Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive418

User:Nicoljaus reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor was previously noted that the article, White Croats, as well those related to it like Croatia, are covered by discretionary sanction on Easter Europe however that as well as partial block didn't stop them as were blocked from editing for a period of 2 months and then 3 months because in the meantime started abusing multiple accounts. Now when the last block expired on 22 September it didn't need long that the editor returned from "retirement" and started edit warring on the same article to which brought only tiresome and pointless discussions, ignored editors consensus, and disruptive editing. A page restriction could be considered as well.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * According to this, the editor is actually subject to a 1RR restriction. --T*U (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake, just forgot (a lot has happened since last February). Wait, there were also sanctions against : . As I can see, this does not prevent him from edit warring: and no one remembers this Arbitration sanction. --Nicoljaus (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTHEM. Also, that was a false report: Mikola22 was not breaking 1RR. They made two consecutive edits (therefore counting as one) more than 24 hours after the first. --T*U (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, sorry again.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 09:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:94.204.247.58 reported by User:PatGallacher (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

This person has made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, 3 of them after being warned for edit warring, and has sometimes instantly reverted other people's edits with little attempt to address the issues. I think this is clear enough from the article history. I have attempted to address the issues on the talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The page history shows your every bit as guilty of edit warping as me. You've ignored WP:BRD and 3RR and now you're trying to bully through a block. Thank fully more sensible heads have made a better job of asking most of the material now. Though there is  clearly consensus still to be found on adding the incest stuff in better. Hopefully you'll discuss that on talk instead of just restoring your version when challenged 37.245.246.183 (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, you broke the 3RR, I didn't. PatGallacher (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Only if you game it over 24 hours. You certainly broke the spirit of it, and you continue to restore your preferred version without waiting for consensus on talk94.204.247.58 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – One week. The 'incest' stuff is weakly sourced. It seems to be due to different ways of reading what his daughter Sappho said in her posthumously-published diaries. The sources that speak definitely on the topic of incest appear to be self-published (Note the links to academia.edu, where users can upload anything, and mentions of Bruce Redwine as an author. He does not seem to be an academic). Durrell's fictional works contain references to incest by the characters, so it's unclear how much of the allegations about Durrell's own behavior were metaphorical. This is not a BLP issue since the parties are dead, but it's a chance to keep our article on a major author from being filled up with unverified stuff. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Trimperthon reported by User:PaleCloudedWhite (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff and diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

User:Trimperthon insists on adding text to the article's lead section, asserting in Wikipedia's voice what are only opinions expressed by individuals. On their talkpage they received several warnings about their editing, but responded by blanking the page - diff. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They have now blanked their talkpage again, thus removing my notification of this report (diff), and they have also made further reverts of other editors - diff, diff. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And another revert (diff). This user obviously isn't interested in Wikipedia process or what other editors are saying - their editing is only focussed on adding their own favoured content. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Quite. If I wasn't involved, I would block per WP:NOTHERE. SmartSE (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Two more reverts - diff, diff. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Worth noting the the user was adding commentary to the St. Louis McCloskey gun controversy page on the 8th of Oct. diff diff with the second one adding the edit reason (Truth). --Vvvx3 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – Indef by User:Canterbury Tail for WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:3100:D33:F079:8BB9:6C0D:BE1C reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "/* Home media */"
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"
 * 4)  "/* Plot */"
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "/* Home media */"
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"
 * 4)  "/* Plot */"
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "/* Home media */"
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"
 * 4)  "/* Plot */"
 * 1)  "/* Home media */"
 * 2)  "/* Plot */"
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps changing pipelink without a solid reason. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is pretty clearly, who was already blocked this morning for such edits, evading their block. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Ohnoitsjamie for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Wolbo reported by User:Drmies (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (restores part of the content removed earlier)
 * 2)  (with "unexplained" claim)
 * 3)  ("no argument provided for deletion")
 * 4)  (with the rather ridiculous "that is NOT an argument, it's a statement")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: -- I think they want me to fuck off, if that's what FO means. (I actually don't have the Duolingo app, and Wolbo may be using a language I don't know.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Note that a discussion was started by, which I appreciate; Wolbo's last revert came 18 minutes after my note on that talk page. Note that Wolbo was warned about 3RR just the other day, in relation to edits on The Championships, Wimbledon, where likewise their edit summaries were less than substantive and they didn't seek the talk page or the other editor's talk page. I am, as always, less interested in 3RR than in edit warring. And in hindsight, I should have made it clear, perhaps, that the content Wolbo wants to reinsert is essentially promotional, and maybe I should have just dropped a templated spam warning on their talk page every single time they reinserted the material: I think this version of theirs contains no fewer than sixteen links to the Duolingo website. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

For the record I believe my edits have not violated 3RR and have been made in a constructive spirit. The admin who reported me has made four reverts in violation of 3RR and does not assume good faith at all. Beacuse of that I decline to comment further as I consider any substantive discussion futile if AGF is not upheld. Will take the learning points from this and move on.--Wolbo (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Wolbo is warned they may be blocked if they edit again at Duolingo without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Editors who were undoing Wolbo are probably trying to enforce policy but should pay attention to the exact wording of WP:3RRNO in case of disagreement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Abbas Kwarbai reported by User:Curb Safe Charmer (Result: )
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

at Shirley Ze Yu (2, 3, 4 and 5 were consecutive, with nobody else's edits in between, so I don't think they constitute 3RR)
 * 1)   11 hours after uw-ew warning
 * 1)   11 hours after uw-ew warning
 * 1)   11 hours after uw-ew warning
 * 1)   11 hours after uw-ew warning
 * 1)   11 hours after uw-ew warning
 * 1)   11 hours after uw-ew warning

reverts by the same user to my edits in other articles in the last 24 hours:
 * 1)  at Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli
 * 2)  at Draft:Genevieve Leveille
 * 3)  at Draft:Genevieve Leveille
 * 4)  at Ahmed Nuhu Bamalli 11 hours after uw-ew warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and

Comments:

Abbas Kwarbai has been warned about ownership of articles but has become increasingly aggressive in their reaction to me improving the article or adding maintenance tags, i.e. a 'stay out' no-edit order. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you so much for reporting me into this place. Ever since, my activities on Wikipedia is base on my choice to write more article with few edition. A couple of times, I requested for assistance from different user, where curb appeared to be one of them but his has never help me. Later he appear to maltreat me here in Wikipedia by nominating investigation about me that the articles I created are mostly been paid me, he even make an instance with Dr Bindu Babu saying that she paid me because I have removed his edition of saying her PhD is from unrecognized university, but he later told me to provide prove if the university is accredited, I went there to search and I found that it's unaccredited university, and from there I stop editing her page completely except five days where I tried to applied for nomination of deletion of her page (which I want probe I have no connection with those whom I wrote article about them much less to talk of paying me). It became obvious what he is alleging me is not true as he can't prove it in the investigation tag. The investigation was suspended as he can't prove anything.


 * He added me on his watchlist following my footsteps to catch me with violation of Wikipedia act. I actually disrespect him when he started following me into my [draft:Genevieve] editing by adding verification fail,citation needed which really vex me to remove it because it is a draft not article and I must to recheck all the links I used before taking it to article, he also comment that Jersey is only from United States by reediting the article without clicking on blue link (which clearly shows that there is a province in United Kingdom called Jersey).I undo his edition immediately. Curb also appear to add (definition needed on his GMP) that's for Ahmad Nuhu Bamalli article's where numerous independent secondary reliable sources have mentioned it, and I told him it is a program carry out in Harvard university and it simply means General Management Program, for that reason I immediately remove his template.


 * In the case of Shirley Ze Yu, someone who isn't Curb added a template of "This article is an Orphan". So,based on what I understand for an article to be orphan, it has no any link attach to it. I later realised that Shirley Ze Yu has numerous links that attached to her article such as she is alumni of Kennedy school business administration, Harvard University, China Central Television news anchor, and her page appeared to be twice when searching it. To my level of understanding, any article with these informations isn't an orphan, as such I removed his template immediately.


 * I warned him to stop following my footsteps on Wikipedia because following someone like the way he use follow me is an indication that, that person is a criminal in Wikipedia. I don't respond to any editor who touches an article that I created because I know Wikipedia is for all. Free environment like Wikipedia will never encourage one to be following someone's footsteps by adding what curb is doing to me.


 * Finally, if I make any mistake about what in Wikipedia policy, I'm apologizing. Nonetheless, I want Wikipedia to intervene my issue with curb to stop involving into my activities completely as I know he has chance to edit what. I even declared on my talk page I don't want assist or intervention of User:Curb Safe to involve in my activities on Wikipedia.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You've now reverted two different editors who correctly placed an tag on Shirley Ze Yu. Please read over what orphaned articles are before continuing to remove the orphan tag from a page that has no inbound links.  Doing so is disruptive editing at minimum, and is entering the realm of edit warring.  Furthermore, please be sure to disclose any and all conflicts of interests in accordance with our policy of doing so, including any edits you're being paid to make. -- slakr  \ talk / 08:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Re, which is referred to in the response above, Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom. This can be seen by 'clicking on the blue link' to paragraph five of the article about Jersey. Coincidentally it is where I live. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:37.54.2.103 reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  16:08, 13 October 2020
 * 2)  12:22, 14 October 2020
 * 3)  12:26, 14 October 2020
 * 4)  12:29, 14 October 2020
 * 5)  12:58, 14 October 2020 (added after this report made)

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

Comments:

They have now made a 5th edit to add the non-existent category.-- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC) If the IP believed that their edits are correct, they should have WP:CITEd a source ... and if they believe that a category is misnamed, they should use WP:CFD to propose a rename. They should not editwar when challenged. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC) There is nothing correct about placing an article in a non-existent category. And the repeated misgendering is obnoxious. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The club was renamed. It is named FC Obolon Kyiv and FC Obolon-2 Kyiv not Obolon-Brovar already, see official site. My edits (only 3 reverts, first listed is not counted) are correct. His reverts are incorrect and without any reason (he reverted the page to very old name). 37.54.2.103 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP repeatedly added a non-existent category, contrary to WP:REDNOT. That it is why they were reverted.
 * Again, my edits were made because it is not Brovar already according this links: . This Brown is not friend for reality, and reverted many correct edits, it's a pity. 37.54.2.103 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP's edit did not WP:CITE any sourced, broke WP:REDNOT, and were repeated despite warnings. They continued even after a 3RR warning, and even after another editor reverted them. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This Brown did not read WP:5P, broke real events, and were repeated despite warning. They continued to deny the reality. 37.54.2.103 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I know WP:5P v well thank you. It's absurd to say an en.wp edit "break real events".
 * Nonsense again. If Brown has doubts about reality of renaming, it could ask the additional sources on the article talk page (trying to resolve dispute writing his important opinion), but not revert all correct edits and content immediately. 37.54.2.103 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing correct about repeatedly adding uncited information.
 * Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked the next time they try to add an article to a red-linked category. This action violates the guideline at WP:REDNOT. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:170.239.28.58 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cast */Vandalism? Please"
 * 2)  "/* Cast */"
 * 3)  "/* Cast */Why would you put an unofficial surname?"
 * 4)  "/* Cast */"
 * 5)  "/* Cast */Jones in not official."
 * 6)  "/* Cast */"Jones" is unofficial surname"
 * 7)  "/* Cast */"
 * 8)  "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Spider-Man: Far From Home."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP was invited to start a new talk page discussion, but has failed to do so.

Comments:
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Maxim.il89 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Page protected & Maxim.il89 blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Undid revision 983626452 by Koncorde (talk)Do you have some problem or something? Discuss the sources, there are 6 sources there - which is a blog?)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 983625103 by Koncorde (talk)Right, this is getting ridiculous. Which one of them is the blog? Why not just remove the blog reference? Why edit just for the sake of it? If one is a blog, it can be removed!"
 * 3)  "Here's a better idea - adding a "better citation needed" - again, the information is relevant, but if a better source is needed, apparently Wiki has a tag for it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 983565282 by Koncorde (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 983547107 by Grayfell (talk)No, you're just edit warring for your ego. If "many of those sources are pure garbage", remove the garbage sources - as User:Debresser has pointed out to you, removing everything because you don't like some of the sources is nonsense."
 * 6)  "Wow some people need to calm down. Use bloody talk page."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 983416516 by XOR'easter (talk)What's going on? I completely changed the references. Obviously the majority of Jews being Ashkenazi matters."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2020 */  WP:3RR"
 * 2)   "/* October 2020 */  Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed */  Reply"
 * 2)   "/* The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed */  Comment"
 * 3)   "/* The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed */  reply"

Comments:

This is a dispute over content originally added by an IP who is likely also Maxim.il89 around 11 October.

Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates has several editors, very little consensus, a battleground attitude, and a handful of personal attacks.

Above are four reverts of four different editors in a 24 hour period. Maxim.il89 seems confused about this and seems to think only one editor (me, I assume) has been reverting them. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added additional incidents last evening and this morning. User continues to insert information using blogs etc then cries when the information is removed that we should only be removing the blog sources. Today says "which ones are blogs?" when it is the first thing Grayfell pointed out to him on the TalkPage when trying to resolve the issue. Koncorde (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He continues to misunderstand basic notices on his talk page, and instead heads off to the other users talk page to attack others who leave 3RR or notices. Koncorde (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Context
I first ran into Maxim when he was a new editor trying to insert POV and tangentially related content to the wikispace of the club he supports. This is fine, and an example of many news users not quite understanding how things are often done, and for the most part he calmed down. But even now I can see he has returned to those sections on the main article space and again inserted the same rejected vanity content but has otherwise generally been productive and a lot of content is reasonable if routinely poorly sourced to fan made sources in some cases. I later ran into Maxim at the Chris Mullin talk page where he tried to do a move request. Procedural issues aside, I think you can see he replied to pretty much every single person that posted an oppose reason indicating the kind of one-2-one mentality he has with anyone that disagrees with his POV push.

For whatever reason from the 10th of October the user has become interested in Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence and has posted a mix of the same statements to multiple pages, from a relatively simple to the exceedingly complex which are generally filled with OR and SYNTH. Grayfell has raised this with the user repeatedly (and subsequently so have several other users) but he has ignored their arguments, and per this change on the talk page you can see that he has failed to read what Grayfell said to him and others have reiterated. Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This situation does not seem to be letting up. The user does not seem able to understand that he needs to stop this reinsertion of material in contravention of consensus. There may be competence issues here as he lashed out at the discretionary sanctions notification I left insinuating that it labeled him a believer in a genetic connection between race and intelligence. We need an admin to help. jps (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Debresser
I just want to say two small things, to put this report in perspective.
 * 1) As I see it, Grayfell is also being belligerent about this, including that he too is making the conflict too personal sometimes.
 * 2) The claim that Maxim.il89 is editing against consensus, supposes that consensus is not like his opinion. That is not so clear-cut as Grayfell suggests here, and there is serious opposition to Grayfell's edits, which have as a matter of fact been reverted and no other editor has repeated them.

So IMHO this report is not necessary, and I am confident that Maxim.il89 respects Wikipedia's core policy of consensus. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The context is Maxim.il89's claim that "Simply removing everything is just your ego." which was repeated several times. What, exactly, is belligerent about my response?
 * Maxim.il89 violated 3RR despite being warned specifically about this. All of this was to restore content added by Maxim.il89. Further, Maxim.il89 has been warned about edit warring multiple times by many editors over the past year. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure Debresser is looking at the same discussions as everyone else and seems to be misrepresenting the facts. Koncorde (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Response by maxim.il89
I went out of my way to look for more sources, change formulations, specifically say how I'm happy to collaborate on the formulation and stuff, and this can be seen from both the comments on my reverts and talk page. I'm sorry, but User:Grayfell knows exactly what he's doing - if it were about compromise, we'd be discussing both the good and bad references, we'd be looking for a better formulation.

This whole thing is over one simple line in the List of Jewish Nobel laureates. I added a sentence saying how most of those on the list are Ashkenazi Jews, which is relevant to the article (Jews aren't just one group). Everything else can be discussed, debated, and compromised upon, but for that there's need to have willingness to discuss and work together. Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You violated WP:3RR after being warned, and have been warned for edit warring several times before this. This edit, for example, is not "a single line". Several editors have tried to discuss specific issues with you about these edits on the talk page. Adding even more bad sources is not a solution to these problems. This has already been explained to you several times by several editors on the article's talk page. In order to come to a compromise, you first have to stop edit warring and recognize the reason this is disputed. The article's talk page is the place to do this. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Azuredivay reported by User:Prolix (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All attempts to contact the user have failed, user has continuously reverted to a version that does not comply with MOS:DIGITS. According to the user has a history of edit warring on other pages as well.  Pro lix 💬 12:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some disruptive editing on Stan Swamy I requested discussion on the talk page but no response Talk:Stan_Swamy Vikram Vincent 14:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Azuredivay is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert an article so that it violates MOS:DIGITS unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks !  Pro lix 💬 07:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

, I would like to point to this link [] wherein continues to violate with impunity the 3RR rule. It appears that the warning has had no effect. Vikram Vincent 08:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Grnwng reported by User:Hipal (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:15, 12 October 2020
 * 2) 22:43, 12 October 2020
 * 3) 11:34, 13 October 2020
 * 4) 19:40, 13 October 2020
 * 5) 21:04, 13 October 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:47, 12 October 2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:27, 13 October 2020 after first starting a discussion on the editor's talk page 22:27, 12 October 2020

Comments:

Grnwng's edit summaries and comments suggest this is a new account for an editor with some past editing experience. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see a blatant policy violation, I try to fix it. Unfortunately, I have encountered people who are absolutely unable to comprehend what a neutral point of view is. Grnwng (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to illustrate the madness I have encountered here: User:Hipal accused me of "original research" for removing the word "controversial" from the opening sentence of the article, and believes that "If it [a biased point of view] is well-referenced, then it's removal is a POV violation". I certainly hope that this user's belief that "X is a controversial Y" is somehow more neutral than "X is a Y" is not widely held. Grnwng (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent others. You're the one who thinks "a biased point of view" applies . Bringing it up again after it was rejected makes it look like you're not paying attention to what others say. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. But editors on the other side should look at WP:LABEL and reflect on whether 'controversial' is a good term to use. See also the reference in the first line of the article to pyramid selling which on Wikipedia is considered a type of fraud. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Grnwng's first edit after this block expired was to revert once again, without any further attempt at changing to consensus to do so. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Hipal made four reverts within a little over 24 hours but received no warning or sanction, strangely. This is an insane situation. The sentence "X is a controversial Y" has no place in Wikipedia. It blatantly violates the NPOV policy. No "consensus" can change that. "X is a Y" is neutral and verifiable, and to argue otherwise is absurd. And yet, this editor keeps on reverting to re-insert the word "controversial", accompanied by a "vague" tag. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous way to behave. Grnwng (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. What can we do to get you to stop edit-warring? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop inserting policy-violating text, and I will be able to stop taking it out again. Grnwng (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're not going to stop edit warring whenever you believe policy is being violated? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you not going to stop edit-warring to make an article violate policy? Grnwng (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. This isn't about me, but if you look at the header on my talk page, there's an answer to your question. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked again for immediate resumption of edit-warring, and according to talkpage it's against a growing consensus. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Blumoone reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Despite the fact she lives in London and I live in Coventry, 100 miles away from her"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 983915836 by Binksternet (talk) tabloids should not be used"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 983915731 by Binksternet (talk) unreliable source as you have been told before"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 983915498 by Binksternet (talk) Do not use a tabloid (Metro) for genres as it was confirmed by a "generally unreliable source" (WP:RSPSOURCES WP:GUNREL)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 983915371 by Binksternet (talk) Metro is an unreliable source"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 983915263 by Binksternet (talk)"
 * 7)  "Do not use a tabloid (Metro) for genres as it was confirmed by a "generally unreliable source" (WP:RSPSOURCES WP:GUNREL)"
 * 1)  "Do not use a tabloid (Metro) for genres as it was confirmed by a "generally unreliable source" (WP:RSPSOURCES WP:GUNREL)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Suspected sockpuppet of User:MariaJaydHicky (or any related account). (CC) Tb hotch ™ 01:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that user also reported to AIV. 180.244.144.193 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User:36.71.139.150 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 983598223 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) TW Tidak Vandal Langsa Log"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 983597986 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 3 edit by 983597702 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 983293565 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs on User:Danu Widjajanto/Vandal Langsa Log."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Result: The user has been globally blocked for a short time. User:Mifter has locked their talk page here and semiprotected the disputed page for a month. It seems possible this might be Sockpuppet investigations/Manda 1993. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Addicted4517 reported by User:Walwal20 (Result: protected, Walwal20 blocked for 24 hours following protection expiry)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hartley_Jackson&oldid=983278668

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

(same problem in The Mighty Don't Kneel    )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is one of the complex cases.
 * the general discussion begins here, in the AfD
 * discussion on whether Hartley was a member of The Mighty Don't Kneel begins here
 * and continues in the talk page here

Comments:

I tried working as a third opinion (maybe non-neutral; I had voted delete and later keep on the AfD) after asked for guidance in properly sourcing the article. The reverts actually began earlier and. After this last revert, I took some time to research the topic, the results are all in User:Walwal20/RfC_Hartley_Jackson. The RfC also contains Addicted's arguments against.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 10:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC) The complainer is trying to seek allowance for sources that are under WP policy not reliable, and inserting unrelated innuendo (per Melbourne City Wrestling) to back his case. Walwa refers to his draft RfC and has completely ignored the points I have made. His latest excuse is WP:BLPSELFPUB in which he seeks exceptions when in fact the sources are indeed unduly self serving and there is doubt as to it's authenticity. For example the Twitter tweet relies on original research to establish some sort of connection where none is proven. As it stands presently based purely on WP policy, Hartley Jackson was never a member of The Might Don't Kneel and my reversions are wholly acceptable to maintain this in the absence of appropriate, neutral (per the core rule of WP:BLP and independent. All of the sources violate the last one in particular. There is considerable controversy over the claim which is why sources have to be the appropriate ones. I believe I have done nothing wrong and at this point I am only reverting what amounts to vandalism of both articles. It is not unreasonable to expect appropriate sources, especially in BLP's. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering Addicted's somewhat hostile comments in Talk:Melbourne_City_Wrestling, I would suggest (if I may. I don't know how suitable it is of me to suggest this. My apologies if it isn't.) that this be investigated as a possible case of WP:Wikihounding, not against a specific person, but against a specific topic; in this case, Australian pro-wrestling.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 23:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * These diffs on Alexa Bliss also seem questionable to me, as the source he removes seems proper and includes a video proving the statements he reverted. Pinging and  in case they want to add anything here. Overall, navigating Addicted's edit history, I think it could be a case of WP:CTDAPE also.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 00:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An attempt of WP:CANVASing was made User_talk:Jammo85. A warning was issued even though WP:CONSENSUS on the subject has not yet been achieved.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 03:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Additional re Alaxa Bliss edits - Wrestlinginc is listed at WP:PW/Sources as not reliable. This is due to their use of people who are listed as unreliable. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems like a rather complex content dispute. In my opinion it may have been better to seek more input on the wrestling project first before doing an ANI.★Trekker (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This ANI is not about the content dispute, it's about the violation to WP:3RR. If you're outnumbered, you should never keep reverting others. The content will be discussed in the post that you mentioned, which was created by me, even though Addicted should have been the one to do it, since he's outnumbered. Addicted does not want consensus, he wants to enforce his view only.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 06:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . You are correct to call in assistance for what is definitely a content dispute. Note also that Walwa is trying to use pure numbers (two vs one) to overcome clear policy issues with their edits that I am rightly reverting. I would like a consensus, but when policy points are totally ignored this becomes impossible. Policy will always trump numbers and I do not feel restrained by numbers when policy is not being held to. It's called being bold in the firm belief in the absence of any contrary information enforces my actions as correct. Perhaps there has been a touch of edit warring, but when one is faced with edits that is totally ignoring policy it constitutes vandalism, and that is a valid exception to 3RR (along with the fact that I never reverted more than three times in 24 hours). Now that both pages have been protected with my version in place perhaps the content can be addressed properly and finally per policy. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is not clear policy issues, and you have myself, Jammo85 and DrewieStewie against you. You placed your ego and beliefs above WP:CONSENSUS. Best,  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 08:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is policy issues because now three users are claiming the sources are reliable when it is clear according to policy that they are not, as I explained fully on your RfC draft. You are yet to fully explain how these notes are not correct through policy. That is why we do not have a consensus and as long as you persist with this line there will never be one - and that's a bad thing. Instead of POV pushing to get your way, discuss the issue on your draft RfC. Start by showing in policy how I am incorrect. It's a simple task. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 07:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I was the one who requested protection here, specifically so that there is time for this ANI to be answered. Can you not make it the result of this ANI, please? Best,  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please do not close this ANI for this reason as it does not resolve the issue at hand. It is a content dispute. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Noting that I am here because of User talk:GorillaWarfare (permalink). The page protection seems to have addressed the edit war for the moment, so now is the time to try to come to an agreement on the article talk page. While Addicted4517 would probably have been better off requesting admin intervention rather than continuing to revert the edits themself, I do not see the need for additional admin intervention here. I'm personally sympathetic to Addicted4517's request for reliable, independent sources to verify the contested claim about a BLP. Surely there are sources besides Facebook pages and blogs that could be used? If you are unable to reach an agreement among the three of you, WP:3O might be useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also restored the "Result: protected" that was removed by Walwal20. Walwal20, you're welcome to continue the discussion even after the discussion has had a result recorded, but please don't remove the result that another user has recorded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , "Surely there are sources besides Facebook pages and blogs that could be used?" really offends me in many ways. I went to extra miles, at Jammo85's request, to find archived official sources such as, let alone  and , which are not social media sources. Addicted is focusing on social media specifically to manipulate your opinion, and you have fell for it. The whole story is told User:Walwal20/RfC_Hartley_Jackson, together with Addicted's comments, if you want to take a look. Finally, this ANI is not a discussion of sources, it is a discussion of a violation of WP:3RR, which has not been addressed yet (could very much close it as no violation was observed, or something of the sorts, if you will).  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 04:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think this comment clearly shows the lack of good faith in this ANI. He is now casting aspersions against both of us (especially me) in a vain attempt to garner sympathy over sources that are not reliable for reasons I have already addressed - to be honest this is close to a violation of WP:NPA. This matter is about a content dispute, not 3RR which I never violated anyway per the limits mentioned. EW is of course beyond that, but the core is the said content dispute. Further, there has been a development on the talk page of Hartley Jackson that also has an effect on the TMDK article. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a noticeboard on Edit warring and 3RR, so yes it is about WP:3RR/warring. If it happened or not, that should be something for the admins to judge.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 07:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit warring happened, it's been addressed, and now it's time for you to come to an agreement on the content of the page so that when the protection expires this doesn't reoccur and result in sanctions. It might be worth seeking outside input on the acceptability of the sourcing, since it appears you can't agree. Moving that draft RfC to the article talk page and filing it as an official RfC seems like a reasonable choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I regret to advise that the moment the page became unprotected, Walwa promptly re-started the problem without a consensus on the talk page. I have warned him formally on his talk page and if he reverts again without discussing it appropriately I will be returning here and starting a new report. Just a heads up. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to notify me directly if it happens again. consider this a warning: achieve consensus FIRST, then make the agreed-upon edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is consensus. The discussion has been up since 27 September, and there are walls and walls of discussion already. There must be a limit to discussions where unanimity cannot be achieved (Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not unanimity). I intend to revert per support of Walwal20 at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, Jammo85 at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, SeosiWrestling at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, HHH Pedrigree at Talk:Hartley_Jackson, DrewieStewie at User_talk:DrewieStewie, Ravenswing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 07:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. Most of the users only provided sources and did nothing else. The reversion is against instruction from an admin. I will leave that there. Action should now be taken, and in order to preserve the page against another edit war I will hold on reverting myself for now. The current edit on both Jackson and TMDK as it stands contains unreliable sources and should be removed with the claims they are attached to. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If consensus had been achieved, as you claim, there would not have been a need for intervention at this noticeboard. I have Walwal20 for 24 hours for continuing the edit war against my express warning. I don't understand why you have chosen to continue edit warring rather than moving your draft RfC to be live, so you can gain formal consensus with outside opinions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:Lordpermaximum (Result: Filer indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

This editor constantly violates WP:RS and reverts references from green sources at WP:RSP such as The Independent.Perm 16:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Observer comment:
 * NEDOCHAN made an edit
 * Lordpermaximum reverted
 * Lordpermaximum added content
 * NEDOCHAN reverted
 * Lordpermaximum reverted
 * NEDOCHAN reverted
 * Lordpermaximum reverted
 * NEDOCHAN reverted

I count 3 reverts for each participant, while noting that NEDOCHAN began a talk page discussion on Talk:Stephen Thompson (fighter) to discuss the issue, but Lordpermaximum has not participated in it. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. You counted wrong. He reverted it 4 times in the span of 7 hours 17 minutes. You forgot to count this one.
 * 2. The last and the 4th revert was done at 15:36. He opened the talk page section at 15:40.Perm 16:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I consider this an edit to fix the infobox per WP:MMA. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The initial edit was not a revert; it was a fix to bring the article into compliance with the project guidelines. I don't see clear evidence of it being a revert. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Karate" part of the fighter's style was deleted by NEDOCHAN 4 times in the span of 7 hours 17 minutes by referencing to an almost inactive project thus overriding WP:RS and disregarding a green source from WP:RSP. If it can't be counted as a revert than I accept that there has been 3 reverts by him.Perm 16:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And why have you not discussed this matter at Talk:Stephen Thompson (fighter)? —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was counted as 4 reverts. If you don't count it as a revert, I'm happy to discuss it there.Perm 16:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I also want to say I discussed this matter with him at my own talk page here: User_talk:Lordpermaximum. Best, Perm 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC).


 * I would sincerely ask whoever assesses this complaint carefully to view the edit history of Lordpermaximum. In their short time editing, they have started BLUDGEONING their points in RS Noticeboard, on the BLP noticeboard, started an RFC -the replies to which they have edited and moved. Their heavily edited talk page shows several editors pleading with them, only to get more BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I haven't time to do this properly, as their editing is so disruptive listing it all would take ages. A simple look through their edits shows just how exasperating it has been.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was given a warning from an administrator for the editing I've done to my posts after others saw it. I did not know it was not permitted and I haven't done anything like that again. Why did you bring it up here? It's irrelevant.Perm 16:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is also a text book example of WP:HOUND. Why did the editor suddenly review my edit to Stephen Thompson?NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: Lordpermaximum has been blocked for a week by for a long list of offenses including edit warring. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
 * User:Lordpermaximum is now indef blocked by User:KrakatoaKatie for reasons stated in the block notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

User:184.58.230.245 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 984230239 by Ivar the Boneful (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 984040394 by Less Unless (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 984040394 by Less Unless (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 984040394 by Less Unless (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 984040394 by Less Unless (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)

Comments:

Warning was issued on IP's talk page earlier. Zim Zala Bim talk 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 year. Escalation from 3 months, 6 months, now one year. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Jatin1234567890 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No historical proof of destruction of cities"
 * 2)  "False info, No reliable citations"
 * 3)  "No historical record for Sher Shah Suri ever doing any religious persecution"
 * 4)  "Building of Grand Trunk Road and cities in India"
 * 5)  "Religion integration"
 * 6)  "Sher Shah Suri never had any religious campaign ."
 * 1)  "Religion integration"
 * 2)  "Sher Shah Suri never had any religious campaign ."
 * 1)  "Sher Shah Suri never had any religious campaign ."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* New user blanking/removing referenced material */ new section"

Comments:
 * Result: User:Jatin1234567890 is warned for edit warring. No block because the above edits are more than 24 hours old. If the user resumes, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:Oea the King (Result: No action)
User: Page in dispute:

He has broken the three revert rule on a talk page after a crazy conspiracy theory about me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind&oldid=984388798

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind&oldid=984387548

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind&oldid=984381605

This seems to clearly violate the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am in process of filing an SPI. All of these fall under WP:BE per the WP:QUACK test and are WP:3RR exempt. Note that the editor did not notify me, also. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am new and forgot to do that. I would like to avoid having older editors revert my talk page comments based on theories of conspiracy. This is unfair to me and to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You're new, but just happen to be diving into the exact same relatively obscure talk pages for two unrelated topics, and my talk page out of the blue, using exactly the same talking points, and incorrectly linking to the exact same Wikipedia essays? You also immediately know the location of an IP you claim to be unaffiliated with? Nah. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My first edits were about politics and the western bias in Wiki. I saw a science article that was wrong (the Ashkenazi one) and saw you there engaging in biased conduct and tried to clean up articles where this was at work. I attempted to work this on the talk page at first before you harassed me. I looked up the IP that you accused me of, which is apparently an American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Non-admin comment: yeah, I’m siding with Grayfell on this one. They make great points. How exactly did you find a specific editor if you’ve never edited Wikipedia before? Removing sock activity and reverting vandalism doesn’t count as edit warring/3RR-breaking. You can’t take these things to heart, you need to WP:Grow a thick skin. I see you have reverted my edit to that talk page, I will be reverting it now. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I read the comments for the AFD and saw blatant bias from editors, and tried to talk about articles where this was at work and distorting consensus on the science. Oea the King (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Non-admin reply: I just got out of a block, I know how many pages you can edit what you’re blocked. One. Your own talk page. I will be reverting your blatant block evasions now. See your talk page. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Non-admin did a report also before saw this one, I'm also of the belief this is a block avoidance by previous IP NZFC  (talk) (cont)  21:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is possible evasion of the block of who has also posted on the disputed talk page. The IP was blocked 72 hours for edit warring by User:GorillaWarfare. Judging from this diff, They appear to be interested in the topic area of Race and intelligence. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with procedures here and I'm not confident enough to indef the filer per QUACK at this stage, but I would like to do a no-action close of this because noticeboards should not be available for such blatant retribution. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This case is exempted of the 3RR because User:Grayfell was reverting a sock. They weren’t edit warring either, so I think it’s safe to close. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 23:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I made exactly three reverts, which is not a 3RR violation. Grayfell (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The SPI is here: Sockpuppet investigations/96.44.5.219. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since User:Grayfell didn't violate 3RR. Other admins may follow up as they think best. For example, there is an SPI open about the filer. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User:MarioProtIV and User:Destroyeraa reported by User:137.189.220.244 (Result: Declined)
Page: ,

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: Teddy:, Delta:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Teddy
 * 1) Special:Diff/984360290
 * 2) Special:Diff/984398645
 * 3) Special:Diff/984400855
 * 4) Special:Diff/984401195
 * Delta
 * 1) Special:Diff/984231434
 * 2) Special:Diff/984338389
 * 3) Special:Diff/984400089

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mario: Special:Diff/983586017, Destroyeraa: Special:Diff/983585988

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2020 Atlantic hurricane season

Comments: These two uesrs violated WP:3RR in Hurricane Dorian last week, and has been warned by User:Mifter. Unfortunately, the two have once again triggered edit war in Hurricane Teddy and Hurricane Delta. IMO they are touching the red line of WP:EW, and administrative action may be required. 137.189.220.244 (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment: neither of them have broken the 3RR. You need four reverts, per user, on the same page for it to be a 3RR violation. Also: the user reporting has not notified either of the two users being reported. I will do that now. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The dispute has been resolved between the parties. Thank you. Now, please look at Teddy's talk page before reporting us unknown user. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the edit warring on Hurricane Teddy has been resolved, the edit warring has stopped and the page has been unprotected. I suggest closing this with no action, I'll ping on his opinion. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it rather suspicious that this user's first edit was reporting other users. It may be a logged-out user but I cannot determine who. In addition, this User has been following us around too. May be an accidental IPhop. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 12:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * As noted, no violation of 3RR, and when the first action of an IP is to file a report, that's at best a little fishy. —C.Fred (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Lockdown101 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 15:03, 20 October 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

The editor is obviously as well, and is also edit-warring at List of people from Derry and St Columb's College


 * I'm counting the addition of the material and then only three reverts today, so there's no violation of 3RR to this point. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Cedar777 reported by User:Wikieditor19920 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This page is subject to 1RR. User violated the 1RR with non-consecutive edits spaced several hours apart (with intervening edits by other users). Thus far has seemingly refused to acknowledge or cure the violation. Warning posted at their talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * While I agree this is a violation, I think it was incidental. I've largely be in agreement with Wikieditor and opposed to Cedar777's edits but I think this was a good faith oversight on a contentious topic.  So long as Cedar777 promises to be more careful I hope that would be sufficient.  Springee (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The first diff listed above was an action performed by another editor. The edits I made at Andy Ngo were not reversions, they clarified the content and carefully adhered to the sources of Willamette Week and the Oregonian.  The reporting user has incorrectly associated my actions with a source I did not use.  Once again today, as with yesterday, my time to address this matter is extremely limited until late in the day (Pacific Standard Time). Please note that I have made no further edits after the user brought their concerns to this page.  When I observed the Andy Ngo page yesterday evening, it was undergoing a large number of edits and reverts, which included several actions performed by the reporting user.  Despite my request for clarification, what the reporting user expected me to self-revert, in the middle of all that ongoing page activity, was not clear.  I will be unable to follow up on this matter for several hours.  If this page is no longer a suitable place to address the issue, please kindly advise where best to do so.  Sincerely, Cedar777 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Cedar777 is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Andy Ngo unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Grnwng reported by User:Hipal (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Continuation of edit-war reported at Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive418

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:15, 12 October 2020
 * 2) 22:43, 12 October 2020
 * 3) 11:34, 13 October 2020
 * 4) 19:40, 13 October 2020
 * 5) 21:04, 13 October 2020
 * Blocked
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Blocked again
 * 1) 00:51, 20 October 2020‎

Comments:

Continuation of the same edit-war where Grnwng has been blocked twice already, and has now reverted nine times. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement X is a a controversial Y is a blatant violation of NPOV! Writing that in the very first sentence of any article is crazy. And all you have to do to fix it is remove the word "controversial". User:Hipal claims not to understand this, but has tagged the word as inadequate, even while edit warring to keep it in the first sentence. What an utterly ridiculous way to behave. They have also been permitted to break the 3RR without facing any sanction. Grnwng (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admin reply: this is your report. Focus on yourself. If you want to file a report against that user, go ahead. You’ve also violated the 3RR plenty of times at this point. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 11:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Indef'd by JzG. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * – by User:JzG per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

User:BawinV reporter by User:Trillfendi (result: )


. . ..

Just yesterday I was thanked for an edit that user BawinV now wants to edit war about. Maybe there’s a misunderstanding, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt. All I did was put a neutral note about one of the genres. Across Taylor Swift’s album articles there is a sport of arguing day in and day out about her genres, I don’t participate in that. Across the Internet it’s even worse. If one is to call something released by one of the world’s largest record labels “independent” or “indie” just because it “sounds” a certain way, you might was well call The Avengers an “indie” movie too. For people to stop conflating (and therefore further arguing), what exactly is the harm of leaving a simple note that leaves opinions out of it? Trillfendi (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. There was no edit war.
 * 2. The above user is literally doing WP:OR, because critics definitely didn't have any problem calling the album “indie-folk”. It is the user Trillfendi that is creating an imaginary dispute that doesn't exist in the first place.
 * 3. Surprise! "The Avengers" wasn't call an indie movie. Too bad.
 * 4. What is the harm in not fabricating non-existent “arguments”? Many critics described the album as Indie-folk, thus the genre is in the infobox. That's it. It ends there. There's literally no other complications. Trillfendi wants to accessorize the infobox with a note (based on pure WP:OR) that isn't needed in the first place.
 * PS: The "thank" was from me, and it was my misplaced finger - an accident. LoL. BawinV (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It was an accident you had to confirm, otherwise you would’ve pressed cancel.... Lie again. You’ve been here far long enough to know what edit warring is and it started with (and how much “thinking” went into it if you claim it’s imaginary?). Neither of which change the fact that independent art means it independently released. The genre’s own article says the shit. It’s not hard. It takes all of one click. You don’t own the subject of Taylor Swift. Trillfendi (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're typing paragraphs and paragraphs of your original research... for what?? I said it already and I'll say it again. I find it funny you're constantly talking about me personally while I'm only talking about how your edit is literally superfluous. I'm just so weirded out by the fact that you don't seem to understand how Indie is a musical genre/sound/style, not just a type of music production/distribution. Regards. BawinV (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admin reply:  those diffs you added were over the span of two days, therefore not a 3RR violation. You can’t cancel/confirm a thank. And indie isn’t short for independent. It’s a genre of music. Sources say "indie-folk", not "indie". Please also be nice, and maybe don't swear, especially when you’re actually more at risk of a block. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing about the genre itself (hence why an operable, blue link to whatever music critics said so is there). I’ve never edited indie folk so I’m not the person who wrote in its lead that indie folk is “distributed by an independent label”. So if indie folk music is distributed by an independent label, and this album wasn’t, there is the rub. What exactly is the issue with saying this particular album is demonstrably not in that paradigm of a distribution model. That is a fact. Once again, no one is arguing about the genre. Next time someone’s finger “slips” twice to thank me they should keep that in mind. Trillfendi (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a user with 10 edits who didn’t provide a source...smfh. So there shouldn’t be a efn note. Tbh I’m trying to stifle my laughs. Not to be rude, it’s just ironic and funny how an edit war over two experienced users started with an unsourced add. No offence or anything. It’s also not that hard to check the page history to see who even added the statement. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Though it wasn’t sourced as a lead sentence (the article is an anemic stub that would best be merged anyway), yet it isn’t an incorrect statement either, let history be the judge. The people who want to appeal to authority on what the subgenre “sounds” like have no source either evidently. Trillfendi (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit blatant is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and thus, should be removed. BawinV (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment: there are no diffs provided. User:Trillfendi please add diffs of edit warring. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-admin reply: also, only has two reverts to Folklore (Taylor Swift album).  has three reverts. Neither of you have broken the 3RR. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Trillfendi should be warned for adding editorial commentary;, I appreciate what you did, and it proves that yes, admins always preserve the wrong version. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough. Trillfendi (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , lol yep. —valereee (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Trillfendi reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  16:21 UTC, Oct 21, 2020
 * 2)  19:51 UTC, Oct 21, 2020
 * 3)  20:10 UTC, Oct 21, 2020
 * 4)  21:01 UTC, Oct 21, 2020

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned them

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not been reverting, that’s User:BawinV, but they only have had 2 reverts in a 24hr period, where as Trillfendi has had 4 in the same time period. User:Valereee has made a talk section here and has fully protected the page.

Comments:

This user has reverted 4 times in a 5 hour period. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Are y'all seriously edit warring over "indie" vs. "indie folk"? That's pathetic. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? No?? Trillfendi added an unnecessary note and I'm removed it because it's superfluous, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. BawinV (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-administrator comment the claim that "indie folk albums are released under independent labels" is not sourced, so it's not a strongly grounded reason to dismiss Folklore as an indie folk album. Critics have voiced their opinions, so what are we fighting about? An overview of the genre can be found here, which mentions nothing about the relation with independent labels. I understand that "indie" is a connotation for "independent", but the term "indie music" has expanded to describe music released under big-name labels as well. HĐ (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll note, as I did at the article talk, that no one had opened a talk section in over a month and no one had even commented at talk in three weeks. Instead two different editors came here first. —valereee (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Nandorfehervari reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

User Perryprog notified Nandorfehervari about the issue of adding unsourced information on their talkpage, and I have asked for a reference multiple times as well. Instead of simply adding a reference, Nandorfehervari replied Reference already sent which is untrue. Semsûrî (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)}}
 * I believe they were referring to their reply to the message I sent on their talk page. I would also would like to note that I feel it could have been worthwhile to have left a note on their talk page sooner—there were five reverts made of the user's change before I brought it up on their talk page. Finally, I feel like this is a bit of a weird edit-war: while I am not well-informed in this topic, after doing some research it does seem like the attack was performed with the purpose of targeting Alevis, regardless of ethnicity. Would adjusting the sentence to state "[...] more than one hundred Alevis [...]" be sufficient to resolve this conflict? Perryprog (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This would also match the wording used in the linked article about the Grey Wolves: "Their most notorious attack, which killed over 100 Alevis [...]" Perryprog (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether their ethnic background played a role depends on who you ask, but Turkey does tend to minimize the ethnic aspect in every domestic social disturbance. New Statesman wrote in 1989: In 1978, several hundred Alevis were massacred in the town of Maras. This March, the man who is widely held to have been connected with the massacre was elected mayor of Maras, on an explicitly anti-Kurdish platform Even if their religious beliefs was the sole cause and the victims were Kurds coincidentally, I still don't think mentioning ethnic background should be neglected. If the user above has reliable references about Alevi Turks also being the victims, it can be added. It should be mentioned that most Alevis in Maras are Kurds. --Semsûrî (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. This makes sense to me, and also matches the sources I read—I (now) ultimately think you're right on the necessity of a source stating that Alevi Turks were victims of the massacre, which so far has not been supplied. Perryprog (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If the user does not intend to take part here, I don't see a path forward but simply revert their edits. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me—they seem to have gone inactive since this report was made. (I assume you'll do the revert.) Perryprog (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not quite resolved still—since the last comment (directly above this one), there has been a second 3RR violation (edit as of 12:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC): I was mistaken, there were three reverts, so this point is moot.), as well as a message on my talk-page which is essentially a response to the report here. I feel like this is really just a content dispute. No actual warnings have been given, and I doubt is aware of the three revert rule. For that reason, I doubt that this really even belongs on this noticeboard. (Potentially would be better on the dispute resolution noticeboard or possibly ANI.) Perryprog (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Every single article and source mentions that the targets were Alevis, Kurds and leftists. This is itself evidence that Turks are among the victims. https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/turkey/29122013 "He explained that Kurds were not the only victims of the attack, adding that progressive and leftist Turks who had opposed the official policies of Ankara were also included." http://www.t-vine.com/kahramanmaras-marks-40th-anniversary-of-maras-massacre/ "“Whether they are Alevi or Sunni, it does not matter,” he said. “Those killed here were not just Alevi, there were 10 to 11 Sunnis as well." there are many more examples I can come up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandorfehervari (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

User:LordRogalDorn reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Topic ban)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, (edit summary)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He was already blocked for the same reason. He was explained why his edits were problematic. I think he is unable to understand one of our basic policies even if three editors from three countries try to explain him in three different way. Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments:


 * As I explained user Borsoka here: []. I was blocked for a different reason. It was not the edit itself, but the fact that I did not mention I made that edit in the absence of explicit opposition []. "you could have left a note on the article's talk page that, in the absence of explicit opposition, in a few days you would have repeated the edit. If you had done any of those things, I would not have blocked you". The Admin did not say that my edits were problematic. In fact, the admin said []: "The point is not that you were right or wrong on the merits, the point is that, when your edits are reverted, you should discuss and find consensus, rather than simply keep reverting back". I was temporarly banned strictly because of the edit warring (not mentioning I'm reverting back after days of silence from the other user), it was not a temporarly ban based on vandalism and disruptive editing.
 * Meanwhile, another user took my old edits and reposted them [], user Borsoka opposed him just like he opposed me [], but that user quoted a part of the policy "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" (WP:PRIMARY) and turns out he was right [], then user Borsoka made no further objections and did not oppose his edits for 15 days, so my original edits remained part of the article and became the new status quo.
 * As it stands right now, user Borsoka is undoing the status quo version arguing "OR", when in fact the content he tries to remove is sourced.


 * 1.Last status quo version: []
 * 2.Borsoka's first revert: []
 * 3.My revert of his revert: []
 * 4.Borsoka's second revert: []
 * 5.My second revert of his revert: []
 * 6.LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do I need to comment on the above message? I think it is clear: WP:NOTHERE. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does the WP:NOTHERE come from? I didn't have bad intention in either cases. In the former case, as I mentioned, user Borsoka stopped replying on the talk page. After a few days I assumed he dropped the conversation and reverted the edits. The rest was explained above, the point I'm trying to make is that I didn't know that I have to mention 'in the absence of explicit opposition' as I thought it was evident from the talk page. Then, the status quo version was the one enforced by Borsoka, I was the one coming with new edits, so the edit warring was on me. But in the present case, the situation is the opposite. I am the one enforcing the status quo version, while Borsoka is the one coming with new edits. As for the policy, I quoted him part of the policy that shows I'm right, his response was to quote me back the same policy I quoted him, saying "you misunderstood our policy" with no further explaination even after I asked for it. I may not have experience on Wikipedia, but I understand that Wikipedia's policy is a set of rules all users should follow, and from the previous incident that in the case of an edit war the status quo version should be the one standing until consensus is reached, this looks to me like WP:BOOMERANG. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that User:LordRogalDorn isn't going to stop, and is not receptive to advice. In the above, he seems to be insisting that anything which is sourced can be included in Wikipedia, making no assessment of whether a primary source from the 16th century is a good source for what actually happened in history. Trying persuasion at this point seems unlikely to work. It could be time for a longer block or a topic ban under WP:ARBEE, since they are already alerted to the sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that   was partially blocked for one week on 25 September for edit warring, I think you have a point about the topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC) corrected 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was not blocked on 25 September. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My deepest apologies. I put the wrong user name there. LordRogalDorn was partially blocked that date, not you. I'll go get another coffee before I edit further. :) —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We are humans. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston, please, explain me why am I still at fault when Borsoka broke the status quo? Isn't the status quo version supposed to be the one staying on the page before an edit war starts? Not to mention that Borsoka made no attempts to discuss this on the talk page. Just because I am the one who got bocked for edit warring in the previous report, it doesn't mean I'm automatically the one in this report as well. Especially when the situation is reversed. I am literally asking for advice right now, to explain it to me so that I can understand the way Wikipedia works, the reasoning. As it appears to work randomly at the whim of some users. I made no assessment because user Borsoka never asked me for such a thing, he didn't accept the fact that I was using a primary source from start, let alone ask the reason why it would make sense in this particular case. If you wish to, I can provide an explaination why. Persuasion was never tried, I was hit with "it's like me" despite the policy's text and when I asked for further explaination was ignored. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Simple: other editors are not here to play your game and to entertain you. If you have not been able to understand a basic policy, copied word by word and explained by multiple editors, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Just for the record: it was you who wanted to place two sentences in the article quoting two 16th-century scholars without establishing their relevance - so I have been the one to restore status quo after waiting for verification for days. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I played no game. Please provide a diff with "basic policy, copied word by word and explained by multiple editors" as this didn't happen. I told you the policy [], you just quoted the same text I refered you to back to me with no other explaination [], imagine how helpful that was, then said "you misunderstood our policy" [], how is this even explaining? it is mockery at best. The 2nd user only made one single comment on the issue [], that was his whole contribution. I replied to him with this [], and he didn't reply. Would you call that explaining? I wouldn't call it. And the 3rd editor didn't even side with you. These are your 3 editors who apparently have been trying explain me in three different ways. While your argument for reverting my edits was "OR" (which was not the case), as opposed to "use of primary sources is not always allowed" as it seems to be the real reason, hardly any explaining. I am here to build an encyclopedia and wanted to contribute to Wikipedia. Just for the record: I explained their relevance in the talk page, multiple times. And it's not like I didn't ask for an explaination []. The page was called "Origin of the Romanians", the chapter "Origin of the Theories", the section about middle ages historians talking about the origin of the romanians. After that user told you the policy, you stopped discussing with him and reverting his edits for 15 days. No verification was needed as "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". This is not to say that "anything which is sourced can be included in Wikipedia", there are certain conditions: "Unless restricted by another policy" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", the quotes I added pass both of these concerns: they are not personal interpretations and don't need specialized knowledge to understand them. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHERE: either because he does not understand the quoted text, or because he pretends that he does not understand it. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Explain me, how the quoted text does not make my primary source material fit to be used without a secondary source? and this will likely end all discussion. As I believe this is where all this divergence comes from. You originally told me that all material on Wikipedia requires a secondary source (the reason is obvious, we need the opinions of specialists). I looked into the policy and saw that under certain conditions, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia. I already explained here and back then why I believe the quoted text says my primary source is good to be used in Wikipedia (the conditions it meets). You did not explain me, [], [], even when I asked for it []. Explain me using the quoted text how I "you misunderstood our policy"? What does the quoted text actually mean and what part from the text I got wrong? As for WP:NOTHERE, really? My addition to the article were two paragraphs with sources to back them up, regardless of whether the policy is or isn't in my favor (I think it is), it's pretty safe to say that I was far from attempting to vandalise or destroy the page. What WP:NOTHERE am I gulty of? I didn't promote any products or myself, obviously this isn't a socializing website, my edits were not for laughs, I obviously don't enjoy this and would have rather avoided this battleground alltogether, dishonesty, where? I literally asked you to explain it to me so you can't tell me that I didn't attempt to collaborate, no threats or harrassment, if I was in it for the "productive editor" badge I would have avoided all conflict. What is really the WP:NOTHERE that you accuse me of? LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I will not explain it to you again. There were two other editors and an administrator who also made an attempt to explain it to you. Sorry, I will ignore your remarks here. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to explain it to me again, you would have had to explain it to me in the first place. Unfortunately, you don't know what you are talking about. As explained above, the so called 2 editors that you keep invoking don't exist, one only made one comment and the other did not even side with you, the diffs are above to prove, and when it comes to the admin, beside him also saying that your three people three explainations for days is a hoax, I already said in the first comment that he never criticized my discussion with you, only the edit war, but keep insisting on things that didn't happen, I've seen the way Wikipedia works and you might win, given the fact that I wrote paragraphs to explain myself while in your case a few one liners is enough to believe you, despite insisting on things that are shown by diffs as not true. Funny how you claim that I misunderstood the policy but avoid explaining how I misunderstood the policy, I think it's clear what happens next. Honestly, I expected a lot more from Wikipedia, a place for knowledge. Not saying it's impossible that I'm wrong when it comes to policy, but you can get away with saying false things about what happened and not having to explain yourself, so much for justice. And since you're an experienced user of Wikipedia you probably know this WP:AFG, brilliant assumption of good faith you made right there, congratulations for being a shining example of Wikipedia's assume good faith principle. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear comments from anyone on the idea of an indefinite block of User:LordRogalDorn. An alternative might be a topic ban from WP:ARBEE but that would risk filling up WP:AE with thousands more words of unclear protest about the behavior of others. People don't have the right to complain indefinitely on admin boards when it is so hard to understand them, and when it appears they don't understand our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: From this thread and the one at ANI, I see WP:BATTLEGROUND and a refusal to WP:LISTEN. With only one month and 284 edits, they have been blocked twice. There edit history shows only 14% of their edits in articles. I wish it were otherwise, but unless there is a willingness to change (and work with an uninvolved willing mentor), I don't see how the editor will be a net positive contributor.  // Timothy ::  talk
 * I understand now that no matter what I say you won't believe me. I can guarantee that I won't push this issue with another wall of text like this as I realised from this discussion that it's useless. I wish to avoid any possible reports from now on, as such, I will always ask on talk page and relevant pages before editing, and won't revert back without talking on the talk page if someone reverts my edits. I am willing to change and to work with an uninvolved willing mentor. I never wished for WP:BATTLEGROUND and I believe WP:LISTEN is a mutual issue, as nobody has explained me yet how the policy is against my edit, but don't worry, I won't push this issue further, I got the point. There are only 14% my their edits in articles because I wished to finish the current dispute before venturing on other edits, and would like to point out that out of those 86% non-articles edits, not all of them were about arguments, some were offering 3rd opinions, others were asking questions, others were thanking other users. LordRogalDorn (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest a topic ban from WP:ARBEE. Yes, he will likely again describe us as liars, but there is a slight possibility that he will able to add value to our projects in other areas. If not, he will be blocked indefinitely. Borsoka (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I also suggest a topic banfor LordRogalDorn from the topics of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Based on the above reply from LRD and input from others, I switch my support from a site ban to support a topic ban from Central and Eastern Europe broadly construed.  // Timothy ::  talk  07:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:LordRogalDorn is indefinitely banned from all topics covered by WP:ARBEE, both articles and talk pages, per WP:TBAN. It might be reasonable to review this ban in six months if subsequent editing shows that LordRogalDorn can work patiently with others to reach consensus on difficult topics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Beryllium Sphere reported by User:Trương guy (Result:already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Beryllium has been blocked for vandalism and 3RR violation.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: When I tried removing the fake news, Beryllium Sphere suddenly added (rv) the made-up hoaxes in Ao dai, first created by Milktaco, a comfirmed sockpuppet of Rajmaan and was blocked in May 2018 for adding fake news and hoaxes. What I also find out and feel surprise that Beryllium Sphere possibly has some connection and quirk to Rajmaan, but I really don't know. Trương guy (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Note: It appears has been blocked since October 19 under suspicion of being compromised. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  06:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User:159.146.14.20 and User:159.146.10.13 reported by User:Cardace (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

For 2 months now, this user has been using multiple IP addresses in order to continually vandalize the article.

In addition, this user actually used one IP address to delete the warning from the other IP address' talk page (see last Diffs of the user's reverts: above), which is vandalism on its own.


 * Result: they have last edited in September, and semi-protection would prevent good IP edits (like the last ones). Not actionable at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Calculus-dev reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 984633600 by Greyjoy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 984632027 by Greyjoy (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 984625848 by Swadge2 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 984625458 by ClueBot NG (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Free Rider HD."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Calculus-dev blocked 72 hrs. by User:Kinu per ANI post. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: making this the result--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User:InsulinRS reported by User:CharlesShirley (Result: Blocked 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff & diff by User:Jojhutton

Comments:

Editor continues to place not NPOV material in bio article and has reverted 5 times in the last 24 hours. Also, editor not discussing on talk page. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked for 31 h--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Dwhatley reported by User:Marbe166 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 4 September:
 * 2) 14 September:
 * 3) 22 September:
 * 4) 24 September:
 * 5) 29 September:
 * 6) 6 October:
 * 7) 20 October:
 * 8) 22 October:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alexander Albon

Comments:

insists on including information on Alexander Albon's mother's fraud conviction in the article. This has been removed, mainly by myself and, because the information is not relevant in a biographical article about Alexander Albon. The user has responded when prompted about it on the talk page, but has disregarded the feedback given there and continues to re-add the information. This has to stop. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Add, please note that there are intermediate changes (by other users) to the page which are good. The current version of the page is fine. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

& - You have not given me a satisfactory reason for repeatedly removing it. All that you have done is offer your opinion that it is not relevant.

has thanked me for my edits.

The alternative that I suggested was dismissed out of hand, not to mention the reply that I received featuring spelling mistakes and poor grammar.

This is merely a difference of opinion. If you can explain why you have the right / authority to remove factual and properly referenced information from a page, I will accept it. - missing signature from


 * You have been given the reason for removing it: The only relevant information about his mother, in this article, is that she is a Thai national, since that is the reason Alexander is racing under the Thai flag. Noone is disputing the fact that she was convicted or that it is properly sourced. It is the relevance that is the issue here. Had it been an article on the Albon family, or on the mother herself, it would have been relevant. But not in a biography about Alexander.
 * Additionally, your behaviour of continuing to add the disputed information despite it being discussed on the talk page, and complaining about grammar and spelling on a talk page are not really helping you here. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Trusted RedZone reported by User:IPBilly (Result: both blocked from article for a week )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 984709925 by Drachentötbär (talk) you are disgusting. You have to accept what other editors accepted. If you cannot discuss with other editors prove with reliable sources that your opinion was right. Don't behave like a kid. Stop edit war before you get blocked from editing"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 984680640 by Drachentötbär (talk) reverted to the correct version. Without discussing and proving and"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 984580308 by Drachentötbär (talk) no I didn't, I said because I answer for your question and you understood the importance of decimals. So respectfully do not do rivisions without proving your thoughts correct. Other wise you were be blocked from edting. If you have to say something use the talk page and let's discuss. I just hope your a respectable editor of Wikipedia and no more edit wars."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 984489407 by Toasted Meter (talk) discussion is finished. And no more edit wars"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 984453226 by Toasted Meter (talk) I know it and it's not me. We discussed and editors choosed a sorting system and changed to it. Drachentötbär did reverts without proving his thoughts."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of fastest production cars by acceleration."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Both User:Drachentötbär and User:Trusted_RedZone are engaged in an edit war. There was ongoing discussion about the proposed changes but not resolution was reached and the talk page/revision log has devolved to insults. I did not personally warn Drachentötbär, however Trusted_RedZone passed along a warning I originally posted. This may be a candidate for Dispute resolution based on the content of the disagreement, however the edit war is currently ongoing and should be dealt with. A similar discussion is being held at Talk:List_of_Nürburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times, but had not yet violated 3RR. IPBilly (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them both from editing the article for a week: this is a bit ridiculous. , if I see you make more comments like you did here, you should also be blocked for personal attacks. Both of you, grow up. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your timely response. Can you advise whether it would be appropriate for me to submit a request at WP:DRN to possibly resolve the disagreement at the root of the edit war? There are several editors on each side of the issue, which will remain an open question once the block has expired. Would it be more appropriate to wait until each editors block has been lifted before requesting assistance? Thanks in advance for the advice. IPBilly (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * IPBilly, I can't tell you anything about DRN; I always bulldoze through disputes. I'm like Cookie monster, who only wants cookies for breakfast: I always say "RfC is the way to go". Drmies (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * DRN Comment - The question was whether a request at DRN would be appropriate. The editor says that there are several editors on each side of the issue, which will remain open after the block has expired.  If there are several editors on both sides, then moderated discussion at DRN, which is intended to result in compromise, is likely to be cumbersome.  If there are multiple editors on both sides, then it is best to bring them all in to an RFC.  If there are two or three editors involved, compromise may be feasible.  Some editors complicate things by trying to bring large disputes to DRN to avoid AFC.  I think that they hope that the DRN mediator will act as a judge.  It doesn't work that way.  In the specific case, try RFC.  (Contentious editors don't like RFC.  That is because they can't filibuster it.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User: Nightenbelle reported by User:021120x (Result: Filer blocked at WP:ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Original edit:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Warning issued -

The reverts are happening on article talk page, the explanations have been plainly stated on collapsed section.

'''Section was collapsed by user Gwillhickers as being unrelated to article content. Collapse was reverted by Nightenbelle. Section was collapsed by reporting user for being unrelated to article content. Collapse was reverted by Nightenbelle. User also engaging in personal attacks, as shown in edit summary.'''

Comments
 * In order to violate WP:3RR a user must have reverted more than three times in a 24 hour period. User: Nightenbelle has reverted twice, so there is no violation. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3RR differs from edit warring, though, does it not? I am aware of other users that have been reported for only reverting twice. 021120x (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are different, but 3RR is the firm line in the sand at which edit waring becomes an immediately blockable offence. Reverting an edit twice is unlikely to result in a block, especially over something as minor as whether a comment belongs on an article talk page or the ANI thread, and one of the reinstatements of the edit was you collapsing a comment about your own conduct. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * this is wp:boomerang for my comments on the case opened by user:021120x above and because two separate drn volunteers have advised them their behavior on that talk page and this board has been unacceptable. User is trying to remove evidence of those comments Nightenbelle (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, we're removing irrelevant harassment from the page. 021120x (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest this be closed with a warning to User:021120x against removing, editing or collapsing any posts by others at Talk:French Revolution. Their behavior seems to fall under WP:BATTLEGROUND. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm having difficulty understanding why I'm being singled out for this, as I restored an edit that was done by a previous user. I was not the first person to collapse this, and not the only one who saw it as highly inappropriate. 021120x (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason you are being "Singled out" is because you are the one reporting something that should not have been reported because it did not break a rule. As with any other page- a user made an edit (collapsing a section), another user came and said- no I don't agree with that edit (me, reverting) the correct move at that time would have been a discussion, instead you reverted again without discussion. This was compounded by the fact that what was said was not mean spirited, harassment, or bullying- it was an honest suggestion of how to move forward to reach a consensus and have the article be improved. Now, it does call out some perceived bad behavior on your part, but not in an inappropriate or rude way- but yes- in a direct and straight forward way. Then, instead of discussing- you went back to the change that very clearly did not have consensus  and  reported another editor for a rule they did not break. All of this while also being under discussion for questionable behavior on another admin report you opened that is on its way to being deemed as unnecessary. Yes- you have one other editor who agrees with you, but you have at least five who do not. Consensus is not solely based on numbers, but it does play a part. Reporting me here, when I have been one of the people trying to explain the problem with your actions on another ANI- makes it look like you were trying to get me in trouble as revenge... hence WP:Boomerang which is not appreciated on WP. I don't expect you to appologize. I don't think you honestly have any idea why your behavior is so problematic. I have accepted that, at this point, I will be the target of your ire going forward. Thats fine. You can believe all of this is because I have some personal vendetta against you. The truth is... I don't. I do have a problem with editors who WP:OWN but I also appreciate passion and thinks its important that editors have passion for their articles. Once these ANIs are closed, I will continue to do what I have done for a year now, mediate DRNs, review WP:AFC, and create articles about local history and board games. None of those involve you or your approval of my actions. I would rather not have you hate me, I would rather have you understand why myself and so many others have been trying to educate you on why your behavior is problematic, but if you choose not to listen and learn... Thats your business, not mine. I will continue on my way. At some point, someone will find the right way to reach you, or you will continue down this path until admins are forced to take more extreme measures. You may not believe this, but I truly hope the former happens before the latter. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Context: The section in question is related to an currently-open ANI thread. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  01:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC) (Amended 19:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Result: User:021120x is warned they may be blocked the next time they remove, edit or collapse any posts by others at Talk:French Revolution. It takes some talent for disputation to keep so many gigantic threads running at a number of noticeboards over what is basically the same issue. No objection to any admin modifying this closure if a contrary result is found in any of the other discussions. DRN volunteers such as User:Nightenbelle have attempted to focus the dispute into a single place but User:021120x has always found reasons for rejecting these suggestions. I share Nightenbelle's conclusion that 021120x's behavior is unacceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to follow the appropriate procedure. The ANI says that edit warring is supposed to be reported here, not on the ANI. 021120x (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 021120x, I think you understand very well what is being said here. The edit warring, if that's what it was, is irrelevant; when you open a report on a noticeboard you can expect your own behavior to be scrutinized. Well, that's what happened, and the best way for you to get out of this is to say "yes sir" and walk away, and not revert/disrupt again on that talk page. Be mindful that EdJohnston warned you, and that his administrative tool works in more areas than edit warring alone. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Original Poster was blocked by User:GeneralNotability at WP:ANI as a boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C5B0:E12C:7CB0:27E4 reported by User:Flalf (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

     

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Both of us violated 3RR.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:



Comments:

I've been trying to follow policy as best I've can and I have consulted other editors as well as the single purpose IP and they just don't listen. I think I filled it out wrong but I need help. Flalf Talk 18:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This guy keeps mass deleting the contents of a wiki page - he has clearly never edited the type of article he is making such a mass deletion too--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:C5B0:E12C:7CB0:27E4 (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've repeatedly stated, the 'plot section' isn't written like a plot section should be, I've told you I would help you rewrite it but you keep reverting the edits. Flalf Talk 18:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment and also protected the page. Be aware WP:3RR also effects you . Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my bad. Flalf Talk 18:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also for context this user has been editing from two ip's, this one and 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:3843:C0F1:D820:D6E0. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 19:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Passerby comment: Page has been fully protected by. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: The page was fully protected 24 hours by User:Lee Vilenski. The protection has now expired. I hope that the talk page will be used for any further changes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

User:75.82.51.145 reported by User:Tenryuu (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "what is 3RR?"
 * 2)  "since when is obviously factual information, critical to the subject matter contested this hard? seems unnatural and disruptive"
 * 3)  "then discuss"
 * 4)  "you have to discuss before removing my edit, and not the other way around. also, wikipedia is not a marketing platform.. your reversion of me edits seem to suggest you are more worried about the image of the game rather than factual information. again, this is an encyclopedia and not reddit"
 * 5)  "re-adding removed info, as the person who removed it did not open discussion as required. but to reply to their reasoning which they gave here in the comments section: geishin impact is not similar to the other games you quoted, as those games are similar to diablo, which geishin impact is certainly not. also geishin impact only has a corporative multiplayer feature, which is unlike many other action-RPGs which also do not require constant internet connection. please discuss further edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 15)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP in question has reverted five times in 24 hours and has been told multiple times to use the talk page to discuss their concerns. Warning was given after they broke 3RR in hopes they would listen and use the talk page, which has not yet happened. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Update: IP has started a conversation on the talk page. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  01:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked if they restore the phrase "online-only" to the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. I have no idea who is right, but edit warring is not OK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise reported by User:Edion Petriti (Result: filer blocked)
Page: ,

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

, I strongly recommend you find WP:DIFFs of edit warring, Future Perfect at Sunrise being warned for edit warring, and hopefully an attempt to resolve this on the article's talk page. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  15:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I already warned him... he made some edit reverts to "spite" me. Edion Petriti (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Edion Petriti (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can somebody apply a boomerang block here? Edion Petriti has been on some tendentious POV campaign with respect to theological fringe hypotheses and is now spamming copyvio text dumps related to Kosovo. Of course he doesn't have any edit-warring diffs against me; I reverted him maximally once per page, and most of the reverts were copyvio removals. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can someone restrict him from editing Talk:Kosovo and by extension, Kosovo? Because he's messing with my edits on the talk page. Edion Petriti (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: filer blocked for persistent addition of copyright violations (which is what was being reverted). I will appreciate if in the future you will also revision-delete the copyright violations which you deal with.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Darkraid1 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The user has created unsourced POV text and is not edit-warring removing the maintenance (POV and unsourced) templates. My explanations at the talk page were dismissed without any reasoning --Ymblanter (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now a blatant and direct personal attack: calling me dishonest. I am afraid we need a block here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now they are also edit-warring at Stephen C. Meyer removing the mention of pseudoscience in relation to the intelligent design, calling this "an opinion".--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Darkraid1 is warned they may be blocked the next time they remove a maintenance tag from this article, unless they have received a prior consensus to do so on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:93.138.26.51 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor Surtsicna continues to push your POV of IP before me, which was not a stable version before.93.138.26.51 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The disputed content is not a recent addition. There was a long discussion about this on Talk:Vukovar and the consensus is to include. I also strongly suspect 93.138.26.51 to be the sock puppet of User:IoannesII, who likewise has a strong opinion on Cyrillic and a poor command of English. Unfortunately, Balkans-related topics continue to attract lots of tendentious IP editing. I have no doubt this will be resolved and see no need for a further engagement on my part. Surtsicna (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not open the talk page but you first returned the ip vandalism which he made before my editing so that vandalism must remain, I explained to you the problem about it you have a (note 1) at the beginning of the article on Vukovar. About the rest of what you said I have no idea what you're talking about93.138.26.51 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected three days by User:Vsmith per a request at WP:RFPP. See a talk thread at Talk:Vukovar. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Tym2412 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 985229556 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 985088638 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
 * 3)  "Not true. It was more recent. Don't change it again."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Peyton List (actress, born 1998)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They do have three reverts, but their attitude suggests that they will continue to edit-war about the infobox pic in this article. They were informed to take their dispute to the talk page, but have yet to do so. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Tym2412 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Peyton List (actress, born 1998) unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:204:DB00:41B0:E57B:582B:504:6323 reported by User:RedPanda25 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 985281621 by 2A04:CEC0:1091:D22A:FED5:7EAB:2C03:8DF4 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 985281550 by 2A04:CEC0:1093:14A3:D1:8C58:7D91:B9FE (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 985281495 by 2A04:CEC0:117D:241B:9419:C26A:61A5:6C97 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 985281444 by 2A04:CEC0:1005:D34D:4498:4504:F03A:5AAB (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 985281398 by 2A04:CEC0:10C0:80A2:4337:75E0:DB85:339B (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 985281338 by 2A04:CEC0:1160:77AB:EE0C:B8B3:BBB1:62DB (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 985281283 by 2A04:CEC0:1195:F628:21C5:D70E:565:DCF9 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 985281197 by 2A04:CEC0:11DF:2A42:D0A3:97B0:4AD1:29F4 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 985281146 by 2A04:CEC0:1199:C8DE:595B:34EB:A39E:3C11 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 985281090 by 2A04:CEC0:108A:95A9:C4C2:18B0:35D8:FCD3 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 985281020 by 2A04:CEC0:101A:7346:C068:6D77:D188:8CD3 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 985280958 by 2A04:CEC0:101A:57BF:B6E0:348E:D416:D940 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 985280888 by 2A04:CEC0:11F1:5763:4384:BC33:B2A2:7033 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 985280819 by 2A04:CEC0:119F:F043:BE7F:CA1D:5789:DA59 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 985280747 by 2A04:CEC0:119B:CAAC:ECD1:DFA2:6D1E:441C (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 985280689 by 2A04:CEC0:1048:1E6E:755A:8D67:E689:F97E (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 985280589 by 2A04:CEC0:10D3:1C3C:EBF5:B6DE:517B:990E (talk)"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 985280515 by 2A04:CEC0:101A:D185:C22:7170:F2EF:EFBD (talk)"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 985280476 by 2A04:CEC0:117B:4109:D337:2CFB:B3B:F581 (talk)"
 * 20)  "Undid revision 985280420 by 2A04:CEC0:1008:DFD8:89A3:3E91:6C77:8A5C (talk)"
 * 21)  "Undid revision 985280375 by 2A04:CEC0:11CB:E3BC:B553:FBF9:506E:7970 (talk)"
 * 22)  "Undid revision 985280261 by 2A04:CEC0:11F1:A487:103A:5931:9B7A:3BA3 (talk)"
 * 23)  "Undid revision 985280183 by 2A04:CEC0:11F3:B9BC:132A:23EF:AFC5:3DD8 (talk)"
 * 24)  "Undid revision 985280131 by 2A04:CEC0:1198:29E6:F36:4FD7:D57D:8197 (talk)"
 * 25)  "Undid revision 985280086 by 2A04:CEC0:117F:DA31:5756:DBB2:552A:3784 (talk)"
 * 26)  "Undid revision 985280031 by 2A04:CEC0:1198:4216:92CA:CB46:4FD4:CEAD (talk)"
 * 27)  "Undid revision 985279959 by 2A04:CEC0:1178:A381:A781:BFE9:E49E:20DA (talk)"
 * 28)  "Undid revision 985279853 by 2A04:CEC0:104C:1EC8:360F:392C:112:60A8 (talk)"
 * 29)  "Undid revision 985279764 by 2A04:CEC0:104C:1EC8:360F:392C:112:60A8 (talk)"
 * 30)  "Undid revision 985279676 by 2A04:CEC0:11E3:9384:A7E:D247:C4E4:CAE (talk)"
 * 31)  "Undid revision 985279458 by 2A04:CEC0:11F5:A2F7:C44C:D5D2:F69:A7FC (talk) (Tags: Undo Possible vandalism)"
 * 32)  "Undid revision 985279310 by 2A04:CEC0:11E9:66D2:CD09:5B76:BE4D:8A64 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Result: The page has been semi-protected by --Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Daveout reported by User:Crossroads (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 985275684 by Crossroads (talk) removing misrepresentation of someone's words. she doesn't assert anywhere that terf is a word used merely to denigrate women, and therefore not an actual insult. it is a blp violation, original research, and pov pushing."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 985222587 by Haukurth (talk) It is a misquotation and a slanderous BLP violation, please do not put this back. She doesn’t say anywhere that TERF is a “term used to denigrate women”, she says that SOME PEOPLE who oppose the term hold that opinion (and she disagree with them). Read the text carefully. Furthermore, this term was coined by non-transphobic women (how could it be demeaning to women?)."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A: page is under 1RR; once a person starts to edit war on such a page, they've already violated the DS, so a warning is superfluous; plus they were "warned" by the edit notice

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A: per WP:BRD, editor seeking change should start discussion

Comments:

Page is under 1RR per the GamerGate DS, clearly shown on the edit page with a huge notice. Yet, the editor has attempted to change the text a total of 3 times (one original attempt and two reverts). The reviewing administrator is welcome to judge for themselves whether the editor's claim of a BLP exemption is valid or a case of WP:CRYBLP. Note the quote in the reference note in question. Crossroads -talk- 02:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't kwnow it was under 1RR as these notices do not appear to mobile users. I'm self reverting for caution but I do want to ask admins to take a look a this issue and the talk page discussion. I do believe it is a blp violation, as well as original research and pov pushing. -  (talk)  03:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Since Daveout self-reverted there seems to be no action needed. It's long standing text and will be discussed on the talk page. Crossroads -talk- 03:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * . Violation apparently made in error, self-reverted, and request withdrawn. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

User:88.230.176.163 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "a kurd user in netherlands active in pkk (terrorist organization) pages is edit warring. None of the sources provided call it a variant. Every single source says "The chassis is based on Korean Panther"."
 * 2)  "It's not a variant. None of the sources say so. Even the new "source" added by a kurd busy in pkk pages says "based on" which doesn't mean it's a variant. By that logic wiki should also call Tesla Roadster 1 a variant of Lotus Elise because it's based on latter's chassis. Please stop agenda pushing kurds in netherlands from edit warring on this."
 * 3)  "None of the sources call it a variant. It could say "Chassis is based on", but calling it a "variant" is straight up malevolent. Like calling Tesla roadster 1 a variant of Lotus Elise just because it was based on the same chassis. All the systems on Altay is indigenous."
 * 4)  "It's not a "variant". Not even close."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking."
 * 2)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."
 * 1)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He also attacks on talk page and edit summaries Shadow4dark (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:122C:E2C5:C0D:489C:BFE:F912 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Also added unsourced content after final warning. Sundayclose (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum reported by User:Wikieditor19920 (Result: Both editors involved removed from Andy Ngo for a month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) first set of reverts
 * 2) second set of reverts
 * 3) third set of reverts

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User removed my 1RR notice in between second and third sets of reverts (both of which violated 1RR).

Comments: This user is now approaching 3RR at an article with 1RR discretionary sanctions, and removed my warning about the 1RR from their talk page. I think a temporary block is in order. We all need to play by the same rules, and the user is well aware of the limitations imposed on this page. NOTE: This user has been blocked numerous times in the past for edit-warring. See block log. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Addition: Bacondrum has previously been warned at AN3 for edit-warring at Quillette, a related page. And here, Bacondrum was also banned by in the past year for edit-warring at another page subject to 1RR DS and 3RR at  multiple related pages. That time the ban was for two weeks. Given this user's history and the brazen disregard for DS here, and the tone of the comments below, I think a more stringent remedy is needed. I suggest a longer temporary block of at least two weeks. Page-specific blocks won't do it, because this user has shown that they will just keep edit-warring at related pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this is a retaliatory filing related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility_and_battleground_behavior_from_Wikieditor19920. Wikieditor19920 has been so hasty in it that their "first set of reverts" link is a link to one of Wikieditor19920's own edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&type=revision&diff=985126880&oldid=984980274&diffmode=source which says "(12 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)". The second one indicates "(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)", the third one "(16 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)". IHateAccounts (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you My thoughts exactly. I removed his warning because it was vexatious and frivoulos. This is a vexatious report by an uncivil editor, the report has been filed in retaliation to this ANI report. If you look at the article talk page you will see 140+ comments many uncivil and most bludgeoning the debate, this report is being made as part of an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior from Wikieditor19920. I've urged them numerous times to stop before taking them to ANI, and now this. I think sanctions of some kind are well in truly in order at this point. Bacondrum (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

In case it caused any confusion, the I've updated the diffs to start with the pre-revert version or intervening edit, and then Bacondrum's series of changes. Consecutive reverts can be counted together as a single revert, but non-consecutive reverts are regarded separately. There are clearly three sets of non-consecutive reverts shown, and the user was warned about 1RR in between #2 and #3. Edit-warring is a pretty clear-cut matter and not worth the back-and-forth above. Follow the DS, respect good faith warnings from other users, and we don't have to end up at edit warring noticeboards. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first link now indicates "(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)", the second "(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)", the third "(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)". Looking over the edits I remain concerned both by the fact that Wikieditor19920's representation seems less than inaccurate and by the fact that this was obviously filed as retaliation. IHateAccounts (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are either lying or do not understand what a revert is. The diffs above properly document three sets of reverts, you are free to go back and count again. You are also free to cut the personal attacks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you’re calling an uninvolved editor a liar? At what point does this level of incivility draw sanction? Bacondrum (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out some things, as another editor of that page:
 * First of all, if you look at the history of the page, you can see that's not actually three reverts by Bacondrum (though it is two). The actual timeline is:
 * Bacondrum makes edits to the page which they mention on the talk page. Nobody responds or says anything else about these edits.
 * Roughly a day later, Wikieditor manually reverses a large portion of them without discussion.
 * Bacondrum reverts Wikieditor, restoring their original edits. (Revert 1)
 * Bacondrum then makes several further edits to the page, all of which up to and including the previous revert by Bacondrum are reverted by another editor who asks Bacondrum to get consensus on the talk page. This person appears to be unaware not only that Bacondrum did mention the edits on the talk page and nobody had objected, but that Bacondrum was hashing them out with an opponent in the underlying content dispute on their own talk page, although to be fair to them I don't know why they would know that second part. Regardless, Bacondrum basically did have consensus for those edits.
 * Bacondrum manually reverses part of that person's edit (Revert 2) and also continues making unrelated edits.

My overall opinion here is that these two reverts were justified under the "edits against consensus" exception to the 1RR on that page, since Bacondrum had solicited objections to them on the talk page and had not gotten any. Loki (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Second, I'd like to call attention to the fact that Wikieditor has been reported at ANI for disruptive behavior on that same page (by Bacondrum, incidentally), and has already been warned by an admin for bludgeoning of Bacondrum and several other users on that talk page.
 * There was no "consensus" because he left the page for a couple of hours and no one gave an immediate response. Each set of the  three, not two  reverts contains a series of 6 to 12 consecutive edits (which would qualify as reverts individually), none of which fall under any recognized "exception." And this second 1RR violation came after I provided them a warning and asked them to self-revert. You are entitled to agree with and argue for whatever content you like, but that is not an endorsement for DS violations and edit-warring. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I went over it wasn't my intention. I'm being harangued here. I'm more than happy to volunteer to take a break from that article on the condition that Wikieditor19920 agrees to do the same. Let other editors edit without disruption and let the dispute calm down. Bacondrum (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You've been editing the page for several weeks, are presumably aware of the DS, and were warned before you broke the 1RR several times in a 24-hour period. You called my warning "vexatious" and are now stepping over the 1RR line repeatedly to remove content that you disagree with. This is not personal. You need to stop edit-warring, and clearly light warnings aren't doing the trick. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I did go over it was by a half (one partial revert) and it was accidental - if it hasn’t already been reverted I’m happy to self revert. Your report here is vexatious, I’m certain of that. Bacondrum (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bacondrum needs to stop edit warring? You're a participant in this edit war! If you look at the page history over the last several days, almost all your edits are reverting other editors! That you don't do this twice within twenty-four hours explicitly doesn't stop it from being an edit war! Loki (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, it certainly is two and anyone who wishes may look at the page history to confirm. The first set of edits you are listing as a "revert" is not, it's just a set of edits that does not contradict any previous edit by any other editor. Second, if you wished to challenge the presumption that Bacondrum had consensus for those edits, you could have done that on the talk page, in the place where Bacondrum mentioned those edits and asked for criticism of them. In fact, earlier when Bacondrum first proposed the idea of significant edits to the lead, you did, but nobody else did. Even Springee, the other person on your side of the underlying content dispute, was ultimately on board. Loki (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * you are correct Loki, I stand corrected and apologise, it wasn’t my intent to go over it just got lost Olin all the squabble (I know that’s no excuse). In my defence, I am being harangued and I believe this report and Wikieditors initial revert that started this were vexatious and disruptive. I’m happy to take whatever steps are needed to make amends, or a sanction if deemed necessary. However I do believe the editor being disruptive at that article is not me (this time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 08:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first edit re-wrote an entire portion of the lead and removed language others had added to replace it with their own addition. The same is true for the other two sets of reverts. There was no established consensus that he was enforcing, so no exception applies. I'll also note that in your "blow-by-blow," you characterize some of my recent changes as a "reverting a large portion" when it was in effect only a partial revert. That's why it was performed manually; I left some changes in place. Without establishing consensus, Bacondrum proceeds to restore the prior version, violating 1RR to revert me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a 1RR violation but I think it was done out of an effort to try to respond to live feedback vs edit warring. I would suggest that Bacondrum agrees to be more careful and we move on. Loki, please do not imply I support the lead rewrite as is. It has a lot of issues related to NPOV/IMPARTIAL. What I support was the general lead structure. When I get some time I want to work with Bacondrum on their talk page to try to come up with compromise text in hopes that we can avoid some of the rapid back and forth with live text. I don't see much reason to post more on the main article talk page until I can come up with an alternative suggestion. The new account, IHateAccounts, does not appear to be an uninvolved editor. Rather they appear to be the IP editor who had commented on the article in the past. I understand Wikieditor's frustration with this article and the number of editors who don't take things to the talk page and/or make edits that come across as attempts to paint a scarlet letter on the subject in wikivoice. Like Wikieditor, I find it frustrating that one makes an argument based on policy only to have other editors ignore the arguments since they have the numbers to win the revert game. I think this is why a number of like minded editors have given up on this topic. Springee (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Has a very magnanimous approach, but the intentional 1RR violations at this page are tiresome. IMO persistent, intentional edit warring is a sign an editor needs a break from a page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel it may be worth pointing out that because I observed there were problems with the links provided in this vexatious complaint, Wikieditor19920 threatened me. At a bare minimum that's uncivil behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIHateAccounts&type=revision&diff=985371897&oldid=985241288 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Within an eight day period, (October 17 - 24), Wikieditor19920 accused four editors of violating 1RR at Andy Ngo. 19920 demanded editors self revert their work without explanation and/or threatened to take them to an AN (full disclosure, I was the third of four editors). Edit histories show the first two editors (each with edit counts well over 20,000) self reverted, while the second two editors (with 2,400 and 8,900 edits respectively) were brought to this AN. Wikieditor19920 appears aware that they themselves violated 1RR on October 6 but justified their last revert as "RV random IP restoring errors into article." Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3 This was a deceptive edit summary as the error of a missing "and" was not what they chose to fix when reverting. I ask the closing administrator of this current complaint to consider the very real possibility that many problems at Andy Ngo may be arising from an editor's broader impulse to strenuously enforce policy on others while disregarding its application to their own actions. Cedar777 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate. is the only other user I've reported for stepping over 1RR after a good-faith warning (which was ignored), but 1RR violations are indeed a continuing issue at Andy Ngo. I've never violated 1RR at that page. Reverting vandalism (i.e. an IP inserting errors into the page) is not a 1RR violation. So far Bacondrum's have been the most severe.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks good sir, I certainly will be more careful, and it was not my intent to edit war. I have not been persistently edit warring as Wikieditor claims, I have been discussing edits at talk. I am happy to let this go, but the disruptive and vexatious behavior of Wikieditor should be noted, if not addressed I'm afraid it will continue, they seem to be incapable of seeing their conduct is highly disruptive. Look at recent edits Wikieditor came along and removed a claim taken verbatim from a reliable source, he's just being disruptive and stopping others from contributing with a slow motion edit war, bludgeoning and seemingly interminable incivility. Bacondrum (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Stop making this about me with vague accusations and insults. If you actually read 's comment, you'd see he was pretty displeased with your conduct. You are clearly completely lacking in self-awareness or genuine remorse. It's unfortunate that a small band of editors have tried to personalize this matter to distract from the main issue, but I think any admin would see what's going on here: a repeat offender with no sense of what they did wrong and a clear inclination to do it again in the future. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC) This user is still edit-warring at the page, just outside of the 1RR window now. Even minor changes to the lead are immediately reverted by Bacondrum even where properly reflected in the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You randomly removed a verbatim claim from a reliable source under spurious edit description, this is more of the same from you. More misleading edit summaries and slow motion edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think we might see an improvement if both editors took some voluntary time off from this article. Wikieditor19920's 148 talk page edits aren't helping discussion. O3000 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been working on this page for over two months consistently (and actually there are users with more comments than me), so I don't think bandying about my number of comments repeatedly is fair (though I've agreed to be less verbose), especially where equating talk page participation with persistent edit-warring. I'm not going to respond to the latest vulgar tirade above by Bacondrum. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've already volunteered to do that, as long as Wikieditor does the same. Regardless, if I am to be sanctioned making 2 reversions, this report must boomerang as Wikieditor has made 3 reversions in violation of 1RR Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3 As I've said earlier, if it helps stop disruption at the article I'm happy to agree to walk away and not edit the article for a period as long as Wikieditor agrees the same. I've also agreed to be more careful and not go over the 1RR again. Bacondrum (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For the second (third) time, those three-week old diffs are two consecutive reverts (which count as a single revert) and then a reversion of an IP who added errors to the article (reverting vandalism is exempt). Those are not 1RR violations. Three sets of reverts with intervening edits are. This discussion has gone on too long already. What could've been resolved with a self-reversion and an apology has devolved into thousands of characters of denials and counter-accusations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't we both agree to disagree, agree to take a break from the article for say a week? Calm things down and then when we return after a break we can take disputes to the talk page and conduct ourselves in a civil manner. I think that would make everyone happy. I'm up for calming all of this down if you are. Bacondrum (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've seen this rinse and repeat cycle with you before. I'm not buying it. I'm not the one edit-warring and constantly calling every other editor "disruptive," a sealion, "vexatious," and the like. If history's any indication, in a week or so you'll be back to doing the same thing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, for the record, I tried to come to some kind of agreement to calm this down with a civil compromise. There's nothing more I can add. I've not been "calling every other editor "disruptive," a sealion, "vexatious," and the like." that's demonstrably false, you can check the discussions here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo Bacondrum (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as Wikieditor refused to even consider the suggestion that we both voluntarily take a break, I put forward a fair solution: a three week tban for both editors, (including myself) in order to take the heat out and get things back to a level of civility. That should allow uninvolved and non-disruptive editors to go ahead and constructively contribute to the article. It will also give both of us time to reflect on how this all got so heated and how we can change our behavior to avoid these kinds of fights in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC) I don't think so. Your repeatedly trying to shift the blame to me for your edit-warring and other conduct is exactly why I am not buying the "I'm sorry and I'll never do it again" line. That and the evidence I cited in the initial comment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll just have to see what the admins say. Bacondrum (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And here you are, still ranting about me at the talk page in addition to edit-warring, after admitting the edit you called Bullshit here was accurate. You prove again and again you cannot help yourself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jesus wept. Do you ever stop? Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's been brought to my attention that Wikieditor19920 has been Admin shopping: [] Bacondrum (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to ask that if I am to be sanctioned, that said sanction be applied by an admin that has not been involved/pinged in by Wikieditor19920, specifically El C and Guerillero  Nothing personal, I'm just concerned Wikieditor is seeking favorable admins. Bacondrum (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not understand the rules of WP, apparently about edit-warring or otherwise. AN3 is a noticeboard for edit-warring, not talk page conduct. I sought Guerillero's input on your continued disregard of talk page guidelines, not this report. You are wasting more and more space with these tirades, and not doing yourself any favors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Given Bacondrum's record of past blocks, I suggest considering an indef block as the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Both editors partial blocked from Andy Ngo and Talk:Andy Ngo for a month. This is ridiculous.  We had the RfC, which devolved into people sniping at each other.  Then we had the ANI filing, which promptly devolved into editors sniping at each other.  And now we have an AN3 filing, which ... you get the idea.   There are plenty of editors, both neutral and from both sides of the political divide, who are perfectly capable of looking after the Ngo article while Bacondrum and Wikieditor19920 use their time productively elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An outrageously irresponsible block by . was the one who filed the ANI, which was closed without action based on a few out-of-context comments which were not even uncivil. They returned to the page after the ANI thread was closed and violated 1RR twice. I was wholly justified in filing this report for the continued edit-warring (which I have not engaged in, and your approach here is to ignore this disparity and issue a "pox on both your houses" block when there is no parity in conduct? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the alternative was to let both of you continue to snipe and cast aspersions at each other over multiple venues, the inevitable result of which would have been actual blocks, not blocks that still leave you over 6 million articles to edit. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the alternative. I asked to stop edit-warring and stop mentioning me negatively on the talk page. This was a one-sided edit war where the user violated 1RR twice in a 24 hour period, even after I made a good-faith request for them to stop, and you are blaming me for their conduct. Not to mention that this user has been repeatedly banned for edit-warring. This was a wholly justified report, and the "pox on both your houses" for so clearly one-sided irresponsible conduct is completely unjust. You also ignored 's pointing out the obvious, that I reported a repeat 1RR/3RR violator for conduct that has gotten them banned in the past. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go down that route, given that you have a recent 3-month ban from American politics and a partial block from Ilhan Omar in your recent log. Both of you need to go and find articles to edit that you are not so politically involved in. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have filed my appeal. I have no "political involvement" at the page in question. I resent the suggestion. The talk page archives show that you were actually WP:involved in commenting on the wording of the lead, which was the underlying content relevant to the dispute. See archive 5. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, a single comment as to the correct grammar of a sentence. Your point? Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Black Kite, I think that is a fair remedy to what you accurately described as a ridiculous situation. I sincerely apologize for my part in it. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ^ The "ridiculous situation" being Bacondrum's refusal to engage on the talk page and repeatedly step over discretionary sanctions to restore their preferred version. Because of 's action here, future editors will be deterred from filing an AN3 report for fear of being sanctioned themselves over something frivolous, or because something they said weeks ago rubs an admin the wrong way. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm being abused here, this editor just wont stop. All I did was accept the sanction and thank the admin involved. Please help me, this editor has been completely unrelenting in their harassment for days now. Bacondrum (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Various IPs of the same user reported by User:Julius Senegal (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985455011

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:mobileDiff/985597826
 * 2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985520498
 * 3) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985514948
 * 4) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/985495526

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See disk

Comments:

A CU due to socketpupperty is running in German Wiki, one user has been already perma banned. I would semi protect the article in order to geht rid of those IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Senegal (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, I agree, and I'd do it but I've already trimmed the article a bit. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:71.234.178.78, User:2601:180:8200:63D0:CC35:26E9:A53F:19ED and User:2601:180:8200:63D0:144A:184F:107F:9767 (sock) reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (same ones used in SPI as they are all from the same "user" and all from today)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (I did it on the sockmaster's page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They are a suspected sock, hence the three IPs in the title. All these users are from the same house with the same zip code in the same city, please look at the SPI against them. Since not all of the diffs are from the same IP, it isn’t an obvious 3RR violation, but I have rock hard evidence that it is. Please note that this user was also reported ten days ago for the same behaviour (granted I got blocked as well). I will still warn all three IPs mentioned above. Please also note that I did not break the 3RR and should not be punished. All the best, D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * by Scottywong. ~Swarm~  {sting} 07:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 10:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Maxim.il89 reported by User:Koncorde (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 985631984 by Koncorde (talk)"Informed"? You don't get to "inform" - you get to debate, discuss, and reach a consensus. You can't have a two line section, there's need for more information about the charity."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 985618647 by Koncorde (talk)Again, those things belong to the article as they give significant info about the period and what they did. Stop edit warring."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 985442999 by Koncorde (talk)No, there was no "discussion," it was you edit warring and bullying your view onto the article."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 985442770 by Koncorde (talk)It's important information. All you do is edit war, and think that because you're an admin you can force your view. Nah."
 * 5)  no edit summary
 * 6)  no edit summary
 * 1)  no edit summary

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:   

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Historic discussions existed about the lack of consensus   

Just for clarity, I did ask Rambling man to comment last night as he was directly involved last year both at Sunderland AFC and other articles but could have gone to any WP:FOOTBALL editor as nobody has supported his position.

Comments:

Item 1: No warning tags put out as user still has 3 existing October 2020 Edit Warring sections on his page, and has just returned from a 48 hour ban for edit warring at List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Maxim continued that edit war by returning immediately after an SPA IP address was reverted by myself and subsequently Ed Johnston put PP on the page to continue his edit warring behaviour to reinsert not only all the content on the talk page that concerns had been raised about, but also content I removed as it was a longstanding COPYVIO violation.

Item 2: Maxim tried to insert the same content at Sunderland last year, in the process raising an Edit War report against myself that saw him warned as an outcome. In between that incident and around a few months ago, he re-inserted the content in an attempt to circumvent consensus. A few days ago I reverted the changes pursuant to what he was told by Ed Johnston here

I have tried working with Maxim, and you can see his passion for certain subjects - but he is unable to work dispassionately and see's any criticism as an attack (per battleground mentality), and shows absolutely no ability to either use reliable sources appropriately, summarise sources accurately, etc. There is a fundamental issue here of WP:Competence at least partially informed about the way he goes about what he does. For the most part I have had no major concerns, although recent GA review on an article he created did highlight the same issues as last year as did his new pet project (Cadenza Piano) where he once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of WP:Notability in favour of a whole bunch of promotional material including content farms that haven't added content in 2 years and directly sponsored content ("In collaboration with [[Mifal Hapayis]") by the company responsible for installing them. Koncorde (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

For further evidence of battleground mentality, see this Requested Move discussion that saw him reply to every single user who disagreed.

Historic edit warring last year, same persistent edit summaries accusing others of edit warring:     Resulting in WP:FOOTBALL re-stating existing informal guidelines as formal rules against cruftiness Koncorde (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

maxim.il89 comment First of all, I would like that it's too often that Koncorde finds his ways into articles I start or edit extensively - is he a stalker or something? Yes, we had a disagreement a while ago, but I honestly feel like he's stalking me or something, this isn't normal behaviour, it's not normal that every article I start or edit, suddenly he appears.

Secondly, I don't support edit warring - I support using the talk page, here's the thing. Koncorde thinks it's normal to leave a whole section with only two sentences, I don't. He doesn't debate what should or shouldn't be kept there (which is what's happening now in the Charity section of the Sunderland article), he just removes it and thinks his voice is the law and anyone else can speak but don't get to decide.

Him saying that he "tried working with Maxim" is ludicrous - I'm happy to use the talk page, I'm happy to seek consensus, I'm happy to engage in discussion, I'm not happy to be stalked by someone who has some personal agenda against me. I've said a few times that I'd prefer a neutral admin to look at articles I create/edit, not someone with some vindictive agenda, which is what it feels to me. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:BritishMarxist reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 985828953 by 7645ERB (talk) doesnt fit un definition"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 985826740 by GizzyCatBella (talk) Seriously, stop. You're posting western propaganda on here. It doesn't even fit the UN definition of genocide."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 985821214 by Donner60 (talk) They wrongly reverted my edits. There is no evidence Soviet Union committed genocide. This is an act of anticommunism and you have been warned. I will report to admins next time."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 985743640 by Lenoved3 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Scholars are still divided on whether the "Holodomor" was a genocide. A genocide is killing of an ethnic or religious group. There has yet to be evidence Joseph Stalin hated Ukrainians, or whether he planned to exterminate them."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of genocides by death toll."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Holodomor edit war */ new section"

Comments:

New editor has ignored a 3RR warning and a ping at the talk page, while reverting 5 times in 13 or so hours. — MarkH21talk 05:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a justification for a block here but since User:BritishMarxist has started to edit the talk page I won't. If they continue the edit war on the talk page without engaging in discussion let me know or file another report. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit war and other breaches of polcy (Result: Blocked)
Hello - User:Heiko Gerber has breached multiple policies:
 * Adding unreferenced content, see
 * Civility, see
 * 3RR, see
 * Engaging in an edit war, see  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that discographys dont need sources, when he have an aritcle available for the respective album, see literally any article by a musician, e.g. Michael Jackson Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please note that in respect of their unconstructive behaviour User:Heiko Gerber has been censoring debate by removing polite comments to him / her by various users, see, ,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that this IP is by a perma-banned user Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that is false and also note this is an open IP. (also, Heiko Gerber please review Ad hominem) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah Im sure this is your first day here and you just stumbled across the noticeboard page and learned about 3RR today Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I made no claim 'you just stumbled across the noticeboard page and learned about 3RR today'. Also, in addition to the previous suggested please also review .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

see here for further discussion Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Breaching_various_policies
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

User:220.238.160.97 reported by User:Callanecc (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: original version and partially modified, current preferred, version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malek_Fahd_Islamic_School&type=revision&diff=984821998&oldid=983967313]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malek_Fahd_Islamic_School&type=revision&diff=984834818&oldid=984828328]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malek_Fahd_Islamic_School&type=revision&diff=985072197&oldid=984835460]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malek_Fahd_Islamic_School&type=revision&diff=985167955&oldid=985148178]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malek_Fahd_Islamic_School&type=revision&diff=985662715&oldid=985270526]
 * It's probably easiest to see by just looking at the page history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: disruptive editing block, unblock decline, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A220.238.160.97&type=revision&diff=985282624&oldid=985175560 specific edit warring warning and further explanation]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my message on the talk page, see also this and this on the IP's talk page.

Comments:

It seems pretty clear that the IP has no intention of following normal editing processes even after their last 31 hour block but instead is regularly coming back to check that their preferred version remains the current version. While they've sometimes been willing to make comments (1 and 2) they have not been willing to engage in discussion about actual issue just picking side elements of it. Their other edits (e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sydney_gang_rapes&type=revision&diff=985153898&oldid=982845882 1] and 2, one is a joint edit with which I'm confident is the same person) may suggest that they are pushing a particular POV). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected 3 months. IP editors have been warring to add material to the article about people who they claim are graduates of the school who are now Islamic radicals. This addition seems to violate WP:SYN. It is of questionable relevance to the school's own article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

User:IceWelder reported by User:Jostwiki (Result: Reporter blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [985887172]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [985884893]
 * 2) [985885475]
 * 3) [985839846]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [985885475]

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

Comments:

I have known that IceWelder is abusing Wikipedia. I want him to be banned for his actions. He has reverted my edits to several articles so far. I think that this isn't fair at all. --Jostwiki (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reporting user is currently under investiation at SPI. They did not adhere to WP:BRD and have been edit warring on several articles, including four times on the article in question. Additionally, edits like this and clearly indicate that the user is connected to Special:Contributions/2607:FCC8:6242:B500:5C79:57AC:FAB1:242A, which has been range-blocked as a sock in the same SPI case. There, the user also unsuccessfully tried the same ANI blames with other users.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Should know. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked indefinitely per Sockpuppet investigations/Johnwest1999.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

User:OgamD218 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result:not blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Exodus."
 * 2)   "A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Minimalism"
 * 2)   "/* Minimalism */ reply"

Comments:

The editor seems to push WP:OR and WP:Editorializing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I just reached out to an admin on this matter apologizing for the issues I caused. The work in controversy I commenced using my smartphone since I temporarily lacked access to my laptop-which I would normally use to make edits of significant length. My unfamiliarity with using a phone for this level of work clearly showed, issues i have found so far include: not receiving ANY in app notifications of the warnings I was being sent, failing to realize that drafts of my edits, often transferred between windows failed to copy paste in full-almost always citation failed to attach.
 * I never intended to make such sweeping uncited edits,given the subject matter I can't even visualize assuming I'd be able to get away with this, a point compounded by the many warnings from different users posted on my talk page in close succession. OgamD218 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted by User:Doug Weller, i kept tagging content as needing a citation, then proceeded to add uncited content. Weller noted it appeared I did not know what I was doing-this was true. I would like to note that I at no point clicked revert or undo, I was confused working on my phone and misinterpreted the rising issues to be a glitch or errors i missed/made using the unfamiliar screen. I instead ended up typing out the same edit over and over-idt a party to an edit war would go thru such trouble. I am still fairly new to this side of wiki but have never in the past caused issues like this. A review of my edits will at the very least show that this was a total divergence from my usual practices. I would not shy away from defending an edit i made in good faith, that is not problem here however, as I am seeing many of my edits not only lacked cites but were drafts that included content not intended for final publish.OgamD218 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still surveying the damage caused by my confusion and apologize for any errors in this explanation and issues I have failed to address, I thought it better to clarify asap that my actions were unintentional. If not for the fact page(s) have been locked I would undo all my edits from the last several hours.OgamD218 (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Friendly advice: use Firefox, both on smartphone and on the computer. It works best, you may even go back in case of edit conflicts and copy/paste what you wrote previously. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Tgeorgescu thank for the tip, I’ve been using safari up until now OgamD218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything to gain in blocking this editor. I accept their comments above and in their email to me. Doug Weller  talk 18:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Vallee01 reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: Page full protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Version 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 09:22, 28 October
 * 2) 10:03, 28 October
 * 3) 10:13, 28 October
 * 4) 10:29, 28 October
 * 5) 23:40, 28 October (reverting to Version 2)
 * 6) 07:23, 29 October (reverting to Version 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning 1 Warning 2 Further back-and-forth

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to discussion

Comments: Vallee01 has responded to polite talk-page discussion, such as requests for reliable sources, with hostile edit summaries , and finally a veiled accusation of incompetence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is currently in discussion in the talk page, the current image is different from the others. Moreover I stated my reasons for reverting the image on the talk page. What you are saying has absolutely no case, it's absurd. I am not randomly reverting images, I have made clearly to go onto the talk page, and made compromise.


 * In fact I did even revert the image to have both images in discussion, I kept the current image to go and discuss on the talk page, as a compromise the current article has both images as to avoid edit warring anarcha-feminism the top is a collage and the other is a single image that is under discussion.


 * Not only that but you didn't even read anything, please read my actual response. In what incompetence do you speak? That you don't like the current edits? And of what source? That the bisected flag of anarcha feminism represents anarcha feminism? If you actually read my response instead of acting upon you're own POV you would have seen I did cite a source, you can use pages like this as a source if they simply prove certain groups use such image, it is reliable. Moreover, I am a student studying physics and have extremely good grades, "competence". A large part of excellent Wikipedia editors are armchair physics, historians etc... This isn't a place for you to be making personal attacks. You have no case. Vallee01 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are the one accusing others of incompetence in the very diff I linked to above. You have re-added your preferred content after it was removed by others, separate times. It doesn't matter whether they are the same images or different images. It still counts as a revert, as I already explained on your user talk page. You haven't made any "compromise", you just created a new composite image (wholly apart from the five separate reverts) that you figured was better, without taking others' stated objections into account at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Revert #6 has been added above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)