Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive424

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Two editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */ religion; enough to say Dardic language"
 * 2)  "/* top */ better geog description"
 * 3)  "/* History */ removing dubious POV history section; do you think I don't know when POV history is created by piecing together obscure sources; you don't have anything on the culture which is what the article is about and you are waxing about the history; take it to the Swat District page"
 * 4)  "/* Language */ again this is not about the language; cutting the bloated language section; you don't have anything other that a content fork of the language."
 * 5)  "language is a part of culture"
 * 6)  "/* top */ AGAIN this is not about the language;"
 * 7)  "/* top */ this page is not about the language; it is mentioned in the infobox.  the language has a separate page where you can wax about indo-aryan; the culture has little to do with indoaryan"
 * 8)  "/* top */ it is not just sitar; it is also a percussion instrument; the naming of the instrument does not belong to the lead"
 * 9)  "Reverted to revision 996824946 by Kautilya3 (talk): Anupam has been promoting toxic Hindu supre4mecist POV espeically in Pakistan related pages for nearly 14 years; he is now joined by LearnIndology and Zakaria; rv to K3's last"
 * 1)  "/* top */ this page is not about the language; it is mentioned in the infobox.  the language has a separate page where you can wax about indo-aryan; the culture has little to do with indoaryan"
 * 2)  "/* top */ it is not just sitar; it is also a percussion instrument; the naming of the instrument does not belong to the lead"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 996824946 by Kautilya3 (talk): Anupam has been promoting toxic Hindu supre4mecist POV espeically in Pakistan related pages for nearly 14 years; he is now joined by LearnIndology and Zakaria; rv to K3's last"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No 3RR warning given, but the editor is experienced enough to know. The edit summary #5 is also quite toxic personal attack. I think given the situation a serious warning at least is in order. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor that was targeted did take it quite hard, understandably. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't have the sense that I had reverted three times. Have I checked Kautilya3's accounting? I have not. Why? Because I think the more important issue here is something else.


 * India-POV-promoting editors have been relentlessly editing Pakistan-related pages, promoting Hindu majoritarian- (or anti-Pakistan) POV. It is toxic, utterly, and shamefully toxic.  They don't know anything about Pakistan, but because the Pakistani editors on Wikipedia are exhausted, tired, and unable to counter, the Indians or India-POVers are getting away/  They promote cultural irredentism.  They claim Pakistan by some fantasy of Indian reunification, claiming Pakistanis, who are Muslim, as converted Hindus, or rubbing this in by whatever it takes.  Someone has to come to the Pakistani's defense.  I am the author of the FA India and the prime author of the History of Pakistan, Kashmir, British Raj, Company rule in India, Indus Valley Civilization, Partition of India, Indian rebellion of 1857, in other words, most things in Indian history that have anything to do with the current impasse between India and Pakistan.  Do they really think I don't know what is going on here?


 * Do what you must, but please don't forget that the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the creation of NPOV content, not nickel and diming rules and playing gotcha. Kautilya3, the reporter, engages in India-promotion himself. He routinely does this in India-China and India-Pakistan issues.  What does he know about Swat? Nothing.  The India-POV promoters, moreover, adopt comical identities: they pose as Pakistanis.  As Pakistanis, they make only gnomish edits on Pakistan-related pages (why? because to do anything more would require knowledge).  But they make reams and reams on Hindu-majoritarian topics.  They award Pakistan Order of Merit barnstars to Pakistan-bashers from India.  They award barnstars to each other at the drop of a hat.  Have they written anything of consequence on Wikipedia?  They haven't, nothing.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am a Pakistani from the the KPK province and have seen your edits on Wikipedia. They in no way "defend Pakistan" but promote your British imperialist POV in Pakistan - you wrote an essay in one of your subpages defending colonialism in pre-partition subcontinent. Look at the talk page and see that everyone reached a consensus and then you Fowler&fowler came and started edit warring on the article. You Fowler&fowler have made what I perceive as prejudice statements like the one you have in your edit summary and have been warned before, yet you still make them. Will you say you're sorry and stop? These are some I found disturbing:


 * 1) If Hindu practice results in the deaths of thousands of individuals, as it does in this case, through water borne diseases, why should I "understand" why Hindus cause these deaths.  Concern for human life is more important than cultural relativist kowtowing to a religion.
 * 2) We don't need papers in palaeogenomics to see that.  We have only to look around to see the vast and brutal inequalities Hinduism has created in Indian society.
 * 3) During our visits to India, my family and I have very likely buried more stray dogs and cats, all either run over, or otherwise killed, by Ahimsa-loving Hindus, than the number of times editors here have uttered aloud the word Ahimsa.  (Especially, cats (domesticated cats): have you wondered why their yowling is never heard in Hindu neighborhoods in India, except in the hills?  That is because they are all shooed-away, or have rocks or sticks thrown at them, by superstition-loving Ahimsa-loving Hindus. You have to go to a Muslim neighborhood to see a cat.)
 * 4) Goodness knows, there were plenty European evangelists around to help them spiritually and British administrators to grant them economic and educational favors. But most Hindus chose to reassert their caste status or assert even higher caste status.
 * 5) If it is not old-fashioned racism, it is the kind that makes Indians (and I don't mean any WP editor) unload their insecurities about being equated with blacks (the Lord forbid). Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A case in point. A relatively new editor, who knows more about my edits (with diffs to boot) than he does about anything substantive on WP. He pulls these diffs out of the hat on every occasion. He awards a barnstar a day to his POV pals. His POV pals pull the same diffs out of their hats and grant a barnstar every other day to him.  See his talk page, and theirs; they will appear here soon enough. Is WP about this?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are some of these editors sockpuppets of the banned Hindu- and India-POV pusher user:Highpeaks35? The vehemence against me is tell-tale. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit summary like Anupam has been promoting toxic Hindu supre4mecist POV espeically in Pakistan related pages for nearly 14 years; he is now joined by LearnIndology and Zakaria; rv to K3's last" is really problematic. Also, portraying Wikipedia as a battle ground for editors of different nations and casting aspersions against other editors, including the editor who filed the report won't be helpful. See this diff. You need to avoid such behavior. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If it weren't a battleground, ARBIPA sanctions would not be there. If it weren't a battleground, I wouldn't need to do work for the NPOV lead and map in place in all Kashmir-related pages, especially Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Aksai Chin, and Azad Kashmir.  Do you see that they all have the same NPOV format? That did not happen overnight; it took an enormous effort, mostly by me.  See the RFC and map discussion.  View the admins on board there.  I received thanks from them.  But did I get any from the people here who are champing at the bit to have a go at me, including you? None at all. I do all the thankless work.  But if in quickly fixing a POV-fork of the stub  Torwali language I make a transgression, I'm dragged to ANI.  Kautilya3 could not have left a message on my talk page?  When he needed me to fix the 2020 Delhi riots page (see it's NPOV state which has now held for 11 months) he was quick to ask for help on my talk page.  Where were you, my friend,  The Aafi? I've never seen you anywhere on these pages, but you apparently watch my edits with the eyes of a hawk and make sanctimonious admonitions here?    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Arbcom needs to take another look at India-Pakistan. There is entirely too much India-POV-tinkering going on in Pakistan-related pages, all by Indian or India-POV editors.  The Pakistanis, in contrast, do very little on Indian pages.  This has created an untenable and iniquitous situation. Just imagine: if someone like me, with a history of integrity in India-Pakistan issues, am being dragged to ANI for a relatively minor sin (which I haven't even bothered to examine because I think bigger issues are at stake), what chances do Pakistani editors have in stemming the rot of the Indian-POV on their pages?  Arbcom really does need to take another look.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 50 kbytes on talk this month (almost none of it by F&F) for a very poor, repetitive article at 7 kbytes! Talk page quotes to 3rd parties being dragged up from 3 years ago or more.... Business as usual in this area. Suggest close. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that User:Fowler&fowler has engaged in an edit war on the article without engaging at all in the talk page [] means that they are not following wikipedia protocol WP:BRD. Since the issue is being discussed in the talk page, User:Fowler&fowler must discuss his ideas in the talk page first before engaging in editing the article again. I understand that it is a controversial article, but there has to be control and restraint by all editors before it gets out of hand. Find better sources, ask for an RFC, suggest another section in the article where Fowler&fowler's sources or views can be presnted, and above all try to reach a consensus in the talk page before editing once your edits are disputed. If such behavior persists then a temporary article block or temporary user block would be in order to enforce cooperation between.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know who this editor is, but s/he has misunderstood my revert. I reverted Anupam because he had removed the POV tag added by Kautilya3, then moved the disputed text into the viewable quotes of the citations, and expanded that text significantly.  After my revert, Anupam did not first open a talk page discussion per BRD, he reverted my revert, then posted on the talk page. Look, the article's talk page discussion has been going on for a long time.  Anupam has been trying throughout to sneak in common POV insinuations (converted Hindus or Buddhists, etc, etc) by way of the most obscure sources (whose use can support the craziest assertions). I am going back to my vacation.  Before I do so, I would like to apologize to Kautilya3 for some uncharitable things I said in my statement (which I have now scratched).  He is an admirably neutral and NPOV editor with a much longer fuse than mine.  I'm glad that he continues to be there on the article's talk page.  I am a little disappointed by his filing this AN3.  He could have left a note on my talk page.  To the overseeing admins: do what you must. As I said, I am returning to my vacation.  I do think that Indian (i.e. India-POV promoting) editors have swamped Pakistani pages.  Arbcom needs to take another look at India-Pakistan  1RR etc does nothing because there are many more Indian editors than Pakistani.  Consequently, many Pakistan-related pages are no longer neutral, the faults on average lying at the doorsteps of the Indians.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I don't really need an apology, but does. His approach is different from yours or mine, but it is a stretch to brand him a "Hindu supremacist" (if at all anybody can be so branded). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Fowler&fowler and User:Anupam are warned. F&F says that Anupam is promoting a 'toxic Hindu supremacist POV', while Anupam says F&F is a 'long-term communal POV pusher'. If these attacks continue it's going to cause trouble. No other action taken. WP:AE sanctions, if they were imposed, would make it harder to edit in this area.


 * It does not seem to me that producing a neutral version of Torwali people should be all that hard. In other topic areas I doubt we would take any notice at all of a 'deeply-rooted oral tradition' that could very well be completely mistaken. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Anupam reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 996881998 by Fowler&fowler (talk) rv mass deletion by long-term communal POV pusher User:Fowler&fowler; gain consensus on talk page for contentious edits"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 996880886 by Fowler&fowler (talk) rv - gain consensus on talk page for contentious deletions"
 * 3)  "/* top */ partial rv: the DYK reviewer specifically requested that the lede be expanded to summarize the article; discuss on the talk page if you disagree"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 996853356 by Fowler&fowler (talk) rv - use the talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No 3RR warning given, but the editor is experienced enough to know. See also the above report for User:Fowler&fowler. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit that I was not paying attention to the number of reverts that I made and I humbly apologize for this. For the past few days, I and other editors were working on the talk page to reach consensus on the talk page. We did that today and when the other editor started blanking sections of the article, I became a bit frustrated, especially after I tried using the talk page and received no response besides continued edit warring. If the reviewing administrator would like me to revert any of my changes or to revert all of my recent edits, I would be happy to do that. I am sorry for any inconvenience that this has caused anyone. I wish you all a joyful holiday season and a Happy New Year. Respectfully, AnupamTalk 02:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Anupam is a good faith editor who has positively contributed to WikiProject Pakistan and WikiProject India for a number of years. They have apologized for edit warring and are willing to revert. I don't see the need for any remediation here. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Anupam seems to have been following wikipedia protocol of WP:BRD and was and still is in discussion of the changes with Kautilya3 and another editor in the talk page . The issue is how User:Fowler&fowler just stepped in all of a sudden and started to revert without ever engaging in the discussion in the talk page. See the talk history of that page . Fowler&fowler is not even found there. Since the issue is being discussed in the talk page, User:Fowler&fowler must discuss his ideas in the talk page first before engaging in editing the article. It looks a bit messy because of all of this. From my past intersections with User:Aniupam, I have not seen much edit wars of this kind so I think that if reverting stops, then there should be no further action aside from a warning. Clearly User:Anupam is trying to redirect User:Fowler&fowler to go to the talk page and stop edit warring with the reverts.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Result: Anupam and Fowler&fowler were both warned per another complaint of the same dispute above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Zhmailik42812 reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Not available (user started the page)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Please check the user's contributions for the reverts. They are doing it on multiple pages.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

User is a sock (see here for SPI), and they are edit warring with me on multiple of their user/subpages. Long story short, they copied a bunch of text off of my userspace. My main userpage, my userbox page, my articles page, my sandbox, my talk page and more. For some (sandbox, talk, articles), they copied verbatim what was there. For others (main, UBX), they adjusted it to their own fit (but it was minor things like changing my username to theirs, specifying the userboxes, etc). I normally don't have a problem with the latter (User:JackReynoldsADogOwner is an example), I find it quite flattering. But, this is a sockpuppet who has annoyed me for months, and has caused me to catch every single one of their sockpuppets. I also requested speedy deletion of their userspace (by criterion G5), and they keep reverting me. Yes, I know technically we are both exempt to 3RR (it's their userspace but I'm reverting a blocked sockpuppet), but I felt the need to report them anyways. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * for sockpuppetry. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 00:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C5:2313:CD00:CC20:4DCD:9984:D963 reported by User:JJPMaster (Result: Semi)
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:

This user is rapidly adding test edits and disruptive edits to the article on GeoWizard, such as "he plays an urban world sexy" and "ccole". JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is vandalism, not edit warring. AIV would have been more appropriate. Closing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * :While it appears to be edit warring, perhaps the issue could also be raised over at WP:AIV? This is pretty blatant vandalism. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄 Happy Holidays! ⛄ 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: The GeoWizard article has been semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Herbfur reported by User:OfficerCow (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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:


 * I am very sorry. I didn't realize that my actions could constitute edit warring. I've opened a discussion on the dispute and I won't make any further reverts until a consensus is found. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too - seems I may have skipped a step or two, this is my first time trying to file a report. OfficerCow (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. User:Herbfur has agreed to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:2601:4A:4201:AF0:7951:6DBD:A5B8:3A5E reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Semi)
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:


 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:3Kingdoms reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: AND
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&type=revision&diff=997143622&oldid=991819594
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&diff=next&oldid=997154273
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&diff=next&oldid=997187565
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&diff=next&oldid=997255255
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&diff=next&oldid=997265027
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Schenck&oldid=prev&diff=997306142 - AFTER I started this discussion, posted the Edit-warring post on the user's talk page, and they added their comment below (note the timestamps).

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (this is the link to the talk page discussion which started from the previous edit warring on this page over this same subject, for which this same user received a block) Talk:Rob Schenck

Comments: Please note that there are really FIVE reverts in 15 hours, because the first edit is the continuation of an edit war on this page that this user was blocked for about a month ago.

Here is the link to the previous ANI discussion on this same edit warring from a month ago (Note that there are two posts about the same edit warring, one directly above the other, same editor was reported by IHateAccounts and NorthBySouthBaranof) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive420#User:3Kingdoms_reported_by_User:IHateAccounts_(Result:_Blocked_24_hours) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs)


 * I have asked the person in question to provide reasoning for the issue with my edit, but they only reply with edit warring and false accusations of burying. 3Kingdoms (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – Indef. User:3Kingdoms is here at this noticeboard for the second time in a few weeks, after a previous block. (He has now made six reverts on 30 December). The user seems to have no intention of following our edit warring policy. At Talk:Rob Schenck 3Kingdoms he displays WP:IDHT. In a line just above, 3Kingdoms asks others 'to provide reasoning for the issue with my edit'. If he was paying attention, the fact that he's here at the EW noticeboard ought to be a clue. Though the block is indefinite, other admins might consider an unblock if they become convinced that the problem will not recur. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller reported by User:Haerdt (Result: Withdrawn by OP)
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]

Comments:

My apologies for any errors in the reporting of this incident. Wikipedia user ‘Doug Weller’ aggressively and abusively censored my attempts to contribute in the discussion of the above mentioned ‘Stop the steal’ page. Now, I understand this is a politicized topic, but an editor such as ‘Doug Weller’ should tread carefully. Wikipedia’s reputation is already shoddy when it comes to politicized entries. Aggressively shutting down individuals interested in collaborating to improve the neutrality of the entry is not a good tack. ‘Doug Weller’ posted obnoxiously on my own Talk page and then challenged me to report them. They clearly need a check. I understand that senior Wikipedia editors might revel in their ability to use this platform’s complex system of codes, rules, and procedures to their personal political advantage. I have been bullied by senior editors already. I’m sure ‘Doug Weller’ has done their best to portray themself as a very experienced, very fair moderator of knowledge. Perhaps, to some degree, they are. I’m sure ‘Doug Weller’ has a good deal of respect. However, this person and any editor should never abuse their power for the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda. We are dealing with the organization and preservation of the knowledge of humanity. I urge you to take a step back from power politics and consider what it means to be fair, balanced, and neutral when approaching our task here.
 * This is a malformed request which should be promptly closed. Doug Weller has done nothing but patiently point out to the reporting user that we require reliable sources for all material on Wikipedia - that "being "fair, balanced, and neutral" does not mean treating all viewpoints or ideologies equally. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a written lie. Look at Doug Weller’s Talk page. There are multiple reported instances on his Talk page of him overstepping his bounds and abusively interacting with well-intentioned well-sourced contributors Haerdt (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haerdt (talk • contribs) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Providing WP:DIFFs would support your case a lot more. — Tenryuu 🐲  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄 Happy Holidays! ⛄ 02:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I deleted his posts off of my Talk. Thanks, I’m doing my best to follow all of these guidelines and codes. Haerdt (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not provided a single example of Doug Weller not being a very experienced, very fair moderator of knowledge. To the contrary, they have shown nothing but patience with your bizarre insistence that we take the word of charlatans and grifters over every reliable source and court of law in the United States. We're not going to do that, ever, period, the end. You can stop demanding it, because it's not going to happen. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, and you have three rights here - the right to your contributions (as licensed), the right to fork, and the right to leave. That you disagree with our policies and guidelines as applied to Stop the Steal is unfortunate, but irreconcilable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is NorthBySouthBerenof taking such a passionate stand here? He has been censoring me repeatedly in the past several hours in my attempts to bring some rational balance to one of Wikipedia’s pages. I have reported him separately for bullying me and posting abusively on my Talk page. See the report below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haerdt (talk • contribs) 06:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Balance" does not mean even-handed or 50/50 or taking both sides at their word. That would be a ridiculous violation of core rules on neutrality. Perhaps WP isn't for you if you can't accept that we give due weight based on external sources, not based on editors' desires to see certain viewpoints. That's a problem that can get you blocked. But again, I emphasize that if you are reporting Doug for edit-warring and wanting to see action taken against them, it is your responsibility to back up that concern with specific evidence. No evidence==no action. DMacks (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand, thank you DMacks. I will withdraw my report on Doug Weller. I appreciate the clarification. Haerdt (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Haerdt (Result: Article ECP protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/attorney-sidney-attorney-sidney-powell-releases-270-page-document-on-massive-2020-election-fraud-involving-foreign-interference-releases-270-page-document-massive-2020-election-fraud-involving-foreign/
 * 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:

The editor ‘NorthBySouthBaranof initially took a stand for his similarly minded editor friend ‘Doug Weller’ — see my previous filed report. ‘NorthBySouthBaranof’ then aggressively twice censorsd my attempt to provide a legitimate link supporting the claim that evidence exists, which has been disputed in the Talk section of this article at length. ‘NorthBySouthBerenof’ then aggressively posted in my personal Talk section citing Wikipedia guidelines and claiming that in his opinion the weblink I provided was not legit. I have linked another website above in the diff section to a website I just discovered was on Wikipedia’s ban list. I will be attempting edit with another news article from The Gateway Pundit. Despite the reality that these are right wing news sites, the article cites only left wing news sites. Haerdt (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will be attempting edit with another news article from The Gateway Pundit. Q.E.D. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBerenof is now abusively bullying me across several fronts, while preventing legitimate additions to the StoptheSteal page. He is citing Wikipedia code to support censoring information from legitimate right wing news sites. Clearly this contributor is an activist on the left wing. Haerdt (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * censoring information from legitimate right wing news sites. As clearly expressed by the community, The Gateway Pundit is not a "legitimate" news site, and is in point of fact notorious for publishing fabrications, falsehoods, lies, and patent nonsense. As I alluded to above, that Haerdt believes anything published in The Gateway Pundit is fit for Wikipedia suggests that they lack the competence required to effectively edit Wikipedia, as they are unable to appropriately distinguish between the use of acceptable and unacceptable sources. They're welcome to find some other project to contribute to, such as Conservapedia or Metapedia, where standards for sourcing are... different, and possibly more to their liking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBerenof is championing a movement among Wikipedia contributors to censor the entire right wing of political news. This is an extremely dangerous practice. Haerdt (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No action seems necessary other than the ECP protection of Stop the Steal which was performed by another admin as a result of a request at WP:RFPP. @Haerdt: You have not identified which edits are supposed to be an edit-warring problem. A look at the article history shows edit warring but not any problem from the reported editor. Please do not accuse an editor of "abusively bullying me" when it appears that all that has happened is that the basics of editing in accord with policies have been outlined. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 996873996 . Vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 996853815. Vandalism."
 * 3)  "Lack of consensus. Vandalism."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Zero Hedge."

Comments:

Edit warring at Zero Hedge with multiple warnings on users talk page and directing user to a discussion on talk page. User has responded with personal attacks at User talk:Politanvm and User talk:Ratel. POLITANVM talk 05:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:The.Barbaryan continued to revert the Zero Hedge article after their block expired, but I've now put the article under WP:ECP using authority of the WP:ARBAP2 case. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You EdJohnston do have some nerve to drop censorship on a page like ZeroHedge. Little people like you is what's wrong with society. Enjoy your "wiki authority" from your parents' basement.The.Barbaryan (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 reported by User:InsulinRS (Filer blocked)
This is not intended to be disruptive of other administrators. I just don't like edit warring against reliable edits.

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

If there should be compromise edits, such as consensus, then so be it.InsulinRS (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:InsulinRS reported by User:Elizium23 (Result:blocked 72h)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am presenting a combined report for 3 articles, because they all involve exactly the same content which has been added by InsulinRS. He took umbrage at my talk page message and a single revert I made of his work, and while I worked at three articles tossing out unreliable sources, he proceeded to undermine that, without reading any diffs of what was being deleted. He doesn't seem to comprehend that this is not about today's edits. Elizium23 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This user is covering up Henryk Gulbinowicz's burial and is uncooperative. The user has also described this source describing the disciplinary action against Gulbinowicz as "unreliable" in edit summaries. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-gulbinowicz-dies-ten-days-after-vatican-sanctions-67629 I also later included a source from Gulbinowicz's Wikipedia page which noted he was cremated and buried in his family's tomb https://www.onet.pl/informacje/onetwiadomosci/gulbinowicz-henryk-nie-zyje-kardynal-mial-97-lat/2qb37rw,79cfc278 I wanted to report the user for edit warring too.InsulinRS (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , angelfire.com and Youtube are not reliable sources Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Bishonen reported by User:Haerdt (Result:Not a 3RR report)
Page: Stop the Steal

User being reported: Bishonen

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Warning Look, you are not supposed to keep on attacking people after my small sanction (a mere block from one article and its talkpage). I'm referring to this (implicitly accusing Beetstra and others of fascism) and this (various offensive accusations against Doug Weller, and why twice?). Quit it or you'll get a sitewide block. No personal attacks is policy. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC).

Excuse me? I make a simple legitimate edit with factual information and I get constantly attacked. Haerdt (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

By six different editors. Haerdt (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Bishonen is consistently attacking me for posting legitimate links to factual information that is widely available on the internet, yet suppressed through censorship techniques on websites that he seems to frequent and support. He has banned me for making legitimate edits, and strongly upheld policies that I was not aware existed. Once I was informed of those policies, I abided by them and will continue to. Nevertheless, Bishonen aggressively amd obnoxiously banned me temporarily from editing the oage in question and then posted on my Talk page threatening to ban me further. This is abusive and bullying. I am providing legitimate informational sources to real events and occurrances. Bishonen, do not make your blindness to world events my problem.

Bishonen has taken offense to me pointing out to other editors that their censorship of my edits is fascist. Well, I am calling a spade a spade. When you throw the book at me for legitimate attempts to provide factual basis for a Wikipedia entry, and then restrict my access, that is a fascist technique. Perhaps you should learn how to hold civil discussion and collaboratively build an encyclopedia with people of differing viewpoints from your own instead of directly applying censhorship techniques. Bishonen, NorthBySouthBerenof, and Doug Weller could have assisted with finding a legitimate source for the information I presented to the community for the above mentioned article. Instead, they harshly applied standing policy and aggressively bullied me. This is not the conduct of an open and free project. Freedom does not necessarily mean you bbully ithers and treat them with disdain. You have the option to be kind and take a supportive and nurturing tact, and others are watching your actions and words. Haerdt (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we're at the point where this user is choosing not to hear what everyone is telling them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Haerdt, I mean this in good faith -- this request is ill-formed, illogical, and vexatious. I understand frustration, but please, withdraw this immediately and slow down.  Rash editing is rarely the right move.  Best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

What a messed up report. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But to be kind, I will take a supportive and nurturing tact. Haerdt, it is your personal responsibility to read and understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines before editing. I and other editors have repeatedly linked you to those policies - you need to read and comprehend them. Your repeated references to "free speech" are evidence that you have not - Wikipedia is expressly not a platform for free speech and therefore those words have no meaning on this project. We are here to build an encyclopedia based upon what is verifiable in reliable sources.
 * It is verifiable in reliable sources that there was no significant electoral fraud in the 2020 American presidential election, and that Joseph R. Biden has been elected by the Electoral College as the 46th President of the United States. That you disagree with these conclusions is irrelevant - they're what reliable sources say, unanimously. You can either edit in compliance with those sources, or you can choose to edit other parts of the encyclopedia, or you can choose to depart from the project. Those are your choices. "Telling Wikipedia readers that the election was stolen and Donald Trump is the real president" is not one of those choices.
 * Bishonen, NorthBySouthBerenof, and Doug Weller could have assisted with finding a legitimate source for the information I presented to the community - There is no "legitimate source" for the claim that there was any significant electoral fraud in the 2020 election or that any such fraud affected the outcome. That "information" is false, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Again, that you disagree with that conclusion is regrettable, but not solvable here. If you don't like Wikipedia's content policies, you have two choices: attempt to change those policies (good luck) or leave the project and find something more to your liking. You might try Conservapedia or Metapedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not a 3RR report, and I am not going to take action. Haerdt, if you think your report has merit, you can present the situation, with diffs, at WP:ANI, but have in mind that likely not only actions of Bishonen but also your actions will be investigated.Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

NorthbySouthBerenof continues to attack me and bully as seen above in his posts here. RealClearPolitics, a website that is not blacklisted or whitelisted from Wikipedia to my knowledge, yet, provides plenty of accounts of verifiable election fraud. I have linked it on the Talk page for Stop The Steal. Here is another link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/23/propaganda_election_fraud_and_the_death_of_journalism_144705.html -- I will read and understand all of the Wikipedia politics and guidelines that I can find. I have read the ones that i have been linked to by these other editors, in between dealing with their abuse and bullying. I am attempting to provide a legitimate, factual citation to real life world events from a source that is legitimate according to Wikipedia code (to my knowledge at this point in time) and I have been aggressively attacked and threatened by three editors - NorthbySouthBerenof, Bishonen, and Doug Weller. I am extremely frustrated, and I am engaging with you politely using all of the established community guidelines that I am aware of. I am not disagreeing with election results, as I have written before. I am linking to established, widely read, legitimate sources demonstrating verified election fraud that occurred. Ymblanter - thank you for your support. I will open complain at WP:ANI. I do not appreciate the abusive tone from these three editors and I believe that it goes against Wikipedia's purpose and spirit. Haerdt (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I read over the discussion at Stop the steal & TBH, I'm surprised you haven't been taken to WP:ANI. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector reported by User:Tognella99 (Result:Filer blocked)
Page:

In co-operation with User:Eggishorn, this user has vandalized the David Prowse page by removing the information that he died of COVID-19 and deleting all sources that state this, while replacing them with others that use the euphemism "short illness". These users have abundantly engaged in WP:Gaming the system, namely:

1) claiming that this information comes exclusively from The Sun and The Daily Mirror, whose use is discouraged by Wikipedia rules, when in reality there are far more sources claiming the same (and linked in the article, but removed by them) and quoting, among others (but not only), Prowse's own daughter;

2) opening a discussion in the talk page about what should be reported as CoD; failing to reach a consensus; and then proceeding to change the CoD anyway and rolling back any attempts (by multiple users) to restore the old version while claiming that the matter is to be discussed in the talk page - while they should have waited for a consensus to be reached before changing the page in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tognella99 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOTHERE is strong with this one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved user comment: I believe the reporting user needs to be blocked for failing to assume good faith, failing to assume the assumption of good faith and for edit warring. Case in point: they did not assume good faith when they said further vandalism will result in you being reported. when reverted one (1) time because they removed the use of a deprecated source (The Sun, which is listed as deprecated at WP:RSPSOURCES), on Wikipedia, which isn't vandalism by any means, nor should it be reported. They did not assume the assumption of good faith when they said show beyond doubt that you are in bad faith., that one is obvious. They also proceeded to edit war with three reverts in one day (20:42 December 31, 2020 20:43 December 31, 2020 00:12 January 1, 2021), and they have used edit summaries as their form of communication. Considering this was all on a WP:BLP, Ivanvector and  are both exempt to 3RR per WP:3RRBLP. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 04:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller talk 07:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Eggishorn reported by User:Tognella99 (Result:Filer blocked)
Page:

In co-operation with User:Ivanvector, this user has vandalized the David Prowse page by removing the information that he died of COVID-19 and deleting all sources that state this, while replacing them with others that use the euphemism "short illness". These users have abundantly engaged in WP:Gaming the system, namely:

1) claiming that this information comes exclusively from The Sun and The Daily Mirror, whose use is discouraged by Wikipedia rules, when in reality there are far more sources claiming the same (and linked in the article, but removed by them) and quoting, among others (but not only), Prowse's own daughter;

2) opening a discussion in the talk page about what should be reported as CoD; failing to reach a consensus; and then proceeding to change the CoD anyway and rolling back any attempts to restore the old version while claiming that the matter is to be discussed in the talk page - while they should have waited for a consensus to be reached. --Tognella99 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While I am amused that I could "abundantly engage" (sic) in anything at my age, this is self-evidently a feeble attempt to weaponize AN3 to settle a content dispute that is currently under discussion. I have made exactly  without cooperation, collusion, or coordination with anyone.  OP should be blocked for bad-faith reporting. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 01:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller talk 07:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:CuriousGolden reported by User:Armatura (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

Looks like 4 reverts over 24 hours period. No signs of the user engaging in the talk page discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Shusha_(2020) - GA review. The user is well aware of the 3RR rule as they were previously sanctioned by 2 week abstinence from editing Nagorno-Karabakh related articles and at that point they claimed that they were unaware of the rule but would follow it from now now. Notified about this discussion on personal talk page and on 3RR violation on article talk page. Regards Armatura (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice I had passed 3 reverts. I wanted to revert my 4th revert, but since there's been many edits since my 4th edit, I decided I shouldn't mess things up. Though, I have to say that this diff and this diff were me reverting obvious vandalism which is an exception in WP:3RR. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  08:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are an experienced user, hence I don't buy the argument that you AGAIN "were not aware of / did not realise / did not notice" your 3RR violation (while diligently counting another editor's reverts and reporting them for the same thing). The rule was explained to you by an admin just two months ago, again in relation to NKR-related articles, resulting in 2 weeks of editing abstinence, yet you continued the bad habit of reverting other users' edits over trying to reach consensus on the article talk page (and Battle of Shusha (2020) and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war are good examples of it]. Vandalism is blanking the page or posting offensive stuff on the page, not good-faith changes done by  who was reviewing the article for academic accuracy to make it GA article, whom you and other pro-Azerbaijani editors reverted many times without engaging in discussion on talk page and whom you managed to get him blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation.  Please take the responsibility for your actions and don't pretend naive this time, I can see signs of WP:GAMING in you activity in NKR-related topic, and it does not look like soft measures like warning / explaining / temporary abstinence resulted in any improvement of your behavior. Regards Armatura (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Didn't notice" wasn't an argument, it was there to inform that I didn't pass 3rd edit intentionally. And no, I wasn't topic banned as you implied, me and the admin made an agreement to avoid a specific article for 2 weeks, which I did. "and whom you managed to get blocked without giving him a chance to self revert or making sure he is aware of 3RR violation" The guy reverted 5 times, which means he can't self-revert and he was given 3RR warning before the report or else he wouldn't have got banned. If you have problem with his ban, talk to, not me. And no, I didn't call Haydar Pamuk's edits vandalism. I called this diff and this diff vandalism, both of which you failed to address. The diffs' bad faith and vandalism are further proven by the discussion opened by one of the vandals on the same article's talk page. Rest of your comment is baseless and offensive accusations (which cross the line for WP:ASPERSIONS), so I won't waste my time replying to them. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  14:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say this but your habit of reverting rather than trying to reach a consensus goes above and beyond a single article or a single editor's edits, one can just have a look in your contributions log to see how many times you reverted others in various articles in last couple of months in NKR-related articles, pushing your POV, whenever you didn't like somebody else's edits; are you going to claim that all those editors were vandals? I have not "implied" anything, please do not skew my comment, you were given a choice between a ban and abstinence for 2 weeks by a very kind admin, not that you had a better option, and this repeated violation of the same rule within 2 months tells me the first measure did not result in improvement of your methods. I have elaborated about the case of Haydar Pamuk in the discussion above this one, to keep this one focused. Regards, Armatura (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, still no mention of the fact that 2 of the 4 reverts you provided were me revering obvious vandalism, which is an exception in WP:3RR. If you have a problem with any of my reverts on any articles, point them out in the appropriate article's talk page and we'll reach a consensus, like I have done so many times. Unfortunately, when you don't do that and come here and complain about my edits on random articles, I see nothing except WP:JDLI. — CuriousGolden (T·C) </b> 15:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just one of the possible examples, where you were repeatedly asked by another user to stop repeated reverts and engage in discussion to reach a consensus. Roughly at the same time when you have done  14 reverts within 48 hours in 4 NKR-connected articles as reported by another user . This is despite being alerted to the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions back in April 2020. Also, perhaps before labeling others' edits as "vandalism", I think it would be useful to have a refresher on what is vandalism and what is not vandalism, especially the section on "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" ("Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. All vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism").  Armatura (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Armatura, did you look carefully at the fourth revert you put in the list above?. CuriousGolden was removing this fascinating bit of unsourced speculation by an IP editor who said that Erdogan was planning to settle Syrian mercenaries in Kharabagh:
 * Armatura, do you seriously think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to keep these words in the article (including 'all shit floats to the surface one day'), and with no source? EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I definitely don't (I just noticed the fascinating piece you mentioned, sorry, and I have already warned the author of those lines on the talk page for violating civility on talk page, before even reading those lines), but I would still like admins to have a look at the history of reverts by CuriousGolden, please, and not only in this article. As I said earlier, it is not just this article that I worry about (already asked for 1RR limitation for it to admins familiar with NKR topics), but the user's very low threshold for reverting others' edits in general (e.g. > 10 reverts in various articles just for 27/12/2020). For my information, perhaps the most effective way of dealing with perceived recurring vandalism would be reporting to admins rather than engaging in edit warring? Regards, Armatura (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Armatura, I have also seen signs of WP:GAMING in CuriousGolden's activity regarding NKR articles over the past few months. Time and time again the user's pro-Azerbaijani agenda becomes more evident. The user has a habit to make edits which clearly have a pro-Azeri bias. I've noticed the user tends to make vague edit summaries while sneakily altering information to tip articles towards a more pro-Azeri stance. In the case of Uzundara, the user and I came to a consensus in September, the editor then made edits in October contrasting the consensus (without engaging in any discussion). I proceeded to leave a message in the talk page of that article, which was ignored. Meanwhile, over at Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the user ended up making changes to the article while on-going talk page discussions were taking place and before a consensus was reached. When I advised the user of this, the user was very quick to point fingers and talk about "maintaining etiquette". The user has been very quick to accuse myself, Laurel Lodged, and others of either POV pushing or edit warring in the past, when they themselves have been sanctioned from editing due to edit warring. Quite hypocritical behaviour. All in all, this user knows exactly what they are doing and I also urge Admins to have a deeper look into their general pro-Azeri bias and manipulative editing tactics. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that gaming is afoot; his modus operandi is to revert edits he does not like, accuse the reverted editor of edit warring and then leave boiler plate, passive-aggressive-official-sounding warnings on the talk page of the offending editor in the hope of bullying him away from making further reversions. See my edit log for a sad litany of these kinds of edits and bullying behaviour. He is protected and supported in this behaviour by a coterie of like-minded editors with Turkish/Azeri sympathies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And if you think that my reversion log with him is impressive, you should have a look at who must have the patience of Job. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said, Laurel Lodged. He has been and is unrelenting in pushing his pro-Azeri views; backed by a loyal band of followers. It is more then clear that the user has a biased WP:POV and WP:UNDUE agenda. Glancing at their edit history, this becomes self-evident. The user has switched language translations and de jure/de facto status in several articles to put Azerbaijan first and Armenian second, has removed or re-adjusted wordings to tip information in favor of Azerbaijan, and so forth (often times providing zero explanation). When editors try to restore balance/neutrality, the user is quick to revert and/or proceed with a hostile critique. This uncivil behaviour, backed by their aggressive editing tactics, is by far constructive... yet alone appropriate. Furthermore, nothing has changed since they were sanctioned last- so, "not knowing" cannot justify as an excuse anymore. I fear this behaviour will continue indefinitely. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: No action at this time. But if reverting continues at Battle of Shusha (2020) more serious admin action is possible under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Curious to know how this decision was made, considering the above testimony from 3 different editors? Archives908 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I too am baffled as to how the evidence above could result in a "No action" decision. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I believe this case should be reviewed by another Admin. No valid explanation or rationale was provided why (despite all the evidence/testimony) this resulted in "no action". The biased WP:POV and WP:UNDUE edits, general WP:GAMING, continual violation of WP:3RR, and "bullying" tactics described by 3 different editors deserves recognition. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Guys, do you think we can not see anything? Do you think we do not see that there are requests here against Armenian editors with Azerbaijani editors piling up, and there are requests against Azerbaijani editors with Armenian editors piling up? Do you think we do not know that some of you support the Armenian side in 100% cass, and other support the Azerbaijani side in 100% cases? And that all of you clearly demonstrate battleground behavior? We block the most egregious cases, but, fine, we can start blocking in all the cases for edit-warring or even for disruptive editing - then all of you are going to be blocked within a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That statement is a tad bit dramatic, and generalizing is very dangerous. While I don't disagree with you that tensions are high, this is more then just simple "vandalism"- we are noticing a pattern of behaviour here. It's best to stay focused and examine the information presented on a case-by-case basis, rather then making generalizations or rash assumptions. Archives908 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, nothing is wrong with asking for explanation as to why this case resulted in "no action". Especially since, no explanation was even provided. Archives908 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, , elaborating on the logic of the decision would be appreciated. It is understandably easier to diagnose/rule out an issue in a given article rather than in the user's general behaviour, but as others mentioned there are systematic signs of gaming the system, article ownership, chronic edit warring in the user's log, have you looked into it carefully? No action is going to mean green light for further reverts, and if the user avoids revert warring in Battle of Shusha, he is going to continue in other NKR/Armenia/Azerbaijan-related articles, as before. I would avoid generalizations please - e.g. the profile / interests of  do not look Armenian and I am noticing the profile of  for the first time here in this discussion, in case you are wondering about some anti-Azerbaijani conspiracy. I would rather be interested to hear what you call the phenomenon when several Azerbaijani editors do the same revert, careful not to exceed the limitation of reverts over 24 hours and yet succeeding to keep the version of the article they collectively like - same Battle of Shusha and Nagorno Karabakh war articles are bright examples of collective reverting, is there no regulatory measure for this? Now please look into my log and find any such behavior. And I don't see why you would treat Azerbaijanis and Armenians differently from the rest of the editors - could you  please apply the same WP rules regardless of nationality, race, color, gender, religion and other protected characteristics? Regards, Armatura (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I just know there is off-wiki coordination. In 2010, I was an arbitrator in the Russian Wikipedia, and we had to consider a case about Azerbaijani off-wiki coordination similar to WP:EEML (and some of the current warriors were on the mailing list). We knew about its existence because someone infiltrated in the list and sent the content to us. We never considered a similar Armenian list, though I am sure it exists, just nobody managed to infiltrate there. Concerning your remarks about the editors background, what I see is fully polarized partisan editing, when every user here takes either 100% Armwenian side, or 100% Azerbaijani side. May I please remind you that a few days ago you repeatedly appealed to me to protect a NOTHERE pro-Armenian user with 25 edits, arguing they have not been warned enough? And the user was subsequently blocked (not by me) for sockpuppetry. When I see any of you defending NOTHERE Azerbaijani users, I might change my opinion, but for the time being what I see is a clearly partisan division, and in this episode we see a bunch of Armenian or pro-Armenian editors, who found a way to this closed discussion at an obscure noticeboard to try to block one editor on the opposite side. You see, even if the user is eventually blocked, this is not going to help you as soon as this partisan editing persists. As soon as every side consider reverts the main dispute resolution avenue there will always be someone reverting. The supply is sufficient, and what we (administrators) are doing is to reduce the demand.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks very much for elaborating on your previous replies, I am glad an admin raises the issue of off-WP coordinated action. One can vouch for what one knows, though, not for what one therorises. I, too, have seen Azerbaijani trial of off-WP coordination resulting in violation of WP:CANVAS. May I ask how come people on a known list of off-WP coordination are still allowed to edit? Why is it tolerated by English WP admins? We should look at users' actions, and not nationality: being of Azerbaijani or Armenian nationality/sympathy should not protect any user on WP. Being of Russian background might have resulted in stereotyping Caucasian people from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, etc, but may I ask to avoid stereotyping nationalities on WP, please? The pro-Armenian user was collectively reverted by virtually every Azerbaijani editor in Battle of Shusha 2020 article, and I wanted to make sure admins realise that, even if he violated a rule (for which he was rightfully blocked). I don't support vandalism or "khaltura" from either side. You wanted an example of non-partisan behaviour, you can see me warning a pro-Armenian user who was uncivil against Azerbaijani editors on at Battle of Shusha Talkpage, I asked another pro-Armenian user to self-revert their 4th edit over 24 hours and you have seen me asking for 1RR protection rather than engaging in the battle, are you still of the same opinion? And you said As soon as every side consider reverts the main dispute resolution avenue there will always be someone reverting., can you please look in my log to see the number of reverts? Indiscriminate blaming and stereotyping both sides is not going to benefit Wikipedia, either. Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should be discussing this any longer, as soon as you have come to this conclusion. You are welcome to report me to WP:AN or even to WP:AE of course. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should be discussing this any longer, as soon as you have come to this conclusion. You are welcome to report me to WP:AN or even to WP:AE of course. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jib Yamazaki reported by User:55go (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:37, 26 December 2020 UTC
 * 2) 03:45, 27 December 2020 UTC
 * 3) 05:42, 27 December 2020 UTC
 * 4) 11:52, 30 December 2020 UTC

Comments:

Persistent addition of unsourced content.--55go (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Jib Yamazaki is warned. They may be blocked the next time they add information to Elaiza Ikeda that lacks a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Al-Burcaawi reported by User:SultanSanaag (Result: Alerts)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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:

User actions evidently indicate failing the edit warring policy on multiple account, It appears to me that he is doing WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is driven politically and in favor of the unrecognized de factor State of Somalia (Somaliland) he has refuse to get the point and it's been 4 reverts in less than 24 hours period. Not good faith signs of the user engaging in the talk page discussion. Whereby this matter should have been rather simple and if you ask globally or any community about rightful details about this article here a few external maps as reference Badhan, Somalia or here and here. Please urgently stop this user. Iappreciate your assistance in this matter. SultanSanaag (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Somalia has no jurisdiction over Somaliland, it is therefore misleading to indicate this area as being under Somalia, as that would indicate Somalian control, which is false.

Just like how Taiwanese towns aren't marked as part of China, Somaliland towns shouldn't be marked as part of Somalia either. I believe a consensus has already been reached earlier in regards to this.

It seems you're driven by your political affiliation and your bias is at play here. No one is disputing Somaliland's lack of recognition, but marking its towns as part of Somalia is very misleading. Somalia isn't a complete state either.

Regards, Al-Burcaawi (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa. Current practice on Wikipedia seems to identify these towns as being in Somaliland even though it's not a fully recognized state. See Talk:Hargeisa. Changes of this article that don't wait for consensus could lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:151.192.139.211 reported by User:Diannaa (Result:Blocked 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user was advised several times that the chart was moved, and was advised at least twice to have a look at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore; the page was getting a post-expand include size error. The charts don't display correctly any more due to article size, and had to be removed. They were moved to Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. Six times the IP has re-added the charts to the main article.— Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Comments:


 * Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User:GuruAskew reported by User:Sro23 (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Self-published."
 * 2)  "The article doesn’t say that, nor does it suffice as proof of current activity"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 997970941 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 4)  "The burden of proof is on you. There’s no evidence that he has a future as a professional writer."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 997968068 by Jorm (talk)"

More reverts since this report was filed
 * 1)  "His career is dead. No projects on the horizon. Sorry, asshole."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 997974257 by Larry Hockett"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 997972757 by Jorm"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This isn't the first time the user has edit-warred on Max Landis (see, ) over years active. See also similar edit warring on Blake Jenner last year. User has a long history of trolling and disruption (see this diff directed toward me, also this). Suggest a NOTHERE block. Sro23 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sro23. User's behavior and method of discussion (see talk page) warrant a NOTHERE sanction.--Jorm (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Three more reverts since this report was filed. Since this was his response to the notification, I suggest a long, probably permanent, vacation from Wikipedia is due. --Calton &#124; Talk 12:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Penepi reported by User:L1amw90 (Result: Incomplete report)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments: this user is really getting on my nerves. If I add something into the page as a separate article, they will revert the edit, then I will revert it back to how it was when I added it, then they will revert it etc. This has been going on for quite some time now and I'm getting sick of it. I just don't understand what the problem is, and why they just can't leave it as it is. Can someone maybe look into this please. L1amw90 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The user responded to you at their talk page on 15 december, why have not you followed up?--Ymblanter (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? I don't see anything as to where I should follow up with really. But this edit/revert war is getting a joke now, and it seriously needs to stop before either/both of us end up getting blocked. L1amw90 (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Incomplete report. No diffs were provided. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User:L1amw90 reported by User:Penepi (Result: Both editors warned for WP:NPA)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

On the page above vandalism after final warning. The user in question is constantly grossly attacking me personally and harrassing me, obviously incapable of controlling his emotions. Simply put, we can't agree on placement of one (sub-)section within the article. However, the user behaves like the owner of the article, does not allow me to edit it and dictates to me what I can and cannot do. Regards. Penepi (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am NOT vandalising the page, nor am I attacking or harassing you, so quit lying. I never said I was the owner of the article, but it seems you have a problem with how one particular section looks to the rest, and where was my "final warning"?. Neither you or anyone else on the above article in mention have issued any warnings. So that's another lie. Also, I have NOT said/done anything to dictate you in anyway. Jesus, how many lies just you come up with?! L1amw90 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I provided above – – you are clearly attacking me. Or do you not consider this an insult? "Seriously, get a life and grow up you pathetic idiot". So you are either rude or you are deliberately and brazenly lying. Possibly both. Penepi (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

And your point being? You clearly attacked me with the following: and you're trying to tell me that you DIDN'T aim an abuse at me? Also, would you care to explain this?.. as I'm aware, this is clearly an attack on other users by simply slating them "mentally incapacitated idiots"?... L1amw90 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a reply to your insult that I mentioned above, and you know it. So no, I did not aim an abuse at you. It was absolutely justified given the content of your insult.
 * Regarding your second point, I hope you are joking. On the opposite, I was defending other readers and telling you to stop making them idiots. Please learn to read with understanding. But this is getting awkward. Obviously you are incapable of having a decent and constructive discussion, so I would end it here. Administrators - or whoever is in charge of these disputes - will be able to evaluate the facts themselves. Penepi (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not incapable of anything, it's you who has an issue with me. All I'm trying to do is assume good faith by adding a completely new section into a separate article, but you keep going behind me and undoing it for no reason. I've told you multiple times about it being the same on 2020 PDC World Darts Championship but you just keep ignoring the fact that it has to be under the draw section etc, whereas if it has its own section, it is much easier to find and less confusing, but no, you just won't have it. Anyway, I'm not going to keep arguing on a page what doesn't even concern neither me or you. If you want to discuss it further, then we can discuss it on our talk pages. L1amw90 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors are warned for personal attacks, such as "Thanks for confirming that you are mentally unstable. Now leave." and "Seriously, get a life and grow up you pathetic idiot)". If this continues, one or both of you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User:197.89.10.25 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Blocked for evasion)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * The IP editor clearly has a specific point of view about the controversy connecting Baby Esther, Helen Kane and Betty Boop, and is edit warring here and on those other articles to force their PoV into the articles. Betty Boop history, Helen Kane history Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

And no, I don't "have a specific point of view". I am trying to clean up articles written like bad blogs, using WP:RS, and removing unsourced material. The only "forcing POV" is coming from Beyondmyken and Ewulp.
 * And why was Ewulp not similarly warned?

I have repeatedly tried discussing these issues on the relevant discussion pages, but these get ignored.

Also, take note of the Robert O'Meally "quotation", which both Beyondmyken and Ewulp had no problem with. That "quote"(around which ALL this has been built out of whole cloth) turned out to be a deliberate LIE. 197.89.10.25 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's put things in perspective. The entire Baby Esther article was created by someone called "Isabelortiz42", who also made the first edits. Here's their preferred version..



Just going through that..

First, the singer was best known as "Li'l Esther". Second, she NEVER "performed regularly at the Cotton Club". Third and Fourth, it matter-of-factly states that "Helen Kane appropriated her singing style", something that (obviously) has never been verified, just as it has never been verified that Helen Kane had ever even heard of Esther before the Fleischer trial. Fifth, "Jone's style went to become the inspiration for the voice of Betty Boop" So, Esther sang in a sexualized New York accent, did she? Sixth, Bolton claimed that Kane saw Esther perform in 1928. Yet the article says that Kane and Bolton saw it "together". Wrong again. Seventh, it is claimed that "Boop oop a doop" was "Jones' trademark". Well, show me ONE source that says that. Eighth, nobody ever claimed that Kane originated a "baby singing style". And such a style existed before Esther was even born, whenever that may have been.

Note how there's NO SOURCE for any of the above. There is however, ONE WP:RS in this article.. So, let's read on, as pretty much EVERYTHING up to this point has been both unsourced, and a blatant LIE, to boot..

Here's what the creator of the article stated..


 * "Jazz studies scholar Robert O'Meally has referred to Jones as 'Betty Boop's black grandmother.'

However..here's what Robert O'Meally actually said..

From Page 290 of Uptown Conversation: The New Jazz Studies (2004):


 * The climax of the case (a further Ellisonian twist) came when the court viewed archival film brought in by the defense - footage shot in the early days of sound, featuring yet another singer, this time a black cabaret artist billed as Baby Esther, who on film performed a song that contained the heavily debated phrase "boop-boop-a-doop". The Fleischers' lawyers further surprised the court with testimony from Baby Esther's manager, Lou Walton, claiming that Helen Kane and her manager had heard Baby Esther sing in a cabaret in 1928. The point of course was that even if the Fleischers' singer(s) had copied Kane to create Betty Boop, Kane herself, if the evidence could be believed56, was an imitation of black Baby Esther.57 In other words, Boop herself was an imitation of an imitation and had, as it were, a black grandmother in the background.58

and here are those notes..


 * 56. Cabarga, The Fleischer Story makes clear that this evidence might very well have been cooked up by the Fleischers to discredit Kane, whom they later admitted to have been their model for Betty Boop.
 * 57. See Klaus Strateman's Louis Armstrong on the Screen (Copenhagen:JazzMedia 1996), pp. 17-26.
 * 58. One can only wonder if there was some sort of sideline deal with Mr Walton. Was Miss Esther paid for her presumed loss of revenue?

Well, that certainly is not what Isabelortiz42 claimed O'Meally said, is it? Yes, the ENTIRE article was a LIE, with its ONE RS turning out to be almost the complete opposite what the music historian REALLY said.

And despite both Beyondmyken and Ewulp taking a keen interest in this article, this O'Meally misquote/falsehood never bothered either of them. It took someone else to correctly quote O'Meally.

Next, an image of a girl KNOWN TO NOT BE "Baby Esther" was used for years on the article. Again, neither editor found fault with that.

And yet, someone tries to tidy up the article, and now that is "edit warring"? How exactly was someone that nobody knows when they were born, nobody would have even heard of them without this trial, and nobody knows whatever became of them...was an "international celebrity"? I started a discussion for this on the discussion page, yet both editors simply ignored it.

Of course, as stated on the discussion page as well, the article isn't even about the person/performer. It's about her part played in a trial between other people, and even then we get to...

Lastly, contrary to what is claimed, the judge's summary IS available to be read. I asked precisely WHERE in that summary Esther is mentioned, even in passing. The response? Report me here. That speaks volumes. (But not about Esther, who was never mentioned at all in the verdict.) 197.89.10.25 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note is blocked so  is socking to avoid their block and continue their edit warring. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: The IP is blocked three months for apparent evasion of the block of 197.83.246.141. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: EC protection)
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:

A number of editors have been working constructively and collaboratively on this article, then suddenly because of one disruptive editor we all get blocked from editing (other than admins). Doesn't seem fair to me, surely the fair response is to block the disruptive editor user:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken not arbitrarily block everyone other than admins. Bacondrum (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can acknowledge my consecutive edits were hastily enacted but I'm sure we all make mistakes on this website and in life itself, I've had similar mistakes befallen me and I've sought no further greviance in both cases. This decision I feel is one of hastiness and lack of intent to discuss, I haven't seen you partake in the discussion that later fell to the talk page, this seems to have been your first decision and it is to try and ban me, we haven't interacted up until now in that regard. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page EC protected indefinitely by User:CambridgeBayWeather as an arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but your violation of the 1RR discretionary sanctions at that page got the whole article locked to non-admins. Nothing personal, I just don't think it's fair we were all locked out of the article because of one (or two) editors actions. Thankfully it's all sorted now. Bacondrum (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Thegoat2399 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998008641 by TheAmazingPeanuts (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 997988015 by TheAmazingPeanuts (talk)"
 * 3)  "https://theblast.com/151741/lil-babys-my-turn-becomes-no1-album-of-2020-in-us-in-total-units I have sources for mine ur going off a article written in August."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 997886114 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 997885363 by BillieLiz (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 997861284 by BillieLiz (talk)"
 * 7)  "I dont know why people are keep changing it this is the truth google it and go to hitsdaily double it says it on there"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 997812488 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 997810318 by Thegoat2399 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 997812488 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 997810318 by Thegoat2399 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 997810318 by Thegoat2399 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 997810318 by Thegoat2399 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 997810318 by Thegoat2399 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:



Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clearly disputing the content in the article over what was the best-selling album of 2020. MPFitz1968 (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

User:IbnTashfin97 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Btw why There is "History of Morocco" there and you guys put "north African" instead of "Moroccan"? This make no sense...and it make me laugh at you...also the "Moroccan Flag" lmao" Btw what is "banu Abdul Mumin"?? This Term it never existed, Abdul Mumin was Caliph And Studdent of Ibn Tumart... I smeal Algerian Money Here..." Do you understand now? About Almoravids... the founder of this Empire Was ABDALLAH IBN YASSINE a MOROCCAN Berber from SOUSS (Central Mor..."
 * 1)  "Moroccan dynasty not north africa, Bani kharkhar mad"
 * 2)  "hey M.bitton the sources are down there...can you read? you can see all the sources in external, you can see "Ruling dynasty of Morocco" you are against your own logic"
 * 3)  "I didnt put Any links Guys, i just teach you History, even if you Fake all the think you guys do, History is History...
 * 1)  "M.Bitton you dont put any Point in this debate, you only Change the "Moroccan" part, i put my point yet you dont Respond with Arguments... so please stop Faking Wikipedia you are Ruining it.
 * 1)  "First of all My Friend The Almohads Berber Group of MOROCCO, they are Different groups amongs Berbers, Berbers of Morocco are not same as Algerian Or Mouretania Berbers for example the Kabyles in Algeria are not The same as Masmuda Of Morocco...is like Saying all Europe is the same, like Prussia is Western European Empire and Not German...its Make no sense.
 * 1)  "The Almohads were Etnicaly Moroccan Amazighs (Berbers) from Atlas Mountains of Morocco, you cant Say "north Africa" since North Africa was Ruled by Different Groups and States"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Almohad Caliphate."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Almohad Caliphate."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Nyxaros (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

Three reverts in four hours before the page finally got a protection. Thanks to that protection they did not specifically violate 3RR, however, they were uncivil when I warned them on their talk page and refused their disruptive behaviour. They also ignored WP:NOTTABLOID on the page and continued their ownership. They wrote that I "outta know" the 3RR, forgetting the fact that they were blocked for edit warring. At least another editor's warning is appreciated. <small style="font-size:70%;">nyxærös 17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – Until 17 January by User:DMacks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

User:123Peacock123 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * They are also edit warring on the CHiPs article (5 reverts so far). M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Extremely clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Des Vallee (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 3 days by User:Drmies. This was a close call between edit warring and vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Gwalchmai100 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – Indef. A new user is adding a charge of Islamophobia (in the infobox) against a BLP subject in Wikipedia's voice, while stating they are trying to 'increase objectivity'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

User:91.86.88.202 reported by User:Ezlev (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "far left ideological vandalism."
 * 2)  "Typical leftist propaganda with ostentatious desire to demonize Rushton by adding words like "Nazi""
 * 3)  "Undid revision 998309423 by JSSRocket (talk)"
 * 4)  "Totaly partial and irrelevant head of article"
 * 5)  "Marxist propaganda deleted."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on J. Philippe Rushton."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user editing from this IP is repeatedly and actively blanking a well-sourced and relevant section of an article despite multiple talk page warnings. warmly, ezlev.  talk  20:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

User:79.68.129.39 reported by User:Guliolopez (Result: )
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:
 * 1)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

Can someone please consider blocking (or page protecting Midfield, County_Mayo)? As above, IP user continues to remove reliably referenced material with the same dubious rationale. Multiple attempts to engage (from multiple editors) have yielded no fruit. Guliolopez (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bump. Could someone take a look at this please? Despite another revert, another user warning from a further editor, and opening another channel through which the anon could explain their rationale, the reverting/warring continues. I am conscious of forum shopping (and so will leave this thread here instead of opening another) but it is now clear that I probably should have brought this to WP:AIV rather than WP:ANEW. (As it is clear now that my initial assumption that this was just a misguided GF editor was misplaced.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:75.156.45.126 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Semi-protection, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998490316 by Number 57 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 998488563 by Number 57 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 998473456 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 998453866 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Present-day place of birth of Constantine the Great */ WP:BATTLEGROUND"
 * 2)   "/* Present-day place of birth of Constantine the Great */ warning"
 * 3)   "/* Present-day place of birth of Constantine the Great */ indent"

Comments:

Further talk at Talk:Constantine the Great. Resubmitting for update. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The fact that he is born in Naissus, Moesia Superior, Roman Empire ( present-day Niš, Serbia) should be clearly displayed throughout the page, instead of its muddled portrayal. As well, the infobox is supposed to display the present-day place of birth, according to Wikipedia rules. :Therefore, Niš, Serbia must be shown. 75.156.45.126 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Why would you change factual information which is being updated for clarity? Do you have some ulterior motive for historical negationism?
 * I am editing based on genuine resources, such as the references provided at the bottom of the wiki page.


 * The fact that he is born in Naissus, Moesia Superior, Roman Empire ( present-day Niš, Serbia) should be clearly displayed throughout the page, instead of its muddled portrayal. As well, the infobox is supposed to display present-day place of birth, according to Wikipedia rules. :Therefore, Niš, Serbia must be shown. 75.156.45.126 (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Where do you see a MOS guideline for displaying present-day place of birth and not the place as it was known at the time? —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * from the Constantine the Great article only. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . A newly-created account made the same edit. I've now protected the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:86.16.134.3 reported by User:Herbfur (Result: Semi-protection, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998475444 by Herbfur (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998475444 by Herbfur (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998475444 by Herbfur (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Content Dispute on 2020s */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic */ new section"

Comments:

User is repeatedly reverting content without attempting to discuss it first. I invited them to discuss the changes but they ignored my invitation and continued reverting. also warned the user about edit warring. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * new revert since report was filed. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Another revert. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * from 2020s. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * since user made same edit from another IP. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Vishnuvrida reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://archive.org/details/bk616"
 * 1)  "I had attached sources of castes and tribes of bombay and Mysore which included Saraswats under the brahmin sub section yet these articles written with malicious intent are back again"
 * 2)  "/* Maharashtra, Konkan and Goa */Cherry picked articles which were never present on this article about Saraswats have appeared of late and the intent is malicious"
 * 3)  "Saraswats are included under the Brahmins in tribes and castes of bombay vol 1
 * 1)  "Saraswats are included under the Brahmins in tribes and castes of bombay vol 1
 * 1)  "Saraswats are included under the Brahmins in tribes and castes of bombay vol 1
 * 1)  "/* Maharashtra, Konkan and Goa */Saraswats are included under Brahmins in the tribes and castes of bombay vol 1"
 * 2)  "/* Karnataka and Kerala */Saraswats are included under Brahmins in the tribes and castes of Mysore under the section Tulu Brahmins

https://www.nature.com/articles/130910b0"
 * 1)  "Removed false information"
 * 2)  "/* Maharashtra, Konkan and Goa */False information removed Saraswat brahmins were not called as chettis in any reliable historical source"
 * 3)  "/* Karnataka and Kerala */In the coastal  districts of Karnataka Saraswats are one of brahmin communities as per the official census reports ."
 * 4)  "/* Karnataka and Kerala */Removal of incorrect articles"
 * 5)  "/* Maharashtra, Konkan and Goa */Removed propaganda based articles"
 * 6)  "Removed malicious content aimed against the community"
 * 7)  "False information with malicious intent to defame the community"
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)   "/* January 2021 */"
 * 4)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user constantly removing sourced content based on personal whims. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems relentless, well past 3RR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Attempting to engage, offering the chance to self-revert. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This doesn't look anything like the Wikiquette as laid down in WP:BRD, just a declaration and attack against those who are trying to restore the article. They then immediately continued with the warring/removing, and this after the last revert by . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * from editing the article. I blocked based on a report at AIV before I saw this. I agree it's not vandalism but it's definitely edit warring. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Randam reported by User:Aquintero82 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Template:Foreign relations of Madagascar]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Template:Foreign relations of Mexico
 * 2) Template:Foreign relations of New Zealand
 * 3) Template:Foreign relations of Uruguay
 * 4) Template:Foreign relations of Canada

User:Randam has taken upon themselves to edit and revert all templates (150+) regarding Foreign relations of all nations that a template with relations to Turkey in Wikipedia. This is an ongoing battle for several years where editors continuously move Turkey to Europe rather than leave the nation within the Asian articles. Numerous reversions have been made and several consensus over the years have been conducted and it has been agreed upon to leave Turkey within Asia as the majority of it's territory is in that continent. We cannot continue to have disruptive editors take it upon themselves every so often to move Turkey into the European section while removing it entirely from the Asian section on the templates. Aquintero82, (talk), 4 January 2021, 11:24 (UTC)


 * Comment by the reported user: I reject the accusations because (1) there is no 3RR, (2) as can be seen in the example given by the user:Aquintero82 (Template:Foreign relations of Mexico) I stopped reverting after I noticed user:Aquintero82's message, (3) after seen his message, I took the initiative to start a discussion on his talk. Instead of engaging in dialogue, I receive this noticeboard message after 18 minutes. (4) I find it dishonest of the user to revert all 150 of my edits, without first discussing or notifying me. I suggest leaving this behind and start the dialogue on your talk about the content. Randam (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion that would not end with a mutual consensus. I've engaged in this discussion numerous times in my 10 years of editing with Wikipedia. It's always the same. You made edits without consulting any members and as you said, if not to be consistent, why not move the other countries that you mentioned over to their respective continents and not just focus on one country per personal bias. Aquintero82, (talk), 17:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to my message, this article falls under the 3 revert rule Template:Foreign relations of the Republic of the Congo. Aquintero82, (talk), 18:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) That article is only reverted 2 times. (2) That was a singular attempt to grap your attention (see the description). Because you kept continuing reverting my edits while my message was left unanswered in your talk. (3) It was also a warning to you because you were reverting the whole text instead of only the part that bothers you. Why? (4) You claim that I didn't move other countries to their continents. I present to you case 1 and case 2 of the many cases where I put Russia also in Europe.
 * In conclusion: you secretly reverted all my 150 edits (no tagging), you falsely accuse me of not editing Russia in Europe, you leave my message on your talk unanswered, you instead go to this noticeboard to get rid of your 'problem' by getting me blocked. I try to assume good faith, so feel free to explain to me why this isn't misusing the noticeboard? Randam (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You mention that I "secretly" reverted all 150 edits. I do not remember seeing any comments of the edits you were making when you reverted the articles as they originally were. In some, you said that you were "standardizing" the article. To which "standardization" are you referring to? Who mentioned anything about Russia? There is no record of me mentioning that to you or to anyone else. This is not to get you blocked, this is to bring to attention that personal bias has no place in Wikipedia or in its edits. Please refer to Wikipedia's pages on Europe and Asia as a reference. Aquintero82, (talk), 5 January 2021, 11:31(UTC)
 * Result: Both editors warned. (This is a dispute as to whether Turkey is in Europe or Asia. It has been fought out in various foreign relations templates). Any further reverts of templates in regarding *which* countries are in *which* continents are risking a block unless prior consensus is found on a talk page. As pointed out by User:Aquintero82, our current articles on Europe and Asia show an assignment of countries to continents which has survived on Wikipedia up till now. If there is no way for either of you to find the prior discussions, an WP:RFC might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Roy McCoy reported by User:Feoffer (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Removes "Conspiracy Theory" from predicate nomitive using a misleading edit summary (talk page does not indicate support for proposed change), reverted by Feoffer: "per existing inline comment and talk page, this change will require consensus that does not presently exist"
 * 2) Again removes "conspiracy theory",  reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof:  "that's not consensus."
 * 3) Roy McCoy removes third time, writing:  "It's far closer to a consensus than Stop the Steal is to a conspiracy theory.", reverted by  Aquillion: "extensively sourced."
 * 4) Fourth removal after three reverts from three different editors.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Roy McCoy disputes CONSENSUS is necessary for their changes, WP:BATTLEGROUNDs: "I'm not going to plead to correct a misplaced comma or misspelled word, and I'm not going to beg on my hands and knees to correct this obvious error either. What I may do is go through the archives and bring a complaint against the whole bunch of you."

Comments:

Roy McCoy argues our articles should not be based on reliable sources. They dispute the Five Pillars and they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Feoffer (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There's an interesting discussion at User talk:Roy McCoy with User:Guy Macon where Roy says " Moreover, the actual fringe theory in regard to 9/11 is the official fantasy, which if I'm not in error only a minority of the population believes despite the relentless propaganda in its favor." At Talk:Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) after failing to get "conspiracy theorist" removed we have "Speaking of sources, Wikipedia's are often duplicitous and unreliable, so one can keep regurgitating the RS policy till the cows come home, and it will still fall flat with anyone aware of the dubiousness of the WP-approved sources and of the frequent value and acceptable quality of the disapproved – for example the Gateway Pundit on the 2020 Election. The graphic at Investment Watch provides a picture of the ideologically motivated division of sources and "explains a lot of the bias". If the purpose of Wikipedia is to serve as a propaganda rag, the childish "conspiracy theorist!" finger-pointing/name-calling may make some sense. Otherwise I'd say that what the encyclopedia actually needs, Hob Gadling, is fewer tired reiterations of the policy of aping often-discreditable sources. I think it could use less of that even if propagandizing is the purpose, since the RS policy perhaps shouldn't be over-advertised given current public disillusionment with "the lying media" – a phrase today yielding over a million estimated Google finds." Doug Weller  talk 08:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

u|Feoffer, u|Doug Weller: I'm not sure there's a violation here, as I don't consider to have been a revert. At least I started counting from what I considered to be the first revert,. I have since seen and understood that the 3RR rule "is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times", but honestly I feel that this is a case in which WP:IAR might rightfully be invoked in any event, as well as perhaps another guideline whose name I don't remember that says (or used to say) that a proper consensus doesn't necessarily require a majority. I've been drenched with this reliable sources, reliable sources recently, and my edit in this case is perfectly in accordance with the RS while Feoffer's totally isn't, as I've clearly established in detail. Thank you, Doug, for saying my posts were interesting. I think Feoffer means "nominative", and if I really must say so my preferred pronoun is "he". –Roy McCoy (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Roy McCoy suggests the first of four edits does not qualify as a revert. That suggestion is without merit.    On December 27,   McCoy similarly removed "Conspiracy Theory", which was  reverted by GorillaWarfare with the warning "discuss on talk page before making this change, per inline note".  Anachronist then posted an even clearer warning to get consensus before making the change.  Feoffer (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I protest Feoffer's inappropriate reversion to "conspiracy theory". I will do as I said and bring a complaint against him and his collaborators. [Anachronist has changed to "campaign", resolving issue and obviating need for further action.] The irony is that "campaign" doesn't even approach an adequate correction of the sentence; but it will still be recognized as an obvious improvement by any sane, honest, and reasonably intelligent person with a basic command of the English language. "Campaign", again, is in complete accordance with the cited sources, as "conspiracy theory" is not, this having been demonstrated with references to all the cited sources. –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Continued disruption

 * Inserts external link, it is reverted by Dumuzid
 * Inserted a second time, only to be removed  by Jeppiz.
 * Inserted a third time, after which it was removed by NorthBySouthBaranof.

It seems likely this will continue to be a problem until action is taken. Feoffer (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I came here to report the same thing. I suggest a six-month topic ban from American politics, broadly construed. Jeppiz (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This [] is a clear statement that they have no intention of abiding by our policies, and will continue to be disruptive. I think a TBAN is in order, they are just going to be a net drain on our time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I think this is outright trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It appears that the 3RR violation is now too old to take action on. If you believe this is a case of long term warring, please open a new report and supply the relevant diffs and arguments. If you think a TBAN is needed, consider WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The user has now been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 23:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

User:MarvelousMusician397 reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998316823 by The Grand Delusion (talk) Same reason as stated many times"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 998292587 by Rusted AutoParts (talk) Re-adding. Was discussed before its addition, will be discussed before its removal."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 998289219 by Rusted AutoParts (talk) Once again, refer to talk page."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 998289637 by Rusted AutoParts (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 998288711 by Rusted AutoParts (talk) As I just said but you appear too stubborn to read, this has been discussed and approved on the talk page, you must refer to there before making anymore edits such as this. Again, these were confirmed as "Star Originals" this morning."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 998288961 by Rusted AutoParts (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 998287680 by Rusted AutoParts (talk) Undone. This has already been discussed on the Talk page, furthermore it was confirmed this morning (on the source you deleted) that these shows are going to be promoted as "Star Originals.""
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998288961 by Rusted AutoParts (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 998287680 by Rusted AutoParts (talk) Undone. This has already been discussed on the Talk page, furthermore it was confirmed this morning (on the source you deleted) that these shows are going to be promoted as "Star Originals.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of Disney+ original programming."

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

Comments:

User has repeatedly reverted other users' reverts of the addition of programming labelled as Star originals in international markets. Exacerbated by their statement on the article's talk page saying "I am open to discussion and change and compromise, but any rash editing decisions to undo this without further discussion I will continue to revert." The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 21:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have stopped editing, realizing it is a winless edit war. I did not initiate this editing war but as a newer user it appears I am forced to abandon it and be assigned blame. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

He has not stopped. He reverted edits on the Star page related to the same discussion. He also added a question mark to one of my comments on the talk page, attempting to alter it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 5:14 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. The user has persisted in spite of many explanations, and they continued the war while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Noelcubit reported by User:Vyaiskaya (Result:Both blocked 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Page:

User being reported:

Page:

User being reported:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 







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

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

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

Comments:

(non-admin comment) Blocks for both or a two way IBAN appear to be in order, nominator does appear to have done a decent job opening talk page discussions but that level of edit warring across multiple pages before opening a discussion here was probably a mistake and WP:BOOMERANG applies. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Last time I was clear that both parties (i) have to stop edit-warring (ii) start talk discussions.Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I unblocked Noelcubit since Vyaiskaya turned out to be a sock--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Dibosh Chakma reported by User:Emdad Tafsir (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:

Replacing sourced data without citation Emdad Tafsir (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like a WP:NOTHERE to me based on this edit
 * – 72 hours to User:Dibosh Chakma. This user had a prior block back in November for making unsourced changes, the same problem as here. I am also warning User:Emdad Tafsir to stay under 3RR even if you believe you are defending the well-sourced version of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

User:909wall reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Sundayclose (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Obsuser reported by User:Floquenbeam (Result: 3 months)
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:, plus previous history of 4 edit warring blocks, so it's not like they don't know how it works.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not invested in the content dispute; I don't care what it looks like.

Comments:

I came across this when I saw edit warring at WP:AIV. I tried to compromise between 2 edit warring parties (this user and User:Vif12vf), but don't care if my suggestion is accepted. However, I'm sure that attempt at compromise makes me involved. But one editor stopped reverting, and the other didn't stop, so I'm suggesting blocking Obsuser, not Vif12vf. Last edit warring block was for 2 weeks, and happened 4-5 months ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 3 months, has five other EW blocks in the last 18 months, bordering on NOTHERE. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Nappateemu reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998929300 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
 * 2)  "It is not nonsense. I see your profile and realize you have some personal vendetta against pseudoscience. That does not mean any online article you find appeasing is automatically correct. Typing something on the internet with no sources then quoting yourself as a source for future articles does not make the claim true."
 * 3)  "The only source for the claim of "pseudoscience" is another article by the same author. None of the documents by the experts referenced in these articles use the term "pseudoscience". A clickbait article referencing another clickbait article written by the same author is not a credible source."
 * 4)  "Nowhere in the letter or the report by experts referenced in these articles is the word "pseudoscience" used. The reference used for the claim by the journalist (with no medical credentials) who wrote the article is another article written by themself."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* January 2021 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: That's only a total of three reverts.
 * Blocked for 72h. There are four reverts. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Belevalo reported by User:209.216.92.203 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Racism in France
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Suicide in China
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Afro–Latin Americans
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Demographics of Georgia (U.S. state)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (by other user)

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

Comments:

User is edit warring in multiple articles, constantly accusing others as "trolls", removing census material and making non-neutral edits. 209.216.92.203 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * sockpuppet IP hoper keeps following me around and reverting my edits. The multiple users he talks about is him on other new IP adresses. Didn't even bother to create a new sock profile and reported me with an IP with a history of 4 edits. Belevalo (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: User has also accused for "abused your privileges to force through your agenda", as well as further accusations of creating a false consensus. 209.216.92.203 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently I am the sockmaster. ... disco spinster   talk  02:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * talking to yourself? i find it odd that an IP with 4 edits has this sort of knowledge of not just wiki lingo, but how to post, report, disrupt. Given that i've been followed by multiple such IPs, I believe said IP and other IPs he hoped on, is one person with multiple years of wiki trolling experience.Belevalo (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 60h already, which is quite lenient IMO given the accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry against others. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Bloodofruler reported by User:Heba Aisha (Result: No vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Warning given to user Other disruptive edit Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998669017 by Chariotrider555 (talk)outdated source"
 * 2)  "This is old jadeja wikipedia history a m#f# named hindu kshtrana removed it"
 * 3)  "/* History */Removed fake info"
 * 1)  "/* History */Removed fake info"
 * 
 * 
 * , use of personal opinion to delete content.
 * , the pretext of poor source is used to remove content from a lot of articles in past.,

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

The user is edit warring on a number of page including Jadeja. Basically, indulged in replacement of high quality stable sources on which earlier the other editors were agreed to, with other sources without discussion, for promotional reasons of caste.Also there is WP:COI as in his user page he confirms to have belonging to same caste. Also personal attack on editors. "This is old jadeja wikipedia history a m#f# named hindu kshtrana removed it" Heba Aisha (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Only two reverts here (two of the edits are consecutive). Suggest WP:RFPP, or WP:ANI if there are major ehaviour issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:47.19.207.170 reported by User:TVFan88 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

A user has been edit warring on the page Horrid Henry (TV series), saying that a certain piece of text is fake, He's also framing me for what i did

Previous version reverted to: 13:50, 7 January 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13:50, 7 January 2021‎
 * 2) 13:41, 7 January 2021‎
 * 3) 13:38, 7 January 2021
 * 4) 12:21, 7 January 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:55, 24 September 2020

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:55, 7 January 2021‎ @ User talk:TVFan88

Comments:

He thinks i'm causing drama Thanks! i needed that! You are the greatest user! :)
 * Protected. It's either block both or neither, so protection is the way to go. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

-TVFan88 talk 4:13PM EST — Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

User:OgamD218 reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: No vio)
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:

Violation of WP:1RR. The content has since been moved further down the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No vio? The first diff shows adding information, the 2nd is a revert. Please let me know if I have misunderstood that, but AFAICS that's only 1 revert. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was restoring the content that was reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2nd diff is a revert, yes. I can't see that the first one is, though.  Also, does the article even have a 1RR restriction?  If it does, I can't see it. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as well; I was under the impression that I had not violated the rules regarding Edit Wars in this case. If I did violate the rules I would like to note even though I was unaware, I apologize for doing so and will take greater caution in the future. I would have removed the content at issue and taken it to the talk page but as other editors had made changes to it I was unsure what my obligations were.OgamD218 (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Erzan reported by User:Herbfur (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "‎Europe:  now everyone is included without having to mention every single person elected in the UK. BBC article mentions many leaders."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 999104052 by Herbfur (talk) there was already a consesus and that was broken."
 * 3)  "/* Europe */ the First Ministers of Wales & Scotland are not leaders of their devolved parliaments."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 999101725 by Domeditrix (talk) this is becoming a mess & this should be kept to a minimum. We don't need every politician in the UK."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 999096951 by Domeditrix (talk)"
 * 6)  "/* Europe */  this is getting messy and way too focused on the UK. We don't need a response from every party leader."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 998950579 by Krisgabwoosh (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 998950140 by CIreland (talk)"
 * 9)  "/* Europe */  this is not a page for leaders of sub-national administrations. It's for leaders of their sovereign state."
 * 10)  "This page is for the head of governments and or states. The First Minister of Scotland is netiher."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Three-revert rule on International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol." -

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: At Talk:International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.

Comments:

The user has broken WP:3RR in a content dispute. They were warned by on their talk page but continued warring to the point that they violated 3RR. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Endorse report. Erzan's edit-warring is disruptive and needs to stop. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse report. I have made attempts to discuss the issue on the talk page, and requested that we both wait for further input before editing further. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that this user has violated the 3RR on other pages previously.Domeditrix (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of my edits were editing mistakes or trying to tidy up the page. Plus I have engaged on the talk page. Erzan (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any tidying up in the reverts listed, and even then, that's not an excuse for violating WP:3RR, per WP:3RRNO. Even if you were attempting to resolve the dispute, that isn't an excuse to continue reverting, unfortunately. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why other user's involved in the edit war are not being questioned or reported? Erzan (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, none of those users have crossed WP:3RR or continued reverting without requesting and working on building consensus. Furthermore, two wrongs don't make a right. If those other users were edit warring it would be wrong, but that's still no excuse for you making 10 reverts in 24 hours. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Galkalam reported by User:Saucysalsa30 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  - logged-out IP address revert. This IP address has 2 edits, both reverts in quick succession with one on the Talfah article.
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - Since the edit warring activity was strictly reverts (no other comment or activity), I tried reaching out on their Talk page directly. The response was to blank out their Talk page and continue edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Galkalam is a single-purpose account created for edit warring, specifically article reverts on the Talfah article. Their first revert was made within a minute of account creation. The subsequent reverts on the account and logged-out IP address were also reverts on the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 3 days for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Neophraz reported by User:Sam Sailor (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2021-01-08T16:54:39
 * 2)  "/* Storming the United States Capitol */"
 * 3)  "/* Storming the United States Capitol */"
 * 4)  "/* Storming the United States Capitol */"
 * 5)  "/* Biography */"
 * 6)  "/* Biography */"
 * 7)  "/* Biography */"
 * 8)  "/* Biography */"
 * 9)  "/* Biography */"
 * 10)  "/* Biography */"
 * 11)  "/* Biography */"
 * 1)  "/* Biography */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Derrick Evans (politician)."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Derrick Evans (politician)."

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

Comments:
 * Instead of joining the discussion at the article talk page or here, User:Neophraz have returned and repeated their edit to the article. Diff added above. Sam Sailor 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Albertaont reported by User:Normchou (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Efficacy */ 1) no source specifically mentioned "+90% efficacy" 2) arbitrary classification -> WHO requires 50% for approval while certain countries require 70%"
 * 2)  "/* Efficacy */ update to give meaningful context on efficacy"
 * 3)  "/* Efficacy */"
 * 4)  "/* Efficacy */ remove NIH and NEJM, can't use primary sources [WP:MEDRS], NIH is primary since they also co-develop, just use a normal article from RS"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 998978201 by Normchou (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 998977898 by Normchou (talk)uncited efficacy rates and incorrect synthesis"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 998978201 by Normchou (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 998977898 by Normchou (talk)uncited efficacy rates and incorrect synthesis"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* This is not WP:HTBAE behavior */ new section"

Comments:

The user was persistently removing materials and sources without any attempt to add new sources, materials or showing any acknowledgment of WP:PRESERVE. This is not WP:HTBAE behavior. Normchou  💬 02:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to raise the community's awareness of this user's long-term behavior of maneuvering the editing processes and policies, which has the effect of censoring and removing significant views and information   , as opposed to WP:PRESERVE. Many more of such edits by them were done in the name of WP:SOCKSTRIKE, especially on geopolitics- and China-related topics. Normchou  💬 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Consecutive edits count as a single edit for WP:3RR purposes (as you may already know, since you grouped them together?) That being the case, how is this a 3RR violation? --Aquillion (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Admins, thanks for bringing this to your attention.


 * 1) There are a series of edits from Normchou starting from 22:46 7 January 2021‎ which involve incorrect synthesis and arbitrary classification of vaccines into a group of less than 80% efficacy vaccines and above 90% efficacy vaccines. This classification is misleading because according to reliable sources, an efficacy of 50% is required for approval from WHO, FDA, and EMA while a 70% efficacy is suggested in other literature as necessary for effective herd immunity. Even if we were to follow Normchou's reasoning, it is unusual he omitted the Astra-Zeneca vaccine which is widely published and well known to have an efficacy of 70% from his list of vaccines under 80% efficacy. Also, there was no mention in his edits of BBV152 which is known to have been approved of before any efficacy results were announced. Although I cannot conclusively prove WP:NPOV violation, I do suggest the admins look into this given his previous edits at COVID-19 vaccines. Normchou has previously extensively contributed to COVID-19 vaccines and has edited the vaccine tables so he is presumed to know the efficacy of at least the well known vaccines (there are only 7 approved as of now).


 * 2) Normchou has also been an active member of project COVID and has over 10 years tenure on wikipedia per his profile. He has been previously warned about [WP:MEDRS], as have I, so we both know what only secondary sources are reliable. He knows that you cannot put uncited sources of efficacy for vaccines, and also that primary sources (i.e. medical journals) cannot be used.


 * 3) I can't comment on the nature of the 3RR warning because I do not believe I have reverted any unique edit more than once. For the same reason, I believe he is also at 1RR since nothing is his contributions is a repeat of my edits.


 * 4) I believe the last edit I made truly represents the most accurate and objective analysis of vaccine efficacy which is useful to the reader. It also represents a significant improvement from a WP:NPOV compared to what was previously there from Normchou. Until the arbitration is complete, I suggest both Normchou and I refrain from further edits to COVID-19 vaccines.


 * 5) I suggest the admins review the full series of both my edits and Normchou's starting from 22:46 7 January 2021, there were no intermediate edits from 3rd parties between the two of us that could obfuscate the full edit chain.


 * 6) I am puzzled as to why Normchou decided to post 2 times to my personal talk page, one time to the admin noticeboard, and one time to COVID-19:talk page in a span of just 2 minutes. I presume that if he wanted to initiate an actual dialogue or consensus with me, he would have waited a few hours or even minutes for a response. Instead this seems like bullying/threatening behavior for which I am now forced to respond. I think there should be some WP:BOOMERANG that should apply.


 * 7) I am uncertain how to respond given the following disclosure on his talk page. Since December 2020, he has been working on a project that utilizes BoW, POS tagging, sentiment, and GloVe and Word2vec embeddings to identify hard-to-detect abnormal connections among Wikipedia accounts. The project will help with WP:SPI and enforcement against WP:SOCK, especially in relation to accounts that evade WP:CHK (e.g., WP:SPA and WP:IP behind WP:PROXY). It is not clear to me from such disclosure if he is in fact an admin or another senior member with additional rights associated with the wikipedia foundation, and that additional consideration should be shown to his comments. If that is the case, please also let me know. I am especially unsure because Normchou does have significantly greater tenure and experience than myself, based on both the speed of his edits and the fact that he has been on wikipedia for 11 years. I also can't seem to link diffs effectively but that is more on me.
 * Thanks, Albertaont (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Re 's point 6): Their last revert, i.e. complete removal of this part of my contrib despite all the piecemeal improvements that had been made—which they were also a participant of—clearly shows they were NOT WP:AGF, and that's why I chose to report them directly. I have no comment regarding the rest of their statement. Normchou   💬 03:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Admins, as pointed it out, I am not sure what the charge is, since its not a 3RR. If an admin or someone from WP:Project COVID could review our edits and provide guidance or wish me to explain any of my edits, I am glad to do so. Again, my edits to vaccine efficacy have not been challenged by other editors (I'm unsure if Normchou is even challenging the final edit). In the absense of that, I would still like to request clarifications on Since December 2020, he has been working on a project that utilizes BoW, POS tagging, sentiment, and GloVe and Word2vec embeddings to identify hard-to-detect abnormal connections among Wikipedia accounts. The project will help with WP:SPI and enforcement against WP:SOCK, especially in relation to accounts that evade WP:CHK (e.g., WP:SPA and WP:IP behind WP:PROXY). whether normchou is a member of an admin team or another member of the foundation given his 10 year tenure on wiki, and if additional disclosure is required. Thanks again and I look forward to closing this. Albertaont (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I've filed another report of this user with more details on WP:ANI. Normchou  💬 08:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors warned for edit warring. This page is covered by General sanctions under General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. If either of you reverts the article again within the next seven days (without getting a prior consensus on the talk page) I suggest that admins should follow this up. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged and thanks for response. Albertaont (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Rzheng97 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result:Partial block )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rzheng97 moved page Yang Yang (scientist) to Yang Yang (scientist, educator)"
 * 2)  "Rzheng97 moved page Yang Yang (scientist) to Yang Yang (scientist, educator): Professor Yang Yang hopes to be called so"
 * 1)  "Rzheng97 moved page Yang Yang (scientist) to Yang Yang (scientist, educator)"
 * 2)  "Rzheng97 moved page Yang Yang (scientist) to Yang Yang (scientist, educator): Professor Yang Yang hopes to be called so"
 * 1)  "Rzheng97 moved page Yang Yang (scientist) to Yang Yang (scientist, educator): Professor Yang Yang hopes to be called so"
 * 1)  "Rzheng97 moved page Yang Yang (scientist) to Yang Yang (scientist, educator): Professor Yang Yang hopes to be called so"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Paid editing without disclosure under the Wikimedia Terms of Use on Yang Yang (scientist)."
 * 2)   "/* January 2021 */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Yang Yang (scientist, educator)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Praxidicae moved page Talk:Yang Yang (scientist, educator) to Talk:Yang Yang (scientist) over a redirect without leaving a redirect: no double dabs"

Comments:

I have repeatedly attempted to discuss with this user but they are only interested in promoting Yang by adding poorly sourced puffery, copyright violations and moving to inappropriate titles. They've refused to discuss and short of a block, I'm not sure what to do. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've partial blocked them from Yang Yang (scientist, educator) indefinitely. I have concerns that they may just create new page names for the same material; if that happens please ping me and I'll modify the block to site wide.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Barkeep reported by User:Blackbirdxd (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

Only a couple of examples shown above, the user has been editing the article and reverting, misrepresenting, and obscuring the slightest criticism by me or anyone else since 2014. Most reverts are done without giving a reason or explanation, when there is one it's often disguised as "reorganizing" and "minor edits" but in reality he deletes criticism alongside that. Citing "unreliable sources", but continued doing so even after the sources were provided without giving any legitmate reason. Also, citing that there isn't a neutral point of view but the criticism is completely factual. I believe the user has some conflict of interest with the article and the company, and is in some way associated with them, because his edits range back to 2008 and has been actively removing critcism since 2014. Blackbirdxd (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * . This report has no merit. Edits over a couple of weeks, the last of them 8 days ago, do not constitute edit warring, nor, in this case, disruptive editing. Let alone editing going back to 2014, as the OP suggests... Please read this page's instructions ("This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule", my bolding) before offering a report here, . If you believe Barkeep "has some conflict of interest with the article and the company, and is in some way associated with them", you might try the Conflict of interest noticeboard. Although I doubt you'll get any traction there either if all you have is unproven aspersions.  Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Elijahandskip reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "User was told a and shown that a discussion began in a previous thread 2 days ago.  Earlier today, a thread was created and he is warning about that “newer” thread.  Completely ignoring the thread started 2 days ago (No consensus at the moment).  Removal again will result in an admin board notice."
 * 2)  "See talk page (Your warning was rejected.  You didn’t consider a discussion above that was on-going about the topic before undoing)."
 * 3)  "Do not Undo this.  See talk page."
 * 4)  "I have no idea who added it back.  There is an on-going discussion on the talk page about this.  (Before discussion began, it was removed, so it is removed until consensus to add back.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unacceptable removal of key facts from the first sentence */"

Comments:

User has declined to engage in talk page discussion, instead apparently believes that his "WikiProject" has authority to override local article discussion, which is of course patent nonsense, and has decided to edit war in order to enforce this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stating for admins. On January 7 (1 days ago) a discussion on the topic began originally on the WikiProject of Current Events.  After a post from me and an IP, it was moved to the talk page of the article.  (See that here: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol.). After it was moved, other editors contributed to the discussion.  At the moment, there is no consensus on that discussion.  Earlier today, this discussion: Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol which states in the opening statement. “Unrelated to the one above”.  I do not understand how a discussion above that has a no consensus can be disregarded and in a matter minutes to hours just be deemed “I don’t care about the discussion above...this discussion is the only thing that matters”.  I would be ok being warned for edit warring, but I would also like to have other editors warned that the discussion needs to include previous on-going discussions.  Thanks. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That thread you linked contains absolutely no discussion of the wording you are removing, much less any discussion which shows a consensus to remove that wording. The fact that other wording in the lede is under discussion does not give you license to remove anything from the lede that you apparently disagree with. To the contrary, this discussion shows clear and broad support for the wording that you are removing, and demonstrates a clear rejection of your proposed removal. Self-revert and this can be closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I will not undo it again. If an admin decides that I am in the wrong, I will be ok with the discussion. I never purposely edit war, so please take that into consideration.  (Maybe just a warning, no ban?) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * On the discussion Northbysouthbaronof is referring to, I had a mistake. I didn’t fully understand what that thread was for.  I have apologized on that thread and understand that my actions were wrong.  The discussion are related but unrelated.  (Kick the can down the road) is basically what has happened today).  On the thread, there is a clear consensus that I did violate, so I was edit warring.  I understand that I was and have made amends with the editors involved. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Elijahandskip is warned for edit warring. Since they acknowledge the violation and have agreed to stop, no block seems necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. Slightly disappointed that the other user wasn't warned also as he did lie when reporting.  Said "Declined to engage in talk page discussions" when there is a very long discussion on the talk page.  Either way, I accept the warning. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Djp.mortimer reported by User:Mike Christie (Result: Partially blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned user about 3RR on article talk page.

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

Comments:

See also this conversation on my talk page, in which the user does not respond to being told about the relevant policies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Izno (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:172.58.231.77 reported by User:Herbfur (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No. You are making up reasons to inject your bias into the article. The elected majority is 48 Democrats plus 2 independents, plus the vice president. That's how the system works, and just because they don't take office the next day doesn't change that. I agree we should reformat the infobox to better show who the winning coalition is but falsely saying Republicans were elected the majority is not the answer its just misinformation."
 * 2)  "Just because the elected majority doesn't take office the next day doesn't mean they aren't the elected majority. We don't say Trump won the election because Biden isn't being sworn in until the 20th."
 * 3)  "Majority on the left, minority on the right is the precedent"
 * 4)  "This is misleading and will confuse readers. It is absolutely a technicality."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on 2020 United States Senate elections."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On Talk:2020 United States Senate elections.

Comments:

I believe this relates to a user from a range of IP addresses. They've breached both the 1RR and Consensus required restrictions on this page, after I notified them of the restrictions and told them to get consensus. I'll add the other reverts in as well. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the user also made personal attacks against . Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the associated IP addresses to this report. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. Reverts by an IP-hopper are hard to reconcile with a 1RR which includes a discussion requirement. See talk page header for all the restrictions that have been imposed under WP:ARBAP2. IPs can still request changes on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Caius G. reported by User:Fuzzymenge (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff=999150290&oldid=999145412

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:

Comments: This user tries to create disinformation by making unrealized events appear as if they had happened and participates edit wars over it. Even though he is warning people to not edit war but actively fueling people to do. It is a personal interpretation to say that it will be used for the same purposes as earlier versions of the satellite were used for different purposes, I think personal comments written with xenophobic motivation should not be included in Wikipedia articles.


 * A user account created 27 minutes ago finds the Türksat 5A article, (believes to) know what edit warring is, installs twinkle and reports me at WP:AN3. They also happen to use the same language ("xenophobic", "disinformation") as the editor (User:Klevehagfd) I reported earlier on this noticeboard. Would requesting a WP:SPI be considered vexatious? Best, Caius G. (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not (User:Klevehagfd), I was editing Wikipedia without logging in and had to login to just report you, since Wikipedia rules say i must warn the user i am reporting, i have copied warning text from somewhere else and adjusted it. Please just talk about edit warring you did, more people seem noticed your motivations, please refrain ad hominem or conclusions about who is who. Fuzzymenge (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: The filer, User:Fuzzymenge, has been blocked indef as a sock by User:Cabayi. The article has been EC protected two months per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Klevehagfd reported by User:Caius G. (Result: Block, ECP)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Update # "undid the edit by VPN ip" (undid reversion by a user other than me)
 * 1)  "removed disinformation: this satellite will not allow any drones to be operate, as Turkey already have satellites to control drones. pls dont edit war with me thx"
 * 2)  "no, this satellite will not allow anything new to Turkish Armed Forces, as TAF already using satellite controlled drones without 5A"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 999273547 by Caius G. (talk)come on people why to give detailed info about some drones in a satellite article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Xenophobic motivation under a satellite article */response"

Comments:

Selected resolution initiative concerned the same issue but another editor (IP), was mentioned as a way to discuss when reverting user's edit. Editor also refuses to engage in discussion, saying that "I will not discuss anything as it will probably result in nothing because of vandalism on the page". Caius G. (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * His first revert is "(removed armenian propaganda; deleted irrelevant info. dear armenians please leave this page; this is an encyclopedia not your playground.)" 2804:5364:3100:9:0:0:0:A01D (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Klevehagfd has been blocked one week as a sock by User:Cabayi. I've put two months of EC protection on the article due to sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the Wrong Version... Could an admin revert it to an other wrong version? 2804:5364:3100:9:0:0:0:A01D (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2804:5364:3100:9:0:0:0:A01D and any admin reading this, it's fine and has been reverted by an uninvolved user. Best, Caius G. (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:540:C600:2CF0:9C22:1E5A:38AA:4E93 reported by User:RoxySaunders (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Necessary description that matches description of Walt Disney Co.‘s page description. Wiki editors should refrain from making edits that are unnecessary and destructive to article pages."
 * 2)  "Necessary description"
 * 3)  "Last clearing of edit was unnecessary by Wikipedia editor"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "Revert changes to status quo. Describing the Disney Company as an "diversified multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerat" is unnecessarily verbose and not relevant to this article. Please discuss on the talk-page before reintroducing these changes.)"

Comments: User seems to be editing in good-faith, but does not understand Wikipedia's project guidelines. Their location (near the University of Pittsburgh) suggest that their contributions to WPTS-FM may be a conflict-of-interest, but attempting to educate them about COI disclosures in addition to proper WP:BRD etiquette may only disorient and confuse them. RoxySaunders (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:47.144.193.12 reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

User:Dream Focus, don't bother filling out the rest of it: it's clear enough, as is this personal attack. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:93.164.22.202 reported by User:CloseDatMouf (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * MPBH:
 * Elita:
 * Discography: (last proper version before a slew of vandalism occurred)
 * Let Me Go:
 * SISYL:
 * Superhero:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Music Played by Humans: adding fake Denmark position and removing sourced year-end UK position
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Elita (song): adding fake Denmark position with a bunch of obsolete category tags
 * 1)  (revert by another IP but I suspect they're the same person considering they're both reverting to the revisions with the fake positions)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (revert by the above IP)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Gary Barlow discography: adding a slew of fake positions, certifications and shifting numerous songs around such as songs from 'featured artist' to 'lead artist'
 * 1)  (revert by the above IP)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Let Me Go (Gary Barlow song): adding fake and unsourced Denmark position and removing sourced UK certifications table
 * 1)

Since I Saw You Last: adding fake and unsourced Denmark position and replacing a review without explanation
 * 1)

Superhero (Gary Barlow song): adding fake and unsourced UK and Scotland position
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (revert by another account, again I suspect it's the same person)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (by another user on their talk page)

Comments:

93.164.22.202 is inserting fake chart positions (most commonly that of Denmark) and information on the pages of Gary Barlow's songs and randomly removing sourced material without explanation. I am sure to fact-check everything before reverting and if they were actual, true, sourced positions I wouldn't have a problem with it but unfortunately they are not. They have already violated the 3-revert-rule on Music Played by Humans by reverting four times in 24 hours a few days ago so I sent them a warning and advised them to self-revert but they did not seem interested. I also suspect they operate on more than one IP and account based on the behavioral similarities between them. They also seem to have been reported for edit warring before. <b style="background: #0d2c41; padding: 3px 20px 3px 17px; border-radius:15px;"> T   CloseDatMouf </b> 16:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 6 months. Long term edit warring on music articles. User has hardly ever posted on a talk page and does not leave edit summaries. Adding fake chart positions is considered falsification. Leave me a message if you think they also use other IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do, thank you so much! <b style="background: #0d2c41; padding: 3px 20px 3px 17px; border-radius:15px;"> T   CloseDatMouf </b> 06:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ThereWillBeTime reported by User:Ss112 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (initial removal of content)
 * 2)  and  (significant removals of content by IP editor that ThereWillBeTime has declared is them, so I believe this counts toward this editor's revert total)
 * 3)  (first revert of my initial disagreement)
 * 4)  (reverting my major restoration of the content)
 * 5)  (revert of my reminder to follow WP:BRD as I believed they missed it/weren't aware, the only reason I reverted a second time)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user removed an entire section on Season of the Witch (song), claiming that it was not notable, then opened a section on the talk page stating so. They have not claimed any significant reasons as to its removal, just an opinion. I was notified that the image I uploaded for the cover version of this song was orphaned, and thus contributed at the discussion and made clear my disagreement, especially in the absence of any reason other than "its notability is quite small", so reverted. This editor then reverted me in two parts, and I reverted this, reminding them to "please follow WP:BRD", as I thought they weren't aware of the protocol considering they're a relatively new editor and may have missed this in my response, but was reverted again and had my reverts called "bad faith". I stopped, and made this report. The user is also editing in tandem with their IP address, 173.88.250.97, which they have declared is their IP address on their user talk page, but I have told them to not do this as it can be considered sockpuppetry. They have very clearly gone over WP:3RR, making more than five reverts if all their registered account and IP's reverts are taken into consideration.  Ss  112   08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I'm not supposed to comment here. I couldn't find any articles regarding how to respond to reports and I did see users who had been reported in the past commented on their related report. I just wanted to mention that I feel at least two of these statements are demonstratively false; one, I have never claimed this cover was not notable. I also have claimed fact based reasons as to why I made the edits I did. I've already written quite a bit about this incident on my talk page, and on the article talk page,, and I do trust you, the admins, you review it all, so I'm not going to rehash it all here. I of course trust and respect your judgement, but I do feel I am being misrepresented strongly here and this editor has been very uncivil towards me, both in the article discussion and on my own talk page.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Season of the Witch (song) has been fully protected three days. Please use the talk page to decide what to do. See WP:DR if you can't reach agreement there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Mikezarco reported by User:JJPMaster (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to Benjamin Ingrosso discography"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 999503216 by Doggy54321 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 999493060 by Doggy54321 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 999107402 by Doggy54321 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 999107402 by Doggy54321 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is trying to challenge the result of an AfD for En gång i tiden that ended in a redirect, and this account is suspected to have been compromised, as seen here. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Their account is compromised, it was a hacker making those edits, not Mikezarco themselves. I have filed a request for an indef block at WP:ANI. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 16:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * as the account is compromised. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "if your "not sure what's wrong with it" (apart from the grade school-level prose), you really have no business editing articles that concern living people; read WP:BLP, then read it again - I don't give a flying fuck how "other articles" about cosa nostra in America handle things; for the moment, I'm dealing with this one"
 * 2)  "WP:BLP"
 * 3)  "WP:BLP"
 * 4)  "BLP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit warring at Philadelphia crime family"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Current membership section"

Comments: Besides the personal attacks and unproductive attitude of Joefromrandb, he has gone over WP:3RR after a large removal of reliably sourced information in a WP:BOLD edit. I reverted this edit and Joefromrandb was urged to then follow the WP:BRD cycle, but was seemingly unwilling to take the matter to the talk page, so I eventually took it to the talk page myself. Per BRD, however, the original version should remain until after discussion. Joefromrandb was also unresponsive to the 3RR warning on his talk page, thinking I was trolling him. It does seem this user has a long history with civility and edit warring issues. Joefromrandb claimed WP:3RRNO due to supposed WP:BLP issues, however, the information is sourced by U.S. Department of Justice, The Philadelphia Inquirer, CBS, etc. that specifically state the persons' roles in the crime family. Therefore, WP:3RRNO states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." We go by reliable sources, not what you think is "garbage". This is not a crutch Joefromrandb should stand on to continue edit warring, or one that should replace the need for discussion as outlined in BRD. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I invite any admin to have a look at my edits, summaries, and talk page comments, as they speak for themselves. WP:BLP is not "a crutch" (yeah, he really did say that), but a black-letter non-negotiable mandate which must be followed by all editors, all the time. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This user's latest edit was to "make the information LESS DEFAMATORY (my emphasis)"; "less defamatory"? Wtf? I'm sorry I have to repeat it a third time: "less defamatory". I couldn't make this shit up if I tried. He is openly advocating libel in Wikipedia articles. Are you fucking kidding me? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:3RRNO, a crutch. Dude, come on, really. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 14:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And that suggestion was made by User:EdJohnston at my talk page, and you go and revert it, again. Do you seriously have no respect for the process of BRD? <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 14:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Please work this out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Followup:, it seems to have been overlooked that Jrfrb is under a 1R/page/day restriction . In his spare time he's been repeatedly reinserting mixed-up stuff, accompanied by ponderously oblivious edit summaries, on one of our most-read articles at a most inopportune time . Keeping a death grip on the wrong end of the stick is a longstanding habit with this editor and I would suggest that a stern word is in order.  <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, I was all ready to respond to our self-appointed colourful jester EENG with a response equally, if not more colourful, but as strife begets strife, I'll simply say that the restriction of which EENG speaks is subject to the usual exemptions, and he knows this. His attempt at stirring the pot is noted; moving on. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in this dispute but I just want to say that Joefromrandb has been less than civil during this dispute. The text here and edit summaries both here and at the contested article are filled with personal attacks and instances of not assuming good faith, which can be seen above. I don't have any opinion on the edit warring, this is something for others to decide, but Joefromrandb shouldn't be continuing to make these personal attacks, there's no place for that on Wikipedia. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No response from you is required. Just start paying attention . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing "response" with "jacket" or "reservation"; bullshit this egregious indicates a response is in order, if not outright requiring it. I guess your "1RR" straw man didn't get you enough attention? I'll play along. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Himla med ögonen.gif <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Zomgrose reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: - - - - -
 * 1)  (Jan 11@00:12)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (Jan 11@00:53)
 * 1) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of 3RRNB tp notice:

Comments:

Editor reverted three different users (2 editors, 1 bot) with a total of 13 edits to the same content in a 41 minute span. This user makes extensive use of edit summaries while warring, but refuses to engage on talk pages, despite personal request to do so. - wolf  08:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Zomgrose is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at List of biggest box-office bombs without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:Ev Thom (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:48, January 10, 2021 (Restored) Tag: Manual revert
 * 2) 05:29, January 11, 2021 (Restored) Tag: Manual revert
 * 3) 16:51, January 11, 2021 (Restored) Tag: Manual revert
 * 4) 22:25, January 11, 2021 m (Nope) Tag: Manual revert

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

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

Comments:

User has been reverting every edit to the page since November 13, 2020. Their edit summaries are mostly either "Restored" or something that can be said on a talk page. They clearly have a WP:OWN problem (If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you cannot prevent them from doing so. In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, starting with a discussion on the article talk page). If I were to restore the version from November 2020 (three months ago), there wouldn’t be much of a difference. They revert everything, I’m not being dramatic. Look at the page history. Furthermore, they are suspected (but not assumed) to be gaming the system by reverting 4 times in 26 hours, as shown in the diffs above. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 01:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorse report - I looked in the revision history and the user has made an absurd number of reverts, both approaching violating 3RR and over a long period of time. This is pretty clearly disruptive editing to me. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months, due to material being added by IPs without proper sources. Hotwiki was reverting some of these IPs. If there is still a dispute on this article (even without the IP contributions) please report again. This is now the 17th time the article has been semied, which might indicate a need for long term semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jkowal43 reported by User:IHateAccounts (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  Edit summary of "Removed Hyper Partisan Editing by Valarian5, who only seems to positively liberal wikipages and denegrate conservative pages."
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * 1) possibly related IP revert?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: user appears to be stridently insisting on editing against consensus. semiprotected the page, but they slipped through because the account had made a single edit at Guantanamo Bay in 2007 before being inert until yesterday. User has also made disruptive edits to Nancy Mace.


 * Result: Indef EC protection for the article. There is a dispute on whether this congresswoman should be described as a conspiracy theorist, due to statements that she made. It is possible she may have revised her position later. I've applied indefinite EC protection under WP:ARBAP2. Please pay attention to the sourcing requirements of our WP:BLP policy when discussing whether 'conspiracy theorist' should remain in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:IHateAccounts reported by User:Jkowal43 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Undid revision 999822512 by Jkowal43 (talk) revert; obviously disruptive with misspelling, citation to a non-WP:RS

Diffs of the user's reverts: Update had no "mis-spelling" Removed biased, out of date viewpoints Clarifying titles are not "disruptive"
 * 1) [diff]

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

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

Comments:


 * . Appears to be a retaliatory counter-report based on the above report. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Boomerang in flight -- RFPP contacted -- stay frosty. Elizium23 (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:DeweyDecimalLansky reported by User:ThatIPEditor (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Note: I have not made any reverts on that page. I have placed the warning though. They claim that it was exempt from 3RR because it was vandalism, which I do not believe it is so. Note: For the 3rr warning, I forgot to subst, but in the next edit, I fixed it. Also, they have deleted the warning One more thing: This is my first time at anew, so I have edited this many times. Sorry! ThatIPEditor (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have escalated to several different noticeboards the usernames undoing my meticulously made and good faith edits to reliable sources in line with making the articles fit NPOV via multiple usernames (there is coordinated activity here on a contentious subject matter), who also will not subject any of the changes to debate. I have requested the page be fully protected and reviewed. The original content of Press TV had multiple inaccuries, NPOV issues, and spelling/grammatical errors of an egregious nature. I re-organized the article, I made it more neutral reflecting both pros and cons of the subject matter, I did not erase anything that came from a reliable source, and I performed everything in good faith. I am new here as well and think I am being ambushed by political actors who have a need to see that these articles malign or promote the subject matter. On Maryam Rajavi, several times, they undid my good faith revisions with attributions to very reputable and reliable sources. Further, they appear to be scrubbing the articles of anything that is contrary to their viewpoints rather than being neutral and reflecting both sides like I am. Again, I have asked for debate, discussions, as have others, and they just undo the edits instead. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Newslinger. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Simon T8W reported by User:GSS (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "undid "sourced content" from dead links of an unreputable website."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Simon T8W is repeatedly removing sourced contents and edit warring with multiple users. Looking at the history of Kingsley Fletcher they are doing this since October 2017‎ and possibly abusing IP addresses. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 04:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Simon T8W is engaged in a long term struggle to keep out a report that Fletcher received a knighthood from a bogus version of the Knights of Malta. Opinions may differ on whether this report is important enough to include, but a source exists. The normal BLP rules apply, but the matter can't be settled by edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Zz613 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Partial blocked 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Addition of factual information."
 * 2)  "Added correction"
 * 3)  "This information is factually inaccurate"
 * 4)  "False information"
 * 5)  "False information"
 * 1)  "False information"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Partial blocked from Vladimir Zelenko. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ROXANNE9090 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The article is not about a region, it’s about a ‘country’ with a government in exile. East Turkestan is about Uyhgurs. The region is named Xinjang, so if you want to edit that, you need to go to the page about Xingjang."
 * 1)  "The article is not about a region, it’s about a ‘country’ with a government in exile. East Turkestan is about Uyhgurs. The region is named Xinjang, so if you want to edit that, you need to go to the page about Xingjang."
 * 1)  "The article is not about a region, it’s about a ‘country’ with a government in exile. East Turkestan is about Uyhgurs. The region is named Xinjang, so if you want to edit that, you need to go to the page about Xingjang."
 * 1)  "The article is not about a region, it’s about a ‘country’ with a government in exile. East Turkestan is about Uyhgurs. The region is named Xinjang, so if you want to edit that, you need to go to the page about Xingjang."
 * 1)  "The article is not about a region, it’s about a ‘country’ with a government in exile. East Turkestan is about Uyhgurs. The region is named Xinjang, so if you want to edit that, you need to go to the page about Xingjang."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on East Turkestan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has ignored warnings to revert multiple editors to change an infobox that was created by consensus from a previous talk page discussion. They also. — MarkH21talk 14:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is now moot as the editor has been blocked as a sock: Sockpuppet investigations/8742hhh. — MarkH21talk 18:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)