Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) at 09:12, 20 September 2022 (→User:Alexikoua reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: ): Warned user(s) (using responseHelper)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:Volleyballjerry reported by User:Funcrunch (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: 01:07, 18 September 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:08, 18 September 2022
2. 01:38, 18 September 2022
3. 01:41, 18 September 2022
4. 02:00, 18 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:42, 18 September 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Policy explained on user talk page by Sidewipe9th

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 02:47, 18 September 2022

Comments:
Editor reverted again after policy was explained to them. Page is under discretionary sanctions.

• Comment: The content he is trying to edit war into the article is a serious BLP violation. Also, I note that after getting reverted the first time, he switched to using the minor edit flag. That looks like an attempt to evade detection. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: The 01:08, 18 September 2022‎ diff adds content but is not a revert. I first reverted the first two additions per MOS:DEADNAME at 01:16‎, then Volleyballjerry reverted three times to restore the content added at 1:08. Beccaynr (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Since the DEADNAME has been added in that location before, e.g. here, I think the first edit still counts as a revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)
    • To be honest, I don't really care whether the first edit was a revert or not. The user is quite clearly edit warring against consensus. It can be a violation of WP:EW or a violation of WP:3RR, but it's blockable disruption nonetheless. My only qualm here is that the editor has not edited in nine hours and, so, I'm not sure disruption is ongoing. So, I'd personally rather wait and see what he does when he starts editing again... Salvio 11:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Newimpartial, given the history of this article, I had wondered if the first edit was technically a revert. But the edit warring against consensus is disruptive regardless - I was watching the article for a more clear indication of an intent to continue after my message on their Talk page at 2:12 , which points to previous Talk page discussions. I had planned to report here if they continued. We also recently had something similar, but slightly different happen on the related Emma Weyant article, which resulted in a 72 hour block for an IP, so I was thinking about that situation as well. Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

        Sorry about screwing up the reporting on the first revert. But as already said, deadnaming is disruptive regardless, especially after being explicitly told such, and the article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

User:JamesLewisBedford01 reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JamesLewisBedford01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

• I tried to bring this to the editor's attention in the hope that they would self revert, after extensive discussions on their talk page and my talk page not only do they still contend not to have gone over 3rr they bewilderingly contend that they haven't made any reverts at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Parispv reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Lea Michele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "I request a new consensus, this photo is superior"
2. 21:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "A clearer picture"
3. 20:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "A clearer picture"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Lea Michele "/* Photo choice */ new section"

Comments:

After consensus has been reached at Talk:Lea Michele#Photo choice, user has continued to revert the page. They have also displayed consistent WP:OWNership behavior over the article. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Androvie reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Reverted to the consensus version. You can't change all those parts without discussing all of them first."
2. 18:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "This is the end-result of the discussion several days ago. You were also part of it but you stopped being present on the talk page since 29 august 2022, after you claimed you were going to respond soon to Dragoon 17 regarding the unclear arabic modifier. And now after 20 days you just made edits to the article without explanation."
3. 16:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "That one edit was a consensus agreed on the talk page. Don't oversimplify it further, especially by cutting important points. It could cause further disagreements in the future."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Revert */ new section"

Comments:

Note the stonewalling and repeated reversion, including of other editors, despite being asked of by EdJohnston to refrain. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, taking into account this warning. Salvio 13:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Salvio giuliano: Thanks. Might I suggest that an indefinite partial-block from the page will be a better fit, since we are dealing (evidence) with a SPA? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't seen enough evidence to support ad indefinite partial block yet. What I see is a new editor who is eager but unfamiliar with our way of doing things. Let's see if a short block is enough to get him to slow down and adopt a more collegial approach. If it isn't, stronger measures can be considered. Salvio 13:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sure - I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Bookmaniac120 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked indef)

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

User being reported: Bookmaniac120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */ : A reference added"
2. 16:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */: Added a set of new lines from a recent book on the subject. Reference is given. The book may be checked."
3. 16:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */: Added a new reference from an important book (from Cambridge University Press) that deals with the relationship between urban commons, accumulation and urban property."
4. 15:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */"
5. 15:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */"
6. 15:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apparent selfpromoter, edit warring to include a reference to their book. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Salvio 17:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Himara Revolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "see tp, avoid POV. If you add Xhufi, I'll add Giakoumis, Tsaknakis, Vakalolpoulos"
2. 17:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Greek also participated - LEAD"
3. 16:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "take it to RSN, Vakalopoulos is also widely used by Albanian editors so far"
4. 01:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "it's sourced and verified"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: has received several 3RR warning recently on their talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion on the talk page of the article, sth also on my tp

Comments:

• First reverted Alltan, then Çerçok, then Alltan, then Alltan again. The editor has received several 3RR warnings lately, as they breached the 3RR on August 24 at Margariti (There he first readded Këshilla to the See also section after FierakuiVertete removed it , and then removed the Albanian name from the lede 3 times ) and on August 26 at Template:Greeks in Albania too ((First reverted Alltan , then rv SuperDro , reverted Ahmet Q. , reverted Alltan again ). There are also several articles where Alexikoua made 3 revertes within 24 hours recently, such as Himara. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The example provided does not demonstrate a fourth revert inside a 24-hour window, and from what I can tell, User:Çerçok and Ktrimi991 are heavily involved in the opposing revert each time. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The admins can check the diffs and ask me if need be for clarification. Years ago you tried to derail an SPI report I had filed but the reported editor got blocked anyway; from that I assume that responding to you here will only produce some walls of text. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You were involved that time in trying to purge an opponent to your agenda, and you're involved this time as well. Please don't try to pretend that you are someone who stands above the dynamics and is only interested in upholding policies. The very page for which you accuse Aexikoua of edit-warring despite him not being in violation of any rule is one to which the revision sits as you last reverted, and it's the second time alone this day that your signature is on the revision history having reverted. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat previous actions by producing a wall of text and provoking TLDR but I will merely urge whichever administrator who takes action here to apply the same sanctions to the other two or three persons to have contributed to the disagreement. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"and it's the second time alone this day that your signature is on the revision history having reverted" In 6 years of editing on enwiki, I have made 2 reverts at that article - those today. Not sure what do you mean, but whatever it is not surprising at all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean what I said in my last post. The comment stands and I withdraw no part of it. I didn't ask how long you've edited. You've come here to report a person who has not violated EW policies and against whom you have militated twice in the past hours, and it is not the first time you have resorted to this antic in the hope of eliminating opponents. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• To the closing admin Check the diffs for the 3 cases of the 3RR breaches carefully, and do not rely on comments by non-admin editors. In the Balkan topic area it is common that some editors comment to derail the report with misleading comments. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• To the closing admin. I have struck out comments where I said 3RR has not been breached. I mistook an "18" for a "16" due to the colour coding settings which confused me. At the same time, please consider that https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Himara_Revolt&diff=1110998757&oldid=1110986863, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Himara_Revolt&diff=1110970605&oldid=1110969857 & https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Himara_Revolt&diff=1110894589&oldid=1110864223 constitute a classic case of WP:TAGTEAM. Nobody is upholding policies here and nobody has issued edit-warring templates to anyone, and the timing of Ktrimi's second disruptive revert did not give Alexioua a fair chance to self-revert. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment I personally gave Alexikoua a warning about EW just 3 days ago. He's a very experienced user who is aware of the situation when he's edit-warring and when he breaches 3RR. The rules should apply to everyone. I'm about 2 years on wiki and I've always tried to never do more than 2 reverts at any given dispute. I just calm down and go to the talkpage. This didn't happen here and there should for once be consequences. It's not even the first time that Alexikoua is reported about placing 4 reverts , and a long time editor should know better than that.Alltan (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with certain statements above by Ktrimi991. I am among the main contributors of the specific article since 2016 but this is the first time I am part of an edit war ]. An editwar has always two sides but Ktrimi991 performed two reverts ]] without the slightest participation in talkpage ]. As already described above there is a clear wp:TAGTEAM pattern, with editors even reverting without posting anything in the correspondent talkpage.

When the situation is getting hot I'm always used to self-revert (], ]) and carefully avoid any further edit before reaching consensus in talkpage. However, Ktrimi didn't offer me this opportunity here. Instead he jumped into action ] and I wonder why he also reverted an obvious copy-edit correction in 'aftermath' section.Alexikoua (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You have breached the 3RR three times in less than a month, not to mention other cases with 3 reverts within 24 hours. A "self-revert" after being reported does not solve that, reflection on your long-term behaviour does. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. A self-revert does annul the last of the actions potentially bringing an editor back to within a state of pre-3RR. It's all in the guidelines. It is a clear fact that Alexikoua is presently at odds across numerous articles with the same two-three accounts and all over the same Greek-Albanian disputes (not sure anyone means by "Balkan" here), and so it is completely inappropriate to impute the finger of blame at one person and to cultivate the opposite lobby as the white knight of the project. He mentioned TAG TEAM which is another guided policy and this has not yet been addressed by any one of Alexikoua's detractors. I know bullying when I see it. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You can be edit warring even if you do not breach 3-rr. The three-revert rule is a bright-line test, but you can be blocked even if do not approach that level of reverts, as long as there is evidence that you are edit warring. So, while a self-revert can be taken into account, it's not a get out of jail free card. Now, moving on to the case at hand, @Alexikoua:, there is evidence that you were edit warring. I don't particularly like blocking productive editors, especially in the light of the fact that the edit war has apparently stopped for the moment; so I'm amenable to closing this with a warning, but I'd like to be reassured that, going forward, when you are reverted you will start discussing the issue on the talk page immediately, instead of first reverting a bunch of times and then moving on to the talk page. Salvio 10:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: I see your point about being reluctant to block an old editor, but 3 breaches of the 3RR in less than a month and edit warring on other articles are not a small thing. To give Alexikoua a chance to avoid a block while making sure the edit warring does not cause more mess on controversial Balkan articles, could an "official" revert restriction be imposed on Alexikoua? In the past such Balkan issues were often solved by imposing on the editor 0RR or 1RR which were removed after 6 months if the editor respected the rules. Can sth similar be done here; Alexikoua is aware of the ARBMAC rules regarding the Balkans. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that I saw it, in 2010 a revert restriction was imposed on Alexikoua . A similar one IMO could be used again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is probably a matter of different editing philosophies, I try to stick to the principle that blocks are preventative and not punitive as much as possible. So, if there is no disruption occurring right now, I prefer a discussion to restrictions and sanctions, especially when the editor in question is productive. Furthermore, even if I blocked him, the block ought to be lifted as soon as he gave credible assurances that he understands what the problem was and that he will no longer violate the relevant policy. If we can obtain the same result without resorting to blocks or restrictions, in my experience, it's better for all the people involved. Then again, this is only the opinion of a single administrator; any other passing administrator can decide that I'm being too lenient and impose a block or a restriction himself. Salvio 12:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Ofc restrictions should not be used to "punish" but to prevent disruption. I am supportive of "official" restrictions because they provide clarity. For instance, I need a clarification: lets say that after 2 weeks Alexikoua makes 3 reverts within 24 hours on an article and stops there to not breach the 3RR. That would be edit warring given Alexikoua's history. What would you do in that case? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, every report is actioned on the basis of its specific circumstances, so I can't make predictions concerning hypothetical future violations... However, I'll say that, as I'm sure you know, there is also WP:AE, which takes a different approach. This board is meant to address active (or recent) edit warring and the administrator actioning any report will usually take into account previous incidents, to decide whether sanctions are appropriate and their duration; AE, on the other hand, deals with long-term problems and can impose sanctions and restrictions even in cases where a hypothetical WP:ANEW report might be closed as stale. Salvio 13:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

At least to report here I use Twinkle; to prepare a whole AE report with all the diffs and explanations that are needed I will have to sacrifice my free time. Or to just let Alexikoua edit war if they choose to do so. I did not report Alexikoua's two previous 3RR breaches because I did not have enough time, and you are suggesting to me to report them again at the time-consuming AE if they edit war for a fourth time. Anyways.... Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge the fact that I was edit warring in this case and I have to apology to the community for this. My general contribution shows that I'm focused on improving articles in a multitude of topics and on cooperation with co-editors. As such in case I'm reverted I'll always resort in discussing the disputes on the talk page ASAP as the only possible way to establish a new version. I have also to thank @Coldtrack: for providing a detailed neutral picture on the dispute as an uninvolved editor.Alexikoua (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Salvio giuliano: Time to close this. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks, I'd say we can close this as Warned Salvio 09:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:MRItoday reported by User:Innisfree987 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

• Continued reversions after warnings and requests to discuss on talk. See also reversions at Jackiey Budden. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked (see block log for additional bases besides edit-warring).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Dallavid reported by User:Viewsridge (Result: Both users partially blocked from article for 72 hours)

Page: September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Changing the article lead without proper references. Reverted by multiple users over a period of days. The proposed changes are being opposed at the article talk page. Not self reverting despite notification. Viewsridge (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Viewsridge, there are multiple users opposed to the reverts you are making. You claimed the sources I added were opinion pieces and never replied when I explained they aren't. You haven't replied to me in the talk page for days, and you revert all of my changes instead of just the ones you disagree with. You never responded to User:Knižnik's reply either. I wish you would've been more active in the talk page if you still had any concerns.

Also, the first two diffs you linked are not reverts. And I didn't even edit the article after your "warning", which you made this report 10 minutes after. I had also warned you of edit warring after you made 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. --Dallavid (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article, so as to work things out on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Lofogirl and User:Kzqj reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: )

Page: Yonatan Netanyahu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Lofogirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
and Kzqj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Last revert by Lofogirl
2. Last revert by Kzqj
3. Lofogirl
4. Kzqj
5. Lofogirl
6. Kzqj
7. Lofogirl
8. Kzqj
9. Lofogirl
10. Kzqj

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Kzqj and Lofogirl

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a. I have not edited this article so don't think it would make sense for me to start the Talk page discussion. There is nothing recent on the Talk page.

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

Comments:
I haven't edited this page but have tried to work out what the actual content dispute is and failed. There are around ten reversions before the diffs posted above, the whole thing appearing to start on 16 September 2022. I posted to both users' Talk pages (using softer wording as one editor appears to be new and the other fairly new), but both have reverted each other since I posted on their Talk pages. Tacyarg (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The account "Lofogirl" seems to be purely devoted to disruption, having done literally nothing except for making ten identical reverts to this article. I do not think there is a content dispute. I think the edits of User:Lofogirl are vandalism. Kzqj (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Michael.C.Wright reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111224163 by MrOllie (talk) Removing a poorly sourced and misleading, impartial truth. See Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#Collective_action_of_edit_warringtalk page"
2. 23:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "Back to the drawing board (or the talk page in this case)."
3. 23:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "WP:BOLD and census-driven, per discussion in talk."
4. 14:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "As a biography of a living person, it is very important to get it right and contentious copy should remain in the talk page until consensus has been reached. Bon courage is not participating in the discussion and is instead resorting to repeated and disruptive reverts of good faith edits."
5. 03:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "FFF is right; none of the things mentioned as control measures were identified as control measures by any of the articles sourced and therefore that statement should be revised by consensus before being replaced. See talk page for more."
6. 22:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110958692 by Hob Gadling (talk) "age-targeted viral testing" might be considered fantasy by some editors but that doesn't change the fact Kulldorff supported it and that fact was documented by a previously accepted source. See talk for more details."
7. 14:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110902452 by Bon courage (talk) See talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "/* September 2022 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "/* We have a source which says just this anyway */"

Comments:

• Please note that MCW was already formally warned once, by EdJohnston for edit warring at the same article in January. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• I'd also note the user has created an entire subpage dedicated to the theme of how they're a lone voice of truth battling with a cabal of misguided editors wrt Martin Kulldorff. That mindset seems to be manifesting itself with the renewed behaviour/arguments in evidence at the article. A partial block might be called for and/or this might need to go to ANI? Edit summaries like this suggest this is not good-faith engagement but some kind of trolling against the "organized and collective" foe that is perceived.Bon courage (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC); expanded 09:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:196.206.162.32 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: )

Page: 'Alawi dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 196.206.162.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC) to 01:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 01:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 00:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC) to 00:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 00:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 00:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "warning about edit-warring"
2. 01:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Invited them to discuss on the talk page in this edit summary, but not much else I can do to bring an IP user to the talk page when they've already ignored all other warnings and feedback.

Comments:

IP has also edit-warred with disruptive edits at History of Morocco and has been warned on their user talk page about it. Similar IPs also did the exact same edits at that article earlier this month (see this and this). R Prazeres (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:9000:830B:9E04:F085:6B50:F0AD:1B37 reported by User:Beccaynr (Result: )

Page: Melissa DeRosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2603:9000:830B:9E04:F085:6B50:F0AD:1B37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 17:43, 15 February 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. ‎14:03, 19 September 2022
2. 16:03, 19 September 2022
3. 02:12, 20 September 2022
4. 03:54, 20 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:20, 20 September 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Request at their talk page to discuss at the article Talk page 16:20, 19 September 2022

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

Comments:

• I reported to RFPP at 16:25, 19 September 2022 and was advised to Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. I followed up at RFPP at 02:33, 20 September 2022 and have not received a reply. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As an update: I got a reply at RFPP , and the admin has edited the article and recused from taking administrative action to avoid any appearance of being WP:INVOLVED. Beccaynr (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring