Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

User:EditorHeaven reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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:
This single-purpose editor did not make all of these reverts over the course of 24 hours but he or she is still clearly edit warring against multiple editors with little effort to engage in the discussion that was opened nearly a month ago. Slowly edit warring is still edit warring and it needs to stop. ElKevbo (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Declined While 3RR/24h is not a hard and fast rule, this is really stretching it. I don't see any sanction that would be both proportionate and effective at the moment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

So we're allowed to make any number of reverts of multiple editors and own an article as long as we stretch it out over a few weeks. Got it. Thanks for the help; I appreciate when administrators support editors! ElKevbo (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

According to policy, edit warring is when contributors repeatedly revert each other's contributions rather than attempting to establish consensus, and "it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" (bold mine). Very questionable interpretation of policy here. MarshallKe (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

King of Hearts, 3RR isn't my specialty, but I have to concur with MarshallKe. This is clearly an instance of an editor continuing to make reverts rather than seeking consensus after being clearly told doing so is not allowed. If this noticeboard isn't the appropriate recourse, then what is? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

EditorHeaven has been inactive for more than 48 hours now. Let's continue to monitor the situation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:198.53.108.48 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: )

Page: Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 198.53.108.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC) "he and i will work this out. i saw your invocation of verifiability on the talk page and it shows how uninvolved you actually are. see talk for the direct relevance as he has requested."
2. 18:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC) "remove 1986 mention, focus on 1973. as it stands, this is relevant and deserving of its own section due to fletcher's attitude. every line here is sourced"
3. 00:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1035652875 by VQuakr (talk) it was only contested on relevance, and the discussion showed the original reverter has not shown how it is not relevant. if the congressional hearings and such remain on this page, so too should the mention of the GAO reports that document how this disaster could have been avoided. add sources presented in talk to significantly strengthen argument."
4. 20:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1035442225 by Balon Greyjoy (talk) buddy, you're risking WP:3RR at this point. you're wrong. the congressional investigations are on this page, and the GAO investigations are related to that."
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC) to 17:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
   1. 17:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC) "it's actually the government accountability office, not accounting. either way, this is most certainly important and the only reason for its removal is a npov because thiokol should have never gotten the contract. the first GAO review reflects that."
   2. 17:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC) "/* Government Accountability Office */"
6. 17:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1035375734 by Balon Greyjoy (talk) um it is most certainly related to the disaster. thiokol being awarded the contract is what caused this disaster! i'll put it in its own section, but to claim it's wp:unrelated is comical and suggests wp:npov"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Space Shuttle Challenger disaster."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC) "/* the GAO investigations and their relation to the U.S. house hearings */ re, collapse wall of text with some editor-focused distraction."

Comments:

Uninvolved user here, but one who's been watching this mess unfold - I'd urge anyone reviewing this case to also have a look at IP's edit summaries on their contribs page, and the history of their talkpage (which is full of warnings that they've deleted). I'm not certain if their attitude is conducive to cooperative editing. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

hi, these are the facts. as it stands, this is not about the window-dressing of the 1986 report. it's about one editor who has completed dominated the page and decided that the GAO investigation from 1973 isn't deserving of its own section.

on the talk page, i have argued that it does merit its own section because the sources support the claim fletcher's attitude had a significant effect on the eventual disaster.

in particular, mcconnell's book, considered among the foremost sources on the incident, states fletcher went out of his way to defend thiokol and it had a significant effect on the eventual design of the boosters.

i do not think this is related to the o-rings. the reason the quote is emphasised is because, again, he went out of his way to defend thiokol. in reality, the comment about the seals is more about fletcher's defence (when he was confronted with the reality both proposals would end up costing about the same).

i am being accused of edit warring because one editor who has dominated the page feels the GAO report belongs in a section discussing the o-rings.

i disagree.

the primary focus of the 1973 GAO report was about cost-effectiveness and concluded both proposals would end up being in the same range.

on that basis, it strongly urged fletcher to reconsider the award and he did not.

in refusing to reconsider, he went out of his way to praise the design and this was determined to have significant effect on the eventual outcome

in short, this is why the 1973 report deserves its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Then you should make a case for inclusion at the talk page. You may not try to force the information into the article by edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:FPPF1 reported by User:阿pp (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: China at the 2020 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FPPF1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Case 1: Deleting Oxford comma:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]

Case 2: Changing order or sections without reaching censensus:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

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

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

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

Comments:
Activities include: Igoring and against Olympic Manual of Style and other community concensus, changing "People's Republic of China" to "Mainland China", changing "China" to "it", changing "China is competing/participating at" to "China is active at", changing order of section without proper reasons, deleting oxford commas, changing phrasing of a sentence regarding Hong Kong causing grammar error. --阿pp (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional information: User:FPPF1 might be User:Dustyveil--阿pp (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@阿pp: you make false excuse that this order is a consensus while it isn't and the page you provided does not contain any guildline of value that demonstrate how it was consented other than some irrelevant examples. As I asked you to point to the relevant discussion, you failed to do it. FPPF1 (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

G 阿pp openly refused to discuss (see here) while he continue pushing his view on the editing arena. This person also seems to have trouble with misunderstanding descriptions and has a relative language barrier. FPPF1 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – Indef as a sock of User:Albertpda by User:NinjaRobotPirate. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dustyveil. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ebahapo reported by User:Dnywlsh (Result: Both warned)

Pages:
LTE frequency bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5G NR frequency bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ebahapo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18], [19]
2. [20], [21]
3. [22], [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:LTE frequency bands#800MHz ESMR, Talk:5G NR frequency bands#800MHz ESMR

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

Comments:

User:Ebahapo is continuing the edit war, after declining to continue the discussion on the talk pages. I have provided 8 sources supporting the edit I made. User:Ebahapo has provided no sources supporting their edit. Dnywlsh (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Ebahapo and User:Dnywlsh are both warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again on one of these pages without first getting a consensus in their favor on an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston - There appears to be no consensus. My edit was sourced, with 8 different sources. Their edit was not sourced, and no one has been able to present a source for their edit. Shouldn't unsourced edits be challenged and removed? Dnywlsh (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The WP:Edit warring policy doesn't allow sourcing issues to take precedence over the rules about reverting. Better get agreement on Talk, or use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston - It's very disappointing that the admins here care more about bickering than articles having unsourced, incorrect information. I literally cited the FCC's website, and my edits are being removed. If the FCC is not a reliable source, what is? Maybe this is why Wikipedia is considered unreliable. The admins do not appear to care about articles having reliable, sourced information. Dnywlsh (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Dnywlsh reported by User:Ebahapo (Result: Duplicate report)

Page: LTE frequency bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5G NR frequency bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dnywlsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]
5. [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [35]
2. [36]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]

Comments:
User started commenting on my talk page and, after a few unsuccessful interactions, I took the conversation to the talk pages of the respective articles in question. However, the user refuses to wait for other comments and continues to engage in reversals of reversals. The sources that the user relies on are not reliable and do not state what he alleges that they do. ebahapo (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Duplicate report. Both editors have been warned per another complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Insha22 reported by User:LearnIndology (Result: Article space blocked one week)

Page: Porus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gandhara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Insha22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]
6. [43]
7. [44]
8. [45]

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]
6. [51]
7. [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [53]
2. [54]

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

Comments:
Despite being warned by multiple editors Insha22 have continued to vandalize Wikipedia. They are using blogs as sources despite editors making them aware of WP policies[56][57]. Apart from that they are pushing a POV by replacing Ancient India to Ancient Pakistan. LearnIndology (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

PS

With this[58] edit, they have violated WP:3RR too. LearnIndology (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Add This user appears to be unstoppable. The persistent addition of a telephone number borders on vandalism or at least a severe CIR-problem. I have seen that the user hasn't got a warning before the report, so I have dropped one just now[59]. –Austronesier (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I did warn them about 3RR [60] a bit earlier today, but they've kept at it. – Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• User was article space blocked for one week by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jaydoggmarco reported by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (Result: Both users blocked for 31 hours)

Page: Democracy Now! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036242747 by 141.126.156.55"
2. 22:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036069812 by 141.126.156.55 (talk)Let's discuss on the talk page before adding back."
3. 07:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036056408 by 141.126.156.55 (talk)"
4. 07:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036052464 by 141.126.156.55 (talk)dissident voice and black agenda report are not reliable sources, Take it to the talk page if you disagree."
5. 18:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1035889062 by 141.126.156.55 (talk)"
6. 06:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC) "Very poor sourcing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
2. [61]
3. [62]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Democracy Now!#The criticism section has piss poor sourcing.
Talk:Democracy Now!#Edit war in Criticism section between Jaydoggmarco and 141.126.156.55

Comments:

Jaydoggmarco & 141.126.156.55 have been edit warring on both Democracy Now! and Ricky Schroder, which resulted in full protection of the latter page now for the second time. Almost all of Jaydoggmarco's other contributions have simply been reverts: Special:Contributions/Jaydoggmarco. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to post the same thing here as I did on the Democracy Now talk page:

Jaydoggmarco blanked an entire section with the rational of "piss poor sourcing". It seems to me that due to his other edits (one of them concerning deleting a category to "pander to trumpers and anti-vaxxers" in his own words. It seems to me that Jaydoggmarco based on his edits is running afoul of WP:AGENDA. I also feel like it's straight up vandalism to blank an entire section, ESPECIALLY a criticism section of a political party of which he belongs. Again, I JUST saw this after reverting, but will refrain from doing so again.141.126.156.55 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This [[63]] is the edit I was referring to in the above statement. There is also this thread [[64]] that I could not link because the exact edit is crossed/greyed out, but Jaydoggmarco says and I quote ""Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot" Actually that's 100% true especially for trumpers (Even though you meant it as a joke)." Taken as a whole this is extremely problematic.

If you take a look at most of his edits, they are mostly reverting User:TJD2 and User:Animalparty while pushing an agenda. Given these circumstances, I feel that a topic ban may be appropriate.141.126.156.55 (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just add that this is the second time Jaydoggmarco has been reported for edit warring. It doesn't look like anything came of it though [[65]]. I definitely think that Jaydoggmarco is trying to push an agenda on Wikipedia, and I fully support a topic ban. I don't think he should be blocked outright because he has shown interest in other topics on the site such as music and TV shows, and has made constructive edits [like this]. In fact, the IPs link shows User:ScottishFinnishRadish opining "This is the kind of statement that should immediately disqualify someone from editing American politics related articles. If you had already been notified of the discretionary sanctions I would have requested a topic ban," before proceeding to post a warning. As far as Democracy Now, section blanking is a pretty big WP nono and should not be done unless it is unsourced. Claiming the sources are poor does not permit a complete removal of the section - it should be discussed BEFORE removal.TJD2 (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I just gave a short block to 141.126.156.55 for violating 3RR. (Diffs: [66][67][68][69] Warning: [70]) No comment on whether there should be additional actions against either user. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Jaydoggmarco is also blocked for violating 3RR on Ricky Schroder. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ZeroSD reported by User:7curator78 (Result: 7curator78 blocked one week)

Page: Masters of the Universe: Revelation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
NoobMiester96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Artw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ZeroSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76], [77], [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [80], [81], [82]

Comments:
I have tried to tell three users to stop reverting my edits when I added a controversy section for the article Masters of the Universe: Revelation. They repeated it was WP:UNDUE and since I was the only one who disagreed I tried to edit only the development section. That too was denied. So I tried to engage in dialogue at the Talk Page telling specifically which sentence they disliked starting with the first sentence that stated, "In 2020, Screenrant reported that the Netflix reboot of He-Man will relegate the main character He-Man to a background role while the main character will become a woman character called Teela. The reports were confirmed when the show was marketed at the 2019 Power-Con in Anaheim featuring Teela as the main character." The citation I used was https://web.archive.org/web/20200528155530/https://screenrant.com/masters-universe-revelation-release-date-story-cast/ and the specific portion in the article where I got he information from is "One major difference is that though He-Man will certainly be around, he won't be the main protagonist anymore." However they do not tell me why this sentence is wrong. I can't even add a single sentence to the article! 7curator78 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This user is engaged in contentious editing and has been warned the matter will be raised here eventually, I guess this is them getting their retaliation in first. I will put together a set of diffs in the morning, in the mean time I would recommend taking a look through their edits or the ediuts on the page to get the full picture. Artw (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not added because it's not notable and also redundant with what's already there, the information on the characters is already in the plot summery, and the controversy is merely articles from rumor sites. Your edits are being reverted- by a variety of editors- because you aren't supposed to spam edits when you haven't convinced anyone they're worthwhile additions. ZeroSD (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Why am I singled out when I can't contribute to Wikipedia. All I said was that simple sentence. Can't I add that sentence (User talk:ZeroSD)? Please tell me right now can't I add the sentence, "In 2020, Screenrant reported that the Netflix reboot of He-Man will relegate the main character He-Man to a background role while the main character will become a woman character called Teela. The reports were confirmed when the show was marketed at the 2019 Power-Con in Anaheim featuring Teela as the main character."? 7curator78 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Listen. You are trying to do the same edit over and over again. That's the issue. Put something new or useful in some article, that's fine, go find a stub article somewhere and expand it, but being allowed to add to wikipedia doesn't mean you get to just decide that this one thing will go in even if a lot of other other editors disagree and see no value in what you're adding. Teela being a major character is already in other parts of the article like the plot section which has more context on her exact role, screenrant mentioning it in an article is not important information any more than any other article releasing info before a series comes out matters once it's out- that is to say, not at all. Also you've stated that you intend to do a piece-by-piece til you get back to putting in the mountain out of a molehill 'controversy' stuff, which definitely isn't notable. Also 'a woman character named Teela' is such an odd choice of phrasing for a major character in the 80s show, like your main issue is her being a woman. ZeroSD (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have blocked 7curator78 for one week for edit-warring and for acknowledged socking with User:Fri74eodo (now indefinitely blocked) on the article Talk page with the preposterous notion that the the account was a "clean start", even though both accounts were created on the same day and then both used, although the sock edited far less.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:190.163.211.224 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Blocked for 3 months)

Page: 2021 CONCACAF Gold Cup Final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 190.163.211.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036207785 by Flix11 (talk)"
3. 04:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036207654 by Flix11 (talk)"
4. 04:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1036207520 by Flix11 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on 2021 CONCACAF Gold Cup Final."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Shankargb reported by User:111.119.178.136 (Result: Reporting user blocked for 1 week)

Page: The Great Gama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shankargb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]

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

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

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

Comments:

• I am exempted from reverting a blatant sock of blocked user Kthxbay. Sock is clearly visible by these two edits: [87][88] See WP:NOT3RR. Shankargb (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you fighting me. I just added the refs from the google which tell the the wrestler was Pakistani since 1947 and he is buried in Pakistan. What is the issue?

I have also requested User:Fuzheado to look into it since he asked me to add reliable refs which I did but this user is reverting my references on biased basis.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.178.136 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the unreliable source that does not support anything that you are trying to add, just like you did with your main account.[89] Nothing has changed. Shankargb (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added those reliable refs which are available on google for the verification but you are removing them again and again and wrongly accusing me of a sock.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.178.136 (talk • contribs)

They don't verify your information. Repeating yourself won't change it. See WP:EVADE. Shankargb (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you fighting me. I added refs which tell that the wrestler was Pakistani since 1947 and he is buried there. Why are you so perturbed?

User:Limitthrow reported by User:FormalDude (Result: No violation)

Page: Thomas Woods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC) "The controversy should be discussed absolutely, but making an effort to highlight it and use as negative language as possible is where the issues come in."
2. 23:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC) "One person doesn't have the right to decide the controversy section for themselves, particularly when their version is so ripe with BLP issues"
3. 11:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 00:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Thomas Woods."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Thomas Woods "/* Need to request edit protection for this page to prevent people adding WP:SYNTH information claiming connections to Confederacy */ Comment"

Comments:

User has been circumventing the consensus forming process and appears to be WP:NOTHERE. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

While the reported user initially removed sourced material without explanation, there has been no violation of 3RR and both users are engaged in the talk page discussion. I don't see anything actionable by the admins here. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:David-dalus reported by User:LittleJerry (Result: Blocked for 3 days)

Page: The Secret of NIMH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David-dalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:
This user was already banned on the 25th of July and keeps doing the same things again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleJerry (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:The Drover's Wife reported by User:Nouraudes (Result: No action)

Page: 170 Russell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]

For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary Warn the user if you have not already done so. [101]

You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too [102]

If you file a report on this board, you must notify any user you have reported. [103]

Comments:
The article has been nominated for deletion, The Drover's Wife deleted uncited text which was fine. I have reinstated what can be backed up by reliable sources, yet editor resists and has gone onto make unsubstantiated claims that I am a sockpuppet and paid editor. Nouraudes (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is seeing a concerted paid editing effort. (The original editor at AfC disclosed paid editing, then disappeared and was replaced with two sockpuppets exclusively dedicated to promoting the nightclub.) They are attempting to add in material that's completely unrelated to the nightclub (e.g. that Shirley Bassey once performed at a theatre restaurant that once rented the same space a decade before the nightclub was established) in the hope that nobody will look closely enough for long enough for it to survive AfD. This paid editor has reverted eight times and refused repeated attempts to get him to produce sources that would either verify the notability of his claims or otherwise verify the notability of the subject, instead just trying to include misleading material through sheer force of edit-warring. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Nouraudes but thought will show that someone with 37 edits should not expect must support when aggressively editing an article created by another new account that arrived less than two weeks ago. Try WP:DR or WP:COIN or wait to see if the AfD result clarifies matters. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any way we can have a cooling off period. This user has compulsively been editing this page for a while. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cockapoo&action=history