section once on Feb. 6 and was reverted, then again in proximity to 24hrs, four times in sequence, and was reverted by other two editors, so in total their (Axxxion's) attempts at removal were undone by three different editors. The section is still in the article, and is still being edited and discussed, making it obvious that these attempts were nothing but a disruption. tw^sabin 17:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Axxxion is warned for violating 3RR on 7 February (see my calculation above). They are risking a block if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:184.185.133.150 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sing 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.185.133.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1070681124

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On main article

1. Special:Diff/1070692457
2. Special:Diff/1070676590
3. Special:Diff/1069516827

On Sing (franchise)

1. Special:Diff/1070676457
2. Special:Diff/1069517034
3. Special:Diff/1069310253
4. Special:Diff/1069128088

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion and advice over this addition

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1070699217

Comments:

IPs from Louisiana making the same addition of unfounded content about a sequel, most of them citing a Cinemablend article but most recent incident is now citing a YouTube video. Editing also spills over to Sing (franchise). An IP range block possibly? -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 20:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Special:Contributions/184.185.133.0/24 blocked one month. Addition of badly-sourced material by a variety of IPs. This range has been blocked for as long as three years in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:CheckersBoard reported by User:Tunakanski (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31] 18:31 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
2. [32]18:47 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
3. [33] 19:29 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
4. [34] 19:34 Feb 8 time added Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
5. [35] 23:34 Feb 8 (different material but another revert on the same article, including a personal attack in summary) Meters (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

Comments:From looking at their talk page and messages they have sent on other article talk pages, it seems as if CheckersBoard has been extremely antagonistic and passive aggressive over the past 7 years. Furthermore, they have countless warnings on their userpage for a variety of things, some of which are even for edit warring in the past. Simply looking at the version history of Ice hockey or at the latest posts on the ice hockey talk page should provide all remaining necessary context. Thank you. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 00:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User: Khan Bababa reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: EC protection)

Page: Bajaur Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khan Bababa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

Comments:

User Khan Bababa has been disruptively editing the page, they also continue editing the page when the talk page discussion isn't over, claiming I am repeating my points when I am continuing to bring more and new sources to prove my point, but he still ignores such. Claims I am also POV pushing.

User Khan Bababa has also made rude comments, including calling me a "typical ignorant", and "nationalist". [46] "stop being a typical ignorant." [47] "please tell him that this is a neutral area not some nationalist playzone." Noorullah21 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This user completely disregarded my source at first, then started using it after claiming the "1,000" figure was wrong, etc. Then continued to now use the source. The User continues to claim I am being ignorant and am POV pushing/doing vandalism, while I am trying to lead a civilized discussion on the talk page, however, after reverting some of his edits for not continuing to go on the talk page, I decided to now lead a edit warring report. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall, the user has been leading a long term edit war spreading over a sporadic period of months. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Bajaur Campaign is EC protected indefinitely under the authority of WP:ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:66.8.166.218 reported by User:93 (Result: )

Page: Fan Kexin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.8.166.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [55]

Comments:

Reverting multiple users' additions to Fan Kexin mentioning allegations of cheating in a recent Olympic event, both sourced and unsourced. 9³ (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:0rionQC reported by User:FormalDude (Result: )

Page: Bret Weinstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 0rionQC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1070756694 by FormalDude (talk)"
2. 03:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "removing the description of Odysee as "fringe" to maintain neutrality. "Fringe" is not an objective or neutral description. "Alternative" by itself is both an objective and neutral description of Odysee."
3. 19:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC) "/* COVID-19 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:0rionQC#February_2022

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Skyerise (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 16:27, 26 January 2022‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:57, 8 February 2022 - with misleading edit summary (rv. content deletion) when actually he was deleting my content additions, note article size reduction
2. 04:20, 9 February 2022
3. 04:26, 9 February 2022
4. 21:26, 9 February 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

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

Comments:

• Another bad-faith ANI filing, claiming consensus because I *didn't* edit war: Last week Skyerise starting making edits against consensus, such as deleting RS's that 3nd parties found convincing, and objected to me reverting them immediately. So I told them to tag it as 'under construction' and gave them some time to finish what they were doing. I procrastinated a week to review their edits, because dealing with bad-faith editors like this is quite unpleasant. They now claim that because I didn't edit-war over them, they now have "concensus" for their changes. 3rd-party opinion is against them with one exception: they tried to strike a deal with an editor who's been pushing pseudoscholarship on an unrelated article for years, that Skyerise would support their edits if they'd support Skyerise's. At the last 3RR that Skyerise filed,[59] ANI called Skyerise out on that as inappropriate behaviour. Skyerise has no consensus to change the name of the language against all RS's, to delete RS's, or to try to water down RS's by suggesting they're unreliable. The only support they have is against reordering the sections of the article to conform with the standard layout at Wikiproject Languages, where the offer for mutual support (the one that ANI objected to) came to their support. Since that's a change of mine, I'm happy to revert it pending discussion. But per BOLD, Skyerise's new edits should stay reverted unless they get consensus for them.

BTW, I did apologize for my inaccurate edit summary mentioned above. I mistakenly thought I saw a repeat of earlier content-blanking, but I was wrong. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I request that the editor above agree to make incremental changes rather than large-scale reverts. He keeps removing major work I have done before moving forward. Nowhere has he discussed, other than two specific issues ("per Laycock" in tables, and section order), just why he thinks all my changes must be reverted before moving forward. His changes in section order are particularly disruptive and against a clear two-to-one consensus on the talk page. I've requested that he open RfCs on any specific issues he has, but so far he hasn't done so. Skyerise (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Per BOLD, the onus is on you to get consensus for your edits. We don't need consensus to revert them. E.g., it's up to you to get consensus to change the name of the language; it's up to you to get consensus to delete RS's that 3rd parties have found convincing. (Just claiming you have consensus is not enough: you actually need to get agreement from other editors that the source does not belong.) The reason for whole-scale reverts is that the little changes get all bound together. I did make an attempt to restore your beneficial edits after reverting the POV ones, but I may have missed some. If you make just the uncontroversial improvements, we'll have a new reset point if further edits are rejected. We've done that before, after all. If you like, I'll even make an empty edit with the summary "I agree to Skyerise's edits up to this point" so it's clear that you have consensus at least from me. (Of course, others may disagree, but they aren't as active.) — kwami (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)