Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive423

User: YoungForever reported by User:Bijdenhandje (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:       

This issue has been resolved, please do not start new disussions. If you are here to make your point then go somewhere else to request a bann. I'm only here on the English wiki occasionally so make sure to ask for a global bann or it will probably not even affect me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijdenhandje (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments: The user has done SIX reverts within a 36 hour perdiod, logging out of their account to mask the 3R. The user does not get involved on the talkpage. Several other users have tried to stop their editwar but they keep on reverting and using only the word disruptive behaviour in the edit history. User has been informed but they have removed the tag from their talkpage here. ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijdenhandje (talk • contribs) 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised this topic exists but here's my take. I noticed his disruptive edits which Youngforever reverted because he messed with the format of the page and believed him to be breaking WP:3RR, so I reverted him. He does not seem to understand MOS:ENTO and continued to revert, and did so five times in a short space of time. He then accused us of being the same person which is not true, I am from the UK while Youngforever is American. His claim of "several other users" is patently untrue because there was only one person who made the exact same edit as him out of nowhere which was reverted around 24 hours before he appeared today to make those very same edits. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not violated any 3RR. Bijdenhandje accusations are baseless. The ip address is in Leicestershire, United Kingdom and I live in California, United States. That is two different countries. — Young Forever (talk)   20:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're grasping at straws and have no evidence to back up these bogus claims. It's not possible for us to be the same person, the technology doesnt exist to teleport between countries within the space of minutes, this isn't Star Trek. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Above statement by the user from this IP is untrue as can be seen in the edit history. Evidence is here and here. As can be seen in the edit history user has a questionable history of reverting. Only telling other people in the edit summary to stop THEIR disruptive behaviour, rather than explaining what they are doing or participating on the TP of the article in question. Bijdenhandje (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided evidence of anything to back up any of the claims you're making. This user who made the same edit as you less than 24 hours ago appears to be under investigation for sock puppetry here . I'd love to know why that account was dormant for over four years only to make the same edits as you. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have provided no evidence for your location so it does not really matter what the location the IP you are using is. There are clear signs of quacking here. Last time I checked they didn't use tunneling aboard starships. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm using a static IP address which rarely changes, as my edit history shows. So far you've only brought false accusations and assumptions to the table. If this is all you're offering I'm done here and I'll leave it up to the admin. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * has done nothing wrong here, and they have MOS:DASH on their side. When inputting a range—for example, Monday–Friday—you use an en-dash, not a regular hyphen. The filer of the report should be the one warned or blocked here. Amaury • 21:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. They did two reverts in the span of 48 hours, which is not punishable at all. The reporting user, on the other hand, has been involved much more. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * NO they have six reverts in 36 hours, read the history. They were involved in an editwar with multiple-users. The only thing they did was write:"stop being disruptive" (or simular words) in the edit summary. They were not involved on the articles talkpage. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Goodness, why do you persist with this "They're the same person" nonsense? We've both told you we're different people, let it go already. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why have you not started a discussion on the matter in question at the talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to bring this discussion back ontrack. Two of the quoted reverts were me reverting the reporting user because he was being disruptive, another was me making a WP:DUMMYEDIT to correct myself as at the time he reverted three times. Youngforever technically has only made two reverts of the user in question. The other two examples are bogus and aren't reverts whatsoever. I think we can all agree that this report never should have existed as its baseless and without merit. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Edit warring can happen whenever. You can revert a total of five times, but all five of those times could be spread out across three different days; however, that would still be edit warring. has not violated WP:3RR, though. To break 3RR, you need four or more reverts within the span of 24 hours. Amaury • 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just on a side note: they are counting two different edit, I did withint about a minute, as two different reverts. I could have done them in a single edit but they are different issues. There are no reverts from other people in between the edits. So I don't see how its possible to count them, other than for the use of WP:POINT. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a good thing the edit history is not some kind of secret file. Anyone can look into it and confirm that they started editwaring with another user yesterday. Also there was no mention of a guideline in the edit summary. Only insults about being inconstructive. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're going to make accusations of insults, then you need to provide specific diffs and not expect people to just look around and hope they know what you're talking about, as otherwise you're just making baseless claims without evidence. Now, I took a look at the history of Young Sheldon and can see no evidence of insults from . Amaury • 21:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lest we find edits that are adequately described in the edit summary and are bringing the article back into compliance with MOS. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Boomerang. The filer is both wrong on the merits, and is making a non-WP:AGF accusation of editing while logged out with zero proof. FTR, the IP acts nothing like YoungForever so there's almost no chance it's the same editor. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The only person violating 3RR and edit warring is the filer of this report which can been seen on the history Young Sheldon, they were reverted by me, the ip address, and . — Young Forever (talk)   21:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They continued to accuse the other editors of disruptive behaviour, how it that not an insult? Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Breaking MOS once is a reasonable accident. Breaking it repeatedly can be deemed to be disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the odds of some random IP-user stumbling across some random article and having knowledge of this guideline? There was no mention in the edit summary of this guideline, all they did was writing insults while reverting. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're leaving me little choice here. I used to edit here under this name . I had a bad experience here and gave up using an account to go IP only after a few months had passed. That's your entire argument destroyed. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Arguments are destroyed by providing evidence not by linking a random user account. It could be you, it could be someone else, it could even be one of many accounts you own. And no I am not saying that you do. Just pointing out the flaws in your 'argument'. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can request that an admin geolocate the IP attached to the account. I haven't personally used the account since I gave up editing Wikipedia regularly. But they will see that we're both from the same town. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If an allegation of a 3RR violation is an insult, then how do you propose we sanction the insults you have made against YoungForever, by alleging sockpuppetry? I think it's time to drop the stick and get back to productive editing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again I say, drop the stick. I'm willing to close this report with no action. On the other hand, if you keep going, I'll take a look at the article's edit history again and sanction the obvious 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There were never any insults to begin with. Saying an edit is disruptive is not an insult. YoungForever probably could have linked to the guidelines in their edit summary, but their reverts and reason for reverting were still correct. However, as notes above, it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Focus on something more productive. Amaury • 21:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This and this is how you should handle situations like this. That's what prevents conflicts. Insults are what start conflicts. If they had done it Schazjmd's example then there would have been no editwar yesterday and there would have been no insults. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not allege sockpuppetry. I never said YoungForever is using multiple useraccounts. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This diff contradicts that statement. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How does that contradict what I said? I did not say they logged into another account. Bijdenhandje (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Have you already forgotten what you wrote in one of your responses above? You have provided no evidence for your location so it does not really matter what the location the IP you are using is. There are clear signs of quacking here. Last time I checked they didn't use tunneling aboard starships. Bijdenhandje (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC) That right there is an accusation of sockpuppetry. Without evidence, to boot. Amaury • 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not an accusation of sock-puppetry. It's a response to the spaceship argument. What other username did I mention? Bijdenhandje (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You've accused us of being the same person multiple times on this report. You've even quoted edits I've made and placed alongside Youngforevers in your initial report. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Using threats is very counter productive. Please don't do that again. A lot of this could have been avoided by not making insults and informing the users instead. They way Schazjmd did in their revert is the correct way. Threats or insults are not the way to de-escalate a situation. I am not aware of the english moderator guidelines but I don't think this is appropiate. Bijdenhandje (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For the last time, there were no insults. I acknowledge that YoungForever could have linked to the guidelines, but their reverts were still correct and he did not use insults anywhere. And I am failing to see the threats that is allegedly making. Saying that he'll block you because you're refusing to drop the stick and move on to more production things is a warning, not a threat. I would seriously consider listening, unless you want to be blocked. Amaury • 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Amaury, I don't care if I am being blocked after being threatened, cause there is arb-com for that. A block does not change the situation, threats only escalate it. Apparently logging-out to use an IP-adress is seen as sockpuppetry on EN-wiki. On NL-wiki it requires logging into an actual second account, because an IP-adress is not an account. You can't sanction someone for not following an essasy. Even if I did intend to accuse them of sockpuppetry, which is clearly not the case. Schazjmd already resolved this issue ten minutes after I filled the disruption. So this entire discussion is irrelevant given their appropriate use of the edit summary. I do not agree with your opinion on insults, that's all I have to say. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though I did not linked MOS:ENDASH on my edit summary, I did linked MOS:ENDASH on the warning as shown here though. —  Young Forever (talk)   22:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The initial insult on my talkpage here did not contain any reference to MOS:ENDASH what so ever. I removed it and explained in the edit summary that it was posted on the wrong talkpage. The second sjablon was even more insulting, I did not read orange sjablons or warnings when they look like a harrasment to me. In stead of an editwar, there should have been information on the talkpage of Young Sheldon or in the edit summary. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You really need to learn what the definition of insult actually is. YoungForever's message on your talk page is not an insult, it is a warning due to your disruptive editing. Warnings and insults are two very different things. Amaury • 23:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't need to 'learn' what your definition of an insult is. There was no disruptive editing from my part or the other person involved. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not my definition, it is the literal definition of the word in dictionaries. 1) "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse" and 2) "a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action," neither of which YoungForever did. Amaury • 23:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It is your opinion that I was not treated with disrespect. You are entitled to that opinion. Now can this please stop? Go make a seperate request if you want to feel good about something. I don't know what you want. I'm not going to respond this non-sense anymore. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot of Wikipedia notifications from my email address which will match up with my talkpage. I haven't logged into the account in almost a year and have no intention of doing so(I don't feel comfortable doing so anymore). Here's another screenshot showing my account name and IP address which you can geolocate to the same location as my current IP. . Can this we're the same person stuff be dropped now? That's not true. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The disruption at the article appears to have stopped. Perhaps everyone should take a breath (it's just a stupid hyphen/en dash that doesn't really matter to the reader) and get on with constructive editing. Schazjmd  (talk)  22:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess the discussion can be closed. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The topic reporter is removing statements which implicate him in bad faith accusations, such as this one. He made this in response to the posts made by myself and Youngforever. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the above and the fact that this editor is refusing to drop the stick, I'd say a block is probably appropriate now, though I don't know if you're now considered to be WP:INVOLVED. Amaury • 23:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Messed up on my ping above when I first posted it. Amaury • 23:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with . Edit warring on the edit warring noticeboard is beyond ridiculous. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is an editwar then the person who started it should be sanctioned if they continue. This is not the place for that request. The above accusation by the IP is false, I am considering requesting a sanction if it is not retracted. You can use CTRL-F and see for yourself that I removed MY OWN duplicate with the excact same contents. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The content of both posts are clearly different. You removed the statement where you clearly accuse both myself and Youngforever of being the same person without evidence because you know that's a blockable offense. You should own up to your own mistakes instead of trying to bully users pointing out your actions. That's no way to treat people. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

That's Bullshit I corrected the typo in the second post and removed the first post. Other than the letter 'T' there is no difference at all. Use CTRL-F and show me where I call you he or she. You know that I mistyped it. Are you just trying to make a point? I did not call you he or she anywhere in this entire discussion! Stop being dishonest, anyone can use CTRL-F and debunk this. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry, wich I did not, is not even a blockable offense. You got that from an essay. Please make a seperate request for that and stop this madness. Bijdenhandje (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not. You made the first post at 20:48(for me) where you accuse us of being the same person(And said you'd add links) and followed it up 5 minutes later with a lengthy post with a reworded opening line which includes the links and some more accusations. I'm not stupid, it's all there on the page. You then came back later and wiped out the 20:48 post claiming it was the "same". That's not true. Please at least have the honesty to just admit your mistakes when you've been caught trying to cover your tracks.


 * And on your other point, your entire post is accusing us of being the same person. Your linked "evidence" in the report is revisions made by both myself and Youngforever. You were the one who started this whole issue and the problem seems to be your inability to just accept your mistakes and move on. Instead you repeat them and even edit war on the admin board. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can get block for casting aspersions with baseless claims as it is considered to be personal attacks. This was what you said above: The user has done SIX reverts within a 36 hour perdiod, logging out of their account to mask the 3R. This is clearly an accusation of sockpuppetry. —  Young Forever (talk)   01:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are the duplicates, anyone can see that there is no substantive difference. Even the typo is still there.

This edit has been removed: "Above statements by the user and (t)his IP are untrue as can be seen in the edit history. I will link them in a minute."

Because it is a duplicate of: "Above statement by the user from (t)his IP is untrue as can be seen in the edit history. Evidence is"

If you are accusing me of trying to cover something up you should explain how this is not a duplicate. This is not the place to do so. You should start your own request Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Don't forget to mention that I never asked for a bann or a check user. You are the one who was editwarring by putting the duplicates back. Bijdenhandje (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to close this report with no action but instinct suggests that User:Bijdenhandje, who has already broken 3RR, is going to continue beating the dead horse until some admin decides that a block is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, this has gone beyond the topic of edit warring, the conversation can be moved elsewhere. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not the one beating a dead horse and was not the one voilating 3RR. This has been resolved hours ago, but the IP continues accusing me of hiding information while everything is still there. If they want to block me they should move their request elsewhere and stop doing it here. I wouldn't be bothered by a block at all. I hardly use the English Wikipedia and when I do I'm hardly ever on this account. So good luck IP, I'm going to bed. Bijdenhandje (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the history of Young Sheldon shows you violated 3RR/edit warring. — Young Forever (talk)   00:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And I am pretty sure the history of Young Sheldon shows you violated 3RR/edit warring with two different users on two seperate days. All could have been prevented. But it does not look like you are willing to learn from your mistakes. Bijdenhandje (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The two admins above stated otherwise. Your accusations are completely baseless. — Young Forever (talk)   00:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: No action taken. It appears that the filer, User:Bijdenhandje, is now aware that MOS:ENTO prefers an endash to a hyphen for the phrase '18–21 minutes' in the Young Sheldon article. If warring continues admin action is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Noname JR reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Partial block, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 994417774 by C.Fred (talk) Arabic and tamazight are official languages in Algeria"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 994412937 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 994405434 by M.Bitton (talk) Tamazight is an official language, it's mandatory to have transcription through"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 994388622 by M.Bitton (talk) I let a comment, same for Algeria same for Morocco"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 994343441 by Power~enwiki (talk) What are official languages in Algeria ?"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 994328659 by Nkon21 (talk)Official languages are arabic and tamazight"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Algeria."
 * 2)   "/* ANI Notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tamazight */ re"

Comments: Hi, Tamazight is an official language in Algeria (like in Morocco), so why do you revert transcription about it?--Noname JR (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the situation at Talk:Algeria. Your edits have overwritten some information and removed templates that are used for foreign languages. At any rate, you cannot unilaterally make this change: you must get consensus at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They are only interested in edit warring. They have just reverted your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * from Algeria only. I went with the partial block in the hope that they will engage in constructive discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Azmarai76 reported by User:Majavah (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added to categories"
 * 2)  "Added to categories"
 * 3)  "Added to categories"
 * 1)  "Added to categories"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mirza Masroor Ahmad."
 * 2)   "/* December 2020 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* He isn't Caliph of Islam but only Ahmadiyaa */ Reply"

Comments:

Constantly adding old maintenance categories and adding dubious. Refusing to discuss on the talk page. Majavah (talk!) 11:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Majavah please let me know who is Messiah according to Ahmadiyaa beliefs??? Is that Jesus Christ or Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and please don't remove the tags without discussion. Tags like are for nothing else but discussion which others along with you removed after threatening me to be blocked not in accordance with Wikipedia standards.

Regards User:Azmarai76

User:Majavah titles like Amirul Momineen is also a bit too much Islamic world has no Caliph (Amirul Momineen) right now. Please do understand Edit War also any editor can see if I have changed anything in the text or just put tags to alot of ambiguous statements in this article ??? Regards User:Azmarai76


 * I came from that discussion and it just tells that User:Azmarai76 is unfamiliar with some of Wikipedia policies and standards regarding it. It was also previously observed by admin in a discussion on my talkpage. There may be some inability on his part too in this. But anyhow I think he may only be warned to comply with Wikipedia policies and standards by referring to policies involving there in the matter. Thanks! USaamo (t@lk) 10:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Azmarai76 is warned for edit warring, and has been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. If they continue to add 'dubious' tags to this page, or add the Mirza Masroor Ahmad article to maintenance categories, they are risking an article ban. The 'caliph' uproar is due to an unexpected result from some Google searches, and is documented at WP:CALIPH. We understand that some people don't consider the adherents of Ahmadiyya to be real Muslims, even though they consider themselves Muslim. But that is not an issue for Wikipedia. We just summarize what has been reported by reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:199.185.67.123 reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It was realized he cheated so the next player won. I feel bad for bugha."
 * 1)  "It was realized he cheated so the next player won. I feel bad for bugha."
 * 1)  "It was realized he cheated so the next player won. I feel bad for bugha."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user in question was repeatedly substituting the name of the tournament winner ('Bugha') without providing a source for a different name ('Suhaas'), when the original name was sourced. Giraffer munch 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked: Six months for vandalism by User:Materialscientist. See also the IP's edit filter log. This is a school IP from Edmonton, Alberta. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Andrew Ruggero reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "OK I’ll give it to you. However, just like in the George Floyd wikipedia page, the races of the victim and the suspect are worth noting. The races were in the source too."
 * 2)  "Nope, I never stated that is 100% the reason for the killing, it is just what it seems due to what was happening at the current time. Do not revert the edit."
 * 3)  "Fixed typo"
 * 1)  "Fixed typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shooting of Cannon Hinnant."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Andrew Ruggero has been warned after several times making inflammatory, false statements in the above article, including alleging (without a source) that it was an act of "black supremacy" and then further violated NPOV by adding the races of those involved to the lead, leading to undue weight and and an implication that this was a racially motivated crime, which has been discussed on the talk page over and over again. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:EvergreenFir. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:115.164.93.149 reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Hmmm"
 * 2)  "Hmmmm"
 * 3)  "Hmmmm"
 * 4)  "Hmmmm"
 * 5)  "Hmmm"
 * 6)  "Hmmmmm"
 * 7)  "Hmm"
 * 8)  "Hmmm"
 * 1)  "Hmm"
 * 2)  "Hmmm"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Key (cryptography)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring vandal. Giraffer munch 10:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Callanecc for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Vmakenas reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 994217141 by Solavirum (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 994216846 by Solavirum (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 994216048 by CuriousGolden (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dilgam Asgarov and Shahbaz Guliyev."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* One-sided */"

Comments:

The user keeps replacing a whole article with improperly sourced or entirely unsourced content and doesn't properly discuss the issue in the talk page. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  17:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like he doesn't even care about the warning I and Curious gave. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The contents of the article have to apply to WP:NOPV. The article in its version supported by CuriousGolden and Solavirum was indeed one-sided, as the arrest of the two persons was called "two people taken hostage". This is obviously one-sided. Vmakenas cannot be blamed for trying to find a more neutral version citing both sides. If there are 2 edit warriors on one side, this does not change the fact that they are themselves edit warriors. -- PhJ (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. Calling this incident a terrorist attack, making it look like the unrecognized NKR court had made the right decision, and that Azerbaijan was in the wrong is trying to find a more neutral version citing both sides for you? Nah mate. He could've had just changed hostage to arrest rather than showing this like some sort of a PKK-like raid on peaceful people. Vmakenas's disruptive behaviour is clearly visible here; edit warring, not caring about talk requests, removing warnings on his talk page, and so on. Being an apologist of him/her ain't a okay thing. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  17:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, that wasn't even POV. Armenia has acknowledged that these both were either hostages, or POWs. As they had returned them to Azerbaijan as part of the ceasefire agreement which stated that both sides must exchange hostages or POWs. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  18:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – User:Vmakenas was blocked 72 hours by User:Scottywong. EdJohnston (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Austintexas000aaaa reported by User:Grayfell (Result:Checkuser blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 994655303 by SecularSourcworks (talk) just undoing his edit to your edit"
 * 2)  "Better Source. And yes, being nominated for a Nobel matters."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 992583939 by Zero0000 (talk), we report the facts, we don't decide being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize doesn't matter"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Austintexas000aaaa is a conspicuously new account editing Elder of Ziyon to restore badly-sourced content added by another conspicuously new account a couple weeks ago. The article has a template for 30/500 and WP:1RR as a Palestine-Israel article. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ sock. I've blocked and reverted the article back to the version prior to the socking.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SammyWaffle! reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 994649989 by Muboshgu (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 994649498 by Muboshgu (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 994634322 by PCN02WPS (talk)"
 * 4)  "added political affiliations"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 994640671 by 73.82.183.136 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 994640223 by Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 994579344 by BazingaFountain42 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 994640671 by 73.82.183.136 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 994640223 by Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 994579344 by BazingaFountain42 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 994579344 by BazingaFountain42 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Notice */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cabinet of Joe Biden."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Initiating this finally got SammyWaffle to use a talk page. Sadly, what they chose to say suggests WP:NOTHERE to me. See their past disruptive edits from earlier in the month. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

SammyWaffle has |posted in an uncivil manner on my talk page to complain about my reversion of their |edit on Marjorie Taylor Greene where they added insults and removed the existing content in the "Gun control" section. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 21:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I was called a "karen" on my talk page by SammyWaffle here and that the user seems to be creating a Wikipedia page of themself here. I agree with 's assessment of WP:NOTHERE. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And now this. Blocked indef. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Normchou reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Returning to Earth */ Incorrect synthesis; manually revert"
 * 2)  "/* Landing site */ Fixed inaccruate synthesis"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 994603617 by Albertaont (talk) The specific allusion to the Luna 15 and Luna 16 highlights the different roles that robots have played in the previous moon race vs. the current one. It is necessary elaboration for understanding McDonald's conclusion."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 994536527 by Albertaont (talk) If it says something else, then list it. Vandalism is not the right way to do this."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 994535855 by Albertaont (talk) If it says something else, then list it. Vandalism is not the right way to do this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Chang'e 5."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note the two edit summaries dating from around 06:10 UTC today, a blatant disregard of WP:VANDNOT Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Normchou, for my conversation with  who created this report. I believe this act of that user was done in bad faith. Normchou (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTHEM principle: The focus of this report is your crossing of the 3RR red line, not anything else. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is actually wrong. See WP:SHOT. Normchou (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please pay particular attention to the timestamps in my talk page. This report was created right after that user made a number of accusations against me, but none of them were related to the discussion of a potential edit war. I believe they are acting in bad faith. Normchou (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The reporting user's allusion to WP:NOTTHEM above is deemed inappropriate. The block (should there be one) has not yet occurred, and I am not requesting an unblock here. Once again, if one pays attention to the timestamps, including those of the diffs and this complaint, it would be evident that a block is unnecessary. Normchou (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Normchou (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide conclusive evidence that either CaradhrasAiguo or myself is acting in bad faith, pretty serious allegation here. Albertaont (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The suggestion of acting in bad faith is only pertinent to the reporting user. "That user" merely refers to the user who filed this complaint. Normchou (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In reality there are different weights of evidence rather than the dichotomy of "conclusive" vs. "inconclusive", which could mean different things to different people anyway. Regarding this specific matter, some of the evidence has already been supplemented in the above thread as well as on my user talk page. It is up to the admin to decide the weight of evidence. Normchou (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Nicoljaus reported by User:Corriganthe3rd (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Nicoljaus, a user who has been blocked numerous times for edit warring, is up to his old behavior once again, deleting sources information from both the above mentioned page and the Taras Bulba-Borovets page, a page that he has committed edit warring on and been blocked several times before. He does not attempt to resolve his disputes in a civilized manner on talk pages, and resorts to personal attacks instead. Just so we do not have a further rehash of his past behaviors, I am reporting him here. Thanks.Corriganthe3rd (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is is it weird if I ask why an editor with 42 edits has the concerns that you do? For a brand new editor that has been here for four months, You seem to be very familiar with the editor in question. Beach drifter (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I came across the user after noticing his disruptive behavior on the Taras Bulba-Borovets page. I investigated his block log shortly afterwards. I have no particular interest in him other than that he stop edit warring with me. Corriganthe3rd (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Both warned. User:Nicoljaus and User:Corrignthe3rd are both edit warring. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I warned a colleague, but he removed my messaage with the comment He also made statements like this in another article, deleting my text:
 * I opened the topic on the article talk page:, but I ask you to return the pre-war version of the article , because I think the user lacks the spirit of cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I opened the topic on the article talk page:, but I ask you to return the pre-war version of the article , because I think the user lacks the spirit of cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I opened the topic on the article talk page:, but I ask you to return the pre-war version of the article , because I think the user lacks the spirit of cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I opened the topic on the article talk page:, but I ask you to return the pre-war version of the article , because I think the user lacks the spirit of cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I opened the topic on the article talk page:, but I ask you to return the pre-war version of the article , because I think the user lacks the spirit of cooperation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:wallyfromdilbert reported by User:BazingaFountain42 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994512406
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994647761
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994651425
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antony_Blinken&oldid=994652493

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

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

Comments:

Why is concentrating only on that one bio article? He hasn't been making the same reverts at the other Biden nominee bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears a relatively new editor is showing up at the page and an edit war resulted. BazingaFountain42 appears to have made at least 4 reverts just today. Perhaps just lock the article and let the new editor know that once a change has been reverted the next step is the talk page. Springee (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In this situation though, the new editor was in the right. He was merely lining up the bio article, with the other Biden cabinet nominee bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This article was brought to BLPN where this RfC seemed to have a clear consensus against using "nominee" in the infobox, in favor of either "presumptive nominee" (or similar langauge) or removing the infobox until the nominations are officially made after the inauguration. GoodDay and BazingFountain42 have been edit warring on various pages, which is part of the reason why the one page was brought to BLPN in the first place. In the RfC, only one other person agreed with GoodDay that infoboxes should include a "nominee" status before the nominations are made after the inauguration. Also, despite GoodDay's claims, not all of Biden's future nominees have had their infoboxes updated, including Jennifer Granholm, which was part of a recent ANI thread regarding BazingaFountain42. I believe I did go over 3RR on the Blinken page but there were several intermediary edits by BazingaFountain42 that I reverted because they were clearly vandalism:  . I have only reverted 3 times since then, as two of the diffs above are consecutive edits by me. Not sure what BazingaFountain42's reason is for the numerous reverts that included those vandalism edits. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have previously stated, the vandalism was on accident. My computer had a browser extension that changed every instance of "Trump" to "Drumpf", and I realized that shortly after and removed the vandalism and corrected the article to have Blinken shown as the nominee. I can't believe I have to say that again. It's incredibly frustrating that you keep bringing that up because I have admitted my mistake, acknowledge the reason for it and am no longer making said mistake. Furthermore, the reason why there was the discussion on whether or not we should have Granholm listed as the nominee was because she hasn't been officially announced yet, whereas Blinken has been officially announced. It wasn't on whether or not we should have her listed as the nominee because Biden hasn't yet been inaugurated. Context is everything. Excluding Granholm (since her nomination has not yet been officially announced by the Biden transition team), literally every single on of Biden's nominees has the position for which they have been nominated and "Nominee" in their infobox. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited the Blinken article for days, out of frustration with your constant reverts. PS - Granholm has not yet been announced as a cabinet nominee, btw. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:213.205.194.98 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 994638781 by Johnbod (talk) Why remove correct and sourced information? I know IP editors are not welcome here, but the ethos of “the encyclopedia that anyone can edit” still lives with some of us"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 994637726 by Johnbod (talk) No, I am not that editor: I am an IP editor. Looking at the two references you have added, p233 of the work makes no mention of this (ie. fails verification); the second is not a reliable source. If you do find reliable sources to back up rampion, I think you should respect CITEVAR and add any references in the consistent formatting"
 * 3)  "Please follow WP:CITEVAR and use the same formatting as the rest of the article. As a featured work, it should have the basics correct"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 994633682 by Johnbod (talk) as already mentioned, please find a source - you can’t add things without a proper reliable source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on London Beer Flood."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No one, not me, the edit-warring registered editor, or this person leaving one-sided threats, has opened a thread. And I’m the one who is up to be blocked? 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Requested full-protection at RFPP minutes before the 3rd and 4th revert happened. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have answered when threatened on my talk page: I’m sorry, but are you serious? You leave a threat for only one side of a disagreement but not the person that is adding unsourced material into an FAC, then using an unreliable source and a source that doesn’t back up what they are claiming? And yet you come to kick the IP editor, not a registered editor. It’s not a great surprise, but they are also edit warring, and they are damaging the article when they do so. What gives, exactly? I will repeat: a registered editor has added unsourced material which I removed. He edit warred it back in. Should it be left there in a featured article? Should we leave it there when he reverted again and added a source that doesn’t show what he claims and an unreliable source? According to Tbhotch, it’s ok to threaten the IP editor for edit warring, but the registered editor, despite their edit warring, doesn’t get the same treatment?


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994633682&oldid=994633351 1st revert
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&type=revision&diff=994636303&oldid=994634434 2nd revert
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994637726&oldid=994636963 3rd revert
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Beer_Flood&diff=994638781&oldid=994638130 Vandalism (correct and sourced information being deliberately removed.

Is this appropriate behaviour? 213.205.194.98 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit warring "It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring." And you are right, John has reverted 3 times now. Therefore I will add a 3rr warn and it's up to them to decide if they want to re-revert you. This is WP:NOTVAND, disruptive if anything. (CC)  Tb hotch ™ 20:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 213.205.194.98 has four reverts in 32 minutes, blocked for 72 hours. I'm leaving this open in case anyone wants to take action on the other party,, to whom I'll just say this: it's not OK to edit-war, regardless of the provocation, regardless of who's right, regardless of the exact fiscal number of reverts. Edit-warring is harmful to the project, please just stop doing it. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just say my edits were doing different things: adding text, then adding a ref, then another, then removing the original sentence, which was misleading without the extra stuff I was trying to add, and hardly relevant (concerning events 150 years later). At every stage I was just reverted by the ip. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:EPicmAx4 reported by User:CycloneYoris (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 994645876 by CycloneYoris (talk) You are free to think whatever you want about how active season was, but Wikipedia will not recognize it, so please stop reverting."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 994645492 by CycloneYoris (talk) What other measures are there?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 994644192 by CycloneYoris (talk) 2017 has 18 storms to the Atlantic's 17 and 2019 had 19 storms to the Atlantic's 18."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 994540683 by CycloneYoris (talk) Please, tell me how that is inaccurate"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 994540683 by CycloneYoris (talk) Please, tell me how that is inaccurate"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 Pacific hurricane season."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been given a warning for edit warring and has been told to solve this on the article's page but they keep on reverting for no reason. CycloneYoris talk!</b> 20:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that the editor in question also tried to revert again under an IP address to try and get their way. The editor has also removed all warnings, and the ANI notification on their talk-page. The user is however, attempting to discuss the edit warring on the appropriate talk page. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox)  21:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. This user also appears to be reverting while logged out. If that continues they could be risking a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Hello Animal reported by User:Kaustubh42 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [-37]
 * 2) [+2]
 * 3) [-2]
 * 4) [-3]

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

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

Comments:

User is vandalising the page by giving false information.
 * – Not enough reverts in a 24-hour period to show a violation of the WP:3RR rule. You are misusing the term 'vandalism'. If you believe someone has made an incorrect change, you should explain the problem on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CycloneYoris reported by User:EPicmAx4 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

EPicmAx4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EPicmAx4 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. Please note that this report is invalid. As this user was the one that provoked the same edit war that I reported above. <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the report is not invalid. Please keep WP:3RR in mind; see WP:DISCFAIL for an essay that may be very helpful in such situations.
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Halbared reported by User:Vpab15 (Result: Withdrawn)
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: [link]

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

Comments:

Me and other editor tried to engage with Halbared, but he just kept reverting our changes, six times in total. Vpab15 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've requested arbitration by an admin, shirt58. But I don't mind any admin popping over and advising. I'd like to assume good faith by the above, it just seemed a tad suspicious to request for examples and then edit them.Halbared (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've also requested a look by AmandaNP, I'll abide by any third set of admin eyes, I may have gotten too close.Halbared (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Halbared self-reverted and we'll both accept third party opinion. This report can be closed as far as I am concerned. Vpab15 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Sexismcorrector23 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

Multiple users have Warned this editor, and the editor reverted immediately after they were warned. VViking Talk Edits 14:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that edit warring has happened, but the editor has stopped following the final warning, and appears to be engaging in discussion now. I will have a talk with them. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, if no one else objects I think this has been taken care of. VViking Talk Edits 19:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Complaint withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Solavirum reported by User:PhJ (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, ,

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

--- PhJ (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment the user is clearly trying to manipulate the guidelines. See my edit explanations and how PhJ voided discussing this and achieving any kind of a WP:CONSENSUS. Also, I had re-reverted myself about twenty minutes before this request. If anyone needs to be blocked editing, its PhJ, who's been edit warring, avoiding WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRDDISCUSS, not even taking a look at my attempts to bring him to the talk page. 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Finding consensus means, in an article about a conflict, giving all opinions of the parties involved in an appropriate manner. That is what Solavirum refuses to do. He wants to push the Azeris' POV. There were older, more neutral versions of the article, as well as versions tagged with the POV or Multiple Issues template. Reverting to a POV version is edit warring. -- PhJ (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That version was established by, an administrator and a third-party editor, and you reverted his edits too. The more neutral versions of the article you're referring to was making the topic look like a terrorist attack and the editor who added that is already blocked for violating the guidelines. What PhJ does is avoiding any kind of a discussion and edit warring. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And in any case, this report should be disregarded, as when the report was filed, I had reverted myself twenty minutes ago. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  22:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment Agree with PhJ, what Sola  Virum  is doing in that article is clearly POV-pushing, by removing ALL info from Armenian or neutral sources and adding only Azeri or Turkish sources.-- HC  PUNX  KID 14:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not adding any Turkish sources, I've only added BBC article to the article. Secondly, no, I'm telling PhJ to achieve consensus before publishing such controversial edits. He's calling the incident a multiday terrorist attack (which is a laughable claim). In any case, even if your statement was true, this application is still a false flag. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The user has reverted their 4th revert, meaning they haven't broken WP:3RR, anything else about alleged POV doesn't belong in this noticeboard. — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 15:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree with PhJ, Solavirum seems to have a big POV-pushing problem, simply deleting sources that confirm information he doesn't like. He removed multiple sources on the 2020 Ganja missile attacks article of Arayik Harutyunyan saying Azerbaijan was targeting civilians in the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, his reason simply being "happened right after first attack" even though the bombardment took place a week later. When added it back saying this is key information, Solavirum again removed it, saying "has no place in the background". He tried removing it again as it was being discussed on the talk page, and when Sataralynd there was no consensus for removing it and this violates NPOV, Solavirum didn't even bother to explain his continued edit warring. --Steverci (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Those were added without any kind of a consensus. We reached a consensus. And its there, though with additional information necessary to show that Artsakh authorities saying that they were afraid that even archaeologists will not be able to find the place of Ganja. However, is this even related to this application? --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  00:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Solavirum has a very different understanding of "consensus" than general people in a democratic country. In the case of this article, the Ganja article and other article where Solavirum is "working" on, there is clearly NO consensus on the statements Solavirum is placing in the WP articles. -- PhJ (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. Please use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Hugo.arg reported by User:Ke an (Result: Filer indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994863234&oldid=994862471&diffmode=source

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994936889&oldid=994863234
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994939490&oldid=994939423&diffmode=source
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%97dainiai&diff=994939934&oldid=994939750&diffmode=source

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hugo.arg&diff=994940212&oldid=991093625&diffmode=source

Comments:

User Hugo.arg keeps malisiouly reverting obvious factual information for no reason. Name Kėdainiai is a Lithuanian name, which had transcriptions in other languages. This fact is maliciously and withour arguments deleted. -- Ke an (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not transcription. Polish and Russian names were OFFICIAL writing forms of Lithuanian settlements prior 1918. Also, they are not a phonetic transcription but rather an adaptation based on Lithuanian pronunciation. Also, by removing them user:Ke an removed notable Jewish people born in Kėdainiai. Also, it is worth to notice what User:Ke an is removing other historical (and formerly official) names of Lithuanian settlements although there is a wide practice in Wikipedia to use alternate names (see Lviv, Hradec Kralove) even if they are a product of short lived occupation. In this case, German, Polish and Russian names were used for Lithuanian toponyms for centuries, till 1918, and there standartized only c. 1950. Hugo.arg (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There were no OFFICIAL toponyms. Lithuania was occupied several times and that doesn't mean the derivative names in other languages were "official". Lithuanian form of Kėdainiai recorded at least in 17th century in written form. It should be clearly stated that form in which language is original, but Hug.arg defends a policy of cultural appropriation and places all names in all possible languages as equivalent and "official" and deletes all references to its original Lithuanian form. He executes this practise in his massive edits in almost all Lithuania towns and villages. I see it is a practise with a doubtfull unknown purpose defending point of view that Lithuania toponyms are somehow "invented" or even standartised in 1950 (!). 99 percent toponyms in Lithuania have Lithuanian (Baltic) origins and placing them as derivative or "standartised lately" with recorded forms in other languages is misguiding at least. French, Dutch and Spanish also have derivative names of Lithuanian toponyms and that doens't mean we should stuff everything into the English (particularly English) page. There are pages in the corresponding languages. The statement "German, Polish and Russian names were used for Lithuanian toponyms for centuries" is obviously wrong. Different nations used Lithuanian transcriptions (better or worse) for their needs, but that doens't mean those 3 languages were used especially for Lithuanian toponyms. Also, Hugo.arg argues, that he puts toponyms in all possible languages in Wikipedia just beacause it is important for some reasearch he executes and it would be easier to find toponyms for him. I don't understand that selfish approach. There is a page on Wikipedia for Lithuanian toponyms and their derivative forms and I think it works perfectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Lithuanian_places_in_other_languages The practise for putting toponyms in other languages as equivalent or even as "more historical" also violates the laws of Lithuania: https://www.eki.ee/knn/ungegn/bd3_ltov.htm Regarding the notability - I have removed some representatives with a doubtfull notability (usually very local or notable in narrow communities) not matter their belonging.

-- Ke an (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, Ke an got sufficient explanations at the talk page, and, given long-term problematic editing (pushing Lithuanian nationalist POV) it is best to block them, choosing the duration according to the previous blocks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are supposed to give arguments, not your nationalistic biased view.There is nothing nationalist in my explanations. It is very sad that such persons as Ymblanter, promoting and representing Russian chauvinism in every possible discussion related Lithuania and the Baltis tates are infiltrated into Wikipedia amdinistrators. So my objection to this type of "administrators". They do much harm to WIkipedia. -- Ke an (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you see Russian chauvinism in my edits, but this is one more argument to get you blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your bias and chauvinism, low discussion ethics disqualifies you from judging states previously occupied by Russia --- Ke an (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, but I obviously disagree with pretty much every word of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * any thoughts?

I see here just a clear promoting of his POV by the user:Ke an - not as it is or was but how it should be ignoring everything, as Lithuania in 1918 would had been created in an empty place. Rather of your stubborn promoting of your POV which will lead nowhere (except to your block) you could expand "etymology" sections for the Lithuanian settlements to prove their Baltic origin. But you are not concerned of scholar things (as I understand your knowledge of comparative and historical linguistics are close to zero) but just about promoting your propaganda which is kind of distorted view to the history imagining that Standard Lithuanian existed from the 10th century. There were, in fact, various dialects and no written form of them till the 19th century. The same toponym could be pronounced differently depending on dialect and even interpretation. During the interwar period and at the early Sovet era there were a long process of "re-Lithuanization" of these toponyms. Even the same toponym often were re-Lithuaized in different ways (ex. Malinowka at some cases there Lithuanized as "Malinovka", at some cases "translated" as "Avietynė" and at some cases as "Molynė"). Some toponyms were Lithuanized in such way that nobody uses them in spoken language (ex. a local village near Kėdainiai officialy is Paobelys but I heard it pronounced only as Padūbėlė, not counting the dialect forms as Utieka is in fact pronounced only as Ucieka). Russian, Polish and German forms are very useful information for historical linguistics and shoul not be removed just for an aim to run away from own past. Hugo.arg (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:Ke an, has been indef blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights for nationalist POV pushing and personal attacks. Action was taken per Ymblanter's complaint at ANI. Given Ke an's statements above, and what appear to be their nationalist edits of the past two days, this action doesn't come as a complete surprise. (They have been removing dozens of Polish names for places in Lithuania, some of whose articles were newly created by Hugo.arg). Ymblanter said (above) 'long-term problematic editing (pushing Lithuanian nationalist POV)' and it's hard to disagree with that assessment. In case anyone is interested, the advice for place names is given in WP:NCPLACE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 995010578 by DrIdiot (talk) I close the neutrality issue from September 2020 and open the neutrality issue in December 2020.  "
 * 2)  "Undid revision 994976359 by DrIdiot (talk) Neutrality section is still open on the talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 994833214 by DrIdiot (talk) see talk- neutrality is disputed"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 994814571 by DrIdiot (talk) Correct- the article is not neutral."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Neutrality is disputed */ ."

Comments:

User has had a prior partial block from the page. From WP:STICK-style posts such as this, the corresponding talk page should be added to the partial block, too. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've asked Geographyinitiative to agree to stop his long-term fight about the simplified characters in Democratic Progressive Party. If he won't agree to stop, I think an indefinite block should be considered. If you have any hope this will get resolved otherwise take a look at his recent comments in Talk:Democratic Progressive Party. It seems that nothing whatever will suffice to change his mind on this. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – Indef. Given his response to my final offer it is clear that Geographyinitiative is never going to stop. Editors have also requested admin action about Geographyinitiative at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Renner3774 reported by User:Paul Carpenter (Result: Blocked (partial) 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Complete MAT action (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This appears to be a single purpose account adding the same POV content with no attempt made at communicating with the editors removing it. A warning about POV edits was given by but ignored. I should also point out that the reverting editor, doesn't appear to have made an attempt to reconcile either, although they are currently just on the right side of the 3RR. --Paul &#10092;talk&#10093; 18:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * . Partial block applied only to the James Renner article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Pasdecomplot (Result:Declined )
Page:

User being reported: Previous versions by reporter: reporter's version before reverts reporter's version before reverts Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:' [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Would rather not bring the issue to AN, but RfC would not be a viable forum. The user's first revert's edit summary does not accurately describe the revert nor the RS. The second revert by user was performed before user replied at either of the two talk discussions, after being asked to bring the issues to both talks. Please note that while this AN was being prepared, the user finally went to talk, but with statements which either don't address the reverts, or question RS, apparently based on their opinion. I'd add that ASPIRE applies to the reply at talk. Thanks for any help you can give. Pasdecomplot (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

An instant WP:BOOMERANG for the reporter is in order, based on the apparently based on their opinion remark alone, a violation of their editing restriction to not comment on the motivations of other editors outside of WP:AN/I, as formally logged by and proposed by. Not only are they barely 24 hours off a month-long block and off to reverting (1K bytes+: 1, 2), but a few days before the block, was caught distorting the source wording. PdC's refusal to acknowledge RS\N input on their advocacy sources, which is to be applied to Tibetan Political Review, is a clear long-term WP:IDHT conduct, as is the brazen attempt (see last diff) to pass Warren W. Smith as a historian writing at Tibetan Political Review, to obscure Smith's Radio Free Asia affiliation.

Not only is the report frivolous, the timeline suggested while this AN was being prepared is false as well. My initial talk page post in response occurred at 23:22, whereas PdC's latest revert occurred at 23:23. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 02:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see both parties have started a talk page discussion. That's good. More of that and less of discussion through edit summaries please. Also I see no violation of the editing restriction the filing party is under at this point. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

My response below was being prepared as decided to decline:
 * This is AN.
 * The subject is Nyingchi.
 * The talk discussions are factual and indicate this AN is definitely not "frivolous".
 * Multiple APERSIONS are unfounded.
 * RSNB discussion is being honored, even though the closing clearly states each source needs to be presented individually for separate discussions. That's why Tibetan Review and Tibetan Political Review are the RS.
 * I know nothing about the author Smith's alleged affiliations with other media outlets. Tibetan Political Review is the RS, thus the characterization of "brazen attempt" and 'IDHT conduct" is not based on WP:AOGF.
 * The "Tourism" talk discussion was posted hours before the 1st revert. No pings to me were made on either talk, and the 2nd revert was immediately after notice was given of both talks.
 * The RS fully supports the edits, whereas the reasons for the reverts given in the edit summaries are definitely misleading.
 * My original edits from more than a month ago have been re-edited since. Thus, I haven't been "caught distorting the source wording". For example, the RS in "Tourism" isn't from Radio Free Asia, yet someone added it as a link. In fact, I corrected misleading editing today on the political re-education RS. Pasdecomplot (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to discuss content so much of that response is better served on the article talk page than here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reopen the AN and have an uninvolved administrator review it, . Pasdecomplot (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I explained when you asked I responded mainly to decline the idea that you had violated your editing restriction and I am an uninvolved administrator. I have only interacted with you in an administrative role and so I am uninvolved per our policy on involved/uninvolved. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User: TranscendentMe reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: [diff]

Comments:

New editor is refusing to discuss a ~3,200 byte section removal, edit warring instead and they are at 5 reverts in the last 24 hours. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User:PEANUTBUTTERCOOOKIE! reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 995185872 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 995183569 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 995179343 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 995176772 by Acroterion (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 995170228 by Materialscientist (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "cmt"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Matt Mowers."

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

Comments:

Brand-new account creating an unsourced, poorly written BLP on a redirect page, and ignoring all advice about creating a draft. Warning about edit warring after their third revert, 3RR warning after the fourth revert, but since they reverted again, I'm reporting them here. bonadea contributions talk 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User was blocked by for 48 hours.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Magnovvig reported by User:CaffeinAddict (Result: Discussion recommended)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Concerned about the neutrality of the page and province-specific issues, I removed certain information and moved information to province-specific pages on COVID-19. User reverted my changes. I admittedly reverted these (which I should not of) and decided to refrain from edit warring and begin a discussion on the talk page. I have notified said user. Page is broken off from a protected page, but Timeline article is not protected. I have recently removed a NPOV notice as well, as some information for example talks of "COVID-19 concentration camps" seems highly contentious. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry . My reasoning is contained in my edit summaries, which are available here. I cannot be considered to have started an edit war because, as the material in question has been extant for many days if not months, the one who desires to change the wiki page must bring his/her arguments to the talk page before making changes. Magnovvig (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see where either of you have broken 3RR. However, I do think this is a good time for both of you to discuss the matter on the talk page. That will likely bring in some other voices, so a broader consensus can be reached. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User:81.129.200.185 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 995208330 by Timothy Titus (talk) The edit didn't say christmas was cancelled, the edit said gatherings were cancelled. Please actually read edits before you decide to delete them."
 * 2)  "/* United Kingdom */  simply reverting a change is very lazy editing when you could just make a minor edit to put your preferred summary into improving the initial edit"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 995174203 by NatGertler (talk) the source is the article itself, not the headline, which you would know if you chose to read it"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 995170418 by Timothy Titus (talk) not a tabloid headline, perfectly legitimate phrasing (don't be a snob) from the main newspaper of the main affected area (London)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* non-controversy Christmas cancelation */ new section"

Comments:

I find this all rather baffling. I edited the article Christmas controversies to include, er, a recent Christmas controversy. At first, this was reverted because my writing was "tabloid style". So I reverted because my writing seemed perfectly fine and this seemed a rather snobby thing to say (in particular, if you think the language of an edit isn't good enough, why not try *improving* it first, rather than just deleting it?).

This then got reverted by another editor, who said the problem was that the source was the headline. So the problem was supposed to be the source itself, not the style. I then reverted again, because (as I explained in my edit) my source wasn't the headline, but the article I linked.

The same editor then reverted it back, this time explaining that my original edit (which said "cancelled Christmas") was an unfair summary of that article (which, in their words, said "effectively cancelled Christmas gatherings"). That response (different, or at least, differently explained to the other two reversions) seemed fair enough by me, so I took on board their criticism and edited a new summary that used the literal phrase they chose ("effectively cancelled Christmas gatherings") as part of my new edit instead. I corrected my mistake. I will point out here btw that again it seems like it would've been both friendly and a healthier form of editing if either of these two editors had made this edit themselves, rather than this lazy deletion. I'm not experienced with encyclopaedia editing but I reckon if you want to encourage noobs to join in and improve this place then improving their, often initially faulty, work would be better than just auto-deleting. But that's just my tuppence worth.

Anyway, I figured that would be that. Criticism taken on board and Wikipedia article improved. But instead, the editor who reverted my very first edit decided to revert this one too. Let me quote their reasoning in full: "Christmas is not cancelled. Please re-write your edit in appropriate language". This is bizarre. I had already rewritten my edit in "appropriate language" - using the phrasing suggested by another editor! And my new edit didn't say that "Christmas was cancelled". My edit explicitly changed that phrasing and used new, better phrasing. I can only presume this editor, Timothy Titus, didn't bother to read the edit I made before reverting it, and so deleted it without thinking. Either they are gatekeeping the page, or they automatically assume that no lowly anon users can possibly have anything to contribute, or they think that users can't learn and take on board criticisms - which I had done. Either way this seems like bad editing to me.

Finally, I see this complaint page and see there's a link to a section on the talk page about this, posted by the second editor, which I'd previously been unaware of. This talk page section complains that the source I used doesn't describe it as a controversy. I have three responses to that. 1) It doesn't logically follow - whether or not people support the new restrictions doesn't relate to whether or not it's a controversy (for instance, someone might think they should've happened earlier, or that if other decisions had been made before then the country wouldn't have gotten to the stage of needing to cancel Christmas gatherings). Controversy has a wide meaning and the complaints and worries in the article are part of that. 2) Note that this is now the FOURTH differing objection to my edit that has been made. The editor had made no previous complaint that the source wasn't related to a controversy - they had only said before that the wording wasn't better and I then used their exact wording. I find it hard to feel like I'm being treated in good faith if editors keep finding new reasons that they don't mention before why an edit is bad. I did what they said and that still wasn't good enough. 3) It's just factually wrong - this had been the main story all day with outrage across the political spectrum, and a large controversy for several weeks leading up this. Anyone who is even slightly familiar with UK news and politics knows this. So imagine you're a noob editor who sees a huge controversy in your country and decides to add a brief summary on Wikipedia. You won't necessarily find the perfect source and you might only be able to give a very short description. But the hope would be that other editors would see your summary and feel inspired to flesh it out and/or find better sources. That is, after all, how a collaborative encyclopaedia is supposed to work. So I bring this back to my earlier point - perhaps the source isn't the best one to outline it as a controversy (though see pt 1). Ok, but why should this be brought up on a complaint page here? Surely the response to a well-meaning noob user making a ham-fisted edit is to improve it, find better sources etc, rather than say it should be reverted? Why is deletion the automatic first response of both of these two editors? 81.129.200.185 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to assume that it's beholden on other editors not only to clean up your mistakes, but to invest a lot of time into cleaning them up in the way that you most want them cleaned up. That is not the case, you're dealing with volunteers here that are not beholden in any such way. You added a false claim (Christmas being cancelled) on a page where the source you gave did not support its presence. The quickest way to deal with that is to remove it; that doesn't prevent anyone who wished to create accurate and appropriate coverage of the same situation from doing so. Once any block for edit warring is passed, you are welcome - nay, encouraged - to join in on discussion on the talk page. You're apt to find that a better strategy than repeatedly adding content with insults to your fellow editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's "beholden" on other editors to clean up my mistakes, I merely pointed that *given you have already volunteered to clean up my mistakes* (which is what deleting people's contributions is a form of), it would have been just as easy to change the wording from "cancelled Christmas" to your own(!) suggested phrasing of "effectively cancelled Christmas gatherings" i.e. we're disagreeing over how best to clean up mistakes, not on whether or not you should clean up someone's mistakes. You're welcome to do what you want with your free time lol. Nor does the edit *you suggested* require investing "a lot of time", since to revert my edit you had to literally type in the edit you wanted done in the summary of the edit. If you had requested paragraphs and paragraphs of edits that would be another matter, but you didn't, it was one phrase you yourself typed out.


 * As for "You added a false claim (Christmas being cancelled) on a page where the source you gave did not support its presence", you seem to have missed the part where I literally took on board this criticism and re-edited the page to fit the phrasing *you* asked for. It does not explain why this has now gone to some complaint page after the other editor reverted this contribution and why you're still complaining about it. I literally changed the phrasing to the one you asked for and you're still unhappy. Bizarre.


 * Finally, not sure I've given any insults unless you mean factual stuff like "snob" - but it is, in fact, kinda snobby and insulting to steam in to call a noob editor's writing tabloid style. Moreover, in general the ever-shifting reasons for deleting my edit (4 differing reasons, as I say above) feels kinda passive aggressive to me. I suggest you pick a reason and stick to it if you don't want to someone to be annoyed at what appears to be gatekeeping. 81.129.200.185 (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:68.228.34.71 (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I've been an avid lurker of Wikipedia for quite sometime as well as a huge fan of the Olympic Games. Recently, an article caught my eye that seemed out of the ordinary in this subtopic. It seems like another user named Stonksboi also felt the same way too a few days prior. However, I was instantly reverted with a reasoning given as "Thats whole lot of misapplied technical knowledge about wikipedia for an IP with no edit history". I'm not sure how am I suppose to respond to that? I've always thought that anyone was welcome to make contributions on this website, and this immediate hostility that had been given by this user was truly disheartening. And so I looked around Wikipedia's policies knowing surely this is out of the ordinary and I came across on the topic of edit-warring. And I'm afraid here I am making a report against this user. 68.228.34.71 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Their original edit summary was "Olympics articles almost never has its controversies slapped on the lead section, it's undue weight. There aren't any for Rio 2016, Tokyo 2020 and if you want a direct comparison, Beijing 2008. What makes this any different? The burden is on you to gather consensus for such an inclusion.” so I’m shocked to see them claim that they only learned about the concept of edit warring or this noticeboard today. This wouldn't be the first dedicated attack account to stack up the reverts and then report me spuriously, heck it wouldn't even be the fourth or fifth... The rest were related to Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting although I can’t say with any certainly that this one is. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also a discussion was opened on the talk page long before this report, the IP has not participated in it. I’m more than willing to hear them out, but we don’t currently have any sources in the article which backs up the assertion that the calls for boycott are primarily based on any one thing and our current text says the exact opposite with a wide variety of issues being invoked by the heterogeneous groups pushing for a boycott. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure as to why you're doubling down on this, such as calling me an "attack account", when I don't even have an account. All I'm interested is on that one article and the Olympics in general, but you do you I guess... Yes, I also saw that talk page, but you only did that after reverting 5 times in total, including me and that other user, not "long before this report". Like come on dude, the timestamps show it. Last I read it's considered "edit warring" when it has been done more than 3 times on the 4th attempt... 68.228.34.71 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And If you wanna talk Olympics, sure. All Olympics since its inception has its controversies. There's never been an Olympics Games where certain individuals or groups want it cancelled or boycotted. I mean heck, the now postponed 2020 Tokyo Olympics is highly controversial too. Even so, an article just a few days ago mentioned that "a majority of Japanese public want Olympics cancelled or postponed" and one a few months back where "More Than Half Of Tokyo Residents Don’t Want City To Host 2021 Olympics". However, it's not on the lead. And don't get me started on Rio 2016...I hope other users understand the point I'm making now... Your continued hostility against me does not sound like wanting to "hear me out". 68.228.34.71 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude you still haven't commented on the talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already did. Dude chill out, I only have 2 hands, It's only been a few minutes. I also have to say yet again I do not appreciate your comment there accusing me of "pushing the CCP POV". I've mentioned my reasoning of controversies that included other Olympics Games located outside China, such as Brazil and Japan, which were strictly non-political. 68.228.34.71 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I look forward to finding an outcome we can both live with on the talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You know what... Reviewing the history I F’d up, that is 4 reverts in 24 hours which I hadn’t intended to do. I thought there was a day between Stonksboi and the IP but it looks like less than that. Thats on me, sorry and it won’t happen again. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since User:Horse Eye's Back has apologized and has undone their last change. I hope that editors will join in the thread at Talk:2022 Winter Olympics. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:152.231.34.214 reported by User:JJPMaster (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Just telling the truth, which is considered disruptive these days"
 * 2)  "By telling the truth, which is considered disruptive nowadays"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Midsommar (film) (HG) (3.4.10)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP, along with IPs in the same range, has been repeatedly adding the word "coward" to articles related to the Netherlands, and continues to re-add it. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: IP blocked three months. Most likely this is the same Nicaraguan vandal as was previously blocked six months by User:Materialscientist. See 186.77.201.54. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Samanthaolinn reported by User:Angryskies (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Result; User:Samanthaolinn is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus on the talk page. At first glance, the sexual assault allegations against Derrick May seem to be reliably sourced. (The Guardian is not considered a tabloid). See WP:BLP for your appeal options if you believe the material doesn't belong in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:31.127.148.247 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&oldid=995030617

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=994981947
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995032268
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995036430

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASnooganssnoogans&type=revision&diff=995038395&oldid=994856612

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995030568 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico_City_policy&diff=prev&oldid=995034397

Comments:

I've pointed out that a strong claim in the article isn't supported by the articles cited, and changed the language to be more tentative. Snooganssnoogans is repeatedly and aggressively reverting my change without engaging properly on the talk page (despite multiple invitations to discuss).


 * . Based on the discussion, the IP editor needs to seek consensus on the talk page rather than attempting to force through a change. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that the "three-revert rule" applies, so the judgment isn't useful. Isn't this page about edit warring, not the "three-revert rule"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.127.148.247 (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Hosumyng123 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: "
 * 1)  "Undid revision 995538512 by Eggishorn (talk) https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/celebritylife/relationship/64010/mark-herras-posts-heartfelt-video-greeting-for-nicole-donesas-26th-birthday/story : Please check the source"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 995536643 by Eggishorn (talk) "
 * 3)  "Undid revision 995534355 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/celebritylife/relationship/64010/mark-herras-posts-heartfelt-video-greeting-for-nicole-donesas-26th-birthday/story : if you still revert this I don't know what to do with you, your head is as hard as rock"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 995527800 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) https://www.celebsagewiki.com/nicole-kim-donesa : please stop your disruptive edit you are a swedish user how could you even know her"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 995503834 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) https://www.facebook.com/dotsphofficial/photos/happy-birthday-nicole-donesa-whats-your-wish-for-nurse-via-/151177273188696 :proof of birthdate of Nicole Donesa

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nicole Kim Donesa."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* WP:DOB */ explanation of most recent revert"

Comments:
 * I'd already done so before this report was filed; I have no opinion on whether the sources provided are sufficient to constitute reliability, but the correct response to somebody querying your edits is to machine-gun the "undo" button. &#8209; Iridescent 16:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Thestance reported by User:Tenryuu (Result: Editor advised)
Page:

User being reported: (and by extension, 2001:569:bd23:f100:8d47:1cc9:36bb:391c, the IP address they were editing from)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (amendment to additional message made )

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

 Comments:  The warning was given after 3RR was breached, though time was given for them to self-revert and recant accusations of transphobia against other editors; they have not done so. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have done a courtesy revert instead of blocking . However, if there is further edit warring, a block is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Lionel del Rosario reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 02:30, 13 October 2020 UTC
 * 2) 02:23, 2 November 2020 UTC
 * 3) 00:22, 4 November 2020 UTC
 * 4) 01:15, 21 November 2020 UTC
 * 5) 08:23, 16 December 2020 UTC
 * 6) 05:27, 18 December 2020 UTC

Comments:

Persistent addition of unsourced content and original research. KyleJoan talk 06:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Lionel del Rosario is warned. They may be blocked the next time they make a change to the article that lacks a WP:Reliable source. Meanwhile another admin has applied semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

User:121.179.131.132 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, ,

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "Too manythings wrong with this post. Discuss at Talk" by user

Comments:


 * Also many warnings on user talk about original research and synthesis, to no avail. - DVdm (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 3 months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Sydsdn reported by User:Atcovi (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:

I tried to engage in discussion with this user about their edits which obviously are against the spirit of WP - to no avail. I fear WP:3RR will be violated by either me or them (sorry I'm new to editing WP in general). Can an administrator please take some action ehre concerning this? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – One week. Please use this time to discuss the issues on the talk page. Some of the quotes from the Colombo Telegraph sound inflammatory, and it might be worth getting some opinions at WP:RSN on whether that paper is usable. The sources appear to describe Gnanasara as a kind of demagogue who stirs up ethnic or religious hatred. That is, he encourages Buddhists to attack Muslims. The sources are possibly correct, given the legal problems that swirl around Gnanasara. The best way to handle the issues could be with careful wording and full attribution of all opinions. Use WP:BLPN for advice if necessary. EdJohnston (talk)

User:86.42.255.134 reported by User:Edl-irishboy (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported: 86.42.255.134

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello, This user/IP 86.42.255.134 has repeatedly vandalised the article COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland for many weeks now and fellow editors of this article, including myself and 51.171.196.150 have warned the above IP to stop vandalising. This IP has repeatedly reverted my good faith edits for no particular reason. Please look at the talk page to see the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland. This IP repeatedly says that his/her's edits are "right" and mine are "wrong". This IP only does this because this IP wants statistics of this pandemic on his/her's "forum site". I'm only just an editor of Wikipedia, trying to do my job, but I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be used for a forum site. This IP repeatedly demands me to restore the so called "correct" figure of active cases on the pandemic artilce which is incorrect because Ireland's pandemic's active cases figure has not been updates since July and this IP thinks that Ireland has 55k+ active cases of COVID-19 in Ireland which is clearly incorrect. 51.171.196.150 and myself have repeatedly told this IP to stop and this IP just does not listen. I don't know what to do other than reporting this IP. Thank you so much. Edl-irishboy (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited the page for weeks now, check back through the page history, see if I made any edits that go back weeks. I undid my last change after I saw the warning, so I did listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.255.134 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I mentioned "weeks" as an exaggeration. Just please don't keep reverting my edits of active cases and recoveries on the article, then it will be fine. This whole issue has been discussed already on the talk page of the article, which resulted in the re-removal of the active cases and the re-revert of the recoveries figure, and so I don't know why you still reverted my edit for active cases & recoveries yesterday evening... Edl-irishboy (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well just a piece of advice, maybe you shouldn't make exaggerations like that in the future, some people might take that the wrong way. I haven't made any edits to the page since I myself undid my previous edit hours ago. That should send a message I won't be editing that page anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.255.134 (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

As for why that last edit happened. I didn't see your warning until after I edited the page, once I saw that, I undid my edit myself. I don't do much editing on this site or ever been in a situation like this before in my many years of visiting this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.255.134 (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It takes four reverts in a 24 hour period to break 3RR. There is still some risk of a long-term edit war, but since the parties are talking to each other there is not much reason for a block or protection. Please try to reach a conclusion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland. If agreement can't be reached there, the steps of WP:DR are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Ismaila69 reported by User:Kambai Akau (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Greetings! Committee. This report is on the editor above's continuous reverting of changes made in the above article. I attempted attaching a statement in one of my edit summaries, but it seemed to have no effect as the editor went ahead to revert the changes I made. I didn't want to confront him directly as that might lead to hot exchanges, so I decided reporting to an admin who referred me here. Even now, I fear he would go ahead to revert the changes I made last. Please, help us out. Thanks. Kambai Akau (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Ismaila69 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. Even though Ismaila69 is a new user, they can't continue to blank large amounts of material with no discussion and not even an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Stonksboi reported by User:Normchou (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have not changed anything related to the boycott in the subsection in my last edit, merely keeping the main section as is."
 * 2)  "Following consensus, controversy has never been placed in lead section in prior or future Olympic articles."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 995657113 by Normchou (talk)"
 * 4)  "Included anger at COVID-19 pandemic as reason for boycott"
 * 5)  "Reworded for conciseness without making lead overtly political"
 * 6)  "68.228.34.71 is right, after examining leads for past and future Olympic articles, controversy is never applied in the main section therefore this is NO EXCEPTION. Prior to any edits in October, this has been the case until some volunteers have decided to make these  politicized changes"
 * 1)  "Reworded for conciseness without making lead overtly political"
 * 2)  "68.228.34.71 is right, after examining leads for past and future Olympic articles, controversy is never applied in the main section therefore this is NO EXCEPTION. Prior to any edits in October, this has been the case until some volunteers have decided to make these  politicized changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Disruptive editing (RW 16)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Iffy edits */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Iffy edits */ update”
 * 3)

Comments:

This user started this edit-warring behavior yesterday and continued to ignore suggestions to discuss first on the talk page before making any reversion. Normchou  💬 18:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have warned the editor for the edit summaries, either they don't understand the concept of consensus or they’re falsely claiming consensus where none exists. Also adding the first discussion about this to the Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, Stonksboi and the IP’s edits were identical. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Projection? I have discussed with you that boycotts and controversial related matters belong in the appropriate subsection rather than the lead section as in all other past and future Olympic articles. I asked you why the 2022 games deserved to be treated differently to which you ignored and accused me of disruptive editing which frankly isn't true. Do not make false reports again. Stonksboi (talk) 18:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes you did ask me about this topic on my talk page I responded promptly, you never responded to me. You have not participated in the discussion on the article talk page so I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. I also didn't report you. I also want to note that while you talked about parts of this issue in your post on my talk page the only one who has ever actually "asked you why the 2022 games deserved to be treated differently” on a talk page was the IP. Are you also the IP? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment was meant for Normchou. Also, no I am not the "IP" person who made those edits. I did see his comments though and he is correct. The most recent changes I made to the article did not change the controversy subsection at all, but rather kept the main section of the article in line as with other Olympic articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonksboi (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody has ever taken issue with your edits to the subsection because as far as I can tell you have never edited that subsection despite multiple claims in edit summaries and elsewhere to have “moved” something to that subsection. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You would still need to join the discussion even if your last revert was supposed to be different from your previous ones. I did warn you it would violate WP:3RR and be reported should you choose to do that. You completely ignored me. Normchou   💬 18:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. I have also blocked the IP as an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

User:SpectresWrath reported by User:SenatorLEVI (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [|this]

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring:
 * 1)

Diff of attempt to meet compromise on user talk page:
 * 1)

Comments:

User has changed dates on specified page without any sourcing, doesn't wish to civilly discuss and reach a compromise. Also has removed my request on their talk page and has not responded, which is why I have requested a block. SenatorLEVI (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Because for english airdates, we always used the ones on saturday, look at Sword Art Online: Alicization eng airdates for example. SpectresWrath (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. This user has been blocked before and their talk page is full of recent warnings. It may be time for them to pay more careful attention to our policies. The latest problem (besides the edit war) is a copyright violation at Noblesse (manhwa). EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Danloud reported by User:Vyaiskaya (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] general following around all of my edits to revert them. Calling me a bot, calling out "my mom" telling me my work is "useless" refusing dialogue, petty harassment and vandalism.
 * 2) [diff] there may be more edits, however given tne number of pages Id had edits on that were vandalised, Im not sure I can keep track.
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:
 * Malformed report., please fix up this report by adding the user you are reporting into the body of this report (and notify them on their talk page about this report as policy dictates) and provide links to WP:DIFFs. From what I can tell the pages Russia, North Asia, White Americans, Westernisation, Siberia, and Russian Americans are where the edit warring is occurring? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄 Happy Holidays! ⛄ 01:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Smartlazy reported by User:IHateAccounts (Result: Partial block for 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Edit warring trying to insert WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory content at Sidney Powell. They have reverted three different editors, reverting at least 7 times thus far. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * by  &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Ronaldiniaq03 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

He keeps attempting to force a self-formulated map whilst repeating "Maku,khoy,urmia,mahabad is Azerbaijan!" in his edit summaries - clearly a nationalistic motivated account, not WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:OPP64 reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Page already protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Reactions */deleted false and misleading info"
 * 2)  "reactions are not based on facts"
 * 3)  "/* Reactions */deleted misinformation. Linguist111 lives in England and really has no true knowledge of what the facts are in this case"
 * 4)  "/* Reactions */deleted false facts. ARA are attempting to mislead the public with fake news and outright lies, that are not supported by the police reports."
 * 5)  "/* Reactions */deleted false facts"
 * 6)  "linguist111 is attempting to mislead the public in regards to the actual facts in this case."
 * 7)  "ARAs are attempting to change the actual facts"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Death of Regan Russell."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also see Sockpuppet investigations/Trucker220. <b style="color:orange">Linguist111</b><sup style="color:purple">talk 02:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Bbt400 reported by User:JDC808 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit Summary Warning and User Talk Page Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I told the editor in the edit summaries to take the issue to the talk page but he ignored that and kept reverting. I then posted a warning to his talk page and he ignored that too.

Comments:

This editor keeps reverting on the basis that the article contains a spoiler (a title change was taped on December 22 for the episode airing on December 25). A couple of editors, including myself, have reverted this editor, informing him of how Wikipedia handles this content. Instead of listening, he kept reverting. I warned him about 3RR, yet he continued to revert. I then posted a warning on his talk page, yet he continued to revert. -- JDC808  ♫  10:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Marcos FTO reported by User:Fruitloop11 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_Town&diff=994926891&oldid=969171567: [diff preferred, link permitted]

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:

I made a mistake myself and violated the 3RR without realizing it. I am done editing and will not be making anymore edits to the article, but the user I have reported needs to understand there are ways of doing things on Wikipedia. dont just revert, revert, revert. Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

User:TranscendentMe reported by User:Normchou (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * "/* Morrison Government */ balanced contents fromt the same source."
 * "/* Morrison Government */ completed response from China side."
 * "/* Morrison Government */ if contents of one side's statement are included, so should be the other."


 * "/* Morrison Government */ completed contents from the same source."
 * "Undid revision 995950893 by Normchou (talk) you seems think this section is only about Australia, not China. But this is Australia-China relationship page. The denouement including China is China's response to Australia. Of course it should be included."
 * "/* Morrison Government */ in original source, China response as a result of Five Eyes statement, yet in this section it appears to be China attached first. Changed the statement to fit the description of original source."


 * "/* Morrison Government */ add background from original and new reference."
 * "/* Morrison Government */ completed description from the same source."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Australia–China relations."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * "/* Morrison Government */ new section"
 * "/* Morrison Government */"

Comments:

This user's recent editing focuses only on three articles: Australia–China relations, Zhao Lijian, and Internet censorship in China. Keeps adding materials that are either WP:COPYPASTE or WP:UNSOURCED. Keeps reverting others' edits and ignores talk page suggestions before adding/removing materials. Looks like it's their second time engaging in this type of behavior within a week. Normchou  💬 20:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:Normchou I didn't revert your editing three times in a day. Instead, I'm completing contents in WP to avoid one-sided narrative. All my completion comes Most of the sections I completed come from the same source already existed, yet they original ones are referred with bias or unbalanced. I have discussed your concern on the talk page of Australia–China relations, you are abusing reporting here and suppressing different opinionsTranscendentMe (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) edited22:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked you to discuss at 19:27 and at 19:43 . Your revert started at 19:32 and you kept adding/removing stuff at 20:06, 20:14, and 20:35. Only after that, at 20:36, you "discussed" on the talk page.  Normchou   💬 20:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have omniscience ability. I was working on the material before I noticed your comments on the talk page. And I responded to you.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned by edits on. , edit warring is not just 3RR violations. You clearly are edit warring on these pages.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Further, statements like "All or none: BBC, VOA, CCTV should be treated equally. If you agree with that, I will immediately remove all references from all of them" are not remotely helpful. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, place to make WP:POINTs, or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

If current contents on the pages don't omit parts if not all necessary background, I don't need to do so. These pages have been abused with one-sided stories and lack balanced views even that has been included in the same reference, I seriously suspect this will misleading the public. And users like User:Normchou shouldn't abuse the report just because the reference I listed they don't like.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My two reverts are here: . The first revert removed the Newsweek source because what you added, "on behalf of 45 countries in support of China's counter-terrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang", is nowhere to be found in this article. The only thing I can find that is barely relevant is "Cuba, speaking for 45 signatories". The second revert did not do anything to the RSes. I merely deleted the WP:OR and WP:UNDUE materials and then asked you to discuss.  Normchou   💬 21:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * that is a mistake, the correct reference has been added . You deleted my section without any explanation, and I have told you I cannot be everywhere you are immediately.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You added it at 21:43, more than 2 hours after I first asked you to discuss at 19:18 . And you did a number of things without any discussion in between. Normchou   💬 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have told you that is a mistake, I just noticed and added the correct reference. And I have told you I cannot be everywhere at the same time, maybe you can. You didn't give me enough time to response because I was working on the material. Not everybody works like you. TranscendentMe (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, in my first revert, I removed the sentence "Immediately afterward, the envoy for Pakistan stood up and read out a statement signed by 55 countries, including China, denouncing any use of the situation in Hong Kong as an excuse for interference in China’s internal affairs" because it is a direct WP:COPYPASTE from the source. You then added it right back without even listening to what I said.  Normchou   💬 21:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have answered you on the talk page that I have rephrased it.TranscendentMe (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You "answered" only AFTER you have done everything you felt you "must do". Normchou   💬 21:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I finish things on my hands before I move to the next, including your comments on the talk page. Then I did respond to you in between. You are demanding me to switch to whatever you added immediately. That is not possible.TranscendentMe (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Once I've replied, do NOT change your original comment, as you did here, without indicating you've made a change WP:TALK. It would make my replies look irrelevant. Normchou  💬 22:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm clarifying my words, it's irrelevant to you.TranscendentMe (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and tone shown by Normchou is frankly odious and doesn't seem like what Wikipedia is all about. I'd be worried if such actions go unchecked, as it may inspire other users to behave similarly as well. A WP:BOOMERANG might come in handy. 176.222.34.116 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. Given how large these changes are I'd expect to see more discussion on the talk page. The community is unlikely to put up with a long term war on this article, so please get busy with the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The constant harassment from IPs behind proxies, such as the one above, and the creation of SPAs targeting sole on me is also an issue that admins need to be wary of.  Normchou   💬 05:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Noelcubit reported by User:Vyaiskaya (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] general following around all of my edits to revert them. Calling me a bot, calling out "my mom" telling me my work is "useless" refusing dialogue, petty harassment and vandalism.
 * 2) [diff] there may be more edits, however given tne number of pages Id had edits on that were vandalised, Im not sure I can keep track.
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:


 * Result: No violation. It takes four reverts within 24 hours to break WP:3RR. Turning our attention to the filer, User:Vyaiskaya seems to be making rapid edits on a number of Russia-related articles and should be mindful of the need to get consensus. The comment by User:Noelcubit about reverting a bot was hopefully a mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Wild.Reputation reported by User:Joey Camelaroche (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:Stop it. He silently returns his changes. Previously warned.--Joey Camelaroche (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * – 72 hours. It looks like this editor was in a prior edit war at McCartney III around 15 December. Calling other editors deaf, dumb and blind is not reassuring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Nnnou2 reported by User:Nevermore27 (Result: Page protected)
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:


 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Vyaiskaya reported by User:Danloud (Result:some pages protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Russia:

Westernization:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

White Americans: North Asia: Siberia: Russian Americans: Black Sea:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1) (WP:VANDALISM)

Comments:

User has simultaneously reverted stable versions of multiple articles, added unsourced, unconstructive content, broke the WP:3RR rule, removed |removed my warning, ignored |ignored other users' warnings too, and rather |rather gave me an explanation on why he's right. Reverted my improvements on the articles of Russia and the Black Sea, and has been reverted, multiple times, by not only me, but various other users, but is still reverting and adding vague edits. Danloud (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The user only made a couple of edits in the last two days, and I protected three pages, where I could detect ongoing edit-warring. Generally, this is massive edit-warring occurring across many articles, and and possibly some other users I have not spotted deserve a school of trouts here. Vyaiskaya and DxRxXxZ are new users, and what they are trying to introduce to the articles is certainly not vandalism. It might be inappropriate for other reasons, but it is certainly not vandalism. They are also the only ones who attempted to discuss anything at talk pages. All parties left at other party's pages indiscriminate template warnings, which some others replicated, and sometimes left edit summaries which are not appropriate. Those of you who have more experience should, instead of tag-teaming, try to explain our younger colleagues (possibly at their talk pages) what is wrong with their edits, in the way they can understand it. On the other hand, the younger users must read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and ultimately WP:RGW. And everybody needs to stop edit-warring. Having said this, if Vyaiskaya continues edit-warring a block would become inevitable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been drawn an attention to this request and closed it not noticing it was already in the archive. Still I think it is important for the parties to know about my opinion (as patrolling admin) on the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * --Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * --Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Sarmiento 007 reported by User:Shaidar cuebiyar (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

The material being added appears to violate WP:BLP and policy requires its removal.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC) The above user has shifted tack and stopped adding all of the objectionable content. They have editorialised the article with commentary on its content showing bias towards their preferred point of view. A discussion has been started by that editor at Talk:Tones_and_I. They still appear to show no desire to heed BLP with their opening comment. In that section I explain why I have gone to this Admin's noticeboard. I also explained why their more recent edits are also problematic. I am awaiting their response on the Tones and I talkpage but I have left another of their commentaries in the article, for now.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Another user,, removed the editorial content. Sarmiento 007 ignored my explanation about why their edits were being removed and added the birth year, which wss supported by two sources with user-generated content. I removed that content and once again asked the user to talk about their problems first. I need help here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – User:Sarmiento 007 is blocked 48 hours. Note that discogs.com is not a reliable source for any questions of fact. See its entry in WP:RSP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:47.142.132.142 reported by User:Garuda28 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On Medal of Honor
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  -  (added after this report was filed. Still refuses to engage on tp. This is the 7th edit they have made to the page in last 24hrs)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of 3RRNB notice:

Comments:

User has not engaged on their talk page or the article talk page, despite numerous requests and being reverted by two users (myself and ). Previous attempts to engage regarding the Air Force Cross (United States) page seem to indicate they will not engage outside the article main space (I realized that one was becoming an edit war, rather than working constructively through iterative edits as I initially thought, on 22 December, after 23 December I ceased reverting on to attempt to diffuse the situation and give them time to engage on their user talk page, where I had unsuccessfully reached out to them). Garuda28 (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with this report. IP user will post lengthy confrontational edit summaries, but refuses to engage on talk page, despite numerous attempts. This user is highly likely to continue edit warring and disrupting pages. - wolf  05:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for disruptive editing. The IP user has triggered the edit filter 24 times but has never posted to a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:58.6.237.199 reported by User:CR4ZE (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/996398622

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/996359081/996361318
 * 2) Special:Diff/996379361/996384155
 * 3) Special:Diff/996387140/996396425
 * 4) Special:Diff/996398622/996401136

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:58.6.237.199

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/956654364/996387539

Comments:

Despite several warnings, user has been adding unsourced information about the closure of a theme park attraction several times. No announcement has been made about this closure and the status quo needs to be retained until that happens. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  11:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:68.65.241.236 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Still incorrect. Here's another source, again from a Google search: https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/arius.htm"
 * 2)  "https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/arius.htm"
 * 3)  "Removed incorrect claim. Simple Google search reveals it is unitarian not binitarian: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism"
 * 4)  "This is incorrect as not found in the sources cited yet again. Arianism is neither Trinitarian nor binitarian as cited at the top of the paragraph. This change is accurate and will stand."
 * 5)  "According to sources cited"
 * 6)  "Removed incorrect claim"
 * 7)  "Two things: according to all sources of Arianism used and all modern examples, The Son is not considered to be God the Son, claiming that contradicts the first statement used here with use of 'nontrinitarian'. The first statement is true, second is false. Secondly, all used sources identify Arianism as an ancient Christian heresy, further evidenced by the dates and use of 'nontrinitarian'. Accurate use of sources and transparency was needed."
 * 1)  "Removed incorrect claim"
 * 2)  "Two things: according to all sources of Arianism used and all modern examples, The Son is not considered to be God the Son, claiming that contradicts the first statement used here with use of 'nontrinitarian'. The first statement is true, second is false. Secondly, all used sources identify Arianism as an ancient Christian heresy, further evidenced by the dates and use of 'nontrinitarian'. Accurate use of sources and transparency was needed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Arianism."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Subtle vandalism on Jesse James Keitel."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks the definition is very confusing. Or is it incomplete or what is Arius accused of? */ binitarian"

Comments:

Generally speaking is a transphobic edit warrior. They think they are smarter than Bart Ehrman. Their interests remind me of someone who got a Foundation Ban,. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel was ferociously against homosexuals, so I guess that translates to transphobia, also. Misgendering transsexuals and non-binary people seems to be a hobby for alt-right trolls and for Christian fundamentalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Special:Contributions/68.65.0.0/16 is blocked 1 month. I agree with you about the resemblance to User:Til Eulenspiegel but had not heard before about their issues with marking genders for trans people. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Wicked-pedia Editor reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Blocked 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 2)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 3)  "/* Awards and nominations */Calm down your asses."
 * 4)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 5)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 6)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 7)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 8)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 1)  "/* Awards and nominations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of awards and nominations received by GFriend."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring  */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring */ reply"

Comments:

Hello admins, the editor has been trying to add non-notable awards to the table of awards received by GFriend. They have been warned twice about edit warring, reverted by three different editors: Paper9oll, EN-Jungwon, and myself. I even opened a talk page discussion to discuss and resolve the changes, to which they haven't responded and have continued to behave in the same manner. Ashley yoursmile!  14:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Favonian (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Haydar Pamuk reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Review my three sources and comments in talk concerning this entry Undid revision 996408734 by Le Petit Chat (talk)"
 * 2)  "Of course truth matters. You are engaging in revisionism and selective history: no one should be allowed to rewrite history. This is a citation from an academic from Oxford and not from a state-sponsored Azeri source such as yours. Undid revision 996402722 by Solavirum (talk)"
 * 3)  "But this is not an Azeri, nor Armenian, Wikipedia page. It is Wikipedia. In Armenia, it is labelled very differently. Your claim is one-sided and spurious this is why non-partisan, non-state sources like the Washington Post work better. Please stop undoing and undermining the accuracy of non-biased historic information Undid revision 996398961 by Solavirum (talk)"
 * 4)  "Please do not delete well sourced history about Shusha. You include historic demographic data for Azeris prior to the recent war. For balance, you also need to include data for Armenians in the town prior to the massacre.  Undid revision 996392607 by CuriousGolden (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 996309963 by CuriousGolden (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, many thanks for your ongoing efforts on this noticeboard. I wonder whether you were aware that notified  about 3RR violation only at 14:40, 26 December 2020 - at the same time when reporting him here at 14:40, 26 December 2020 (does not look like Haydar Pamuk had a chance to reflect on his actions before the block), while making 4 reverts in 24 hours himself - please see my report below. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole talk page of Haydar Pamuk is full of warnings and in fact does not contain anything else. For a user with 14 edits this is not a good Wikipedia start, and they should be happy that they were only blocked for 31 hours. I often block such users indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . While not arguing that there are warnings on his page (although 4 out 5 being by a single user - himself actively reverting), the 3RR violation warning was given at the same time as reporting him on noticeboard per 3RR, which, to a user with only 14 edits, might not be the kindest approach - he simply might not have been aware of the 3RR, he did not get a warning about 3RR rule before being reported and hence he might not have had a chance to familiarize himself with 3RR and reflect on his activity violating it. He might have made those edits in good faith, as he volunteered to GA review the article. What do you think? Regards Armatura (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I already mentioned, I think that the user is not here to built an encyclopedia and must feel happy that tomorrow they can continue editing. Probably not for long though unless they radically change their attitude.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Shinyedit reported by User: Connie1337 (Result:page 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:


 * , reverts were correct to revert. Both users who added the material blocked, SPI opened, page semi-protected for 5 months.Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Tbhotch reported by User: Connie1337 (Result:page 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:


 * , Tbhotch made only two reverts, and they were correct to revert. Both users who added the material blocked, SPI opened, page semi-protected for 5 months.Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:CSOlson3389 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result:blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed unprofessionally subjective material"
 * 2)  "removed unprofessional subjective material"
 * 3)  "removed unprofessional subjective content"
 * 4)  "removed unprofessionally subjective material intended to alter peoples’s perceptions"
 * 5)  "removed unprofessional, subjective material/statements"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Soul (2020 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * for edit-warring and sockpuppetry, the page has been long-term protectedYmblanter (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User79.52.10.235 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: plus additional clarification the rule applies to Troubles related content in other articles here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (at related talk page, referred to discussion in edit summaries)

Comments: Edits are subject to a 1RR restriction WP:TROUBLES (my revert of the IP are exempt from 1RR). On both reverts they have restored the unreferenced claim three gangland feuds are part of the Dissident Irish republican campaign, the first edit also reverts the 2019 casualties total from 1 back to 3, and the second edit also reverts to add back the incorrect total of 184 deaths which I have explained is incorrect at their talk page, and repeatedly referred them to the explanation at Talk:Dissident Irish republican campaign. FDW777 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Related report at Sockpuppet investigations/D10s Maradona, due to use of sockpuppet to continue edit warring. FDW777 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – One month. See Sockpuppet investigations/D10s Maradona for details. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Sweetkind5 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)


 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sweetkind5's latest talk page contributions include "I, honestly, don't care to take part in this discussion...don't expect me to stop my war on propaganda edits". CMD (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor keeps reverting attempts to return to the status quo ante while the issue is discussed on the Talk page (I have added the latest reversion to the list above) and accuses anyone who attempts to return to the last stable version of the article of being anti-Turkish bigots. He does not wish to discuss the subject matter (and has said so in the Talk page, as CMD pointed out) and does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * More appropriately, the user is tried to fool us more times, since invented various fake reasons to revert, first he stated on the edit log we should discuss on the talk page when already a discussion was opened which he ignored then, another time he claimed he is restoring the original content, which was not the status quo ante version, but the version he pushed. The status quo version is what I reset (and equals with the last stable version as well). The user already breached 3RR earlier, however just because of Christmas I did not report him immediately, but contrary the warnings and discussions, the disruptive editing continued.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC))
 * – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

User:72.80.139.114 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Editors lying about the citations, which actually state the opposite."
 * 2)  "Citations removed do NOT make the claims attributed to them."
 * 3)  "You are lying about your citations, which actually state the opposite of what you claim."
 * 4)  "Reversions are inaccurate, citations do not support what reverter claims"
 * 5)  "Citations removed do NOT make the claims attributed to them."
 * 6)  "fixing grammar"
 * 7)  "Fanatics are lying about the citations and making frivolous claims."
 * 8)  "citations do no support claims made"
 * 9)  "Corrects citation, which actually says the opposite of what's been claimed."
 * 10)  "The citations removed do not support the claims made."
 * 1)  "Reversions are inaccurate, citations do not support what reverter claims"
 * 2)  "Citations removed do NOT make the claims attributed to them."
 * 3)  "fixing grammar"
 * 4)  "Fanatics are lying about the citations and making frivolous claims."
 * 5)  "citations do no support claims made"
 * 6)  "Corrects citation, which actually says the opposite of what's been claimed."
 * 7)  "The citations removed do not support the claims made."
 * 1)  "Fanatics are lying about the citations and making frivolous claims."
 * 2)  "citations do no support claims made"
 * 3)  "Corrects citation, which actually says the opposite of what's been claimed."
 * 4)  "The citations removed do not support the claims made."
 * 1)  "The citations removed do not support the claims made."
 * 1)  "The citations removed do not support the claims made."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 03:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Ratel reported by User:The.Barbaryan (Result: Barbaryan blocked from Zero Hedge)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of edit warring:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 996728633 by Ratel (talk): Restore consensus version, again"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 995341274 by Citation bot (talk): Non-consensus changes reversed"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "‎There is no consensus on labelling ZeroHedge "far-right", "fake-news" or "conspiratorial" on Zero Hedge."

Comments:

Edit warring at Zero Hedge with user User:Ratel whom is ignoring the summary, facts and resorting to unnecessary reverts while misleading editors with claims of "consensus"User talk:The.Barbaryan User also patronizing editor editors, claiming User:The.Barbaryan is "a single-purpose account devoted to mass removal of consensus edits" and that "He/she does not know how WP works". The.Barbaryan (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)talk


 * This looks more like political censorship, editwarring and bludgeoning other editors by The.Barbaryan to me. I see six removals of sourced information, including the sources, since the last protection ended 27-12-2020(protected for exact the same reason as the present edit war). I see three reverts by User:Politanvm (not a breach of 3RR) and 3 reverts by User:Ratel (also not a breach of 3RR). The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Politanvm reported by User:The.Barbaryan (Result: The.Barbaryan blocked from Zero Hedge)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by The.Barbaryan"
 * 2)  "Reverted 3 edits by The.Barbaryan"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by The.Barbaryan"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "General note: Some editors insist with their bias reverting any meaningful edits on Zero Hedge."

Comments:

Edit warring at Zero Hedge with user User:Politanvm ignoring the summary, facts and resorting to unnecessary reverts while patronizing editor User talk:The.Barbaryan


 * New COI(?) user, a single-purpose account devoted to mass removal of consensus edits from one article (Zero Hedge), with absurd edit comments like "Opinions from MSM competitors (constantly criticized by ZeroHedge) are too biased in order to be considered accurate. Gossip are not facts." This new editor considers RSes to be "gossip", and any other source to be "competition" to Zero Hedge and therefore unreliable. He/she does not know how WP works and should be temp banned for disruptive editing. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This looks more like political censorship, editwarring and bludgeoning other editors by The.Barbaryan to me. I see six removals of sourced information, including the sources, since the last protection ended 27-12-2020(protected for exact the same reason as the present edit war). I see three reverts by User:Politanvm (not a breach of 3RR) and 3 reverts by User:Ratel (also not a breach of 3RR). The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Βατο reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear cut 3RR violation. Four reverts in the space of 10 hours. He and his friends will WP:FILIBUSTER this report to turn into tl;dr. But the diffs speak for themselves. The article falls within the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions area. The reverts are particularly disruptive, as they not only remove sourced material, but also misrepresent sources (e.g. here he removes a source (Stocker) and adds a source (Cabanes) that does not support the "joint trading settlement" claim, as explained here ). He has received plenty of edit-warring warnings in the recent past. Didn't seem to have done any good. Khirurg (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not 3rr violation: here I removed tags because the quotes were already included into the relevant parts of the article; here I fixed a source using the Harv-style reference and I added further sources into the lede. In those two edits, the article's content was not changed. – Βατο (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. They're both reverts. You returned the article to a previous state in both of those edits. The only exceptions are covered by WP:3RRNO. This is not the case here. Khirurg (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With this edit I fixed a source that included a citation error, it is definetly not a revert to one of my preferred versions, also this edit concerning the tags was not a revert to one of my preferred versions. – Βατο (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What counts as a revert is defined in WP:3RR. Specifically A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. In all 4 diffs, you reversed the actions of other editors and returned the article to a previous state. It doesn't matter if you don't consider them reverts. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is definetly not a revert to my preferred version. – Βατο (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you say it's not your "preferred version". It's still a revert. This is alarming. Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A revert of what? – Βατο (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A revert of this . Don't play obtuse. You know what you did. Khirurg (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This edit is definetly not a revert, Administrators can check it. It's a cite error fix with Harv-style reference. – Βατο (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It definitely is a revert, because you removed the quote ("At Apollonia, these early Greek mariners encountered..."). You're not fooling anyone here. Khirurg (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved editor. As far as I can see, there is no 3RR breach. In any case, nobody should rush to block Bato who is an established editor with clear block and AE logs. He even did not get warned for edit warring. Instead, I would like to have an admin keep an eye on the article, as it is having many edits and some reverts by several editors. As for the "friends" comment made by the filer, well he is the one here sanctioned at AE as part of a group of disruptive editors. I suggest everyone focus on improving content rather than on accusations and redundant disagreements. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You should be blocked for making blatantly false claims and trying to derail the report with attempted smears he is the one here sanctioned at AE as part of a group of disruptive editors. Khirurg (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Khirug, your continuous attempts to block user who significantly contribute to Wikipedia are ridiculous and shameful. Somebody has to report you and your other Wikipedia accounts (or "friends") too for your numerous disruptive edits!--Lorik17 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Bato: It's really sad you pretend that the quotes were already included into the relevant parts of the article. In fact they are not, to name a few tags you removed: Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97. I assume you need to rephrase your defence in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The updated information of the lede was taken from the article's body referenced with full quotes from the relevant sources that were recently added. The other sources were already included into the lede, no one changed them. – Βατο (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Response to Khirurg.There you were sanctioned as part of a "travelling circus" (an admin's words), not to mention that in the other AE cases you have in your log you were sanctioned together with two other disruptive editors, I pakapshem and ZjarriRrethues. This clarification was needed aa you said you expected "friends" of Bato to come here. I did not come here as a "friend". Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * TF are you talking about? I was never sanctioned at AE at any time for any reason. On the other hand it's impressive you dug irrelevant stuff up from 2010 for someone who supposedly started editing in..2016. Anyway, what does this have to do with Bato's breach of 3RR? You should be blocked for trying to derail the report with irrelevant junk from 2010. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no quotes about those reference (Wilkes p. 96, Wilson 2006, p. 594; Chamoux 2003, p. 97... a quick search can confirm this) even in the article's body. @Bato: The placing of a qn tag is a polite way to say that something is needed. But you responded with instant reverts. That's a non-constructive pattern.Alexikoua (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wilkes, Wilson, Chamoux were already into the lede before its updating with other sources, while the relevant quotes were already included into the article. – Βατο (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is seriously asking to block a highly productive editor via counting as a "3RR violation" and  the fact that Bato changed  to  ? The report is also invalid because no warning was ever sent to Bato even about the above "revert". This is the very definition of WP:GAMING 3RR. Khirurg has a history of this. Here's a similar failed report against another editor with whom he was in a dispute  for "maxing out 3RR"; he likewise supports another report against an editor he had a dispute with. Noticeboards shouldn't be instrumentalized to win disputes. Now, Khirurg and Alexikoua whose report he recently supported have a total of 4 reverts and Khirurg is attacking other editors even when fixing minor edits ("fixed incompetent editing").
 * Alexikoua was recently reported for a crystal clear violation of 3RR which nobody disputed . Khirurg then argued that Alexikoua shouldn't be blocked because of "tagteaming" (not withstanding the fact that constantly they and Alexikoua find themselves on the same side of every dispute I've observed, which shows a much more consistent pattern than the collection of editors he's ever made this claim against). One can see highly representative behavior on that thread: although Khirurg claims the most minor of edits are sanctionable when put forward by editors he disagrees with, when an editor he constantly finds himself on the same side of the aisle is reported for obvious edit-warring, Khirurg barrages the filing editor and others with personal attacks and bewildering claims that they are "motivated by a desire for revenge".
 * If we as a community are serious about fixing the problems that are glaringly evident here, the obvious fix is at the very least a reprimand for Khirurg to stop using reports in this manner. But at the very least, the WP:GAMING of noticeboards should stop.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As expected with the filibuster and spin. Your friend Βατο breached 3RR. There is no requirement that he be warned beforehand. He has been warned plenty of times in the past, to little effect. He recently has been edit-warring like mad all over these articles on Epirus/Illyria, especially here . Τhat article is now a cluttered, unreadable mess, largely due to the badly written, ham-fisted, additions of Βατο. This topic area has spun out of control. If we as a community are serious about fixing this, violations of 3RR should be dealt with promptly. Khirurg (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's actually not the first time Bato misunderstands the use of citations and the placing of tags. In general this instant reverting pattern is highly disruptive not to mention that he new that he would breach 3rr. He has been warned in his tp a couple of times recently but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You should warn editors whom you consider to be edit-warring . Now, I think that you didn't warn Bato because there was nothing to warn him about. Despite your claims that he has been "edit-warring like mad" you are asking from the community to count as a revert an edit by Bato which changed  to  . It really highlights the instrumentalization of the report function and the very bad use of community discussions. Editors are reported in order to stop an active disruption. Such minor edits are neither disruptive or worthy of any discussion at ANI. You can't ask for anyone to be blocked or even warned about something like that. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, so it went from "it's not a 3RR violation", to "it was just a minor change". What's "minor" to one user is not minor to another. Βατο has been pushing a very strong "Illyrian" POV for years now. In the diffs from today alone, he removed a reliable source (Stocker) and misrepresented another (Cabanes). For that alone he should be blocked. Khirurg (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC
 * There was no 3RR violation and the change of to  is not a  edit/revert in any way, shape or form. I don't think that anyone should be blocked about anything if there is no disruption. I'm not even fond of blocks per se. And I am of the opinion that no editor should be dragged through a report which hypes minor edits as something which they're not. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not fond of blocks, eh? That's why just recently you wrote 10 kb of text in a futile attempt to get another editor blocked ? Yeah, you're not fond of blocks, but only if it's from editors that share your POV. The "minor edit" was mine . The fact that Βατο reverted even that, shows strong WP:OWN tendencies - he doesn't even allow the most minor edit by me to go unchallenged. This by itself is alarming. When you combine it with source misuse and removal of reliable sources, this is grounds for a topic ban, let alone a block. Khirurg (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they were using bibliography in a very bad way and had made 4 clear content reverts. The lesson from that discussion was that many issues should probably be discussed at AE.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The one who is guilty of source misuse is Βατο, who in one of the reverts above used a source to make a claim not backed by the source. And it doesn't matter if "you are not fond of blocks". You are not an admin around here. Why are you trying to sound like one? Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Source misuse with original research interpretation is Alexikoua's pattern, not mine. The false statement highlights your unconstructive pattern in Wikipedia, you haven't even checked the sources. Kyle et al. and McIlvaine et al. are not commenting on Hammond's suggestions, they used them along with Cabanes' and other scholars' proposals to make their own conclusions, it can be easily seen if you read the sources, but for you it is better to WP:CHERRYPICK sources and to add only what you like, ignoring other scholars' considerations. In that specific edit I added further quotes from the sources because Alexikoua used them incorrectly as considering the information supported only by Hammond, when actually it was not the case. Anyway, that is just one of the edits, and it is content dispute that should be discussed in the article's talk page, not here. Returning to this discussion, there is not 3rr violation, one of the presumed reverts was actually a source fix with the use of Harv-style reference. Also I fail to see a warning in my talk page, which clearly shows that there was not edit war. – Βατο (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have the nerve to break 3RR and then claim "there was not edit war", because of a technicality. Speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But there is no 3RR disruption and you shouldn't have filed a report which asks from the community to block someone you disagree with because they changed to . As we're getting close to a day after the supposed "disruptive editing" nothing has happened in terms of editing. If there was disruptive editing which required for anyone to be blocked, where is the continued disruption? The fact that you're still trying to put forward a narrative that requires for Bato to be blocked even though nothing has actually happened in my book looks like instrumentalization of the report in order to score points against another editor. Such use of community noticeboards lowers the quality of the project and makes collaboration very difficult.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * But there is a breach of 3RR, and he even reverted my change of to, because even that was too much for him. I made the minor edit, and he reverted it instantly, with the edit summary "not an improvement". What kind of behavior is that? It's clear WP:OWN. Of course he has been lying low since I filed the report. And we both know what will happen if the report is closed as no action: He will immediately resume WP:OWN edit warring. Khirurg (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Please air these disagreements more fully on the talk page. WP:DRN might be an option for you all to consider. The questions about Illyrian involvement in this colony seem to be a reflection of modern nationalism about Albania and Greece, and thus fall under the WP:ARBEE sanctions. If the quality of discussion doesn't improve, admins ought to consider indefinite full protection of the article, with changes being put in only through edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: As soon as the specific article was protected a new round of revert-warring by the same editor has been launched in similar articles:


 * Amantia: 2rvs: [][] (erasing a specific part about Greek-Latin bilingualism)
 * Bylliones: 1rv: [], accompanied by commentsthat reveal complete lack of AFG [].
 * It's really sad that instead of a providing some kind of apology or explanation above Bato preferred to launch a new round of disruption without even waiting for this report to close.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors must stop characterising as disruption their disagreements with other editors. Khirurg has two reverts at Bylliones, but you don't consider that disruptive since his reverts are supporting edits which you have put forward. I don't consider any revert(s) to be "disruptive" per se, but I do consider disruptive the instrumentalization of reports as a tool for content disputes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

User:94.35.25.239 reported by User:Gwennie-nyan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been warned many times for disruptive editing ~Gwennie &#128008;  &#xFF5F;💬 📋&#xFF60; 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

User:152.86.164.35 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Hello Nurse and Minerva Mink are too sexual they don't allow that in educational shows that's why this show can't be educational because of them"
 * 2)  "Yeah for toddlers this show got some some violence and a couple of sexual characters like hello nurse and minerva mink that is too inappropriate for younger children"
 * 3)  "Leave educational out of this they'll think this show is for babies"
 * 4)  "This show can't be educational because of the violence, stupidity and sexual stereo types"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Animaniacs."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Animaniacs."
 * 3)   "/* Animaniacs */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * – 6 months for disruptive editing by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Doggy54321 reported by User:GngZack (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

User has reverted the same article upwards of 4 times in the span of 24 hours despite the summaries of the edits explaining why they were necessary to remove WP:SYNTH material. A talk couldn't be initiated in the Talk Page because the page was changed to semi-protected status soon after the 4th reversion. GngZack (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Um...the third and fourth reverts were cleaning up vandalism. The page was semi-protected to prevent vandalism (I was out for a walk as this was all happening), and after I came back, I saw the page was protected because of vandalism. I went to check the edit history to see if there was any vandalism needing to be cleaned up (there was), so that is what the third/fourth reverts are for. Please keep in mind that those two reverts are exempt to 3RR per WP:EW. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 14:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * you can open a talk discussion on the talk page, as it is not semi-protected. Talk pages usually are never protected. D🎅ggy54321 (ho-ho-ho) 15:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why the user claims the third and fourth reverts are due to vandalism when they're reverting the same changes that the first two were reverting. All four reverts are reverting edits made to help the wiki article adhere to the guidelines. GngZack (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The page was protected to prevent vandalism because there was persistent vandalism that was being added to the page. Per WP:VAND, an example of vandalism is illegitimately blanking pages. The user in reverts 3/4 was blanking parts of the page out, so I reverted it. I would have used the rollback tool/the "restore this version" Twinkle tool to revert their edits in one go, but there had already been more edits to the page (such as more vandalism being reverted and the page being protected), which I couldn’t revert. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 14:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – Successive edits count as at most one revert. Even so, the IAR defence is not convincing and I't suggest it not be relied on in the future. The claim by User:Doggy54321 that they were reverting vandalism is not credible. Many content removals are done in good faith. Removal of content is only considered vandalism when it is done for the purpose of damaging the article, which was not the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * oh ok, thank you for clarifying. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 17:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)