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:Agathiyar654 reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: List of highest-grossing Tamil films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Agathiyar654 (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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:

• Jailer film's Box Office was confirmed as ₹607 crore by many reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES. But, some unreliable sources reported it was ((INR}}650–655 crores. Later in October 2023, Sources confirmed that Leo surpassed Jailer with a collection of ₹615 crores. Later, it was made consensus among editors to keep the Jailer gross has ₹607 crores per sources.
• Recently an IP (2600:1700:130:950:9202:36FA:CE81:9E17) referenced the unreliable source on edit request made at Talk:List of highest-grossing Tamil films. Based on that, User:Agathiyar654 has been changing the wrong BO values on pages continuously leading to Edit Warring.
• I left a message on the talk page (rev. 1187297277); But, the user made no replies and continued to do the same thing. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

6th revert: [9] 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours due to the extra reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Outsellers reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Partial blocked)

Page: Alex Epstein (American writer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC) "Financial Post is not listed as a reliable source on wikipedia's list"
2. 18:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC) "not sourced properly"
3. 18:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC) "Cannot use yahoo news/financial post as a reliable source for highly controversial topic"
4. 14:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC) "It's using yahoo finance, which is the exact source that is being used in the lede."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:Alex Epstein (American writer)#2023 climate change
2. Talk:Alex Epstein (American writer)#Yahoo news and/or Freightwaves
3. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Alex Epstein climate change denial?

Comments:

Outsellers was blocked in November 2022 for edit warring at this same article. They have been a single-purpose account, with nearly all of their edits related to Epstein.

Before the above 3RR violation, Outsellers had also reverted 7 times in the past 4 days, including another 3RR violation on the 25th.

1. two consecutive edits at 22:12 and 22:13, 24 November: removing climate change denial from the lead
2. 17:13, 25 November: re-do of #1
3. 17:32, 25 November: re-do of #1
4. two consecutive edits at 18:16 and 18:17, 25 Novemeber: partial re-do of #1
5. As an IP – 00:48, 27 November]: re-do of #1
6. As an IP – 14:42, 27 November re-do of #1
7. As an IP – two consecutive edits at 16:06, 27 November: re-do of #1

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk page discussion with Outsellers is almost impossible - they justify their edits by referencing talk page comments of others that explicitly do not support their actions. They also refer to rules and policies that do not appear to exist anywhere. I don't see any signs that this user will stop acting disruptively of their own accord. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Partial blocked from the article, indefinitely. I have tried to ask them about COI issues on the talk page, but they refuse to answer, so this is the obvious forward path. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have also put a CTOPS notice on the article talk page. It's apparent this sort of thing has a high likelihood of recurring. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Pecinta Matematika reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Seven Years' War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pecinta Matematika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1187189939

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first revert
2. second revert
3. third revert
4. fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. first edit warring warning
2. second edit warring warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Level-1 warnings were left on User talk:Pecinta Matematika about deleting text without an edit summary, about mistakes that violated MOS:CAPS, & about how to leave an edit summary & how to use preview. A Level-2 warning was left after the editor's first reversion. The editor did not respond to these warnings.

  diff of warnings

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

Comments:

• Many warnings on Pecinta Matematika's talk page with no response to any of them. Pecinta Matematika also has never left an edit summary on Seven Years' War.
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv 21:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Asmodim reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Tunisian Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asmodim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11] "revert: It uses both arabic or latin script depending on the user"
2. [12] "Undid revision 1187383604 by Skitash (talk) There's litteraly a whole part about scripts in the page beyond the obvious use of arabizi"
3. [13] "Undid revision 1187479886 by Skitash (talk) I can use all the sources in the page latin script, just refer to them then"
4. [14] "Undid revision 1187530252 by Skitash (talk) it does, you are of extremely bad faith, normally that wouldn't even require a source as it is obvious to any user of the language, in written form the latin arabizi form dominates, sources also mention this form so the least would be to mention it but that wouldn't go well with your arab everywhere 99% arabic muslim pov does it ?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

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

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

Comments:
Apart from the edit warring and POV-pushing, this user has persistently made personal attacks and casted aspersions on me (i.e. claiming that I have a political agenda), just because I reverted them for adding unsourced content.[18][19][20][21] Skitash (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv 21:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The content I added was sourced and Skitash is removing any content pertaining to berber elements or anything that says the country isn't 99% musltim/arab, he constantly pushes for a biased pov based on a a ethnically supremacist agenda Asmodim (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view on Wikipedia and strive to adhere to its policies. In this case, my intention was to ensure that the information presented accurately reflects the diversity of perspectives and historical facts regarding Tunisian heritage.

The user in question has been systematically removing sourced content that acknowledges the non-Arabic aspects of Tunisian ethnicity and language, as well as information about Berber ancestry. This raises concerns about the impartiality and accuracy of the content being presented on Wikipedia. Asmodim (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Note to Administrators: This user is continuing to edit war in Talk:Tunisian Arabic despite having been blocked for this just over 24 hours ago. They persist in indiscriminately copying and pasting an irrelevant section of text from Talk:Tunisians [22], a contribution made through a sockpuppet account of theirs, into the talk page of Tunisian Arabic, where it clearly does not belong. Skitash (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Pachu0168 reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Muay Thai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pachu0168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) "Do you believe only from the Cambodian side but not from the Thai side? We would like to confirm that there is insufficient evidence to confirm that Muay Thai has its origins in the Khmer Bokator, which is claimed from a temple wall. One of the more famous claims from temple wall is a martial art from India called that "Kalaripayattu" as Bokator Even though it's actually not."
2. 15:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 13:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC) "To protect the art of Muay Thai that has existed for a long time. I have to correct the information every time. To prevent Cambodia from trying to claim Muay Thai and not having enough evidence to claim."
4. 13:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC) "I try protect the art of Muay Thai that has existed for a long time. I have to correct the information every time. To prevent Cambodia from trying to claim Muay Thai and not having enough evidence to claim."
5. 13:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC) "It is claimed without any evidence that Muay Thai came from Cambodia. That evidence is not enough and only from the Cambodia side which is false."
6. 13:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC) ""
7. 13:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC) ""
8. 12:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC) "Note: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly removed sourced content from the article despite multiple users reverting them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't care about being banned, what I want is to demand justice and fairness for "Muay Thai History", not that Cambodian will suddenly claim the right to make a claim. and using insufficient evidence like this. Pachu0168 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @331dot: Would you mind taking a look at Pitcomman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Was hoping to avoid the rigmarole of an SPI as it seems to be an obvious WP:Quack case based on them resuming this edit war.[23] — Czello ^(music) 07:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's quacking enough for me. Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Cammurray0420 reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: Parblocked 1 week)

Page: SpaceX Starship second integrated flight test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cammurray0420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:
16:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Initial addition of material
07:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) User adjusted wording before start of edit war.
(Addition of "Boostback burn aborted at 00:03:18 due to engine failures and the vehicle was destroyed by AFTS at 00:03:21" or similar)
(Addition of "Burn aborted and vehicle terminated by AFTS at 00:08:05 due to propellent leaks causing vehicle to deplete fuel and oxidizer faster than expected" or similar)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1185984850...
2. 18:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1186057121...
3. 00:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Re-added material
4. 06:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1186285062...
5. 19:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Removed citation needed tags on material
6. 17:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1187040563...
7. 17:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1186909934...
8. 21:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1187532695...
9. 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1187541030...
10. 00:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1187653489...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 07:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments:
This report's focus is the slow edit war. While the reverts of multiple users occur over a period longer than 24 hours, this user has indicated they will not stop edit warring and outright rejected two attempts to resolve the dispute in discussion. In response to another user's attempt to open a discussion on their user talk page, Cammurray0420 responded, "How about... No." When I tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, Cammurray0420 responded, "no." Redraiderengineer (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week from SpaceX Starship second integrated flight test, for intention to edit war while refusing to discuss (e.g. 1, 2) – bradv 15:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Venkatphd reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Both parblocked 1 week)

Page: Animal (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1187775620 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
2. 09:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1187774858 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
3. 09:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1187774522 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
4. 09:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "Only warning: Adding spam links on Animal (2023 film)."
2. 09:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "/* December 2023 */"
3. 09:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "/* December 2023 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 09:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC) to 09:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC) on User talk:Venkatphd

Comments:

Repeated addition of "review" without a source, and reverting without explanation. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Diff #4 above (the first chronologically) may or may not be spam, like you reverted it for - and the reposting of the link here, and the retaliatory report predispose me to think you're right despite not having yet looked at the link - but it's not a revert, and it's not unsourced. —Cryptic 11:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It's Eenadu's website, so unless that's well-known to be some sort of horrifically unreliable tabloid that's managed never to be discussed on WP:RSN, it's not blockable spam. This is edit warring on both your parts, if not quite a bright-line 3rr violation. Take it to the article's talk page, both of you. —Cryptic 11:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. With your three reverts of Venkatphd, [24] [25] [26] plus this and this, you're well over 3rr yourself. None of the reverts look to be exempt. I'm willing to listen to why you shouldn't be blocked. —Cryptic 11:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Because as someone with a decade of experience of working on film-related articles, I'm following the sources that are considered reliable under WP:ICTFSOURCES. Also, the "Telugu" source of Eenadu cited is not in English -- how do you know it's been translated correctly? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't. I don't know that it's not, either. Are you claiming it isn't? It's not an excuse either way. Source unreliability is only exempt from edit warring if it's on a BLP, or so plainly egregious as to be obvious vandalism or spam. What is so urgent about these edits that you need to revert them right away? (I do acknowledge it's a heavily-edited article about a film that was released today.) —Cryptic 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

That's literally what maintaining the quality of an article looks like. Per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:CONSENSUS, the onus is on them to prove the reliability of their source and translation, when they have been reverted (which I did thrice, not four times, so it's not a 3rr violation either way; unlike theirs which was 4 times). Villianizing someone whose aim is to help Wiki articles on Hindi cinema maintain some sort of credibility isn't helpful. Plus, dredging up this revert of Bollywood Bubble which is explicitly listed as an unreliable source by WP:ICTFSOURCES is particularly disheartening. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week from the page Animal (2023 film). – bradv 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Pecinta Matematika reported by User:Ivanvector (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Seven Years' War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diffs from prior report leading to 24h block
   1. 15:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   5. 15:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   6. 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   7. 15:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC) ""
   8. 04:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC) ""

1. Post-block diffs:
   1. 10:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Warned
2. warned more strongly
3. blocked 24h
4. previous discussion still visible on this page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Seven Years' War#Please fix the edit warring

Comments:

User was blocked 2 days ago for edit warring on this article and failing to explain or discuss their edits. Barely 12 hours after the block expired they came back and made the same edits again. They still have not responded to messages on their talk page, nor used an edit summary nor edited a talk page ever. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week – bradv 15:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:Theknine2 (Result: )

Page: File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QuestFour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st
2. 2nd
3. 3rd
4. 4th
5. 5th
6. 6th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:Honey (Mariah Carey song)#File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png
2. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:
User:QuestFour has been consistently reverting changes on [[File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png]], constantly uploading the UK version of single cover, despite lengthy discussion in Talk:Honey (Mariah Carey song) about why the US/international single cover should be used instead. This user refuses to understand many valid rationale given by me and another user, instead choosing to rely on a few reasons that don't hold water. This user also has a long and repeated history of inciting edit wars, including uploading incorrect album/single covers, as clearly evident in User talk:QuestFour, so I recommend a stronger punishment for this user, so as to not waste the time of any more users. Theknine2 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Abazizfahad reported by User:Veggies (Result: )

Page: 2023 Israel–Hamas war protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abazizfahad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments: User declines to discuss the issue on the article talk page despite repeated requests. -- Veggies (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Veggies: I'm not sure why you reported only Abazizfahad and not Borgenland. Both (experienced) editors have violated 1RR on a page that is subject to a 1RR restriction.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge committing the violation out of frustration also at the other party's failure to engage in the article talk page and have since contacted the other party in their talk page. I accept sanctions that may be placed with regards to this. Borgenland (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Gonjabear reported by User:Rusty4321 (Result: )

Page: Baker City, Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gonjabear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: rev. 1183695872

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1187957897/1187962343

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1187964559

Comments:
Persistently removes three paragraphs at end of history section. When asked to stop, responds with something about how it is not accurate information. ([42],[43],[44], also in his reverts) Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 16:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

When I tried to discuss with said user about original research, he personally attacked me [45].

User:Beccaynr reported by User:Aman.kumar.goel (Result: )

Page: Divya Dwivedi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1187964370 by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) per WP:BLPUNDEL, rm poorly-sourced contentious content, being discussed at BLPN"
2. 15:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Dympies (talk): Rm per WP:BLPUNDEL, being discussed at BLPN"
3. 15:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Aman.kumar.goel (talk): Per WP:UNDEL, and pending discussion at BLPN; this appears to misrepresent the article subject; appears to misuse sources; appears to be editor-selected OR, and be contrary to NPOV and BLP policies"
4. 15:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Aman.kumar.goel (talk): Per WP:UNDEL, consensus needed; this is being discussed at BLPN"
5. 14:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Aman.kumar.goel (talk): Rm per WP:BLPUNDEL, being discussed at BLPN, out-of-context and misattributed, editor-selected OR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[46][47]

Comments:

Edit warring by using blatant misleading edit summaries. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Beccaynr

• I corrected my edit summary at 15:57, 1 December 2023 [48] "dummy edit to correct edit summary - WP:BLPUNDEL, not WP:UNDEL, as discussed at BLPN and previous edit summary"
• There is a pending discussion at BLPN that I referred to in my recent message to Aman Kumar Goel [49], and my previous message at 15:52, 1 December 2023 [50]. I have previously asked Aman Kumar Goel to discuss at 06:50, 28 November 2023‎ [51] and [21:04, 15 November 2023‎][52]

• Aman Kumar Goel has added disputed content over good-faith BLP objections, including during pending discussion at BLPN:
  • 10:06, 13 November 2023‎ [53] "simplify language" (restored disputed content)
  • 13:28, 1 December 2023‎ [54] "nothing wrong with this"
  • 15:42, 1 December 2023‎ [55] "No its fine"
  • 15:49, 1 December 2023‎ [56] "That discussion is already stale" (Aman.kumar.goel had commented in 'that discussion' (BLPN) about this disputed content at 13:25, 1 December 2023‎ [57], 13:27, 1 December 2023‎ [58])
  • 15:57, 2 December 2023 [59] "Can't edit war everyone"

• Some of this has overlapped with an IP range that was previously blocked for edit-warring from the article:
  • User:2402:a00:401:7c3e reported by User:Beccaynr (Result: /64 blocked for a week) filed 17:53, 16 November 2023

Beccaynr (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

My edits on 10:06, 13 November 2023‎ and 13:28, 1 December 2023‎ are not reverts. You have made at least 10 more reverts for removing the same cotent.[60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68], apart from what I have cited in the report, for removing perfectly sourced content by providing frivolous explanation of "WP:BLP" even after getting refuted on the talk page discussion.[69] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)