Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:29, 18 November 2020

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Konli17 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )

Page: Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert 17:59 12 nov: he re ads the "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist view of Western Kurdistan, espoused in particular by the Kurdish National Council" map this is a revert as can be seen here where he ads the same map on 8th november:
2. Second revert 20:33 12 nov he re ads the same map again after it was removed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning is shown when you edit the article:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War topic, allowing one revert per 24 hours.

• This user has a very long edit-warring record. In addition, the user resorts to personal attacks when their argument fails such as here, here, here, here, here and here, and here. Another personal attack on another user here.
• This user removes mass amounts of sourced, relevant content because it simply goes against their POV (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Examples are:
• Here, which is part of the complaint above
• Other pages: Here, here,
• Konli is edit-warring here, 4 reverts in less than 48 hours.
• This user uses fake edit-summaries to sneak in their significant changes to the meanings by simple tweaking such as this one and removal of sensitive words that fake/change/reverse the meaning (such as 'at most', 'no more than') or changing 'encourage' to 'allow', 'many' to 'some', etc.
• This user has tried to block every effort at reaching consensus on the page in question. Look at this message here to another (more reasonable, neutral) user on their side.
• This user was blocked back in June for edit-warring. It is about time for this user to see a topic ban or a indefinite block given their constant disruptive behavior and sabotage of many articles. Thanks Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That page was quiet for months until Konli17 returned from his long break and decided to push their POV. He changes Southern and eastern Turkey into Turkish Kurdistan, tries renaming every city in Northeastern Syria to its Kurdish name, constantly starts edit wars with other users, and manipulates sources to get them what they want him to say. Here's a recent example on the Hulusi Akar page of how he fakes content from sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE and is just here to push his agenda and should be blocked. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Even a pro-Kurdish editor doesn't agree with his edits: 13 Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

One more example where Konli faked the content of al-Jazeera story that they used. Konli claimed: "in order to prevent the SDF linking Afrin Canton with the rest of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria". However, neither the page name (Shahba Canton) nor the other names (Afrin, Autonomous Administration) claimed were mentioned in that story. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There are other users who have witnessed the edit-warring behavior of this user. Is it appropriate to ping them or that would be considered canvassing? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Could you please look into this case here? The page you protected has seen major vandalism by this user since it was partially-protected. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A decision for this case is over due and the user in question is taking advantage of this by continuing their edit-warring. See what they call "clean-up! They have deleted half an article that is well-sourced (neutral, Western sources) and very relevant to the area in question. All this happened while an RfC is open and against advice on the Talk page by user @Sixula:. If all the edit-warring is not enough for an indef banning then the many personal attacks identified above should be the straw to do it. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the conflict between Konli and the other three could really use an admin looking into it. The complaining editors SD, Amr Ibn and ThePharoah17 have all shown a very surprising tolerance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) which appears not to be on the radar of the Admins. SD and Amr Ibn, both wanted to move Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied regions of Syria in the midst of an Siege of Kobane by ISIL in 2015. The pinged admin EdJohnston closed the discussion at the time. ThePharoah17 has shown similar views after I have made that public just a few days ago arguing that the YPG is just a terrorist organization as ISIL. The YPG is only designated a terrorist organization by Turkey, and supported by a global coalition of 83 countries including the USA and most of the countries of the European Countries, which is formed specifically to fight ISIS. ISIL is probably the most designated terrorist organization in the world. That they now want to oust Konli17, who really improved many articles is not very Misplaced Pages. Amr Ibn and SD are also involved in a long edit war about the existence of Syrian Kurdistan, in which they deny its existence and dismiss any academic sources which mention a Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute is currently raging at the ANI and also at an RfC at the Syrian Kurdistan Talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, you are accusing me of being "tolerant" to ISIS is extremely offensive. You can not show one single comment I have made that comes even close to what you are claiming. No one on the planet hates them more then me. You should be banned from wikipedia for your words. Also, what academic sources have I dismissed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Admins, this is a very serious accusation and personal attack by user Paradise chronicle. Standing against YPG militias does not mean one is supporting ISIL. It's not black and white. See this Human Rights Watch story about PYD/YPG human rights violations. Your argument just shows that you are here to push a pro-PKK/PYD POV agenda. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:SquidHomme reported by User:Admanny (Result: No action)

Page: 2020 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SquidHomme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments: Page is under 1RR discretionary sanction and consensus required. User has given bogus reasons for reverts such as "CNN/Fox is fake news" In addition, user has previously broke 1RR but this went unreported:

I am merely enforcing consensus within the article to wait till all sources call a state before listing it on the page, per WP:CRP. Admanny (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR and WP:FATRAT, I see nothing wrong here. This Admanny guy just cannot bear the loss of his dear candidate.—SquidHomme 00:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting enough when you broke 1RR twice, one when you added votes to Trump and one when you added votes to Biden. I'm clearly not siding with anyone, lest to say you called CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as well. We follow a strict consensus where a handful of sources must call a state for it to appear in the infobox, and you are clearly not adhering to that. Also, would you really want to use IAR and FATRAT on a discretionary-sanctioned article? Admanny (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I am improving the article by updating with what information I got my hands on, And when someone like you come to be an obstacle for the improvement of the article, I believe I must resort to WP:IAR as I am improving it, not vandalize it. Secondly, I wasn't aware of the consensus at the time nor the unusual 1RR instead of 3RR. Also, what's the problem with me calling CNN "fake news", then Fox "fake news" as you appear to care more for these words when it's my personal opinion and shouldn't be of your concern as I'm not adding any of those phrase into the article. I say you should respect another's personal view.—SquidHomme 01:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I get that, but your improvements are going against the community consensus. Secondly, there's a big header on the editing page warning you of 1RR, I doubt you missed that. Lastly, your edit summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO and could be interpreted as biased. Admanny (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I get that, but your improvements are going against the community consensus. Have I told you that I wasn't aware of them at the time of the writing because it wasn't in place the last time I edited it? there's a big header on the editing page warning you of 1RR, I doubt you missed that. I also doubt you missed that when you reverted my edits and another user's edits more than once. your edit summaries go against WP:SUMMARYNO and could be interpreted as biased. It might be biased for you (I can see from all the hatred you've directed toward me), but not for others.—SquidHomme 01:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Have I told you that I wasn't aware of them at the time of the writing because it wasn't in place the last time I edited it? The banner has been there even before election night. If you had a problem with the edit, you would have participated in the ongoing discussion instead of lashing out. Admanny (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The banner has been there even before election night. If you had a problem with the edit, you would have participated in the ongoing discussion instead of lashing out. I believe you're bright enough to notice that my edits precedes this discussion, right?—SquidHomme 01:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually the discussion started 4 and a half hours before your edits, and yes, thank you, I am bright enough. Admanny (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And what? Is there any consensus I should follow? My edits precedes this discussion as there are no binding consensus produced as of yet regarding the inclusion of Georgia. Also, what's the point of a new discussion if there's a consensus in regard to how many "major networks" calling needed for a state to be included. And yeah, of course you're bright enough, boy. I agree :) —SquidHomme 02:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of Georgia, or any state for that matter, is based on a consensus of major networks and news sites that are pre-determined before election night. That's the consensus. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Admanny (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what's your point by suggesting me joining the discussion when there's already a consensus regarding it. Is there a change in the consensus? Is the recent discussions about Georgia changes the consensus? Talk about your wit here.—SquidHomme 02:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I mentioned it pretty clearly already. Your edits are 1. Outside consensus, 2. Breaks 1RR and 3. are edit-warring, since you don't bother the talk page discussion. A handful of shenanigans if you ask me. Admanny (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are 1. Outside consensus How many times should I say this for you to understand: I am not aware of the consensus AND 1RR an the time the edits went live. In regards of 1RR, don't forget that your edits broke 1RR too. you don't bother the talk page discussion Tell me, what's the use for me to join the talk page discussion if there's already a consensus? Also, do you have any proof of me edit warring? As far as I know, I reverted your edits, not actively editing it. I'm sure you're bright enough to tell the difference.—SquidHomme 02:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of the consensus AND 1RR an the time the edits went live. Good, that admits you missed the big banner on top of the editing page. Block worthy for that. don't forget that your edits broke 1RR too. Allowed per WP:CRP, just making sure consensus is followed. Also, do you have any proof of me edit warring? Sure, you repeatedly reverted without even having a word over at the talk page. I discussed, you didn't. WP:BRD cycle. Admanny (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You seem too focused to get me blocked rather than improving the article. It figures. And it also appears that you have ignored WP:IAR and WP:FATRAT completely that in order to improve the article, some rules cannot be followed due to it being a drawback that keeps the article from being updated as soon as possible. I'm not stating that I don't respect the consensus on this page, but it prevents the article on getting new, updated numbers. Not because of questionable sources, in fact the sources are legit and verified. And the consensus itself didn't specify and list which major media outlets qualified to be the caller. My question is this: Is Newsmax, or OANN qualify as a 'major media outlet?'Block worthy for that. Ah yes, you ARE the judge, jury and executioner. Why bother bring me into this discussion, judge? Sure, you repeatedly reverted without even having a word over at the talk page. I discussed, you didn't. What word should I say, when the discussion is CLOSED because of the CONSENSUS has been reached? If there's an open discussion that will change the consensus once again, of course I'll take part in. So stop making false assumptions about me.—SquidHomme 04:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to participate at , so it's quite obvious discussion is not closed. You decided it's closed by not participating and rather reverting. Strange... Admanny (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

How come there's a CONSENSUS when the discussion is *obviously* NOT EVEN CLOSED??? Can you elaborate?—SquidHomme 04:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Prior consensus is decided. Discussion is underway to change that consensus. Please don't be dumb. Admanny (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be dumb. Oh no, I don't need to be you. I was talking about the consensus before this one, not this one. Not even a straw poll or voting exists in this one, just comments over comments.—SquidHomme 04:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Then pitch in to that one? That discussion is way old now, I'm doing you a favor by redirecting you to the current one. The fact you're blatantly refusing to even participate is astounding. Admanny (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

blatantly refusing to even participate? Which part of this discussion shows that I "blatantly refusing?" As I said, stop making false assumptions about me.—SquidHomme 05:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Any experienced editor knows the WP:BRD cycle pretty well. You're not discussing even after I invited you multiple times to, so I'd like to repeat myself, blatantly refusing to participate. Admanny (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I find it funny, with your obsession to the word blatantly refusing to participate without even be able to point which of my word says that I'm blatantly refusing to participate in that discussion. Think about your wit here.—SquidHomme 05:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I find it funny, that it took you so long to finally participate. What made you crack, if I can ask? Admanny (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I participated LONG before your false accusation of me beingblatantly refusing to participate. Making me question your knowledge of WP:CIV.—SquidHomme 05:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Considering I see very little evidence of you participating in any discussion after going through the talk page's archives, I consider that highly unlikely. Admanny (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh thanks, but I don't need fans to stalk me right now.—SquidHomme 05:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Prcc27 can add additional details regarding the current consensus if required. Additionally, user has pointlessly counter-filed a report against me, when clearly both filer and reported user would be investigated with this report anyway. Admanny (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged to this discussion, so I'm not really sure if my comment here will mean much per WP:CANVASS.. Although, FWIW, I saw this discussion in my watchlist before I even noticed it was in my notifications. If anyone's curious about the consensus, please see the talk (especially the RFC at the top of the page). Prcc27 (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The 1RR on the talk page applies if the user was formally alerted before, which they weren't. I've left the notice on SquidHomme's talk page now.—Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User has also made attacks towards other editors even on RfC discussion here and on talk page here against several editors. Admanny (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why this user Admanny links a completely irrelevant and unrelated discussion into a discussion about 1RR rule. As for the "attacks," that is an RfC. A place where a user can vote and express the reasoning and personal opinion about things in matter. For that I don't think this user @Admanny: understood.—SquidHomme 22:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out that this user Admanny's remarks: Please don't be dumb. here in this section, is also a form of personal attack against me.—SquidHomme 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since neither User:SquidHomme nor User:Admanny were officially notified of the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions on their talk page until after all the reverts that are listed in this report. The notification requirements for the discretionary sanctions can be seen at WP:AC/DS#Awareness. Meanwhile, I hope that everyone will avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Admanny reported by User:SquidHomme(Result: No action)

Page: 2020 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Admanny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Total: 12 reverts in 13 November!

Comments: In doing what he called "enforcing consensus within the article," this user has also breaking the rule itself by reverting it more than 2 times. Discretionary sanction applied to all editors who edit 2020 United States presidential election stated that an editor must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. This user User:Admanny clearly violates the rules knowingly by reverting the article three times within 24 hours period, using the phrase "enforcing consensus within the article," as an excuse to justify the reverts.—SquidHomme 03:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I point out something here? WP:BRD's example states clearly that if someone makes a change and gets reverted, they should take it to the talk page. In every scenario, with a consensus that needs to be followed, I'm the "Editor 1". There's absolutely no reason why you need to accuse me of making up an excuse. It's pretty clear you're just trying to rat me out now. Admanny (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. That's all I can say.—SquidHomme 05:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Also, I don't know what made this user exempt to the rules but this user has tendencies to "own" the article, which violates WP:OWN as evident in some (if not all) of this user's edits in the 2020 United States presidential election article. Which made me think that this user's argumentation regarding WP:BRD is just to justify their "ownership" of the article.—SquidHomme 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Article has the following restrictions: 1RR and Consensus required. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Extraneous report of above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The 1RR on the talk page applies if the user was formally alerted before, which they weren't. I've left the notice on Admanny's talk page now.—Bagumba (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: It's true that this user Admanny wasn't formally alerted before, but they knowingly breaking the rule as evident here: saying: "1RR is pretty much rarely enforced as I seen a lot of editors break that on that page." Suggesting that because of a lot of editors break that on that page, and so they may be given permission, or allowed to do the same and gone unpunished because it "is pretty much rarely enforced." Isn't this a premeditated misconduct?—SquidHomme 08:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since neither User:SquidHomme nor User:Admanny were officially notified of the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions on their talk page until after all the reverts that are listed in this report. The notification requirements for the discretionary sanctions can be seen at WP:AC/DS#Awareness. Meanwhile, I hope that everyone will avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis reported by User:Atelerixia (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Atelerixia (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:All of my edits were well-thought-out and constructive. There was no reason for them to be constantly reverted.

• Result: No action. The three reverts you list are over an eight-day period. They don't break 3RR. Anyway, an earlier report about Dependent territory was closed previously with a warning to you. There is still a live dispute about the definition of a dependent territory that needs to be resolved on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Edgekirov reported by User:Rwendland

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's recent reverts:

User:Rwendland WP:DISENGAGE'd 30 September 2020‎ to 11 November 2020‎ while Dan Norris sought selection to stand in an election. User's earlier reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of request on User talk:Edgekirov to user to engage in discussion on article Talk page:

Comments: User:Edgekirov is a single-purpose account new editor who seems to believe a politician's Misplaced Pages article should not be changed while that politician is seeking selection / election. They have reverted all non-trivial changes, of which a 3rd party editor User:Jumpytoo stated "Content seems well cited and balanced" in this reinstate, since 2 September 2020‎, and has not engaged in any discussion on the article's Talk page despite invitations to do so in edit summaries and their Talk page. Rwendland (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(Note: This is the first time I have had to engage in any formal dispute resolution, so please forgive me if I have chosen the wrong venue. As the user has not engaged in discussion guidance suggests neither WP:Third opinion nor WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard is appropriate. As Edgekirov has more than 4 edits (all reverts) so is autoconfirmed, semi-protection would not be useful. So I have ended up here. Rwendland (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC))

User:2A02:C7F:14EE:F00:1D5B:7B97:E427:BFBA reported by User:Number 57 (Result: No action needed)

Page: Chalfont St Peter A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:C7F:14EE:F00:1D5B:7B97:E427:BFBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:02, 16 November 2020
2. 19:09, 16 November 2020
3. 19:24, 16 November 2020
4. 19:30, 16 November 2020

Editor was asked to self-revert their last edit, but responded by telling my 'Your level of arrogance knows no bounds'. Number 57 19:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

They've now made a fifth revert. Number 57 20:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've engaged with this user on their talk page. I don't think they understand how Misplaced Pages works. I'm hoping the discussion leads somewhere productive. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @C.Fred: The IP is now making legal threats. Number 57 10:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Number 57: I think the user has backed away from the legal threats, but I'm trying to get a clear and full retraction. Since there have been no further reverts, and since the user is engaging at the talk page, I don't think administrative action is needed at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:2A02:C7F:14EE:F00:1D5B:7B97:E427:BFBA (Result: No violation)

Page: Chalfont St Peter A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C.&oldid=989047644
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C.&oldid=989046966
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chalfont_St_Peter_A.F.C.&oldid=989027383

The Editor was asked to revert his changes or provide assistance to why the data cant be used. Instead made vague refrences

Comments:

• I have nested this counter-report under the initial report. —C.Fred (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

User:93.138.76.165 reported by User:4thfile4thrank (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Hrvatska radiotelevizija (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.138.76.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989084283 by 4thfile4thrank (talk)"
2. 23:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 989082748 by 4thfile4thrank (talk)"
3. 23:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Stop insulting, great Serbian propagandist"
4. 23:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "gossip is not relevant to this page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
2. 23:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking."
3. 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Why are you removing content for no reason? */ new section"
4. 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC) ""
6. 23:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the IP's talk page. I leave a message, and then he replies. After that, he blanks the article again without replying, and is speedily reverted. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Comments: You forgot to write an insult from a great serbian propagandist who constantly writes against the Croats ], i will erase those lies until you block me93.138.76.165 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved user comment: this user is asking to be blocked. Literally. Then you better block me: quote from their talk page. Also: this user has reverted four times on a single page in the past half an hour. D🐶ggy54321 01:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: they’re now reverting my rollbacks to their edits, so chalk up another two reverts. D🐶ggy54321 01:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:2603:6080:6703:48A2:5418:71CB:D291:86CE reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Pinkalicious & Peterrific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:6080:6703:48A2:5418:71CB:D291:86CE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "British Broadcasting Corporation"
2. 05:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "cchannelcb"
3. 05:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "cChannelcb"
4. 05:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "Bbc"
5. 05:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "uWorldwideuk"
6. 05:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "uk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pinkalicious & Peterrific."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user thinks this show is made for BBC instead of PBS without a solid reason and refuses to discuss about it. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – /64 range blocked two weeks by User:Kinu for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

User:E-960 reported by User:François Robere (Result: )

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

User being reported: E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Law */ Revert, restored last stable version of the text."
2. 10:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "Revert, pls do not edit war, and pls refrain from being disruptive — for new content, pls see Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC) to 10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Law */ Revert, restored the text to the last stable version — no consensus for the changes on the talk page."
   2. 10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Sports */ trim"
4. 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988839744 by HQGG (talk) Revert, edit warring 3R rule, disruptive editing — you will be reported if you continue to edit war."
5. 14:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 988824497 by HQGG (talk) Revert, do not edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* 5RR, T-ban vio */ new section"
2. 22:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Stop edit warring over church nonsense */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Abortion */"
2. 15:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Abortion */"
3. 16:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Abortion */"

Comments:

Discussion on abortion rights in Poland, after an attempted constitutional change by the Polish government. User has been previously c-banned from "Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed." Repeated PAs and refusal to self-revert. François Robere (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@E-960: The "sports" diff was an oversight. I filed using Twinkle, and it automatically lists all edits from the last 25 or so hours. Regarding your diffs - only two of them are mine and they're spaced 20 hours apart (with discussion in between), so why you keep attacking me as "disruptive" is unclear. Note the second of the two collapses edits by four other editors, which could give a false impression about my edits. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment by E-960

This is a down right manipulation of reality. I think user François Robere thinks that if he files an admin complaint report first it will divert the attention from the fact that it's him and user HQGG who repeatably violated the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and despite an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, have re-inserted the disputed text, here: , , , , , and . Also, I would like to point out that other users have reverted those edits not just me, including Oliszydlowski and Snowded, also during the ongoing talk page discussion GizzyCatBella and NeonFor criticized François Robere and HQGG for their Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing, yet François Robere did not refrain form his disruptive editing, and now cries wolf, when I reverted the text back to the original long-standing version. --E-960 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, why is user François Robere, listing a completely unrelated edit (10:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Sports */ trim") about Formula 1 and Robert Kubica, as proof of a content dispute against me in the Law section of the Poland article? Another point regarding the ban, it's scope relates to religion and secularism (separation of religion from civic affairs and the state, anti-clericalism, atheism, religious symbols, etc.), not law or general politics. This is just silly. This complaint should be dropped, as it's only purpose was to entrap someone and divert attention from François Robere own disruptive behavior. --E-960 (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I put a 3RR warning on HQCG's talk page over this. Its fairly clear that this account and François Robere are edit warring, and agressively so. I'd suggest that the behaviour of François Robere is reviewed given the matter has been raised here. I should make it clear that I supported the community ban on E-960 and it not 100% clear to me if this topic comes under that. However this is about proccess and the editors concerned have not raised an RfC or similar. They may be right but edit warring is not the way to resolve this -----Snowded 17:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• E-960 and HQGG are both edit warring. More concerning is the topic ban, which is broken outright (I participated in that discussion), and E-960's combatative behaviour here and from the looks of it on his talk page and article talk. E-960 is banned from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed, precisely due to this combatative behaviour, and examining the first diff in the sequence it discusses the legality of abortion in Poland which is within the remit of the ban, driving the point home is the first source cited titled Killing ‘Unborn Children’? The Catholic Church and Abortion Law in Poland Since 1989 from Social & Legal Studies which has Catholic Church in the title. Flaunting a community ban should have consequences.--Astral Leap (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• The most worrisome here is the fact that the account just above has been registered in February and did not start being active until June, yet knows the system very well. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and returning accouts of people who most likely are not allowed to be here should not be allowed to fan the flames. Flaunting this in the community's face should have consequences. SPI, anyone? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that User:E-960 and User:HQGG have both broken 3RR, based on reverts that began on 15 November and continued into 16 November. Can anyone see a better alternative than blocking those two editors for 3RR violation? For example, general agreement to wait for an RfC? EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston and Astral Leap, pls consider the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I don't think it's correct when you label everyone involved as "edit warring" even those who revert the new text and ask for a discussion. Misplaced Pages rules are clear, if you add new text and it gets reverted, you move to the talk page, not keep re-adding the text. This is precisely why these disputes explode, because some folks justify the editor who adds the new content and then aggressively keeps re-adding it, by saying something to the effect that everyone is edit warring - I disagree, restoring the original text and asking the editor who added the new content to discuss is not disruptive behavior, and in the past the Poland article was flooded with questionable additions. --E-960 (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Also, Astral Leap, the point you raised only lends more support to my claim that François Robere is just trying to entrap someone with this admin complaint. See, the original edit on abortion did not make any reference to the Church, the only debate at that time was about the use of the word "restrictive" (as it implied value), the original text was more neutral in its wording, see here . This reference only appeared at the very last edit — the one added during the talk page discussion without consensus (and without being presented) and the same one where François Robere removed an entire paragraph on legal history in Poland, then immediately François Robere initiated this complain. Hmm... why would François Robere make such massive changes to the article and sneak a short reference to the Church then file a complaint for restoring the long-standing text. If the talk page discussion was in progress, editors should refrain form making disruptive edits to the text in question until consensus is reached, not make even more changes, and then cry foul. --E-960 (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

E-960, outlawing or restricting abortion in Poland is square in the middle of your topic ban. How can you not see this? Abortion legality is one of the central issues in secular or religious politics and is connected to the church. All of your edits there run contrary to the ban.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:49.199.7.62 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)

Page: Alain de Botton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.199.7.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Reception of his writing */ These references are outdated, ludicrous, incidious and highly offensive. Misplaced Pages must be a postive place! No negative vibes!"
2. 12:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Reception of his writing */ I GAVE reasons for why this was removed. Yet it was replaced back. Negatvie comments like this only seek to divide and slander Alain. He is a published author and by having negative comments, it could affect his sales."
3. 12:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Reception of his writing */ It's not nice to have negative things said about his writing. His books are wonderful!"
4. 12:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC) "/* Reception of his writing */ I remove negative words. Alain seeks positive influence in life, not appropriate to have negative worlds here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:49.199.7.62.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP is also apparently trolling at Talk:Michael Greger, apparently WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have made genuine attempts to edit pages, and left reasons in the edit summary. Yet you blatently accuse me of NOT providing edit summaries, but I have for EACH of my edits. I am as entitled as anyone to make edits and suggewstions to IMPROVE wikipedia. You accuse me of not providing edits, but I have!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.7.62 (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) You seem to misunderstand what Misplaced Pages is for: it is not for bolstering the subject's life, nor is it for editors to push their viewpoint onto others. If the reviews are coming from reputable sources and are significant, they can be considered for inclusion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Howdoesitgo1 reported by User:George Ho (Result: )

Page: Jim Rash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Second Cold War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Howdoesitgo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (Jim Rash): 07:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC), or probably 11:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
(Second Cold War): 20:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
(Jim Rash)

1. 20:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
2. 02:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
3. 03:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
4. 06:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
5. 21:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
6. 10:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
7. 20:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Second Cold War)

1. 20:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
2. 20:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 04:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

I reported the user at ANI weeks ago, but there wasn't an action. I invited him to go to WP:DRN, in which the user didn't participate. I even started the RfC discussion, in which the user hasn't yet participated. The reverts have been done for weeks. Seems that the user aggressively favors labelling the living person, especially by using his way of language toward others (), including me. George Ho (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

GH has accused other people of not being likeable. He was told by an admin that one's own Insta is a reliable source. He's on a crusade to make this site into something he approves of. He is removing news without looking for secondary sources as seen in his Cold War edit. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Untrue. You were using this source, which reproduces or uses as a source the post-2013 Newsweek. Then you use another source, which is using RT, which is deprecated per WP:RSP. I didn't notice that you were using different sources to cite the same info. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how or why the user is interested in another article, but the user is still reinserting the post-2013 Newsweek (initially done by another user Tobby72) as a source, which is considered unreliable per WP:RSP. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

From GH's own user page before he deleted it. This notes most of my wrongful deeds in the past. I'm doing my best to resist the temptations below right now. They are not rules but just self-notes. I might bend any of them only if it obstructs me from doing something beneficial to Misplaced Pages. However, bending it must be discreet.

Not go near pages about songs by Madonna until US cover arts are accepted. This oath shall not include verified free images, which shall possibly replace non-free images. It shall also not include songs sung by original artists. Not making any more protection requests on templates until ECP is allowed for protection on them. Close to opposition per Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy 2, temporarily no ECP on high-risk templates Toning down ideas until all else fails. Staying out of politics of images Toning down non-free image requests and/or additions and/or changes for now until... I become more open-minded than now on people's opinions. Mainly applicable to: Images of regional editions/releases and offensive material, especially if free material might exist and an article subject is well understood without NFC. Images of recently deceased subjects. Might request undeletion for no less than three or six months after that particular subject's death. Toning down requests on title changes until I learn how to handle the heat. For now, refraining from changing or requesting change on: The casing of "Like/like" in titles indefinitely. Titles containing common punctuations, like periods and commas. You may engage in RM discussions at discretion. This includes titles like "X, wife of Y" and "X (wife of Y)" Note to self: You can vote and comment, but that's it! Rebuttals must be discretional at all costs! If edit warring happens, request protection. If the method is either rejected or ineffective, you may request such a change at discretion! Toning down my ideals and then becoming more realistic Focus less on editors and more on major content disputes, though often content disputes come with user conducts. Be careful!! Feel free to add infoboxes if necessary. If someone else removes your addition of the infobox, please discuss. If not necessary, don't add it! However, generally stay away from RfC case-by-case debates about infoboxes unless you are compelled to say something about them. Be careful starting one; you may face backlash. Also, if a Good or Featured Article lacks an infobox, please discuss first. Same goes for well-detailed articles. Generally, avoid canvassing. Instead, take Stanton McCandlish's and HighInBC's advices. Notify anybody and/or community at the minimum and without excess. Do not start a RM discussion on an article that has maintenance issues! If urged to do mass requests for protection, use caution. Otherwise, don't do it. Instead, inspect history logs and do individual requests but mostly at discretion. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: Remember, one's own instagram page is considered a self-published source, and like youtube, is not allowed to be a reference on Misplaced Pages unless it can be backed with a secondary source.~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Yousef Raz (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989284297
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989283449
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989271085
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chris_Krebs&oldid=989269711

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yousef_Raz&oldid=989286179

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Therequiembellishere&oldid=989287149

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Chris_Krebs&oldid=989276715 Yousef Raz (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
Article Chris Krebs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousef Raz (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Chris Krebs was the first and currently the only Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. This is well cite by multiple sources including the Washington Post. Users continue to change the article to reflect his previous position in a now defunct federal agency. I have made attempts to discuss this with the initial user that was altering the article. He has not responded to my discussion attempts. Another user has now changed it back to the incorrect information. How do I get it back to reflect correctly without violating the rules? Do I wait for a fourth user to change it back? This seems pretty simple and straight forward.05:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yousef Raz (talk • contribs)

• Comment I've fixed the major formatting issues with this request and informed Yousef Raz that the report is missing some fairly crucial pieces: User talk:GorillaWarfare#Edit Warring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:TIETJETETIET (Result: )

Page: Castella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -

Comments:
Constant WP:TAGBOMB of article and adding puffery and un-sourced material. WP:OWN behavior on the article as well. TIETJETETIET (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Block, bag, and tag, most likely the same master as the already blocked 72.224.13.12 , 198.48.167.69 , and JeanAndreMarc (the reverted users in the diffs above). The point appears to be to build up reverts and then make a report. I have already nominated the page for semi-protection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Teishin reported by User:Keepcalmandchill (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
While this has extended beyond a 24 hour period, I think you will see that there is no attempt to find a solution to the issue by the user. In fact, they have not made a clear case for what it is that they object to in the content. They have only raised the claim that it conflicts with the article Hellenistic period, which it does not, and in any case that's WP:CIRCULAR. Furthermore, the rest of the content that is being reverted is not explained by this. As you can see, they have not responded to a discussion on the talk page. You will also see from the other talk page discussions that this user is in general not at all constructive, often appealing to their own expertise or other articles against content with academic sources, as well as engaging in extremely petty fights over interpretation of individuals words, etc. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Keepcalmandchill has previously had to withdraw two previous accusations against me of edit warring. This third one is similarly unfounded. As with Keepcalmandchill's edits on the subject of Hellenistic philosophy, this complaint is also based on factually incorrect information. It should be clear to any reader of Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy that extensive conversation is happening and that Keepcalmandchill's comments have been responded to. Keepcalmandchill is correct that I have pointed out that I have made over 1,000 edits on detail pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy and that Keepcalmandchill has made none. Keepcalmandchill is similarly correct that I have pointed out that their edits on Hellenistic philosophy contradict sourced claims made on other, more-detailed pages regarding Hellenistic philosophy, typically sourced from various specialized academic sources rather than the two introductions to philosophy that Keepcalmandchill repeatedly cites for all claims. Keepcalmandchill is also correct that I repeatedly point out that this area of philosophy (like all of the others) involves specialized terminology which needs to be used with precision. Keepcalmandchill is again correct that the 3 reversions in 24 hour rule has not actually been broken. But, as one can see, they have decided to post a complaint anyway. I suggest that this matter would be better addressed by availing of some form of third-party intervention.

I apologize that the volunteers who deal with edit warring issues have to spend time addressing this matter, as all parties are in agreement about the fact that the reversion rule has not been broken. It should be noted that shortly prior to Keepcalmandchill raised this complaint I had asked for help on this matter at the Help Desk as it had become clear to me that an impasse was looming. Teishin (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not "have to withdraw" the previous complaints. I did so as a gesture of goodwill after you responded with some degree of positivity to constructive compromise proposals that I made in the relevant discussions. As both of those complaints involved an outright violation of 3RR, I think it is safe to say that this user has little respect for the rule. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I do suggest reading their Help Desk comment, it is... interesting. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Konli17 reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: )

Page: Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Konli17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This is an article that is sanctioned under the Syrian Civil War theme (1RR). The user reported here has a long history of edit-warring, and there is another case open against them in the noticeboard. This user has an extremist nationalistic POV agenda they are trying to push in many articles, as witnessed in the other complaint. Look at their revert history and edit warring behavior that warranted many warnings and complaints by several users on their Talk page and related articles Talk pages. This user is not here to contribute positively,, but to push their POV through wherever they can. Thank you for your attention. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring