Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:UnpetitproleX reported by User:Bilal 213 (Result: Declined)

Page: Ali Sethi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC) "(Undid revision 1171183302 by Bilal 213 (talk); neither is this unsourced nor poorly sourced (in what world is an interview by The New Yorker poor source?) please do not continue edit warring, it defeats the purpose of WP:BRD—the WP:ONUS of proving that The New Yorker not an WP:RS is on you)"
2. 20:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) "(Undid good faith edit by Bilal 213 (talk); Please stop removing reliably sourced text, the New Yorker article says “ Kalyan, Sethi, Aijazuddin, and Toor were all dating, but they weren’t dating one another. This changed six years ago, when Sethi and Toor realized that they belonged together;” as for SDLGBTN, the relevant forum to challenge its reliability is WP:RSN, not here; please follow WP:BRD)"
3. 17:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC) "(Undid revision 1170404115 by Bilal 213 (talk); I’m sorry but it is not Toor who is making some one-sided claim of dating Sethi, the two dating is mentioned in the Newyorker’s voice with even the year stated by them. It’s a profile of Toor, with bits from both Sethi and Toor, and from their mutual friends, that’s as reliable a reference as it can get.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ali_Sethi#Is_it_confirmed_that_Sethi_is_dating_Salman_Toor?

Comments:

I am writing to file a formal complaint against User:UnpetitproleX due to their disruptive behavior and violation of Wikipedia's content policies. As a concerned editor, I find it necessary to address the following issues with their conduct:

Description of the Issue:

User:UnpetitproleX has repeatedly engaged in edit warring on the article about Ali Sethi and has persisted in inserting questionable and unverified information without proper consensus. The specific matter revolves around User:UnpetitproleX's claims (I) that Sethi is in a romantic relationship with Salman Toor, based on a vague statement from an article by The New Yorker, and (II) that certain rather unwarranted statement about Sethi's purported queerness extracted from an unreliable source should be included on Sethi's page.

Despite clear concerns raised by myself and another editor named Priyanka2330 as can be seen on the talk page, User:UnpetitproleX has consistently reverted changes to the article and has insisted on retaining the unverified content. The veracity of the claim made in "The New Yorker" article is questionable due to ambiguous wording and a lack of confirmation from reputable sources. The veracity of "SDLGBTN" whereas is itself in question for being an unknown source. This contradicts Wikipedia's content policies per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:VERIFY, which emphasize the importance of reliable sourcing and verifiability.

Furthermore, as per Wikipedia's onus policy WP:Onus and WP:Burden, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", the responsibility of proving the validity of questionable edits rests on the editor adding such content, which in this case is User:UnpetitproleX.

In an attempt to address the situation, I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page which I believe User:UnpetitproleX should have initiated as per WP:BRD when I reverted their edits not once but twice with my explanations, I however invited User:UnpetitproleX to engage in constructive dialogue regarding the contested information. Regrettably, instead of responding constructively to my concerns as well as those of Priyanka2330, User:UnpetitproleX reacted defensively and continued to engage in edit warring, consistently undoing the reversions and re-adding the questionable content.

Attempts at Resolution:

Efforts have been made to resolve the issue through civil discourse and the initiation of proper discussion on the talk page. However, User:UnpetitproleX's refusal to engage in a productive dialogue and their continued edit warring undermine the collaborative nature of Wikipedia editing.

My Compliance with Wikipedia Policies:

I would like to emphasize that my reversion, especially the last one, was in line with Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability. According to this policy, "immediately removing contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced" is not considered edit warring, but rather a responsible adherence to Wikipedia's standards for reliable information.

Desired Outcome:

Considering the severity of the issue and the repeated disregard for Wikipedia's content policies, I respectfully request that the appropriate actions be taken, including:

(1) A formal warning to User:UnpetitproleX about their conduct violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly in regard to edit warring and failure to engage constructively in discussions.

(2) A request for User:UnpetitproleX to provide substantial and verifiable evidence to support their claims about the relationship between Ali Sethi and Salman Toor.

(3) Temporary suspension or editing restrictions for User:UnpetitproleX until they demonstrate a willingness to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and collaborate positively with other editors.

I firmly believe that addressing this issue promptly and firmly is necessary to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable and unbiased source of information. Constructive collaboration and adherence to content policies are fundamental to the success of this platform.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Bilal 213 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

References

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. The above TL;DR exposition (and I mean that literally in this case) is standing up and screaming to be taken to AN/I. What's left that is properly within the scope of this page (the diffs) do not show actionable edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have added a CTOPS notice (BLP, the one most directly applicable) to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:47.197.239.8 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Quantum entanglement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 47.197.239.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) "reworded"
2. 14:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC) "the way it appears to you is your personal belief, but Schrodinger's statement is important and must not be censored."
3. 13:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC) "more precise, exact."
4. 13:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC) "precise quote of the source"
5. 12:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC) "Section 2. Paragraph 8. in the source, it's there."
6. 12:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC) "excellent source, so must be included in Wikipedia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

My first warning on the IP's talk page was a personal message explaining 3RR in case the editor was unaware. An invitation to self-revert was rejected, and there have been two reverts of other editors since then. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

User:195.57.101.211 reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Nashville, Tennessee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 195.57.101.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 14:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 14:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 15:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user is not engaging with discussion, instantly reverting back to their preferred version. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Page also subsequently protected for 1 week due to block evasion. - Aoidh (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User: Fyunck(click) reported by User:Scootertop (Result: No violation)

Page: Jessica Pegula career statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8] [9]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

Comments:

I don't want to get involved in any edit warring myself and I see that the other user has been involved in such disputes before so I hope that I can raise this issue after only 3 reverts over more than 24 hours. As you can see I tried to discuss the issue and provided references but the other user insisted on simply dismissing my submissions with POV and unsubstantiated opinion including referring to a non-existent consensus and declining to provide a source for an anecdote about a supposedly previous discussion. This ended with the promise to revert any edit I made on the issue.--Scootertop (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• No violation. I see that the other user has been involved in such disputes before so I hope that I can raise this issue after only 3 reverts over more than 24 hours. No, it doesn't work like that, Scootertop. For one thing, "involved in such disputes" is nothing. Fyunck(click) has not been sanctioned for edit warring since 2012 (and that time they were unblocked after a short discussion). Also, you're supposed to discuss the issue on article talk, not on Fyunck(click)'s user talk. Nobody has used the article talkpage to resolve the issue, so how are you going to form a consensus? On the other hand, Fyunck(click), can you find the consensus on the matter in the relevant archive? Maybe a WP:MOS page? (The virgin talkpage of Jessica Pegula career statistics doesn't have any archives.) Bishonen | tålk 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC).

I will attempt to look. It was long ago and encompasses every single tennis bio and article we have. Countless thousands. I tried to explain that with his bold edit as it would be the only article in that format. I was looking at it as disruptive editing but I always hesitate to bring it to ANI as that usually results in hard feelings no matter the outcome, and we need good dedicated editors like Scootertop. Sort of a last resort for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I did find where the Tennis Project decided on uniformity on runner-ups when tallying. Right Here. That discussion also links to the MOS discussion. At the time I was one of the editors pushing for runners-up always until I was slapped down by three different MOS personnel at universities and CMoS. It was kind of embarrassing for me to have to change my tune, but I had no choice. This is what the tennis project has used ever since on ALL it's articles, though there might be a few that escaped fixing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that must have taken some time to find. Please follow the link and read, Scootertop. Bishonen | tålk 22:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC).

Way faster than I thought it would be. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Secarctangent reported by User:Natemup (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Secarctangent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:
I also made several reverts, as I thought the changes I made did not need special consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natemup (talk • contribs)

I converted all the mobile diffs above to regular diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I would politely note that I have repeatedly asked user Natemup to bring his concerns to the article's Talk page and he has repeatedly refused to do so. I am surprised he escalated to this approach. I would suggest that we instead address this on the relevant Talk page first. Secarctangent (talk) Secarctangent (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Secarctangent boldly added the content in question a while back, and when it was challenged with concerns that it failed verification (which per the source it appeared to) they edit warred to keep it in the article rather than follow WP:BRD and discuss the changes (per this edit summary that are familiar with how that should work). Also worth noting that Natemup did bring the issue to the talk page about 9 hours before Secarctangent's comment above that Natemup repeatedly refused to do so. Aoidh (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:RicardoGomez90 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: 2023 Leagues Cup final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: RicardoGomez90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Venue */"
2. 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Venue */"
3. 14:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Venue */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2023 Leagues Cup final."
2. 23:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2023 Leagues Cup final."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continued addition of an uncited, unencyclopedic section that adds undue weight to an article. User has yet to respond to any attempts at communication. SounderBruce 23:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Jbhoy reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Colin McRae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 23:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC) to 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 21:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Changing nationalities */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring over a number of articles in regards to UK nationality of sportsmen Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This is also at ANI - I brought it there, rather than here, because it covers multiple articles, and I'm also concerned about the insulting/dismissive responses on their talk page. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• There's no point in wasting any further time on this user. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Fake Corny reported by User:Timeshifter (Result: Indef blocked)

Page: Capital punishment for drug trafficking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fake Corny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
3. 15:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
4. 15:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 17:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments:
A Single-Purpose Account (SPA) whose 5 article edits are all on Capital punishment for drug trafficking. 4 of those article edits are reverts, and are within a 24-hour period. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:UnixBased reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Warned for edit warring, blocked for personal attacks)

Page: People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC) "added encyclopaedic important information"
2. 19:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC) "Stop deleting important information, Source about the structure and the members are from their official website https://dnrsovet.su/ru/"
3. [19]
4. [20]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [21]
2. 19:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic‎."
3. 19:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Sanctions in the field related to the Russo-Ukrainian war */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The page falls under WP:GS/RUSUKR. Please note that they also called me "idiot" with a modifier I don't want to repeat[22]. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring and Blocked for personal attacks. Though the article may fall under WP:GS/RUSUKR I don't see any article-specific restriction in place outside of the general remedies, and there's no outright 3RR violation. That said, there is edit warring in a contentious topic area and I have warned them not to continue to do so. I have blocked them however as this edit summary is unacceptable. - Aoidh (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Just an update to the above, I hadn't realized that the editor wasn't extended confirmed and that was why WP:GS/RUSUKR was relevant. WP:ECP has been added to the article by User:ToBeFree. I apologize for overlooking this diff, I shouldn't have overlooked it but somehow I did. - Aoidh (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:Mzajac (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: 09:01, 17 August 2023[23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:02, 17 August 2023[24]
2. 10:28, 17 August 2023[25]
3. 06:41, 19 August 2023[26]
4. 14:08, 19 August 2023[27]
5. 14:42, 19 August 2023[28]
6. 10:11, 21 August 2023[29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Igor Girkin#Category:Mass murderers
• Talk:Igor Girkin#Mass-murderer
• Talk:Igor Girkin#Category:War criminals

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [31]

Comments:
The subject of the dispute is categorization of an article in Category:Russian mass murderers. The article was stably categorized with this with no discussion for over seven months until kashmiri removed the category, then refused to respect BRD during discussion. Although the article is subject to WP:BLP, the categorization isn’t really debatable as the subject has been convicted in court for the murder of 298 people, which clearly falls within the criteria for inclusion given in the parent Category:Mass murderers. Kashmiri has presented a number of arguments but none stands scrutiny; anyway, there is no consensus to remove the category.

I’m not sure if they have technically violated 3RR, but they insist on imposing their version on the article without consensus and continuing to do so is at least inappropriately skirting the rule. The article in question is subject to WP:CT related to Eastern Europe, and subject to WP:GS/RUSUKR. —Michael Z. 14:50, 22 August 2023‎ (UTC)

• All my reverts complied with WP:BLPCRIME and specifically WP:BLPREMOVE: they removed defamatory material about a living person – attempts by the filing editor to categorise the subject as a "war criminal" despite lack of any sources in support, or alternatively as a "mass murderer", likewise without any supporting source and despite the fact that the Mass murderers category explicitly does not apply to the subject (as it does not apply to "acts performed in service of a state"). Note that I don't question the subject's acts; only disagree with adding potentially libellous labels in Wikipedia voice. The filling editor deserves a trout IMO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Mzajac, Special:Diff/1171707974 was unnecessary. If blocking Kashmiri for their edits to the article about Igor Girkin is justified, the same justification can be applied to your edits as well ([32] [33] [34] [35] [36]). A consensus to include one of the two removed categories is arguably forming at Talk:Igor Girkin § Category:War criminals, but it's not clear enough to be enforced like this against remaining concerns during the still-running discussion. The only possible point of Special:Diff/1170842087 can be forcing Kashmiri to discuss further, but this isn't a valid reason for restoring challenged material to a biography of a living person. So while I hope that of all 46,034,610 users on Wikipedia, it won't be Kashmiri removing the category again, I have to insist that you won't restore it afterwards.

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan reported by User:Migsmigss (Result: )

Page: Paul Mescal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverting edits and owning articles, even asking me why I've started editing on articles he's supposed to be editing for a long time. I didn't know Wikipedia and those articles have been owned by this editor, and that I need to provide explanation when and where I edit?

Please see: [[37]], [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], [[41]], [[42]]. Migsmigss (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why leave pertinent details out, Migsmigss? Some of the thorough explanations for my reverts.[43][44] The four requests to review what a minor edit is,[45][46][47][48] the last of which was where our interaction began. The fact that you had never edited one of the articles I referenced in relation to possible hounding until after you interacted with me–you had made one prior edit on the other.[49][50] Your intention to continue to hound me by beginning to edit another article I frequent, Christian Bale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), after filing this report.[51] The entitlement in asking for an explanation when you are reverted when you never bothered to summarize the initial edit (and numerous others).[52] KyleJoan^talk 08:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, when an editor edits articles another one had edited first, it's already hounding? You are accusing me of hounding, based on who edited which articles first? I didn't leave important details out. Not in this discussion, not in the edits I made. But you've reverted most if not all of them, even the improvements in punctuations and grammar. Why? I suspect article ownership. Do you own those articles? Aren't other editors allowed to make edits? Migsmigss (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, please see [53]. "Capitalization" changes were not helpful? When it's diction and sentence flow, aiding semantics, were improved, and simply not capitalization?

This is not only edit warring on the part of KyleJoan, but also ownership of articles. Plus the accusation that I'm "Hounding" them. Wow. Just wow.Migsmigss (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The block you received in 2019 was partly due to hounding, was it not? KyleJoan^talk 09:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

A resolved issue that's irrelevant to this discussion. Accusing me of hounding, though, and reverting all edits not done by you ([54]|1], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]) simply because you want to keep your edits without valid reason, is article ownership and edit warring.Migsmigss (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)