Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Sf123456 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [5]

Comments:

Sf123456 has repeatedly removed a redirect category even after they received this explanation as to its function. They are also the subject of this ANI report, which also partially pertains to edit warring. KyleJoan^talk 03:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You might want to add these two (diff and diff) to their list of disruptive edits. M.Bitton (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - 48 hours for removing reports from noticeboards. One revert deletes an AN3 report about themselves, another removes 100K bytes from ANI, another revert removes a complaint from ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:177.232.84.121 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: Special:diff/1089445527

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: warned by Maxbmogs on their user talk

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:177.232.84.121#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Comments:

Persistent addition of unsourced info in List of Illumination productions, seems the editor does not understand the scope of articles as seen in the last two edit summaries -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 15:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Plus, the IP's claim that Illumination will be producing a film called 'Cut the Rope' in 2022 seems to be unsourced. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wildhorse3 reported by User:Abhishek0831996 (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Wildhorse3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:

Came off a block by EdJohnston for edit warring on this page[10] and is now continuing the edit war by falsely claiming that he got consensus while admitting that he is misrepresenting sources.[11] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 1 week. The user is continuing the same war for which they were previously blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kire1975 and User:North Carolina Man reported by User:Gulbenk (Result: Fully protected for one week)

Page: Greensboro massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
Kire1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
North Carolina Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18] [19] [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21] [22]

Comments:
I initiated an edit to correct an error in the article. Subsequently, one, then two editors working in concert attempted to restore the erroneous information. A discussion was initiated at Talk, where I presented the reasons why the information was erroneous. The two editors refused to work collaboratively with me or heed the information given to them, but simply acted to restore the error without a rationale. This is a "slow motion" edit war that does not meet the definition of 3RR, but needs to be resolved nonetheless.Gulbenk (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully protected the article for one week. The three editors are urged to go back to the article Talk page to continue their discussion, and if an agreement is not reached as to the content dispute, other forms of dispute resolution must be tried. All three editors are warned that if after the protection expires, they edit the article without a clear consensus, they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the page being temporarily protected, but I agree with Kire1975's comments below. The reason I haven't been more involved in improving this page is Gulbenk's hostile behavior, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Gulbenk has been squatting on this page for several years, and has a habit of wholesale reverting good-faith edits (from many different editors) in favor of preserving his particular POV. He has refused to provide reasonable explanations for his reverts when asked about them. He is creating a huge hurdle for any article contributors since he has shown he will revert any contributions going against his POV within minutes or hours, post hostile wall-of-text responses demeaning other users' edits on the talk page, accuse editors of pushing a POV or "working in concert" against him like he commented above, and report editors to administration. Both Kire1975 and I got buy in from each other on undoing a couple of his reverts and I welcome feedback from any editors, but Gulbenk refuses to discuss in good faith.

A recent example is the talk page discussion about his reverting references to mainstream sources discussing possible racial prejudice in multiple jury trials. We have given contemporary and current reliable sources for this including the New York Times, Emory Journal, the Washington Post, the News & Record, and the News & Observer, but Gulbenk is claiming final say over any page edits and refuses to allow any sources that contradict the opinions of these 1980's North Carolina jury trials, saying over and over that the only valid edits are ones that validate the opinion of one of these 1980's juries and that anything that goes against or colors opinions of those juries is illegitimate. North Carolina Man (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Gulbenk has a long history of WP:DISRUPTIVE edits on this article, going back well over two years before I started paying attention to it this week. For two days, Gulbenk has lobbied personal attacks against North Carolina Man and myself on the talk page when he does not get his way. This is far from a slow motion edit war. This report is an escalation of his attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the process and make his attacks seem official before someone eventually proposes a WP:TBAN on the topic for him as becomes more and more likely to happen. "The consensus is simply not on his side. Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with him." The article's lead alone has seven paragraphs in it, but editors are afraid to change anything in it because Gulbenk is a WP:BRR edit warrior. He's not interested in discussions on the talk page. He is the captain of this page and it's his way or the highway. I have been trying to assume good faith but as anyone who reads the talk page can see, one can only pretend so long. Kire1975 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the second edit [23] that Gulbenk claims above to be an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is actually an attempt by him to use the talk page as a forum for his own WP:CPP political views. He actually claims in this edit that he would assign the term "domestic terrorism" to at least one of the parties in this dispute. I asked him to read WP:NOTFORUM and stop pinging me, he persists aggressively enough to threaten blocks and sanctions against me and anyone else who disagrees with him, even if we have RSS sources to back up our edits. Kire1975 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also note that Gulbenk's reasoning here does not mention what the "error" he decided to declare this war about was, what was "erroneous" about the "information" that he ~~handed down~~ gave out, nor what the "reasons why the information was erroneous" means. He fails to state how he attempted to work "collaboratively" with us. He describes himself only as "giving information." Our rationale for the edit reversion was very clear from the beginning, supported by evidence and stated multiple times. His claims that we don't have one here are malicious and false. It is Gulbenk who is unwilling to collaborate. Kire1975 (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you Bbb23 for the intervention. I wish I could say that a one week cooling off period holds some hope for mutual agreement. But the three posts (above) by Kire1975 are indicative of the problem. Personal attacks, links to off-topic subjects (not "domestic violence), no discussion on the merits. Gulbenk (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply: Gulbenk , you may have submitted a typo. Nothing here has been said or linked to about "domestic violence". I think you must have meant "domestic terrorism" which is very much on-topic. No personal attacks against you have been made. My next edit will be to ask a question about the merits of the case on the talk page. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gomaza reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1083715884

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1 2 3 4

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24][25]

Comments:

Comment Edits are not vandalism, and Gomaza has not been warned for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noticed that the user who made this report have starting the edit war. Gomaza (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats why I'm the one who performed four reverts. I'm going to wait for you to explain your removal of RS in the talkpage. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why my recommendation is for both of you to discuss the situation at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made three reverts within 24 hours.[26][27][28] Gomaza (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I expect anything on the talkpage from you? --Semsûrî (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you forgot this one[29]. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first edit within 24 hours in this page and not a revert. Gomaza (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope its a revert.[30] Now let's focus on the talkpage.--Semsûrî (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained everything in the edit summary. You should use the talk page and explain your edits like I told you before here.[31] Gomaza (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you at the talkpage and expect a adequate reply not the generic I have readded the pictures and removed the false information. I don't want to go back and fourth here. @C.Fred: If this is the only thing I can get, I need you to get involved. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:46.176.102.247 reported by User:Iaof2017 (Result: /16 range blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38][39]

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

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

Comments:

Personal attacks and persistent disruption on Talk:Eleni Foureira by IP user and clear violation of WP:3RR. Iaof2017 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

/16 range blocked for one week by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Igec133 reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Igec133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

15:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "consensual version"
15:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Please do not violate the generally agreed consensus. Take a look at the article talk, Social Democracy section and present arguments. Don't do disruptive edits!"
15:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "unsourced ideologies removal"
15:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Direction – Slovak Social Democracy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It's worth noting that "Igec133" appeared just minutes after 178.143.117.83 edits (unexplained sources removal) were reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging EdJohnston since they warned them about edit warring on the same article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Igec133 is indefinitely blocked for disruption, based on the long history of problems regarding Slovak politics still listed at User talk:Igec133. The issues started in October 2021, resumed this year, and apparently are still continuing, judging from the behavior described today. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Earthh reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[41] June 5, 14:23
[42] June 5, 14:53
[43] June 5, 15:01
[44] June 6, 09:29
[45] June 6, 09:32
[46] June 6, 11:25

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Comments:
Earthh has reverted 6 times to try and force a change into the article, reverting three separate editors over this span. Rather than take to the talk page, as numerous users have requested, they insist only on reverting. Toa Nidhiki05 15:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverting multiple users who object to your edits since March, this is why you were notified for persistently edit warring without using the talk page [48]. This is getting ridiculous.--Earthh (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed ridiculous that you've reverted six times in a 24-hour span rather than engage on the talk page like you've been asked to. Toa Nidhiki05 15:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to link this dif for the 3RR warning on Earthh's talk page, but you linked a dif on the Morbius article instead. Note that Earthh has since removed the 3RR warning from their talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, ty for the catch. Toa Nidhiki05 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note, when reviewing this, that Earthh has previously reported OP for edits on this article. There seems to be an ongoing dispute on content in this article. Not taking sides, but I wanted to include this just as a reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: No action)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

none at the time, now Talk:Same-sex_marriage#"metropolitan"ism

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

Comments:

I'm reporting this as an uninvolved editor. In the last 24 hours, Kwamikagami has made four reverts, which is in violation of WP:3RR which states An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Discussion between Kwamikagami and @Newimpartial: has been ongoing on Talk:Same-sex marriage for a couple of weeks now with no resolution. I issued Kwamikagami with a 3RR warning, diff above, which they then removed from their talk page [56]. As another editor reverted their fourth revert [57] so I do not know if Kwamikagami intended to self-revert or was ignoring the report. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading the timestamps correctly, you warned Kwamigami 10 minutes after edit #4 above, then raised this report without identifying any of K's following edits as edit-warring. Is that right? NebY (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was filing a bug report with the new section tool, and replying to a comment on another talk page in the time since filing the report. I've not yet caught up on all of the actions in the last ten minutes. However in doing so now, I do agree that there was a fifth revert as identified by Newimpartial and Bbb23 below, that does not appear to have been self-reverted as of yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you went straight from warning to reporting without K making any intervening edits, is that right? It makes the warning seem rather irrelevant if you were going to report anyway, except perhaps that the report asks for a diff of a warning. NebY (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? This is an experienced editor who knows better (and a former admin, at that) and even after the warnings has continued edit warring on sanctioned articles. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my last edits were "edit-warring". Two were links that AFAICT are not opposed by other editors, and one was a tag marking the dispute. But I've self-reverted regardless. — kwami (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below about the part of your edit that constituted an additional (technical) revert. Also, your other edits were clearly intended to continue the dispute by other means, in article space, after I had started the discussion on Talk. So you were wise to self-revert under the circumstances, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even seen your discussion yet, and anyway tagging a disputed point is an appropriate way to handle a dispute that is under discussion. Linking WP articles for unclear referents is hardly "continuing the dispute by other means" when you don't dispute the referents! At least, I assume that when you wrote "France proper", what you intended was the topic of our article "Metropolitan France". — kwami (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is off-topic for the noticeboard, but I have responded to your claim at the article Talk page. In any event, you seem to be missing the point that "being right" isn't a valid pretext for edit war behaviour (except in WP:3RRNO situations, which this manifestly isn't). Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "being right". I tagged the point you challenged and moved on to cleaning stuff up. If you want to count that as "a pretext for edit war", fine, I've already reverted myself. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who resorts to templating an issue in dispute when they "run out of reverts" is a pretty good indicator of WP:EW ideation, or at least WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. You have done this now, repeatedly. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the subject for today's activation of Kwamigami is different from the previous occurrence; I have started a Talk page discussion of the new topic here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that I believe this subsequent edit by Kwamikigami was also technically a revert, though it may not have been intended as one. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that counts as a rv, but I've self-reverted anyway.

Do you actually dispute the links? And does tagging a disputing point count as a "revert" for purposes of 3RR? — kwami (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our edits sailed past each other; please see my reply to your comment below. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd actually forgotten yesterday's edits per BOLD until I checked the 3RR warning. No discussion by BOLD editor at the time. I'm sure there are other ways around this dispute than the existing wording, if the consensus of the past year no longer applies. — kwami (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing your most recent revert might be taken as an indication of good faith... Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't, you already reverted it. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true; your last 3 consecutive edits constituted the last revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing that. My last rv was rv'd. My last edits did not touch Newimpartial's wording. AFAICT the links are not part of the dispute, and AFAIK tagging a contested point pending discussion doesn't count as a 'revert'. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that re-inserting the word "metropolitan" at the same point in the article - whether or not capitalized and whether or not hidden by a pipe link - technically constitutes a revert. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps so. I've already reverted that. But note that I used that wording in the link because Metropolitan France is the wording of our article. I suppose I could've linked to a rd in order to avoid that word, but someone would eventually 'fix' it to what I had, so that seems rather pointless. — kwami (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a former admin, your grasp of the whole "don't edit war" principle seems pretty thin, tbh. And citing BRD as though it were policy in an apparent attempt to excuse your WP:EW and OWN behaviour - as you did here - does not improve the impression you give. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim was that you could revert consensus, and that it was up to the supporter of the status quo to get a new consensus on Talk before reverting you. That's contrary to BOLD, so I thought BOLD was appropriate to cite. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cited BRD, and when I call you on that you now claim consensus for your version. This is precisely what I have asked you for on Talk - evidence of prior consensus - but to no avail. I have not seen any other editors supporting your preferred language for the article, whether in the edit history for the article or in the Talk archive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "call me out"? You made the change, so per BOLD it's up to you to defend it. This isn't you reverting a recent change, this is you making the change. The wording has been stable for a year. That in itself demonstrates consensus. You've also noted old talk page discussions that use the term you dispute, with no-one objecting to it. That also shows consensus. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. No it doesn't and you know better. If an error remains in an article for 10 years, it doesn't mean it should stay, it means it gets fixed. The same thing applies. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true if we were talking about an error, but we're not. We're talking about the best wording. AFAICT there's no dispute about the facts. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last nine-ten months, several editors have removed the terms in question and you (and only you) have added them back in. That isn't what anyone would regard as "implicit consensus" - more like WP:OWN on your part. But even if you were "right" on the merits, that wouldn't justify your four/five reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true over the past 9-10 months, but others had done the same before that.

You're correct, that doesn't justify my 4 reverts. My only excuse here is that I honestly forgot that I'd made the same reverts yesterday.

But also on your part, saying that the status quo ante is "ridiculous" doesn't justify your edit-warring. If you want to make a change and it's contested, you should take it to talk, not demand that it remain in the article and that the status quo ante be defended on talk. The fact that someone else had previously made a similar change without discussion doesn't justify you doing the same. You didn't start a discussion until after this 3RR was filed. I'm happy to discuss other wording, my only concern that it be accurate and not misleading. For example, your implication that integral parts of France are not "properly" part of France is problematic, IMO. It would be like saying that Hawaii isn't part of the USA "proper". — kwami (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No action. Whether due to a self-revert by Kwami or some other means, the 'metropolitan' language originally added by Kwami is no longer in the article. That suggests that the edit war may be over. Other editors don't seem to support Kwami's position on these distinctions so it's a good thing he stopped reverting. Anyone who disagrees with this result should consider WP:DR. In any case, our article on Same-sex marriage in France points out that the law applies to all parts of France including outre-mer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.116.76.5 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

User being reported: 79.116.76.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Babies aren't actors. Babies don't know how to pretend. Babies don't start careers."
19:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "She was in a movie at 9 months old (allegedly) but she wasn't acting because 9 month old babies don't know what acting is."
19:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "How is it possible for a 9 month old baby to act? It's not acting if you don't know what's going on..."
19:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "How does a 9 month old baby know how to act? How does a 9 month old baby know what a career is?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ashley Olsen."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I can't tell if this is a child trolling or someone genuinely thinking they're right and edit warring but they don't seem willing to accept that their edits are contested (and incorrect) and have been removing information from the lead that has long been supported in the body. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they've now done it for a 4th or maybe 5th time [58] PRAXIDICAE💕 20:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:BobNesh reported by User:NoonIcarus (Result: 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] (removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65][66][67][68]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [69]

Comments:
BobNesh has reverted four different editors in less than three hours, effectively breaking the three reverts rule. The user has been asked to self revert and has been warned both about WP:BRD and the edit warring, but has ignored the messages, even removing the warning placed on their talk page.

It should be remembered that the Bucha massacre article falls under the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee regarding Eastern Europe or the Balkans topics, and that BobNesh has repeatedly been warned about edit warring in unrelated topics, being blocked in 2015, 2018 and 2020. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for two weeks. This is BobNesh's fourth block for edit warring and POV disruption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:2800:A8:A01:A1:35C0:A77E:D72E:23E3 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Not blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [70], however I also did a general citation clean-up as in these three edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[71] - Initial change of two citations to nested archive links (not revert)
[72] - First Restoration of nested archive links
[73] - Second restoration of nested archive links
[74] - Third restoration of nested archive links
[75] - Change of nested archive link to another via urlscan.io (not technically a revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[77]
[78]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [79]

Comments:

This is for an edit war report, and not 3RR. The IP editor has been reverting against myself and @Izno: to insert an archive URL as a citations primary URL, and then to use a nested archive URL. I've tried asking the editor about this, however the response I've received has been odd. The editor is convinced that Wayback Machine archive links may result in a BLP violation, and so has been insisting on using a nested archive (that is an archive of an archive) to prevent a reader from viewing older or newer revisions of the archived page. I tried to clarify what PAG supported this, however received no response.

After issuing the editor with the edit war warning, I was told to Stay out of the way; you seems haven't grasp the seriousness in terms of handling BLP articles, which sometimes would turn really sensitive. I've attempted to clarify again while writing this report which policy or guideline supports this, only to be told that the editor is invoking WP:IAR and has now changed the link again to use a nested archive of the website urlscan.io. The editor then shortly after removed that comment from their talk page. I'm not sure how else to resolve this as the IP editor seems unwilling to engage further on this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocked While he is definitely taking the rope offered him, he hasn't reached the end yet. Since your attempt to discuss he has not edited the article. Let's see where we are at with this in 24. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hipal reported by 86.171.219.109 (Result: Semi)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal#Edit_summary_at_Karine_Jean-Pierre [diff] I did not try to resolve this in the talk page because they weren't edit warring with me.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipal&diff=1091938563&oldid=1091920933 [diff]

Comments:
Karine Jean-Pierre, an American political advisor, made some comments and was criticised for them. Hipal changed the wording to state that she was attacked. Multiple users have raised issues with her comments being downplayed in the article, and the response to her comments being misrepresented, such as implying a physical attack. (See [85], [86], [87], [88].) The question about bias was not helped by Hipal's inflammatory responses contrary to WP:THREATEN and WP:ESDONTS: Toa Nidhiki05 said in the edit summary "Attacked is not a proper wording here, that implies some sort of physical confrontation", to which Hipal responded in the reversion edit summary "another block needed?", (See: [89]), despite not even being an Administrator to issue such a block. I understand Hipal used to be an Administrator, however, so they should know better than to engage in this conduct. An IP said in the edit summary "NPOV. There is no source provided for physical attack. The source provides "President Biden’s incoming White House press secretary has come under attack". Coming under attack isn't being attacked, it's being criticized." (See: [90]), to which Hipal responded "let's get the NOTHERE ip's blocked" (See: [91]), contrary to WP:ACCUSE, WP:AGF and WP:HUMAN. Hipal was informed that they have breached WP:3RR (See: [92]), although their user page claims they hold themselves to 1RR usually (See:User_talk:Hipal). The user has a lot of edits deleting other people's work and reverting their edits, for example, 4 reverts in a row beginning "Undid revision..." for the PragerU article ([93], [94], [95], [96]), although in those cases the reversions were for different pieces of text.

This appears to be a long pattern of behaviour, and struggling with WP:CIVIL: their userpage is all about "drama of all these editors trying to work together with some harmony", "One thing I've tried with a great deal of success is to stop assuming that editors will be civil", etc. Their talk page is about breaches of an ANI moratorium (18), accusing other contributors (19), threatening other contributors (20), edit warring and not coollaborating (21 22, 23, 24, 25), requiring dispute resolution (26, 27), and reverting edits and deleting content without justification 28 29 30, 31 32 33 34 35, 36 37, 38 39). From what it appears, Hipal has a high edit count by deleting the content written by others in good faith, and skipping the use of templates such as {{rs}}, and that has given a sense of hubris to threaten blocks, assume bad faith and make accusations of WP:NOTHERE. This behaviour is entirely unacceptable, but it appears they think that they can get away with it, stating on their userpage "Wikipedia does very little to enforce civility, so we should all expect that some editors here will be incivil".

Hipal should not have breached 3RR, let alone a host of other rules. Please act on this. 86.171.219.109 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the London IP. I've edited Wikipedia for the lat 15+ years and I learned long ago to typically edit obscure and non-controversial articles because I hate the aggression and incivility of some editors here, so I was a little bit shocked when Hipal started deleting large swathes of an article I was working on and trying to order me about. It was disruptive to WP to prove a point -- WP:POINT. No message on the talk page of the article, just being overly WP:BOLD, ignoring point 7 of WP:COOL, so I messaged him/her in accordance with WP:BRD in good spirit. If you question a citation source that is used on over 600 other English Wikipedia articles, you don't need to delete large parts of the article when a reliable sources template would do just fine or, better yet, to actually spend time like other contributors have and do some research themselves to replace sources with better ones. Despite my rather nice message on his/her talk page, I've come to see that I've been accused of WP:NOTHERE and WP:HOUNDING -- that's WP:BULLYing. They are big accusations to throw around without justification, and are totally against WP:GF. As discussed in the above, this person sees interacting on WP as a WP:BATTLE rather than a collaboration and it's inappropriate. An admin, Bishonen, left a message on his/her talk page [97] stating that Hipal was misusing edit summaries, yet Hipal simply continued this conduct, as shown above. Toa Nidhiki05 was similarly confused by the aggression (s)he faced from Hipal. [98] After Hipal stated The revert was a continuation of the edit-warring,[99] rather than stopping the edit warring, (s)he continued with it, making 4 reverts after that, as shown above. My only involvement in that edit war was to come in as an independent third party, review the source material, and reflect in the article what the source stated, and stating that in the edit summary. When my single edit was reverted by Hipal, I did not engage further because I edit WP because I enjoy building something great, not because I want childish squabbles. The page in question has now been protected by an admin, using the wording that I and the many others excluding Hipal determined was consistent with WP:NPOV: criticised, not attacked. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:D80D:BD89:4048:812 (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal Did not Violate 3RR, he was removing Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy as it is an exception to 3rr Rule. Chip3004 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth diff is a self-revert. No 3RR violation. NOTHERE made sense in context, as the IP had just made an obviously POINTy edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That last diff is a self-revert, so there's no case based upon those diffs. This is not a venue for addressing other complaints, and editors are expected to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes.

I'm always happy to follow my standard response to such situations, as I've written a the top of my talk page: I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know. The article is protected, and we've been making good progress on the article talk page after the disputes were brought up at BLPN, where it first got my attention.

I hope we can get the three ip's blocked, or get them to radically change their behavior. Given the political battleground around the article content, I find that unlikely. ArbEnf doubly applies to the article. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Chip3004, but Hipal did violate 3RR. The above links show that (s)he replaced the word criticised with attacked, and when it was corrected, (s)he reverted it 4 times. Hipal has been around long enough to know that that's simply not acceptable. It had nothing to do with libel, bias, unsourced, or poorly sourced material -- the source has remained the same throughout. Your defence of this action using generic justifications simply does not hold water. It has been shown that Hipal continued this conduct after admitting it was edit warring, and the only libel is that against all other editors who have been faced with a raft of unseemly allegations against us. An apology would go along way. I don't know Hipal's history with the other users, except to see (s)he is regularly in edit wars, but certainly the allegations against me are baseless and offensive and I did not deserve that. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:20BF:1264:A707:C04C (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That last diff is a self-revert, so there's no case based upon those diffs. This is not a venue for addressing other complaints, and editors are expected to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes.

I'm always happy to follow my standard response to such situations, as I've written a the top of my talk page: I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know. The article is protected, and we've been making good progress on the article talk page after the disputes were brought up at BLPN, where it first got my attention.

I hope we can get the three ip's blocked, or get them to radically change their behavior. Given the political battleground around the article content, I find that unlikely. ArbEnf doubly applies to the article. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Chip3004, but Hipal did violate 3RR. The above links show that (s)he replaced the word criticised with attacked, and when it was corrected, (s)he reverted it 4 times. Hipal has been around long enough to know that that's simply not acceptable. It had nothing to do with libel, bias, unsourced, or poorly sourced material -- the source has remained the same throughout. Your defence of this action using generic justifications simply does not hold water. It has been shown that Hipal continued this conduct after admitting it was edit warring, and the only libel is that against all other editors who have been faced with a raft of unseemly allegations against us. An apology would go along way. I don't know Hipal's history with the other users, except to see (s)he is regularly in edit wars, but certainly the allegations against me are baseless and offensive and I did not deserve that. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:20BF:1264:A707:C04C (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, your response to all IPs is to suggest that we're blocked. You would do well to read WP:HUMAN. I certainly have done nothing do deserve a block, and have faced continued accusations from you when you tried to start an edit war on another page. Common courtesy goes a long way. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:20BF:1264:A707:C04C (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:Johnuniq. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sideshow Bob reported by User:Theonewithreason (Result: No violation)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[100]- unsourced support of newly created ip
[101] - continues edit warring with nationalistic POV comment, again without source
[102]
[103]- after being reverted by another editor, Sideshow Bob continues to edit warring,again with the same unconstructive comment, breaking the rule of 4 reverts

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: : [104]

Comments:

The editor has a long term history of edit warring, without any constructive contribution to the articles on Wikipedia, usually their comments are based on insults, political comments and swear words like this examples [[105]],[[106]], in this instance they also broke 4 RR revert rule even though they got warned on their talk page and reverted by another editor, obviously WP:NOTHERE. Theonewithreason (talk) 08:49 07.June 2022 (UTC)

I have been an editor on English Wikipedia for 15+ years now, making significant contributions primarily to Montenegro-related articles, and have been editing only sporadically lately due to real world obligations and lack of time. However, one thing has been constant throughout my time here - I have been harassed constantly by the clique of Serbian nationalists posing as constructive editors while pushing fringe theories which amount to erasing everything Montenegrin and "serbifying" entire Montenegrin history which they have dangerously limited knowledge on. This particular user is the n-th incarnation of the same pattern, which leads me to suspect that he/she is possibly a sock or reincarnation of one of a number of previously permanently banned like-minded users which tried to present me as unconstructive in the same manner (the latest being Ktrimi991, Sadko, etc. etc). I don't particularly care about this non-issue, and shall not comment further. All you need to know is there is an organised attempt at skewing the Montenegrin history due to sheer number of Serbian nationalist editors active on English wiki, and I have unsuccessfully made an attempt of introducing some NPOV, but seem to be fighting against the windmills here. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 11:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No violation It seems someone has actually responded to the call to open discussion on the talk page, although this is hardly a constructive way to start it. As Sideshow Bob has noted, removing a {{pov}} tag repeatedly is not the way to address the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shivaxx8 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked, 24 hours)

User being reported: Shivaxx8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091994624 by Bbb23 (talk) Removal of unauthentic legal cases that have been closed years ago. Addition of new elements."
15:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091992703 by Bbb23 (talk) BBB23 STOP your derstruptive editing. You are adding legal cases that have been discontinued long ago."
15:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091981459 by Bonadea (talk) I am editing the info on behalf of personality. Don't revert without permission."
12:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Sudhir Chaudhary (journalist)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note the ES "am editing the info on behalf of personality. Don't revert without permission." at 17:33. bonadea contributions talk 18:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These ES [107][108] were also interesting. Is it true? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, based on the refs, probably not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shivaxx8 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked, 24 hours)

User being reported: Shivaxx8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092012700 by Bonadea (talk) removed disorted facts"
17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091994624 by Bbb23 (talk) Removal of unauthentic legal cases that have been closed years ago. Addition of new elements."
15:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091992703 by Bbb23 (talk) BBB23 STOP your derstruptive editing. You are adding legal cases that have been discontinued long ago."
Consecutive edits made from 15:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
1. 15:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091981459 by Bonadea (talk) I am editing the info on behalf of personality. Don't revert without permission."
2. 15:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "edited reference"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

see here for warning PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Blablubbs. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freethinker6799 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[110] 05:00, 6 June 2022: Restored disputed content.
[111] 06:51, 6 June 2022: Restored the same disputed content again.
[112] 18:09, 6 June 2022: Very likely restored the same disputed content again while logged out.
[113] 02:23, 7 June 2022: Restored the same disputed content again (with very minor changes).
[114] 07:42, 7 June 2022: New edit: after finally coming to understand that the previous content was based on something we call "unreliable sources", claims that a bunch of existing content sourced to RS should in fact be cut for being "unreliable"
[115] 09:40, 7 June 2022: Reinstated the new edit after it was reverted.
[116] 19:04, 7 June 2022: Reinstated the new edit after it was reverted once again.
[117] 19:24, 7 June 2022: Reinstated the new edit after it was reverted once again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119] [120]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [121]

Comments:

This brand new SPA has made lots of colorful angry remarks about me over the past couple days, if that's considered relevant (e.g. [122][123][124]). Language skills are certainly an issue but the conduct problem appears to go far deeper. Note that they claim here [125] not to actually be a new user. If so, they should certainly know better. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame you are trying to get me blocked instead of discussion & resolution. I believe as there's not justice you would be successful in this while since you're not into truth and you not well mannered you will lose finally. That wouldn't be end if it. It's not just me, there are many people out there who believe in justice and truth and discussion. They will teach you, maybe someone like you with no manner.

Plus, FYI yes maybe my English wouldn't be so good, it's not my mother tongue, but making it as a reason for block?! I know 4 languages, and the life is too short for speaking as you would like or didn't see it as a reason for block. Be committed to truth and justice Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My official Response Greetings to all. I've lost my account I'm not new. Also supposed I'm new, would it means that I would be the wrong one? Here is the thing. The page under dispute basically is promoting. I've add some criticizing citing daily & others. This user generalrelative removed all due to unreliable sources, as well as tracked down all my activities in two other articles and get them all deleted! I add another source and the original tweet link, again removed on the ground of unreliable sources. Ive tried a couple of times to resolve this dispute no gain, user deleted all messages on thier talk page, when you go there is nothing, for they are in edit history. I brought the problem to dispute resolution, third opinion and cried for help to other admins no gain. What I've deleted is due to unreliable sources were referred to guardian, independent etc. As the user @generalrelative insist on that newspaper aren't reliable I said ok you didn't lett me add daily mail so I'm editing the page removing contents based on news agencies for making it a neutral page, unpromotional page. They wouldn't accept it either. Instead of discussion trying to get me blocked. That's situation Regards Freethinker6799 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC) P.s: clearly @generalrelative doing as a fan or something, I want the page be neutral, scientific, have all criticisms and stuffs. If it's ok to put content from guardian should be ok for me to add from daily mail. No doubt. Also, user before try to discuss it with a good way now trying to silence me, but it's not bad, it brings attention to the problem, I hope people could see it. Finally, people are going to die for the truth and freedom, so do I, frightening by blocking wouldn't stop me from holding truth and scientific neutrality. (Plus, so sorry to use title card but I've also going to hold a Ph.D in Humanities by a few months. Don't think that's based on ignorance. Sorry again) Freethinker6799 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Freethinker6799: As is noted in the discussion on the talk page, the Guardian is a reliable source, as is the BBC, while the Daily Mail is not (see WP:DAILYMAIL). I'm looking at your talk page, and you requested a third opinion before any discussion was held on the article's talk page (or at least, you failed to link to it). So there's certainly the appearance that you tried to bludgeon material into the article, and when you couldn't, you removed sourced material to make a point. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a case of WP:COMPETENCE. User has been repeatedly warned about edit warring, no comprehensible content discussion was sought on the article talk page; instead, more edit warring. Attempts to politely educate them about reliable sources seem to have been unsuccessful. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Throast it maybe anything while my intention wasn't war or competence. Yes I tried a lot, wasn't successful because the other part wasn't inclined to participate. I failed in bring it on third opinion, yes, true, because that's the first time such a thing happened. I edited many articles no problems brought on, with my previous account I lost. While it was disagreements we solved it. This time was different and I am thinking there's not any fairness and justice here. If you're trying to justify blockage go on please it would be under freedom of speech, fairness, justice, etc however by Nero's fist c/o Tacitus Freethinker6799 (talk) Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Freethinker6799: I'm going to recommend against playing the "freedom of speech" card. Freedom of speech on Wikipedia means there is no law that keeps Wikipedia from writing policies that allow us to block people for misconduct on this private server. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred you clearly determined your side, I'm not talking about freedom of speech for articles, but about instead of discussion, @Generalrelative trying to get me blocked. Isn't it related to? Or maybe that my English isn't sound like native, so I should be blocked. Freethinker6799 (talk) Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred dear friend Yes I did, I left messages on @Generalrelative no achievement, then I seek third opinion, then seeking dispute resolution, then personally invite people to take part, in my contribution you can find them. Also it's stated guardian blogs aren't reliable, that part is from bookpart, independent isn't reliable.

Writing to him directly is not the same as discussing it on the article's talk page. The latter gets viewed by more users.

I haven't looked at the Independent's reliability lately. Nowhere did you state that the Guardian material (or the BBC material, for that matter) was from blogs. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not into school people by force while I appreciate if you see it a little impartial, neutral. If you was me what would you do? I tried all options I had. Now youre accusing me on revenge or something. It's not fair. Not true. If you be fair in this case would be great. Freethinker6799 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I haven't taken any action against you, because I'm hoping that you (continue to) discuss the situation at the article's talk page and reach some consensus about it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down Freethinker6799. This battleground approach will not get you anywhere. As I explained earlier, if you can't reach consensus, you'd better start an RFC or DRN. But alas, you have decided to go in a different direction. And now I'm really afraid that you'll have a hard time after this revert. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Pinsky Dear, I'm having hadd time not because of that but because of the fact that truth and justice don't mean anything apparently.

Or maybe this fact that I'm responding to all of you it's not a good idea, the opposite part clearly chose silence.

Yes you said, I took your advice put notice and invitation to discuss, after that there were many reverts, not just me, others also participated. If wrong, wrong for all.

Additionally, how you would feel if someone wanted you to be cut because of language skill? But, I did see your kind and sweet attitude, thanks for it. Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred No problem with continue it in talk page with participation of those who are here .

Well I wasn't about to say you tooke measures against anyone, but while clearly there's a small percentage of false reporting why you didn't notice other party actions into assessment?

Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards