Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive426

User:80.2.122.228
This user has been reverting mine and three other editors edits at least 12 times in the last hour on the Godzilla vs. Kong page. I have warned them and they even stated that they had recently been blocked for edit warring. This can be seen on the edit history of the page. They begged me to stop because I am "small minded." They are tagging their edits as undoing vandalism when that's clearly not the case. Thank you.(Samurai Kung fu Cowboy) (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with them being blocked again, due to their contributions at 2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season. They have clear WP:COMPETENCE issues too, as they don't seem to know how to get to an article talk page and resist most attempts at engagement on their user talk page. – PeeJay 20:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:206.198.189.71 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "i checked that like you gave me, and there is nothing about US federal government documents and transcripts being not reliable, indeed to the best of my ability, it seems they are TOTALLY reliable, and bear in mind I am taking information directly from quotes in the very words Hicks used herself"
 * 2)  "the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from a SENATE hearing, a matter of public record, is NOT RELIABLE, are you freaking out of your mind? You think this is misinformation, its from 2012 ... for crying out loud, google it yourself!"
 * 3)  "WHAT!!!! I went an got unimpeachable evidence, just like i was told to do"
 * 4)  "how is that, for the original source, i can put more info in, like date and persons"
 * 5)  "/* Personal */"
 * 6)  "/* Personal */"
 * 7)  "/* Personal */"
 * 8)  "oh, and lastly, go fuck yourselves"
 * 9)  "why not, sure looks good to me and checks out with other sites, maybe you don't like it because it is an information aggregator or collector like wikipedia"
 * 10)  "This information is not poorly sourced, and most importantly, it is TRUE! That counts for something, right?"
 * 1)  "This information is not poorly sourced, and most importantly, it is TRUE! That counts for something, right?"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Since filing, they've continued to revert three more times despite an active discussion on their talk page and the article talk page. CUPIDICAE💕  20:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:24.107.11.252 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1001571661 by NedFausa (talk) You cite splc as a source...that’s as authoritative as using the dailybeast as a fact citation."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1001571431 by NedFausa (talk) cancel culture is a disease. Alt-right is largely a fantasy, wells is a radio host."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1001571095 by Ashleyyoursmile You’re strictly editing this to force hate speech links. Shame."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1001571010 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1001570922 by NedFausa (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on John B. Wells."
 * 4)   "/* January 2021 */ notifying of talk page discussion"

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

Comments:

The IP has been removing the source and changing content without adding another source to back up the added claim. They have been reverted by two different editors (NedFausa and myself). Has violated 3RR, I've initiated a discussion on the article talk page to which they haven't responded. Yet they continue with this behaviour. Ashley yoursmile!  08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected 3 days by User:HJ Mitchell. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sloppyjoes7 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "After careful consideration, taking into account approximately 10 articles, no quote supports the assertion she "supports" QAnon. One single statement, taken out of context, which she later said was "vague" and said is being used to "attack" her, does not belong in the opening. She even clarified the vague statement by explicitly stating that she does not follow QAnon, and is not into conspiracy theories. The talk page provides no quote or statement by her that she believes or follows QAnon."
 * 2)  "3 citations, none of which provides any quote or statement by her that she "supports" it."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1002098805 by Praxidicae (talk) Neither link says that she "expressed support" for QAnon. The Talk page says this. Saying she "expressed support" for it is literally not in the citations."
 * 4)  "Removed one word to closer match citations."
 * 5)  "This has two citations. Neither one says she supports QAnon. Sentence was factually incorrect, and should probably be entirely removed."
 * 6)  "Finished fixing sentence to actually match what the citations say."
 * 1)  "This has two citations. Neither one says she supports QAnon. Sentence was factually incorrect, and should probably be entirely removed."
 * 2)  "Finished fixing sentence to actually match what the citations say."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Neutrality is disputed */"
 * 2)   "/* Neutrality is disputed */"
 * 3)   "fix fmt"
 * 4)   "/* Neutrality is disputed */ i'd deny this too if i had stoked the fires that lead to 5 people being murdered by insane conspiracy theorists too."
 * 5)   "/* Neutrality is disputed */"
 * 1)   "/* Neutrality is disputed */"

Comments:

User:Rishabh.rsd reported by User:Dhawangupta (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  19 January
 * 2)  19 January
 * 3)  07:36, 21 January 2021‎ Rishabh.rsd talk contribs‎  74,629 bytes +699‎  Manually undone vandalism by Dhawangupta
 * 4)  21 January
 * 5)  23 January - Now edit warring as IP address.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Easy enough to understand, that this user has clear WP:IDHT and WP:CIR problems. He is using misleading edit summaries all the time such as "Added information with citation" or treating reverts as "vandalism".

Ultimately, he is already caught misrepresenting sources and he has provided no explanation against it.

That wasn't enough for him. He switched to IP address to continue the edit war after he was warned to stop making repetitive reverts.

Compare these 100% identical edits with each other for evidence of socking:
 * Edit 1:
 * Edit 2:

He has been warned for years of years to stop using traditional religious knowledge and instead use dated scholarly sources, but he continues to make edits against it. I believe a block is totally warranted. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sandhya Ch1 reported by User:FrogCrazy (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1002054449

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1002009209
 * 2) 1002010979
 * 3) 1002013600
 * 4) 1002022483
 * 5) 1002054449

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1) User_talk:Sandhya_Ch1

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

Comments:


 * There appears to be an edit war involving two users on this page adding and removing the "reception" section; additionally this user removed NPOV and other tags without discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogCrazy (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandhya CH1 may be a block evasion of User:Sandhyachooriyil who had created Vellam, and was then blocked in March 2020 for copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:AP295 reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  original bold edit, changing long-standing wording
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Basis_(linear_algebra)

Comments:

User appears to reject the principle of consensus (see Talk:Basis_(linear_algebra) but also all their engagement with anyone). --JBL (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

While there exists a wealth of good material about math and science on Wikipedia, there are also many important articles that need a lot of work. STEM articles are extremely underrepresented in WP:FA, particularly articles about math and computing. It would be dishonest of me to say that I think it's simply for lack of editors. Trying to get almost anything changed is a big dispute and I feel disillusioned by the experience. If I am not welcome here and you find it convenient to ban me for "edit warring", then that's fine, I won't argue. AP295 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:83.102.62.84 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed claims based on unreliable politicized sources.
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1001731630 by Generalrelative (talk)"
 * 3)  "It's stupid to use the weasel words to argue against the article itself which then goes on and presents multiple facts how g-factor correlates with different outcomes on the next paragraphs. And the previous editor who made this change, judging from her history she is politically motivated, far from objective. If such persons are allowed to make anti-scientific claims on Wikipedia, guess we are next asking creationists to write the page about evolution theory?"
 * 4)  "Poorly explained additions"
 * 5)  "It's not a personal attack, it's a fact that you are a part of this anti-scientific group whose ideology builds upon the belief that genetics as the basis of individual development don't matter. You have been vandalizing Wikipedia regarding to this matter for months, therefore you are on an ideological crusade against the truth, which must stop."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Comments:

Four reverts within the past hour, including two after being warned by User:MrOllie. Personal attacks in edit summaries as well. Seems pretty disruptive and not likely to stop without intervention.

Thanks for your time. Generalrelative (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Seems pretty disruptive"

If you consider facts disruptive.

"and not likely to stop without intervention."

Personal attack and claim based only on the writer's own prejudice. 83.102.62.84 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * And.... one more revert by IP immediately after commenting here and opening a talk page thread:
 * 6. "Undid revision 1002315998 by Megaman en m (talk) Proofs how the editor had misinterpreted the source"
 * Generalrelative (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sup34cj reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sup34cj has not committed a 3RR violation, but given the combination of edit-warring, vandalism and and now logged-out editing I have decided to file the case here. In a nutshell, in 1996 the MPAA redefined the NC-17 rating to prohibit patrons under the 18. It is is worded "No One 17 and Under Admitted" (it used to be worded "No children under 17 admitted". This is all clearly documented and there are plenty of sources in the article to back it up, but the editor simply refuses to back down. He keeps reiterating the same nonsensical argument that if under-18s were prohibited it would be an NC-18. I don't dispute the eminent logic of his position, but that is simply not what happened: the MPAA raised the age limit and then re-worded it in a funny way so they wouldn't have to change the rating. This isn't a neutrality issue, it isn't a challenged fact, it is simply the case of an editor refusing to accept a fact. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jaydoggmarco reported by User:Darouet (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: prior to removal, and removed

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jaydoggmarco clearing previous warnings related to Kiki Camarena from his talk page in September

Jaydoggmarco has made this talk page comment, before their second two reverts:

Comments:

User was already warned about editing at Kiki Camarena previously, and recently came off of a 6-month American Politics topic ban. Darouet (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I've notified the editor here. -Darouet (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Darouet, is 's behavior at Kiki Camarena not equally objectionable?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I left a message on his talk page asking to discuss before making any changes and he kept reverting and refusing to respond. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Joefromrandb did not break 3RR, and Jaydoggmarco, whose talk page message involves no substantive discussion other than a statement of disagreement, has been warned and sanctioned recently in this same topic area. -Darouet (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Joefromrandb has a lengthy block log for disruptive editing (although, admittedly, nothing recent), didn't discuss at all, and reverted four times in 33 hours. Presumably any administrator will take that into account when ruling on this case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit, I didn't check Joefromrandb's own rap sheet. -Darouet (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Joe has also stalked my edits and reverted a lot of them after i edited the Jon Schaffer article. Look at his edit history. Darouet also has falsely accused me of using a sockpuppet. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to the referenced sockpuppet complaint, which didn't include an accusation, and at this point is stale — the IP disruption stopped after my complaint. -Darouet (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The very conspicuous out-of-nowhere appearance notwithstanding: meh. Was my behavior "equally objectionable"? No. Was I equally guilty of edit-warring? Yes. I indeed did have a look at this user's edits after he trolled the Jon Schaffer article; while not rising to the level of what he did there, this user has myriad inappropriate edits recently, including unmodified recidivism at biographies of living persons. His edits to the Kiki Camarena article were egregiously inappropriate, as was the pathetic attempt to insist that talk page consensus is necessary to maintain the status quo of the article, and until such a consensus is achieved, his changes are not to be reverted. At a minimum, this user has serious competence issues. Again, I was absolutely edit-warring. I don't say that proudly, but as I'm disgusted by the perennial ubiquitous hypocrisy at this board, I won't be a part of it. Yes I was. I was editing at a time at which I was stressed out and pissed off, something I certainly know is not a good idea. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Enough with the personal attacks, I'm not the only one who has edited on the Kiki article and who disagreed with Darouet, My edits were supported by several users. Talk page discussion is important given that the information in the documentary is being challenged in an ongoing lawsuit and There are documents that contradict several of the claims in the documentary. You don't even know the information that's being debated on. None of my edits have been trolling. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Prosecution rests. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's refusing to engage in discussion on the talk page, and who has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and battleground mentality. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Ata Barış reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1002111060 by 46.196.85.168 (talk) I just wrote a little info for MPT. No government website says that K.irpi is a copy of another vehicle. Variants of the Altay Tank have been added again. Hisar-A's photo has been added again. It was added to the variants of the Yıldırım missile. Reference will be added to these. Please do not delete it. Don't swear at my talk page. I will correct the wrong places. But here are t"
 * 2)  "/* Armored vehicles */"
 * 3)  "/* Tanks */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1002095094 by 46.196.85.168 (talk) Don't be disrespectful. Don't make changes to your mind. Don't swear on my talk page and the changes you made are wrong. The changes have been reverted."
 * 5)  "/* Armored vehicles */  Edited"
 * 6)  "/* Armored vehicles */  Edited"
 * 7)  "/* Rockets and artillery */ Yıldırım IV added"
 * 8)  "/* Assault and battle rifles */"
 * 9)  "/* Tanks */  Variant of the Altay tank added"
 * 10)  "/* Anti-aircraft */ Hisar-A's photo added"
 * 11)  "/* Armored vehicles */"
 * 1)  "/* Anti-aircraft */ Hisar-A's photo added"
 * 2)  "/* Armored vehicles */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* over here */  rep"

Comments:
 * Some of the systems that this editor trying to explain are not in the air force, but well in Land forces command which User:Shadow4dark constantly reverting and that's true that systems belongs to Land forces command. You always reverted but when he revert you report to admin page.. This is not sincere. Also the one & only wrong thing he did is adding additional info for some systems. You could let him know on hes talk page that this is unnecessary edit before complaining here.

As you can See below Hisar A  system is for Land forces command you can see on official site. This way there is no mistake this editor done, on the contrary, you revert despite the source says its for land forces command... https://www.aselsan.com.tr/tr/cozumlerimiz/hava-ve-fuze-savunma-sistemleri/hava-ve-fuze-savunma-sistemleri/hisara-alcak-irtifa-hava-savunma-fuze-sistemi

For Yıldırım systems the different versions need additional information.If you have a little understanding of the military. You need to tell the difference between the rocket launch system and the ballistic missile. Yıldırım system has 4 It has several variants and requires minimal additional information.

As for the Armored vehicles i see he just add additional information about Altay (tank) variants. It might sound funny but there was a ceremony in the defense industry even today  few hours ago and you, as someone who wrote an article about the military, must have seen different variants of this tank & must mentioned in the article about types of the tank. See below ceremony of today about tanks & variant of this tank..

https://twitter.com/tcsavunma/status/1352883851165577216

Best regardsCengizsogutlu (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * good but user ignores talk pages Shadow4dark (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:192.145.116.159 reported by User:Caius G. (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1002486464 by Caius G. (talk) Restoring neutrality."
 * 2)  "Reworded to restore objectivity and remove blatant political bias."
 * 3)  "They are editorials because they only contain the biased opinions of their writers, and not objective details. This is has already been discussed on the talk page, but the article is being locked down by political trolls."
 * 4)  "Removed opinionated assessment of the historical relevance that only referenced cherry picked editorials. Snooganssnoogans, stop injecting biased, untrue language to fit your political agenda."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring (softer wording for newcomers) (RW 16)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This has already been discussed in the talk page. Snooganssnoogans and Caius G. both have extensive editing histories that show political motive, which brings discredit to Wikipedia.

Comments:

Was directed to an existing discussion on the talk page per WP:BRD, refuses to engage in discussion and calls reliable sources "editorials". Caius G. (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Banana Republic reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Not edit warring)
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:

This appears to be a violation of American politics discretionary sanctions, where a bold edit has been reverted and the editor has restored the content shortly afterwards. It is clear that if I was to revert again, the editor would revert back again. In filing this report, I have only now noticed that I actually reverted the same content a couple of weeks ago as well, and left a message on their talk page about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is who is edit warring, reverting without engaging in the talk page discussion. They did not respond in the talk page about the issue. If necessary, I can provide diffs, but I don't think it's necessary. Banana Republic (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Demonstrably a lie to say that I have not engaged in either article talk page discussions or user talk page discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no 1RR restriction on that page. If you think there's a broader issue with Banana Republic, file at WP:AE.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to believe there is 1RR on the article. Is there not a discretionary sanction on American political articles that restricts editors to reverting content once a day and not being allowed to restore content they added that has been reverted? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:1RR means "reverting content once a day". And no, there are no active remedies on 2021 United States Electoral College count, only a notice box on the talk page about WP:ARBAP2. Compare to Talk:2020_United_States_Senate_elections to see the different templates.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:Legendstreak0 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georges_St-Pierre&diff=1002459943&oldid=1002204719
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georges_St-Pierre&diff=1002459943&oldid=1002211542
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georges_St-Pierre&diff=1002459943&oldid=1002211819
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georges_St-Pierre&diff=1002459943&oldid=1002412584

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

Comments:


 * sorry for the seemingly messy report but this is my first time doing it, I would love to report the user nedochan for reverting edits and starting an edit war in the georges st Pierre pageLegendstreak0 (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * we are trying to reach a consensus just like the Conor page will be changed tomorrow, the gsp page should always be 185 for the weight and so does nick Diaz’s weight Legendstreak0 (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Legendstreak0 is a sockpuppet of banned user

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiman122112 NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * not, you keep assuming and reverting , I hope you get blocked and Learn your lesson today , biased editing is unacceptable.Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * while reverting nedochan completely ignored the RFC, and kept on reverting and reverting like it’s ok to do and acted like they own the article. The RfC clearly found that Sherdog needs to be used with caution and that higher quality sources like ESPN are preferred. But as usual nedochan was carelessly reverting with no thought .Legendstreak0 (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You are a sockpuppet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiman122112) of a banned user and the sooner the SPI establishes that, the better.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not, but keep on wasting your time and assuming . Anyways back to the point , while reverting YOU completely ignored the RFC , and kept on reverting and reverting like it’s ok to do and acted like YOU own the article. The RfC clearly found that Sherdog needs to be used with caution and that higher quality sources like ESPN are preferred. But as usual you were carelessly reverting with no thought . Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * and I hope the results get here sooner, it’s about time people like you get banned after this much time on wiki abusing articles with reverts and being close minded to any other opinions out there from other users, you IGNORED the RFC and broke the 3RR.Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There’s no violation of 3RR on NEDOCHAN's part. Per WP:3RRNO point 3, reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users is considered an exempt. I have no comment on NEDOCHAN's 3RR report, but, you need to WP:AGF and calm down. No one deserves to be banned from Wikipedia just because they ignored an RfC. While a temporary block might be needed, a ban is very different. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn’t mean to refer to it as a “ban”, it’s a temporary block is what I meant . Nedochan should take sometime off and take a brake from this stuff and go over the RFC and know how the rules on Wikipedia work with MMA infoboxes, since they got so much free time reverting so much edits daily, thanks Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NEDOCHAN's behavior in these threads is strange, and a quick review of their edits shows multiple past 3RR violations and a strong editwarring/reversion history. Asking that an admin take a closer look here, something's fishy with both involved users. I feel the sockpuppet claims are anything but good faith, . —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I was looking through their contributions and didn’t see any evidence of an open SPI, so I was just coming here to retract my comment and I got your ping. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Finished reviewing Legendstreak0.... Filing an SPI report, seems NEDOCHAN may be right, the behavior matches up. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There is already a report. Moony, you seemed to contribute to it then revert yourself. I'm unsure why. I would appreciate it if you conducted at least a cursory review before any further assessment as to my editing. And have a good read, please, of WP:EVADE.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: The filer, User:Legendstreak0, has been blocked indef as a sock per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiman122112. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Legendstreak0 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Per sherdog"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1002074438 by Bastun (talk) FOLLOW SHERDOG"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1002060586 by NEDOCHAN (talk) per Sherdog, follow the rules"
 * 4)  "Per sherdog"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Weight - January 22 2021 */"
 * 2) and that whole TP section.

Comments: Legendstreak0 appears to have reverted no less than 5 other editors, per the page history. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * i would like to make my case clear, why are users like you seemingly biased and make edits that don't seem constructive when it comes to conor mcgregor . you should know that many other people before me tried to add secondary sources tp other fighters just like you did to conor mcgregor's page only to get banned , but with you its all butterflies and no one stands up for the reverts you make . this shall stop , follow sherdog or leave the secondary sources i made on the nick diaz, gsp , and tony ferguson pageLegendstreak0 (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * hello, i wanted to add that actually the last revert edit that i made was the agreed upon result in the talk page and discussion over the article that we had a "war" in Legendstreak0 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please could the editor who reviews this also conduct an SPI into Legendstreak? NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Legendstreak0 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiman122112NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t know what you are talking about but accusing others of being “sockpuppets” won’t work and you will be reported now for the 5-7 reverts you made under 24 hours Legendstreak0 (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I completely fail to understand how reverting removal of sourced content is, somehow, "biased". You will note that you were notified here, before you posted above, about the RFC on the reliability of sherdog.com - you just chose to ignore it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I got into both of you, and you both are biased editors, if you add ESPN sources to Conor then you can add ESPN sources to gsp and nick diaz , end of story Legendstreak0 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Still really not sure what bias it is I am supposed to have. By all means, if ESPN has reliably sourced information that can be added to other articles - knock yourself out and add it! No pun intended. The only reason I reported you here is because you were edit-warring and broke 3RR. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * “broke the 3RR” but my revert edit was the agreed upon result, yeah I don’t think that’s how reports and banning works , hypocrisy is a bad thing ..in all fairness you should be the one reporting yourself in this case since Your result was the one that didn’t make it on the consensus Legendstreak0 (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Legendstreak0 is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiman122112NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * nedochan, is wrongfully accusing all kinds of different users to be other people who were banned a long time ago. Please look into it . I believe nedochan is a sockpuppet or was a sockpuppet at one pointLegendstreak0 (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * – Indef, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiman122112. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:206.198.189.71 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Already blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "relying on precedence, just doing what has previously been done on wikipedia"
 * 2)  "adding exactly the same information as the previous United States Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist has on his page"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Immediately following the last block of this IP for edit warring, their first return to editing is to restore the material that is contested on a BLP and actively being discussed on the talk page. They are continuing to engage in an edit war the second the last block was released. I realize this was only two reverts but given that this is a BLP and past behavior, it's still edit warring. CUPIDICAE💕 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And since filing this, they have reverted a third time. It appears that this IP doesn't intend on engaging collaboratively, as evidence by their 2 prior blocks which also involve adding excessive personal details to BLPS. CUPIDICAE💕  15:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Lourdes 12:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:70.179.20.232 reported by User:Ram1055 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "nites"
 * 2)  "notes"
 * 3)  "added"
 * 4)  "please stop deleting new zealand source"
 * 5)  "they for some reason keep deleting New Zealand Herald source"
 * 6)  "She also accidentally live streamed intimate sex session with boyfriend to her 14,000 followers on Instagram Live causing her to remove the video later. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/instagram-star-accidentally-live-streams-herself-having-sex/FNE3IBXROHU3NU3QTG5QGVKYME/"
 * 7)  "added reference She also accidentally live streamed intimate sex session with boyfriend to her 14,000 followers on Instagram Live causing her to remove the video later. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/instagram-star-accidentally-live-streams-herself-having-sex/FNE3IBXROHU3NU3QTG5QGVKYME/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kristen Hancher."
 * 2)   "Level 3 warning re. Kristen Hancher (HG) (3.4.10)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* New Zealand Source Added */ Replying to 70.179.20.232 (using reply-link)"

Comments:

Additional edits after 3RR warning ~RAM (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lourdes 12:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Goszei reported by User:128.74.59.148 (Result: No continuing warring)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

On the page about Navalny someone constantly changes the main photo to the bad one.

If this is a wrong place to report, please point out the right one.
 * Administrative Come back if this continues.  Lourdes  12:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:81.67.153.44 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The map was put on the page very recently and is problematic. It was created by a wikipedia user and doesn't match anything at all. The problem is not solved in the Talk. It is contrary to the principle of wikipedia to impose a completely false image."
 * 2)  "Problem with the subjective map. This map was made by a wikipedia user and only represents his personal vision. Maps were discussed in the Talk and a new section is there specifically for this map."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* KIENGIR's map */ Don't misattribute"

Comments:

The user has been blocked before for edit warring. And now falls back to the same behavioral pattern, by forcing their preferred version of the page. Their edit summary "The problem is not solved in the Talk" sums it all up. Austronesier (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Report on WP:ANI if behavior on talk page becomes a problem. I think page protection will better solve this specific issue.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello everybody, the problem is with the user KIENGIR. He tries to put a map created by a wikipedia user on the Southern Europe page. However, this card only represents this user. This map does not correspond to the geological, geographical or climatic map of Europe. It does not correspond to any world body like the United Nations, EuroVoc, CIA, etc ... This map also does not match historical or ethnic maps. It is therefore totally subjective. We cannot invent maps and install them on wikipedia. This map was created by a wikipedia user and represents their vision only. You forcefully pass a map that is not scientific or official. The problem is that you impose this map in the page. If you stop imposing it and there will be no more problem. It is not because a user has had an account for 10 years that he can do what he wants on wikipedia pages. To avoid being blocked by these people, a lot of readers don't want to get involved, so I'm telling you, we have to stop. It must stop.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Boring, the talk page as well reinforce you've completely missed the point (and since then other editors reinforced this, e.g. . Yes, it must stop, in this we agree.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

User:96.55.58.157 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 6 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:



Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pure vandalism-only account. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * . Maybe a school? Anyway, I decided on the duration after reading their block log. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:82.46.214.217 reported by User:Steven (Editor) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Their previous name isn’t relevant at the start of the article and is explained in detail below, giving clarity and removing any confusion"
 * 2)  "" — This is the first edit and only edit where "Everything Everywhere" was removed from the intro by another IP, however I believe the other 8 by the IP being reported is the same person.
 * 1)  "Their previous name isn’t relevant at the start of the article and is explained in detail below, giving clarity and removing any confusion"
 * 2)  "" — This is the first edit and only edit where "Everything Everywhere" was removed from the intro by another IP, however I believe the other 8 by the IP being reported is the same person.
 * 1)  "Their previous name isn’t relevant at the start of the article and is explained in detail below, giving clarity and removing any confusion"
 * 2)  "" — This is the first edit and only edit where "Everything Everywhere" was removed from the intro by another IP, however I believe the other 8 by the IP being reported is the same person.
 * 1)  "Their previous name isn’t relevant at the start of the article and is explained in detail below, giving clarity and removing any confusion"
 * 2)  "" — This is the first edit and only edit where "Everything Everywhere" was removed from the intro by another IP, however I believe the other 8 by the IP being reported is the same person.
 * 1)  "" — This is the first edit and only edit where "Everything Everywhere" was removed from the intro by another IP, however I believe the other 8 by the IP being reported is the same person.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on EE Limited."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

9 times this IP (one with a different IP) has reverted mine and two other editors reverts of this IP's persistent removal of "Everything Everywhere" from the intro text of the article. IP already warned and discussion on the inclusion of this already initiated on the talk page of the article. Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The two other editors for reference and notification of this discussion:, . Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Rafaelosornio reported by User:Mr. bobby (Result: )
Page: User being reported:

The WP-user Rafaelosornio reverts all of my new changes and information in the article Padre Pio. Rafaelosornio obviously is a religious fundamentalist believer, writing from a strictly Catholic point of view. He deleted several of my information and sources. He claims f.i. that a whole passage would be sourced with the historian Luzzatto, which is in fact sourced by Urte Krass. Additionally, he even cites long passages of interviews and puts that in Wikipedia, which itself is an encyclopedia. It is not a textbook of fundamentalist Catholic believes. I also think, that Rafaelosornio in several cases does not understand the true meaning of whole passages in the originals texts. So he obviously often distorts the content of theses sources. Mr. bobby (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&diff=1003002142&oldid=1002961549

User:Mztourist reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1003084473 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) my wording is better"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1003083280 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) the consensus was what was there before your edits, stop edit warring or you will be blocked"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1003081490 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) revert non-consensual change, stop edit warring"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1003072492 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) take it to Talk and stop edit warring A Bicyclette"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1003071513 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) take it to Talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: It would be great if you were as diligent about stopping socking as you are about edit-warring. Please look at the page and review the actions of IP: 216.209.50.103 against whom I am preparing an SPI as we speak. I don't believe that I have breached 3RR as my edits were made selectively to different sections of the page. Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep calling me a sock? This is so absurd its hilarious. This was some night, I do now have a glimpse of who you are, as someone who likes to call reports of sexual assault 'wartime romances', you clearly have an agenda. This is both disturbing and comical. I pity you, honestly. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * SPI here: Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. I believe that the IP actually breached 3RR. Mztourist (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

User:71.139.96.206 reported by User:XOR'easter (Result: Pages protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: The same behavior is on display at the articles for other Intelligent Design advocates:
 * 1)  unexplained content removal
 * 2)  reversion
 * 3)  escalates to personal attack
 * 4)  reverting after their edit was undone by a user other than me
 * 1)  unexplained removal of "pseudoscience" description
 * 2)  reversion
 * 3)  unexplained removal of "pseudoscience" on a third page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) semi-protected for 1 week, Stephen C. Meyer already protected by, Scott Minnich does not have enough disruption to justify protection, although the cross-article POV-pushing may mean that the IPs are close to meriting a NOTHERE block. signed,Rosguill talk 06:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sweetkind5 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning, for another page, DS alert, 1RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Sweetkind5 was previously blocked for edit warring on another page following a report here. There was a previous report for this page, but it went archived without action. They are also edit-warring a preferred change into Azerbaijanis (bold edit, revert). CMD (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrative, in your latest revert, you have mentioned that all the changes you have made have been discussed by you on the talk page. Where? There is no comment or discussion by you. Will you self-revert, and stop reverting, and go ahead with discussions on the article talk page? You are close to be blocked for edit warring with multiple editors, therefore requesting your early response. Thanks,  Lourdes  11:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All the reasons for my edits were mentioned both in my talk pages and in the edit history. And no, I'm not engaged in edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetkind5 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are expected to raise your reasoning for the edits in question at the article's talk page, not your own talk page, so that a consensus can be formed among all editors working on the article. Please do not attempt to reinstate the above contested edits without first gaining a consensus for them at Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. signed,Rosguill talk 06:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course! This is what is supposed to happen. But the thing is, users in the mentioned talk page had already agreed to discuss it on my talk page. So if anyone is new to the discussion, they will see that the discussion is going on in my talk page and as a result they will go there. It was NOT my idea to ubicate the discussion on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetkind5 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sweetkind is now edit-warring redlinks back into hatnotes without explanation, in addition to continued warring on Azerbaijanis and beginning related reverts on Russia-Turkey proxy conflict. CMD (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Chipmunkdavis, I suggest you stop spreading disinformation. I'm not edit-warring anywhere. If I were to edit war in mentioned articles, then the users there would have long reported me. Now, regarding the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict article. You claim that I'm engaged in an edit war there and don't give any explanation for my edits. 1) As I mentioned numerous times before, all of my edits are explained in the edit history. 2) I did take part in the discussion. All you have to do is look at my talk page. 3) What about you? Did you take part in the discussion? No. Not a single comment. So instead of complaining, why don't you actually discuss the matter appropriately in the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetkind5 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

All you do is keep reverting my edits under the pretext of "unexplained content removal" and not give any meaningful explanation for the reversals (which is what you accuse me of). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetkind5 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lourdes 12:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:E-960 reported by User:Astral Leap (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (version after large removals)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning by E-960 against IP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FB MSBS Grot

Comments: The IP is also edit warring, but IDK if can be reported. I just linked one set of reverted content above, there are 3-4 more reverts in the last day there. I am not involved in the dispute, I saw the flareup and think it needs attention--Astral Leap (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Astral Leap", you're not even involved on this pretty obscure article. And this is an established user reverting an anonymous IP. May I ask how you came to find this particular dispute and then immediately filed a 3RR report?  Volunteer Marek   16:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Usually obscure, but the purchase of this rifle is the focus of a corruption scandal in the past couple days. E-960 has been removing all mention of this.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Astral Leap, an account with relatively few edits, since it's debut on February 8, 2020, with months/weeks-long breaks in between editing (for example, Feb. then June break) was last active on January 4 then on January 25 appeared again  with a few edits and this one-sided report. Please note that, thanks. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make one point about user Astral Leap, in this past example, here Astral Leap reverted an edit citing "undid disruptive IP editor", so I don't understand why now Astral Leap is reporting me for "edit warring" and not the IP user, ignoring the fact that on the FB MSBS Grot rifle article IP:91.237.86.201 continued to add questionable material, despite being made aware of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and the reason why their edits were problematic. --E-960 (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted 69.119.168.61 shortly after the IP was blocked 3 months for disruption. Likewise, seeing the disruption on FB MSBS Grot, I reported it here. Perhaps the IP editor should be sanctioned here too, But E-960's editing is disruptive. E-960 is removing sourced critical information making the piece resemble PR, edit warred, and ironically issued an edit warring to the IP at 0953 followed by yet another edit warring reverts by E-960 himself (0954, 1145, 1448). E-960 should know better, and his demeanor towards the IP is bullying.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Astral Leap, I do not feel comfortable with you "policing" my interactions on Wikipedia, it's the second time that you reported me for matters steaming form discussions/edits you were not even involved in. You also seem to ignore repeated use of corse language used by IP user 91.237.86.201, here (I blanked out the curse words): "its bulls..t, Ukraine is looking for AR15 rifle", "Onet is high quality source, you write bulls..t" [, "Response from Ministry is bulls..t" . Is cursing and disruptively re-adding disputed text ok in your view? So, instead of you reporting the IP you report me for removing the highly questionable material and following the [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]]. --E-960 (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Administrative, next time, don't cross the bright line of WP:3RR. it's fortunate you did not get blocked this time despite breaking 3RR  over a  content issue. Next time, report other warring editors rather than and before getting baited.  Lourdes  12:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Fyigkjhvcufyihjk reported by User:DawidGiertuga (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Noah van den Heuvel is an extremely important person in history. You cant find alot about him on the internet but back in the day he was very famous. I have cited a news paper clipping confirming he is the most aesthetic."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1003232755 by DawidGiertuga (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Notable people */"
 * 4)  "/* Notable people */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Wilton, Connecticut."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Wilton, Connecticut."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blatantly falsified a newspaper headline and keeps reverting changes DawidGiertuga (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , user has been blocked. This case can be closed. Steve M (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Already blocked. Lourdes  12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:PNGChimbu reported by User:5 albert square (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "As allegations referred to in the media  have now been dismissed by an Australian Court it is incorrect and defamatory to continue to allege them as true. If they are to remain on this page then an explanation in full is required for a living person"
 * 2)  "Sexual harassment allegations in the media have now been legal dismissed by a Court it is incorrect and defamatory to continue to allege them as true."
 * 3)  "As a matter of law, Craig McLachlan is innocent of those alleged Offences'. As those allegations have now been legal dismissed by a Court it is incorrect and defamatory to continue to allege them as true."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Craig McLachlan */ note"

Comments:

Both myself and Ponyo have reverted this users edits. The information on Wikipedia reflects what it says in the sources. We've told the user that if they don't agree with what is in the article that they need to take this up on the talk page of the article and they've continued reverting the edits and not started a discussion there. 5 albert square (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. Lourdes  12:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:150.143.117.154 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1003198248 by Equine-man (talk) No - quoted from Wikipedia:Criticism "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it"
 * 2)  "Controversies sections are not appropriate on this kind of article, especially inane controversies of this kind. Adding every single time some obscure MP did or said something that someone else objects creates most ridiculous articles."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1002990069 by Skingo12 (talk) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#%22Controversy%22_section"
 * 4)  "Controversies section is totally inappropriate in this case"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Ben Everitt."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Two users engaged in edit warring. I suggested they take it to talk page and my edit was reverted. Equine-man (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not edit warring - its removing totally inappropriate content from a page which in its previous form, met Wikipedia guidelines on precisely zero grounds. Equine-man actually hasn't bothered to explain why the removal of such inappropriate content was in any way objectionable. --150.143.117.154 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * May I enquire who decided it was “inappropriate content?” Equine-man (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. Lourdes  12:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Two well over 3RR on several articles (Result: No action for now)
and are going at it in multiple articles. Would you please take a look at this. The former has more experience. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry, I was bored. I’m going back to sleep now. Expect no further action from me in relation to the other user’s edits. They’re wrong but I’m gonna let someone else sort it out. I have more important things to do today. Sorry again. – PeeJay 09:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No action for now. Lourdes  12:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Both users have been warned and the article in question has been protected. GiantSnowman 13:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Archaeopteroid reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Astrological Interpretation"
 * 2)  "/* First Stationary Point of Jupiter in Conjunction with Praesepe */"
 * 3)  "/* Stationary Point of a Planet */"
 * 4)  "/* First Stationary Point of Jupiter in Conjunction with Praesepe */"
 * 5)  "addition of section relating Star of Bethlehem to Hellenistic astrology: Stationary Point of a Planet and Conjunction with Praesepe"
 * 6)  "/* Stationary Point of a Planet and Conjunction with Praesepe */"
 * 7)  "/* Stationary Point of a Planet and Conjunction with Praesepe */"
 * 8)  "/* Stationary Point of a Planet and Conjunction with Praesepe */"
 * 9)  "Stationary Point of a Planet and Conjunction with Praesepe"
 * 10)  "/* Stationary Point of a Planet and Conjunction with Praesepe */"
 * 11)  "/* Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus */ addition of Stationing of a Planet and First Stationary Point in conjunction with the Manger"
 * 12)  "/* Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus */"
 * 13)  "/* Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus */"
 * 1)  "Stationary Point of a Planet and Conjunction with Praesepe"
 * 2)  "/* Stationary Point of a Planet and Conjunction with Praesepe */"
 * 3)  "/* Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus */ addition of Stationing of a Planet and First Stationary Point in conjunction with the Manger"
 * 4)  "/* Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus */"
 * 5)  "/* Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus */"
 * 1)  "/* Regulus, Jupiter, and Venus */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "A summary"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Star of Bethlehem."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Adding spam links on Star of Bethlehem."
 * 4)   "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Star of Bethlehem."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "edit war"
 * 2)   "/* Edit war */ do not spam"
 * 3)   "/* Edit war */ typo"
 * 4)   "Reverted 1 edit by Archaeopteroid (talk): See Arkell vs. Pressdram"

Comments:


 * for edit warring and disruptive editing at Star of Bethlehem and its talkpage. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog reported by User:Arcturus (Result: Edsanville blocked.)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Also reporting, but to a lesser extent:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:

Above diff shows previous "good" version versus the current version. There is far too much warring to display all the intermediate diffs Arcturus (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the article talk page prior to the filing of this report ([]) I have stopped. OP doesn't like me. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I also stopped. The article is currently in the state without my edit.  I have requested a third opinion on this.  I have no intention of violating any guidelines.  I also have no opinion about Roxy as this is my first interaction with him.  Communicating with him has been frustrating to say the least, though.  Edsanville (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Roxy is talking about me, per this diff Arcturus (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed yes. OP means (in my head) Original Poster. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 17:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Alexbrn is at 3RR, Roxy is at 5RR, and Edsanville is at least 5RR or more. I cannot really tell with Edsanville without diving more, could be up to 7. PackMecEng (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also User:Psychologist Guy, but he seems to be just at 2RR, so maybe no need for a formal report. Arcturus (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Who wants to delve into all of that? I'll leave the edit warring bit for, but I did just block Edsanville for blatant disruption, including incorrect claims about sourcing (like here) and introducing POV material via an indirect way, and here also (synthesis). That they were edit warring is obvious; whether the other participants edit warred or simply reverted unacceptable material, that's not a matter I can dive into right now. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that one of my "reverts" was of a direct copy/paste from a copyrighted source, so I explicitly claimed exemption because this was addressing a copyvio/plagiarism issue. The OP might have mentioned that, and since they are in dispute with me on other articles it seems a rather careless omission, that could look a bit WP:GAMEsome. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not in dispute with you anywhere, and I reject this scurrilous accusation! Arcturus (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes,, thank you--those edits make it clear that Edsanville was seriously edit warring about content that was also seriously in violation of our copyright policy. And all that should clear Roxy the dog and Alexbrn from any charge of edit warring. Arcturus, I suppose I appreciate you looking out for our policies, but you filled this out incompletely; if you had done it completely, and you had looked at these edits, you wouldn't have pointed fingers at the wrong people. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Get into the detail of that extensive edit war? You must be joking. It was a clear, gross example of warring on the part of all those involved, especially the first two named, and justified an immediate report. As for pointing the fingers at the wrong people, I don't think so. See WP:EW, in particular; " An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. " Arcturus (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I think it was only that edit I reverted explicitly as plagiarism which was a direct cut/paste; subsequent ones were more WP:CLOP I think, but by that time I'd tuned out and was playing Dyson Sphere Program, which is much more interesting than fad diets! Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The exemption would be for the removal of copyvio stuff and the later reverts seem unrelated to that. Which from what I can tell was none of Roxy's reverts were exempt. PackMecEng (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Benarnold98 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1002937555 by Bowling is life (talk) I have explained in the Talk Page, please see."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1002930314 by Walter Görlitz (talk) You are the one edit waring over this. These artists belong here."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1002920750 by Walter Görlitz (talk) - This shows that talk clearly has no idea what they are talking about. Illangelo has produced and written a huge number of Abel's songs. See https://genius.com/artists/Illangelo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on The Weeknd."
 * 2)   "/* January 2021 */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Associated acts */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Associated acts */ r"

Comments:

Previous discussions on the subject's talk page have formed WP:CONSENSUS that Benarnold98 does not support. Multiple edit wars have ensued. A topic ban may also be required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Walter Görlitz keeps bullying me, and has now reported me for no reason. I am correct in this matter, and he keeps removing my editing for no reason. He is the one edit warring, not me. His bullying methods have been seen before through his use of language in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shania_Now_Tour&diff=800386330&oldid=800346352 Please consider he is just as much, if not more, involved in edit warring as myself. Benarnold98 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You went past WP:3RR and you keep insisting you, and only you, are right when two members who have been on the music project for at least a decade each are not. You used the term edit warring to try to bully me away from 1) correctly alphabetizing the list and 2) removing artists that do not meet the associated acts criteria, but now you claim to not know why you were brought here. Do you really not know what edit warring is or how WP:3RR works?
 * Explaining the way the documentation reads is not bullying you. I am open to seeing diffs of how and where I bullied you.
 * The discussion on the talk page of the article in question is clear. and I have both tried to show you and another editor the documentation, and how it is interpreted.  Binksternet's claim is that the editor "found nothing to support Lil Uzi Vert as an artist closely interconnected with the Weeknd". You have pointed to other articles and your only support is a list of songs that the artists or producers have worked on together. That does not really meet the criteria.
 * As I suggested on the talk page, I am happy to take each subject you think is an associated act but I do not think that the current content supports, to an RfC and let the community decide.
 * If you self-revert your final revert and continue the discussion on the talk page, this may go away, but then again, nothing at all may transpire if you leave it. I do expect that over t he next few days it will be reverted to the previous state until the additions are vetted and agreed-upon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I notice warned you about edit warring about seven minutes after your fourth revert on The Weeknd and well over an hour before I opened this report. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not insisting that I, and only I am right. You keep undoing my constructive editing without even considering it. Furthermore, the fact you are removing them in the first place shows you don't have enough knowledge on the subject. Many users have agreed with me in the past, yet you ignore them, because you don't want me to be allowed to edit the page so it is correct. This is for no particular reason, I have not caused this; this is clear BULLYING. Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia considering a large range of opinions, but it is becoming a dictatorship with people like you throwing your weight around for no reason other than satisfying your own ego. I have done nothing to cause this; you are unnecessarily tormenting me: BULLYING. Furthermore, I have never mentioned anything about capitalisation, I couldn't care less about that and am not stopping you from doing that. You are saying the artists do not meet the associated acts criteria, but I have proven that they do. I have done this so many times. You ask for sources of significance, so I provide them, proving their significance; yet you choose to ignore them. I am trying to do the best for the community by adding correct information, and you are terrorising this. Benarnold98 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When no new content is supplied, and there is a WP:CONSENSUS that there is no association, what is t here to consider?
 * Knowledge is not the issue. There is not enough detail to support the claim. Please, edit the page to support the claim, but do not keep adding unsupported claims back into the article. You have proven nothing by listing songs and a few articles on the talk page . Binksternet and others have removed the claims from the infobox because the are not clearly supported in the article . You understand the issue, right?
 * Opinion is wonderful, but not one of the WP:5 pillars of Wikipedia.
 * To respond to your tangential comment, I believe the capitalization you are referring to is WP:THEBAND, a site-wide consensus. Again, not my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was not a tangential comment; you have mentioned the capitilisation of the artists, so I responded to your accusations saying how editing that was never my intention, and your correction does not bother me in the slightest.
 * I don't really know what you want me to do. You are telling me to take it to the talk page, I do so, and then you decide to shoot me down for making suggestions. Am I not allowed to feel a certain way about something and express how I feel an article should be improved?
 * Interesting you bring the WP:5 pillars of Wikipedia. If you had respect for the community you would stick to these pillars, but you are violating many of them.
 * You violate 5P2: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" by being biased against me, and completely ignoring and dismissing everything I say. It really feels like a personal attack.
 * You violate 5P3: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute" by doing whatever you can to prevent me (anyone) from editing.
 * You violate 5P3: "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". This is obvious really, go through our conversations and see if you think how you are speaking is treating me with respect and civility. You are bullying me. Benarnold98 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide proof. You keep adding unsourced content to the article and against consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have provided proof, on the talk page, on a vast number of occasions, it is not unsourced. Why do you keep ignoring this? All the proof is there. Benarnold98 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have offered proof, that two long-standing editors have stated do not show an association, and the article remains without sufficient proof. Do you see a problem with this or are you convinced that you (and only you) are right and we should leave you to your expert opinion; one that you can edit war to continue to force on the project? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

User:64.119.192.187 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not the first time this happens according to the page's history. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 21:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lourdes 10:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:94.9.67.46 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: SSSB warned, page protected)
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 2020 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix."

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

Comments:

Repeatedly adding unsourced trivial information to the lead- been reverted by at least 3 different editors Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ., WP:3RR exists for a reason in content disputes. While the IP has crossed the 3RR line, I would have to block you too for edit warring. Please stop. And in the future, stop edit warring and report other editors to appropriate forums when they edit war. Doesn't behove your clean block record. Most administrators would not be advising so much and would have blocked you till now. I would advise that you and open up a discussion section on the article's talk page (why haven't you done that  till now?!), invite the IP to discuss and see how it goes. For the next 24 hours, I am partially protecting the page. Let me know how it goes. Thanks,  Lourdes  14:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C8:AAE:4B01:1426:9340:15FB:8021 reported by User:Wham2001 (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Brian Rose (podcaster)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated reverts to remove sourced content from the article's lede. Wham2001 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC) I will add there seems to be a lot of activity from IP range 2a00:23c8:aae:4b01...Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur: lots of editing, all trying to hide embarrassing details of a political candidate, no attempt to engage on Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lourdes 14:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:PailSimon reported by User:Des Vallee (Result:OP Warned)
Page: Joseph Stalin

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1 2 3

Diffs of user's reverted to: 1 2 3

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Stalin#Removal_of_Genocide_Perpatrator_by_SaliSimon

Comments: Continuously removes cited template, has been reverting edits made by  and me on the page Joseph Stalin. Disregarding reliable sources, removing cited material, and edit warring. PailSimon was warned previously about this here, and was blocked previously for similar actions. Despite giving clearly the citation "Stalin's genocide against the 'Repressed Peoples'" by the Journal of Genocide clearly verified on atrocities of Stalin and genocides of Stalin. He states Stalin's atrocities as "personal viewpoint" stating scholarly citations don't state it. Despite not giving a single source to these "academics", he completely disregards the actual academic peer reviewed papers and keeps reverting the page, with no actual proof, for his made up claim.

He also has been reverted on the page Mao, attempting to redefine the definition of "stable" despite his edits being added and therefor himself edit warring. Des Vallee (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is just about the silliest thing I have ever read. You're the one who has been consistently disregarding WP:BRD and have yet to gain a consensus for your favored edits. User:Seoul1989 introduced a category (i.e changing the stable version) which I saw as objectionable, since then you have continuously reverted with blatant disregard for WP:BRD. Its also interesting that Des Vallee brings up a past block given his own rap sheet. Edit: Also discussions about article content do not belong here and you have completely misrepresented what I actually said, please see the talk page of the relevant article to see what I have actually said.PailSimon (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have provided literally no sources, and are editing warring against consensus, and against reliable sources, in favor of Stalin. You are changing the edits irregardless of the fact you have been shown to wrong. Des Vallee (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please avoid WP:PERSONALATTACKS like saying I am "in favour of Stalin". At the time of you filing this report and your multiple reverts in violation of BRD there is in fact no consensus.PailSimon (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your right you have been reverted multiple times, with no sources to support your claim, keep edit warring disregarding the talk to have your version of the article, and consensus of three separate editors. You were warned and unlikely to change. Des Vallee (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Its worth mentioning that only you have reverted, in spite of BRD of course.PailSimon (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Administrative :, consensus is against you on the talk page. Stop reverting and do not revert the challenged material again until you gain consensus on the talk page for inserting the change. You will be blocked if you try to insert the material even once again. Thanks, Lourdes  10:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time this was filed three users supported the addition with only one against. I stopped reverting after getting to 3RR. Des Vallee (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's factually inaccurate.PailSimon (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:GSS reported by User:Jaskeerat2302 (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)
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:


 * I have blocked only the reporter because they have resorted to personal attacks and linked to them as an "attempt to resolve the dispute".


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sucker for All reported by User:SmartyPants22 (Result: No action; no warning; just sage advice)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Also reverted other user's edits prior to mine (which I did not realise):
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Have provided multiple sources for my change, including US Govt websites, and the Washington Post. Continues to make false claims about sourcing in edit summaries, such as "military.com's not an approved source" and "army.mil's considered a primary source and not suitable for wikipedia" Also decided to change some of my edits on the talk page:

SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

1. I did not revert this as claimed since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_D._McCarthy&oldid=1002769384 shows I entered a peaceable medium by allowing your deletion. I also began a discussion on the talk page 2. This revision was proper since you cited not a single outlet in the article for your claim. You also refused to engage in the talk page discussion at this point in time. 3. This revision was proper since you cited not a single outlet in the article for your claim. The "talk page" discussion comprised of not a single quote from Milley, McCarthy, Harris, Biden, Klain, Berger, Schultz or anyone who actually runs the military, just a couple fringe media comments.

I did not violate the WP:3RR because I did not revert 3 times in a day, and I believe my edits are proper and the article should stand as is. SmartyPants22 should be concerned about making major edits without a source, and claiming that a revert is a "revert" despite the fact that I described a peaceable medium instead and tried to engage in discussion about high level government officials. You can also see here that my proposed revisions at talk:Sean Conley were correct and my proposed revision of Sean Conley was therefore proper in that I questioned the article in its unsourced state. I understand how SmartyPants22 could feel passionately confused, but we should not jump to conclusions before hashing out discussions of official commentary from top officials. Sucker for All (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would also like to point out that according to this edit, there's evidence of confusion on the topic, so the article with the current tag's appropriate Sucker for All (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrative, I can appreciate your rooting for WP:BLP in demanding top quality sources and not allowing SmartyPants to insert the fact that Ryan is no more the secretary and all. Well, I would not want to sound patronising, but there is something called WP:COMMONSENSE which could have been employed by you. Claiming that Military sources are primary sources and therefore cannot be used to confirm that Ryan is not the secretary – umm, you really need to read up WP:PRIMARY again. While you don't need to do this, and while it is totally the responsibility of the party inserting the change to a BLP, you should perhaps take the higher ground and help editors rather than simply warn  them of  edit warring.  If I may suggest, please revert your revert and show good faith in getting the BLP's details correct in noting that Ryan is no more the secretary. You can use https://www.defense.gov/Our-Story/Biographies/Biography/Article/1267101/ryan-d-mccarthy/. And yes, it is okay to use this Primary source. Please help fellow editors; and you'll see them helping back. Thanks,  Lourdes  10:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect,, I do not believe that to be a fact according to wikipedia standards; officials such as Biden, Harris, Milley, Berger, Schultz, Klain have not issued a comment on the subject and are more concerned about reality than official websites in some cases. However, in looking at the page, the edit I just made, to re-add the "current" tag is appropriate given McCarthy's still a high ranking military official. Sucker for All (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:SmartyPants22 reported by User:Sucker for All (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Proof that SmartyPants reverted 3 times and not me, since I found middle ground with this edit about the article:

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

And as is shown clearly in the talk page, I was the first to engage discussion.

All in all, I believe the article should stand until a comment's made coming from a ranking official such as those mentioned in the thread here. However, pending comments from an official, I added current tags pending official reporting. Whereas he reverted edits of mine 3 times, I only reverted his twice (both times because his edits were unsourced), and since neither of us made our edits inside of 24 hours neither of us violated WP:3RR, though he was the user with 3 revisions. Sucker for All (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See above. Lourdes  10:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ok. For the record, "SmartyPants22" has reverted 5 times, whereas I only reverted 2 unsourced edits. I'm disappointed you feel that that abusive editing is not as bad as me holding wikipedia to the BLP standards with which we live Sucker for All (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:202.94.42.205 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "EADC"
 * 2)  "GOLLY GUMDROPS GUYS"
 * 3)  "SLABBA- CUT IT OUT"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1003639569 by Slabba (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1003636973 by Slabba (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1003635686 by Slabba (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Triple J Hottest 100, 2000."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Widr (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Natemup reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

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:


 * Please consider this a warning for both of you; please go to the talk page and discuss this. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

User:61.68.234.205 reported by User:Nkon21 (Result: Already blocked by Drmies)
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:

Same person as the most recent IPs,. Also on Solo (Jennie song) and Ddu-Du Ddu-Du. Severe slow motion edit warring coming from a stubborn IP-hopper from Melbourne, Australia. This disruptive editor has been edit warring over many, many inaccurate trivial things over a wide range of pages since last summer. Despite the numerous warnings left on the talk pages of their multiple IPs, they have never bothered to respond to any of the warnings or engage in any form of community collaboration, rather they ignore them all and continue to re-add their edits on different IPs. See page histories for editing behavior and User:Nkon21/sandbox3 for the list of all associated IPs. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  02:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been working with on this since October. This user has exhibited behaviour reminiscent of the Hanoi vandal. No edit summaries, ignores all warnings, and edit wars until they switch IPs. They have also received multiple warnings and have gotten blocked countless times for unsourced content, disruptive editing and, of course, edit warring. As well, Nkon21 and I are in the process of filing an official LTA report on this user. If you look at any of the page histories of the pages they have hit in the past month, you’ll see a bunch of "manual revert" tags on behalf of the IP, as well as a bunch of rollbacks on my part. It is and has been a constant battle/edit war for five months now. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing at the Council of Conservative Citizens
Greetings. This is my first time here. Pointers and advice are most welcome.

I need help with an edit war launched by highly experienced user Beyond My Ken at the Council of Conservative Citizens page. It was launched preemptively, with a summary revert of multiple edits all at once, justified as undoing "whitewashing". I invite you to review each and every edit made in the series prior to the summary revert and honestly argue that any of them were "whitewashing". They are encyclopedic, in all but one instance making the article better copy, a better piece of work from an editorial point of view, and if anything eliminating significant POV bias.

One entry included the summary headings of the Council's "principles", which were singled out for criticism immediately in the lead. How can it be "whitewashing" to actually present them verbatim, and allow readers to make of them what they please? There's no "hate speech" involved. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? It is not our job to whitewash what we may find repugnant, either outright, or another's use of language and ideas we may hold a different view on.

It does not matter whether I lean towards or against the Council and its views. We are not required to swear to or sign "loyalty oaths" here. Only make contributions in accord with the encyclopedia's Manual of Style, and, ideally, maintain civility towards others - which I sought to from my very first edit summary, trying to head off where the above user was clearly determined to send things, and immediately after at their Talk page. And so we end up here. It would be despicably McCarthyesque to force me or any other user to declare "sympathies" in order for their edits to be allowed to stand. In over 50,000 of them here mine speak fully for themselves. All I seek is a fair address of any subject, even if that means undoing some very POV skewed content at a guaranteed hot-button page. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not a 3rr report and will likely be removed or collapsed shortly. There are other places to deal with content disputes starting with the talk page for the article. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the counsel, User:MarnetteD. I am unfamiliar with the proper route here, then, as I was only turning the above user's threat to report my defense of my edits to this page into direct action, confident they would stand on their merits.  Can you please advise the proper route then to report the above for three successive reverts in spite of an admonition in my first restore edit summary and caution placed on their talk page (erased there by that user, along with subsequent warnings placed there).  Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, these are the edits being contested, here. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to get the facts straight: Wikiuser100 made Bold edits, which I Reverted, per WP:BRD, since I assessed them as PoV, softening an article about a white supremacist organization by using primary sources from the organization itself.  Wikiuser100 then restored those edits , thus taking the first step in edit warring.    I urged them to take it to the talk page to get consensus, ,  which they did not do, but restored again. .  I posted an edit warring notice on their talk page , and once again urged the editor to go to the talk page , and indeed began the discussion there. .  In that ongoing discussion, no editor has yet agreed with Wikiuser100 that their edits were justified Talk:Council of Conservative Citizens.Wikiuser100's edit to that article and to Lester Maddox, of a similar nature, have resulted in a discussion on ANI about a possible topic ban. . Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One other point: Wikiuser100 never informed me of this "report", despite being required to do so. True, I had banned them from my talk page for abusing it, but the ban notice  was quite clear in specifying that required notifications were exempt, as they must be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

User:LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removing synthesis per previous, extensive discussion"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1003793616 by Alexbrn (talk) removing unsourced label. Can be re-added if a reliable source is shown referring to nutrisystem as a "fad diet.""
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1003774153 by Alexbrn (talk) Removing OR, synthesis, other biased editing"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1003773069 by Alexbrn (talk) We just had a discussion in which you agreed that your "better" version entails synthesis and OR."
 * 5)  "removing OR ("tentative evidence") and synthesis. Making language clearer and more specific."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tendentious editing by Alexbrn */ not really following the spirit of the DR recommendation, this"

Comments:
 * Hi, the problem here is that the reporting editor keeps inserting edits that violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:OR. (This was the conclusion at a recent Dispute resolution post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Nutrisystem.) I am regrettably obliged to correct his tendentious and policy-violating edits. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I ask that any admin who is considering sanctioning me for edit warring please carefully read the dispute resolution noticeboard posting, as it will confirm that OP is engaged in policy-violating edits, and therefore will tend to exonerate or at least mitigate my conduct, in attempting to revert him. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also ask User:Robert_McClenon to comment on this matter, because he knows about the edits and sources in question. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note, reported user has now gone to 6RR with this edit. Alexbrn (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a reversion. It was a copy edit+adding more context behind the quotation. I kept the quotation and the information about the majority of people re-gaining weight, but simply added more context from the same source. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * And now 's edit has been partially undone. Alexbrn (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. No content was removed. Although my tone was sharp in the edit summary, it was simply a copy edit. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed a time-specific "asof" template (used to alert to the need for update), and the information that these prices are USA-specific. This damages the encyclopedia. Your rampaging revert-spree is creating disruption now, and the need for further work from editors down the line. I also note that you have introduced WP:CLOP in your use of the Gale source. This will need editorial work by others to remedy. Alexbrn (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Both editors are edit-warring. (Edit-warring usually takes two editors.)  I recommend that both editors be partially blocked from the article for an extended period.  I was trying to offer an opinion as to whether particular edits accurately summarized the results of a systematic review, and the proposed edits had the nature of synthesis amounting to original research.  A neutral editor should edit the Nutrisystem article to say exactly what the systematic review says, nothing more, nothing less.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's a tad harsh to equate the edit-warring, since I consciously stepped-back from attempting to modify the systematic review text after two different tries, and concentrated instead on fresh sourcing and article expansion (IME, the way out of disputes is usually via improving the sourcing/content). LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08's continuing reversion have been of these, and of edits by another editor. However, I hear what you say, have unwatched the article, and will happily observe a self-imposed ban from editing Nutrisystem and Talk:Nutrisystem for 12 months. Other editors are aware of article so I'm sure all will come good in the end. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with a topic ban from Nutrisystem provided that it is also applied to Alexbrn. My concern is his tendentious editing and OR (which, I am pleased to say, RObert McClenon has just reverted); I have no real interest in the Nutrisystem page. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * . LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 has been blocked from Nutrisystem for two weeks. LLNE, don't edit war even if you think you're right, and, especially, don't violate 3RR. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

User:ElPikacupacabra reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1003976348 by Schazjmd (talk) See my comments in the talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1003962868 by Tunkki-1970 (talk) See talk page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1003957760 by Tunkki-1970 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1003955336 by Tunkki-1970 (talk Please see comment in Talk page.)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1003953462 by Tunkki-1970 (talk) Content does not violate BLP policies in any way. Please show precisely how policy is violated if you disagree. There is nothing stated that is false. Topic is of relevance."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1003945386 by Tunkki-1970 (talk) Don't remove section until the consensus in the talk page supports your position. The default is to keep content unless there is a good reason to remove it."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1003944584 by Tunkki-1970 (talk Indeed. Let's move this to the talk page. But don't delete content in the mean time.)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1003938552 by Tunkki-1970 (talk  Prev. edit misunderstands NPOV and general policy. The source merely has to be reliable and support the wiki text. The wiki must and should be NPOV, but sources will have varying quality. (If only NPOV sources were allowed, Wikipedia could never have biographies.)  The text you are deleting is stating uncontroversial facts. Please refrain from deleting content you don't like.)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1003353218 by Tunkki-1970 (talk) Removing content for spurious accusations of bias in sources should be frowned upon. Nobody disputes the reality of this controversy, or its impact in the field."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Anima Anandkumar."
 * 2)   "onus"
 * 3)   "blp ds awareness"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent Addition and Edit War */ Quillette status on RSPS"
 * 2)   "/* Recent Addition and Edit War */ Geekwire"
 * 3)   "/* Recent Addition and Edit War */ not due"
 * 4)   "/* Recent Addition and Edit War */ sum up"

Comments:

Post-3EW warning, added disputed content back manually and reworded so it wouldn't appear as a revert: ( also exceeded 3 reverts in one day, but has not reverted since being warned.) Schazjmd   (talk)  19:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Appologies for the multiple reverts, I though someone was vandalising the page because they didn't like the old content for political reasons. Since I am new, I wasn't aware of the 3-revert-rule. However, the comment above is wrong. At the end I did not add the disputed content again manually. I added newly written content (on the same topic of course), but consistent with all the rules. Faulty sources were removed, as was concluded from the discussion on the talk page. Please compare. ElPikacupacabra (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

User:2db reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:38 31 January
 * 2) 05:04 31 January
 * 3) 05:35 31 January
 * 4) 16:39 31 January

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * While the four reverts aren't identical (it's a 2x2) the core content of all four is the same, making it a rather clear violation. All four are about trying to push a fringe theory as academically respectable by referring to one lone fringe scholar, against consensus. Needless to say, this is about edit warring and not content, so the edit warring would be wrong even if the user would be right. Jeppiz (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. User:2db violated the 3RR on the article. There already is a talk page discussion, but he continued to revert. I gave him the warning because 2db is not following wikipedia protocol. Basically he has one source that makes a passing claim from 1 fringe author (who is a no expert on the topic) and wants to eliminate the views of at least 10 mainstream experts on the topic. The consensus is not on his side so he is trying to push his edit through.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

User:DollyReszka reported by User:Sundayclose (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:

' Comments:

This appears to be a kid or young adult who is hell-bent on adding his name as an uncredited, unverified cast member to a film article (unsourced of course). He has been reverted by three editors and received numerous warnings. He has made no attempt at communication. On his user page he describes himself as a child actor, but he has no notable roles in film. Sundayclose (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mztourist reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "sexual assault is disputed so it should not be referred to as a given in the lede"
 * 2)  "reverted stable into language, follow WP:BRD and take it to Talk Page, some are due to sexual assault, some are due to wartime romances, all covered in detail further down in the article"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1003084177 by 216.209.50.103 (talk) not colorful at all, stop edit-warring"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1003083377 by XiAdonis (talk) not sneaking anything, Lai Dai Han are a pressure group and Straw's role is irrelevant to the points being made; stop edit warring of you will be blocked"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1003082024 by XiAdonis (talk) the link doesn't exist, they are a pressure group and Jack Straw is irrelevant; take it to Talk per BRD, don't edit war"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: It would be great if you were as diligent about stopping socking as you are about edit-warring. Please look at the page and review the actions of IP: 216.209.50.103 and User:XiAdonis against whom I am preparing an SPI as we speak. I don't believe that I have breached 3RR as my edits were made selectively to different sections of the page. Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As soon as he made this comment, he proceeds to revert my edit. Which was fairly neutral; I was summarizing the key issues in the article he took issue with. Here # https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003087709&oldid=1003087213 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

From 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC): Here are a few more edits the user did, he has a history of guarding certain pages, blocking all edits. On just that page, Lai Dai Han alone, he engaged in several edit wars with several users. seems to have an agenda in denying reports of sexual assault and calling it 'wartime romances' and other colorful, bizarre language. also keeps accusing me of being another user and thinks I am edit warring him when I have not reverted his edits a 2nd or 3rd time.

Worth noting that the user seemingly intentionally talks past me in my talk with him, making it less of a talk and more of a monologue. 8ya (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003083830&oldid=1003083377
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003082654&oldid=1003082024
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003040099&oldid=1003038211
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=1003084519&oldid=1003084177

Early in Dec, on same page with another user.


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=995856771&oldid=995850902
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=995843379&oldid=995755451
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=995678073&oldid=995641103
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=995537507&oldid=995487722

Early in Dec again, another user.


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=994716074&oldid=994629232
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=994176258&oldid=994169457
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=994167554&oldid=994161816
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=994142307&oldid=994086245
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&type=revision&diff=988485830&oldid=988378952


 * As can be seen from the above diffs this IP and others (who I believe are all socks) have been periodically edit-warring the page, while I have tried to maintain an NPOV and remove biased material. I have opened the SPI here: Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The logic is. "If they disagree with me, they must be a sock." I am just going to stop there. I am already quite disgusted with you, since you have the audacity to just conduct original research and characterize things reported by BBCNews as fake information, and labelling reported sexual assault as 'wartime romances'. Clearly you never understood what romance means if you want to believe that. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On reviewing my edit history I see that I inadvertently breached 3RR by reverting the IP after reverting the same point 3 times. Mztourist (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was inadvertent. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that after being HOUNDED on my Talk Page by XiAdonis: User talk:Mztourist, I addressed the various issues on the Lai Dai Han Talk Page: and the IP deleted my Talk Page comments:  which is unacceptable.Mztourist (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Attempting to discuss a content dispute does not mean you're being "HOUNDED". The issue at hand here is you edit warring not whatever grievencanes you have with other editors please stay on topic. XiAdonis (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I told you to stay off my Talk Page and you ignored me, that is harassment/Hounding. You were warned about this by another uninvolved User as well: even despite that you continued to post of my Talk Page: . Content disputes are discussed on the Article Talk page, not a User's Talk Page. Unlike you, I raised the discussion on the Article Talk Page and the IP deleted it. I reinstated the discussion and you have only engaged on 1 of 3 points, raising an argument that I believe has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dont bring up unrelated things this is not the place to go off and list off whatever grivances you have, the reason why you're here is because of your edit warring, defend yourself from that dont try to win an imaginary argument. XiAdonis (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Doubledoppler reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "If you want to block an editor for making accurate edits then god help us"
 * 2)  "‎ Do you have any evidence that my edits are inaccurate?"
 * 3)  "Dude, what you playing at?"
 * 4)  "English please? Undid revision 1004113377 by Moxy (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Nationhood and change of languages  */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Nationhood and change of languages */"
 * 3)   "/* Nationhood and change of languages */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See users talk page

Comments:

We have the same revert problem on England, Scotland and related territories. Editor is talking with a few of us but does not seem willing to abide by our editing policy. Perhaps just protection of the pages involved might be better as they are engaging us. Moxy 🍁 04:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Though I agree with parts of the editor-in-question's changes. He's certainly gone about it the wrong way. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * .  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User: Willbb234 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Editor is continually reverting about a controversial deceased subject and now at the related police officer's bio as well. No other support to date for their changes on the talk page.

Previous version reverted to (#1): 12:25, 31 January 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts: (#1)
 * 1) 12:48, 31 January 2021
 * 2) 13:53, 31 January 2021

Previous version reverted to (#2): 18:45, 31 January 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts: (#2)
 * 1) 09:09, 1 February 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:48, 31 January 2021 (also include DS alert re: BLPs)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:George_Floyd (started at 12:35, 31 January 2021)

Comments:

Later started reverting at the related :

Previous version reverted to: 09:16, 1 February 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts: —Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) 09:41, 1 February 2021

Comments:


 * Please be more specific about where I went wrong or what rules I violated. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 10:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit warring, reverting to your preferred version, is not an accepted practice. It's especially disruptive for controversial BLPs like Floyd. You have continued, despite warnings, and without establishing consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll have to explain to me how continued edit warring following the warning as I don't see any evidence of this. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 10:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you have undone zero edits of another person since your talk page warning?—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The one you should have read after I posted this [], one you were aware of as you posted this [], so you are fully aware of our policies on edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, I am able to read. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 10:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So why did you ask what rule you broke if you knew?Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I never broke any rules. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comments are ironic,, considering you were the one to revert the content I added just four minutes after it was added. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.", you made 4 reverts.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not perform more than three reverts on a single page. Please try again. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well actually you did as everything you added or removed has been added or removed before. OK it was a while ago the last time, but there is no statute of limitations. Its why I warned you on the 31st []. It has all been discussed at length, many times. Which is why I told you to take it to talk. Note this [] was done after my warning.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the content per number 7 of WP:3RR: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". This was exactly that. The editor in question had no reason to place the content back in. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of it was libelous or unsourced, it is questionable whether it is biased or poorly sourced. But it was long-standing content added via consensus (you need to read the talk page archives), you should have made a case at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note This seems to have spurred a full page protection request at Requests_for_page_protection (permlink).—Bagumba (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TLDR version The above can be summed by whether this applies here: ... it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * came into this matter narrow minded. Despite edit warring (evidence of said edit warring can be seen on the article history), Bagumba's first action was to place a warning on my talk page but not Slatersteven's talk page. I appreciate that I made further edits to the article, but this still doesn't excuse Bagumba's actions, and this should also be looked at. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 12:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I left you a DS alert. Someone else gave you the EW warning. Slatersteven was already aware of DS sanctions.—Bagumba (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time to let the admins decide, nothing new can be added to this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 12:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * .  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Walrus Ji reported by User:Raymond3023 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   19:03, 29 January 2021‎ Walrus Ji talk contribs‎  46,526 bytes +483‎  restore other sources that were added by GSS
 * 2)  19:23, 29 January 2021‎ Walrus Ji talk contribs‎  46,526 bytes −487‎  Restoring revision 1003594243 by Walrus Ji: One of the source is opinion. I have already disputed this on the talk page. please do not add back. Kindly share neutral international source for this incident on the talk page (RW 16)
 * 3)  09:48, 30 January 2021‎ Walrus Ji talk contribs‎  46,759 bytes +59‎  The claim needs to be mentioned other wise it is not clear why the post mortem report is relevant here. See talk page.
 * 4)  11:11, 30 January 2021‎ Walrus Ji talk contribs‎  46,759 bytes +419‎  Reverting edit(s) by Accesscrawl (talk) to rev. 1003716401 by Walrus Ji: Reverting good faith edits, I edited as I meant it to be. Deep Sidhu, death of protestor have all
 * 5)  15:51, 30 January 2021‎ Walrus Ji talk contribs‎  50,999 bytes +367‎  Add details, See the discussion about Sidhu in talk page
 * 6)  16:04, 30 January 2021‎ Walrus Ji talk contribs‎  50,186 bytes +3,486‎  Remove refs that are over cited with better source already
 * 7)   16:10, 30 January 2021‎ Walrus Ji talk contribs‎  50,300 bytes +3,600‎  Add details undo Tag: Reverted

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The 7 reverts in less than 24 hours above show that this user is really WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is retaliatory filing in response to my thread above. These diffs are not reverts and all of them involve content different to each other. Also is should be noted that the difs 1,2,3 were already discussed on the talk page and resolved with GSS. Diff 4,5 was also resolved with explanation on the talk page. Dif 6 and 7 were caused due to Raymond3023 edit warring and causing edit conflicts while I was adding more content to the article. After adding my cotnent and resolving the edit conflict I did not make any further reverts or edits on the page. On the other hand Raymond3023's only contribution so far on this page is to edit war and remove sourced content without specifying the problem despite being asked. At the time of this writing Raymond3023 has still not explained what specific problems they have with the content. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * And reverting by Walrus Ji continues on this article as seenhere today. This comes after this report and also after "advise" provided by to Walrus Ji on ARE. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And Unlike you I did not start another edit war, but called the concerned editor to the talk page for a CIVIL discussion at Talk:2021_Farmers%27_Republic_Day_parade. The same thread where you have joined with personal attacks against me which is a misuse of WP:TPO Walrus Ji (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

., in your aforementioned AE complaint, I noted to you that you should: respect and observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, especially for a page that is covered by the WP:ARBIPA WP:ACDS regime. Also, please do not make accusations about personal attack without citing proof in the form of diff-evidence. Failure to do so counts as an WP:ASPERSION, which is not permitted. Thank you. El_C 16:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Raymond3023 reported by User:Walrus Ji (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1003768701 by Walrus Ji (talk) don't use misleading edit summaries and address concerns on talk page"
 * 2)  "Revert recently added POV write up"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 16)"
 * 2)   "/* January 2021 */ Note"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Godi Media */ Replying to Raymond3023 (using reply-link)"
 * 2)   "/* Godi Media */ Replying to Raymond3023 (using reply-link)"
 * 3)   "/* Godi Media */ Replying to Raymond3023 (using reply-link)"

Comments: This user along with another has been repeatedly removing sourced content and references from the article. He is only posting one liners saying "problem exist" without specifying them, I have asked them 3 times now but it seems they are only interested in disrupting the page. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

. Also,, WP:FORUMSHOPPING is a bad look. El_C 16:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Noted. But please understand that I had made this Edit war report 'before' I had checked his talk page history about the Discretionary sanctions. At that point I did not know that there was a topic ban on this user. Had I known then I would have not reported him here. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , okay, duly noted. El_C 16:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Abdallem reported by User:Alexis Jazz (Result: Partially blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the individual responsible to behave in a more professional manner."
 * 2)  "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the person  responsible to behave in a more professional manner. There is no on going discussions, the person behind posting that hideous picture is clearly biased, we have posted a more recent clearer picture so we ask the individual in question to stop this childish behaviour."
 * 3)  "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the individual responsible to behave in a more professional manner."
 * 4)  "Please stop changing back to that hideous unprofessional picture from a decade ago, we ask the individual responsible to behave in a more professional manner."
 * 5)  "I have changed the current image to a more professional and suitable picture of the former president of Somalia, once again, we ask the wiki community to behave in a more professional manner, we ask that you stop changing a respectable neutral picture of the former president to a picture that is visibly hideous, unflattering and unprofessional - we ask that you stop this childish behaviour and take this matter serious. As previously explained this is critical election time."
 * 6)  "I have changed the current image to a more professional and suitable picture of the former president of Somalia, once again, we ask the wiki community to behave in a more professional manner, we ask that you stop changing a respectable neutral picture of the former president to a picture that is visibly hideous, unflattering and unprofessional - we ask that you stop this childish behaviour and take this matter serious. As previously explained this is critical election time."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring */ new section"

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

Comments:
 * Abdallem isn't backing down and continues to insert his copyvio image in the article, even after this report. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a election approaching momentarily in Somalia, where this former President is a potential key player and it appears that u:Abdallem has a WP:Conflict of Interest, as self-reported saying the user would speak with the subject of the article about the matter. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you confusing and  or did I miss something? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is confusing me with, he has said nothing of the sort. Amirah  talk  17:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Alexis Jazz, I missed something. I apologise without reservation to all concerned and particularly to Abdallem. However, there is no justification for the repeated edit-warring against consensus, and I would kindly ask for prompt administrator attention to this matter. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am really getting tired of this, Abdallem changed the picture again without consensus. (though at least they stopped uploading and inserting copyvios..) I'm pinging you because.. you responded on this page yesterday. Any admin is obviously welcome to deal with this. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * (partially blocked).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Majoka4321 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked indefinite)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Orh."
 * 2)   "/* February 2021 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)   "/* Content Changing */"

Comments:

The article was up for a rewrite and it was completed on 18 December 2020. Since then some caste POV pushers (IPs and users) started reverting to the old unreliably sourced version. It was protected by on 23 December. But since the expiry of the protection, these IPs and new users have again started reverting to the old unreliable/poorly sourced version. It is very much possible that the other IPs and user are socks of Majoka4321. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also note how the user makes it clear that they'll use another account to revert war "continuously " here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that the user's conduct has been confrontational and counterproductive. However, I think there could be a legitimate concern of WP:Systemic bias at the root of it all. Marginalized groups often find themselves written about by the dominant culture in a historical perspective they believe is inaccurate or unflattering. The user's last comments hint at that feeling of despair. I've asked them to consider the more productive alternative of discussion and compromise in an attempt to achieve consensus. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think Wikipedia should be removing sourced stuff because some user from some community is "feeling despaired". Caste warrior have problem with everything written in Wiki articles. This specific article was the target of a POV pusher pushing unsourced content . That time the article was full of glorification, even then they wanted more. When I reverted their unsourced changes, they came to my talk page with threats of legal action with comment laced with cuss words and slangs . I'm quite sure this is teh same user, since they too asked me instead to search for the sources in support of their POV edits. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Majoka4321 continues to edit war and remove content they claim to be factually incorrect, but is not providing any evidence to prove their statements. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Broke 3RR here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * per WP:NOTHERE. This announcement of an intent to sock to evade any block is disgraceful. But then it's what caste warriors usually do. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

User:76.167.185.31 reported by User:Gial Ackbar (Result: Page protected)
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:

Keeps reverting, refuses to communicatate Gial Ackbar (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:Ritchie333, can 76.167.185.31 be banned/blocked or get another warning? Because they are still attempting the same thing. I reversed one attempt recently, and they tried to make the change again earlier this week. Historyday01 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

. Semi-protected for one week. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ruudboy1974 and User:82.5.151.136 reported by User:Bangalamania (Result: Semi)
Page: User being reported: User being reported:

and (likely the same person as both are solely interested in The Richie Allen Show at the same time period): Complete refusal to engage in article talk page discussion, tenacious POV editing, and refusal to provide sources or attribution for quotes, violating WP:BRD. Has been warned on user and IP talk page to stop editing in such a manner, and explain the relationship between user and IP.

Diffs of IP reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 


 * 

Comments: Apologies if this report is formatted incorrectly.

I brought this issue up over at WP:RFPP, and was advised to bring up issue here. – Bangalamania (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:Berig per RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Daveout reported by User:HarrySime (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Polanski&oldid=997550013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) I keep putting material from the opening paragraph which should be in the bio section, in the bio section - HarrySime (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Yes there is an entry on the talk page. Can't see what is complicated about it. - HarrySime (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Already addressed by an admin here. -  (talk)  23:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Malformed report. Please see the instructions at top of page for how to open an edit warring report. We need you to include the article name as well as the diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1014:B112:1659:CCC6:94B5:62E2:AAE2 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Semi)
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 has been continuing to dispute their changes on Big Boss's fate at the Rio 2 article despite discussion taking place on the talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Numerous IPs are reverting, and there is not much IP participation on the talk page. The registered editors should also make a better effort at discussion. Otherwise full protection should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Rafaelosornio reported by User:Mr. bobby (Result: Both editors p-blocked for 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

The WP-user Rafaelosornio reverts all of my new changes and information in the article Padre Pio. Rafaelosornio obviously is a religious fundamentalist believer, writing from a strictly Catholic point of view. He deleted several of my information and sources. He claims f.i. that a whole passage would be sourced with the historian Luzzatto, which is in fact sourced by Urte Krass. Additionally, he even cites long passages of interviews and puts that in Wikipedia, which itself is an encyclopedia. It is not a textbook of fundamentalist Catholic believes. I also think, that Rafaelosornio in several cases does not understand the true meaning of whole passages in the originals texts. So he obviously often distorts the content of theses sources.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Rafaelosornio cites at lenght the version of Pio. This is Original Research. Rafaelosornio does not cite secundary literature, but lets Pio speak
 * 1)

Again, a giant quotation. Original Research. Pio asserting he can bilocate!
 * 1)

R. cites the Castelli-book and asserts it as a source which documents fifty (!) years of blood flowing, that smells like perfume. Absurd! (This is what Pio might have told his audience.)
 * 1)

R. delivers a quotation in English, citing an Italian (sic!) collection of primary sources (by Rossi or Pio). Who translated that? Rafaelosornio???
 * 1)

R. delivers a quotation in English, citing an Italian collection of primary sources, this time citing Pio. Obviouslys Rafaelosorni translates form Italian (is he able to understand Italian?) ino English (is he able to understand English???) Thereby he contradicts the depiction of Luzzatto and deletes it without any discussion! This an act of vandalism.
 * 1)

Rafaelosornio deletes a whole source, claiming it would not be correct. But HE is the one who says that and deletes it - without any discussion!
 * 1)

Another source says exactly the same as Urte Krass: https://cfitampabay.org/news/padre_pio_scandals_of_a_saint/ So you cannot simply take this out. Besides Pio was supporting the upcoming fascism.

Again, Rafaelosornio translates Italian into English without any hint to this process. This is misleading any reader.
 * 1)

And several further destructive changes without any consent.

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

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

Comments:


 * Response to the accusation


 * The user "Mr. bobby" in question does not accept any other source but only that of Luzzatto's book as if this book were the absolute truth. I have already told him that Wikipedia is a neutral place, where other reliable sources are allowed. The article is about Padre Pio, it is not only about Luzzatto's book, but he wants to eliminate all sources other than Luzzatto's book.


 * By the way, the user (whose native language is German and has little knowledge of English) cites an article in German of dubious origin which quotes Luzzatto saying that Padre Pio was a follower of Mussolini, but in Luzzatto's book not said phrase comes.


 * He accuses me of being a fundamentalist only because I quote the texts of other authors and of the same inquisitors of Padre Pio. The only fundamentalist is this user who does not accept anything that is in favor of Padre Pio, but only accepts everything that is against him. He clings to eliminate all content in favor of Padre Pio, said content is not mine, but the authors and documents of the Holy Office. You can see the conversations that I have had with this guy and the behavior of this user on the "Padre Pio Talk Page". Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Both have broken 3RR as shown in the diffs in a below section where I reported both editors. WP:AN3. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit to have broken the 3RR. But I have to add that some days befor I have reported Rafaelosornio for reverting my work without any discussion. And nothing happened! So I could not help but revert his religious remarks. The article needs help by a third, neutral party. Every change of Rafaelosornio hast to be discussed. He simply adds suprnatural assertions and fundamentalist Points of View. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I remind you that the Wikipedia article is not yours. If something that is properly referenced, you don't have to delete it only because you don't like. I have already spoken to you on Padre Pio's Talk Page. Wikipedia articles must be neutral. Clearly you have a conflict of interest.Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Rafaelorsonio is keeping on adding religiously distorted interpretations to the article. Mr. bobby (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * from Padre Pio. Please resolve your content dispute on the talk page., , simply participating in a talk page discussion does not exempt you from edit warring restrictions: do not reinstate contested content until the issue at the talk page has been fully resolved. Additionally, please stick to commenting on content rather than other editors' motives, as the latter can be considered personal attacks and will lead to further blocks if continued. signed,Rosguill talk 23:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr. bobby & User:Rafaelosornio reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result:Both editors p-blocked for 1 week )
Page:

Users being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Mr. bobby:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Rafaelosornio:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Both users warned:

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

Comments:

I'm an uninvolved user in this edit war, but these two users have been at each other's throats for the past three days. Edit warring has spanned from Jan 30 to a couple hours ago, and both have broken 3RR. Both users discuss through edit summaries, which is obviously not encouraged, but they have both been very disruptive. The page history for the past 3 days is 90% composed of this edit war, as demonstrated in the several diffs above. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * from Padre Pio. signed,Rosguill talk 23:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:91.237.86.201 reported by User:E-960 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported: User:91.237.86.201

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (I): Initial reverts done by IP:91.237.86.201 on 26 January, 2021.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diffs of the user's reverts (II): IP:91.237.86.201 again restored the disputed text on 30-31 January, 2021 — in order to avoid more disruptions to the page after the initial flare-up, I did not revert these latest edits and reported IP's new attempt at restoring the reverted text.
 * 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts (III): IP:91.237.86.201 is again engaged in an edit war and restored the disputed text on 1 February 2021 — after it was reverted by another editor. Again, there is no consensus to include this text.
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP:91.237.86.201 continues to insert disputed text to the FB MSBS Grot rifle article. It was explained to the IP why the text was reverted (for reasons primarily related to Reliable sources and undue weight concerns). Also, the IP user was asked to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle approach and discuss the disputed text on the talk page, where a couple of other editors also joined in on the discussion.

Also, IP used vulgar language to respond to comments by other editors (I blanked out the curse words): "its bulls..t, Ukraine is looking for AR15 rifle", "Onet is high quality source, you write bulls..t" , "Response from Ministry is bulls..t". At this point, there is no consensus on the article's talk page for the inclusion of the disputed text, and other editors involved in the ongoing discussion either think that all of IP's text is problematic or at least parts of it. --E-960 (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Response to the accusation
 * My sources are high quality like Defence24 and Milmag military magazines together with FB Radom - producer of Grot rifle. All problems and defects are confirmed by manufacturer, they even has already started repairing all defective Grot M1 rifles by upgrading to the improved M2 version. Ukraine is looking on AR15 type rifle with weight under 3,26 kg. Grot don’t meet this requirements. Wpolityce and TVP are fake political news pages. This means that the allegations are unfounded and the user E-960 is trolling, making vandalism and removing content from page. More in article talk page []--91.237.86.201 (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * hmm... your source Defence24.pl states that: "Referring to the article by Onet, FB Radom [manufacturer] issued a statement in which it stated that the article was unreliable and mislead the public opinion. Since, before the first delivery of the carbines to WOT in December 2017, all technical and legal requirements were met." Yet, above you wrote "All problems and defects are confirmed by manufacturer". So, it appears that your statement above as well as your article edits are inaccurate and carry a potential bias, as well as undue weight. Also, the article talks about the rifle in use by the Polish Territorial Defense Forces (WOT) and nothing about Ukraine. Misrepresenting sources and what they say is harmful to Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are lier because your source is diferent than my, yours is older and is misrepresenting because this statemant is older than my source . If problems don’t exist why manufacturer has started repairing defects by upgrading all defective Grot M1 rifles to the improved M2 version? About Ukraine you are writing above, and they are writing in diferent source My contributions to Wikipedia have long history. --91.237.86.201 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and one of those articles talks about Ukraine looking for a new service rifle, and nothing about MSBS Grot. While the other one talks about how to "improve its [MSBS Gort] parameters" not "problems" as you put it. --E-960 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It mean you are lier writing in talk that Grot was in fight in the market on Ukraine, because Grot even don’t meet Ukrainian requirements for new service rifles. Described problems and defects in variant M1 and changes in improved M2 variant are not parameters..--91.237.86.201 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Follow up note to Admins

IP:91.237.86.201, again today (1 Feb, 21) re-added the disputed text after it was removed by another editor, here:. At this point IP has continued to edit war and engaged in the use of profanity during the discussions (as noted above in an earlier comment) and personal attacks calling me a "lier" here: and, the IP is still not sanctioned, and in the last 36 hours made over 40 edits to the article. --E-960 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , both editors violated 3RR when the warring was in full swing, although I do note that the onus was on IP to build a consensus for their desired changes. If edit warring resumes, please file a new report rather than edit warring back. signed,Rosguill talk 23:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Dervenagas reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Page protected)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none]

Comments: – User:Dervenagas ignored warnings about edit warring in both Edit Summaries (Diff 1) and an notice on their User Talk page (Diff 2) – User:Dervenagas was advised to take the issue to the Talk page three times in Edit Summaries and several more times on my User Talk page (Diff 3) – User:Dervenagas has been warned of disruptive behavior previously on their User Talk Page and unjustly accuses other editors of vandalism – on my User Talk page, User:Dervenagas repeatedly accused me of vandalism and of acting in bad faith – the appropriate guidelines were provided (WP:AOBF and WP:NPA), but User:Dervenagas continued to make accusations – User:Dervenagas has also been warned about edit warring on their User Talk page on the article Derbe – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved comment I came across this intense edit war as I follow many articles on early Christianity, though I haven't interacted with anyone involved myself. It's a rater sorry example of a typical edit war with both sides being at fault. User:Dervenegas violates several core polices, including violating 3RR and repeatedly attacking other users. They definitely deserve a break. User:Elizium23 also deserves a break (probably a shorter one) for edit warring. While a strict wiki-lawyer might argue Elizium23 did not violate 3RR, I have no time for users gaming the system by reverting three times themselves and then report the other side for the fourth revert. (I believe Elizium23 is correct on content, but Dervenegas edits are not vandalism hence reverting them multiple times remains incorrect). Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * by signed,Rosguill talk 23:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 reported by User:Dervenagas (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [none]

Comments: : User Elizium23 vandalizes sourced content. He keeps deleting a long standing quote, even after I pointed to the sources (such obvious sources, that nobody ever asked for them) that clearly prove why this quote stands for such a long time. The quote refers to the trust Paul had to Timothy. The aforementioned user Elizium23, for unknown reasons, wants to confuse the reader of the article regarding the trust Paul had to Timothy. Dervenagas (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * – this is a revenge report as User:Elizium23 reported User:Dervenagas for edit warring – User:Dervenagas ignored warnings about edit warring in both Edit Summaries (Diff 1) and an notice on their User Talk page (Diff 2) – User:Dervenagas was advised to take the issue to the Talk page three times in Edit Summaries and several more times on my  User Talk page (Diff 3) – as can be seen in the reason for this report, User:Dervenagas unjustly accuses other editors of vandalism – on my User Talk page, User:Dervenagas repeatedly accused me of vandalism and of acting in bad faith – the appropriate guidelines were provided (WP:AOBF and WP:NPA), but User:Dervenagas continued to make accusations – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved comment As outlined above, both User:Dervenegas  and User:Elizium23 were edit warring actively and both deserve a break (see my reasoning above). In reply to Epinoia: the fact that somebody else edit wars is not an excuse to edit war in return. You and Elizium23 are right about the content, but not right to edit war. Jeppiz (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * by signed,Rosguill talk 23:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Peterungar reported by User:Lowellian (Result: Indefinite partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version before any reverts: July 18, 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) July 30, 2020, later undone by User:Jni
 * 2) October 8, 2020, later undone by User:ReyHahn
 * 3) October 13, 2020, later undone by User:Lowellian (myself)
 * 4) December 3, 2020, later undone by User:Lowellian (myself)
 * 5) December 7, 2020, later undone by User:Eridian314
 * 6) January 23, 2021, article as it now stands

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: December 5, 2020

Comments:

The article previously was stable, with proper wikiformatting, images, and many references. User:Peterungar repeatedly replaces the article with his version that is a wall of text with original research, with improper wikiformatting, with few or no images, and almost no references other than a YouTube video and a link to Mathworld's front page which doesn't even discuss the subject. He has been reverted by User:Jni, by User:ReyHahn , by myself , and by User:Eridian314 , but despite being reverted by so many different users, he has ignored a request to stop on the article talk page and continues to repeatedly reinstate his version.

The difficulty is that Peterungar never violates 3RR, instead doing long-term edit warring over a period of many months (this has now been going on for half a year) by periodically reverting (Jul 30 Oct 8 Oct 13 Dec 3 Dec 7 Jan 23) the page to his preferred version whenever he visits the page again. Banning Peterungar from editing the article for a few days or even a few weeks might be ineffective given that his edit warring is long-term and spread over months. He has been behaving like a single-purpose account, with almost all his article space edits over the past year being on this illumination problem article.

—Lowellian (reply) 08:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I was one of the people who reverted Peterungar's edits. He seems to be convinced that the information he put in was correct, despite it being unsourced and not following the Manual Of Style. Not much else for me to say Eridian314 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Partial from editing Illumination problem. Given the long-term nature of the edit war, with edits starting in July and with talk page discussion ignored since December, the lack of disruption in the past few days doesn't seem like enough evidence to say that this is stale. The p-block should be appealed if  is able to constructively participate in a talk page discussion and help build consensus for proposed changes. signed,Rosguill talk 23:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:2001:5b0:241e:93c8:dd75:b154:a649:131b et al. reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Page protected )
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:

These three IPs -- obviously the same person -- have been removing sourced information from this article, claiming it is "slander". The subject of the article is dead (1988), and this is not a BLP issue. The information is sourced in the body of the article to a reliable source. I have invited the editor to discuss their concerns on the talk page, but they have refused to do so, they just continue to delete without comment except "slander". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * by signed,Rosguill talk 23:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:86.144.191.234 reported by User:Alex B4 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1004066211 by Alex B4 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1004064984 by Alex B4 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1004064127 by Alex B4 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1004063221 by Alex B4 (talk)"
 * 5) Further revert at 02:57, 2 February 2021

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "warning: disruptive editing"
 * 2)   "warning: disruptive editing"
 * 3)   "warning: disruptive editing"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1004064903&diffmode=source
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_B4&diff=1004065908&oldid=1004065007&diffmode=source

Comments: Continued disruptive editing despite infobox talk page consensus, being made aware of WP and attempts to resolve on user and article talk pages. Update: The page is now protected.
 * by signed,Rosguill talk 23:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:108.51.118.136 reported by User:MJL (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:
 * None. I have not really involved myself in this dispute.

Comments:

I seriously can't remember the last time I filed a report on this board. This user is just edit warring to mess with the established ideology of MPP. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:122.163.35.242 and User:Indian Dignity reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (this edit by brand-new editor "Indian Dignity", obviously created by the IP to continue edit warring}
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Straightforward edit-warring by IP, who created an account after they were warned (by me) that their next revert would trigger an EW report. IP/account is attempting to remove sourced information from the article without a consensus discussion on the talk page; edits are most probably an ethnic PoV edits. IP should be temp blocked, and account indeffed as sock created for illegitimate purposes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor has now reverted four more times, edit warring with 3 other accounts and CluebotNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Two more reverts against another editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And another series of reverts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just seen this thread after reverting him a few more times. As I considered this to be obvious vandalism (introduction of deliberate factual errors and deleting things because he just plain doesn't like it) I've been liberal in reverting his edits and have reported him to WP:AIV. However now that I see it's been reported here I've undone my edit just to stop the back and forth. As far as I'm concerned this is unambiguous vandalism, so WP:3RR shouldn't apply, but to be on the safe side I'm leaving it as it is for now. — Czello 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Follow up: The AIV report has led to him being blocked for 31 hours for vandalism: consequently I've made a final revert. I hope this is okay with everyone given that this been determined to be unambiguous vandalism. — Czello</i> 19:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, although I think 31 hours is a bit lenient considering the amount of reverting that multiple editors have had to deal with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * by . While the above discussion says that the IP was blocked for 31 hours, I don't see any evidence of this in their block log. signed,Rosguill talk 23:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here. The block was to the newly created account, not to the IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Groguyoda reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Wrong reversion by MrOllie and FyzicFighter- independent publishing is not the same as self-publishing.  Read the Wiki description.  You are discriminating.  I will report you if you keep vandalizing my edits."
 * 2)  "Wrongful reversion by Mr. Ollie - it's independently published not self-published.  Read the Wiki descriptions."
 * 3)  "wrongful reversion"
 * 4)  "Added citation to reference book."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor warring across multiple other pages (Cosmological argument, Being and Nothingness, Problem of evil, Rietdijk–Putnam argument) with same self-published book (likely his own). FyzixFighter (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * due to legal threats, also see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:IndianWarriorWikiedit reported by User:Mr. Gerbear (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe&diff=1003424653&oldid=1003424384
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe&diff=1003432640&oldid=1003427133
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe&type=revision&diff=1003462226&oldid=1003451157
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe&diff=1003673287&oldid=1003620793
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Universe&diff=1004128796&oldid=1004111451

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IndianWarriorWikiedit&diff=1003621443&oldid=1003467999
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IndianWarriorWikiedit&diff=1003467999&oldid=1003451199

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miss_Universe#Regarding_claim_being_%22most_watched%22

Comments:

This user has repeatedly reverted content on the Miss Universe page without discussion. The user was also warned multiple times, and has removed the warnings on their page which means they saw the warnings. This has been going on for a few days now. The user's edit summaries also do not show good faith, assuming another editor of bias, and also shows that the user does not understand what vandalism on Wikipedia actually is. <span style="font-family:Courier New, monospace; "> Mr. Gerbear | Talk 14:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note just tried to delete this report, here. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 18:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note He just tried it again. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 21:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Alexf. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Wes sideman reported by User:QuietMedian (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Before Edit War

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Edited to include unverifiable motto
 * 2) First Revert
 * 3) Second Revert
 * 4) Third Revert
 * 5) Fourth Revert
 * 6) Fifth Revert
 * 7) Sixth Revert
 * 8) Seventh Revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notice

'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Could not edit due to protections on page. Other users contacted Wes sideman. Some Discussion'''

'''Comments: Wes sideman continue to make an unverifiable addition to the Zeta Psi page. The edits and citation used should be removed and Wes sideman should be blocked. QuietMedian (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)'''

My Response

 * I will admit that I am not 100% sure what is going on here. But I do have some idea. I will start with saying that the "some discussion" link that QuietMedian points to up above was about an entirely different topic on the same article - I had removed a long section because I noticed it had been copy-pasted from the Zeta Psi website. Citizen Sunshine reverted and told me he had written the website copy for Zeta Psi and had also added his own work to the article, and I am satisfied with that. It has nothing to do with the motto that (other) various user accounts have been removing from the article.
 * Now, on to QuietMedian. This account was created 15 hours ago, and immediately made a semi-protected edit request at Talk:Zeta Psi. He then erased it. User103214, another account created yesterday, also made the same edit request at nearly the same time. Two more accounts, Phippap and BadaBing72 were also created in the last two days and made the same removals from the page. Finally, QuietMedian, mere hours after creating his account, made an edit-warring report against me and left a notice on my talk page. 39 minutes after the last edit to the Zeta Psi talk page, Volteer1 showed up to make the edit requested, although that account had never edited the article or the talk page before.
 * It seems like it would be a huge coincidence if these accounts were not somehow related to each other. Wes sideman (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Huh? I just responded to an edit request, I do that all the time. If you have a look at the book you're citing (you can find it pretty easily on google), the motto does not seem to appear, so it was a fairly easy edit request for me to respond to. I don't know QuietMedian, and I don't care about Zeta Psi, all I can see is you engaging in an edit war and adding what appears to me to be unsourced material. That dispute should be handled on the take page, not through reverting people's edits. Volteer1 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I already said that I'm not 100% sure what's going on. All I know is that a lot of new accounts suddenly descended on the Zeta Psi page and/or my talk page, within a very short amount of time. And your account happens to be one of them. You may be innocent in this; I have no idea. I just got done with a user harassing me with multiple accounts and at last count, 7 accounts were blocked for "sockpuppeting". I only reported what happened. Wes sideman (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I had been watching the page and did not have a wikipedia account. Your repeated attempts to post unverifiable information and improperly cite it to Baird's Manual and revert it compelled me to make an account. I removed my edit requests as they were superfluous. I do see that you had to deal with a recent issue of socket puppet accounts. I can assure you I am wholly disinterested in the controversies surrounding Chad Johnson. Your behavior on the Zeta Psi page is however antithetical to this site's standard of verifiability. QuietMedian (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So that I make sure everyone reading this has the background - QuietMedian created an account less than 24 hours ago. He is already an expert on edit warring, and sock puppets, and pinging me in the above comment, and he's saying he's not the same person that's been making the edits to the Zeta Psi page under multiple accounts. Wes sideman (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your suspicions given the ongoing issues with your addition to the Chad Johnson article. That said, it is confusing that you paint me as an expert after pointing out deficiencies in this report. I am not connected to the accounts listed above. Considering you made 7 attempts to publish unverifiable if not false information and pass it off as true by inaccurately citing sources, I will posit that it is equally plausible if not more likely that several people noticed your behavior and decided to confront it. I do appreciate the compliments to my future as an editor on Wikipedia, and I welcome any pointers on diffs as I am still trying to figure those out. QuietMedian (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Wes sideman is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. They have added "Honor and brotherly love' as the fraternity's motto seven times since mid-January. Others have reverted their change, saying that such a wording for the motto is unsourced and is not to be found in Baird's Manual. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User: Mhorg reported by User:LauraWilliamson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sorry I'm a new editor and I think I did that report completely wrong... but the user above keeps restoring their desired content to the article today, having been reverted by User Nicoljaus and myself. They have been warned about edit warring, but they have continued with this, and also the content they keep adding is referenced to unreliable/questionable sources (blogs, for example). LauraWilliamson (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi LauraWilliamson, the problem is that you are removing certified sources (you also removed the Navalny's blog link). Fortunately user Nicoljaus understood the situation. Next time, could you please open a discussion before removing sources insted of starting a revert-war?--Mhorg (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one "starting a revert-war", I only reverted you twice. You, meanwhile, have inserted and reinserted that content 6 times today, twice as many as you are allowed. You've also never taken to the talk page to explain your actions despite being asked to. LauraWilliamson (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your original edit contained obvious defamation of a living person. Subsequently, you also seriously distorted the actual content of his statements. Based on the WP:BLP I reverted your edits. Next, you had to go to the discussion page and work out a consensual text there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which defamation? Your last edit states the same thing that you removed from my first edit except for the therm "ethnic". You wrote pratically the same thing. you removed all sources, and I asked you to, please, open a discussion before doing that.--Mhorg (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * { You were already asked to start a discussion on the talk page which you failed to do, and then you carried on edit warring. LauraWilliamson (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, check this, Nicoljaus literally removed the Navalny's blog link. Then you removed theatlantic.com source and the Navalny's blog saying that "Those aren't even reliable sources", without opening a discussion. Instead, I openly asked you to open a discussion before removing sources.--Mhorg (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but hours earlier, you had already been asked to explain yourself on the talk page:, which you failed to do. LauraWilliamson (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Nicoljaus asked to open a TP about the word "ethnic", and my next edit was removing the word "ethnic", because the correct translation was effectively without that word (the meaning remained pratically the same). Then you continued removing the sources all the time without a valid reason and against Wikipedia policies.--Mhorg (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TP means talk page for goodness sake! LauraWilliamson (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What? Of course i know what it means... He asked to open a TP about the word "ethnic", i simply removed the word "ethnic" because the correct translation was without that word. Then you started removing the sources: one, two, three, four times.--Mhorg (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * {{{re|Mhorg}} Which defamation? -- You accused a living person of calling for ethnic repression during the war. Since you referred to the blog, you could not fail to notice that he objected to the participation of Russian Army: "Of course there is no question of any additional Russian ground forces in the South Ossetia ("Конечно ни о каких дополнительных русских сухопутных войсках в ЮО речи сейчас идти не может"), and the deportation of Georgian citizens (not Georgians, and not even ethnic Georgians, as it was in your edits: ) he proposed as a non-military form of pressure on Georgia. And, once again, this discussion should start on the TP after the first revert of your edits.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – User:Mhorg is blocked 24 hours for edit warring. There may be a question about the quality of User:Mhorg's sources here, but whatever the answer to that, there is no excuse for Mhorg to break the 3RR rule. Whether Navalny's blog can be used to document his opinion on Georgians is something for consensus to agree on. (If Navalny really made outrageous statements in his blog about Georgians, wouldn't we expect the mainstream press to have commented on that somewhere?) With blogs we also would like some verification that the supposed blog is the genuine work of the named person. EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would like to inform you that the User:LauraWilliamson was a sockpuppet . He\she tried in every way to make me fall into the revert trap, deleting RS. I wanted to ask you if it was possible to remove that banner of the 24h ban from my discussion page, because it embarrasses me a lot, and I don't think I deserved it (even if I actually didn't know the reverting rules). Do you think it is possible?--Mhorg (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)