Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive429

== User:Filipjako reported by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus (Result: Note. I just came here from WP:RFPP. I partially blocked Filipjako for 72 hours. Further action may be desired because of their intransigence, refusal discuss, and mislabelling good faith edits as vandalism as an excuse for said intransigence.) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1010224101 by Mikola22 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1010259579 by Filipjako (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1010224101 by Mikola22 (talk) 2nd warning out of 4 before you will be reported for vandalism. Your nationalist agenda is obvious based on your contribution to this article. As it's a recent edit, you are the one who need to address this in the relevant forums and not vice versa."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1010069798 by Mikola22 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1010199143 by Filipjako (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1010069798 by Mikola22 (talk) These allegations were recently added by you. Such claims need multiple independent sources with actual proofs and not allegations, and your source does not fall into any of those categories. Since you recently added it, discuss it on the forum you referred or in the talk page. If not, you will be reported for vandalism."
 * 7)  "Unreliable source for an obvious agenda"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1010069798 by Mikola22 (talk) These allegations were recently added by you. Such claims need multiple independent sources with actual proofs and not allegations, and your source does not fall into any of those categories. Since you recently added it, discuss it on the forum you referred or in the talk page. If not, you will be reported for vandalism."
 * 2)  "Unreliable source for an obvious agenda"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Filipjako is in the right here. Other editor should be banned like the nationalist he his. So I have reverted. 8Almond5 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC) LTA, struck  Girth Summit  (blether)  12:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no excuse for edit warring other than to undo vandalism or BLP violations, biased is not a valid reason. But (As with the above report) I only;y count a 3rr (reverting yourself does not count). I think the page needs locking and setting back to pre-edit war days.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This user was found to be a puppet account also prt of the edit war on the article. They are now banned. See here. OyMosby (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The source is unreliable. I looked it up, the information originally derives from a Croatian wartime news article (Novi List), where it's just one of many allegations listed about the person in question without referring to a reliable source. If unsourced news articles are to be seen as reliable sources, it would open Pandora's box and cause nationalistic edit warring never seen before, and nobody would be able to do anything about it. Providing proper sources is necessary in cases like these since the allegations are pretty serious. Filipjako (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you report the user, you do not edit war, nor do we get to access RS, if you think it is not an RS you take it wp:rsn, you do not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Then lock the page and set it back to pre-edit war days i.e. before the contribution. And how is it edit warring from my perspective when I'm reverting vandalism RECENTLY added? Filipjako (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because wP:vandalism means something specific, and its not "I do not like it". I do not agree with the change, but it was not vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This user is making personal assumption. If they feel it is not RS or question it they can take ir to the appropriate source verification wiki forum. They are also continuing to revert and edit war during this report.That makes me question the motives and lessons even learned by the user.OyMosby (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what are you actually talking about? Your letsest revert says you got support from another editor who turned out to be a soxk for the article. So far I, and two editors dont see the Vandelism. Who said anything about liking or not liking? Now you're just making unnecessary assumptions. Also now, OyMosby is "questioning motives" while when it's assumed that I've questioned motives, you leave a message on my talk page about not doing so. Come on, maintain decency. I insist that you lock the page and set it back to pre-edit war as you suggested. Filipjako (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You know it fairly laid out. I didn’t assume it what we see. Like Slatersteven who said about “ Because wP:vandalism means something specific, and its not "I do not like it". I do not agree with the change, but it was not vandalism.” I don’t get waht you mean about like/dislike. You are questioning motives and I was not the one that left the message on your page. Slatersteven didZ how about address him instead of deleting his comment on your page. How does that at all look good for you and make your motives appear pure? That was my point. I didn’t say you are a bad person and I criticized Mikiola as well in his report. How about YOU maintain decency and don’t accuse me falsely for this where Slatersteven for saying “ Please read wp:npa, that means you question content, not a users motives.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)” Odd you do go at him for that. My advice. Stop reverting the edit when literally and uninvolved editor undid the same revert. Instead you two take it to the talk page. Okay? OyMosby (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Filipjako has now reverted 5 times and has now breached 4RR, enough is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just came here from WP:RFPP. I partially blocked Filipjako for 72 hours. Further action may be desired because of their intransigence, refusal to discuss, and mislabeling good faith edits as vandalism as an excuse for said intransigence. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 00:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention all the false accusations the guy made about me below . This is nuts. OyMosby (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, OyMosby please don't edit my comments with degrading grammatical errors. Nobody has given you the authority to add comments in my name and on my behalf. Second, when I said "you leave a message on my talk page about not doing so", I did not refer to YOU, i.e., an individual. In the English language, the word "you" is both a singular and a plural, which unfortunately can enable confusion sometimes. Third, please stop questioning motives if I'm not allowed to do the same. This is what I'm talking about when I insist on maintaining decency. Fourth, I can do whatever I want with my own talk page. Again, motives are being questioned. Now, to address what some of you has categorized as a "good faith edit" (I assume that you, "you" as in plural, have limited or no knowledge on the subject in question. Correct me if I'm wrong), would you categorize it as good faith if it was about a Jewish person and claims were made about his father being a judge during the Nazi German regime, who convicted a lot of Jews? It's on the same level, with the difference being that it's about a Serb instead of a Jew and about the Ustashe regime instead of the Nazi German regime. In such a case, sourcing it properly is necessary in order to make it trustworthy. Based on the source, it is not. Not essentially because it's a Croatian wartime source, from a time when propaganda spread like an epidemic from all sides, but because the source is an article from a newspaper that doesn't contain any references. Also, the article already stated that he fled to the town of Kistanje from the Ustashe as a kid (which is not provided with a source but can easily be done as I've found an existing, trustworthy and reliable source), creating a contradiction. The contributor himself talks about "a quality source coming from a historian", but this is not quite true. The historian himself referred to a news article in his paper, meaning that the information was not discovered by the historian himself who made a "hearsay" reference. Also, the contribution itself is bad as the sentence starts with "Father", a countable noun that needs an article or similar at the beginning of the sentence, and the contributor himself is apparently not even fit to even make the simplest contributions on English Wikipedia. Lastly, I insist once again that you ("you" as in plural) lock the page and set it back to pre-edit war days like Slatersteven already proposed. I don't know why there's hesitancy over making this decision. I also insist that someone keep an eye on the contributor in question, with regard to the editing history, as there's a lot of engagement on several controversial topics regarding Serbs, e.g., the Jasenovac death camp from WW2, and I would not be surprised if similar contributions have already been made. Filipjako (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What on Earth are you talking about? I never touched your comments and I don’t care about your talk page. Edit history proves you wrong. If you don’t like your motives questioned then as told You on YOUR talk page, don’t do it with other people. And edit warring is not good motives as the person who blocked said. You accused someone of having ethnic based motives. Don’t even try mate. That’s three different people Mr. Filipjako.


 * YOU were replying to me and said “you”. You didn’t say another editor or the editor himself. Is English your primary language? I ask not as an insult but genuinely. In the English language when you are replying or talking to a person and say “you” then they are then the only possible person. So don’t patronize me trying to understand the context of “you” or the how English works. As this mass text is hard to follow and is making claimsmabout me blatantly not true. What grammatical errors did I vandalize in your comments? Funny you have noting to say to Steven huh? As for the source why not simply tgo to RS review and have it vetted there and then be done with it. Instead of accusing me here of things I didn’t do and teaching me English when you aren’t even utilizing grammar correctly ironically. And yes there has been a huge amount of pov pushing on WWII and 90s Balkans articles more so than it used to be. But that will end soon boys. ;) OyMosby (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is what you added to my comment on 19:25, 5 March 2021: 'Your "letsest" revert says you got support from another editor who turned out to be a "soxk" for the article. So far I, and two editors "dont" see the "Vandelism"'. No, I was not replying to you (singular) specifically, but to everyone here who is falsely accusing me of being the one on the wrong end of this issue. I only mentioned your behavior without ever addressing this to you personally, and I did so in the middle of my comment. When I said "I'm sorry but what are you actually talking about? Who said anything about liking or not liking?", do you believe I addressed you here as well (since you think my reply was directed towards you specifically)? I did not blame anyone for misinterpretations and recognized that confusion can arise unintentionally. Anyways, I will not entertain this off-topic discussion further and will only keep insisting that you (as in plural if there are multiple authorized users here) to lock the page and set it back to pre-edit war days like Slatersteven already proposed, while I agree to proceed with my complaint to the relevant discussion pages. Thanks. Filipjako (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC) '''


 * Ah I see now, sorry. Please you can obviously see that was not intentional and was meant to be an edit to my reply just before. Your first sentence looked similar to mine and with this 1992 wiki editor layout I got confused. Don’t make assumptions again please of vandalism. And stop with the mocking of grammar. I’m rushing on a tiny smartphone. Not writing a research paper. So no need to quote obvious typos. Also when you reply right under someone, make it clear who you are referring to on what accusation. That makes it clear for all. No confusion and avoid all this extra wasted back and forth analysis. This is typical how you address people In English. I had said from the beginning the article ahould be locked but turns out not I or  are admins that can do so. Also I was about to undo my revert of you that way the article is stable but Slatersteven beat me to it as now I see it was added content not restored content you were removing. My mistake again as I was rushing yesterday.  He pointed out “enough” after your fifth revert, per his comment above that you didn’t reply to about the 5 reverts? My advice again is take it to the talk page of the article. Whether the other guy is right or wrong it is the best way. Trust me I’ve been in your shoes before. I have reverted info I deemed incredibly faulty or weak instead of specifically saying so on the talk page. I get it man. OyMosby (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's all good. I thought all comments had to be posted chronologically and had no idea that replies are posted under the comment of the user you're replying to, which is why I commented after you. My bad, this is my first experience with an issue like this one. I have fully retreated from the initial course, I accept the consequences handed to me and I will take the issue to the relevant forums going forward. I'm also sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes, it was never my intention to breach policies which is once again due to my inexperience. Filipjako (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries mate. Sorry for the confusion. I’m hotheaded, even with experience on Wikipedia I still at times do it falling into the trap. History repeats so they say. Take a break and come back for new take. Take care.OyMosby (talk) 04:00, 7 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)

User:RandoBanks reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Criticism of current conceptions */ what's the page number then? hmmm? Wikipedia's policy on copyright doesn't mean you are supposed to put shit like this in Wikipedia's voice. read WP:WIKIVOICE. and what you mean is WP:Plagiarism anyway."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1010607684 by 2A02:AA1:101A:ACA6:E1D4:809A:7506:DB9D (talk) take it to the discussion page. you don't even cite the page. you use POV words. not encyclopedic."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1010602102 by 2A02:AA1:101A:ACA6:E1D4:809A:7506:DB9D (talk) it is pov. it's just a bunch of yapping from you in an unencyclopedic tone. you don't even stick to what the source says."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1010586425 by 2A02:AA1:101A:ACA6:E1D4:809A:7506:DB9D (talk) pov."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user (account created only hours ago), appears to have more in-depth knowledge of wikipedia than one would expect for a newly registered user, I suspect sock and SPA. But regardless, they made 4 reverts at Psychopathy and are using inappropriate edit summaries in article space and at AfD. Polyamorph (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I read the WP:Edit warring policy. I didn't revert the anon four times. I reverted the anon three times, but now I know that I shouldn't have reverted that many times. Even so, after reverting the anon three times, I asked the anon to make their argument on the article's discussion page. I compromised with the anon and a brief discussion did take place there. This report was filed hours later after the reverting had stopped, and appears to be retaliation for me move voting "delete" at Articles for deletion/Gayphobia. See how it's only about me and not the anon? Polyamorph says I appear "to have more in-depth knowledge of wikipedia than one would expect for a newly registered user, I suspect sock." I also read WP:Sock. I'm not a sock. What I know about Wikipedia's rules and regulations is what I read users say in the edit histories and at pages like Articles for deletion/Gayphobia. When a page like WP:NEO is used as something for us to abide by, I'm going to read it. That's how I learn about this place, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

And someone else has also reverted the anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoBanks (talk • contribs)


 * Note I placed 3RR warning on IP users talk page. This is not retaliation - you are a brand new user, leaving inappropriate edit summaries, engaging in an edit war, seemingly knowledgeable of wikipedia policy/guidelines after only a handful of edits. It is not a good start and somewhat suspicious. Quack. Polyamorph (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good for you that you placed a warning on the anon's talk page (I saw that too) while focusing exclusively on me here at this report page. You are being very rude while Cullen328 left a polite message on my talk page. You say I'm a brand new user, but you also say I'm a sock. I wonder how you think new users learn how to edit here. When they have been editing as an anon first, like the anon I reverted, and then they register for an account, do you just say "sock" and "quack" to them too? The anon knows about WP:Copyright, but used the wrong rationale for it. Is the anon a sock too? You say this isn't retaliation, but you filed this report HOURS AFTER THE WARRING HAD STOPPED! If further disruption was a risk, it would mean that I would have reverted again and wouldn't have been willing to discuss. You are trying to get me blocked for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoBanks (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe read back some of your own edit summaries if you want to start accusing us of being rude towards you. Polyamorph (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - it appears the first diff I provided is indeed not a revert, so should be given the benefit of doubt here. I hope they will heed the warnings about edit warring and leaving inappropriate edit summaries moving forward. Polyamorph (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:547:C500:BE0:8F4:6C12:E7BB:CD61 reported by User:Dam222 (Result: )
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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

using two accounts and has undone edits 5 times. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note, user is also edit warring at Hurricane Eta and, at the type of me typing this, has reverted 9 times across 3 IPs. — Czello 18:59, 7 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:

Comments:

Last stable version of the lead is here. Attempts to rephrase and restructure the lead paragraph in various ways to address what 146.198.108.170 says are their concerns have been met with reversions to the same wording. Cambial foliage❧ 19:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The text they're insisting on, "and to restrict the way [the DAs] can operate in practice" is inaccurate and misleading, this precise wording they've admitted isn't justified . They call repeatedly reverting back to their preferred text as "stable", it's more a case of them grinding down anyone who attempts to improve the article.  They've patrolled this article and reverted to this text 24/7 for months, in spite of all attempts to find an alternative; using wikipedia policy inappropriately with disingenuous arguments to waste as much time as possible of any editor who makes the mistake of attempting to make the article inform the audience in an accurate manner.  I've invited them to come up with alternative text which doesn't contain the misleading wording on the talk page, I have yet to see any efforts to resolve the matter which aren't further examples of a disturbing pattern of behaviour.


 * Result of previous edit warring on this article, they managed to troll this particular editor into an effective rage quit.


 * Notice how the only time they haven't immediately reverted back to their preferred text was when it looked like this might go against them. As soon as the case was archived they're back for more edit warring, if that's what's needed to keep the introduction misleading: []


 * This is just today, if anyone cares to look through the history of this editor, it wouldn't surprise me to find way more than 100 examples for this very specific ambiguous text; many of them contradict the policies they use as excuses to keep the article starting on a misleading premise.




 * My experience of this editor is just on this article, my efforts are only the result of investigating other potential restrictions on the devolved administrations having read the article and assumed there must be, given the wording this editor insists upon; it transpires there aren't any and my focus is on correcting this inaccuracy. However, today's intervention has also led me to find examples egregious enough for a ban [], I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. 146.198.108.170 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

146.198.108.170 (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The text IP has sought to remove has has been reverted back to by at least six different editors and had become stable again subsequent to moderation. Cambial foliage❧ 20:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's take a look at opinions expressed by some of those editors who've attempted to mediate this madness in good faith, on Cambial Yellowing's approach to this article:
 * I appreciate that you are heavily invested in this article but you risk drifting into WP:OWN territory. I also appreciate there is a problem with Round in circles and that it is wearing to have to keep rehearsing the same arguments. Even so, it would be wise to take at least a few hours between edits. [IP later known as PlainAndSimpleTailor] is engaging properly now, please give her some space in which to move forward because barracking just causes her to dig in, as it would anybody. John Maynard Friedman 20:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And again, I am not talking about the entirety of the “lead”, I am talking about the introductory paragraph. If I was talking about the entirety of the lead, I wouldn’t have said “paragraph” after the word “lead”. I’ve also been open to adding opposing views and have been subjective as possible. Stop twisting my words and preventing consensus on this article by quoting rules- as if you own the article. DrJosephCowan 00:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * First you're not in charge, please start to realise you aren't superior to anyone, and don't own this article. It should also be obvious that we can't use a source verbatim without violating copyright. So I would suggest you stop being pedantic and focusing on semantics and start see if you can contribute anything useful PlainAndSimpleTailor 13:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Separately, I see Cambial Yellowing's pattern of editing articles other than the UK Internal Market Act only when admins might be paying attention to their behaviour is hitting the bingo card.


 * n.b. There is discussion of this issue elsewhere after IP user revenge-posted at ANI. Cambial <b style="color:#218000">foliage❧</b> 08:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Tbhotch reported by User:Eightbenny (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Another user, "Binksternet"


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

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

Comments:

User is "reverting" categories in pages citing that "lacks a reference". User is likely don't understand his actions. Eightbenny (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I will comment is that the report is ironic. Eightbenny actions are within the limit of being defamatory. And that Benny might be Urbanuntil. In any case Benny is the one that should be indef. (CC) Tb hotch <big style="color: #555555;">™ 00:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Add to report this person, probably with contact out of Wikipedia with Botch's parents. --Eightbenny (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Eightbenny is displaying a strong example of why we have the WP:CIR guideline. Eightbenny is not ready to edit this or any other encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, buddy, please, endure just notifications in the talk page and stop that speech. You're welcome. --Eightbenny (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Third-Party Comment): Eightbenny is adding the category "Discrimination against LGBT people in Mexico." Nothing in the text says that Cantinflas was LGBT. Can anyone support this claim?Crboyer (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Crboyer, anyone by whom? --Eightbenny (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone as in Anyone who Reads The Above. Was Cantinflas a member of the LGBT community? Did he face discrimination because of it? The Cantinflas Article Doesn't Say So. So can anyone support the claim that your category states? It's a simple requestCrboyer (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Crboyer, this LGBT-friendly author discusses gay Mexican film and classifies Cantinflas as "conventional/heteronormative/non-queer", in other words, not LGBT. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, got it. It seems the reporter doesn't understand why adding a category not-supported by the article is inappropriate.Crboyer (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone undertands you, bro. --Eightbenny (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The mess of reporting everywhere is annoying but tolerable; however, I've blocked for 48 hours from main space editing given the edit warring over BLP-relevant stuff. The user does appear to be Urbanutil to me but I'm looking at it with eyes inexperienced to the sock. There is also an open ANI at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents where perhaps further discussion may be reasonable. --Izno (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * by . I was going to do just the article for 48 hours, instead of article space generally, but I don't see a problem with the latter. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

User:188.120.128.144 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "So you sources are rational and my not? I brught them from wikipedia and I can bring many more..... Why you don't understand the fact that without the anti military statement in france and elsewhere there was no algerian independence........?"
 * 2)  "hahaha! you see? I didn't remove any source! as I said, you can keep the " stalemate" I just  did some fixing to keep it real"
 * 3)  "I don't want to go to talk page and waste my time with someone who is living in fantasy because you are the only one on wikipedia who agree on this foolish result"
 * 4)  "I don't understand how it could be a "stalemate" with such result??! the french army destroyed the fln on the battlefield... everyone know that and even they admit that! You can keep these "sources but don't go so far and keep it real"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Algerian War."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Algerian War."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* March 2021 */ new section"

Comments:

This IP, along with their other IP, started another edit war, a few hours after their block expired. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They are now using another IP. Could you please have a look at this? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months due revert war by fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

User:136.49.166.71 reported by User:Cassiopeia (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: and

Comments:

User:136.49.166.71 has been warned on edit warning on the page indicated above and was invited twice to discuss the content dispute in the talk page. However, instead of of discussion, the editor continues to revert/edit warring on the same content/issue. thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:J.Turner99 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1011014357 by J.Turner99 (talk) - "falsely" is not subjective, the fact-checking source makes clear there are no "leftists at hospitals inflating the death count.""
 * 2)  ""I don't care what the source says" - then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia"
 * 3)  "Back to last stable version - there is absolutely no evidence of inflated death counts or "leftists" in hospitals. Discuss your proposed change on the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Steven Crowder."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Yes, that's three reverts. No, that's not a violation of 3RR, which requires *more* than three reverts. Two separate editors have objected to, and reverted, J.Turner99's edits, and they have made zero posts on the article talk page. On the other hand, I've discussed my reverts on the talk page and explained my rationale, where a third, previously-uninvolved editor has agreed with my perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The reporting editor also declared, in an edit summary I don't care what the source says, which suggests they do not understand the WP:5P. Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say, and an editor who openly rejects what a reliable source says in favor of their own interpretation and opinion is not compliant with foundational policy. In this case, the cited reliable source clearly states that experts say statistics confirmed by positive tests haven't been capturing the full picture of the COVID-19 death toll. It doesn't matter that J.Turner99 "doesn't care what the source says" - our article must be written to conform to the sources, not what J.Turner99 wishes the source says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would add this whole thing is over one word. I just wanted to make it clear to the reader that many, but not all experts agree on that. The source does not say all experts in the world agree on it, I thought it was important to convey this, I could care less about the subjective matter, I just want Wikipedia to be accurate and clear to its readers as we can make it. I wanted to put the word 'many' in front of the word experts. I think it is clear from the user's edit history they are unfortunately trying to push some sort of narrative. There is no place for that on Wikipedia. J.Turner99 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * So then, J. Turner, you would agree that this is a content dispute and not really about edit warring? Just curious.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to make that argument on the article talk page, and if an editorial consensus forms that your position is correct, I shall defer to that consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like the warring has stopped and the participants have moved onto discussion. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:WikiCleanerMan reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: )
Page: ,

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Israeli–Lebanese conflict:
 * 1)  — WikiCleanerMan makes an edit which include removing sort key from the eponymous category.
 * 2)  — I restored the sort key and referred him to Wikipedia guidelines . He then  about other topics we engaged in, never addressing the sort key issue, but telling me I sound "like an ass".
 * 3)  — WikiCleanerMan removes the sort key without explanation.
 * 4)  — I restore the sort key, citing the guidelines again.
 * 5)  — WikiCleanerMan removes it again without explanation.

Template:Campaignbox Hezbollah–Israel conflict:
 * 1)  — WikiCleanerMan added the template to content categories.
 * 2)  — I reverted citing Wikipedia guidelines.
 * 3)  — WikiCleanerMan reverted with rationale that "Plenty of templates have main page categories" without even providing example.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above.

Comments:

WikiCleanerMan was blocked a month ago for disruptive editing (his personal attacks there are worth noting). --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't constitute edit warring. Just because I reverted your edits doesn't mean so. And if anything you were the one being rude on my own talk page. You posted, "You should also learn, among other things, that "See also" section should not repeat links which are already given in the article." If you had objections to it, you could have just removed those links and added something else. But you didn't after I defended myself on your talk page. Saying, "you should learn among other things" is quite rude. My block last block was perceived as edit warring when in fact I was making contributions over an article dispute. And those "personal attacks" was based on evidence of a fellow editor's refusal to acknowledge the factual basis of the article which is still happening on the article's talk page. And as for this template page, quite a number of templates use main categories. One example is foreign relations templates that use the eponymous category name for the template. Should they be removed? I don't think so because they're relevant to the templates. Another campaignbox template uses main categories as well. If you had a problem with me reverting that edit on the template of which you reverted in the first place, you could have just said something on my talk page. And for the sort keys, it's self-explanatory. It's just a waste of space and I doubt it makes navigating through categories easier or better. It should be noted that all of my contributions on Wikipedia are toward's improving the site and nothing else. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

He continue to remove sort keys even now and not listening anything:. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4, Stop. It's not a big deal. You don't need to follow Wiki guidelines extremely by the book. If anything you're not contributing by just undoing. These actions count as edit warring. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:218.155.164.106 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Tower Infinity."
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Tower Infinity."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Tower Infinity."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP editor has had numerous warnings across a number of months about adding unsourced material. They have previously had a block. I think a longer block is warranted Robynthehode (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Velella reported by User:JerryUSAUSAUSA (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "Talk" occurred during edit summaries and Velella irrationally rejected all evidence/sources presented, even though said sources were accepted on other articles for the same purposes.

Comments:


 * I added accounting as a profession, and this user maliciously rejected sources that were accepted and used by other Wiki articles for similar purposes. User is acting irrationally/maliciously and in bad faith to prevent accounting from being listed as a profession, for some reason. JerryUSAUSAUSA (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * JerryUSAUSAUSA is warned for personal attacks and assumption of bad faith. Since they know enough to come here, we can assume they're aware that they're edit-warring if they continue.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Sampajanna reported by User:SecretName101 (Result: Both warned)
Page: User being reported:

ADMINS: Please advise proper procedure to follow, as this is the first time that I have been reported for edit warring since becoming a Wikipedia editor on 11 August 2014. A schedule of possible penalties would also be appreciated. As my user contribution history shows, my last edits (excluding talk pages) are:
 * 19:58, 9 March 2021 : Undid revision 1011236760 by Keivan.f (talk) / Sorry the other section is under discussion .. ;
 * 19:41, 9 March 2021 : See talk .. ;
 * 19:38 9 March 2021 : ‎User:SecretName101 took this (VERACITY section) to Talk for discussion ...
 * 19:36, 9 March 2021 : Currently under discussion in Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry / Please do not add again until consensus reach ...

From 18:31 to 23:06, 9 March 2021‎ : I was intermittently caught up in Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry * mostly with User:SecretName101, who kept pinging me and seems to have asked for an apology at 23:19, 9 March 2021 while I was away from my screen. At 23:54, SecretName101 reported me here at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, regardless of the fact that I had repeatedly advised that "the matter under discussion was resolved" (at 20:21). The tone of our discussions can be seen on the talk page and below. Thank you. Sampajanna (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Needs attention for their conduct on the article Oprah with Meghan and Harry

Comment: Accusation disputed. Last edit 19:58, 9 March 2021. / Waiting patiently. Sampajanna

They have edit warred and flouted the WP:three revert rule. On March 9, within less than two hours, they made four separate reverts of others’ edits (at the times of 18:26, 18:23, 18:10, 18:06).

Comment: Chaotic editing period (highly controversial topic) / No advance WP:three revert rule warning given. Sampajanna

More worthy of discipline, however, is the conduct they have acted with in the past day or so. Sampajanna….

Comment: Accusation disputed. User:SecretName101 possibly carrying forward a personal grudge from this * interaction.
 * After reporting me here, User:SecretName101 posted the following to the talk page, possibly to shame / embarrass me:
 * I have reported Sampajanna at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I hate that I was pushed by someone to report them. It's something I have never done, but nobody has ever acted so poorly towards me on this project before. There is only one other person in all of Wikimedia I ever would have reported (it was on Meta Wiki, and someone else beat me to it). User:SecretName101 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It would seem that User:SecretName101 managed to compile and lodge his first ever edit warring report 35 minutes after his request for an apology at 23:19. In retrospect, it is not beyond the realm of possibilty that the consistent pinging over a 4.5 hour period was an attempt to provoke me into displaying emotional responses, which could be included in evidence being compiled while verbally assaulting, even bullying me. In general, I have previously found that this is a strategy used by certain editors that have been around for more than ten years. In fact, Wikipedia may care to conduct a survey, at least, to determine what level this form of institutional abuse / online harrassment occurs.Sampajanna


 * On the talk page, have conducted themselves abrasively, rudely. Has made numerous unkind insinuations about me. Violated Civility, and has refused, when asked, to make any apologies for such conduct.
 * Comment: Accusation disputed. QUOTE SecretName101 : "So you can _____-off"* sarcastic (below) / making assumptions. See above re apology. Sampajanna


 * Disregarded an “in use” tag repeatedly in editing the article
 * Comment: Chaotic editing period / User:SecretName101 was asked to "To avoid an edit war, please take this to talk."* Sampajanna


 * Has removed content with poor justification
 * Comment: Accusation disputed. User:SecretName101 indignant / sarcastic. (QUOTE SecretName101):"**sarcasm**Yeah, my bad. How could I have not seen the conversation below ... My bad for forgetting to use my psychic powers.**sarcasm**" * Sampajanna


 * Has seemed to break the principles of WP:OWN and WP:Advocacy
 * Comment: Accusation disputed. (See talk)* Sampajanna


 * Has made the offensive insinuation on the talk page that sources are unreliable because nations in which they originate are supposedly “anti-British” (arguing that no Scottish, Irish, or Indian source can be cited in covering a British matter)
 * Comment: Accusation disputed. Exaggeration.(See talk)* Sampajanna


 * Marked a discussion on the talk page as “closed” prematurely so that they could have the last word
 * Comment: Accusation disputed. Only me and User:SecretName101 who took 29 hours to notice.
 * Discussion reopened to appease User:SecretName101 / No furher comment as already stated. Sampajanna (talk) Sampajanna

QUOTE SecretName101 : "So you can _____-off"*

Amid my encounter/confrontation with them, I have been fortunate to receive support from other editors, both on the talk page and through “thanks” given for my restoration of unjustifiably removed comments, and my postings in the comments section.


 * Comment: Name and shame:
 * After reporting me here, User:SecretName101 posted the following to the talk page, possibly to shame / embarrass me or garner support:
 * I have reported Sampajanna at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I hate that I was pushed by someone to report them. It's something I have never done, but nobody has ever acted so poorly towards me on this project before. There is only one other person in all of Wikimedia I ever would have reported (it was on Meta Wiki, and someone else beat me to it). User:SecretName101 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Editors who may have some input/prospective on this include, ,  ,

SecretName101 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Possible collusion :
 * It would seem that User:SecretName101 managed to compile and lodge his first ever edit warring report 35 minutes after his request for an apology at 23:19. In retrospect, it is not beyond the realm of possibilty that the consistent pinging over a 4.5 hour period was an attempt to provoke me into displaying emotional responses, which could be included in evidence being compiled while verbally assaulting, even bullying me. In general, I have previously found that this a strategy used by certain editors that have been around for more than ten years. In fact, Wikipedia may care to conduct a survey, at least, to determine what level this form of institutional abuse / online harrassment occurs.Sampajanna

Diffs for those four reverts within less than two hours are: SecretName101 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Comment: Chaotic editing period (highly controversial topic) / No advance WP:three revert rule warning given. Sampajanna

Examples of edit warring include SecretName101 (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * this and this consecutive edits
 * this and this consecutive edit.

Comment: Chaotic editing period (highly controversial topic) / No advance WP:three revert rule warning given. Sampajanna

Comment:
 * Wow. That was fast. I am in another part of the world and not always in front of a screen. You seem to ask for an apology at 23:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC). At 23:54, you report me at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Then, post also to the Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry page as well, possibly to name and shame me. As this is now a Wikipedia administrative matter, I shall respect SecretName101's privacy by not making any further comment about this administrative matter on this particular talk page. Sampajanna (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I just saw I was pinged - goodness, this is a bit of a mess. Speaking purely to concerns of WP:EDITWAR: Given the edit history of the aforementioned page, it would be well-advised for the user to forgo excessive reversions in favor of talk page discussion going forward, per the WP:3RR and WP:BRD that advises all editors. I gently hope that this issue should remain the main topic of the discussion per the practice of this noticeboard, although that evidently might be out of my hands. Best wishes. --Bettydaisies (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for your input, Bettydaisies. Articles that we have collaborated very closely on include Archewell, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Markle Windsor Foundation. On the page under discussion here (Oprah with Meghan and Harry), I did acknowledge * (User:Bettydaisies My bad. Distracted by another editor ...) a recent edit error I made on one of yours * Bettydaisies (talk) ... Check this https://news.sky.com/story/race-allegations-concerning-and-will-be-addressed-says-palace-after-harry-and-meghan-interview-12240160?fbclid=IwAR0nyOcR96nx64dH7ZtZLuqyTYEbjKh5bAhAmYIRiSbyDi8YTtZTqWKgTT8). This partly occurred because I sometimes communicate this way with editors that I know, to draw their attention to perhaps another useful source. Please note that the Oprah with Meghan and Harry revision history indicates that my last edit there was 19:58, 9 March 2021 (almost eleven hours ago). Sampajanna (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Evening - I intended to refer to the diffs given above with the exception of the aforementioned resolved revert, thank you for acknowledging the matter previously. I hope this helps. Best wishes to all involved.--Bettydaisies (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

* ADMINS: Please advise proper procedure to follow, as this is the first time that I have been reported for edit warring since becoming a Wikipedia editor on 11 August 2014. A schedule of possible penalties would also be appreciated. Sampajanna

After I asked for an apology, I saw you had already given your opinion on giving an apology to me. "Very droll". No Swan So Fine had asked you to apologize, and that is how you responded. You were granted ample opportunity, as I repeatedly told you that you were being rude. You never apologized. You were specifically asked to apologize by No Swan So Fine, and responded that way. I was not rash in reporting this matter. And, still, I see no apology. You could still apologize. You've been reported, but if you knew you were wrong you'd apologize regardless. You clearly don't realize you were acting wrongly. SecretName101 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not keep posting comments (such as those numbered 1 and 2 below) publicly to me on the Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry page.


 * 1. (Sampajanna) After I asked for an apology, I saw you had already given your opinion on giving an apology to me. "Very droll". No Swan So Fine had asked you to apologize, and that is how you responded. SecretName101 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: So far as I am aware, No Swan So Fine is a non-related third party with a seemingly sarcastic sense of humour. These are the actual comments you are referring to :


 * To continue the excellent progress and prevent further tears flowing, could you please apologise to SecretName101 for your incivility towards them earlier? No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: You had more obviously exhibited sarcasm by earlier posting this :
 * (Sampajanna): **sarcasm**Yeah, my bad. How could I have not seen the conversation below, which was begun after the comment you are replying to. My bad for forgetting to use my psychic powers.**sarcasm**
 * Perhaps you need to read more carefully, signatures clearly mark when posts were made SecretName101 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: You were requested repeatedly to see below. It turned out that you were not looking at the last comment in the discussion, due to the fact that you were posting in other parts of the page.


 * 2. (Sampajanna) You were granted ample opportunity, as I repeatedly told you you were rude. You never apologized there. You were specifically offered a chance by No Swan So Fine, and responded that way. Don't act like I was "rash" in reporting this matter. SecretName101 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I was not aware that you had authorised No Swan So Fine to speak on your behalf. Sampajanna (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I addressed you, Sampajanna, because I was distressed by your treatment of SecretName101 and I directly quoted you in the 'tears flowing' comment because I felt your words were ironic in light of the chaos of your insinuations against them on the talk page. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment:
 * No Swan So Fine : Let's consider this holistically. About 2.5 hours after the discussion started, you commented at 20:53 (see below). Firstly with statistics. (Yes, I do recall some unintentional coding problems on my own talk page after you posted on it a few days ago): DrKay : Thanks for your input. There was no need for No Swan So Fine to post on my talk page in the first place, as I had already commented in the edit summary of the Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor article. Sampajanna (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC))* A lot of my editing includes coding, formatting, linguistics, fact-checking, history and so on. The unfortunate thing about Wikipedia and perhaps contemporary society generally is too much of what mainstream media pumps out is taken to be accurate. Hence, my second sentence below to you. I do not know you at all. My guess now is you could be American. American humour is well known for being sarcastic. I do not particularly mind. SecretName101 inserted the word "sarcasm" twice into one of his comments to me. How would I know when a third person, such as yourself (who could even be from the UK) joins in randomly; whether you are there to support or attack SecretName101. On the internet, hidden agendas abound. I was not taking any chances of being set up. Sampajanna (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I absolutely concur with . If you examine the statistics of this article, has at present made 54%(!) of the edits yet contributed less than 8% of the text. Their constant incivility and insinuations on this talk page is deeply regrettable as well. Please, Sampajanna, try and exercise some restraint, perhaps edit sections of the article in your sandbox to gauge grammatical and prose changes etc. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:No Swan So Fine Thanks for sharing your opinions. Data is not so much like gold as it is more like manure, and copious amounts of text dumped on pages in bulk by editors with differing skillsets require an extensive amount of editing. In this case, Oprah with Meghan and Harry, there has been excellent collaborative progress made over the first day or so to get where we all are now. You would well know that, once started, an article can be changed at any time. Therefore, smaller contributions and edits make it simpler for everyone to correct and follow. And, in the end, hopefully less tears flow. Sampajanna (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To continue the excellent progress and prevent further tears flowing, could you please apologise to SecretName101 for your incivility towards them earlier? No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To continue the excellent progress and prevent further tears flowing, could you please apologise to SecretName101 for your incivility towards them earlier? No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not keep posting comments on my talk page, especially outside a closed discussion. For example:

That does not read to me like a move to "respect my privacy", but rather a move to get the last word. Stop doing this. It was part of my complaint that you prematurely closed another discussion to get the last word. After I asked for an apology, I saw you had already given your opinion on giving an apology to me. "Very droll". No Swan So Fine had asked you to apologize, and that is how you responded. You were granted ample opportunity, as I repeatedly told you that you were being rude. You never apologized. You were specifically asked to apologize by No Swan So Fine, and responded that way. I was not rash in reporting this matter. And, still, I see no apology. You could still apologize. You've been reported, but if you knew you were wrong you'd apologize regardless. You clearly don't realize you were acting wrongly. SecretName101 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Now the following have appeared on the Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry page:

Sampajanna: After I asked for an apology, I saw you had already given your opinion on giving an apology to me. "Very droll". No Swan So Fine had asked you to apologize, and that is how you responded. You were granted ample opportunity, as I @Sampajanna: You were granted ample opportunity, as I repeatedly told you you were rude. You never apologized there. You were specifically offered a chance by No Swan So Fine, and responded that way. Don't act like I was "rash" in reporting this matter. SecretName101 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sampajanna: And, still, no apology. You could still apologize. You've been reported, but if you knew you were wrong you'd apologize regardless. You clearly don't realize you were acting wrongly. SecretName101 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I know feelings are running high and there are issues that need to be addressed, however, I ask you guys to continue this discussion on the noticeboard because this is really going off topic now and is not constructive for the article either. Keivan.f Talk 01:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I agree completely with Keivan.f. As I have previously stated, this is now a Wikipedia administrative matter. Sampajanna (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please don't ping me on your page and then close the discussion so I cannot reply. You need to learn WP:WHENCLOSE, because you clearly like abusing the practice of closing discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Please do not keep pinging me. Sampajanna (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Please do not keep pinging me. Sampajanna (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw the last comment agreeing that we keep that section. It resolved you not removing the content any more. It did not close the matter of your abusive attitude towards me. Nor did it negate any of the abusive and improper actions you took. SecretName101 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

And still. Again. Without an apology. You clearly don't think you treated me poorly or did anything else wrong. SecretName101 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Please do not keep pinging me. Sampajanna (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose was being "sarcastic" when they wrote  about you "Their constant incivility and insinuations on this talk page is deeply regrettable as well. Please, Sampajanna, try and exercise some restraint." Your insinuation they were being sarcastic in asking for an apology shows how little you think you have to apologize for. SecretName101 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That comment was not sarcastic, and was written with sincerity. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment:
 * No Swan So Fine : Let's consider this holistically. About 2.5 hours after the discussion started, you commented at 20:53 (see below). Firstly with statistics. (Yes, I do recall some unintentional coding problems on my own talk page after you posted on it a few days ago): DrKay : Thanks for your input. There was no need for No Swan So Fine to post on my talk page in the first place, as I had already commented in the edit summary of the Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor article. Sampajanna (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC))* A lot of my editing includes coding, formatting, linguistics, fact-checking, history and so on. The unfortunate thing about Wikipedia and perhaps contemporary society generally is too much of what mainstream media pumps out is taken to be accurate. Hence, my second sentence below to you. I do not know you at all. My guess now is you could be American. American humour is well known for being sarcastic. I do not particularly mind. SecretName101 inserted the word "sarcasm" twice into one of his comments to me. How would I know when a third person, such as yourself (who could even be from the UK) joins in randomly; whether you are there to support or attack SecretName101. On the internet, hidden agendas abound. I was not taking any chances of being set up. Sampajanna (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I absolutely concur with . If you examine the statistics of this article, has at present made 54%(!) of the edits yet contributed less than 8% of the text. Their constant incivility and insinuations on this talk page is deeply regrettable as well. Please, Sampajanna, try and exercise some restraint, perhaps edit sections of the article in your sandbox to gauge grammatical and prose changes etc. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:No Swan So Fine Thanks for sharing your opinions. Data is not so much like gold as it is more like manure, and copious amounts of text dumped on pages in bulk by editors with differing skillsets require an extensive amount of editing. In this case, Oprah with Meghan and Harry, there has been excellent collaborative progress made over the first day or so to get where we all are now. You would well know that, once started, an article can be changed at any time. Therefore, smaller contributions and edits make it simpler for everyone to correct and follow. And, in the end, hopefully less tears flow. Sampajanna (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To continue the excellent progress and prevent further tears flowing, could you please apologise to SecretName101 for your incivility towards them earlier? No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To continue the excellent progress and prevent further tears flowing, could you please apologise to SecretName101 for your incivility towards them earlier? No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No Swan So Fine Very droll. Sampajanna (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

* ADMINS: Please advise proper procedure to follow, as this is the first time that I have been reported for edit warring since becoming a Wikipedia editor on 11 August 2014. A schedule of possible penalties would also be appreciated. Sampajanna

* ADMINS: Further to the above dialogues, your attention is respectfully drawn to the following recent talk page discussion with the editor currently accusing me of edit warring. Sampajanna (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In particular:


 * @User:SecretName101 You were asked in the edit summary an hour ago: "To avoid an edit war, please take this to talk." Sampajanna (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Oprah with Meghan and Harry*


 * @User:SecretName101 Please carefully read what you write before posting. For example, "Harry and Meghan announced that the child she is expecting will be a baby girl, and that their due date would be Valentine's Day of 2021." Valentine's day 2021 was last month. Sampajanna (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would have had time to review my edits if I wasn't rushed to publish by someone repeatedly stepping on my toes, ignoring the "in use" tag completely. SecretName101 (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You did notice that there was a giant tag atop the article reading "please do not edit this page while this message is displayed", didn't you? Why'd you ignore it completely? Because before I had made that mistake, you had already made seven or eight edits while that tag was in place. You can see why I'd be rushed to post my edits, before another edit conflict complicated my ability to post them. SecretName101 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:SecretName101 : Again, please carefully read what you write before posting and accept responsibility thereafter. Sampajanna (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, way to not own up to your total disregard for a tag warning you not to make intervening edits. That's the reason people put those tags in place. Otherwise they'll be rushed you make their edits quickly to decrease the odds of coming across and edit conflict. SecretName101 (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:SecretName101 You were asked in the edit summary an hour ago: "To avoid an edit war, please take this to talk." Sampajanna (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, again, but was that about the error I made because you were rushing me by ignoring the tag? Pretty sure it was. Was it not? SecretName101 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:SecretName101 : Please click and carefully read this WP:OWN. Then, check Oprah with Meghan and Harry Revision history at 03:45, 8 March 2021‎ for yourself ... Sampajanna (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not WP:OWN. This is an incident in which you would not grant me 15 or so minutes to make the needed major edit I was in the process of executing SecretName101 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @User:SecretName101 Ask yourself: Why is this bothering you so much? Beyond that, I have nothing further to add. Sampajanna (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI, prematurely marking a discussion "closed" so that you can have the last word is bad practice friend. You are rather shameless. SecretName101 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Discussion reopened to appease User:SecretName101 / No furher comment as already stated .Sampajanna (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the above conversation happened a day before the edit warring I reported you for. It was the incident where you completely disregarded an "in use" tag. And also the conversation where you closed a conversation in a bad faith effort to get the last word. But nice pointing out you were edit warring even earlier. SecretName101 (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Accusation rejected Sampajanna (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you not clutter this with full excerpts of conversations unformatted. It makes this discussion incomprehensible for anyone to read. SecretName101 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Reply reserved until ADMINS confirm procedures and protocols of this complaint investigation. Sampajanna (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

* ADMINS: Please advise proper procedure to follow, as this is the first time that I have been reported for edit warring since becoming a Wikipedia editor on 11 August 2014. A schedule of possible penalties would also be appreciated. Sampajanna


 * Result: User:Sampajanna and User:SecretName101 are both warned for edit warring on this article on 9 March. Each of you is risking a block if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. (Due to the long comments above I've collapsed part of the report). EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:103.146.240.1 reported by User:Drt1245 (Result: Semi)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Additional IPs used:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Repeated removal of references on IBall (company)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (IP address change)
 * 6)  (IP address change)
 * 7)  (IP address change)
 * 8) There's a ton more in the page history
 * 9) Repeated addition of unsourced WP:PUFFERY on Chinchwad
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on IBall (company)
 * 2)  Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Chinchwad
 * 3)  Warning: Edit warring on IBall (company)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor has received repeated warnings about adding unsourced content. The user has also used many other IPs in the 103.146.240.x range (see the revision history for IBall (company)) -drt1245 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Two pages semiprotected one month each. You listed many additional IPs but they have not been recently active. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was trying to point out that this user has a long history of edit warring on multiple IPs (which I did not realize when I first made this report). In the past, they have done this on many other articles as well. Not sure that protecting those two pages will be sufficient, going forward. -drt1245 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Sschrank reported by User:Zefr (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I added a small paragraph on neuromuscular massage and that it would positively effect a patient suffering from PD"
 * 2)  "I added a small paragraph on neuromuscular massage and that it would positively effect a patient suffering from PD"
 * 3)  "I added a small paragraph on neuromuscular massage and that it would positively effect a patient suffering from PD"
 * 4)  "I added a small paragraph on neuromuscular massage and that it would positively effect a patient suffering from PD"
 * 5)  "I added a small paragraph on neuromuscular massage and that it would positively effect a patient suffering from PD"
 * 1)  "I added a small paragraph on neuromuscular massage and that it would positively effect a patient suffering from PD"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Parkinson's disease."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Parkinson's disease."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Parkinson's disease."

Comments:

User has a copyvio notice on the talk page, and has exceeded 3RR warring to insert disputed content. User needs to resolve copyvio, and should be given a rest. Notice about resolution given in 3RR warning. Zefr (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – Sschrank is blocked 48 hours for edit warring and copyright violations at Parkinson's disease. I'm also warning User:Fcchandra and User:Caliloeffler they may be blocked if they continue to revert at this article without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. (They seem to be unaware of WP:MEDRS). It seems possible that members of the same class are trying to edit Wikipedia. (See this inquiry). This is not likely to be a case of sockpuppetry, but even new users are expected to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Coltsfan reported by User:Daveout (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: See the page history: Jair Bolsonaro

Comment: 3RR was violated. Sorry I can't format this properly as I am on my mobile. But the page history says it all. -  (talk)  01:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * First, no "3RR" was violated. First, there was a revert, another revert, then a self revert in between. After that, i initiated direct contact with the user (here). However, in return, i only got 3 reverts and at no point the other user tried to use the talk page or tried to contact me (like i did to him). Hardly consistent with the narrative here. Plus, i was trying to mantain the wp:status quo of the page and preserve WP:MOS. Coltsfan (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:EW: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part ." I did no revert more than 3 times, you did. You're the one who didn't respect the status quo and refused to discuss when I asked you to. As I said, the history says it all. You reached me for discussion after I filled this report. -   (talk)  02:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you did push the revert button 3 times, not me: One, two, three, without any attempt at dialogue beyond the edit summary.
 * "You reached me for discussion after I filled this report". Nope, thats a lie. I contacted you (here) solid 21 minutes before you opened this report (here). Coltsfan (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I specifically said no more than three times (which is the limit set by WP:EW). do you even know how to read? or are you being intentionally disingenuos? -   (talk)  02:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, one of the edits was a self revert and the other was reverting to enforce a policy (MOS:HON). Coltsfan (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2401:7400:4005:1EE6:1:1:21BE:A18D reported by User:Jtrrs0 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on NokScoot."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user User:2401:7400:4005:1EE6:1:1:21BE:A18D also edited in Singapore Airlines fleet that their Boeing 777-200ER will be upgrade and refurbishment from NokScoot that ceased operation last June 26, 2020 and other airline pages who operated Boeing 777-200ER that they will have their aircraft to upgrade and to be refurbishment. But, I didn't heard the news or see the website last night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corner2002 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The IP editor seems to have limited ability in English. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:73.225.15.150 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Note this has been discussed at length many times, and this wp:spa has made no attempt to go to talk and discuss it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:I Use Dial reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Block, semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1011481928 by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1011478083 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1011477680 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1011477495 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 5)  "MEAWW is a NewsGuard certified source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Discretionary sanctions notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Meaww article re. "impeach Queen Elizabeth" */"
 * 2)   "/* Meaww article re. "impeach Queen Elizabeth" */ r"
 * 3)   "/* Meaww article re. "impeach Queen Elizabeth" */"
 * 4)   "/* Meaww article re. "impeach Queen Elizabeth" */"
 * 5)   "r, no."

Comments:

Edit-warring poorly-sourced material into a BLP against emerging talk page consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No source indicating the quoted source is poorly-source has been provided, while other articles have been using the NewsGuard service within the articles on news outlets within Wikipedia to gauge the quality of the source. Either NewsGuard is a service that can be used to gauge sources in Wikipedia, or it cannot, but it cannot be selectively applied as a gauge for news sources across the platform. Further, as shown on the talk page, the editors are holding the article hostage and applying their own original research as well as behaving as if they are the owners of the article. Further, if anyone wants to have a glance at the edit history, who here has truly been engaging in edit-warring on this article more than the editor who has created this report? I Use Dial (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been reverting your addition of poorly-sourced negative material into a biography against talk page consensus, in the hopes that you would come to your senses, stop, and comply with policy. Since you evidently have no intention of dropping the stick, we have to come here. The editor has reverted *again* since I filed this report. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As we can see by the tone of the above reply, the editor feels they own the article by suggesting it is not appropriate for me to revert an article the editor has just reverted, and continues to ignore my claims in the talk page and goes further in an attempt to intimidate me by claiming that I am the one engaging in the negative behaviors, which I am the one trying to follow the original intent of Wikipedia by applying a consensus derived from across the entire site on how to gauge a source. If the editor would like to attempt to address this, please do. Otherwise, this will continue because I am being ignored. I also feel I am being bullied by this and another user, though at this time I am not going to report it, because I am in fact following the Wikipedia guideline for editors to be bold. I Use Dial (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that I am trying to "own" the article is a great example of gaslighting, given that the talk page discussion is 5-1 against I Use Dial's proposed edits. The corollary to being bold is that when a bold edit is reverted, the bold editor has a responsibility to discuss their edits and gain consensus for them. That they have failed to gain consensus (and that consensus is clearly against them) is evident. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: is blocked 48 hours for edit warring; the article is semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, there is now consensus that NewsGuard is not reliable to judge a source cited on Wikipedia? Because nobody has provided a source claiming that MEAWW is not a credible source and I have provided one that states it is a credible source. That or you are just shutting down conversation. Quite effective, I'd say. I Use Dial (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:AviationLogger reported by User:NZFC (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed fake information"
 * 2)  "Fake info"
 * 3)  "Fixed fake news"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Censorship of material on GetJet Airlines."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on GetJet Airlines."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Was also IP 89.249.82.66 before they created account to continue trying to remove content NZFC  <sup style="color:black">(talk) <sup style="color:black">(cont)  11:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) After a better look now given time, IPs and Aviationlogger may have legitimate edits but going about it wrong way. Have done some clean up but think more can be done. Needs references and some removal, so will look at it further but can't now until tomorrow. NZFC <sup style="color:black">(talk) <sup style="color:black">(cont)  11:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Please use this time to determine whether the news article here (in Lithuanian) contains material that deserves to be included in the article. Perhaps you can find a Lithuanian-speaker to assist or some press coverage in other languages. The person reported here was removing language that reads like a legal indictment, so you should be sure whatever we decide to keep is well founded. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:8ya reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Both 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: deleted by User as spam here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit warring is a continuation of previous lengthy discussion here: Talk:Lai Đại Hàn

Comments: After a lengthy discussion on the Talk page in December/January where we could not reach agreement and I suggested that 8ya should seek another forum they returned to the page today and started edit warring. When I said that we had discussed this previously on the Talk page they claimed that there was no discussion as I wasn't listening to them as can be seen in the edit summaries and they went on to break 3RR. Mztourist (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the discussion, but I don't see consensus. In fact I see the opposite; in the discussion thread, both of you dropped out from exhaustion. I would strongly recommend getting a third opinion or seeking dispute resolution. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User talk:Ritchie333 why have I been blocked? I didn't breach 3RR unlike 8ya, I warned 8ya about edit warring and was ignored and I had earlier attempted to resolve the issue on the Talk Page with no progress. This seems punitive against me. Please advise the appeal process. Mztourist (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The appeal process is to read the guide to appealing blocks and put  on your user talk page. An admin will review and unblock it if they do not believe it is necessary. I realise you attempted to resolve the issue on the talk page, but in my view it broke down - you really need to get at least a third opinion on this to progress further. Otherwise it just looks like "he said, she said". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I opened the discussion on the Talk Page, I didn't "drop out from exhaustion" as you suggest, rather the discussion ran its course 8ya didn't go to another forum and then came back a month latter to edit war and yet I am being given a punitive block the same as 8ya who actually breached 3RR. So I will be appealing. Mztourist (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As a passing editor, I'm inclined to agree with here re: this block. While that talk page discussion achieved no consensus, Mztourist I don't think gave up at all. His reversions of 8ya's edits seem to be in line with WP:BRD and WP:QUO, as 8ya appears to have decided to give up on discussion and impose his preferred version on the page. Additionally, as he said, he didn't break the 3RR (I realise that you can still be blocked for less than that, but I don't think it's justified in this instance). — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking your time to help! Just wondering, for future reference, in cases where there was no thorough discussion like here due to WP:IDHT (or whatever the proper tag would be), could one still get a WP:3O? WP:DRN seems somewhat unfit to me8ya (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would go with 3O as a first step. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks! 8ya (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother one last time, but with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&diff=1011162286&oldid=1011159615 I removed a ref which was mentioned the next sentence. Could someone please add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8ya (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Was done by a Bot, nevermind 8ya (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah; 8ya has reverted again (I would say blindly, bit they left a completely pointless and misleading edit-summary). Has not returned to, or re-opened, the talk page discussion since the block was placed or expired. Indeed, for someone so keen on 'go[ing] to talk', they have not edited the talk page since January. ——  Serial  16:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reblocked for 72 hours this time. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Lawrencekhoo reported by User:ATS (Result: No violation)
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:

Comments:

Textbook case of "the use of repeated edits to 'win' a content dispute."

User:Lawrencekhoo removes properly sourced data from article lede based on his that a majority of reliable sources must mention something to satisfy BLPLEAD (and specifically UNDUE), a requirement that does not exist.

The user's stated reason for the edit war is "I have not seen any news or magazine articles" describing the article subject as both an actor and singer; failure to do due diligence is not an excuse to edit war. Further, the user that BRD is irrelevant because it is not policy.

My reply has gone unanswered for over 24 hours.

—ATS (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break 3RR. The dispute is about 'actress' versus actor, and whether to use 'singer' in the lead. Why not look over the leads of some featured articles to see whether 'actress' is commonly used. Also, what does it take to identify someone as a singer? This must have been discussed elsewhere. If no agreement can be reached on Talk, consider the steps of WP:DR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3RR and EW are not synonymous. That said, I will follow DR. —ATS (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:SteveBrownIreland reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1011562953 by Praxidicae (talk) cannoli is only the plural form"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1011562672 by Praxidicae (talk) it's cannolo"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1011551417 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk)"
 * 4)  "It's spelled Cannolo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cannoli."
 * 2)   "/* March 2021 */"

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

Comments:
 * And a further reversion even after filing this despite a talk page discussion being open and a clearly established consensus per WP:Use English. CUPIDICAE💕  15:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since User:SteveBrownIreland reverted their last change. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:LiphradicusEpicus (Result: Filer blocked)
/* Nonsense report that uses the diffs of edits made by the reporting editor (copied from the above report) and includes a long rant full of personal attacks. */

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of changed material:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1011722833 by LiphradicusEpicus (talk): See Personal Talk Page North and JLevi more information is given; essentially the Meaww source is used to show the story told by the subject (Tim) is a real story in the sense that it did in fact happen; dubious tags further explained on your pages as well"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1011722440 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) THREE INDIVIDUALS DOES NOT MAKE A CONSENSUS. PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO AN ADMIN REGARDING YOUR RULE VIOLATIONS?"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1011720510 by LiphradicusEpicus: Cr dates; + queen of Eng. & impeachment call; + dubnav tag to cat-story due to OR policy; + POV tag; +dubnav tag to earlier clm abt relationship status due to OR policy; DailyBeast is _not_ a neutral source and every claim they make needs additional sourcing to be considered even remotely in the realm of validity; they are a tabloid-style publication not afraid to invent statements and stories to fit their narratives; +cr to Queen Impeachment..."
 * 4)  "/* Independent work */ cr dates; + queen of Eng. & impeachment call; + dubnav tag to cat-story due to OR policy; + POV tag; +dubnav tag to earlier clm abt relationship status due to OR policy; DailyBeast is _not_ a neutral source and every claim they make needs additional sourcing to be considered even remotely in the realm of validity; they are a tabloid-style publication not afraid to invent statements and stories to fit their narratives; +cr to Queen Impeachment Story; +Political POV NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Meaww article re. "impeach Queen Elizabeth" */"

Personal, prior steps taken to resolve issue
 * Contact via User's talk page
 * Contact via article's talk page
 * Remind user that consensus is not defined by only 3 persons in a many-headed dispute
 * Cut out problem text from main article and hold it on standby within the Talk page in order to vet and clarify source and respective positions
 * Double check various policies in order to ensure Wikipedia standards are being upheld
 * Clarify reasoning for inclusion of specifically referenced website "Meaww"
 * Restated on article's talk page various paramount rules relevant to BLP for all users (including NorthBSB here) pertinent to the current situation
 * Thanked another (sensible) editor who shares NorthBSB's position regarding the stance of the specific issue in question for their contributions to the page and the arguments
 * Made extremely detailed and efficient edit summaries in order to provide utmost clarity

Comments:

Abusive and clearly narcissistic individual attempting to abuse Wikipedia's editing system. Refuses to listen to rules, refuses to acknowledge proper article editing etiquette, does not listen to entire arguments, claims false-consenses in order to "bully" other editors; most egregious violation is lying about my identity. I have been editing this site for years and have been verified for just as long. Starts so-named "editing wars" and claims no fault. Does not understand BLP policy regarding dubious sources, original research, and bias. I attempted to explain rationally to NorthBSB the situation, point-of-view, and our policies here at Wikipedia but no common ground was found. Eventually, I temporarily removed my credible and well-documented addition to the article and have pasted it onto the talk page until the matter can be resolved. User also said page had no need of protection whenever clearly it does because of the current events that are transpiring. Person also keeps ranting about "sockpuppet" accounts—unclear if genuine or "troll". Update: User is either extremely confused or willfully malicious; after informing them that they were reported here, they replied and I directly quote: "Wikipedia is not, in fact, a democracy. Policy is not subject to a vote. Ta-ta. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)"—clearly a toxic and egregious violation of our very mission-statement; we use consensus here for just about everything!
 * Result: The filer, User:LiphradicusEpicus, is blocked 72 hours for personal attacks per their above statementa, "Abusive and clearly narcissistic individual..". If you consider it super-important that this jokey tweet about the Queen be included in Tim Pool's article, consider opening an WP:RFC. If anyone thinks that the filer is a sock and that they have evidence, the WP:SPI noticeboard is open to you. Why would the older account be a sock of the newer account? EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:LiphradicusEpicus reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1011722833 by LiphradicusEpicus (talk): See Personal Talk Page North and JLevi more information is given; essentially the Meaww source is used to show the story told by the subject (Tim) is a real story in the sense that it did in fact happen; dubious tags further explained on your pages as well"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1011722440 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) THREE INDIVIDUALS DOES NOT MAKE A CONSENSUS. PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO AN ADMIN REGARDING YOUR RULE VIOLATIONS?"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1011720510 by LiphradicusEpicus: Cr dates; + queen of Eng. & impeachment call; + dubnav tag to cat-story due to OR policy; + POV tag; +dubnav tag to earlier clm abt relationship status due to OR policy; DailyBeast is _not_ a neutral source and every claim they make needs additional sourcing to be considered even remotely in the realm of validity; they are a tabloid-style publication not afraid to invent statements and stories to fit their narratives; +cr to Queen Impeachment..."
 * 4)  "/* Independent work */ cr dates; + queen of Eng. & impeachment call; + dubnav tag to cat-story due to OR policy; + POV tag; +dubnav tag to earlier clm abt relationship status due to OR policy; DailyBeast is _not_ a neutral source and every claim they make needs additional sourcing to be considered even remotely in the realm of validity; they are a tabloid-style publication not afraid to invent statements and stories to fit their narratives; +cr to Queen Impeachment Story; +Political POV NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Meaww article re. "impeach Queen Elizabeth" */"

Comments:

Sock /meatpuppet of user blocked yesterday for edit-warring this same material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:NorthBySouthBaranof is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. Even if Pool's tweet about Queen Elizabeth is admitted to be a joke by Tim Pool himself, a future admin may decide that enough is enough and block your account anyway. Adding the tweet may appear stupid but removing it may not be excused by WP:NOT3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:245CMR reported by User:Saraffakarsh (Result: Both blocked)
Page : User being reported:

My changes on Goddess Ganga has been undone may times. its becoming an edit war. i have been asked not to do so with the user with its becoming hard to make him understand that hindusim is vast and has many stories in place

the user is : 245CMR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saraffakarsh (talk • contribs) 13:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Before any further action, admins please let me tell the full case. Saraffakarsh first need to see his/her flaws:


 * His reason for report against me is that I am not providing reasons. Actually it's the opposite, he was the one who was constantly edit warring despite my explanations in the review box. See these, ,
 * Reverted my edits which were sourced with WP: Secondary sources
 * Reverted wording which I were incorrect (Some of the earliest..........First read properly, Mahābhārata, Puranas are not the earliest
 * He has added chunks of unsourced content and when given time, you were the one who didn't bother to add sources, see WP:RS
 * His Ganga image (File:Ganga devi.jpg) have no proof that it is in Public Domain or CCO, thus a copyright right violation
 * I think there's a need of dispute resolution, please ping me. Regards, .💠 245CMR 💠. •👥📜 14:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both editors have gone way past WP:3RR and it seems likely that both will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Before any further action, admin please let me tell the full case. User:245CMR also need to look at the below points

from the user : User: Saraffakarsh — Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * any other user who reverts should atleast wait to respond or atleast need to tal on talk page. He never did so.
 * see all his reverts and other comments, he is behaving like monarchy and indirectly claiming that no no can edit the pages other that him. This is not only this page but alos the page regarding the hindu diety Vishwakarma.
 * "He has added chunks of unsourced content......" for this comment please refer the attachment i have attached in the reference section of famous Srinatha poet in the reference.
 * He never gives time to add reference, and keeps on reverting the subject of content. User: 245CMR you should have minimum patience and respect towards other writers before undoing the changes. the sources you claim you have attached are not relevent to palm leaf manuscripts or actual manucripts written by Vyasa. Please kindly check the original Books published by Banaras Hindu Unoiversity, your references are all against the university books.
 * Regarding the ganga Image - Admin, We cannot either attach the a painting by an artist [19th century Kalighat painting of goddess Ganga] as its under the West Bengal Government. kindly check the kali ghat paintings and other
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. Each editor made more than a dozen reverts of this article between March 9 and March 11. Though User:245CMR has more experience, this does not give them a license to keep reverting. The steps of WP:DR are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Buzles reported by User:86.83.56.115 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: last good version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6) There's more, but this should be enough.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

'''Comments: I have tried to talk to this person on the talk page of the article, he/she refuses to engage and keeps deleting the text from the talk page. Wikilawyering. Help. Never done this before, hope I'm doing this correctly.'''

Response

 * This IP is a possible IP sock of user:Leo Breman as claimed on his talk page. He has been engaging in vandalism by removing reliably sourced edits including citations to published research by ecologist David Pimentel. After failing to remove them, he reverts to distorting their research by accusing them of genocide advocacy and making edit summaries like these . He also engages in ad hominem attacks by calling them "sick puppies" . He then continues to distort their research cited on the article by putting links to Ecofascism . He also engaged in edit warring against another user whom he tried to later ping on the talk page with his repeated misleading accusations of genocide advocacy . When reminded not to engage in WP:CANVASSING, he left this edit summary.. I'll add more soon if I can.--Buzles (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * More examples of POV pushing and distorting sources in his edit & edit summaries . Also engaging in name calling in this edit right here .--Buzles (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 3 days by User:Wugapodes due to a complaint at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ===Response===
 * This IP is a possible IP sock of user:Leo Breman as claimed on his talk page. He has been engaging in vandalism by removing reliably sourced edits including citations to published research by ecologist David Pimentel. After failing to remove them, he reverts to distorting their research by accusing them of genocide advocacy and making edit summaries like these . He also engages in ad hominem attacks by calling them "sick puppies" . He then continues to distort their research cited on the article by putting links to Ecofascism . He also engaged in edit warring against another user whom he tried to later ping on the talk page with his repeated misleading accusations of genocide advocacy . When reminded not to engage in WP:CANVASSING, he left this edit summary.. I'll add more soon if I can.--Buzles (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * More examples of POV pushing and distorting sources in his edit & edit summaries . Also engaging in name calling in this edit right here .--Buzles (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Buzles, you seem to be confused about what sockpuppetry, edit warring and canvassing actually mean. Look them up! It would also be useful for you to look at the edits, because as anyone can see, no one ever removed citations to Pimentel's essay. Sockpuppetry is when someone pretends to be two or more people, as you rightly note, my identity is not hidden, and I have never used my IP as another person. Canvassing means getting my wikipedia friends to gang up on you, what I did was invite the people recently invested in editing this article to come to the talk page so that we could attempt to resolve your apparent issues. Furthermore, as you note, and I disagreed upon an issue of content, so me asking him to the discussion can hardly be called canvassing. Regarding my disagreement with Sadads, I got in touch, we had a discussion, and amicably came to a consensus, like responsible adults. Edit warring means constantly reverting edits, Sadads and me reverted each other once or twice, that's not edit warring. Edit warring would be reverting the article seven or eight times to your personal version, deleting all the citations and work done by everyone else in the interim ... like you have done! Also, please don't lie in your edit summaries, that's extremely bad form. And why delete any attempts to get you to engage on the talk page? Either ignore it and buzz off, or discuss and seek consensus -that's what it's for. Lastly, if being called a hypocrite is too spicy for you, it would behove you not to engage in hypocritical behaviour, such as accusing me of POV, vandalism or edit warring while acting like a POV vandal while edit warring! You have managed to get the page protected by accusing others edit warring, while it you who is responsible. That is, well, hypocritical. I've been editing for almost a decade here and I have never once been slapped with a warning template of any kind about anything, until you did yesterday -without seeking any form of conflict resolution I may add. You on the other hand have been around less than two years and have already been warned four times for disruptive editing, edit warring and vandalism (I see you constantly delete it all from your talk page) -so this is par for course. I trust any administrator seeing the diffs will agree with me. On a final note, it's a damn shame your conduct has caused us to come to this point: I had just thought up some more stuff to improve the article, but your constant reverts made this impossible. I feel Wikipedia is not the place for you, considering your behaviour, and you should be blocked for enough time to allow you to mature. Sincerely, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 06:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Showing up here to say that Buzles has a long history of persistently readding fringe content that is previously been removed repeatedly over protracted windows of time on Human overpopulation (see Buzle's contributions at on the history, and our discussions on the talk page. I am actually highly concerned about Buzle's behaviour more generally -- they are promoting fringe theories that smell like, and in some cases, are extremely racist or otherwise very extreme and not supported by sources.... the IP in this conversation on the other hand has been extremely collegial -- even if we have some disagreement on the approach to content, we were able to work through it quite well. The more I see interactions by Buzles the more I am convinced they are not ready to listen, or work in conversation with other parts of the community, Sadads (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping, I've indefinitely blocked Buzles for tendentious editing after reviewing their contributions and based on the discussion here. It's pretty clear that this isn't their first time using edit warring and baseless accusations of vandalism to force through a POV, and I doubt it will be the last. If they mature we can entertain an unblock request but for now their participation seems to be a net negative. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that -- I was tempted to block him myself, but was not in a good position because of historical content conflicts -- didn't want that to color the process. Now to go through and do some work on cleaning up the contentious information., FYI -- hope we can work on this, Sadads (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:5.173.250.78 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1011731623 by Larry Hockett (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1011727279 by Kashmiri (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1011705755 by Kashmiri (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User warned on their Talk.

Comments:

Edit warring at Lech Wałęsa, violation of 3RR — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  15:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:كركوك عراقي reported by User:Sseevv (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Major reverts:


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

Also numerous minor deletion of sourced text, eg.:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Furthermore, today this user has also broken the 3 revert rule on Demographics of Iraq see here

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

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

Comments:


 * This user dodged a bullet in not getting blocked yesterday, only because the other user they were edit warring with was so abusive that they could slide by as reverting vandalism. In this situation, however, they are reverting good-faith edits, so no exception applies. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Dr Holy Joker reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is no one talk with you... you are the only person on wikipedia who agree on that"
 * 2)  "Stop that!!!!!"
 * 3)  "No one is talking in the talk page and my sources are better than yours so stop that"
 * 4)  "Add new sources with much information, remove some non really french leaders and fixing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Algerian War."
 * 2)   "/* Consensus */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* March 2021 */ new section"

Comments:

They are misrepresenting the cited sources and edit warring despite the fact that I and other editor have already explained to this editor that they need consensus before changing the result that has been the subject of a RfC.

Their "first" edit under this new account is actually a revert since they have also done the same thing using different IPs (31.210.177.213, 188.120.128.144 and 2A02:ED0:52A6:3300:406D:F2D0:A2FF:FB51) until the page was protected by. M.Bitton (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm just adding the fact there... your first sources, which talk about "military stalemate" can't even be reading Dr Holy Joker (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been edit warring first with your IP and now with your "new" account, while ignoring what everyone told you about consensus, such as here and here. M.Bitton (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When I was blocked, I asked to remove the block, and the admin who blocked me sent me a welcoming message after that. There is no talking in the consensus, and I saw your other "consensus" before that, and it seems that you are the only one who agree on this "result" Dr Holy Joker (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting that 31.210.177.213 (that was blocked for personal attacks) is your IP. M.Bitton (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Would you mind having a look at this case please? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * (obvious historical fabrications). El_C 04:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for dealing with this. M.Bitton (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * M.Bitton, np, but word of advise: treat obvious fabrications through the prism of WP:DE —I usually start with and escalate from there— not WP:EW. That's for legit content disputes. El_C 05:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful advice. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnblaze editor reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Consecutive edits made from 21:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC) to 21:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  "Correcting name to original name as mentioned in guru era contemporary sources"
 * 3)  "Native name change"
 * 4)  "Correction to name, which is etched under and in the gold on the temple entrance itself"
 * 1)  "Correction to name, which is etched under and in the gold on the temple entrance itself"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Golden Temple"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Golden Temple."

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

Comments:

User keeps POV pushing and removing the sourced name "Harmandir" from the article lead and elsewhere. They added unsourced content, some of which is definitely POV as can be seen in the sentence "faithful movement led by Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale seeking to create a new nation named Khalistan" and ""Har" which scholars other than Hari Ram Gupta, continuously translate as "Gold" or "Shine", and "mandir" which means house and was made popular in the colonial era among the Hindu population of Punjab which converted to Sikhi or became closer to the religion", (note their editwar-POV push as well as dubious edit summaries in Hari Ram Gupta article as well). They have also removed sourced content, sources (this one particularly) as well as reverted numerous maintenance works, citation fixes, filling of references and even removal of "authority control" templates and addition of a red linked article List of tallest buildings in Amritsar again and again. They seem to be restoring an old version by an IP (likely the same user), which itself is based on a old version as can be seen with the restoration of 'August 2020 dmy dates'. The POV is clear from the User/IP as can be seen in the edit summary here, exact words "RSS/Shiv Sena/Arya Samajist/BJP/INC agenda charged plagiarism removed and formatting correction". Fails to respond in the talk page despite multiple requests. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * After two days, the user commented on something else, with blog sources in support in the talk page, but not in the relevant section opened by me Talk:Golden Temple or on the relevant topic. It is obvious they do not want to engage on the subject at hand. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I recently reverted this editor as well at Golden Temple. It's not just the naming that's at issue in that article, as points out above. They've deliberately obfuscated their edits in the edit summaries (at least those that I had reviewed in the page history), and apparently both misrepresented a source and added linguistic information that isn't just debatable, but demonstrably false. Before I saw that they had been reported, I selected one of their contributions at random, Johal. There, it's much the same; POV editing with misleading edit summaries. I reverted a fair amount of cruft that had accumulated at that disambiguation page from other editors as well, though I suspect that possibly one of the IP editors was also "JohnBlaze editor" editing while logged out. I didn't check out any of their other contributions, but it's safe to say at least some of their edits elsewhere are of equally dubious quality and unlikely to be neutral. Obviously, since I reverted them at the Golden Temple article just a handful of hours ago, and they were informed of this noticeboard entry when it was filed, it's not done anything to curb disruptive editing. I'd suggest blocking the editor until they try to be more communicative, and agree to edit according to policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks . Obviously it is not the naming issue only, I've already pointed out other POVs in their edits above (especially the 'Operation Blue Star' section), not to mention the numerous maintenance work in between. The term "Harmandir" is a major point of contention among some sections of the community, since it has 'Hindu-flavor' to it and they'd POV-remove them whenever possible. Apart from this particular editor, there were quite a few 'use-and-through' users in the last 2-3 months that have tried removing/modifying that particular name from the longstanding version. There is another article Hari Ram Gupta in which the user/IP have POV-pushed "widely noted for his “anti-sikh manipulations” of Sikh history" in the article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. I checked everything you linked. And you're welcome; just trying to do my due diligence. My concern when wording my comment was that editors only skimming this entry might dismiss this as a content issue. The big issue here, in my opinion, are the misleading edit summaries and the misrepresentation of sources. As well as the lack of communication. I agree that a majority of these edits seem based on both a violation of WP:RNPOV and a sectarian/nascent Gujrati nationalism. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The user has used false edit summaries of 'grammar/typo correction' multiple times. Most of his edits are contentious ethnic POVPUSHes and the user has clearly no intention of discussion (as seen by the disruption of warning notices on his own Talk page). Moreover the user has extensively used IP socking to reinsert reverted edits and continue with their disruptive POV. This has been going on since the last year and its clear by his behaviour it is clear that he is WP:NOTHERE, a perma ban is needed here along with a range block on 2607:FEA8:DC0:*. Gotitbro (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that their IP seems to be dynamic, and they may be editing using both a computer and a mobile device. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They reverted again without engaging in the discussion. They also reverted, restored unsourced castecruft here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs a block fast as the editor continues with the same disruptive behavior, again using an absolutely false edit summary of "Spelling fixes" while disrupting sourced content. Has introduced POVPUSHing caste [Note: These fall under WP:CASTE sanctions.] classifications/descriptors in multiple disambiguation pages/articles . I am waiting for a permanent block here before proceeding to cleanup the disruptions. Gotitbro (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These are spelling corrections according to the user! Also note the POV push. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * – 72 hours. Edit warring, POV-pushing and use of deceptive edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rv Status quo was the Armenian name and the page was created with it. If you wish to add Azeri translation, it must be added after. Further vandalism attemps will be reported"
 * 2)  "Rv Translation was added after the name, stop re-editing"
 * 3)  "Rv Translation added next to the territories' name"
 * 4)  "Rv Both countries share the border and it was added as a result. No foreign translations will remain to Armenian territories' names."
 * 5)  "User "CuriousGolden" is a one purpose account, adding unrelated naming to a foreign territory. Reported for constant changes to the page."
 * 6)  "Account "CuriousGolden" keeps adding Azeri name for the region despite Zangezur being Armenian and is internationally recognized as territory of Armenia, with no relation to Azerbaijan. One purpose account"

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

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

Comments:

The account is a WP:SPA focused on either removing Azerbaijani name from Zangezur Mountains, minimizing its presence or completely removing any mention of Azerbaijan. They do not reply to the opened discussion on the talk page and continue to edit war. — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 20:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User is continuing to edit war and as of writing this, has not engaged in the opened discussion (Revert, Revert). — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 14:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They've left this comment on my talk page now. Clear sign of WP:NOTHERE. — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 15:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I already replied to you in the page Zangezur Mountains, stop spreading misinformation. The Azeri translation was added and nothing was removed from the page, and the Satus Quo of the page was preserved showing the Armenian translation first and Azeri second just how the page was created before you adding and putting your edits first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaniGiovanni (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 week for personal attacks by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Magherbin reported by User:Ragnimo (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Magherbin is persistent in minstranslating text, mistrepresents sources, adding unsourced content, unreliable sources, ,fringe theories on the pages and removing sourced content to suit a Nationalist POV. I have carefully explained it to him 1 by 1 not only in the edit summaries but more importantly in the the talk page. He is being disruptive. I have repeatedly urged him to seek consensus and come to talk page to discuss changes before he reverts or make changes and he ignores it. He continues to edit war. I refrained from reverting anything after an admin had adviced us both to seek dispute resolution, i continued to dicuss things out on the talk page but he reverted the edits anyways

He has previously been warned for before the 3RR case from last December in which an admin said " If any of you continue to revert and don't wait for talk page consensus, you are risking a ban from the topic", recieved a warning for it and been caught abusing sockpuppet accounts using different accounts to push his POV on the same pages and got briefly blocked for itper a standard offer, i think this should warrant a topic ban for him on all Adal related articles and a potential block. This user clearly isn't here to create an encyclopedia.

Ragnimo (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an open ANI discussion related to this report as well. Unfortunately, this is a case that is difficult ti intervene in, as the article was recently created so there isn't a clear stable status quo ante to restore; the contested edits at this moment include both the removal and addition of content, and both editors are edit warring over them. Both and  need to stop reverting the article and proceed to either WP:3O, WP:DRN or an WP:RFC to resolve the dispute (my recommendation is DRN). signed,Rosguill talk 18:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – One week. These editors seem to have learned nothing from their repeated visits to the admin boards. Both parties are already alerted to WP:ARBHORN, so the next time either of them brings a dispute here I suggest that topic bans from the Horn of Africa should be on the agenda. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:218.155.164.106 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: Semiprotections)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Tower infinity on-hold go and check OBS news & namu wiki"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * IP has reverted status as soon as their block expired. Warrants longer block Robynthehode (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * IP is carrying on their edit warring despite warning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tower_Infinity&diff=prev&oldid=1011834029&diffmode=source Robynthehode (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * IP is now using a different IP address to continue edit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2402:3A80:A42:9E2C:0:5C:D8F3:CD01 Robynthehode (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And another different IP reverting edits shortly after corrections by myself https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_tallest_buildings_in_India&curid=904884&diff=1011886138&oldid=1011885938&diffmode=source Robynthehode (talk)
 * Edit warring is happening across multiple articles including Tower Infinity, List of tallest buildings in India and World One Robynthehode (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Three pages semiprotected two months each: Tower Infinity, List of tallest buildings in India and World One. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:HHH Pedrigree (Result: Self-reveert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impact_Unified_World_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=1012060610]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user has many problems in the past. Yesterday, Rich Swann defeated Moose to unify two titles. In the article, the user said that the title is now represented by two belts. I pointed that there is no source to support that fact. He insist, including a picture of the wrestler. I pointed that a picture doesn't prove anything, since the promotion is quiet. Also, the promotion website includes a picture of the champion with one belt. . While dicussing in my talk page, the user keeps including the same edition, even if the issue stills here and sources are contradictory, imposing his own POV in a bad behavior. This user has been blocked 19 times in the past 12 years. Also, he recognized to ignore basic WP:Policies like WP:NEUTRAL or being agressive if other users ask him to read that policies. After so may years in Wikipedia, looks like he rejects to learn and keeps doing the same editions based on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This really isn't necessary. If keeping things the way you want them is really that important to you, then fine - go ahead.  The real issue is Impact Wrestling sending mixed signals, and everybody viewing it their own way (what's the old saying about 10 people seeing a car accident and each seeing something different?)  If it will keep peace and stop from going down a road nobody wants to go down, I'll bow out, and allow HHH's version still stand until we get some clarity (probably on Tuesday when Impact airs).  OK?  As far as I'm concerned, the issue is settled, so let's enjoy our Sunday.  Vjmlhds (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reset the article to HHH's preferred version until we can get some further clarity. So let's just drop this whole thing.  The issue is settled, and it really didn't even need to go this far. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And just to set the record straight (not that I'm proud of it, but just to be accurate), I have not been blocked 19 times in 12 years, it's been 11 (HHH got 19 from counting where I was unblocked as blocks), and the bulk of those happened early on in my time here, and only once in the last 4 years. Like I said, I'm tapping out on this issue, and (for now until more info comes in) will go along with HHH's wishes. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, due to the self-revert by User:Vjmlhds, as explained in their comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Cgmerich reported by User:JurassicClassic767 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The ones from Detroit: 1. 2. 3.

The ones from Lizzo: 1. 2.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverted a number of edits, including ClueBot NG's as well, without explaining why. See Lizzo as well, this user also started edit warring there. Jurassic Classic 767 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User reported on AIV and blocked by Star Mississippi <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:purple">let's talk!</b> 19:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, didn't notice that, thanks! Jurassic Classic 767  (talk &#124; contribs) 19:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the change log, you both reported at the exact same time!! <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:purple">let's talk!</b> 19:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Glad we accidentally all crossed wires. Ended up as a sock block so I think this is , but ping me if you need anything else.      <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">StarM</b> 13:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Andreion09 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1012261656 by 2603:8080:E700:2A95:D496:CE9A:DD50:A78A (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1012261530 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) I SAID ENOUUUGH OF YOUUUUU!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1012261208 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) NEVER!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1012261048 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disruptive editing on the page. Has violated 3RR after being warned. And now using an anonymous IP for the same purpose. Ashley yoursmile!  13:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User blocked indef for vandalism and page semiprotected one week by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:148.76.54.22 reported by User:JurassicClassic767 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to basically change images without consensus. See Daspletosaurus and Tarbosaurus as well, the user also edit warred there. Jurassic Classic 767 (talk &#124; contribs) 14:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Connormah for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1010:B1E7:E84D:450F:AC1D:6D43:CEED reported by User:Dam222 (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 time reverted. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – /64 range blocked 31 hours for vandalism by User:LuK3. Page semiprotected one week. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Locke Cole : reported by User:Dwilliamphilip83 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * , this is a malformed report and appears to be purely retaliatory. Further abuse of Wikipedia processes will be met with blocks. signed,Rosguill talk 22:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:88.8.158.55 reported by User:Grandpallama (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Well over 3RR at this point. Refusing to open a discussion on talkpage despite major rewriting on an article that attracts lots of drive-by IP editing. See also 88.9.251.87 and 84.120.226.24, who also have been trying to force the info in the past couple of days. Grandpallama (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now at 6RR, having been reverted by four editors. Disruption from this range goes back to mid-February, so a rangeblock or semi-protection might be in order. Grandpallama (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While user was "warned" in an edit summary, no message was left on their talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 72 hours. After receiving C.Fred's 3RR warning at 21:14 the IP went ahead at 21:56 and changed the description of People's Party (Spain), without prior discussion and while removing references. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:46.217.176.91 and User:78.62.217.166 reported by User:Rob experienced IP (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */Undoing vandalism"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */Undoing vandalism"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */Even if you have 50000 edits doesn’t make you the absolute truth. The information you are inserting is misleading and extremely taken out of context."
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */Putting information taken out of context is the vandalism"
 * 5)  "/* Personal life */Political views, articles taken out of context should not be stated as facts"
 * 6)  "/* Personal life */More misleading information"
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */More misleading information"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Adding User:78.62.217.166, as it was used to restore exactly the same change after this report was filed against the original IP. Rob experienced IP (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three days by User:Newslinger at the request of User:Jingiby, per a complaint at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Veinakh reported by User:Kuyabribri (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1012337866 by Goddard2000 (talk)History falsification by Goddard2000"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1012337949 by Goddard2000 (talk)History falsification by Goddard200. Stop stealing Ingush history."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1012338121 by Goddard2000 (talk)History falsification by Goddard200. Stop stealing Ingush history."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1012337753 by Goddard2000 (talk)History falsification by Goddard200. Stop stealing Ingush history."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1012337753 by Goddard2000 (talk)History falsification by Goddard200. Stop stealing Ingush history."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User pushing ethnic POV on articles related to Chehnya and the Ingush people. User chose not to respond to EW warning on talk page. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 00:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: I have also opened an WP:SPI on this same user here. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 01:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this report. The user was blocked at SPI. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 04:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – Indef by User:Wugapodes per Sockpuppet investigations/Veinakh. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Hamkar 99 reported by User:Sayyed.mt (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

This user deletes all the content of the article that has a valid source. This user is Persian and I sent him a message in English and Farsi but he does not reply to my messages. The contents of the article have been approved by reputable websites and news agencies in Afghanistan, such as the website of the President of Afghanistan and the website of the Second Vice President in Persian and BBC Persian, Tolo News, Ariana News in Persian and English.

Sadat, Sayyid, Sadat (disambiguation) My content in the above articles has also been deleted by this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyed.mt (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please help me! I talked to the  and he started deleting the content again for the reasons I gave.
 * Result: Complaint withdrawn by User:Sayyed.mt (per this edit). EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:203:101:41D0:4443:9361:735B:C764 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Evangelical Lutheran Christianity */  Needs editing. Much of the original version did not accurately understand or portray Protestant meditation"
 * 2)  "/* Evangelical Lutheran Christianity */"
 * 3)  "/*Evangelical Lutheran Christianity */ Someone is changing repeatedly undoing this revision. I am replacing it because the first version did not emphasize the difference between Christian and non-Christian meditation"
 * 4)  "/* Evangelical Lutheran Christianity */  The previous article did not specify enough the distinction between Christian meditation and non-Christian meditation. While this revised article focuses on the Lutheran understanding of prayer/meditation, it also holds true for the vast majority of the other Protestant denominations"
 * 5)  "/* Evangelical Lutheran Christianity */  wrong word"
 * 6)  "/*Evagelical Lutheran Christianity */ the original article didn't clearly articulate the distinction between Christian and non-Christian meditation. While this article is not intended to detail the prayer traditions and practices of other Christian denominations and only applies to traditional Evangelical  Lutheran teachings, the information in the revised article is also accepted and taught in many of the other Protestant denominational confessions."
 * 7)  "/* Evangelical Lutheran Christianity */  word addition"
 * 1)  "/*Evagelical Lutheran Christianity */ the original article didn't clearly articulate the distinction between Christian and non-Christian meditation. While this article is not intended to detail the prayer traditions and practices of other Christian denominations and only applies to traditional Evangelical  Lutheran teachings, the information in the revised article is also accepted and taught in many of the other Protestant denominational confessions."
 * 2)  "/* Evangelical Lutheran Christianity */  word addition"
 * 1)  "/* Evangelical Lutheran Christianity */  word addition"

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

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

Comments:
 * I edit conflicted on two attempts to undo the IP's changes. It's unsourced content about one particular denomination replacing sourced, more general content. Meters (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User: 2601:8C:702:41C0:84AF:FD95:4434:6F47 reported by User:Kaseng55 (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: Warning: Did not provide a source }}                                          Caution: Do not add or change content without citing a reliable source

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: An administrator reverted this user because this edit was unsourced. His edit was that prolonged mask cause pneumonia. He ignored the warning on his talk page and preceded to revert the administrator revision so I reverted his edit 3 time because his edit was unsource. He kept lying saying that he added a source, but it was not actually sourced. I went to the user talk page and told him to stop putting misinformation and he just ignore it, continuing to do it. Strangely, he only had 2 warning.


 * – 1 week. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:82.3.149.129 reported by User:Assem Khidhr (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1011524208 by Neverrainy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1011523397 by Neverrainy (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Transmissions */  Live & Kicking was a weekly programme, not a series."
 * 1)  "/* Transmissions */  Live & Kicking was a weekly programme, not a series."
 * 1)  "/* Transmissions */  Live & Kicking was a weekly programme, not a series."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Live & Kicking."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Same removal was done 2 months ago by the same IP and by another IP with the exact vague rationale (seemingly a sock)  and  and  and  again. Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Rodriguez.AlvaresMex reported by User:NMW03 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You may falsify the informations but may not change the truths. The truths are Azerbaijan has these weapons and these bombs will explode onto your proudly but poor armenian nation"
 * 2)  "What is your interest in Azerbaijani to:KoliaGeorgian ...Armed Forces page? Let me say you, you are an armenian, you decrease amount of equipments and play with inventory, when you compare Azerbaijani and armenian military inventory you get embarassed because armenian inventory consist of soviet equipments, armenians have inferiority complex but it is not Azerbaijan's fault but armenian governments fault. You will be reported in order to vandalization of that page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 101243013"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1012279756 by KoliaGeorgian (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1012279756 by KoliaGeorgian (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Reverting edits without reason and claims that I revert it because "I am armenian". NMW03 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 
 * 

User:Xose.vazquez reported by User:Carlwgeorge (Result: Stale)
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) 17:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Stale. All the edits by that you list are from March 5 or earlier. They made a couple of unusual edits on Talk. I'll leave a note for Xose.vasquez that talk pages are supposed to have the newest posts at the bottom, and remind them that they should sign their talk posts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I originally reported the user on March 6. The report was archived by a bot before anyone replied to it.  When I realized it I re-reported on March 12.. The user violated the 3RR rule, and I would like this acknowledged in some way so I can refer to it in the future when/if the user continues their hostile reverting behavior. Carlwgeorge (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is way too late to take official action now. Unless you can document a long term problem, it is best to let this go. The 'hostile reverting behavior' seemed to be due to inexperience with Wikipedia: he didn't even know that new Talk posts go at the bottom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood, I'll keep references of this just in case it happens again to establish it as a long term problem (if it comes to that). I've started further dialog with the user on the talk page in hopes that we can peacefully collaborate on the article in the future.  Carlwgeorge (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Dwilliamphilip83 reported by User:Locke Cole (Result:P-blocked for 24 hrs )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2021-03-15T18:40:01
 * 2) 2021-03-15T20:07:27
 * 3) 2021-03-15T20:33:44
 * 4) 2021-03-15T20:45:19
 * 5) 2021-03-15T20:55:17‎
 * 6) 2021-03-15T21:04:56
 * 7) 2021-03-15T21:10:19

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2021-03-15T20:52:58

Comments:

Reporting. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Recommend a short block to get their attention as the editor does not appear to be seeing their talk page or the edit summaries from the repeated removals by four editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor finally engaged on their talk page, though they appear to be trying to report me (see below). :/ —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Partially from editing Wonder Woman 1984. signed,Rosguill talk 22:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm a bit concerned that the bulk of editing is focusing on tweets made by a "Dustin Philipson", which is a bit too to the username here "Dwilliamphilip83" that I can't help to think DUCK may apply and we're see major COI issues here (which I have cautioned in the WW84 talk page). --M asem (t) 22:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that the editor has returned to resume his edit war.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User:ParaguaneroSwag reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Partially blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1012767042 by Kinu (talk) Discussion is already made and agreed on restoration."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1012750407 by Onel5969 (talk) Yes there was."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1012721483 by John B123 (talk) As Per WP:DRV Restoration Vote"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1012716114 by John B123 (talk) as per [[WP:."
 * 5)  "After anonymous consensus in WP:DRV, redirection was determined as baseless and restored and Undid revision 1012544968 by Onel5969 (talk); added sources explaining it's noteworthy points (i.e. height, economic impact); also updated to true height)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by John B123

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: by John B123

Comments: Despite having been told otherwise, they are insisting that this unclosed DRV resulted in "anonymous consensus" (?) to undo the redirect, which was the result of the AfD. DanCherek (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . ParaguaneroSwag is partially blocked from editing the Marriott Marquis Houston article. —  Newslinger  talk   07:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User:A Simple Human reported by User:162.208.168.92 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User was not warned prior to filing of this report. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – Five days. Actually User:A Simple Human removed the 3RR notice from his talk page. The two editors are constantly reverting each other about the name of a team captain, a name which is unfortunately hard to determine from the references. Use this time to try to settle the factual question. Questioning the legitimacy of someone editing as an IP, as A Simple Human did at Talk:T10 League, is not kosher. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Evrik (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   22:28, March 15, 2021
 * 2)  07:49, March 13, 2021
 * 3)  10:01, March 12, 2021
 * 4)  23:17, February 13, 2021
 * This has been going on since June of last year.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  - KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns
 * 2)  - Citations
 * 3)  - RfC about on specific fact on this song

Comments:


 * For full disclosure, just issued me a warning about edit warring.
 * This is not the first time this issue has been brought up, I refer you to this, User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Evrik (Result: )
 * The last time we went through this, Synthwave.94 modified the archives to remove the last discussion.


 * What is the disagreement about?
 * On 20 June, 2020, this article was featured on DYK along with KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns.
 * The hook, "... that the inaugural Top 106.7 Countdown in 1980 was topped by the song "Whip It" by Devo (pictured)?"
 * There has been a [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive415#User:Synthwave.94_reported_by_User:Evrik_(Result:_)|

low grade edit war]] about this line of text (look here), "The song topped the influential KROQ Top 106.7. "


 * (See talk page, as well as WP:CITEVAR.)

At this point, actually at any point, I would have let go the discussion about the citations, but I would like to have kept the tidbit on KROQ. However, Synthwave.94 hasn't really engaged in a full dialog, and even when I split the edits, like this and this subsequent edit, both are reverted. This feels like being trolled - reverts everything, cites policy that doesn't really apply, won't enegage in discussion, and demands consensus over relatively minor point. Oh, and the editing of the archives to remove the previous discussion should get another mention.

--evrik (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * At least one of Synthwave.94's reversions should have been mine, but I hit the button slightly later than Synthwave.94. So Synthwave.94's three reverts in four days should really be two, plus one of mine. Even so, there's no hard rule against three reverts in four days, so you would need to prove long-term disruption.
 * I don't see why you need to have the word "influential". Everything that has an article on Wikipedia is influential, which makes the word WP:PEACOCK-ey. The fact that the word was approved in the DYK hook makes no difference in whether it should be in the larger article. DYK hooks are required to draw in viewers, to be "hooky". Your cited source for "influential" is Los Angeles magazine talking about KROQ, a Los Angeles radio station, which reduces the impact compared to a more distant magazine saying KROQ's list was influential, showing a wider impact. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Whip It (Devo song) I posted a new observation, that evrik has been violating WP:SYNTH with the word "influential", demonstrated by the complete absence of "Whip It" in the magazine source, and the absence of Devo topping KROQ's Countdown list. The source describes KROQ as an important L.A. radio station, but it doesn't tie that in with the "Whip It" song or Devo topping the list. My observation should settle the dispute about the word. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Synthwave.94 had two or four is immaterial. This has been going on for months. I would have gladly debated the inclusion of the word "influential" (used on page 8 of the Los Angeles magazine source), or perhaps "world's greatest radio station," which is also used in the source. I probably would have agreed to drop the word "influential" altogether - but I digress. This isn't about the word influential, which was specifically cited, or about peacocky. This is about Synthwave.94's pattern of behavior. If you look at their edit history, they edit on scores of on articles each hour and have complaint on this type of behavior from other users. Going back to what I wrote above, this isn't even about the edits on the formatting of the citations. This is about how Synthwave.94 "reverts everything, cites policy that doesn't really apply, won't engage in discussion, ... demands consensus over  relatively minor point," and tried to erase the previous 3RR post. --evrik (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's remind you that you started using ProveIt to change the established citation style on "Whip It". Once for good, WP:CITEVAR explicitly says that "editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." You therefore needs an explicit consensus to change the citation of an article, no matter if you're using a Wikipedia tool or not. Even if you did start an RfC regarding your changes, you didn't reach a consensus so far. Also, the fact that several IP adresses performed the same kind of edits (see 1 and 2) leads me to think of a meatpuppet behaviour, but I'm probably wrong about it.
 * Regarding KROQ Top 106.7, I already warned you back in May 2020 about your badly sourced additions. The fact that the info was featured on DYK is not enough to include it in a good article, and it really doesn't matter if it's an "influential" chart or not.
 * Anyway I already answered you several times through the article talk page about all of this. I think it's time for you to stop adding badly sourced content and to finally close the RfC you started back in October 2020, as I highly doubt you will achieve a consensus regarding your changes to the citation style of the article. It's also time to move on and to stop reporting me each time I revert your non-consensual changes. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comments here are a distraction to the issue which is your aggressiveness, unwillingness to compromise, and “making stuff up.” Regarding the content, each time you objected, I went back and improved the language or the citation until it could be improved no more. When you insisted that I needed consensus to add the text, I went and started an RFC. What was written was factual, cited and linked to another page. As for the discussion on the citations, that is a nothing sandwich. None of the content, or perhaps little content, was changed. Even when I tried splitting the changes (like in October) you still reverted everything. As for the accusations of meat puppetry, what can I say? You make friends wherever you go. --evrik (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Compromise: if you agree to leave the KROQ language, I will agree to leave the formatting as it is. We can move forward and I will withdraw this complaint. --evrik (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no "compromise" here: if you can find a better source for KROQ Top 106.7, without using irrelevant words such as "influential", then yes, I'm fine to see the info getting back to the article. Otherwise, it shouldn't appear in a good article, as per WP:MISC and WP:IPC. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already said that the word "influential" is not important to me. I have made multiple efforts to come to an agreement. I think your statement is evidence of why there has been a months long edit war. --evrik (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94, can you explain why you removed a previous report from the AN3 archive back in September 2020, also filed by User:Evrik, and also about warring at Whip It (Devo song)? Your edit summary was 'clean up'. In what sense was that a cleanup? I notice you've been blocked many times in the past, sometimes indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I simply badly reacted to Evrik's behaviour. I was fed up to see him restoring his "preferred version" and to see him reporting me, despite my attempts to make him understand why he shouldn't change the citation style of the article and why his other additions were badly sourced and non-neutral. However, my past has nothing to do with all of this. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:Synthwave.94 and User:Evrik are warned for long term edit warring on Whip It (Devo song). Either one may be blocked the next time they revert this article unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Coosbay541 reported by User:Paisarepa (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Did some suggested changes and updated citation on my additions earlier, hoping this will be more accepted. Also helped fix the subheadings on 20th and 21st century, so please don't just "undo"."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1012555337 by KidAd (talk) if disruptiveness gets real history out there, than so be it. Everything is cited correctly and a conversation could be opened up about the topic, but this is pure erasure"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1012554862 by Paisarepa (talk) quit erasing this history"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1012554241 by Paisarepa (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1012554343 by KidAd (talk) if it's poorly written, then revise it, but it certainly does belong here as it is Coos Bay history."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1012539275 by KidAd (talk), added portions I was unabe to when the user changed my revision earlier. I have cited everything I have added, the previous user simply took offense with the section "Other Racist History". This section was added because Alonzo's lynching was undoubtedly a racist historical event in Coos Bay's history, as was Timothy's murder and the resistance of integration by CB Public Schools. Let it stay up"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1012539275 by KidAd (talk), added portions I was unabe to when the user changed my revision earlier. I have cited everything I have added, the previous user simply took offense with the section "Other Racist History". This section was added because Alonzo's lynching was undoubtedly a racist historical event in Coos Bay's history, as was Timothy's murder and the resistance of integration by CB Public Schools. Let it stay up"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Coos Bay, Oregon."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer and I saw the request for Dispute resolution the subject of this report filed there, and honestly- I think they are a well intentioned user trying to improve the article, and they just need some help/coaching to show them how to write in NPOV wikivoice. I am offering to mentor them for the improvement they want to make to this article. I think their frustration is lack of response on the talk page- and they aren't aware that discussions on WP can take weeks, if not months for contentious additions. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that at the time that I gave them the 3RR warning, their only use of the talk page was to inform other editors that they had the content saved and would continue to revert the page if the content was removed. Their sixth reversion, which resulted in this report, made no substantive changes to the content they were adding (though they did improve a source). They continued to revert after being warned on their talk page, and continued to revert after being notified of this report. It appears to me that the only reason the user ultimately stopped reverting is because other users quit removing their content for several hours.  Pais  a re pa  23:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Coosbay541 is warned they will be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. The real-world behavior described in this article was awful but it is not Wikipedia's job to write its own editorials about historical events. We need to carefully follow what has been written in WP:Reliable sources EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:90.68.50.5 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Conceptual basis */Removed bias info from a person's who is quoting not even a doctor with intent to put people off of the diet"
 * 2)  "Removed unnecessary bias content that is covered further on in the article."
 * 3)  "Removed random text"
 * 4)  "Typo"
 * 5)  "I took out the condemning content added  by an obviously disgruntled grumpy old man who was trying to imply that the otherwise healthy diet is dangerous. I have removed the part about cancer as it is repeated at the bottom and does not need to be in the initial text. A Macrobiotic diet will not cure cancer but it is a healthy and well balanced diet that is also more sustainable than a modern western diet"
 * 1)  "Typo"
 * 2)  "I took out the condemning content added  by an obviously disgruntled grumpy old man who was trying to imply that the otherwise healthy diet is dangerous. I have removed the part about cancer as it is repeated at the bottom and does not need to be in the initial text. A Macrobiotic diet will not cure cancer but it is a healthy and well balanced diet that is also more sustainable than a modern western diet"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

see IP user's talk page; also violates WP:DE after level 4 warning. Zefr (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. A second IP has arrived to take up the same cause. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Alessandraronaldo reported by User:Hurrygane (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: Talk:List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo

Comments: We've not tried to resolve this particular edit war on the article talk page. I'm sure Alessandraronaldo edits in good faith, but they have edit warred many times before. This is just one time too many. They have also received several warnings for edit warring, vandalism, disruptive editing, and for adding unsourced material. I don't want to report them but I have no other choice but to do so.

Hurrygane (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Constant reverting and addition of unsourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:100F:B02B:5DB5:E0A7:7A01:3A61:8F7B reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Semiprotection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:



Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Note, I blocked the range. User:Aquillion, there was no point in reporting this here: it was pure trolling and vandalism. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)