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:Crashed greek reported by User:MehmoodS (Result: Both warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Battle of Peshawar (1758) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crashed greek (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [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:
Originally it was identified on article Battle of Peshawar (1758) by other editors that two of the sources were unreliable where one author copied from wikipedia whereas the other author had no expertise in the area but infact is a regular user on other media sites like quora and blogger. So those two sources were removed and additional citations from multiple academicians were added. The poor formatting of the infobox as well as the citation template was also fixed. But couple of days after, Crashed greek reverted all the changes back, removing all the sources by academicians except for the two unreliable sources. I started the discussion on the talk page, explaining how the sources were unreliable but user Crashed greek replied with personal attack instead of being civil and he got warned about it by an administrator on his talk page [9]. This user wouldn't even give any proper explanation for his reverts. So after I moved the changes back, he again reverted them, again removing multiple sources except the two unreliable ones. So I realized that ok, the talk page explanation isn't helping, so in good faith, I first reverted with addition of multiple academicians citations and ALSO added the two unreliable sources that there was dispute on. Then I submitted request for opinion in WP:RSN which you can see here directly [10]. And after this, I provided this link to the user on the article's talk page and explained that all the sources including the disputed ones are currently on the article so there is no reason to revert, plus I told him that a discussion is currently in process on the WP:RSN about the two disputed references and nothing will be removed till a consensus is reached. But I am not sure, if the user fails to understand what I stated or he is doing it rather purposely, because even after everything that I did in good faith, he ends up reverting the changes again, removing multiple sources except the two unreliable ones. And his reason is that there is no consensus. That's all. Even after I explained and took the initiative to submit discussion on talk page and on WP:RSN, which actually is what he should have done to prove that the two disputed sources are reliable, he still reverts which ends up removing citation from multiple academicians and messes up the formatting of the infobox and citation templates. And then seems like, after he reverted, he got some sense and then tried to add back some of the sources (causing duplicates to be added) by academicians that he removed, and he mis-arranged them. So, this user has been disruptive time and again, who just doesn't want to take time to read and understand the discussion, but instead just reverts the changes to what he personally feels comfortable with. I did warn him on his talk to page to stop being disruptive but I don't think he cares no matter who or how many times he is warned. And this has been going on for days. So, some help would be great from an admin to stop this disruption on the page especially since discussion is ongoing in WP:RSN and also would like his changes reverted back. MehmoodS (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Also on noticeboard [11], its proved that the disputed sources are indeed unreliable and even after the user saw the evidence, he still ignored it and called it a "coincidence", that the author's book plagiarized from wikipedia. MehmoodS (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Consecutive edits count as 1 edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven - Sorry Mr. Slater, I didn't quite get it what you mean. Here I am talking about reverts and disruption. MehmoodS (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To have edit warred they would have had to have made 4 separate full or partial reverts. If they make 3 reverts in 3 edits with no interruption, that counts (in effect) as 1 revert. Their reverts have to have been separated by another user's actions to count as fresh reverts. As I see it they have (and I note you have too) made 3 "blocks" of reverts.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr.Slater, I had two reverts, and as far as the other user is concerned, he has engaged in edit warring. There is more to it which I have explained already where the user ignored warning and caused disruption for days while a discussion has been going on especially on WP:RSN to reach a consensus. He has been causing disruption for days, using personal attack, as well as failing to comply with discussion on talk page where other editor has tried to explain him as well about the disputed sources. Also on noticeboard [12], its proved that the disputed sources are indeed unreliable and even after the user saw the evidence, he still ignored it and called it a "coincidence", that the author's book plagiarized from wikipedia. MehmoodS (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your first revert [[13]], your second [[14]], your rhird [[15]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't it.[[16]]. I have provided explanation above in detail. MehmoodS (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• User:MehmoodS has opened a discussion of source reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dispute over unreliable sources. It seems that User:Crashed greek's opinion on the sources is not getting any support from other editors there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the version of the article before MehmoodS introduced changes [[17]]. Now maybe their source is better, but the date for the battle was long-standing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I also note that one of the sources MehmoodS uses says 8th May.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

that is not the source used by me, and that is the source that there is dispute on which has been mentioned in WP:RSN as unreliable. This source had been there for a while which I identified as problematic. MehmoodS (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Odd as it is used is this revert of yours [[18]], and this one [[19]], so you are not removing it, so they can't be adding it back.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

yes I added the two unreliable sources back in good faith as I mentioned in detail explanation in the post on how the discussion progressed. You can see here [20]. The reason to do so was to stop the user from continously reverting changes till a concensus can be reached on WP:RSN about the unreliability. But yet, the user continued to revert. MehmoodS (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - It is user User:MehmoodS who has violated the WP:3RR. No third user has reverted my edits, only this user has done. And I have just reverted to a version that has stood for months together, before this user has come to this article. And this user is a similar user User:Hiensrt, another user was using the same Wikipedia essay to remove sources Talk:Battle_of_Peshawar_(1758)#Refs_removed a few months ago, who had even proposed deletion of the article. That user has gone inactive, and this new user has become active now, with the same point. See the version that was there months before this user came [21], and he is changing the article without consensus in the talk page. See the diff of him doing [22] and I am doing [23]. I have kept the sources he has added, I have not reverted that part. But he is changing the article without consensus in the talk page. Crashed greek (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  You are again being incivil with personal attack and using false accusations. Bbb23, he is at it again even after being warned. Crashed greek, your version heavily relied on two unreliable sources that I mentioned time and again as unreliable and even on WP:RSN, they are considered unreliable by other editors. Editors even told you on the talk page and yet you ignored them including WP:RSN and continued to disrupt by reverting changes to version you liked. Your version has multiple issues such as citation templates, formatting and information based on unreliable sources that were fixed with addition of citations from academicians. And the version you are claiming is yours is false as you added back all the sources on January 16th that I originally added of the academicians but you mis-arranged them and yet continued to use information relied on unreliable sources. The link you shared of my version shows me adding all the citations from academicians which you removed couple of times before just like you did here [24] and here [25]. MehmoodS (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Crashed greek and User:MehmoodS are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus for your change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  But User:EdJohnston, I followed all necessary steps to reach concensus, even added back the unreliable sources in good faith along with additional sources I added, so that no reverts would be needed till we get further opinions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dispute over unreliable sources. But user still made the reverts. And you can see clearly on the RS noticeboard that multiple editors oppose user:Crashed greek's opinion but the user just refuses to accept, calling the plagiarism from wikipedia, as just a "coincidence". How can you reach concensus with someone who hold such opinion, just stays in denial, and is repeatedly uncivil with personal attacks even after he was warned once before? MehmoodS (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Crashed greek's choice of sources has been questioned. But the revert rules apply to everybody, including you. You need to stop until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with revert rules but I am still baffled about how to reach consensus with someone who doesn't or not even trying to reach one? Or do you mean the consensus from the WP:RSN? Please help guide me so that I know what more I can do when facing editors like him. MehmoodS (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't, you report them. Or you get others to support you.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That is what I did here Mr.Slater. I also contacted admins to intervene but to no avail. Before this, I used the article's talk page, used WP:RSN and now here. MehmoodS (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What I meant was, you wait till they have made 4 straight reverts and then report them, preferably after you have not made 3. What you do is let others take up the slack, then if they continue to revert you report them. Being in the right is not (read wp:editwar) a justification for edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand now. This helps. Thank you User:Slatersteven. And thank you and apologies User:EdJohnston. MehmoodS (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• User:EdJohnston, I have reverted his edits to previous consensus version which had stayed for months. And I even added back his new sources after realizing, but I kept the article text at the consensus version. No third person supported User:MehmoodS's changes in the talk page, but he still continued the edit war. So warning me here is unfair. Crashed greek (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mathsci reported by User:Gumshoe2 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27] Jan 16 9:03
2. [28] Jan 16 11:38
3. [29] Jan 16 11:51
4. [30] Jan 16 13:32

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:
The section in question is "connections with the same geodesics" also called "Geodesics defined by a metric or a connection". The situation is fully explained on the talk page for Fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Response. Checking my edit history, I was adding content to many articles on Renaissance art, related to Michelangelo, Raphael and Leonardo da Vinci using multiple WP:RSs; e.g. Benois Madonna and Study for the Madonna of the Cat. Also Jean-Joseph Bonaventure Laurens and Alexander Kok. On wikipedia with CMD I have been one of the main editors patrolling Europe. My sourced changes to the lead of Handel and Bach required care. Similarly upgrading the "Music" section for United Kingdom of Great Britain required care with sources from archive.org and Commons. Since 2008, I have made numerous edits to articles about Riemannian geometry and connections.

User:Gumshoe2 has made edits to several maths BLP articles and some mathematics articles. Today he forum-shopped on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. [34] He later left an untemplated message on my user talk page. Here is a summary of Gumshoe2's edits.

1. [35] initial blanking of content by anon IP
2. [36] deletes brand new content on "connection with same geodesics" with WP:RSs
3. [37] deletes same new content
4. [38] deletes same new content
5. [39] deletes WP:RSs
6. [40] deletes same new content
7. [41] deletes WP:RSs
8. [42] deletes WP:RSs, removes "Further reading" section
9. [43] deletes WP:RSs

Since I previously added quite a lot of content in November August 2020 (the second proof using covariant derivatives), this was on my watchlist. With the edit summary comment on connection with the same geodesics, I wrote a short comment on the talk page mentioning the WP:RS. [44] Later Gumshoe2's Latex code had to be altered by me so that wikipedia users could read it. In the end, I wrote, "I have no strong views on whether the Addendum on geodesics should be added or not: I've not really had a chance to look at relevant papers nor to read the CUP book of Nomizu & Sasaki." Gumshoe2 is still commenting on the article talk page.[45] Mathsci (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope everyone will read the talk page, where I think everything is rather clear. Anyway, Mathsci has made three bizarre errors here, the significance of which I am unsure of- 1) the initial blanking, as you can see, was done by me and not by an anon IP. 2) Mathsci did not previously add "'a lot of content" to the page, and it was not in November 2020. His sole contribution was to add one sentence and rephrase two others, all on one day in August 2020. 3) I did not delete "brand new content", it was the same content as before, rephrased. Even if you don't understand the math, you can see this from the fact that the main reference (page 249 in Spivak) is identical to the reference for the previous content. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I refactored that post: it was August not November. This diff shows me removing my own content. The other content was created in October 2015 by a fixed French IP using Spivak's book.[46] It read like a stream-of-consciousness, quite different from my style. I made similar edits in 2008 in France, citing Kobayashi & Nomizu's 1963 book. This was my fixed French IP.[47] Mathsci (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another bizarre error or lie. It is not your own content. It was added by "Geometry guy". Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Gumshoe2's report gives no supporting diffs, no standard warning, no proper notification, and wrong time stamps. He dug up a 2007 diff of GeometryGuy, unrelated to me, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on "errors" or "lies". Articles from Jan/Aug 2008 contain hundreds of my edits on connections, curvature, Cartan forms, etc — User:OdedSchramm also made edits there. Fast-forwarding, 4 months after creating an account in 2020, Gumshoe2 filed a WP:CIR report.[48] That contrasts with OdedSchramm's edits, the last being shortly before his tragic accident. I've already stated several times that no editing by me is happening in the article. Mathsci (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My report to ANI was not primarily about competence. I think it is normal for editors to sometimes make mistakes or misunderstand material, and so it is fine for mathsci to have some gaps in his knowledge. As I phrased it later in the discussion, the problem was about "the impossibility of communicating with [mathsci] about this page in a rational or coherent way". (Confusingly to me, the ANI was closed with mathsci pledging to avoid personal remarks, which was totally unrelated.) Incidentally, a version of this is happening again, as you can see by looking through the talk page for Fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry. Anyway, I have no idea of what the relevance of 2008 edits, Oded Schramm, or my 2020 ANI report is meant to be. I am only trying to keep things factual. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(I suppose I should also point out that I have no idea of what the relevance of almost any of mathsci's comments here are meant to be.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Administrator note: It appears that both User:Mathsci and User:Gumshoe2 have broken 3RR on this article on January 16th. So what are you hoping that the admins will do? Block both of you? EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It is true that I removed the relevant text four times. I thought I was following the rule, but maybe I misunderstood. I did not know that any removal of text would count as a reversion and so I thought that the first removal would be considered a direct edit and not a reversion. You can see from the page history that after mathsci's last addition of the material, I did not revert it; that was because I believed I had reached the reversion limit with my previous removal. If I should be blocked then so be it. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I should also note that in his presentation above, mathsci listed the same edit of mine twice, as entry #4 and #6. So he made it look like I made one more reversion than I did. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like he also listed my other edit twice, as #5 and #7. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) @EdJohnston: thanks for pinging me. Although initially undecided, I was relieved to remove the "Addendum" section at 22:10 on Jan 16th. Since both of us have previously collaborated on cleaning up another section amicably,[49][50][51][52] I am not sure that any action needs to be taken. I looked back in the AN3 archive for Mathsci: in 2010 there were WP:ARBR&I warnings (borderline edit-warring); similarly just after 14 July 2016 (2016 Nice truck attack), there was a warning. I can see new "Addendum" material added here[53], a revert[54], a revert[55], and then, while an in-use tag was applied while when I was undecided, a self-revert as I decided that the Addendum section was optional (like a vast amount of WP content).[56][57] When I need to think through material, I sometimes temporarily add in-use tags for sections when the the whole section needs rewriting.[58] Removing WP:RSs is another issue and most users rarely do it (for WP:FA like Frédéric Chopin, it's done to keep articles concise). As a regular AN3 sysop, only administrators like you can judge. Thanks for your help and patience. Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC) (second refactoring to correct diffs)

Another error/lie/misrepresentation. As listed in my initial report here: four reverts, [59] [60] [61] [62], all done while refusing to engage with the relevant commentary on the talk page. Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why the word lie has been used. I've always edited in good faith as happened in the 2010 WP:ARBR&I case. My method of editing has always been anodyne and neutral: identify the best WP:RSs and then summarise them. Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Mathsci and User:Gumshoe2 are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus for your change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:76.69.7.202 reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: Semi)

Page: Original North American area codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 76.69.7.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1066276107 by Kbrose (talk) Revert vandalism by editor that refuses to use talk page and has been reverted countless times."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Original North American area codes."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Several back-and-forth revisions over the last 3 days with User:Kbrose. Perhaps an underlying issue of WP:OWN MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Additional links to reverts: [63] and [64] -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This IP user has never explained his/her objections to the content deleted. He simply reverts content seemingly arbitrarily, and this has been a habit on other articles, as shown in his talk page history. All content deleted in Original North American area codes is recently added and properly sourced content, added not in any WP:OWN situation, but simply to expand the content of the article in good faith manner. kbrose (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again.... Senseless edit warring without ever stating the nature of the objection: DIFF

The editor User:Kbrose has been reverted by several editors, asked to use the talk page, and exhibited WP:OWN behaviour. User:Kbrose has refused to use the talk page despite numerous requests to do so and reverts. The edits which kbrose is attempting to add have numerous factual inaccuracies. If this user would simply follow the WP:BRD policies, these errors could be sorted out. It is actually User:Kbrose that is edit warring and not following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You have never explained your reverts, or participated in any manner on the talk page, as noted by several users already. You have been warned. On the contrary, I have been involved in talk page and other dialogs. Your ire appears to be founded in my reversal of your first edit on that page, when you added conflicting statements, HERE. An NPA that includes all of a province cannot have another, southern part with another NPA. I corrected this later with better information, but you don't seem to recognize the defect of your addition. Don't put up more smoke and fire to complicate the situation. kbrose (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not my job as pard of WP:BRD to bring reverted bold edits to the talk page. It's part of your job as the editor suggesting bold edits to use the talk page, as you were asked to numerous time, yet repeatedly refused. I continually asked you to use the talk page on your bold edits. I explained that your edits were not factual, as did other editors, yet you repeatedly added the info again and again without edit explanations or use of the talk page. Your above excuse of earlier use of the talk page on a completely different subject matter is only meant as a deliberate tactic to try and mask your gross misuse of editing and article ownership which borders on vandalism. It is only due to not finding the proper reporting page that I did not report you earlier. 76.69.7.202 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My edits to the article are not bold and not controversial based on the ample references. I cannot vandalize it, because I wrote the entire article, and it is factual and well sourced. That is not ownership. I am open to improvements by others when relevant references support changes. I suggest you show some proof for your lies and accusations. They are just smoke and mirrors. If you think your senseless deletions without reason and explanation are an improvement then explain it. I will continue to defend the article as written against all misinformation and vandalism, and I will likely expand it further with new source material. You senselessly deleted the last round of expansion, wholesale against any logic. That is not engaging in any kind of edit cycle, which you claim. You have never participated in any such activity in this article or the other articles for which you were warned against similarly disruptive editing. kbrose (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected six months. The IP editor has reverted many times since the beginning of January but has never used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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: Complex - their last preferred version was a moving target.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
2. My first attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page was posted after the first revert, at 04:46, 17 January 2022
3. 04:56, 17 January 2022
4. 05:00, 17 January 2022
5. 05:15, 17 January 2022
6. Edit-warring notice was posted at this point, after four reverts; editor subsequently made four more.
7. 05:22, 17 January 2022
8. 05:37, 17 January 2022
9. 05:38, 17 January 2022
10. 20:49, 17 January 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKwamikagami&type=revision&diff=1066180600&oldid=1065769933

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts Talk:Enochian#Claims_that_Enochian_and_English_alphabets_are_'equivalent'_or_a_'cipher', Talk:Enochian#Overstating_Laycock

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKwamikagami&type=revision&diff=1066325582&oldid=1066323687

Comments:

Multiple reverts of two different edits. They do not revert the same material every time, but the material removed was recently added by me. Repeatedly removed a long footnote with a quote - which they requested with a citation tag. The edit summary, where they claim "Skyerise has requested I start editing again" is simply not true. I added a citation request, their response was to take that as permission to revert to their preferred version. Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Skyerise added some material to a stable article. Some were corrections or improvements, but a few I reverted, and Skyerise templated me for 3RR. Rather than continue to argue, I restored the stable version of the article. There it stayed overnight. Meanwhile, Skyerise tried arguing that reporting linguistic analysis was copyvio and that even the history of my edits should be deleted. The copyvio claim was rejected. They then said that I needed to provide citations for one the claims in the stable version,[65] which I took as agreement to start editing again. I did. They then said I was engaged in "lies" and that if I didn't revert myself, they'd report me here for 3RR.[66] So I reverted myself (within 10 minutes)[67] -- and they started this 3RR anyway. It appears to me that Skyerise is editing in bad faith, pushing the TRUTH of mysticism over RS's, and is using 3RR and copyvio as bludgeons to get their own way against RS's. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the truth of the matter is that while I was trying to improve the article, I was reverted multiple times before I was even finished. That each time I was reverted, I started a discussion about the issue on the talk page. And that KK here continued to revert rather than respond and discuss. The responses finally came after I posted the 3RR notice on their page. Skyerise (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Finally, KK acts like I am a complete newcomer to the article. That's simply not true: I've been editing it since at least 18 March 2015. Not gonna waste my time going back more than 500 edits for a clearly aggressive edit-warrior. Skyerise (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You can use the {{under construction}} template to let other editors know that you're in the middle of revamping an article.

Also, read WP:BOLD. If you make a change, it's up to you to justify if reverted. Claims of 3RR when you're the one changing an article can boomerang.

Don't know what responses you're speaking of. I responded multiple times. — kwami (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That claim can be disproven by the timestamps: 3RR notice posted on your talk page at 05:17, 17 January 2022‎. First response on the talk page is timestamped 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC). You didn't start to discuss until after you had already violated 3RR. You then went on to make four more reverts. Skyerise (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As for me being an edit-warrior, I can't help but point out that your block log for 3RR is twice as long as mine (8 blocks for you vs. 4 for me). Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, of the diffs provided, only three of the edits constitute a revert of any kind. And of those three edits, two of them - 05:37 and 05:38 on 17 January are actually a single revert undertaken in two consecutive edits. The other five edits all seem to be standard edits - bringing in more precise language, adding details, fixing wording, etc. I can 100% attest to Kwami sometimes being frustrating to work with, but they have not engaged in 3RR here, and I would highly suggest that Skyerise follow WP:BRD and start discussing exactly what content they want to add on the talk page instead of trying to brute force changes that don't have consensus. On the other hand, I would vehemently recommend that Kwami to please double down on observing WP:Civility, as his talk page edits sometimes leave a bit to be desired on that count. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 22:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely need to work on my civility!! I have a hard time being civil toward ppl who are acting as trolls, which of course is counter-productive.

But there's another issue: "revert yourself or I'll file a 3RR complaint". I revert myself, they file the complaint anyway. Shouldn't the complaint be dismissed as being filed in bad faith? — kwami (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I see that you've started editing the article again, deleting things you don't like, despite the ongoing 3RR complaint. Does that mean you've abandoned this 3RR complaint? Or do you think that if you file for 3RR, the other user has to stop editing the article but you can continue? — kwami (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't you see the closure? It's what you're replying to. Also, I take offense at your characterization of my removals as "things I don't like". I removed material without citations which appears to be unverifiable. And said so in my edit summaries. Please just chill with your projections of what I might or might not 'like'. You're gaslighting. Skyerise (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What closure? This filing is still pending, and you continue to edit the article you've been edit-warring over. Regardless of whether your edits are justified, that puts you further in violation of 3RR. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you claiming to have added the material I've removed? It's been in the article for years and presumably has nothing to do with you. I haven't touched any of your work, so you can let whoever added the material file a complaint, eh? Skyerise (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR: I'm hip to your game and am not going to allow you to gaslight me into thinking I can't edit the article. What I can't do is revert you for a bit. The rest of the article is certainly fair game. You don't own it. Skyerise (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You've been engaged in an edit-war over this article. You filed a 3RR report. Yet you continue to edit the article. It doesn't matter who you're reverting. You're effectively saying you can make whatever edits you like, but I can't revert you because that would be in violation of 3RR. 3RR isn't a blank check to allow the accuser to do whatever they like.

So, are you going to abide by 3RR and self-revert your recent edits, or are you abandoning this 3RR complaint and agree that we can both edit the article, including me reverting you per BOLD? — kwami (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not reverting you. No reason you should get to revert me. I'm working collaboratively with User:Double sharp on the talk page. Perhaps you could learn from their example? Skyerise (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I've got no reason to take advice on "how it works" from you. Give it a break. I'm sure some other editor will let me know if my continued non-revert edits are disallowed. Until then, please refrain from pretending to give me advice. Skyerise (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't wish to file a tit-for-tat 3RR complaint because you're gaming the system. That would be a waste of time for the ppl here. But you can't make edits with impunity. Any edit can be reverted. For the next few hours I'll play your game and ask someone else to revert any bad edits you make, and -- as you seem to think that's how 3RR works -- will continue to make unrelated edits to the article. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Hello1person reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: EC protection)

Page: Dadivank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hello1person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]
6. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [76]

Comments:
176.23.54.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Hello1person are obviously the same person. Edit war was started by the IP, and continued by the newly registered account. The account's only contribution are 3 reverts, and despite the warning and invitation to discuss concerns at talk, he continues to edit war. His last revert was made after I posted 3RR and discretionary sanctions warnings at his talk page, so clearly he has no intention to stop. An admin intervention might be necessary. Semi-protection of the article could be useful too. Grandmaster 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

New user User!Aaah! (talk · contribs) is clearly the same person who created a new account to continue edit war. Grandmaster 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Dadivank is EC protected indefinitely, under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:F1V8V10V6 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Both warned)

Page: Max Verstappen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: F1V8V10V6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [83]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [84]

Comments:

User began to edit war after a edit of theirs on Max Verstappen changing ″Formula One″ into ″F1″ was reverted, they were told several times to seek consensus for the change on the article talk page but didn't listen and instead just kept restoring their preferred version. It should also be noted this user has a history of hostility and unwillingness to cooperate and take feedback, usually just emptying their talk page on communication attempts, both their history at Talk:Max Verstappen (where they have also violated talk page policy) and their own talk page shows this, but that is a different story. I reverted to the stable version 4 times as it did not seem right that they are allowed to bully their version into existence without consensus, and as it is also a BLP article. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"User began to edit war." That is not what happened. This user reverted my edit without a PROPER explanation as to why exactly he/she did it.

"didn't listen and instead just kept restoring their preferred version" I didn't listen, because you NEVER gave a proper edit summary (with a good reasoning) why you changed it from "F1" to "Formula One."

"It should also be noted this user has a history of hostility and unwillingness to cooperate and take feedback, usually just emptying their talk page on communication attempts, but that is a different story." First of all, that's not true, at all. Where's the "history of hostility"? That's a false accusation. Emptying my own talk page is not a serious act of braking the rules, and that isn't relevant to this discussion anyway. I only emptied it because the talk page discussions were nothing serious, just general stuff.

"I reverted to the stable version 4 times as it did not seem right that they are allowed to bully their version into existence without consensus."

"I wouldn't have done that 4 times if you had given a proper edit summary as to why you reverted my edit in the first place. You never have an explanation, all you said was: "No need for the change." THAT is NOT a proper explanation. See?

Finally, what's the difference between "F1" and "Formula One" anyway? They're both the same thing. Formula One themselves refer to the sport as "F1" almost all time, everywhere, on social media, websites, everything..

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. This could've been avoided if, as I said, you had explained exactly why you reverted my edit instead of "No need for the change."

 F1V8V10V6!  11:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

When reverted, what you should have done is go to the article talk page and discuss. I provided an edit summary for my revert, which was ″No need for the change″ because like you said they are the same thing and it was an unnecessary edit. That is a ″proper″ edit summary. Formula One is more appropriate for an encylopedia in my book, but that is not what the report here is about. As for your hostility, do you want me to provide diffs of your activity in the Verstappen talk page, was that before or after you changed your name? This could have been avoided you're right, if you had followed proper procedure and started a discussion on the talk page when reverted. I should also note that the user is continuing to edit war as this report is ongoing. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"No need for a change" is not good enough explanation. At all. You just agreed that they are the same thing, so by your own words, why does it matter that it was chnaged to "F1" from "Formula One" (which I added myself in the first place, that wasn't there before)? Then why did you change it? Also, after those 4 edits, I then immediately changed it back to "Formula 1" anyway, but you ignored that. Is "Formula 1" not good enough? That's literally the title of the official F1 website, the title of all their social media accounts, and everything.

Regarding your "hostility" accusation, are you referring to the argument I had with user Pyrope? Well, what hostility? An Emoji? Me saying "hahahaha"? Or the fact that I said "Is that why you whined about the..."? Also, I see you've read that discussion, then you should know that the user "Pyrope" was the one who started writing with an aggressive tone: "I don't give a rat's fuzzy little tush about.." which is WHY I responded to him in the way that I did. I just did what he did.

None of that is hostility. False accusations are against the rules of Wikipedia, that's a dangerous thing to do. Please don't do that again.

 F1V8V10V6!  11:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And by your own words, why change it in the first place? I can apply that same logic to your edit, per the manual of style it should be Formula One. You calling people ″triggered″ and ″you sound like an angry Hamilton fan″ (amongst other things) isn't hostility? Interesting definition of hostility you have. --TylerBurden (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia editor, don't you realise that I was the one who added that at the top of Max's Wikipedia page in the first place? It wasn't there before, check the revisions. I was the one who added "Formula One" too. The reason I changed it (and I EXPLAINED why, unlike you), was because I wanted to make it shorter.

"I should also note that the user is continuing to edit war as this report is ongoing." ANOTHER lie? I just edited it once, again, and this time, not "F1" but "Formula 1", which is different, and not the edit you disagreed with in the first place 🤦🏼‍♂️  F1V8V10V6!  12:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you added it, you don't own anything on the article. It also doesn't matter that it's a different word you reverted to, it's still a revert on the same page. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate being called a liar, I don't falsely accuse people, you have most certainly displayed hostile behaviour on Wikipedia. And instead of owing up to it and improving your conduct, you double down and refuse to admit any wrongdoing using the excuse ″but the other guy did it first″. Concerning to say the least. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's a lie because you said I did an edit war again, but I didn't, it was one more DIFFERENT edit. "Formula 1", not "F1."

"(You calling people ″triggered″ and ″you sound like an angry Hamilton fan″)

Oh my God, I said "triggered" once, it's the end of the world. And I said "you sound like an angry Hamilton fan", oh my God, how could commit such a criminal act? Anyway, again, I said those things (not hostile because I was replying to that user who said things in a similar "hostile" tone, so I was only replying to him in the way HE did. So, not "hostility" at all as I didn't START it.  F1V8V10V6!  12:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, how is it concerning? I said NOTHING offensive, I was only replying to the other user in the way he replied to me first. And while it might be 0.00000001% hostile, you're acting like I broke some serious Wikipedia rules.  F1V8V10V6!  12:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how edit warring works, just because your edit on the same word was different this time you think it's different, it's not, you still did the same thing. Changed it back to how you want it instead of discussing on the talk page once reverted. Also no one said it was the end of the world, just that you have a history of hostilty, which you absolutely do and one that you are continuing to build on in this very thread. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So if you percieve someone to be hostile you are free to be as hostile back to them as you want without it being hostility? I'm sorry, but that logic is twisted. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"you still did the same thing."

Not at all. Why? Because I did it once, with different wording, and because I gave a reason why I did it. A proper reason.

"History of hostily"? History implies I've done it a lot, when I haven't, except in one discussion where I said the words mentioned above, that's it. That's not history. Therefore, you have made another false accusation. Stop it. That's dangerous.

"continuing to build on in this very thread."

That is yet another false accusation, I I didn't say anything hostile in this thread. Seriously, stop it.

Also, "Formula 1" and "F1" aren't the same thing, like, at all. "Formula 1" is waaaaay closer to "Formula One" (your preferred edit), THAT'S why I changed it to that. See?  F1V8V10V6!  12:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no point in going in circles here, I've explained my side and you've explained yours. I never said it is the same thing though, read what I wrote again. We'll see what the administrators think about this. Have a good day/whatever it is for you. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You also seem to conveniently forget the fact that after your first edit summary, "No need for the change", I reverted it back to what I first edited by saying "F1 driver is shorter and easier to read" (that is a better edit summary than "no need for the change", which doesn't really explain anything, and by "no need", it suggests that it doesn't matter which one it is), you changed back saying "not really" which is again inadequate.

Also, the major problem here that caused the edit war is that at the start (before the 4 edits) YOU DID NOT explain what you did just now, that "Per the manual of style, "One" is more appropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:MOS", you DIDN'T say that when I first made the edit, why? You didn't say that after I made those (3?) subsequent edits either. Instead of mentioning that Wikipedia rule after I made the edits at the beginning, you ignored that and you just said "No need for the change." And then, "not really." THAT'S why I reverted your edits. If you had mentioned that at the start, I would've NEVER done those edits.  F1V8V10V6!  12:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I stand by every edit summary I made, the issue here and the report is you edit warring instead of taking it to the talk page to discuss as you should have done after I first reverted you. Then we could have talked it out instead of ending up here. As I said, I can't sit here all day and talk in circles as you falsely accuse me of being a liar. It's not productive and I have things to do in real life. Take care. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh and don't try any of that sneaky stuff you did on the Verstappen talk where you in hindsight delete what you said, or even worse edit or remove any of my comments. It will be found out as it is all in the history. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You didn't address my final point, why? You dodged it. Why?

I listed ALL the things you falsely accused me of above. Like 3 or 4 false accusations. I gave my reason as to why I said you lied. Still, you falsely accused me of multiple things. That really is dangerous.

"Oh and don't try any of that sneaky stuff you did on the Verstappen talk where you in hindsight delete what you said"

You mean the one where I deleted the "🤣" emoji I posted? That's not a serious violation, or even a violation at all, because it's just an emoji.

"or even worse edit or remove any of my comments."

That is almost another false accusation, because you're trying to make me look bad, because when I removed the comment of mine from Verstappen talk page, I accidentally removed a comment from another user, WHICH is why later on I removed my own comment (the emoji) instead, after that.

"It will be found out as it is all in the history"

Yes, I know that. I may not be as much an expert on Wikipedia rules as I am when it comes to F1, but I still know the basic rules as I did edit F1 Wikipedia content once back in 2017, but I stopped after a while. Anyway, don't worry, I won't edit anything.

"Things to do in real life."

Really? Great! I can see that you've been on Wikipedia 24/7 for the past 8 months...and you have over 4000 edits. By things in real life, do you mean Wikipedia edits? Just a question.

You still didn't address my final point about you failing to mention this "Per the manual of style, "One" is more appropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:MOS" when I first made those 3 edits, because if you had stated the rule (instead of saying "not really" and "no change needed", there's a HUGE difference) when I did the edit, I would've never reverted your change back twice. Your edit summary "no need for the change" was not good enough, and quite rude, which is why I reverted it. Again, if you had mentioned that Wikipedia rule then, or if you had just given a slightly more detailed summary as to why there is "no need for the change", then the repeated 3 edits we both did would've never happened.

 F1V8V10V6!  13:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Both of you have violated 3RR, and none of your justifications for doing so is valid. The only reason I'm not blocking you both, although another administrator may still do so, is because the dispute appears to be resolved, at least at the article itself. F1V8V10V6, detailed edit summaries are sometimes helpful, but they are not necessary; in fact, edit summaries not required at all. Not providing edit summaries good enough to satisfy you is not an exemption from edit-warring. TylerBurden, alluding to another user's "hostility" without providing diffs is not appropriate. Also, another user's failing to reach a consensus for a change to an article does not permit you to edit-war. Both of you are warned that any more reverts may result in a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I made it clear where the hostility had taken place, and it can be seen in this very thread too. Like the implication that I have no life away from Wikipedia because I have been active fighting vandalism since around mid November somehow makes me having been on Wikipedia ″24/7″ for 8 months (before November I had like 10 edits). This guy has already butted heads with numerous people in motorsports related articles and I don't see that ending anytime soon given the attitude, but great to know that he has administrator blessing to bully his content in without consensus since the person trying to maintain the stable revision will naturally always reach 3 reverts first since they made the first revert. Very functional. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Yuvraj rathore2424 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result:Indef)

Page: Atrangi Re (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yuvraj rathore2424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

This is a long-term edit-war report. They were blocked for edit-warring over cast order on December 30th [89] for 48 hours. After returning from that block, the edit-warring continued and they were blocked for a week on January 5th [90] for a week. Returning from that block, it's continued with the same edits, on the same article. Requesting either a longer block, or an indef block from Atrangi Re. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [91]

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely – Constant edit warring on the same article after two previous blocks. Any admin can lift this block if the user will agree to follow Wikipedia policies in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:NerdyGenius1 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Indefinitely partially blocked)

Page: Aafia Siddiqui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NerdyGenius1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: It's complicated

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96] (partial revert of this edit
6. [97] (as previous diff)
7. [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [101]

Comments:
There may be more reverts in their many edits, I didn't feel like checking all of their many edits when I could already see four reverts in less than 24 hours. Concerns raised by several editors, myself included, at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Aafia Siddiqui regarding the slant placed on the article by this editor. FDW777 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Few extra diffs added. FDW777 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In the past few hours since, he has reverted that page several more times, despite being informed by at least 5 different editors that his edits are whitewashing/lawyering in violation of NPOV. Additionally I noticed the same issue in the related Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis page (and his edit history in general, which should be looked into).Yaakovaryeh (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I counted 7 reverts in the past 24 hours. That aside, Cullen328 gave an indefinite partial block from Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis and Aafia Siddiqui. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have concluded after looking closely that these articles would be better off without the direct input of an editor who is not trying to build consensus but seems to be trying to push through their preferred versions against opposition by other editors. If they can gain consensus on the relevant talk pages, then their proposed changes will be implemented. Otherwise, no. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:36.225.249.252 reported by User:Wizzito (Result: )

Page: Elsa (Frozen) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 36.225.249.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "/* International versions */"
2. 02:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "/* International versions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user, using the IPs 36.225.249.252 and 36.227.21.166, has removed content on Elsa (Frozen) and Anna (Frozen) without giving an edit summary or explanation, and re-removing when their edits are reverted. I don't know what to do, as they are not communicating and just reverting. wizzito | say hello! 09:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Patch455 reported by User:Manticore (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Patch455 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [107]

Comments:

• User continues to revert to their preferred version of the article, with edit summary comments including "it doesn't interest me". I have referred the user to WP:SPOILER and WP:LEAD which they continue to ignore. As a separate issue, based on edits such as this, I would suggest this user is WP:NOTHERE. — Manticore 12:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)