Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive428

User:Iaof2017 reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Two sides (Iaof2017 & unlogged editors on the other) are endless revert warring about the inclusion of an internal link. Iaof2017 has made a series of reverts in fairly quick succession; the first four diffs are performed in 24h so it even technical falls into a 3rr breach. Both parts are not willing to participate in talkpage to solve the disagreement and keep endless reverting. As an uninvolved editor I've placed a warning in his talkpage [], unfortunately this wasn't enough to stop this kind of stubborn edit warring. I'm astonished that he even removed this warning and continued edit-warring []. The editor in question received a block due to revert warring activity in last Sept. []. Alexikoua (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's what you've been waiting for so long. As the editor, who has/is essentially improved/improving the numerous articles from Albanian artists, have the right to revert the two unlogged editors, who don't want to stop their irrelevant edits. Your attempts to block me are absurd and ridiculous, I don't expect much from an user as you, who's always involved in disputes, edit warnings and other problems!--Lorik17 (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Iaof2017 was reverting IP disruption. He's the editor who has written most of the articles about Albanian pop music and elevated them to GA. This is regular IP reverting that every established editor has to do. An admin protected Dafina Zeqiri so that IPs can no longer cause disruption and obviously Iaof2017 wasn't blocked because reverting IP disruption is not considered actionable by any admin.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not in any way give him special editing privileges, nor does it exempt him from edit-warring. There is no caste system in Wikipedia. Khirurg (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The 3RR warning diff is just a link to Ia's talkpage and this diff is not related to Dafina Zeqiri. It's wrong template use by Alexikoua on Iaof2017's talkpage after Iaof2017 reverted them in a dispute between Alexikoua and other editors. Alexikoua filed a report about Dafina Zeqiri and linked as a warning diff Ia's talkpage and a link which involves a dispute between Alexikoua and Iaof2017.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment He's also edit-warring at other articles, e.g. Delvine , in the same, terse, rapid-fire, no-discussion manner. It is my impression, based on past experience with this user, that he will not stop unless action is taken (hence his block log). Khirurg (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He has made two reverts at Delvinë. And you have made two reverts. A content dispute, but no 3RR by anyone - neither them, nor you. The report was filed about Dafina Zeqiri but the supposed edit-warring diffs include talkpage messages by Alexikoua (#7, #8) and IP reverts made on February 14-15 (#6, #5). This is a malformed report which attempted to put forward Ia's handling of IP disruption over a period of days as a narrative about 3RR "edit-warring". There was never a content dispute/edit-warring in any way, shape or form at Dafina Zeqiri. In terms of admin action, IP disruption was handled via semi-protection.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring is edit-warring. He is edit-warring across multiple articles with no sign of slowing down. It doesn't matter if there is "no content dispute". There is no caste system - IP editors are not "inferior". And it's pretty incredible that you call this never a content dispute/edit-warring in any way shape or form . This user is willing to rapid-fire edit-war over the most trivial of things. Khirurg (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am calling it IP disruption and the semi-protection which occurred after Iaof2017 reverted the IP calls it Balkans disruption.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can call it whatever you want. What it is, is edit-warring. Of the kind this user has been engaging in far too long. Khirurg (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: A warning [] was sent due to the disruption that occurred in this article since there was a 3rr breach (8 successive reverts). Unfortunately this wasn't enough to prevent further reverts and even triggered sarcastic comments from him. Both parts here (Iaof and ips) were disruptive and reject any form of discussion. @Maleshreiber: I fail to see Iaof's 3rr violations in other articles too though Khirurg offers a picture of edit-warring in a wide field.Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The diff is about a personal content dispute you had with Iaof2017. And you left them a message with the summary "BRD breach" because they reverted your edits on Sarandë. Your message to them was not about the report you have filed (Dafina Zeqiri), it was not about edit-warring or 3RR or "BRD". This noticeboard sees many reports every day and we should respect the amount of work that admins have to handle. If you file a report, make sure that your diffs are correct and relevant and that you're not using a noticeboard about edit-warring/3RR as a noticeboard for your personal content disputes which aren't linked to 3RR or the pages which you're reporting (Dafina Zeqiri). You can't report handling of IP disruption as edit-warring, because you're in a dispute with someone at another article. If you want to discuss a personal content dispute with a particular editor you can file a report at WP:AE. Thank you.-- Maleschreiber (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article got semi-protected to prevent IPs from editing it after a request made by me earlier today. I just noticed the "party" here with the usual editors. I suggest to editors to not post here again, and let an admin decide. I and another editor gave some advice to Iaof2017. After all, they are an editor with 31 written GAs and the article got semi-protected against the IPs that Iaof2017 was reverting. Do not mess this discussion up anymore. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: @Maleschreiber: I've sent the warning to Iaof because of his BRD breach [] (see edit summary). I suggest you owe a sincere apology for claiming the opposite. To sum up both sides are disruptive in this edit war []: Multiple successive reverts for a 4-day period, no talkpage participation, culminating in 3rr breach.Alexikoua (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You left them a message about a personal dispute you have with them at another article. And you used the same diff at a report you filed about Dafina Zeqiri. When you put forward an edit and others revert you "BRD" is not the correct template in any way, shape of form. You filed a report about Dafina Zeqiri and you used a talkpage message you left at Ia's talkpage about your personal dispute as edit-warring diffs about Dafina Zeqiri. Admins are not obligated to fix your malformed reports when you use talkpage messages you've left as Diffs of the user's revert. Iaof2017 handled IP disruption and the article got semi-protected to stop it. agreed. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: @Maleschreiber: that's your personal assumption. Ioaf made several reverts and received a warning, ignored it and continued reverting. I fail to see Iaof's requesting page protection instead both parts (Iaof and ips) continued to display exactly the same disruptive pattern (history log here: []).Alexikoua (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal assumption - he didn't get any warning about any edit at Dafina Zeqiri. It's verifiably wrong for you to put forward that Iaof2017 "received a warning". Other editors will verify the diffs you've put forward. He never received any warning, because no editor in the community perceived what he was doing as anything other than handling IP disruption.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * handling IP disruption is a pretty cute euphemism for edit-warring, which he was also doing at other articles. And "handling IP disruption" is not covered by WP:3RRNO. Khirurg (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And you can file a report about - Dafina Zeqiri isn't one of them. The  I managed to verify are content disputes where you and they have the same number of reverts below even 3R warning. If Iaof2017 had been "disruptive" in handling IP edits about Albanian pop music, they would have been warned or blocked. They weren't warned or blocked. Dafina Zeqiri was semi-protected to stop IP disruption. And the editor who has written 31 GAs about Albanian pop music - three in just the last month! - can continue writing about what matters to them. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing worse than edit-warring is edit warring multiple articles. Apparently that's not the case according to you. Good to know. Khirurg (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If he has done such a thing, it would be bad. You can help the community stop such editing by filing a report which shows that they are edit warring across multiple articles. The report about Dafina Zeqiri shows that Iaof2017 was handling IP disruption which was stopped via semi-protection. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've posted the diffs in this very report. But you already knew that. Khirurg (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this is about the diffs of a dispute between you and him with 2 reverts by both of you? It's one article with no 3R - neither them, nor you. If you had to write a report, you would have to examine their editing carefully and you would find out that you have the same number of reverts at the same articles and all are very low on the scale of what is discussed at this noticeboard. But you can file a report and you'll find out yourself as you're writing it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Page already semiprotected by User:El C with the message 'Persistent disruptive editing: Balkans disruption'. The semiprotection should put a stop to the edit war. Anyone who believes that the phrase 'Kosovo Albanians' ought to be linked in this article could open an WP:RFC, or at least make a proposal on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

User:IR2017 and User:Storm598 reported by User:Awesome Aasim (Result: Two editors blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [N/A]; I am simply reporting a case of edit warring I saw on a page. I did not touch the page.

Comments:

Aasim (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am going to keep this reply short as I am tired and about to go to sleep. I do not really care who started the revert war but reverting each other is plain disruptive as it stops any and all consensus from happening. I hope any admin who reviews this sees that there is an ongoing risk of disruption that needs to be handled by a partial block and/or page protection. Aasim (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:IR2017 and User:Storm598 are both blocked 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:JaMongKut reported by User:Naveen Ramanathan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)

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

Comments:

A new user, @JaMongKut with are very anti-Hindu attitude trying to "convert" each and every Hindu sites to Buddhist sites without any strong evidence. Looks like he has an agenda to attack Hinduism as he has some personal issues with the religion. If the edits are being corrected, he is basically personal attacking me. He has been changing the articles randomly everywhere on the Wikipedia. Previously he was blocked form the same page called "List of largest Hindu temples" for 1 week. Now he is doing the same thing to the above mentioned page. I would suggest to block this user from editing all the pages, so that he will not be disruptive towards other established users. He keeps removing sourced information which he deems "harsh" and has been reverted by many users, and been told by many users to take his concerns to the talk page, yet he continues this disruptive pattern, accusing others of "One cannot saythat because they don't like it.". This is another one in a different page. Just because the user does not prefer the words being used, he keeps changing the sourced sentence, giving a edit summary which is totally unrelated and false. Naveen Ramanathan (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. Others have argued that JaMongKut wants Angkor Wat to be a Buddhist temple complex and is trying to remove suggestions of Hindu presence. Though a discussion began on 21 January, JaMongKut has continued to revert and seems to have no intention of waiting for consensus. Keep in mind that the article Angkor Wat is a Featured Article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

Comments:

User is clearly on a ethno-nationalistic mission (WP:NOT HERE). Also, he attempted to alter my report, as if that would work --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 4 days. Edit warring, and attempting to remove the edit warring complaint from the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 reported by User:Jr8825 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1006866156

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1006937278
 * 2) Special:Diff/1006966989
 * 3) Special:Diff/1006986916
 * 4) Special:Diff/1006988820
 * 5) Special:Diff/1007752409

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1006973404

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute:

Comments:

We're now at revert 5. The previous report (following 4 reverts) was archived without action. Contextual discussion here. Jr8825 •  Talk  19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish you were calm and wait for the discussion on Commons to end. I hope you make it a principle to wait for community decisions as you change articles. I have nothing more to add to what I'll wrote in the previous discussion on here and Commons.--𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 is warned. They may be blocked for adding unsourced information if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page. The claim that this illustration shows the intentions of the British government for the future of Turkey in 1922 needs a source. The mere existence of a souvenir picture proves nothing. Find evidence for your case from British diplomatic history. Your caption "The proposed flag for the British colony based in Constantinople" is 100% unsourced, and seems to be constructed by you. Commons says this picture has no known publisher. It can't serve as a WP:RS for anything. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:51.9.150.211 reported by User:Dr Greg (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1007923613 by Ian Dalziel (talk) Undoing repeated vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1007917669 by Seasider53 (talk) Undoing repeated vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1007914611 by Martinevans123 (talk) Vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1007892829 by Seasider53 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1007887640 by Martinevans123 (talk) Factually accurate"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1007884337 by Koncorde (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Restored revision 1007893668 by Martinevans123 (talk): Restore previous warning for comparison with next warning"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on York."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Keith D (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose reported by User:Greenknight dv (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Greenknight dv (talk): AGAIN, get consensus. There are lots of Marian devotions that are not offically approved by the Church but are not forbidden."
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Greenknight dv (talk): Please read WP:BRD. This has been in the article over 10 years, making it the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. There needs to be a new consensus to change it."
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Greenknight dv (talk): Read Co-Redemptrix"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:77.251.181.177 reported by User:Neon Richards (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Restored revision 995625778 by Neon Richards (talk): Reverted versions as Kirkby is within the Knowsley Metropolitan County, not the Liverpool one, along with this, the post-code L10 is the post-code in Frazakaly, not Kirkby (Sorry for any bad spelling)" (Correct spelling of "Frazakaly" is Fazakerley)

Comments:

The user has made a multitude of edits introducing deliberate factual errors on Kirkby (9 to be exact) over the past 9 days. Even though being warned on 2 other occasions before today and has been given a multitude of reasons why their edits are being reverted in the edit history of the page by 4 different users, the user hasn't stopped. Neon (Talk) 12:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. The IP keeps reverting but has made no effort to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

64.184.70.106 reported by User:Crboyer (Result: Two IPs blocked)
Page:, among others

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1)

Comments:

User is erasing specific credits from voice actor pages, whether it's from the subjects' opening paragraph or their filmography section. Danganronpa is their most specific target, especially since their edit summary is "I Hate Danganronpa." They've also targeted credits from High School of the Dead and Elfen Lied, as the revisions I linked to on Miyuki Sawashiro and Reiko Takagi show. I've tried to reason with them, but they've persisted. They've consistently replaced these credits with others, and I have added them back, but they keep deleting the others they don't like. They could've easily added these credits without deleting the others for no good reason.

See also, as it's clearly them, and I've tried substantially to get them to stop there. I reported them at AIV last night, but no action was taken. Crboyer (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked both the IPv4 and the IPv6 for crusading against danganronpa (see their edit summaries). EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:PashtoPromoter reported by User:Xerxes931 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user keeps on reverting the content despite being asked to reach consensus on the talk page first by more than 3 different users, he reverted 5 times within a few hours on the same topic and article and he was not ready for any agreement on the topic either and kept reverting. Intervention is necessary. PS: The User was already reported once for having a Sockpuppet so this isn’t the first investigation against him Xerxes931 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As anyone will be able to see with the edit summary - the reverted edits were on the grounds that we were discussing the matter in the Talkpage and hence the sentence in dispute should not be changed until we reached a solution. We already reached consensus on the issue
 * "... a few of your sources are reliable but they do not mention anything about Pashtuns or every Pashtun region specifically, they simply talk about Eastern Afghanistan/Gandahra specifically, I have suggested you three times to add Gandhara being majority Hindu and Buddhist to the section..."

- Xerxes931


 * To which I replied: "Xerxes931 I have changed it from "Pashtun areas" to "Eastern Afghanistan and Gandhara" as you pointed out. Lindsay I have removed "rfc". I think the matter stands closed - as we have reached consensus; hopefully sourced edits wont be reverted"

- PashtoPromoter


 * I don't understand why Xerxes931 would bring the issue once resolved and waste his own time and other users PashtoPromoter (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your trying to twist the reality, we had still not reached any consensus yet but you kept reverting every user that was undoing your edits. Also your trying to manipulate the reality, my quote started with “some of your sources” not just “your sources” and the point of the comment was that some of your sources were OK how you were using them was NOT, because you were using them to back a statement which was clearly WP:OR and not supported by the source. Furthermore we haven’t really reached consensus now, you literally just did another edit without properly talking about it on the talk page, I’ve told you on the talk page what the issue is but you ignored. Also the most important part is that you can’t just revert the same content 5-6 times within a few hours while stonewalling on the talk page, that’s simply disruptive behavior and needs to get dealt with quickly Xerxes931 (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I haved added the words “ a few of” - oversight on my part. In any case I reached a compromise and changed the words per your recommendation. You cant reasonably demand the whole removal of an an academic referrenced quotation and a single sentence supported by 4 citations. Wikipedia is here to present information not to support your personal narrative PashtoPromoter (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody asked for a removal of sources, this again proves you not even properly paying attention to whatever I said. You having met semi-consensus after reverting multiple users 5-6 times within a few hours does not help at all. Xerxes931 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said: “ the reverted edits were on the grounds that we were discussing the matter in the Talkpage”. And on your “semi-consensus” point: you cannot remove well referrenced quotes and sources - another editor has also pointed that out to you in the Talkpage PashtoPromoter (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:PashtoPromoter and User:Xerxes931 are both warned. You are both edit warring. Each of you is risking a block if you revert the article again before getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page. Admins won't decide on the content. You must persuade the others on the talk page. See WP:DR if you believe that additional editors should be brought in. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston Thank you for your decision - its the best amicable solution. PashtoPromoter (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * CONTINUED VANDALISM
 * - New information that was referrence with 3 citations was removed
 * - Information already under discussion in the talkpage was removed/reverted contrary to your decision
 * - Information was reverted per the recommendations of Xerxes931 by the same new account doing the 2 previous reverts
 * - Another edit on the same information under discussion in talkpage
 * I suspect this new account doing the reverts under username:Wikinoob2939 is a mirror account of Xerxes931 given the timing of the reverts: this would be another breach of wikipedia policy.
 * Please deliberate and restore edits that have been cited with 7+ citations PashtoPromoter (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

PashtoPromoter (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * my account is not "new", it's more than half a year old, just because someone does not agree with you it does not mean that they are a fake account.--Wikinoob2939 (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, I suspect a mirror account given that well-referenced information was removed per the personal preferences of Xerxes931 as elaborated upon in the talkpage and contrary to current admin decision PashtoPromoter (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit, opened up a talkpage discussion and asked for a sockpuppet investigation  PashtoPromoter (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:HanKim20 reported by User:Wareon (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5 reverts made in less than 24 hours


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello, I'm not having an edit war, I'm just trying to maintain the February 19 status quo until a consensus is found on the talk page, but many Indian nationalists don't like that. To be clear : For me, Hua Chunying's sentence is very clear For the NYT source they just said it was still unclear whether China was going to report further losses, however the press conference closed any speculation on further losses. Let us not forget that we are speaking from the point of view of China, and a phrase from the spokesperson for China could not be clearer. It should be noted that if the NYT did not note the clarification of Hua Chunying, it may be because they were expelled from China, while reuters was present during the press conference. You should know that I want the status quo of February 19 until a consensus is found, I am not doing vandalism, on the contrary, I try to maintain the statu quo of February 19, while some nationalist users want to change without gaining consensus.--HanKim20 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. There isn't an exemption from the WP:3RR rule for 'maintaining the status quo'. If an edit war is in progress, *everyone* is supposed to stop until consensus is reached. Labelling people on the other side as 'Indian nationalists' does not help with the objective of focusing on content. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:62.73.136.123 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Persistent edit warring, breaking the 3RR rule. Check his history, definetely not here to build an encyclopedia. See his edits at Turkish nationalism and several others, also blanking his warnings. Beshogur (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 3 months for vandalism: "Turkish nationalism, also known as autism". See also their block log. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Beccaynr reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: I withdraw.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1008147634 by TrangaBellam (talk) revert vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1008146299 by TrangaBellam (talk) revert disrutive edit, possible vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1008144318 by TrangaBellam (talk) restore lead to focus on Ramani's notability"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "note"
 * 2)   "/* Lead */ Further"
 * 3)   "/* Lead */ More"
 * 4)   "/* Lead */ section"

Comments:

NIL attempt to discuss anything. reverting me as a vandal. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh! This is rather hasty and unfortunate. So did not see that there was already a consensus reached, related to the Lead, based on a talk page discussion here before making large changes to the page in question. While, the "vandalism" word in the summary was not appropriate, it was an edit war which was disruptive. I had even warned TB of 3RR here. I think both editors need to drink some tea, take a deep breath and head to the article talk page for discussion. Please close this complaint. Best! Vikram 21:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""Québec" is the official french name of Quebec city, check Quebec city municipality - french wikipedia."
 * 2)  ""Québec" is the official french name of Quebec city, Quebec city municipality - french wikipedia."
 * 3)  ""Québec" is the official french name of Quebec city, Quebec city municipality - french wikipedia."
 * 4)  ""Québec" is the official french name of Quebec city, French Wikipedia"
 * 1)  ""Québec" is the official french name of Quebec city, Quebec city municipality - french wikipedia."
 * 2)  ""Québec" is the official french name of Quebec city, French Wikipedia"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Axtoche has also been removing content without explanation (twice on Monaco, twice on Guinea, Djibouti and Mali) and continues to mark the edits as "minor" despite being asked not to. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings and this report, they continue to edit war (see their third attempt at removing content from the Monaco article, again, marked as "minor" and without explanation). M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 5 days for edit warring. If you don't like the current name of an article, considering opening up an WP:RM to get the name changed. Since the user has left us no talk comments at all, the motive for these changes is unclear. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Cengizsogutlu reported by User:Des Vallee (Result: Partial block from this page)
Page: Operation Claw-Eagle 2

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] 1 2 3 4 5 6

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2 User talk:Cengizsogutlu

Multiple attempts to solve this edit war has been attempted at which point the user general response has been either to post noise, or to add personal commentary on editors. Reverted over 6 times by 4 separate editors, clearly knows not to edit war he also was warned not to make personal attacks. Despite saying to "see talk" going to talk history shows he hasn't edited anything on talk since the 17th which is now redacted as it was about personal commentary. Last edit before that was on the 17th where he went on a rant on biased editing.

Previously this article was fully protected to stop edit warring. He didn't spend the time to try to gain consensus make convincing arguments or, cite sources or the like, in fact he hasn't made an edit on the talk since before the fully protect. After the full protect he simply waited out the three days of full protection and then proceeded to remove the sections he disliked and start edit warring once again. It took him only one hour after the page became unprotected did this user revert the page again against his disliked version from the previous revision.

'''Comments: Related this user has been warned twice for bringing up personal attacks or personal info thinking I am a "troll" and stating I am trying to cover up a "terrorist execute." I think this just shows and compounds this user being generally uncooperative and disruptive, like "this, this, this, and this.'''


 * Partial blocked from this page only for 1 month. I had been watching this develop recently and was considering taking action before I saw this report. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:PPP reported by User:Gidonb (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: There is a warning by User:Tristan Surtel on the user talk page that the user is overriding a (narrow) consensus. PPP's response was: "Misinformation should be corrected, so that is what I do." Accordingly, he continued edit-warring undisturbed. Next, PPP was warned by User:Roger 8 Roger on Roger 8 Roger's talk page. I have notified PPP about the current procedure.
 * I invite you to look at the article history and see for yourself that it is in fact User:Roger 8 Roger themselves who started the edit war, violating WP:WTRMT for which they have been warned on their talk page. This user has also already previously been warned for edit warring. Furthermore, this "report" of me comes a week after Roger 8 Roger's edits were reverted. PPP (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Thayts started a discussion of Holland as a synonym on the Netherlands talk page, where PPP argues with everyone while not making arguments (his claims are circular/prescriptive: "it is wrong", "'Holland' is wrong", "'Holland' is wrong", "in fact it is wrong"). Participants in the discussion are pointing out that these aren't arguments while pointing to the literature. In addition, he tries to fight it out by edit warring on the article page, often with similar edit summaries ("Oxford Dictionary doesn't decide what countries are called", while this isn't a case of a name change), and took it to User:Roger 8 Roger's talk page.
 * For a start, I'm not a "he" or a "his", please refrain from making such assumptions. Second, I have in fact made proper arguments, even linked to a governmental website that clearly states that Holland is a region within the Netherlands, the two are not interchangable. PPP (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User:PPP either does not understand or intentionally ignores the concepts behind wp:commonname, making a reasoned discussion with him difficult. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that User:Roger 8 Roger just referred to me as "he" while I just wrote above that I am in fact not male shows that this user themselves is not open for any input and is impossible to talk with. They are not open for any argument and revert every edit they disagree with. I will therefore make a similar complaint about them. PPP (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC) edit was actually made by user:109.36.136.43, removed as block evasion, and then restored by user:109.36.143.255
 * – 48 hours for long-term warring. The user continued to revert while this report was open. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about usage of 'Holland'. Please wait for that to conclude. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:WisdomSideKick reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */ not factual"
 * 2)  "Controversy section is not correct and will be appended in the future"
 * 3)  "/* References */"
 * 4)  "/* References */"
 * 5)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * — Kralizec! (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:WikiFlame50 reported by User:Grangehilllover (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've reported the user because of the insistance of the term Jnr being placed at the end of Dennis Rickman despite the character not being credited as or referred to as it.

There are other characters in the show with the same name that aren't Jnr. For example, two Mark Fowler's, two Abi Branning's. An Abi Branning introduced in 2017 is called "baby Abi" in the real world, but not in universe and her section is simply headed "Abi Branning" not "baby Abi Branning".

I did put a message on the user's talk page with credit links of Dennis Rickman's duration from the first and last episode from the portrayed, but was blanked. My latest edit also included these links that was reverted and clearly ignored Grangehilllover (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears somebody doesn’t seem to enjoy my content. All I was trying to do was add solid information, if this has upset you I am very sorry about that. But it’s the truth, 100%. He has the term credited on his gravestone and not to mention his funeral plannings and memorials everywhere. Sure he didn’t get it credited in the credits but he was referred to it 24/7 and it was pretty dead set on all the funeral stuff. I was only adding true information so I don’t understand why I have seemingly been reported. I have been doing good edits for months on these pages, all info I add is true and not deemed pointless or anything else. I promise that I never want to try and disrupt. And also I blank the page because it just doesn’t make me feel so grand reading stuff like that, it worries me frankly, so I decide to hide it just so that worry disappears (Not to be suspicious, but it’s because I have ASD). I never vandalise Wikipedia. And I never have an intention and I certainly never will at all. I’m not bad honest to good. WikiFlame50 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2021


 * We don't use show props for sources, but their credited and common names (WP:COMMONNAME). I've been editing years and it was something discussed with admins. Back in 1985, Kathy Beale's full name shown on a doctor's record was Kathlene before switching to Katherine. Names and birth dates can be swapped so easily. The Jnr part has just been added by press and viewers. In the show and credits, he's just Dennis Rickman as I showed you from his first episode in 2012 to the last one. We don't do it for Abi and Arthur. Dennis really is no different.

I understand ASD and would be happy to help you, but it would be nice to engage in discussion. Grangehilllover (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Roger 8 Roger reported by User:PPP (Result: )
−		 −	Page:

−	User being reported: −		 −	See above. User refuses to read arguments, even misgenders me after I revealed my gender, proving that user doesn't read comments and arguments, only reverts edits they don't agree with. Note: Roger 8 Roger already has a history of edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.36.143.255 (talk • contribs) 19:48, February 22, 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, see above. User:PPP is blocked, and used an IP to sock to make the final comments above and to open this report. Meters (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP editor signed themselves as 'PPP', so they are blocked for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:192.216.120.25 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* WP:COI */ new section"
 * 2)   "oh and ps, you can't add unsourced content to BLPs"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please see also edits by which is clearly the same individual, as they are editing from the legislative center and ignoring BLP warnings by adding more unsourced spam. CUPIDICAE💕 16:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As they're bouncing around IPs, I've semi-protected the article for 3 days.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

User:The good man 232 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rv after no response on talk page."
 * 2)  "Overlook? it is the introduction, genetic complications has its own section."
 * 3)  "This is not POV edit. That what source say."
 * 4)  "What is added depends on the source, not original research."

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

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

Comments:

Though user posted on talk page to initiate discussion he waited only 38 minutes to revert again and break 3RR rule. The user have history of WP:EW Shrike (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The good man 232 has a history of heavy edit warring and has been blocked indefinitely before. A look at the growth of religion article shows this. He's been warned by other users before and was recommended to follow WP:1RR. He has been warned off of making personal attacks and using circular sources. A longer block could only help him now. desmay (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * desmay, My edit warring history has been with sock puppets trying to input it's own opinions into articles. --The good man 232 (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Gershonmk reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is under 24 hour revert restrictions, and this appears to be a breach. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which previous post is number 1 a revert of? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not obvious how the first of the two edits is a revert. But the two edits, taken together, may be violating the '24 hour BRD cycle' which has been placed as a page restriction on the talk page. Gershonmk seems not to have observed the 24 hour delay: " EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what I am referring to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Violation of the '24 hour BRD cycle' placed by an administrator under WP:ARBAP2. I'm logging this as an AE block. User declined to self-revert (originally) and has not responded to my further inquiry on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:71.183.212.131 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is my talk page an  remove warning once I have read them"
 * 2)  "/* February 2021 */"
 * 3)  "/* February 2021 */"
 * 4)  "/* February 2021 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Comments:

Anon user engaging in edit wars, and has been repeatedly told not to remove warnings from talk page but refuses to comply with wiki policy Tommi1986 talk! 17:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk page, except for unblock requests. However, it is then assumed by doing so, they understand them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Roger 8 Roger reported by User:Pee-Tor (Result: Filer blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'm sorry, but I really have to agree with User:PPP on this one. User:Roger 8 Roger repeatedly removed a maintenance template without consensus (he has been warned on his user page for this by PPP: to which Roger 8 Roger replied that according to him, removing the template is justified, thereby clearly assuming he can decide such things for himself without awaiting consensus ). It is them who should have taken it to the talk page instead of repeatedly reverting PPP's edits. There is no consensus on the current text as it is now on Netherlands. I should also note that Roger 8 Roger wrote on his talk page that he awaits PPP to be blocked, which then didn't happen for a week, until User:Gidonb made an edit warring report, which Roger 8 Roger then conveniently enough noticed, and commented on. This somewhat suggests that Roger 8 Roger and Gidonb are in fact two accounts of the same user. Also, reading Gidonb's report of PPP and Roger 8 Roger commenting on it, I too notice that Roger 8 Roger misgendered PPP while she already suggested being female, indicating that Roger 8 Roger is not willing to read comments, which makes it impossible to argue with him.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On Talk:Netherlands, a proposition was made about adding Holland as the informal name for the Netherlands. In User:Thayts' suggestion, he/she notes that if it is kept, there should be a reliable source for it, or it should be removed. While the vote is still open, currently 7 have voted in favour and 5 have voted against. PPP then proposed keeping the phrase in but adding that in fact it is incorrect, citing the government of the Netherlands which on their website states that Holland is only a region of the Netherlands, not the whole country. While others have kept the discussion on the Talk page, Roger 8 Roger started reverting edits made by PPP, most notably the removal of a maintenance template while the discussion was still going on. PPP placed the template back as it was not to be removed without consensus.

Comments:


 * Note is an acknowledged sock of, and is now blocked for evasion and sock puppetry. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have taken the view that PPP wants his/her own way whatever and simply does not or will not understand the different considerations between an official name and a commonly used name backed by RSSs. I dispute that I have ever broken the 3RR, let alone on the Netherlands article. Removal of the template was justified under . It seemed that PPP inserted it because she/he could not get its own way on the talk page. I am not sure if a more detailed reply here is needed seeing as Pee-Tor is a sock of PPP who is, yet again, trying to circumvent its block and continues trying to get its own way. I am reluctant to try to address and defend every accusation against me but I will if needed. I ask that this report of my alleged edit warring be dismissed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:2A02:908:E34:4140:6DEB:F2A2:AB:E3B4 reported by User:Scorpions13256 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring (softer wording for newcomers) (RW 16)"

Comments:

Violated 3RR rule despite me warning them. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This user also seems to have now created a sockpuppet Twasppel. Tommi1986 talk! 20:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is what I was thinking too. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * — Twassman &#91;Talk·Contribs&#93; 22:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Scope_creep reported by User:Bamberini8 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  "Removed undisclosed payments tag as I have categorically refuted this accusation."

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1008577980 by Scope_creep (talk)"
 * 2)  "Restored revision 1008501758 by Possibly (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 1008577980 by Scope creep (talk) I'll be reporting to admin this if it is added again as I have responded numerous times to this unfounded accusation."

Comments: User is strategically taking it in turns with others to continually add an unfair and unwarranted tag to which I have refuted on numerous occasions on my own talk page.

Bamberini8 (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No violation Indeed, the editor with three reverts is User:Bamberini8. The tag appears not unreasonable to me. Black Kite (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:71.183.212.131 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added an excerpt"
 * 2)  "This section is now a redirect to the article Interplanetary Transportation System rather than being stored here"
 * 3)  "The source and this version say the same thing"
 * 4)  "/* See also */"
 * 5)  "We do not need so much extraneous information. Very few people care so much about that."
 * 1)  "We do not need so much extraneous information. Very few people care so much about that."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
 * 2)  "It says it will fly on February 28. Also, it is very reputable and is used in List of Vega launches and more as a reference." (Adding back source, despite talk of unreliability on Talk page.)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor is also removing warnings left on their talk page by myself and other editors. <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Concur. This IP editor, who seems to have done some good work on new articles in Jan 2021, has now gone full-on edit war on the article Starship development history, repeatedly removing a large amount of content.  I gave very friendly and constructive comment on their talk page when I thought they had not been warned previously, suggesting the WP:BRD process.  This editor has since removed the article content for a fourth time, despite being reverted by a couple of diff editors.  Seems a block may be needed.  N2e (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Similar pattern at Draft talk:List of Launches (history). No discussion, they removed my comment that the draft will have no chance three times. --mfb (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, a similar patter on List of Starship flights. Changing dates based on a very unreliable source several times that contradicts with many other sources, despite discussion on the Talk page. N828335 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * – 3 days. Edit warring at Starship development history. See also the strange things in their edit filter log, including removal of others' comments from article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1008479069 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1008456859 by Lazuli100 (talk) why making it hard for yourself, just keep it simple and clear."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1008351780 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 4)  "False info does not belong on wiki, especially the Marrakech part."
 * 5)  "This is false info, don't belongs on wiki"
 * 6)  "This is false information from a nationalist probably. Even the source is not correct."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Capture of Fez (1576)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

You'll notice that apart from their refusal to explain their concerns on the talk page (since their empty assertions don't mean anything), they are also gaming the system by reverting just outside the 24H window and casting aspersions on one of the edit summaries and on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:64.190.226.125 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 2018 Wimbledon–2019 ATP Finals: Djokovic returns, dominates with Nadal */ After 2017, nothing Murray did belongs in this article, an article on the Big Three; consensus is that Big Four merits "a section". Read the discussion."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1007980535 by Wjemather (talk)Contents must reflect title, not the other way around"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1007910538 by Fyunck(click) (talk)Don't arbitrarily revert. Pages are not fixed in stone. The lede must reflect the title, not be a long and total mess."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1007830452 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Big Three (tennis)."
 * 2)   "/* February 2021 */"

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

Still ongoing
 * 1)  Diff 1 21 February 2021
 * 2)  Diff 2 23 February 2021
 * 3)  Diff 3 23 February 2021
 * 4)  Diff 4 23 February 2021

Comments: *Note - I just did an article title change that may help the situation. User:64.190.226.125 reverted some of their past edits because of it. Crossing fingers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Still continuing amongst several editors, even after talk discussion was initiated on the article talk page. He's getting more brazen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Title change was reverted by someone else and 64.190.226.125 is at it again. with another revert here on 24 February 2021. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long term edit warring (going on since 19 February). EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

User:89.140.234.217 reported by User:EGL1234 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1008294631 by KidAd (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is vandalising and engaging in edit warring.  EGL 1234 06:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This IP has edit-warred the same content over a period of weeks, repeatedly introduced unreliable sources, wrote deceptive edit summaries, and pushed tendentious political material with heavy synthesis. Sounds like WP:NOTHERE to me. KidAd  •  SPEAK  06:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * - for both the IP and KidAd. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Nerd271 reported by User:Seokgjin (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

The user keeps reverting my edits for no valid reasons, even though I'm following Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:ACTOR). - Seokgjin (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sort out your differences on the talk page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain further? I'm following the guidelines whereas Nerd271 isn't, I do not understand why I should be prevented from editing the page. I've already tried talking to the user but it didn't work. - Seokgjin (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Sure, the lead of the edit warring policy states "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." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User:90.205.193.172 reported by User:Dam222 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1008726149 by Dam222 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1008725908 by Dam222 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1008725710 by MONGO (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

So far, it has taken back edits 5 times. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * by <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, the block was by . I subsequently removed TPA. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 11:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User:104.172.204.142 reported by User:新世界へ (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]  "No suggested reason for reverting the edit. Please respect the NPOV"
 * 2) [diff]  "Nonsense. Report me for vandalism; I do not care. This edit is not vandalism though; this edit is to protect NPOV of the article."
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] "the next time you remove entire sections of articles you will be reported for vandalism"

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

Comments:

This user has removed content and entire paragraphs from this article, he also changed words like "right wing" to "alt-right" while providing no sources or rationale for these changes. I undid his edits citing NPOV reasons, but he changed them back while claiming i gave no reason for reverting him(the first diff). I explained to him if he removed content again he would be reported for vandalism then he told me to go ahead and do it. Even though "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content" is cited on WP:Vandalism as a form of vandalism, this sentence "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." made me rethink reporting him there. In total hes made the same edits 3 times within the span of 4-5 hrs, the first 2 diffs are him reverting the page after i reverted his edits. 新世界へ (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

User:124.13.234.143 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Towers between 100 and 150 metres tall */"
 * 2)  "/* Towers between 150 and 200 metres tall */"
 * 1)  "/* Towers between 100 and 150 metres tall */"
 * 2)  "/* Towers between 150 and 200 metres tall */"
 * 1)  "/* Towers between 150 and 200 metres tall */"

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

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

Comments:

IP editor has been given ample information in edit summaries and a friendly post on their talk page about edit warring. They just don't seem to be getting it so a short block is warranted Robynthehode (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at List of tallest towers without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User:The good man 232 reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "1) Terms have been agreed, see . 2) So did I say that the study concluded that there is a link between the Caucasus and Ashkenazim? 3) If you have other notes, please go to the talk page."

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

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

Comments:

Right after returning from the block the user has continued to edit war on the article the user has extensive block log for EW. Shrike (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * User:The good man 232 seems not to pay attention to (or to disregard) explanations (or parts thereof) given in Talk or in edit summaries. He, as mentioned above by User:Shrike, continued to edit war, adding back a paraphrased version of the same disputed material very soon after his block had worn off, claiming that "terms had been agreed to" by User:Nishidani when no such thing was evident from the Talk discussion; The good man 232 seemed to have ignored the second half of Nishidani's reply (that did not relate to copyright), see here: []. (I also gave my own explanation to him on the Talk page: []) Skllagyook (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The good man 232 has a history of heavy edit warring and has been blocked before. A look at the growth of religion article shows it. He's been warned by other users before and was recommended to follow WP:1RR. and he has been warned off making personal attacks and using circular sources. A longer or indefinite block could only help him now. desmay (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * and, as sysops familiar with this editor, this needs to be brought to your attention. desmay (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. More edit warring on the same article for which he was blocked here at WP:AN3 on 23 February. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User:142.120.113.160 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Article fully protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1008973605 by Ifnord (talk) Inford and anonymous editor are tag-teaming to violate BLP policy"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1008973381 by Ifnord (talk)revert material that violates biography of living person piolicy"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1008971548 by 2605:8D80:641:D883:A159:A546:458:F802 (talk) Revert vandalism, smear campaign article"
 * 4)  "restore last good edit"
 * 5)  "last good version restored."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Removing referenced material from BLP with no discussion of talk page despite repeated attempts to direct them there. There is also an allegation un undisclosed, paid editing from another IP. Ifnord (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Material that was removed was unencyclopedic and/or had dead links. It violated BLP by being selective of negative info. the article should not be a smear piece and should be re=researched. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. IP who made the false claim of paid editing offered no proof, and is likely a defendant in a lawsuit being prosecuted bty Marin. 142.120.113.160 (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw this at WP:RFPP before noticing this. I fully protected the article for a week because while the IP was edit warring, I don't see any talk-page justification for inclusion of all the details on what might be WP:UNDUE WP:BLP violations (I don't know if they are but I can see that the claim is sufficiently plausible to at least require a discussion). In BLP cases, editors wanting to restore material need to justify it first. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ascribe4 reported by User:Hostagecat (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have made multiple attempts to resolve this issue before reporting this person. I attempted to reach out to them on their talk page, I attempted to ask people at the Teahouse for help (who did not help me at all and instead were completely hung up that I used the word "manage" when I clearly meant "maintain"), I attempted to ask another user who had also undone this person's edits for help, and nothing has seemed to make any difference. So I am reporting them as a last resort. --Hostagecat (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Ascribe4 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Operation: Doomsday unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. The discussion at User talk:Hostagecat suggests that some compromise may be possible. Let me know if the reverting continues. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Travega22 reported by User:Masem (Result:Blocked 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - note that no talk page (on the affected article) has taken place, only because this one user has gone over 3RR from multiple editors and does not seem to be collaborating.

Comments:

The source the user further claims is "clickbait" is a recognized reliable source on WP:VG/S, and the information has been collaborated by Sony. --M asem (t) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Harvardian2226 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)
Page 1: Page 2: User being reported:

Ladakh Previous version reverted to: 09:18, 26 February 2021 by Harvardian2226

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 09:25, 26 February 2021 reverted Toddy1
 * 2) 09:27, 26 February 2021 reverted Fowler&fowler
 * 3) 09:54, 26 February 2021 reverted Fylindfotberserk
 * 4) 10:03, 26 February 2021 reverted Mountaincirque
 * 5) 09:21, 27 February 2021 reverted Arjayay
 * 6) 12:35, 27 February 2021 reverted Toddy1

Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) Previous version reverted to: 09:11, 26 February 2021 by Harvardian2226

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 09:45, 26 February 2021 reverted Toddy1
 * 2) 09:13, 27 February 2021 reverted Arjayay
 * 3) 12:40, 27 February 2021 reverted Toddy1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:49, 26 February 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:
 * 1) 09:17, 26 February 2021
 * 2) 10:13-10:31, 26 February 2021 This also advises on discretionary sanctions
 * 3) 10:38, 26 February 2021

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Apart from the obvious disregard of consensus as well as failure to engage in the talk page, I have a hunch that this user might be a sock of User:President26. Usage of this template in the infobox as well as changing of WP:COMMONNAMES, removal of Victorian and Mughal era names is part of the modus of the sockmaster . SPI case page here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Edit warring in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) article as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Intense Kashmir-related edit warring. This editor has also been alerted to the DS under WP:ARBIPA, and is reported at Sockpuppet investigations/President26. It appears that the sock case might depend on careful study of the behavioral evidence. Anyway it appears that Harvardian2226 may be heading quickly toward the exits, since they have gotten into this much trouble after only 80 edits. In my opinion their next block should be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Jontel reported by User:11Fox11 (Result: Topic banned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: page edited by Jontel on 22 Feb

Diffs of the user's reverts: (1RR applies to the article due to WP:ARBPIA and there is an edit notice) 1st revert:
 * 17:22, 22 February 2021 is a revert of 15:53, 22 February 2021 in which the ureliable source tag was added to peacepalestine.blogspot.com
 * 18:15, 22 February 2021 is a revert of 15:20, 22 February 2021 in which the blood libel content (quote: "how do they know that the accusations that Jews used the blood of gentile children to back matzot are indeed empty or groundless accusations") was added.
 * 20:42, 22 February 2021 is a revert of something (not sure what past revision), returns unreliable source (https://www.shoah.org.uk as site on the "Palestinian Holocaust") stating in summary: " Noting that the accuracy of this source has been challenged".

2nd revert: (less than 12 hours after reverts in the 1st revert)
 * 1) 06:58, 23 February 2021 is a revert of 05:03, 23 February 2021 and 05:09, 23 February 2021. Personal attack in edit summary: "Sheer vandalism of good faith edits", while returning self-published and dubious sources such as https://www.shoah.org.uk and http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See below on awareness.

Awareness:
 * Jontel is aware of ARBPIA: alerted
 * In May 2020 Jontel was instructed to refrain editing the Atzmon article for a month due to edit warring in this report.
 * In November 2020 Jontel was warned due to this complaint. The Keep Talking (group) article has content on Atzmon.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: posted alongside revert

Comments:

This isn't only the breach of 1RR, but the attack in the edit summary ("sheer vandalism") coupled with the use of unreliable sources that appear to have been previously discussed on the page around May 2020 and that are generally inappopriate for Wikipedia (blog spot, www.shoah.org.uk, etc.). 11Fox11 (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Response Hi, I don't think that this complaint is constructive.


 * In 15:53, 22 February 2021 an unreliable source tag was added with a question mark and without it being raised in the talk page. In 17:22, 22 February 2021, In removing it, I made the case in the edit summary for it being used only for the subject's own words, quoted the policy WP:BLPSELFPUB] and invited the person placing the tag to discuss it on the talk page. I honestly thought that that was appropriate and what he wanted i.e. he posted the tag to prompt discussion. The Palestinepeace site is not referenced on [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources or Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.
 * In 15:20, 22 February 2021, material was added. In 18:15, 22 February 2021 I made a partial revert (one sentence out of the three) but only because the relevant issue had just been extensively discussed on the talk page in relation to another passage and I thought a conclusion had been reached.
 * In 20:42, 22 February 2021 I am not sure what the issue is. I added a comment from Atzmon on the shoah site relating to a recent addition sourced to Ynet. It was not a reversion. I think 11Fox11 has misunderstood my edit summary. My edit summary was intended to convey that Atzmon, in my addition, was challenging the accuracy of the Ynet source previously added. Again, I was only using shoah as a source for Atzmon's words. Again, shoah is not on Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources or Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

The material I published was not, I think self-published, which anyway I understood was allowed under WP:BLPSPS. In this case, there is a great deal of hostile commentary and little positive coverage. Moreover, the article, and the sections I edited, are in large part about Atzmon's opinions. It is appropriate to quote his self-stated views, in this article about him, when other sources either do not report them or misrepresent them. I can find few other interviews covering the relevant issues. I suppose one can quote from his website WP:BLPSPS but surely independent albeit sympathetic sources are better for his words.

The material I published was not dubious in terms of the use to which I put them. Being sympathetic to Atzmon, one would expect that an authored article by him, and a long interview with him, are reliable in expressing his views.

I did revert 05:03, 23 February 2021 and 05:09, 23 February 2021 (effectively the same edit) using 06:58, 23 February 2021 11Fox11 had made 15-20 changes to multiple parts of the article covering multiple disparate subjects with an edit summary which only referred to his unhappiness with the two sources previously referred to and so only applied to two of those changes. It is impossible to act consensually or make constructive changes to an article when an editor makes large numbers of changes to an article in a single edit without providing a justification for the great majority of them. Many edits, all provided with a justification and carefully added over time, are reversed in a single keystroke. That is what I meant by vandalism. I don't think it is a term I have used in nine years on the site and was referring not to the editor but to the edit. The reason I reverted was not over the content but bcause of his disruptive practice of making so many changes at once, most without justification.

It seems that some editors are quick to accuse me of edit warring on this sensitive subject, as the history shows. They seem very determined to protect content which does not seem to me to be sufficiently balanced given it is a BLP. I don't get accused on other topics where other editors are more consensual.

11Fox11 did not attempt to resolve the dispute. He posted a short justification for his edit after he made it. Again, his justification only covered a couple of the many changes he made. I did reply to it at length and he did not come back to me. I also reached out to him on his user page asking him to make his edits specific enough that they could be covered by a relevant edit summary. 07.38 23 February 2021 He did not reply on this point.

I didn't find any discussion of these sources on the article Talk page in May 2020 or any other time, using the search function.

I agree that I should have left the discussion on the talk page to settle down for a bit longer before making some minor changes as a result of them. A mitigating factor is that another editor was making a large number of additions in a short space of time. However, the big problem for me is when someone like 11Fox11 makes 15-20 edits to an article without a justification for most of them. They are effectively reversions, so completely ignoring WP:REVEXP. How does one cope with that? He could perfectly well have reintroduced them piecemeal, as I encouraged him to do. Editors could then have discussed them as individual issues in order to reach consensus. Jontel (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I challenged your edits from the past couple days, after another user also raised concerns as well. You entered material from blogs and other questionable sources while removing reliable sources (see Talk:Gilad Atzmon, published material from The Atlantic is removed while these trashy sites are added). Instead of discussing the concerns on the talk page, you revert your changes back in, while calling the challenge "vandalism". I merely returned the article to the state it was around the 18th of February, while retaining constructive changes. The breach of 1RR is manifest. 11Fox11 (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You deleted my edits from the past couple of days, and possibly earlier. Call a spade a spade. The material I added is an article by and interviews with the article subject, so WP:BLPSELFPUB "There are living persons who publish material about themselves...Such material may be used as a source..." The Atlantic material is clearly untrue and is an opinion piece by the editor making assertions about what the subject said. Who is going to challenge it? It is effectively self-published. WP:BLPSPS]. You should have raised your concerns on the Talk page before deleting as per [[WP:REVEXP "It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; this gives the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately.". Anyway, these are discussions we should be having on the Talk page rather than here. If you withdraw your complaint, we can discuss constructively on the Talk page how to deal with the Atlantic and other sources as has been suggested by another editor. Jontel (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just an update: we have managed to find a consensus on adding back the Atlantic text and removing the material of and sourcing to the two blogs at issue. I hadn't understood the rationale for the deletion as it happened to affect a lot more than these points. Jontel (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to say that it is incorrect to say "In May 2020 Jontel was instructed to refrain editing the Atzmon article for a month due to edit warring in this report.". It was a voluntary restriction to avoid sanctions. Jontel (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know I'm going on a bit; I hope it's helpful. Who am I edit warring with? Bob from Brockley (the author of the first two edits mentioned), who I am working constructively with? 11Fox11, who has only made one edit, plus a self correction, in the recent past? I appreciate that one can edit war with multiple editors, but I don't feel that is the case here. Jontel (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Relevant unsolicited comment on Atzmon talk page from Bobfrombrockley, editor of the first two edits in the complaint "Haven't had time to engage with the issues below yet but just wanted to say (as we have struggled for consensus on this page) that I support all of these edits by Jontel and Burrobert, which improve the article and make it more encyclopedic. Thanks!" 11:35, 25 February 2021 Jontel (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Unbelievably tendentious repeat of the same behaviour from last May. It is not just the edit warring and 1RR, but pushing Atzmon's own writing as a source, downplaying antisemitism noted by expert sources, and adding exceedingly biased and pejorative text, for instance in diff Jontel saw fit to prefix reliable sources by describing them as "A number of Jewish commentators responded negatively", after quoting Atzmon extensively.--Hippeus (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Another 1RR violation by Jontel. Unbelievable! See: This is entirely unacceptable and is flaunting the page restriction, and is a repeat of the same tendentious editing from May.--Hippeus (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) revert1 in which Jontel removes sourced content on Atzmon discussing synagogue burning as a "rational act" in SOAS. This content was discussed in this talk page archive from around the last time Jontel was restricted from the article. This revert was hidden with other changes, and has deceptively been described as "Coverage of speeches where he reads out parts of the paper do not really add anything and have been omitted".
 * 2) revert2, 13 hours later. Jontel reverts to his preferred version, which frames reliable sources on Atzmon as "A number of Jewish commentators responded negatively", and contains extensive content sourced from Atzmon's website.
 * , who handled this the last time Jontel violated the 1RR restriction. This is twice in a week now, and repeatedly returning the article to his preferred version. In the entire series of edits he is returning content from Atzmon's own website that was rejected in the last round of editing by Jontel (May-July) in this article.--Hippeus (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to these comments, the subject of a BLP can be used as a source WP:BLPSELFPUB. Almost all the other sources are not reliable or bitterly hostile, which affects their reporting. I do not think I am downplaying antisemitism. It is mentioned dozens of times in the article. The commentators were all Jewish. While this would normally not be relevant, it is relevant here where the discussion is around differing views of Jewish identity. Hippeus can of course object to this on the Talk page. In Revert 1, I replaced coverage of a speech with coverage of the same material in a paper. The paper is of course more reliable than an anonymous report of a speech and one that was challenged. It also enables inclusion of the context, which aids understanding. My edit summary did say that I was omitting the speeches. The alternative would be to cover the same material and criticisms of it twice. Hippeus could always put the case for including the speeches on the talk page. He does not seem to accept editing through consensus. On my second edit, Hippeus cannot be allowed to disruptively edit, reversing a great many carefully thought through improvements with a single key stroke, as he has done in the past. He has never constructively engaged. Recently, he has not even been involved. I have now raised this at []. Jontel (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Jontel is now 'indefinitely banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the WP:ARBPIA topic area, broadly construed' by User:El C per a complaint at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:3C24:1200:AC8C:FD74:59CA:A291 reported by User:EGL1234 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Edits by the IP https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Smith_(racing_driver)&diff=prev&oldid=1008998678 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Smith_(racing_driver)&diff=prev&oldid=1008998945 Edits by Oshwah

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tommy_Smith_(racing_driver)&diff=prev&oldid=1008998811 Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP address is reverting edits by the user Oshwah to the way they believe it should be. They have violated the 3RR. Additionally, they were warned already about editing on this page without a source, but still reverted back to their edit.  EGL 1234 04:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month, per the letter of the rules about sourcing for BLPs. This driver seems to be known professionally as 'Tommy Smith', which agrees with the current article name. An IP has been trying to change the name in the infobox to 'Thomas Smith'. The claim that Thomas Smith is unsourced is technically true, though a small effort would probably lead to sources. If someone were to add those sources (which I can see myself) to the article the change could be made, if consensus were in favor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Soldier of Ahura Mazda reported by User:Wretchskull (Result: 2 week partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:       

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (See their talk page)

Comments:

This user keeps reverting to his unconstructive edits, also with no consensus. See the article edit history, multiple users are trying to stop him. The user is also kind of harassing users who revert his edits at their talk (not sure if it the best way to describe it). The user also reported them on WP:ANI for no valid reason.(here) Wretchskull (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Grayinator reported by User:HurricaneEdgar (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1009366589 by HurricaneEdgar (talk) No."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1009366183 by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) No."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1009366037 by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) No."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1009365736 by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) No."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1009365598 by ClueBot NG (talk) Screw you"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1009364281 by Jorm (talk) No."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1009354315 by Jorm (talk) Stop putting your biased misinformation on Wikipedia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Vandal only account, this one. Attention sooner rather than later, I think.--Jorm (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They probably don't think they're vandalizing, but no objection from me if anyone wants to increase the block to indef. It's certainly not a promising trajectory. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering that the edit warring was immediately picked up by user:Graysonrpollard with the summary "You can't stop me. No one will." it appears that Grayinator is also a sock of user:AlphaBetaPapa (as Graysonrpollard is). Meters (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Extended to indefinite. DrKay (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:M7md AAAA reported by User:Hzh (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  - revert after discussion started
 * 4)  - revert after 3RR issued

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: There is no attempt to discuss the issue by the editor apart from stating that the edit is sourced and that I should seek arbitration. Hzh (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Clear breach of the rule. As it is a first block, it is for 24 hours only. DrKay (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Theplugsboy reported by User:A675974811 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

This user persists to use Bold in the table where the names don't need to use bold.

The selection table is a table just like the nominations table in all Big Brother articles, where nominates usually listed in a specific box near the bottom of the contestants' nominations. It's very clear to know which one was the nominee. In Való Világ, it has a similar format where contestants had to select one person each during the selection progress. And the "selected" person listed near the bottom of the table in a specific box on the "Selected" row. It's also very clear to know. So keep the table clean, there is no other reason to use bold to mark out all of the "selected" contestants' names. But on the Hungarian wiki page, they use bold. This user Theplugsboy persists likes to use bold. I suggest this user use the edit form of English Big Brother franchise articles because Való Világ this show is under the Big Brother license for years and itself doesn't have an edit guideline, Big Brother has. I only undo the bold to normal but this user persists changed to bold like on the Hungarian page.

And in the latest edits, this user Bold everything he/she likes. (This is theplugsboy typing here, on the Hungarian versions of this article and many others, when a person is selected to go to a duel, the persons who voted them is in bold of that week as it has been on many of them - its not because I like it, its because its like that on the hungarian version and the show was only adopted by big brother 2 years ago)

In the edit summary of the latest change, this user threatened me to refrain from editing or he/she will lock the article.

Also, a sockpuppet investigation should start, highly doubt it's a sock of Starbucks6789.

——A675974811 (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no breach of the three-revert rule, no discussion on the article talk page and no 3RR warning on the talk page of the user. DrKay (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

User:IAMNamibia061 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Partial blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 5)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 1)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 1)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 1)  "/* Personal life & career */"
 * 1)  "/* Personal life & career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Monica Geingos."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly adding unsourced content to the BLP, despite being reverted by Greyjoy and me. The edits appear to be somewhat leaning towards COI, so I have issued a notice on their talk page. However, they have violated 3RR. Ashley yoursmile!  07:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

About a week ago there was a similar issue with the same user edit warring to add copyrighted material to this article.  Grey joy talk 07:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Soldier of Ahura Mazda (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACyrus_the_Great&type=revision&diff=1009616554&oldid=1009613493 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACyrus_the_Great&type=revision&diff=1009612247&oldid=1009611918

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

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

'''Comments: the User: "HistoryofIran" is changing my own comment on the "Talk:CyrustheGreat" wikipedia page, and is cherry picking my words to make a case against me and is erasing my comment, please stop his access to the page and stop him from edditing my post. he has reverted my post 2 times and other user "wretchskull" and another person kept changing it as well. please revert my comment back to the original and stop these users from putting words in my mouth, they are literally talking for themselves and me at the same time. i am being attacked and i cannot defend myself. please block their access to the page and revert my comment to the original. thank you


 * In other words, I haven't violated the edit warring rule. Note that this user now has lost access to edit the talk page, which he mainly filled with rants and personal attacks/aspersions, hence why I removed it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

i am sure "historyofiran" is much better equipped to know how the rules work and that is exactly how he is using them to hsi advantage in order to silence me, the reason that i lost the my privilege to talk in the talk section of the aforementioned wikipedia page is because of an ongoing dispute between me and him and "wretchskull" who as you see above, keeps accusing me of personal attacks while my comments are are anything but and are visible for all to see, i have asked @historyofiran to come and talk to me and discuss this until we reach a resolution, but instead he did anything but, and started accusing me of harassment and attacking him and kept dodging me instead of starting a conversation to settle this dispute, which i believe is how it works when 2 people have 2 different versions of an article in mind! and the fact that he changed my comments and cherrypicked the parts he likes in order to make me look bad should give you all the proof you need to know that he is trying to manipulate evidence. also if you check the talk section of my account, you can see that the administrator @331dot saw that @historyofiran is changing the page and and when i brought up the issue with him, it resulted in @331dot, giving @historyofiran a warning, which stopped him from changing that page and stop manipulating evidence. and now another person that is in on this "wretchskull" has changed this exact admin complaint once again and removed my comment to tamper the evidence in @historyofiran's favor, to manipulate the evidence and stop my words from reaching the administrators. please see through his malicious intent. all i ask is an impartial verdict on this. thank you. here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=1009623468&oldid=1009623060 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk • contribs) 14:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * More aspersions and attacks ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not characterize what I said to HistoryofIran as a warning, but a suggestion. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made the block sitewide as they aren't letting up. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 19:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Soldier of Ahura Mazda (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyrus_the_Great&type=revision&diff=1009473160&oldid=1009471453 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyrus_the_Great&type=revision&diff=1009466978&oldid=1009465923 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyrus_the_Great&type=revision&diff=1009483553&oldid=1009483475

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

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

Comments: the user "HistoryofIran" had been vandalizing the "Cyrus the Great" 's wikipedia page where i have made revisions to the "death" section of that page, by writing false narratives and insulting comments about the aforementioned article !!! i would like a reversion of all his attempts, so that my revisions can be applied to the page (which are the correct account of the history in that section). thank you !
 * You edit-warred after being warned and after this report was posted. Please also note that vandalism has a specific meaning on wikipedia, and the other editors' edits do not meet that definition. A 2-week partial block is a light response. Any further disruption is likely to be dealt with more severely. DrKay (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The reporting user above is edit warring, please see my report and the target article. Wretchskull (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A quick look at Soldier of Ahura Mazda's edits show an editor that has 7 reverts on Cyrus the Great and has resorted to accusations of vandalism on HistoryofIran's talk page. It is clear that "Soldier of Ahura Mazda" is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer User:Soldier of Ahura Mazda has been blocked two weeks by others for violation of 3RR. See the block log. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Honestandreal1 reported by User:Possibly (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring."
 * 2)   "/* March 2021 */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

One of a number of accounts that were blocked or "likely" in this SPI. Possibly (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Account and last IP blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Errantius reported by User:DrKay (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reply:
 * 1. is removal of one word inserted by Sunil060902; not relevant to this dispute.
 * 2. is not a revert; it is restoration of material in a new status believed to be more appropriate (i.e. from text to reference), as was explained ("restored Chinde mention, I think with proper status").
 * 3. and 4. are reverts, although explained.
 * Subsequently a "citation needed" tag has been inserted, to follow up on my earlier comments.
 * Thus there have been only two reverts.
 * The "attempt to resolve dispute" addresses an assumption that I have repeatedly denied making. I may try to respond, but will not be making any further revert. Errantius (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They are all reverts. That is shown by the diffs. Removal of an insertion is a revert. Restoration of removed text is a revert. DrKay (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Errantius is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Commonwealth of Nations unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Kitts BPD (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [delleated a lot of things on the page]
 * 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:


 * Lourdes 08:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:御犽真夜魂 reported by User:A2569875 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  3RR warning on users talk page.--Salix alba (talk): 09:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Likely to be indeffed as a block-evading sockpuppet; see Sockpuppet investigations/Xayahrainie43. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now blocked for a period of 24 hours. --Salix alba (talk): 09:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:JLavigne508 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is a continuation of user:JLavigne508 using sources from 1884(last I checked) to prove that Biette de Cassinel was a mistress of Charles V of France. When I found a source by the historian Lucien Merlet(1852), I was inundated with JLavigne508's calculations on how Merlet is an unreliable source. FYI, Merlet's article appears in the journal Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes and Merlet's article is cited in numerous articles and books.

When I issued the 3rr notification, user:JLavigne508 removed it calling it Removed trolling vandalism.

FYI their response to my notifying them of this report was removed trolling vandalism.

When JLavigne508's attempt to "prove" Merlet was unreliable failed they started with personal attacks(ie reported for vandalism, You are about to be flagged a vandal, personalized comments(your behavior and editing history in here do not reflect well upon yourself.), and logging out to remove the information they will not tolerate. They removed a university source stating "Please respect and do not leave false and unfounded comments about referencing." I have told said editor to take their concerns for reliability of source(s) to the reliable sources board.

AND, JLavigne508 has canvassed two other editors:
 * Aciram, trolling my edits in that and a few other pages, just trolls my edits there like a weirdo.
 * maproom, another series of trolling edits to cancel mine and added some more questionable personal comments as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:JLavigne508 is warned for edit warring at Biette de Cassinel. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear Reported by User:JLavigne508 (Result: Filer warned)
Concerning a certain article I had expanded and grown from a stub several years ago, the user Kansas Bear had left some relatively recent Jean de Montagu article edits and major alterations by other users unchanged as they were until 25 February 2021(see page edit history) when I simply added a link (see same history), and very bizarrely proceeded to completely change the entire article and several related articles, and has since then been very creepily and constantly been shadowing and trolling all edits I have put on this and several related pages (and apparently also very bizarrely following all of my activity on this website), all of which are in editing history timeline for this and several related pages, using combative and adversarial language from the very first edit:

Jean de Montagu -17:53, 25 February 2021‎ Kansas Bear talk contribs‎ 5,021 bytes +219‎ restored referenced information, removed by an IP(imagine that) undothank

and later,

Biette de Cassinel - curprev 01:52, 1 March 2021‎ Kansas Bear talk contribs‎ 2,212 bytes +67‎ if you can use source(s) citing a 16th century French writer(Gilles Corrozet), I can use a 19th century historian! undothank

Furthermore, they subsequently:

-Have left Biette de Cassinel article incomprehensible numerous times after I had tried to make it at least somewhat presentable for seemingly no reason other than adversarial editing, same behavior in Jean de Montagu article (almost not readable in intro., body of articles.)

-Concerning Biette de Cassinel page: Repeatedly removed cited sourced material, repeatedly placed marriage before birth date, repeatedly leaves double citations, repeatedly added incorrect information (wrong links to wrong people, etc.,,), repeatedly degraded introduction to article, repeatedly removed known family members.

Has used foul language:

Jean de Montagu (talk)=

"Explain on talk page how Jean "born ca.1363" was an advisor to Charles V who reigned 8 April 1364 – 16 September 1380!!!

Lucien Merlet is not a reliable source? LMAO."

and also,

"  Kansas Bear, I see that your most recent edit to the article has the edit summary "restored referenced information ...", when in fact you removed two references and added none. That's not vandalism, but it does look dishonest. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well excuse me all to hell. I made a mistake there. Your explanation for this edit? Considering I have show Lucien Merlet to be an academic historian?" I was hoping to avoid bringing other people in here (as this individual has apparently very bizarrely been following) to testify to the foul language and outright unseemly behavior and questionable editing practices going back months now, as I have otherwise always had positive, constructive interactions on here and no problems with anyone else on this website, but frankly I was shocked at the numerous sordid and negative interactions on this individual's talk page with so many other users when I had to leave a notification concerning this report there, and have seen nothing else like that on this website. The edit history on the Biette de Cassinel page will show that this user came here only after I finally threatened to report them for the repeated offenses on that page (see editing history for Biette de Cassinel), although I should have reported this behavior much earlier. These articles that I have mostly created and grown, and are trying to help maintain, have been repeatedly damaged by this individual (I fully support thoughtful, helpful, and constructive contributions from all different viewpoints, but not reactionary, angry, and incomprehensible conflict edits) time and time again making what are supposed to be Encyclopedia articles in here not even presentable to the public (see prior article versions after edits by this individual), and they also need to stop following my activity immediately.

Thank you, --JLavigne508 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:JLavigne508 has been warned for edit warring per another complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP makes unexplained changes that imply that the series would be continued, despite having ended last year. Refuses to comunicate. The page had been semi-prteced after edit-waring of the same IP for a week prevoiusly, see, but it startet again after the block expired. Either a longer block is required or the IP should be blocked for a longer time. Gial Ackbar (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Adam Lietuva reported by User:Sabbatino (Result:Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) The page's history speaks for itself

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21:29, 16 February 2021]

Comments:


 * There is a WP:SPI about the editor, but it has been ignored for some reason. Evidence there clearly shows that it is a sockpuppet. I also have tried discussing the matter with the editor, but he chose not to defend his actions (simply citing non-neutral personal opinion) and then just blanked his talk page discussion (including all the warnings and notices) without me being able to respond. WP:3RRNO allows to make as many reverts as needed when dealing with sockpuppets. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the whole contribution is edit-warring Ymblanter (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:88.64.187.76 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  - (this edit added after the user was advised of this report. This edit reverts an uninvolved editor who basically restored the page to my last edit. fyi)


 * Note: This user also at 3RR simultaneously on Air Class Líneas Aéreas in as many hours
 * (see )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of 3RRNB notification: (user has since blanked the page)

Comments:

Straightforward 4RR(+)vio plus additonal disruptive behavior, eg: in my edit summaries I request that he add sources (RS) and also link OR and BRD. His latest summary was "you know nothing from the company, Curitiba delivered a ex.Rio please read Aeroin and inform yourself as it should and stop stalking me with yours shits". This is reminiscent of another very recent edit dispute this user was involved in, (using a different IP) where he accused another editor of "stalking". Warnings on the IP user's talk page from other users indicate other possible disputes. - wolf  19:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:ValantisFuturista reported by User:Apoorva Iyer (Result: Blocks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Catsimatidis&diff=1009013814&oldid=1008942960

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Catsimatidis#Ethnicity_and_Birthplace/Prior_Nationality_in_Lead

Comments: We have tried multiple times to engage with this user on both the Talk page as well as his page to no avail. He continues to revert without not only adequate explanation, but also without engaging with any of the other users whatsoever. I myself made a mistake earlier (a few days ago) By reverting the editor one too many times. Once I realized my mistake, however, I stopped reverting and started reaching out to the user as well as started the talk page. But it seems that has been to no avail, as the user has reverted again, ignoring the talk page discussion as well as ignoring our pleas for discussion on his talk page. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've tried to explain our policies and guidelines regarding ethnicity in BLPs, both on the editor's talk page and on the associated article page, with no response other than tiresome reverting. They tried it as an IP, created an account and tried to force it through that way, and have now gone back to their IP to continue to restore the disputed BLP info. If there will be sanctions on the account, the same should be applied to the /64 range in the recent article history.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * -- 72 hours to the registered account, one week to the /64 range, per Ponyo's observation. Reverting the article both logged-in and logged-out, apparently. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Jesaispas123445 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: sock indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "According to french wikipedia, there is no edit warring, do you know something about Algerian War, do you know how/who trigger this War"
 * 2)  "All informations are from french wikipedia and it's better, there is a subject about it in this article."
 * 3)  "All informations about him are from french wikipedia"
 * 1)  "All informations about him are from french wikipedia"
 * 1)  "All informations about him are from french wikipedia"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor is most likely a block evading sock of an indefed disruptive editor: see Sockpuppet investigations/Noname JR for more details. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, all informations are from french wikipedia and there already is a subject in this article, dated 2008, about naming which shows relation with french sources and it's better because few people (among english speakers) know something about this article. Jesaispas123445 (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, yes they're edit warring but the info they're providing in the lead is purely what is already in the article with copious references. Not sure why they're being reverted. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They have been reverted by two editors (including myself) because their edit is not an improvement, and just like their previous socks, all they are interested in is the removal of the Arabic name. M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * They are also edit warring on Couscous: 4 reverts (1234) so far. M.Bitton (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On the couscous article they seem to be editing to point out it is a Berber dish, which is fully supported by the references and content of the article. Incidentally looking through the history you would continually revert editors who removed Berber until only a couple of months ago. Ignoring the edit warring their edits appear to be correct for the lead based on the rest of the article and references, and you yourself are editing now against the article and references. I also think now there's some WP:OWN issues going on on that article (I know it's not the one you've reported them for and perhaps this should be taken up elsewhere.) <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources describe it as "Berber" since its origin is unknown, but regardless, the real issue here is the continuous edit warring and the socking. If you think that's ok, the so be it, let them do whatever they want (I certainly won't stop them). M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No I cannot support the edit warring, it should have gone to the talk page. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway my comments are irrelevant to the edit warring going on on another page. Ignore them. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also note WP:3RRNO no. 3. Although waiting until the SPI is closed and the sock blocked might be a better option to minimise disruption. Cheers RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, what are sources for Krim Belkacem biography ? For couscous, there are sources from Lucie Bolens or Charles Perry or site web "GEO", find a source to contradict it unstead of debating or remove these sources, moreover North African people are mainly Berber arabized and Massinissa was a Berber man Jesaispas123445 (talk)  00:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: for example, Krim Belkacem is not mentionned in this source so why is in this article ????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesaispas123445 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * for being a WP:SOCK... (by Drmies). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:146.198.108.170 reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and as IP will not have been pinged also  on ip's talk page.

Comments:

The most recent stable version of the lead was here. There has been extensive discussion and moderation over this issue which has gone dormant due to a lack of editor engagement. 146.198.108.170 did not take part in this discussion. IP has reverted to their own version, or a version completely removing the sentence, over any variant (including verbatim) of that suggested by moderator. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 19:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting strategy to report someone else for edit warring while being the instigator but each to their own. For those reviewing, here's the other side. The text they're insisting on, in its precise form, they've later admitted isn't justified. The moderation process referred to isn't complete but they've edited the section anyway and are now characterising someone else making it accurate as disruption. 146.198.108.170 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the latter two diffs are not reversions. The final one uses the verbatim version of the phrase as suggested during moderation.<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i><b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 20:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Sharafyan reported by User:Possibly (Result:partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Please don't edit your biography. */ coin"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Vache Sharafyan."
 * 3)   "/* Please don't edit your biography. */ ce"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User really wants their Wikipedia page (autobiography) to match their tripod page. Ignores talk page entreaties. A longer block may be in order, as the eponymous account has been editing the page for nigh on 13 years.--- Possibly (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Partial blocked from Vache Sharafyan indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Connorguy99 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Partial blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Read the talkpage? Uh..."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1010142032 by DarkGlow (talk)"
 * 3)  "This is the most up-to-date EastEnders cast list https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000t9j0"
 * 4)  "He is not on the cast list!"
 * 5)  "The official cast list removed Ian in February lol"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1010141178 by WikiFlame50 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Already explained why these two links are very... very... invalid."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1010140100 by DarkGlow (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1010139945 by DarkGlow (talk)"
 * 10)  "Same to you."
 * 11)  "Provide a link of this."
 * 12)  "Not according to the OFFICIAL cast list on the BBC EastEnders website. Read the talkpage, no evidence of a temporary break."
 * 13)  "The official cast list."
 * 14)  "The Mirror is not more reliable than the official EE website. Anyhow, the link you posted is invalid due to the fact that we have went through two national lockdowns therefore the plans have changed in six months!"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 1010130743 by RM-Taylor (talk)"
 * 16)  "Threaten to ban me all you like but then you would have to ban all the other people who have edit warred."
 * 17)  "Undid revision 1010129550 by RM-Taylor (talk)"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 1010129082 by RM-Taylor (talk)"
 * 19)  "WikiFlame50 is not a more reliable source than the official EastEnders website."
 * 20)  "WikiFlame50 is not a more reliable source than the official EastEnders website."
 * 1)  "WikiFlame50 is not a more reliable source than the official EastEnders website."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I got tired of clicking all the diffs, there are more than 15 reverts here and it's total insanity. CUPIDICAE💕 00:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How can you have the audacity to single out one person - the only one who has been actively holding the discussion on the talkpage - when there have been several others who have went well over the revert edits (and some who have encouraged friends to join in and help them!). Connorguy99 (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you've made 19 reversions. The flat limit is 3. Partially blocked for 48 hours. --Izno (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not care in the slightest about the subject matter but you reverting multiple editors NEARLY 30 TIMES is pure disruption. You are the only one there exceeding 3rr. it was more than 19 - I just got tired of clicking. It was roughly 30.  CUPIDICAE💕  00:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the user reverted edits on Ian Beale too. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 00:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed that is very true too. Lots of reverting was made by this person. And not to mention the arrogant and rude attitude towards some of the users. WikiFlame50 (talk) 00:50, 04 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So were the warnings for; User:WikiFlame50 (9 edits), User:DarkGlow (7 edits) and User:RM-Taylor (6 edits) lost in the post or something? I want a full investigation into why I was singled out. Connorguy99 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a flat out lie. None of us broke the rules and we never got warned. We didn’t engage in a war. All we did was act responsible and reverted the disruptive edits like any user would, you did not get singled out. You started the edit war so this is why you have been reported.WikiFlame50 (talk) 00:53, 04 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You reverted multiple editors 32 times. THIRTY TWO. I suggest you stop digging this hole before you wind up indefinitely blocked because the next step is a discussion at ANI where I will propose an indefinite site-wide block for your sheer disruption. So, your choice now. Stop digging. CUPIDICAE💕  00:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is good advice, Connorguy99. You were clearly edit-warring against consensus. Yes, it would have been better if it had been brought here when you were up to 4 reverts, rather than more than 40 (when you include the Ian Beale ones). To be honest, I wouldn't push the point - many admins would have been far less lenient than Izno has been - and I would strongly suggest that you don't start this again when the 48 hour block expires. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Your threats don't scare me, Praxidicae. Your bias is clear. Connorguy99 (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a very bad way to respond.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That is Enough . You violated Wikipedia rules of edit warring and you have been blocked from a page for that, so please stop getting upset and accusing bias on a user who was only fulfilling their duties! That is wrong and hurtful so please leave this hard working user be. If you continue to act the way you are, you’ll never be editing anymore. WikiFlame50 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You violated the edit warring rules too - you reverted the page nine times, far more if you count the Ian Beale page edits. And you also enlisted another user to help you edit, so I personally hold you responsible for their edits too. Which is why I am complaining about my biased treatment at Administrators' noticeboard. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the main culprit of this war. I have not violated anything. People agree that you caused it, Us users did responsible actions in calming the war. Please close this or else it will be a WP:BOOMERANG case. WikiFlame50 (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You calmed nothing. You repeatedly lied about me being rude, and you repeatedly deleted information that I posted on other people's talkpages. You amassed over 20 reverts yourself and have, for whatever reason, got off without even a warning. It's ridiculous. Connorguy99 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Everybody, that's enough. Administrator noticeboards aren't a forum for taking potshots at each other. This discussion is closed.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Mellk reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: No action)
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:

First two diffs provided is from 19 February, third diff is from 23 February, fourth diff is from today, 2 March. The user I reverted, Caretaker John, was confirmed by CU to be a sockpuppet and was blocked (see investigation and the user's talk page). Reverting edits by a banned user is also an exemption to edit warring, as stated by point 3 in WP:3RRNO. Bacondrum, however, stated that I made a "false claim" of sockpuppetry, when obviously this is not true. The user also previously falsely accused me of violating 3RR, saying I already "crossed the 3RR redline" when they left a warning when that was also not true and this was acknowledged at ANI here. Mellk (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it’s never been explained who was a sock puppet, and a number of other editors have contested Mellk’s reversions, so unless they are all socks then this is no excuse. Mellk needs to stop edit warring, claiming one editor involved is a sock does not excuse edit warring, discussion rather than edit warring is the solution. (Mellk still has not made it clear who the sock is)
 * I undid all of the sockpuppet's edits, who made many other additions to the article that were never touched or mentioned prior. What you are referring to was added by Caretaker John in the first place and last restored by him after a different user reverted this addition. I also clarified on your talk page who was a sockpuppet by linking to Caretaker John's talk page, but your response was instead to still pretend to not know who I was talking about. And again, your diffs of my edits range over a period of almost two weeks, while you made three reverts within 24h (1, 2, 3). It seems to me that it is you who was edit warring. Mellk (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lourdes and Drmies, I didn't notice the link Mellk had inserted into their comment. As far as I could see Mellk was being aggressive and edit warring despite several editors disagreeing with them. I see now that Caretaker John was a sockpuppet, but only now. Mellk could explain themselves better rather than repeatedly reverting. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 19:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrative, Mallk reverted a sock puppet (and more socks) bent on pushing the term fascist onto the infobox of the article. You and some editors are depending on unverified sources to push the same – some even vouching on the talk page for Encyclopaedia Britannica as the quintessential reliable source. You do know that  has blocked one more sock in the meanwhile attempting the same drivel. At the same time, you don't generally seem to be a bad editor. What's going wrong here and what am I missing here?  Lourdes  14:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I know Bacondrum as a decent editor, and Mellk was indeed reverting someone who was obviously a sock; I don't know if they know that. That's all I have to say on this matter. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't assume good faith, you didn't check and assumed that I made a false claim. Not sure how you didn't notice the link, but here I mentioned Caretaker John by name ("The user I reverted, Caretaker John, was confirmed by CU to be a sockpuppet") and your response was "it’s never been explained who was a sock puppet" and "Mellk still has not made it clear who the sock is". Mellk (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * so myself and are also socks? One editor in the debate was a sock, that doesn’t give you carte blanch to edit war and be uncivil. <b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 02:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this was not the case. Rather you decided to write about your suspicions about me being a civil POV pusher, falsely accused me of violating 3RR, and you reverted three times within 24 hours, including where you made your own edit removing content because of a "tautology" (also acknowledged at ANI) and when someone else undid this, you decided to revert them. And then you assumed I made up a lie about sockpuppetry and only until other admins acknowledged the sockpuppet, did you acknowledge this. I am not sure what you have against me, but please, just let it go already. Mellk (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Both of you are productive editors. Please don't be aggressive towards each other. Rather than reverting continuously (both of you), please continue the discussions on the talk page. Work collaboratively (which you have normally  done on the talk page) and  bury  the hatchets for now. I am  closing  this report with the hope and confidence that you both will shake hands and move ahead with editing. Feel free  to reach out in  case you need further  assistance. It would be a  good time to see WP:DR. Thanks,  Lourdes  03:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Feb 27 at 22:19 UTC:  Removing Nazi rune stage shape section.
 * 2) Feb 27 at 23:00 UTC:  Removing Nazi rune stage shape section.
 * 3) Feb 27 at 23:21 UTC:  Removing Nazi rune stage shape section.
 * 4) Feb 28 at 21:47 UTC:  Removing background information about Nazi rune.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This discussion was initiated on the user talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d started the talk page discussion.

Comments:

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d has been applying the brakes to this article to keep it from reflecting negative press from recent events, but the sources are good, and the stories can be developed within Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d came to my user talk page here to discuss the issue. I replied that I could see the close proximity to a 3RR violation. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d saw my warning and replied. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In revert one & three, I simply removed content sourced to a clear unreliable source (i.e, WP:FORBESCON). And in revert two, there was no citation whatsoever (the edits reverted in revert 2 and 3 were added by a newly created SPA). As the filer mentioned, I was the one who started the talk page discussion and I have been trying to gain consensus, along with another user, for excluding the material from the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And the filer is correct. I went to their talk page because I didn't want to edit war. In my last revert, I didn't remove the entire section again--I removed only a few sentences tangentially related to the topic. I saw no consensus for including those few sentences so, per WP:NOCON, I removed it for the time being and I justified that removal on the talk page. I thought that would be a decent compromise between outright deletion and full retention of the content. The user who originally inserted those sentences decided to revert my revert and falsely accuse me of "vandalism" in the edit summary . Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was not the only one who had removed the edits. At least four other users had removed the edit:, , , . And on the talk page I currently do not see a clear consensus to include the material. I do apologize for the excessive reverts on my part. And if I was asked, I would have happily self-reverted my last revert. For some reason, I thought I was exempted from 3RR when reverting unsourced or unreliably sourced edits (though that may only apply to BLPs?). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On another note, the filer had been edit-warring on Odal (rune) trying to repeatedly insert the exact same text as on the CPAC page:, , , . Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d is warned for edit warring on Conservative Political Action Conference. You may be blocked if you revert again without receiving a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. The steps of WP:DR are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston: Diffs of the filer's addition and reverts: So the filer is "an editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version" and the talk page shows it's still true there is no consensus to include. I'm not suggesting warning the filer too, but asking you to reconsider the warning against the filer's opponent. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 18:29, 27 February 2021 original insert of rune material
 * 03:47, 28 February 2021‎ restores rune material
 * 00:17, 1 March 2021 restores rune material
 * 15:18, 1 March 2021‎ restores rune material
 * User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d made four reverts within a 24-hour period which breaks 3RR. Though Binksternet also made four reverts they were over a span of days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , You are correct; I did break 3RR on CPAC. But are you sure the filer didn't break 3RR on Odal (rune)? Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3, Partial Revert 4. This seems to be within a 24 hour period. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So... You're looking to extract revenge? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of that comment was? The filing here is about your behavior, not that of others. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  00:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This tactic is...ill-advised.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Revenge? Not at all. I avoid drama boards as much as humanly possible. I sincerely was puzzled whether or not the filer broke 3RR on that article. The only reason I brought up the edits on  the Odal (rune) article was because those are the same exact edits he inserted on the CPAC article. I didn't realize that the filer is exempt from boomerangs on this noticeboard. My apologies to both of you if I gave the wrong impression. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:79.16.237.161 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1010450606 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1010450275 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1010449986 by Ahmetlii (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1010449597 by Ahmetlii (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Key milestones */"
 * 6)  "/* Key milestones */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1010449597 by Ahmetlii (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Key milestones */"
 * 3)  "/* Key milestones */"
 * 1)  "/* Key milestones */"
 * 2)  "/* Key milestones */"
 * 1)  "/* Key milestones */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on OTB Group."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP keeps removing maintenance templates from the page without solving the issues indicated, with absolutely no explanation in the edit summary, despite being reverted and warned each time. Has violated 3RR. Ashley yoursmile!  15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Marcisoldies12 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Recharged everything back to normal it was changed"
 * 2)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "Recharged everything back to normal it was changed"
 * 2)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "/* See also */"
 * 1)  "/* See also */"

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

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

Comments:

There's a ton more but they don't seem to be willing to engage anyone. CUPIDICAE💕 19:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Xose.vazquez reported by User:Carlwgeorge (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

When I went to Talk:CentOS to discuss the reverts, I found that User:Xose.vazquez stated they intend to revert any edit I make to this article. My edits were factual corrections written from a neutral point of view. User:Xose.vazquez suggested that these edits were "commercial advertisements", which is false. I'm open to feedback on how to reword any of my edits to be even more neutral, but outright reverting them isn't the answer.

Carlwgeorge (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikijahnn reported by User:Impru20 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC) No edit summary
 * 2) 20:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC) No edit summary
 * 3) 12:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC) No edit summary
 * 4) 22:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC) No edit summary
 * 5) 13:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC) "The party Junts is not considered populist. Can you stop put it?"
 * 6) 00:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC) "Very heavy editors who want to touch the ..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link1 link2

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

Comments:

Had doubts on whether to bring this to WP:AIV outright. Not really a content dispute that can be discussed, since what the user is doing is to keep unilaterally removing sourced content (without even caring to remove or dispute the sources), even resorting to what seems to be an attempt of a personal attack on both and myself after several warning notices were put on their talk page. User is seemingly surreptitiously awaiting to conduct their edits just outside the WP:3RR timespan. Also note that this article is the only one this editor seems to be caring about in the last couple months. Looks like a WP:SPA case here.  Impru 20 talk 12:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Jabbi reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Arbitration Enforcement discretionary sanction applied)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1010658512 by Praxidicae (talk) - content removed without reason"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1010653701 by Praxidicae (talk) - supplanted with a clear source"
 * 3)  "yet another source"
 * 4)  "moved sections"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1010649040 by Praxidicae (talk) easily supported by sources"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1010649040 by Praxidicae (talk) easily supported by sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion */"
 * 2)   "/* Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion */"
 * 3)   "/* Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion */"
 * 4)   "/* Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion */"
 * 1)   "/* Nomination of Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) for deletion */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* BLP violations and weight */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* BLP violations and weight */"

Comments:

I have tried to explain, at length, our BLP policy (and WP:UNDUE) to this user and it continues to be ignored, see the revision deleted comments at Articles for deletion/Alexander Zaytsev (businessman), which were then more or less inserted into the Lukashenko article as an alternative despite the lack of appropriate sourcing. They've also been informed of 3rr and BLP ds and have chosen to ignore it in favor of WP:RGW. CUPIDICAE💕 16:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to thank for bringing this up here rather persisting in his deletions as they were unfounded. If I might just make a couple of points.


 * I created the article about Articles for deletion/Alexander Zaytsev (businessman) after I inserted the disputed content into the article about Viktor Lukashenko.
 * The article about Zaytsev was a contested debate that rather narrowly resulted in a deletion in my opinion.
 * The facts stated about Viktor Lukashenko and Zaytsev are not controversial and clearly supported by sources cited. These are Tut.by, [Ej.by] and an independent Lithuanian journalism venture. Together these sources are sufficient to support the facts presented in the article about Viktor Lukashenko.
 * I will also note that Praxidicae removed the content first without starting any sort of notice or discussion.
 * Lastly, I acknowledged that it shouldn't be in the section Accusations and EU sanctions and moved it from there which meant that his first stated reason for removing the material was unfounded.

Thanks, --Jabbi (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your continued insistence that Zaytsev was involved in something untoward, including on Lukashenko's article are unsupported by sources. None of them draw the same conclusions that you do, because you're using WP:SYNTH to get there. Of course he knew Lukashenko, he was his aide. This is not encyclopedic and does not belong in the article for the same reason it wouldn't belong in his article if he once met Britney Spears. But your continued BLP violations without discussing are the real problem here and your refusal to acknowledge policy and actually discuss changes on the talk page is highly disruptive and needs to stop. But as we speak, the vios are still there. CUPIDICAE💕  17:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, as I noted here and you ignored, I will repeat: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. from WP:BLP. It's a policy. I explained clearly in my edit summary and again with an explanation of why you weren't supposed to revert it, which you are aware of. CUPIDICAE💕  17:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you seem to have mixed together the discussion about Zaytsev and Lukashenko. The content you removed without discussion on the page of Lukashenko was sourced and I added more sources. You did not start a discussion there. You have not explained what the problem is with those sources and therefore no cause to remove them. Belarus is a patronage state, it is very relevant to document notable business men and their verifiable connections to the Lukashenka family. --Jabbi (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's directly related because you said you were going to add the material from the article at AFD to Lukashenko when you were informed repeatedly that you were falling afoul of WP:BLP, so instead added WP:UNDUE material about another living person to Lukashenko's article that was contentious and poorly sourced in an attempt to again WP:RGW. CUPIDICAE💕  17:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that Zaytsev is connected to Viktor has some sourcing behind it so no BLP violation there. The discussion about whether or not it belongs in Viktor's article can be had on the article talk page. However, until we have RS saying Zaytsev or Viktor have been acting corruptly with each other, we should not be saying it nor implying it in our articles and even saying it in discussion is troubling. Doing so is a BLP violation and needs to stop . Please confirm that you will stop trying to do this, until (if) reliable sourcing is available to support it. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will not and have not stated there is anything illegal or corrupt happening with regards to the discussed entities. I have talked about Zaytsev potentially being a politically exposed person (or a "wallet"), this does not imply anything illegal., I have not yet added material from the disputed Zaytsev article to the Lukashenko article. You have the order of events wrong. Your accusations here are inaccurate. Please do proper research before acting like this. --Jabbi (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We're well into WP:IDHT. I'm done here. Admins can do whatever they want, I don't care anymore. CUPIDICAE💕  17:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm still waiting for your detailed description of what you (and reliable sources) mean by the term "wallet". I think, since you've not answered but are editing here, we will have to go with a topic ban from BLPs instead. Paperwork incoming at your talk page. Nick (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * that's a bit abrupt. I would have expected a bit more time to respond to that. I hadn't forgotten. I'll do so. --Jabbi (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Jabbi from editing BLPs under the provisions of the Arbitration Enforcement Discretionary Sanctions (AE/DS). I will take no further action in relation to this specific edit warring report. Nick (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Xxxhrxxx reported by User:Austronesier (Result: blocked one week. Please note name change to User:Eiskrahablo) User:MrCatttt is also blocked 1 week.
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid vandalism 1010609105 by MrCattttt (talk) Reverting several vandalism attempts. This matter already discussed on the talk page by other users. Please kindly refers to citation sources before making any disruptive edits. Kebaya in Indonesia (especially Java) predates the Kebaya development in Malay Paninsula (present day part of Malaysia), and it is adapted the Kebaya of Javanese. It is crystal clear stated on the article."
 * 2)  "Undid vandalism 1010606423 by MrCattttt (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid vandalism 1010605707 by MrCattttt (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid vandalism 1010601136 by Davidelit (talk)"
 * 5)  "Added indigenous script."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1010599837 by MrCattttt (talk) Rescuing information and reverted some deleted citation sources from several vandalism attempts. Before making any disruptive edits, please read the whole citation sources. Kebaya in Java predates the Kebaya development in Malay Peninsula."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1010599837 by MrCattttt (talk) Rescuing information and reverted some deleted citation sources from several vandalism attempts. Before making any disruptive edits, please read the whole citation sources. Kebaya in Java predates the Kebaya development in Malay Peninsula."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring before. The other warring party is, who had been reported for edit warring in Feb 2021. Austronesier (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I only preserved the credibility of the Kebaya article, any kind of vandalism attempts should be reverted back, before making any disruptive edits any Wikipedia users should at least read the citation sources. If the citation sources didn't appeared to be match with the factual paragraph on the article then it should be reverted back or expanded as what it should. My intention was nothing but to preserved the the good faith to make Wikipedia as a reliable free-encyclopedia source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxhrxxx (talk • contribs) 11:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You have been blocked before for edit warring, but even after that, you have never, not even once, enganged in a article talk page discussion. You only edits in article talk space are WikiProject template edits. acts in good faith, but exhibits the same edit warring behavior including 3RR-violations in the current case; the main difference is, they are at least willing to discuss. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As what I mentioned before, this matter already discussed in the Kebaya talk page by the other users, and it is clear that several sources stated Kebaya in Indonesia (esp. Java) predates the Kebaya development in Malay Peninsula (present-day part of Malaysia). Should any further discussion need to be done if the discussion was already there? I guess it just the matter of literacy skills. Assuming good faith over vandalism acts is heavily misleading and betrayed the Wikipedia policies and guides.


 * The editor removed five well-published resources in the lead section. No reason was given. The editor called my and other editor reverts as “vandalism”MrCattttt (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your prior vandalism acts appeared to lead the prior edit war with Gunkarta and you keep reverting the article as "what you believe" without any kind of good intention to even read the citation sources (as the main reason why the article should preserved as in original version). Before making any further disruptive edits, make sure you read the whole citation sources and the factual chronicle of the case. Xxxhrxxx (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You clearly removed five well-published resources to push your POV with no consideration that the matter has been discussed in the Talk:Kebaya. Tell me, how is removing a bunch of well-published resources is not a vandalism? MrCattttt (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I saw before I went to bed a global rename request from Xxxhrxxx. But I saw they were blocked on a different language wiki. Glad I did not honor the request. This matter needs to be settled first. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 12:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The explanation for the block in the Indonesian WP roughly translates as: "Username violation + [addition of] promotional content, OR, removal of talk page entries [lit. "evidence"], no intention for behavioral improvement". –Austronesier (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Saw that. I also saw what looked like a 72 hour block for edit warring. I am inclined to  block due to WP:tendentious editing WP:NPA\ and personal attacks. You really need to calm yourself and behave in a more collegial manner.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 13:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the thing, let me explain the issue regarding to the block in Indonesian Wikipedia. So my username was accused not following the username guidelines of Wikipedia. The warning was sent to my talk page including the steps of how to get rid of it, which request to rename the username is the best possible way. And then later I followed the step and that's why I requested for rename my username. After I followed the steps, I thought it was done and I have to wait for my new username so that's why later I removed the talk sessiom on my talk page. But somehow, the user that sent me the warning in my talk page didn't seem to know that I already follow the steps and he thought I removed the talk session because I didn't want to follow the instruction. That's why he then blocked me with the summary narratives of "9. Using the prohibited username: + promotion original researches, removing the talk session evidence in the talk page, no good intention."  ← and here's the original translation in my talk page, it has nothing to do with any kind of behavioural improvement or anything. And yeah, I admit that I was attempted the personal attacks in previous months ago, but I was changed and never shows any kind of personal attacks anymore. I feel disappointed that this old narrative keep lingering while I did not perform this anymore. I only preserved the credibility of articles with giving my contribution and revert any kind of vandalism on Wikipedia, there is no further intention other than that. Xxxhrxxx (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's the thing. You keep trying to justify edit warring.Please affirm you will stop reverting, stop trying to justify reverting, and explain what to do instead. On a separate matter, I'll honor the user name change. (You can apply for unblock there. I have no buttons there.) Those who have watched your current user name will see the new user name. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 15:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * May I know or can you give me some information on how to prevent or get rid of any kind of vandalism acts made by other Wikipedia users without violating the reverts rules? because I have no idea how to make the article preserved in stable version without reverted it back. I never justify any kind of edit warring, and that was never been my intention, I always trying to be thoughtful and never reverting any kind of information that proven correct after the verification, and if I find that the information is a blatant misleading, all I did was just reverted it back to the stable version so the vandalist output could disappeared because I simply did not know the alternative ways to prevent the vandalism attempts. By the way, thank you for your consideration and understanding, all I did here on Wikipedia was nothing but to keep Wikipedia as the credible online free-encyclopedia for people all around the world. It just somehow disappoint me that some user really trying so hard to change the credible information on some article, and some user even support these kind of vandalism acts. Anyways, this is not a personal attack against anyone, it just to shows about how I felt and to show what was my exact intention. Eiskrahablo (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop calling good faith edits you disagree with vandalism. Discuss calmly and without being nasty to people content and sourcing on the talk page. If an impasse is reached seek dispute resolution. Ask for a third opinion. open a request for comment on the article talk page and post notices on the talk pages of any Wikiproject the article is a part of. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * has been blocked for edit warring, resorted to socking to continue an edit war, fails to recognize WP:Not vandalism and WP:No personal attacks, fails to understand that all editors may have different viewpoints and that WP is built on consensus, and never engages in content discussions in talk pages, but only on user talk pages and noticeboards once the milked is spilled and they get templated or reported. If they are not blocked now, I suggest at least strict probation measures (1RR, no personal attacks including calling other editors good faith efforts "vandalism") and a indefinite topic ban if further violations occur. –Austronesier (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not helping. I already understand that all editors might have different pov and that Wikipedia is built on consensus. And as in the Kebaya case, the matter regarding to the origin disputes already discussed in talk page, and it is crystal clear stated in credible citation sources that Kebaya in Java preadates the Kebaya development in Malay Peninsula and the Portuguese colonialism in Malay Archipelago. And based on that discussion, the same exact matter should not be performed anymore. Your block and restriction request over my Wikipedia user account somehow could possibly violates the policy in Wikipedia, because it is my right to combat any kind of disruptive edits (including vandalism). — Eiskrahablo (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you have no uninhibited "right to combat any kind of disruptive edits (including vandalism)", especially with your overly broad and thus erroneous understanding of "vandalism". We have noticeboards and community-appointed admins to prevent and counteract disruptive editing. Both you and MrCattttt have not engaged in vandalism, but have made disagreeing good faith edits, and until the first revert, there was no "disruptive editing"; disruptive editing started with the second revert and the warring behavior. FWIW, WP:ECP is totally off-topic here. –Austronesier (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What about User:MrCattttt? They have just made their sixth revert in Kebaya within 24 hrs and have earlier referred twice to their "opponents" edits as "clear act of vandalism" too. In spite of the more agreeable communcation style of, they were one of the two in today's edit tango. –Austronesier (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked as well. If either restarts this WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE behavior, please do report at ANI. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 21:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2A00:1FA0:4A7:B9C3:0:50:38C8:F501 reported by User:Czello (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Warned by on talk page. Follow ups here and here. No attempt at communication — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Warned and also told about BRD. Also a whiff of SPA, as they only seem to want to whitewash various far-right parties.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. Let me know if you see this IP editor being active on other political pages. A block of the /64 for edit warring might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Sir-Namo-of-Lomax reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – 31 hours for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Mikola22 reported by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1010260763 by Filipjako (talk) we must respect source of esteemed Croatian historian, everything was explained to you in earlier edit summaries"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1010200548 by Filipjako (talk) restoring information from the source, this source is RS, author is historian and the only way to remove this information is RSN or seek consensus on talk page, until then we must respect RS"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1009970643 by Filipjako (talk) information from RS, this is quality source but if exist some problems seek advice at WP:RSN, until then we must respect  information from the source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Violation of the 3RR rule does not exist, which is evident from the report itself, also no warning about violation of this rule was given on mine talk page. The information entered in article is from a quality source and in mine edit summaries was explained what can be done in such cases, we cannot delete information from the source for no reason or with an artificial reason ie WP:JDL because this is literally vandalism. None of this suggestions as a proposal for a mutually agreed solution was used from the opposite side. Considering that there is no violation of the 3RR rule I suggest that this report be rejected as unfounded. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Read wp:undue, we do not have to give a minority view any shift. Also, 4RR is not a right, its an upper limit. You can still edit war if you do not reach 4rr if admins think there is a clear sign you are pushing it. I think the page needs locking to prevent further disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree about edit waring and even not violating 3RR can be disruptive.However why is the content “undue” and a “minority view” is there consensus of this being a fact. Also minority views if it is, are still included in articles. We don’t just disregard if the source is reliable and good. Perhaps admin who is familiar with the Balkan topics can chime in? I don’t think this report is worth it. Especially as Mikola22 is dealing with a disruptive most likely puppet account also reported by AB. MIkola22 was just adding back the sourced content this suspect account with 50 edits in total in their history was removing. What is “undue” and wrong here? This report from the quick view looks pointless and equalezes a new disruptive account to Mikola.OyMosby (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well looking at the debate it is one croation author using dodgy source material to repeat a claim. When he was reverted he should have made a case at talk, not edit warred.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% that pushing edits is disruptive and not excusable. Both users should have taken it to the talk page. Mikola is not innocent here but I think locking the article fully for a few days would be a good idea as the reverts are still continuing. We even had a puppet account participant who is blocked oddly defending the other reported user by AB. AB was valid to call out the edit waring by these two parties. However a source being Croatian doesn’t make it biased. Whether the source is dodgy I’d have to take a deeper look. Why is it dodgy based on your findings? There have been single Serbian authors used in articles for factoids added. As long as it isn’t given undue attention and we attribute that “According to author blablabla ....” as we usually do in articles when a viewpoint is only from a single source or author. That could be a better alternative. Again a good discussion for the article talk page and Wikipedia RS verification page. Cheers and thanks for taling time to look into all this Slatersteven. OyMosby (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved editor: has made 3 reverts. Since the 3RR has not been breached by them, then a block would be a mistake. In these Balkan disputes anyone can do 3 reverts within 24 hours: in the past I did that several times, was more than once reported but no admin made a block. Doing 3 rv is not the best thing possible, but is not a crime too. Tbh, I think this is a bad faith report. The filer did not warn or start a discussion with the reported user, but just made the report without having a 3RR breach. The filer in the past filed 3 or 4 SPI reports on Mikola22 that were closed without action because the filer's claims were not correct. The filer in the past made SPI reports or accusations against other editors too without clear evidence. Maybe Mikola22 or someone else should take this to AE. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm wrong here but 3RR are not made within 24 hours or it is? When editing articles I use examples from past edits. In Andrija Zmajević article exist information that the same is of Serbian origin. This information was defended by the editor Sadko although the sources proving this obviously were not RS(some internet portals with Serbian nationalist authors, and at that time there was no wp:undue problem with this information). Only after a few weeks and the procedure prescribed by wikipedia this information could be removed. In my case and this article, information from RS is removed after a few days although the information is from a strong RS, also the reasons for removing this information was artificial. My revert was in good faith because I thought wikipedia procedure must be followed but also because I thought the other side was some kind of vandal. Mikola22 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And as I said, 3rr is not a right or upper limit. Also see WP:ONUS, its down to those who add to make a case at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved editor: Both editors involved in this rather obvious edit warring should be held accountable. I'm honestly not sure what is taking this long, it's your everyday report, they massively edit-warred and sanctions are in order. As far as I can remember both editors have been the subject of a number of serious and worrying reports.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  17:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sadko, one of these reports was your and administrator warn you not to false report your opponents. As far as I can see you have not learned your lesson. Mikola22 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite their claim above, Sadko is involved, and their comments should be treated as such. Sadko and Mikola22 have a long history of battlegrounding with each other. Also, 3RR has not been breached here, and whilst that isn't a bright line and sanctions can be imposed regardless, I might be considered an involved admin, as I have collaborated with AB on a couple of Balkans FAs (although we have had serious disagreements) and have interacted extensively with Mikola22 (both positively and negatively), but I recommend sanctions are not imposed on this occasion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One made 5 reverts breaching 3RR wile The report was underway as Steven said. I don’t believe you can equate it to us exactly the same. Mikola isn’t completely Innocent as I stated above but it’s definitely not equal. OyMosby (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)