Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive430

User:Sorabino reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 17 March 2021
 * 1) 17 March 2021 -
 * 2) 17 March 2021

18 March 2021
 * 1) 18 March 2021
 * 2) 18 March 2021
 * 3) 18 March 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) 18 March 2021
 * 2) 18 March 2021
 * 3) 18 March 2021
 * 4) 18 March 2021
 * 5) 18 March 2021
 * 6) 18 March 2021
 * 7) 18 March 2021
 * 8) 18 March 2021

Comments: Sorabino moved the page without any regard for discussion and against the objection of three TP involved editors who refused to achieve consensus with Sorabino's position on the matter. It is also true that I moved the page month or so ago, but I provided long post with RS as evidence (medievalists from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina whose prime interest was medieval Bosnia, Serbia, Humska zemlja, and nobility of these lands, are my mainstream and still up-to-date and relevant sources, namely, Mihajlo Dinić, Sima Ćirković, Marko Vego and Pavao Anđelić), and my move was not meet with any objection until two days ago when IP's appeared and after IP's were repelled Sorabino appeared. at the time of my move, my reasons were explained in TP without objections, but one of the reason was also that the original name was changed/page was moved in 2011 by the blocked POV-pusher and sockpuppetier known under username Zoupan, who used Ajdebre and Zoupan as sock-accounts to support his edits on the article. This sock moved it to new name, "Duchy of Saint Sava", and even back then that move was strongly objected by User:Joy, User:Surtsicna, User:Praxis Icosahedron, User:Potočnik, User:Kebeta, but Zoupan change it disregarding these editors' objections. As soon as series of IP's edits were repelled with semi-PP, Sorabino appeared in the next edit, and moved the page (and then even its redirect) without reaching a consensus on TP with already obvious contention, and against three involved editors (Mhare, mikola and myself), all whom objected his position on the matter. Sorabino also misrepresents his intention regarding article's topic and scope, and uses sources in such a way to justify their position and move+edits - he switches his position between alleged intention for article to be on "noble title" vs. "land/country (political entity)", where as article is obviously on "country", with particular name ("Duchy of Saint Sava" or "Duchy of St. Sava") derived by editor from one man noble title (WP:OR). The page is obviously categorized as a country, it uses country infobox, myriad of navboxes refer to it as a country, even greater number of links are used toward the page connecting it as a country/land - by the way, article on this "noble title" would most certainly fail notability threshold, anyway. Further, when Soarbino realized that I am (or anyone else) able to undo their move reverts, they came up with an idea to change the name completely, to rename it from already contested "Duchy of Saint Sava" to "Duchy of St. Sava", but since such name with this "Saint" abbreviation "St." is in existence, they tweaked abbreviation by removing a dot/point from its abbreviation "St". Now we have this article with unreferenced title now using improper English language (MOS:TITLE), "Duchy of St Sava". Additionally Sorabion created series of 5-6 new redirect, directing them to unrelated article, and all that just to obstruct possible move to proper or at least something closely resembling proper name for the article. Sorabino also used my arguments to fix any holes in their argument, like creating series of new redirects to obstruct possibility of further moves or re-names of the article and directed them to unrelated article.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My response will be limited to stating facts:
 * 1. For years, article on the Duchy of Saint Sava was stable, covering history of that medieval feudal polity (15th century). Parallel articles on the same subject also exist on 12 (twelve) other Wikipedia projects.
 * 2. On February 8 (2021), user (my accuser here) renamed the article as "Dukedom of Hum", but then he moved it (on the same day) to "Duchy of Hum", and then renamed it again (3 March) to "Humska zemlja" (Land of Hum), an endonymic term that designates a historical region that is covered in the general article, titled in English as Zachlumia.
 * 3. While moving article from title to title, he was also changing its internal structure and content, totally blurring the original subject (Dutchy of Saint Sava) and scope of the article, that was previously well defined and stable for years.
 * 4. While doing all that, the same user (Santasa99) also tried to perform some similar actions on Bosnian Wikipedia, targeting the parallel article Vojvodstvo Svetog Save, but BW administrators reverted his edits and finally protected the article, stating vandalism. History of edits on BW shows that user Santasa99 tried to abolish the article "Vojvodstvo Svetog Save" and merge it into a general article on the region.
 * 5. Since he was stopped there by BW administrators, he focused on the English article, trying to achieve similar goals on English Wikipedia, but without formal initiation of any move or merge proposals. In discussions on the talk page, it became noticablle that user Santasa99 has a strong disliking for the subject (Duchy of Saint Sava) stating that specific article on that particular subject should not exist, and also claiming that the Duchy in question did not even exist as such in historical reality! In light of sources, such views are quite surprising.
 * 6. Few days ago, when I saw what he was doing, I tried to restore the original title and scope of the article, related to the Duchy of Saint Sava, and I also started to add referenced content on the subject, but that clashed with plans of user Santasa99 for that article, and here we are.
 * 7. I would urge everyone interested here, to take a look at the history of this article and its subject (Duchy of Saint Sava), and also at the history of recent edits (my continuous additions of referenced content, and continuous removals of that content by user Santasa99). Who was the contributor in this case, and who was the disruptor, that would be on administrators to decide. Sorabino (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a goals? What goals? Where and how I said that article of the topic should not exists - can you elaborate, and explain a bit my dislike of the subject? Admin you are mentioning from bs.wiki is currently posting long diatribes at the TP. You did not tried to restore something, you have moved and edited page against objection of User:Mikola22, User:Tezwoo, and User:Mhare (Mhare is, by the way, another bs.wiki admin, who created article there in the first place but supported ALL my edits on their project, but I choose to back-off after admin you are mentioning (AnToni, who is on assault here at TP), started removing everything without any consensus there, just like you did here. If it's relevant for this report on your moves and edits without consensus and against all the objections, you are misrepresenting situation, scope and RS you are supposedly citing in favor of your POV.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  03:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming my impression that origins of this entire problem are in fact on Bosnian Wikipedia. I am not active there. Sorabino (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that User:Sorabino and User:Santasa99 are both edit warring on Humska zemlja and Duchy of St Sava. The most logical admin response is to block both editors, unless either or both can propose a solution that will end the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , since this is in essence an editorial dispute over titles and contents of this article, there are several well-known solutions available to all of us, such as initiation of rename proposals, merge proposals, or delete proposals. It those options were observed, we would not be here now. Sorabino (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, I always have suggestion: we start applying proper scholarship and start reading them properly:
 * and for that here's proper source, written by medievalist in the second part of the 20th century or very late 20th (except one) century (two Serbian and two Bosnian medievalist, all focused principally on Bosnia, Humska zemlja, Herzog of Saint Sava !):
 * "Humska zemlja u srednjem veku", 1996, by Siniša Mišić, Professor of the National History of the Middle Ages, University of Belgrade;
 * "Herzeg Stjepan Vukčić-Kosača i njegovo doba", 1964, Sima Ćirković (but seminal research and most important on the subject to this day) - the best insight on how Ćirković writes about our article subject is given on pp.336, 337*
 * "Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske države", 1964 (same), Sima Ćirković; [3]
 * "Povijest Humske zemlje", 1937 (but seminal research and relevant today), Marko Vego
 * "Humska zemlja, in Studije o teritorijalno političkoj organizaciji srednjovjekovne Bosne", Pavao Anđelić, pp. 239, 240.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  03:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of those sources are covering the entire history of the medieval Hum region. In all Wikipedia projects, that subject is covered in general articles on the Hum/Zahumlje region, including here on EW where we have the main article: Zachlumia. Term "Humska zemlja" refers to that region, and there is no real need to have a separate article on the subject. What would "Humska zemlja" cover, if not the same region as Zachlumia? Those terms are just synonyms, variant names of the same region. Sorabino (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Santasa99, to avoid a block each of you would have to agree to make no more edits on either of these articles until such time as an agreement in your favor is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorabino, I perceive you are not accepting my offer, because you are not promising to avoid editing these two articles until such time as talk page agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , as I said, there will be no editing on my part, but I hope that proper rename/merge/delete procedures will be initiated by those who want to transform this article (Duchy of Saint Sava). That way, everyone would be able to present thair case, wider community would be included, and we would also have a neutral closer. Sorabino (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are probably aware that I have already desist I don't know how many hours ago, when we had exchange at your TP - I wouldn't post this report otherwise.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  04:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And, as you were posting Sorabino was moving-reverting all the new redirects they created, and directed them to inappropriate page.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  04:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I created several redirects pointing to article Zachlumia, that is the main article on the entire history of the medieval region of Hum/Zahumlje. What would be the problem with that? Sorabino (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , I have no intention of editing those titles while this process is going on, and until some resolution is reached through proper procedures. Here are some general proposals, that reflect my views on possible solutions:
 * 1. Article on the Duchy of Saint Sava should continue to exist in its stable form, as it does on 12 other Wikipedia projects.
 * 2. If user Santasa99 or anyone else wants to have an article on "Humska zemlja" (that is a different theme, already covered in Zachlumia) they could create such article.
 * 3. Duchy of Saint Sava and "Humska zemlja" are two different subjects, first covered in its own article, and second covered in Zachlumia article, but if user Santasa99 thinks that we should have additional article on "Humska zemlja" besides the main article Zachlumia, he should be free to create such article. So far, he was only replacing and deleting content in Duchy of Saint Sava without any real investment in the very theme he advocates ("Humska zemlja").
 * 4. General remark: title "Humska zemlja" is an endonym, and should not be used as title for any English article anyway. Sorabino (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope forcing one's POV onto article against all odds until counterpart simply had to chose to back-off won't be new standard - they are not separate thing because land called "Duchy of Saint Sava" does not exists in RS, only noble title exists.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  04:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And there we have it: pure denialism from user Santasa99. It seems that he does not really care about "Humska zemlja", but just uses that term in order to suppress the article on the Duchy of Saint Sava. Could we get some arbitrage here, from independent users that would assess the article and sources? Sorabino (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sorabino, you were told on talk page to present all the sources and quotes that speak of "Duchy of St Sava" to see what this is about. You didn't do it. Instead, you adding new sources and information's which new independent editor should check it out? But we old not-independent editors don't know what it's about because you didn't present anything on talk page. Sources mentioned  some "title" in one sentence. Perhaps some source has two sentences. That's what I could see in the sources. But here we have article about "Duchy". It is possible that this "Duchy" existed but we need sources which talk about it and not the sources who mention the "title". Everything has been told to you in good faith but you do not respect opinion majority of editors.  Mikola22 (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to repeat myself, but all further steps regarding this article (Duchy of Saint Sava) should be resolved by proper initiation of rename/merge/delete procedures, that would determine what the position of the community is. So far, talk page discussions included mainly those users who were creating similar problems on Bosnian Wikipedia, but their actions there were reverted by BW administrators, and marked as vandalism. Here on EW, if someone would want to transform this article, they should initiate proper rename/merge/delete procedures. Sorabino (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the last person who should be calling editors to follow proper procedure, as you blatantly disregarded it against four editors objection in the last two days. You were reverting as we were writing and answering here.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  07:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is 100% not true, I did not touch Duchy of St Sava and Humska zemlja since this process was initiated here. It is you who initially moved the article few weeks ago, without RM, and that is the main cause of all these problems. Why did you do that, without RM? All I did was restoring the article in its stable title and form, and adding new and referenced content on the subject. If you think that some article should be renamed/merged/deleted, please initiate proper procedures, so that community could take part in reaching appropriate decisions. Sorabino (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my case I did not need to go through "Request move" and you have - anyone who is serious, experienced wikipedian and honest broker for the project this fact is obvious from page history.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the best way to resolve all this is by RM. Any user who wants to rename, merge or delete this article (Duchy of Saint Sava) should initiate an appropriate procedure. Would you consider doing that, in order to resolve these current problems? I can not do that, since I am supporting this article as it is, and as it was in its stable scope since its creation. Some user who wants to change all that should initiate an appropriate procedure. That would be the best way to resolve everything, don't you think? Sorabino (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I am taking EdJohnston's warning very seriously.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , me too, that is why I am proposing you to initiate RM, if you want to rename the article. That would be a step forward from this situation. Sorabino (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I am not going to do anything anymore, there are other concerned editors there, three of them, and if they care they can try to clear up mess you created with all the new redirects and re-linkings, and your flip-flopping between "it's about noble title, it's about land" justifications, and covering all with inadequate RS.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , can we work together, to resolve this, and improve all relevant articles, and also sort out redirects? For all that some good will is needed. Any user who wants to rename that article can initiate RM. Sorabino (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We can. You revert yourself on all the edits which you have done after Ed issued a warning, then comply with RS and sources which I suggested, which are, by the way Serbian and Bosnian scholarship on the very narrow topic of Humska zemlja, Herzeg Stjepan Vukčić, and territorial-political organization of medieval Bosnia, stop injecting inadequate sources printed in Europe 100+ years ago (itineraries, historical-geography atlases, encyclopaedia, comparative histories' overviews - all tertiary all outdated ) - simply take from Internet those four or five books, two by Sima Ćirković, two by Marko Vego, one by Pavao Anđelić, which are the most important, most focused, most detailed, and still up-to-date specific researches on the topic and see for yourself if your POV is sustainable. However, I am not an optimist, you are exhibiting some kind (sociological, emotional) attachment to this topic and I don't, that's way I see things as they are and you don't, I take these medievalist for their word and you seek conformation for your POV in above mentioned inadequate sources. (Zahumlje was small principality at the time Ban Stjepan II Kotromanić absorbed it into Bosnia in 1326, and appended to it three neighboring small principalities Primorije with Konavle, Narenta and Travunija, which only when put together formed a new political entity (fiefdom) called Humska zemlja (Hum in Fine's works). When Stejpan Vukčić took the title Herzeg of Saint Sava, hundred and twenty or so years later, his land was nevertheless continued to be called Humska zemlja (and sometimes between 1450 and the fall, it was just starting, sparingly, to be called "Herzegovina" mostly by Ottomans), nobody ever referred to it as "duchy" or "Duchy of Saint Sava". Is this OK to you.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lets take that to the talk page? Sorabino (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's there since February, and was repeated number of times.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Sorabino and User:Santasa99 are both warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Humska zemlja or Duchy of St Sava unless they get a prior consensus for their change on an article takl page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , warning is noted, and understood. I hope that some future RM or RFD would resolve all issues in a proper way. Are we all free now to initiate such proposals? Sorabino (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone can open an RM or RFD, but to avoid wasting others' time, you should first raise the matter on an article talk page to see if anyone else is in support. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What about TP and IP's assaults on me?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks very much for that additional clarification. You know, editors who are from these parts of Europe are often criticized (rightfully) for being mutually adversarial and belligerent, among other things, but when open questions are raised to the wider community (by RM, RFD, AfD) things usually became much clearer, thanks to outside inputs and perspectives that are not burdened by our POV. In this case, maybe some future RM or RFD will help us to sort things out. Sorabino (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Traineek reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversies */ WhoAteMyButter I  added proper citation and checked inaccuracies and remove the contents not in citation. Kindly advise, thank you"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1012659799 by Aza24 (talk) go check the talk page. do not vandalize the page non stop"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1012650704 by Esiymbro (talk) get consensus, do not vandalize"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1012639760 by Esiymbro (talk) get consensus in talk page, stop vandalizing the page" (a series of reverts)
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1012256714 by Esiymbro (talk) invalid reason, no consensus asked in talk page" (a series of reverts)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* March 2021 */"
 * 2) Multiple warnings on user talk page last week, around the last time Traineek was blocked for edit warring.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* “Han Chinese inhabited Xuantu Commandery” */"

Comments:

There is another report at WP:ANI on other problems related to User:Traineek including personal attacks and talk page misuse, as well as edit warring. However, since the edit warring continues after the it was filed (and Traineek responded) there, I'm also creating a report here so that the more urgent issue of reverts may be solved earlier. Thanks. Esiymbro (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as i know, the rule is whoever making an edit need to get consensus in the talk page first. Esiymbro made several changes to the Goguryeo page on 16th March without getting consensus in the talk page. and the question raised by him regarding the citation, has been answered in the talk page. [] and i checked the main tag was added by Esiymbro on 15th March the reason given was false citation which is not true. [] I didn't engage in an edit war. It is Esiymbro continuously sabotaging me knowing that i am new to the wiki page and isn't familiar with all the rules. please check through the edit page and see what happened. thank you --Traineek (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "As far as i know, the rule is whoever making an edit need to get consensus in the talk page first." Nobody has ever told you that, and no Wikipedia policy says that, so I'm at a loss as to why you would think that was the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Really? So i was sabotaged again by Esiymbro? That was the reason i got blocked from editing for 36 hours. And that's also the reason i have been trying to get consensus in Great wall talk page ever since and engaging in a debate with another Chinese editor over whether there should be controversy section in great wall of China page. Please advise if i can edit the page freely or must get consensus in the talk page before adding content to the page. Thank you. Traineek (talk)
 * User:Traineek seems to have learned nothing from their previous edit warring block (March 9). And what's with their removal of a main article tag? Unless we get a promise of reform from Traineek, a longer block seems likely. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that there is also a more general thread about these two at WP:ANI. And also that all this talk of "sabotage" without any diffs showing why that's the case is getting really old. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While it is literally impossible for only one user to edit war, it seems abundantly clear to me that Traineek simply is unwilling or unable to learn the rules, or even what Wikipedia is to begin with, so I've indef blocked them regardless. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Traineek has been indef blocked by User:Beeblebrox. Traineek can't understand why his removal of main article tags is an issue, and becomes combative when anyone questions his changes. His edits also have nationalist overtones: Given the record so far, an indef block seems logical. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

'''Comments: I understand this is only a single revert in this instance but it's part of a larger edit war in which case the page needed to be protected for three days, and then an RfC was conducted in which case the editors preferred outcome did not achieve consensus, and when I attempted to restore a fuller version of the page the editor in question again tried to assert their worldview on what constitutes a "note" to the page. Please do something.  Nevermore27  (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)'''

User:108.85.55.3 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Partial block)
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, there has been a lengthy talk page discussion over this, in the past. They have also been asked to make a case at talk. Note they are also still at it []. And the add, it appears to be an SPASlatersteven (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Partially blocked from Naomi Seibt for 48 hours, the talkpage is still available to them. I've also semi-protected the article for three months, since it's been getting attention from IPs with more extreme POVs.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:夕焼けの贅肉2021 reported by User:123.195.96.79 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (After warring)
 * 1) (After warring)
 * 1) (After warring)
 * 1) (After warring)
 * 1) (After warring)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Before reporting) (After reporting)

Comments:

I guess Japanese wiki and English wiki have different policies on user talk pages, so I gave him a link to WP:BLANKING. If he continues, obviously he either refuses to communicate or can't read English. If he can't read English, he obviously has no ability and shouldn't continue to be active in the English Wiki. 123.195.96.79 (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

After the report, I tried to continue to communicate, and I have received a response from the Japanese.If nothing else happens, the report will be automatically archived or deleted by others. If nothing else happens, I will not edit this report.123.195.96.79 (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since User:夕焼けの贅肉2021 seems to be saying they will stop. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:JG66 reported by User:Benicio2020 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor controlling the article as if he owns it. I made a minor edit to avoid unnecessary bracketing within a direct quote, and he decided that since he owns the page, he will not allow it. Benicio2020 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I see this as a candidate for WP:BOOMERANG. I was just about to file a report for this user but found something better to do. They made an edit on 17 March, I disagreed and reverted it, so the next step should have been them taking it to the talk page for discussion, per WP:BRD.
 * As far as their reasoning – "to avoid unnecessary bracketing within a direct quote" – it's not unnecessary, and it's the first I've heard of inserting a bracketed surname being an issue in eight or nine years of editing here. As I know from dozens of GA reviews and looking in on FACs, you don't introduce anyone by their first name only, and when an article has a long lead section, as Taxman does for a song article, you don't assume that everyone always reads even the first paragraph of a lead, either. That's the reason for my reverts, and that's pretty much what I said at the start. If anyone's acting like they own the page and just can't accept any will but their own, I don't think it's me. JG66 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both User:JG66 and User:Benicio2020 have broken WP:3RR. There may still be time for them to respond here and agree to stop warring, to avoid a block for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree to stop. (Guess I mistook the approach here as a less reductive one – but it's not AN/I, of course, it's /EW.) JG66 (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree to stop, but I didn't make more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, while JG66 actually did. Benicio2020 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:JG66 and User:Benicio2020 are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey talk, thanks for basically rewarding JG66 for doing 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, while I stopped after 3 and got the same warning. Really, bravo. Benicio2020 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Star Fiver reported by User:Psychologist Guy (Result: Indef, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: started by user C.J. Griffin.

Comments:

Star Fiver is an abusive anti-environmentalist user who has been reverting the same material over and over on the Soybean article. The same user has also been sock-puppeting on IPs attacking other editors. He/she claims there is no deforestation problem from soy in Brazil and that any scientist or website criticizing deforestation in Brazil is a "socialist" or communist "eco-Shiite". I also believe this is a case of WP:NOTHERE and they should be blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/C.J._Griffin is notoriously socialist according to his user page, so he has a tendency to put partial sources of left-wing environmentalists in the articles. In the case of this article (soybean), it is not enough for Brazil to be called "destroyer of the Amazon" by liars from all over the planet, now the country has to endure the same eco-Shiites who do not want Brazil to plant in ANY biome (yes, the country can't plant NOTHING that will be CRITICATED and the criticisms "MUST" be on Wikipedia, according to highly partial editors like this). In this case, Brazil is being criticized for planting soybeans in the cerrado (savannah) (all countries in the world plant in its cerrado area, only Brazil that cannot plant anything, everyone has to stand still and starve to death). Maybe Brazil should plant in its worst biome, the semi-arid, which is almost a desert, maybe people like him will stop criticizing Brazil FOR FREE (or not). Psychologist Guy is suspected of being a sock puppet or to do tag team. It is no coincidence that 2 users with tags "I am vegetarian" are wanting to leave the articles "left", telling lies they learned in partial blogs on the internet and wanting to ban users who defend information based on the truth. Star Fiver (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are accusing environmental and science website of being "socialists" which is not accurate and you have been attacking other editors here which is not pleasant. It's quite clear there is an environmental crisis going on in Brazil. The deforestation in Brazil is increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and causing forest fires which could cancel out EU climate change mitigation efforts. This is reported in peer-reviewed science literature . Instead of blatantly disrupting a Wikipedia article and attacking other editors, why don't you educate yourself in a calm manner? You have not gone about this sensibly. Your editing comes across as very aggressive. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The two are vegetarians, so they are left-wingers, so they believe in anything that partial people like Greenpeace write, so the fault of this war of editions is partial people like you. I asked these 2 if they can tell me where Brazil can plant something without being criticized and they don't respond, they just want to ban me and leave the article full of garbage as "Brazil cannot plant in the Amazon, in the Cerrado, in the desert or in the concrete of cities, everyone has to die of hunger, long live ecology, death to human beings !!" Star Fiver (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – by User:Cullen328 for NOTHERE. See also the ANI report. The reported editor doesn't defend themself very well in the above response. I'm semiprotecting Soybean as well. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:JimmyCrow reported by User:36.69.52.139 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: JimmyCrow has conducted edit warring three times. 36.69.52.139 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours for edit warring by User:Nick Moyes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I am added reliable source that proving informations regarding to light strike vehicles, NMW03 you don't have any business in this page, i suggest you go to armenian military equipment page and edit those infos. If you repeat destroy that page, your account will be deleted"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Reverting edits without reason and claiming that I revert their edits because I am "armenian". Then suggests me to edit Armenian military pages. NMW03 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

User:59.102.9.103 reported by User:Nkon21 (Result: Semiprotection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Credits and personnel */"
 * 2)  "/* Credits and personnel */"
 * 3)  "/* Credits and personnel */"
 * 1)  "/* Credits and personnel */"
 * 2)  "/* Credits and personnel */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP hopper has a long history of slow motion edit warring and persistently re-adding the same changes against the status quo.
 * Exhibit 1: On the Ground, multiple edits re-adding the same changes in the span of the past few days
 * Exhibit 2: On Kill This Love (song), Solo (Jennie song), and Ddu-Du Ddu-Du - persistently asserting that Solo is a Blackpink song across multiple IPs by adding the chronology to other Blackpink songs on "Solo" even when multiple editors have stated the it is explicitly not.
 * Exihibit 3: On Cho Mi-yeon, persistently re-adding the same unsourced information across multiple IPs despite getting reverted every single time.

Dealing with this user is simply a pain in the ass. They leave zero edit summaries, zero replies to warnings, and basically completely zero regard for any community collaboration or policies. They have had the same slow motion edit warring behavior since last June. List of most IPs are documented at User:Nkon21/sandbox3. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  17:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Your list of IPs at User:Nkon21/sandbox3 indicates that no rangeblock is possible, so I have semiprotected five articles . EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikisuperman007 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1013599597 by Austronesier (talk) Stop deleting the dialects of Punjabi. This is the same content this page had before."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1013586721 by Uanfala (talk) Please do not remove the dialects. Having a lot of text should be a problem as long as it is correct. So please again, do not remove all the dialects unless you hate Punjabi language like those fake Seraikis."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1013561901 by Ahmetlii (talk) Please do not remove the dialects. Seraiki and Hindko are dialects so they cannot be added as Ethnicity."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1013401790 by Uanfala (talk) Please stop removing the dialects. What is your problem?"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user also has reverted a bold edit in Punjabi languages, but so far failed to discuss in Talk:Punjabi language, where the rationale of the trimming of both articles is explained. Austronesier (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * –Austronesier (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikisuperman007 I simply restored the text that has been deleted for no reason by Saraiki supporters who are hell bent on destroying Punjabi language.

I had to restore the text again and again because the restored text was being removed because "There was a lot of text". What kind of excuse is this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Punjabi_language#Dialects_section Uanfala "The dialects section is a shoddy collage of the texts of the individual dialect articles – it has excessive details that are out of place here". What kind of argument is this?

All the dialects have been backed by credible sources. If there is a lot of text then you should look for incorrect text and only remove that part. Uanfala decided to basically get rid of all the content about dialects. Is this completely irresponsible behavior to delete all information about a language dialects because there is a lot of text?

Uanfala should be banned for this misconduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisuperman007 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sir Austronesier, I can tell you why you might see users like Uanfala who will try to delete the Punjabi dialects in the future as well. Provinces in Pakistan are made on language and Ethnicity. Multani which has been regarded as a dialect of Punjabi started to develop into language around 1960 with the aim of carving out a Saraiki province.

These Saraiki nationalist do not any dialect on the Punjabi dialects page because dialects page will also talk about the Multani dialect which these Saraiki nationalist are trying to develop into language.

"The dialects section is a shoddy collage of the texts of the individual dialect articles – it has excessive details that are out of place here", this is just an excuse to not have any Punjabi dialects on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisuperman007 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr.Animato reported by User:EDG 543 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed"
 * 2)  "I just a small update for multiverse page."
 * 3)  "Fixed"
 * 4)  "Fixed (again)"
 * 5)  "Fixed"
 * 6)  "Fixed"
 * 7)  "Fixed"
 * 8)  "Fixed (again)"
 * 9)  "Fixed"
 * 10)  "/* Brief explanation */A little update."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Multiverse added after this had passed something like 15RR by Meters (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

insists on adding just a simple "etc." to pending changes protected article. A short ban is in order, I believe, unless the 3RR is different on pending-changes articles... Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I point to edits made on User talk:Mr.Animato after this report was filed: the user appears to be engaging in a deliberate WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU campaign. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just an update: we are up to 13 of the same edits. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)Another revert at the same time as this report, and two more reverts since having been informed of this 3RR thread.   Meters (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And still going. Started a talk page thread and directed editor to comment there. Meters (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * appears to have had enough and has requested to "delete his account". I would point out that, based on his talk page edits, English is not his native tongue. I would grant him his WP:VANISH wish and call it a day. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Vanishing is for editors in good standing. A person with only 26 edits whose account was just created today could just stop editing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

User:51.37.228.25 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "To correct disinformation"
 * 2)  "To correct disinformation"
 * 3)  "To Correct disinformation"
 * 4)  "Correction of disinformation"
 * 5)  "Update disinformation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on John McGuirk."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on John McGuirk."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Gript 'right-wing' */ new section"

Comments:
 * – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Ajf773 reported by User:122.57.52.21 (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Highway_32_(New_Zealand)&oldid=1013291801

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Highway_32_(New_Zealand)&oldid=1013371377

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Highway_32_(New_Zealand)&oldid=1013553744

Future revert

Future revert

etc

etc

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ajf773#Edit_warring_notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Highway_32_(New_Zealand)

Comments:

Account does not intend to seek consensus and refuses to acknowledge sources. Clear WP:NOTHERE 122.57.52.21 (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: The filing IP is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page for their change. And read WP:INDISCRIMINATE for why Wikipedia doesn't include every small detail about everything it chooses to cover. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Pretty ironic that you'd say that i need to reach a consensus but the user i'm allegedly fighting with agrees with my edits about google maps not being a reliable source. Going to backtrack now hun? 122.57.52.21 (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:106.101.128.253 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content blanking (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Final Warning: Removal of content blanking (RW 16.1)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on People Power Party (South Korea)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disruptive editing, ignoring the hidden note clearly mentioning to discuss on talk page before making changes to the "position" of the party, has violated 3RR. Ashley yoursmile!  10:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Eiskrahablo reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Indef)
User being reported:, (formerly Xxxhrxxx)

Page: See below:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Page:
 * 1)  "Summarized the information" (initial edit, not a revert)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1012204615 by Davidelit (talk) Reverted to the stable version" (revert back to their edit above, marked as minor)
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1012250732 by Haleth (talk)" (marked as minor)

Page:
 * 1)  "Fixed content" (not a revert)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1012107962 by Austronesier (talk) Malaysian already included in Malay World countries." (revert to above, marked as minor)

Page:
 * 1)  "Fixed content." (not a revert)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1012108071 by Austronesier (talk) Malaysia already included as part of Malay World countries." (revert to above, marked as minor)

Page:
 * 1)  "Fixed content" (not a revert)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1012203943 by Davidelit (talk) Reverting back to the stable version." (revert to above, marked as minor)

Page:
 * 1)  "Undid vandalism 1010807821 by Chipmunkdavis (talk)" (a revert of my partial rv, marked as minor)
 * 2)  "Undid vandalism 1013748072 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) Wikipedia:Vandalism. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. WP:POINTy" (marked as minor)

Page:
 * 1)  "Added citation sources." (an edit which included a revert of my partial rv, marked as minor)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous block notice

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

Comments: Eiskrahablo seems to have come off a previous block, implemented following Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive428, and begun edit warring again, across multiple pages, with the same issues. (I was not involved in the last report, having found it now, and am only involved in the last two articles listed above.) Erroneous references to "stable versions" and hiding reverts as minor are further issues. Given the history, that the user has almost no edits to talk pages, and that I have been accused of vandalism twice, I have brought this here rather than try and bring up separate talkpage discussions on various article talk pages. CMD (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This report is ridiculous because I did not violates the the three revert rules as I am accused right now, and bringing the past reports to make it seems like "a lot" doesn't justify this report anyway, the prior disputes already been solved, and as you can see that I always gave my summary edits in the history edit page in Greater Indonesia and Languages of Brunei. If you feel like I did the overlinking in those articles, then why don't you just trying to perform any kind of discussion on the articles talk page or even trying to reduce "the overlink" by yourself? In fact, I noticed that you are the one who violates the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and perform the vandalism acts:


 * 1) Rv unexplained change (This is Unexplained changes, add some uneducational words like "puppet" and did not cite any kind of citation sources.)

–Eiskrahablo (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Rv severe wp:overlinking and the grammar isn't as good (And here I was accused overlinking and my grammar is not good, but User:Chipmunkdavis did not shows any kind of good faith effort to help fix the grammar, and he/she/they disrupt or damage the article instead by removing some information that already been verified.)

Eiskrahablo removed most of the diffs in this report here, I have now restored them. CMD (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – Indefinite, for long-term disruptive editing. They removed others' diffs from a complaint about them at this noticeboard. See their block log for the background. Last block was by User:Deepfriedokra for one week. It was their third block, and that was earlier in March. The chance that this editor is willing to contribute normally to Wikipedia seems very low, so I've blocked indefinitely. Any admin who becomes convinced that this editor will follow policy in the future can lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Dippiljemmy reported by User:David.moreno72 (Result: Both warned)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1013567800 by David.moreno72 (talk)this is not an edit-war. I am reverting vandalism that promotes an ideological fiction without necessary context and which has contributed to genocidal actions."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1013566205 by David.moreno72 (talk)undoing edit that deleted an outstanding reference. Vandalism, especially that which promotes the cannibalism tropes of colonial times without explanation, deserves rapid reversal and reporting."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1013399740 by David.moreno72 (talk) I don't make any spurious claims, just added a secondary source that talks specifically of how colonists of northern Queensland dehumanised the local Aboriginal population through tropes of cannibalism. The reference talks specifically of Dalrymple and Elphinstone throughout the book."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring."
 * 2)   "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on George Elphinstone Dalrymple."
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."

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

Comments:

Unable to rationally discuss. I have tried to rationally discuss edits on dozens of occasions, but the editor continually refuses to engage and discuss to reach a consensus. They are now into fringe theories that the journal entries of George Elphinstone Dalrymple, a distinguished and famous Australian explorer (and the quoting of them on his Wikipedia article) that describes his observations of cannibalism among Indigenous Australians in the 19th century is an "ideological fiction without necessary context and which has contributed to genocidal actions". I have requested quotes from reliable references that directly expostulate the observations of Dalrymple, but has repeatedly refused to do so. Clearly WP:NOTHERE - Little or no interest in working collaboratively David. moreno 72    10:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what's been going on between these two editors, certainly David.moreno72 has left an awful lot of warnings on Dippiljemmy's talk page, perhaps Dippiljemmy has been doing the wrong thing or perhaps this is a case of HARASSMENT on David.moreno72's behalf, I honestly don't know, I can't be bothered going through it all. I just wanted to say that this claim that Dippiljemmy is NOTHERE is demonstrably false - whenever I've come across Dippiljemmy they've been making excellent editions with high quality reliable sources, they appear to have a level of expertise in QLD colonial history and I have only noticed their contributions due to their high quality, in my experience with this editor they're a good contributor, a productive and constructive editor, so I do question this claim that they are NOTHERE. Bacondrum 19:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just looking at this content dispute, neither party has taken it to talk. Dippiljemmy's addition is a reliable secondary source and his addition reflects this source. It is well known that colonialists fabricated tales of cannibalism in Australia, so a secondary scholarly source giving context to the primary source that makes claims that have, by and large, been discredited today is clearly warranted. Bacondrum 19:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:Dippiljemmy and User:David.moreno72 are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. So far, the talk page has nothing from either of you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Edgnetwork reported by User:Shadybabs (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whiteface_(performance)&oldid=1013990815."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Just keep removing it, i will keep adding it. I will gain points while you lose:)"

Comments:

Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whiteface_%28performance%29&type=revision&diff=1013546478&oldid=1013511228

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whiteface_(performance)&diff=next&oldid=1013576783

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whiteface_(performance)&diff=next&oldid=1013854177

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whiteface_(performance)&diff=next&oldid=1013913482

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whiteface_(performance)&diff=next&oldid=1013965670

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whiteface_(performance)&diff=next&oldid=1014014192

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whiteface_(performance)&diff=next&oldid=1014027394

User has no intention of good faith editing and has said so in the edit summaries. User also has a history of policy violating edits, warnings, and ignoring warnings for more policy violating edits. Shadybabs (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see any attempt to discuss at the article's talk page, nor do I see a specific warning about 3RR to . I have left that warning and encouranged the user to discuss the matter at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

User:LeticiaLL and User:PlanespotterA320 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Two editors warned)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  LLL (@ 2021-03-23T10:40:19‎)
 * 2)  PA320
 * 3)  LLL
 * 4)  PA320
 * 5)  LLL
 * 6)  PA320
 * 7)  LLL
 * 8)  PA320 (@ 2021-03-22T19:15:29)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * - warning on LLL talk page for another EW dispute 3 months ago
 * - warning on PA320 talk page for another EW dispute 4 days ago

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (link) (non-fruitful)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on PA320 talk page: (link) (non-fruitful)

Diff of ANEW notification to PA320 talk page: Diff of ANEW notification to LLL talk page: Comments: I am not a party to this dispute. Both parties has violated 4RR and show no indication of stopping or willing to discuss and work towards a resolution. The subject matter is highly charged and language used does not lend to any hope of calmer and cooperative discourse. Both parties have recently been involved in other edit warring disputes and still have the warnings on their talk pages, as such they are both fully aware of the EW policy and still proceeded to edit war past the bright line anyway. - wolf  17:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I warned PlanespotterA320 about edit warring on the 19th their response was to deny that they could possible have been edit warring and then go radio silent. They don’t appear to have learned anything from my warning or explanation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * PlanespotterA320 has reverted edits which removed sourced content and argued someone is a terrorist, which is probably not according to WP:TERRORIST and other edits which argued someone died in an accident during the Kurdish Newroz festivities which maybe not according to the recent Ruling of the ArbCom Case on Kurds and Kurdistan. I have notified them about the ruling, but this was after the Edit Warring by LetiziaLL. PlanespotterA320 might have thought, he reverted vandalism, which is not seen as edit warring.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * LeticiaLL is certainly not an innocent party here and should be sanctioned... But things like "Now, get off my talkpage and stop pushing your cheap Turkish propaganda.” aren’t helping PlanespotterA320’s case. If they really thought this was vandalism there are better ways to handle that... They handled it like a content dispute even if they invoked vandalism concerns once or twice. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * LeticiaLL's edit history is a huge red flag. Instead of keeping the discussion on the talkpage, he took it to my userpage as well, I have right to insist that an editor not spam my talkpage to repeat tired talking points from an active discussion. The notion that a person committing self-immolation to protest the imprisonment of a PKK leader isn't a "political" self-immolation bc the imprisoned person is a terrorist is absolutely ludicrous. Combined with the removal of other Kurdish self-immolators repeatedly on completely unsubstantiated claims of being a Newroz accident (despite multiple RS indicating self-immolation) gave a clear indication that I was dealing with a POV-pushing "cleaner". I am aware that because the status of the PKK leader as a terrorist is disputed (Turkey consideres PKK terrorist, most other states don't), I think it is best not to label him as terrorist in the listing. The removal of other listings was not intentional but a mere accidental byproduct of reverting. I would also like to point out that the other user in question has not exerted due competence, generating various wikitext-based and formatting errors that I had to correct in their rush to remove certain pro-Kurdish self-immolators from the list. I suggest a Kurdish, Armenian, Turkish, and Azerbaijan based topic-ban for LeticiaLL given their recent behavior and severe disregard for wiki norms. Such blatant ideological vandalism requires reversion.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:LeticiaLL and User:PlanespotterA320 are warned for edit warring. Each of them is risking a block the next time they revert this article unless they have received a prior consensus for their change in their favor on the article talk page. If User:LeticiaLL is using the person's status as a terrorist as a reason to revert, they will find that this is not an excuse. If you believe that someone's death by fire was accidental not intentional, you have to prove this from sources and not just assume it to be true. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:122.182.243.116 reported by User:EGL1234 (Result: Filer blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1013981060 by Bonadea (talk) Bonadea then you are simply removing without reading links"
 * 2)  "Bonadea Write as per WP: NPOV, if it's not your job leave it to others to correct."
 * 3)  "/*The Nexus of NDA government and Godi media*/ removs by Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk) re added and waiting for another opinion."
 * 4)  "/*Godi Media: a victim*/ retrieved from history and added citations"
 * 1)  "/*Godi Media: a victim*/ retrieved from history and added citations"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Vandalism (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Constant edit warring, not adhering to WP:NPOV, and vandalism.  EGL 1234 14:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer User:EGL1234 has been blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts by User:Ponyo. I'm also semiprotecting the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Javier.tb202 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014027290 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014024613 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1013999705 by Elli (talk)"
 * 4)  "Updated Page with more recent events, Pictures, Facts and Details about the artist."
 * 5)  "Updated Page with more recent events, Pictures, Facts and Details"
 * 1)  "Updated Page with more recent events, Pictures, Facts and Details"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Final Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Andreya Triana."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is repeatedly adding content supported by the official website of the subject, and removing all sourced content from the BLP. Has been reverted and warned on their talk page multiple times, has violated 3RR. Ashley yoursmile!  20:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2A01:E0A:4FA:7460:3999:4717:24ED:2EE7 reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014076564 by RandomCanadian (talk) your must be kidding right ? "your" tradition is 1 mth, after one year without international matches in the world due to cvid ??"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014070364 by RandomCanadian (talk) - I've already done it though also edited meanwhile (for nothing), delaying me. Anyway, before consensus is reached, the page remains as it has always been for years"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1014067802 by RandomCanadian (talk) - I'll discuss there if you will but claiming there is a dead horse here seems from outside another proof of your bad faith."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1012618957 by Joseph2302 (talk) - see talk page and please stop claiming some consensus, obvious bogus for anyone getting in the discussion and checking the links"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football for removal. Previous warnings to Special:Contributions/84.124.224.222 (who refused to participate despite multiple talk page messages). Also Talk:World_Football_Elo_Ratings... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus clearly documented (WP:3RRNO no. 8) at the WT:FOOTY thread. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:5.204.157.27 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:5.204.157.27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is not getting it or listening and is hopping IPs so probably a good idea to semi-protect the page as well. The material being added is not in any of the sources but their edits attempt to misportray the text as if it was sourced.  Volunteer Marek  02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected. Three different IPs from Budapest making the same revert on the same article is too much of a coincidence. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Cartesianociencias reported by User:Anita5192 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:76.180.123.71 reported by User:AndreCarrotflower (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: In addition to the above-linked talk page message, please also see User talk:76.180.123.71 for context. User has not responded to either of those two messages nor made any other attempt to communicate with me, except via various of his edit summaries, which in any event merely serve to restate his position while completely failing to address my comments to him. This was earlier on in the dispute; now he is merely reverting without comment. This stalemate clearly isn't going to be broken without the intervention of an administrator. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   20:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:AFGFactChecker reported by User:Revirvlkodlaku (Result: Partial block, 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revirvlkodlaku (talk • contribs)
 * This complaint was also posted at ANI on March 24, but if it is handled as an edit warring case, I think it calls for a block. In response to the complaints, User:AFGFactChecker is gradually improving his argument, but it's still a revert war. You are supposed to wait for others to agree with you (that he was Pashtun, or Tajik, or whatever) and not just keep on reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to have the discussion on the talk page but instead of Revirvlkodlaku responding to my message on the talk page and giving a valid reason on why my sources would be invalid, he keeps on deleting my contribution and reporting me instead of having a rational discussion. Earlier he even accused me of having a conflict of interest just because I'm from the country and know Persian which was very bigoted of him. AFGFactChecker (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been providing reliable sources though!!! How on earth is a properly cited book reference written by a historian and contemporary not a proper reference???? Why is this being ignored? Every time I tried to engage with that user even on his individual talk page Revirlkodlaku first reported me citing a bigoted reason of being from the country as constituting a conflict of interest and then afterwards for not responding on the talk page when I raised my objection.AFGFactChecker (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * from the Ahmad Zahir article only. has failed to provide reliable sources and has, for multiple days, been edit warring to attempt to insert this material. The partial block will allow them to make their case at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The block is a result of this edit, which did not add an inline reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That's because the reliable source I submitted (the cited book) was already included in the previous edit, the user didn't delete my source, just the explanatory text. Please check and read the edit you cited again. Why would I add the source twice if it's already there? AFGFactChecker (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Zastoi reported by User:Yosemiter (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I asked them what they were trying to do by breaking the format established on the page for every other team

Comments:

Despite several attempts on my part to discuss or to use an edit summary for a reason, they appear to be unwilling or unable to discuss per WP:BRD. Their edit breaks the format used for every single other team in on the page for no apparent reason. Yosemiter (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae reported by User:Historyday01 (Result: Page protected )
Pages: and

User being reported:

Examples of content removed by Praxidicae on both pages
 * 1) 15:46, 25 March 2021 rm entries with no articles
 * 2) 16:13, 25 March 2021 Reverted 1 edit by Historyday01 (talk): No the onus is on you if you want to include it and you must take it to the talk page
 * 3) 16:21, 25 March 2021 Reverted 1 edit by Historyday01 (talk): I will only explain this one more time - the WP:ONUS is on YOU to include this and now you are edit warring
 * 4) 17:52, 26 March 2021 we do not list a bunch of fancruft sourced to tumblr and individual interviews or podcasts when there are no other INDEPENDENT RS discussing it
 * 5) 18:07, 26 March 2021 No, it isn't sourced properly, its linked to the creators tumblr/interviews and there is no independent coverage. the onus is on YOU to source it nad make it encyclopedic
 * 6) 18:09, 26 March 2021 no this isn't the place for WP:LISTCRUFT or fandom. It is sourced to 1.) tumblr, 2.) the work and 3.) interviews about works that we do not have articles about and have NO INDEPENDENT RS

Example of personal attack by Praxidicae, violating WP:NPA
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APraxidicae&type=revision&diff=1014377794&oldid=1014377448

Reversions of content on List of fictional asexual characters page
 * 1) 16:11, 25 March 2021  (UTC) Undid revision 1014170578 by Praxidicae (talk), you are doing exactly what that other user did... Please stop. At least discuss this on the talk page first.
 * 2) 16:18, 25 March 2021  (UTC) Undid revision 1014174821 by Praxidicae (talk), I will. So, please stop removing it until there is a consensus on the talk page for such a removal. Jeez, I don't know what it is today with editors who do stuff willy nilly today
 * 3) 16:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Undid revision 1014176127 by Praxidicae (talk) Rvt - deleted material has sources.

Reversions of content on List of LGBT characters in radio and podcasts page
 * 1) 18:06, 26 March 2021 Undid revision 1014366724 by Praxidicae (talk), please stop removing stuff that already has sourcing. Do something else with your life
 * 2) 18:08, 26 March 2021 Undid revision 1014369448 by Praxidicae (talk), again, these are sourced fine because they are citing primary sources, not just some random sources, like a random blogger or someone else.

Attempt to resolve dispute
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fictional_asexual_characters#WP:ONUS
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_fictional_asexual_characters#Entries_which_need_better_sourcing_and_need_work
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Historyday01 (see section "March 2021")
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Historyday01/Archive_2#Discussion_1
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Historyday01/Archive_2#Discussion_2
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_LGBT_characters_in_radio_and_podcasts#Removed_content_from_List_of_LGBT_characters_in_radio_and_podcasts_page

Comments: I'm getting tired of these reversions, I want them to stop, I do not want to get in another edit war, as Praxidicae seems to be going through LGBTQ character pages one by one, which is why I am posting it here. I am trying to be as civil as possible, although I probably shouldn't have said: "Do something else with your life" or "I don't know what it is today with editors who do stuff willy nilly today" So, I apologize for saying that. Currently, the List of LGBT characters in radio and podcasts page was protected by @User:Primefac until April 2, 2021. I hope to have this dispute resolved soon. Historyday01 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You literally listed your own reverts here, not mine and it's being discussed on the talk page and I haven't touched it since. I've thoroughly explained and given you numerous links to guidelines and consensus related to this and yet you insist on mass reverting me every time. VAXIDICAE💉  18:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did list my reverts of your content, but you are the one that removed the content in the first place. Let's be clear. Historyday01 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You should probably read the directions here and the comments I've made on your talk page, the talk pages of the articles. This is getting disruptive. VAXIDICAE💉  18:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have read all the comments you made and I have the talk pages of the articles on my watchlist, so I see all the comments. I agree, it is getting disruptive, which is why I posted here. Historyday01 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You've waited less than 30 minutes from posting to the talk page - Wikipedia doesn't work on a timeline. I'm not edit warring with you. This filing is egregiously disruptive and I don't intend to engage you further here, since you clearly couldn't be bothered to read the purpose of this noticeboard or, I don't know, wait until some sort of consensus or reasonable discussion can take place, but whatever. VAXIDICAE💉  19:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is something we were both involved with, which is why I posted here, and you were the one who started this and began the edit war. But if you don't want to engage with me further on here, I'm fine with that.Historyday01 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, to clarify, you're reporting yourself for edit warring? VAXIDICAE💉  19:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So what's the block gonna be for—EW or CIR?! ——  Serial  19:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And NO, I am NOT reporting myself for edit warning, rather I am reporting Praxidicae, which is why I revised my above comment. Historyday01 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Both sides made three reverts, which is not the best practice, but not yet blockable; the page has already been protected by Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am willing to accept that outcome. Can the List of fictional asexual characters page be protected too? Historyday01 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pages aren't protected to preserve your preferred version, there is no consensus there and the only person engaging in edit warring there was you. You really need to read up on these policies and stop bludgeoning every discussion in 9 different venues. VAXIDICAE💉  19:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said they were, but I thought it would be a worthy precaution. And please, before removing a large amount of content from any LGBTQ page, post about it on the talk page, first, and we can discuss it, instead of just straight-up removing something. Historyday01 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:SerVasi reported by User:JamesSandy64 (Result: )
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:

You can read too the Revision History and see that his edits has reverted by others users, and the user SerVasi doesnt respect and insert POV and not RS like the "Croatian Enciclopedia"(Basis Sources of neo-fascism and revisionism in Croatian Wikipedia

Comments: – — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesSandy64 (talk • contribs)
 * Referred to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Kez321 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Subsequently noticed that Kez321 is also subject to a current ANI thread. Note: 3 of the reverts were after receiving the 3RR Notice on their talk page. DeCausa (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * for edit-warring and personal attacks against other editors.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User:193.52.24.13 reported by User:MrOllie (Result:Blocked for 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard"
 * 2)  "See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard"
 * 3)  "Restored version. See discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view"
 * 4)  "See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* On "consensus among economists" */ Replying to 193.52.24.13 (using reply-link)"

Comments:

Has been previously blocked for edit warring about this same sentence on this article. MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As MrOllie had unsuccessfully tried to do in the past, he uses a Noticeboard to try to silence voices contrary to his point of view. Unfortunately for him, there are quite a few users, academic references (not think tanks like the articles he cites) and arguments calling for more neutrality on the articles he and other users guard. This dicussion can be followed at the WP Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. I don't have much more to say about this attempt to silence me.193.52.24.13 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User:117.111.0.0/19 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)  (warning issued after this one)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I really cannot believe this is going to be necessary for a figure skating-related article, but this highly dynamic IP range has been doing nothing for the past month but edit warring on this page, with all reverts being within the last 24 hours. I participated in the reverting only because of the WP:BLP-violating nature of these edits. The IP has been asked to discuss numerous times in edit summaries and yet has not touched my talk page thread.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * IPs contributing to the EW at this page include (so far):


 * 117.111.19.172
 * 117.111.19.47
 * 117.111.19.84
 * 117.111.19.96
 * 117.111.2.103
 * 117.111.2.113
 * 117.111.2.128
 * 117.111.2.192
 * 117.111.2.130
 * 117.111.2.232
 * 117.111.2.99
 * 117.111.25.232
 * 117.111.25.233
 * 117.111.28.125
 * 117.111.28.154
 * 117.111.28.200
 * 117.111.28.31
 * 117.111.3.151
 * 117.111.3.161
 * 117.111.3.180
 * 117.111.3.209
 * 117.111.3.234
 * Rangeblock, please?  General Ization Talk  06:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. The range above covers everything from 117.111.0.0 to 117.111.31.255 (CIDR notation).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: The /19 range has been blocked and the article has been semiprotected by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Conorcool2021 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "#suggestededit-add 1.0"
 * 2)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 3)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 4)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 5)  "#suggestededit-add 1.0"
 * 6)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 7)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 8)  "#suggestededit-add 1.0"
 * 9)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 10)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 11)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 1)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 2)  "/* Everett Ruess */"
 * 3)  "/* Everett Ruess */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Everett Ruess."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Everett Ruess."

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

Comments:

Repeatedly edits article to indicate that the subject, missing since 1934, "might have survived who knows"; also introduces other MOS issues. No response to edit summaries and warnings inviting discussion on the article's Talk page and to seek consensus. This type of edit (marking missing persons as possibly still alive) seems to be a specialty of the editor. Please also review edits at Disappearance of Alice Corbett, including comment to another reverting editor "I'm not going away pal" in the body of the article.  General Ization Talk  05:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @General Ization Looks like outright vandalism, not even edit-warring. I've already put in a request on Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. For example, they're removing useful information and replacing it with personal commentary, such as this edit. Uses x (talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I suspect the admins at AIV will prefer to handle it as a content dispute versus outright vandalism. Doesn't hurt to try, though, since the editor appears to be WP:NOTHERE.  General Ization Talk </i> 05:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They're banned now from that report. All good. Uses x (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – Indef by User:Paul Erik. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Charan311 reported by User:245CMR (Result: Warned)
Lakshmi:

User:Charan311:

 the Previous version reverted to: I am not able to add the version as the case is very complex. The reverting started when the user tried to push his own pov personal research in the lead of the article. Meanwhile, a reconstruction of the lead took place and after that Charan didn't stop pushing his pov. I had to revert it multiple times (not more than 3 times in one day). Please see the history of the article

Some of diffs of the user's reverts: '''Before these, the user also tried to put his pov original research, without any reference from the given source. One such is this one: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, this is the current difference of the edit warring
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1), where despite my efforts, he was not willing to listen

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have tried multiple times to resolve this, but all were useless. As per one source of the sentence of the article: ''“Her avatars as Vishnu's mate are Kamala or Padma, mate of Vamana (Vishnu's dwarf avatar); Dharani (meaning the Earth), mate of Parashur Rama; Sita, mate of Rama; Varahini, mate of Varaha; Radha, mate of Krishna; and some say Rukmini, another of Krishna's consorts. ” I have tried to put my reasons in the edit summary box whenever I reverted, (you can check more in the revision history). . 245''CMR . •👥📜 06:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Charan311 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Lakshmi again without first getting a consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:PantelisPatra reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (repeat of this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor was also warned of COVID-19 general sanctions here. FDW777 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Fifth revert added. FDW777 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These are not all within 24 hours, so that's misleading, and there's been a fair amount of edit warring on that page by other editors, including the filer of this report. Perhaps the best solution is to lock the page for a short period.Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The first four are, and the fifth was made subsequent to this report. FDW777 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:PantelisPetra is warned for edit warring. They continued to revert at 05:23 on 29 March, while this report was open. Their last change is shown as revert #5 in the list above. They may be blocked if they revert again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:117.111.2.113 reported by User:Iseult (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * – Covered by the /19 rangeblock issued in a prior report above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:117.111.3.234 reported by User:Iseult (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Mariah Bell/Lim Eun-soo collision */previously explained all edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

with slightly different IP addresses per edit group Iseult   Δx parlez moi 06:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it in one report -- I've made one report for 117.111.0.0/19 above (covers all from 117.111.0.0 to 117.111.31.255).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * – Covered by the /19 rangeblock issued in a prior report above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2402:3A80:1F8B:FAF6:28CF:F1DB:A5E5:D14C reported by User:Dam222 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014671644 by Dam222 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014666671 by Ahmetlii (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1014665729 by Ahmetlii (talk)"
 * 4)  "Corrected and updated the info."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Undo without knowing and does not use reliable source. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. See also the IP's edit filter log. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1010:B121:DFCA:4114:5555:1B60:8AC reported by User:RoseGold1250 (Result: Page protected)
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:
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Polilogaritmo reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Partially-blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Initial introduction of material

Diffs of the user's reverts:, , ,.

Pattern is starting again with, a blind revert that doesn't even realize the material has been moved around and merged elsewhere.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Polilogaritmo and Talk:Predatory publishing

Comments:

Long term edit-warring with multiple users (see ). Repeated warnings at User talk:Polilogaritmo and Talk:Predatory publishing to not introduce original research/synthesis have done nothing. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for the assistance. There is no edit warring here, sorry, Headbomb was too impulsive. I reverted only once his change, as I did not agree that he removed a full section under the name "Relation to Open Access Publishing". That section had been there for one year, awaiting some minor edits for improvement, but he has now merged it into "History". The change is very relevant, because the fact that some folks can see a relation to Open Access Publishing is very relevant and this strong point is now made less obvious and misplaced. Ironically, it was Headbomb one year ago who accepted that section but issued a 'Personal reflection' tag seeking for improvement. Also XOR'Easter had accepted that test in its former place for one year, but found it obvious to undo my revert one minute after it was done. My feeling is that they decided to remove the 'Personal reflection' tag they had accepted, just because I had mentioned it in our dispute in Talk:Predatory publishing.


 * We do have a dispute on an good faith edit "Relation to the Research Industry" where it seems likely we will need to go through conflict resolution eventually, as we are not getting a consensus. I am still waiting for him to provide any argument before I disturb Wikipedia editors with a help request. The text in dispute is a five line paragraph fully referenced with verifiable sources. Please take a look at the Talk:Predatory publishing under "Relation to Research Industry" and "Relation to Open Access" for more details and uncompromising attitude. Admittedly, several editors claim the same, interestingly, with very similar style and reacting one after the other in few minutes.


 * I did get unintentionally into an Edit War saturday the 26th of march. It was my first time with conflict and I thought that would trigger some kind of spontaneous conflict resolution. Now I have learned how to proceed in the talk page. Sorry for that. I appreciate your patience with apprentices and admit my unfamiliarity with the process. Happy to be learning fast and contributing to Wikipedia with help from expert peer editors.


 * Best regards and thanks for the support.Polilogaritmo (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your entire response to that section is basically "I'm rubber and you're glue, you read WP:OR yourself!" &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Polilogaritmo - I beg to differ. You've edited and added the content back to the article six times over the last two days. This is definitely edit warring.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * (partial block from the article).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

User:76.180.123.71 reported by User:AndreCarrotflower, 2nd offense (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: See Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive430. User received a 24-hour block then picked right up where he left off after it expired. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   12:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

User:HijaziSultan reported by User:M Imtiaz (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014509180 - Talk"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014504114 - The J-P58 scientific evidence is there, this seems like a personal opinion of yours."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1014399807 by Agricolae (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1014386795 by Agricolae (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1014504077

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Permalink/1014589050

Comments:

Ignored warning by, and appears to refuse to understand BRD. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HijaziSultan (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC) All discussions can be found in the Wiki/Sayyid Talk page regarding these edits. Scientific evidences being dismissed for no reason. HijaziSultan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:HijaziSultan is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Sayyid without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. People on the other side have told them they probably are violating WP:RS since 'citizen science' (familytreedna.com) is not going to pass Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Lm6886 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1011536074

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1014567102
 * 2) Special:Diff/1014297683
 * 3) Special:Diff/1014068107
 * 4) Special:Diff/1014955304

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: three warning templates, one custom warning: Special:Diff/1014578059, Special:Diff/1014567800, Special:Diff/1014306695, Special:Diff/1014976449

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: consensus for the pre-revert version was established by this RfC

Comments:

Slow-burn reversion of consensus established at a well-attended RfC without discussion, despite three users (including myself) trying to engage the user in discussion. Note that the first edit was an act of edit warring because the user removed a hidden comment which explained where the consensus was obtained and urged discussion rather than removal, so this is four edits where the user should have known that they were going against consensus, roughly once a day, and there's no sign of them stopping. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * from editing the article. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Crossroads reported by User:Smerus (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Crossroads also tried giving me a 3 revert warning (although he had already carried out 3 reverts himself) - }}--Smerus (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * . If you're having difficulty getting consensus, consider dispute resolution. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Smerus should if anything be reporting himself. He is reverting back in material from this version and before about Chopin possibly being attracted to his friend Woyciechowski. After an RfC, it was found there was no consensus for it and it was removed. Today Smerus ran up against the 3RR in reverting this material back in (I am counting each parentheses as one edit since he took two edits the first time). This is against the clear direction of WP:ONUS that he has to get consensus for material before it can be included; it is clear from the ongoing talk page discussion  that there is not a consensus for this material. I have more grounds to report him than he does me. Neither of us violated 3RR and he is the one disregarding WP:ONUS. Crossroads -talk- 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Equivamp reported by User:Elix240 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

User has repeatedly reverted mentions of the sexed brain theory.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transmedicalism&diff=1014729039&oldid=1014710781
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transmedicalism&diff=1014704192&oldid=1014703406
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transmedicalism&diff=975118213&oldid=975117699

Comments:

User cites WP:SYNTH as reason for reversal without explaining why contributions are, in fact, WP:SYNTH. Given the types of changes that have been consistently removed, I am concerned that Equivamp is attempting to suppress mentions of the sexed brain theory. I have been accused of edit warring myself despite their history of removing any mention of this specific topic. If there is a legitimate issue with my contributions, I am open to constructive criticism; however, my edits have been made in good faith and Equivamp's reversions appear to be the result of a disagreement with the theory itself. Elix240 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterizations of my motivations. I also think you should have given me time to respond to the talk page discussion you started before you escalated the dispute resolution process. I'm at work right now but I intend to reply to it tonight. I do not plan on continuing discussion here unless prompted by an admin (please ping me with any comments or questions directed at me in such a case). --Equivamp - talk 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The 3rd diff listed above is from August 2020 and does not involve Elix240. Elix240 tried to add their material twice and Equivamp reverted twice; Elix240 is the edit warrior contravening WP:ONUS and, yes, WP:SYNTH. Matter is being discussed on the talk page. Crossroads -talk- 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – Only two reverts by each party. Still, it has been argued that the material that User:Elix240 wants to add is not backed by WP:MEDRS. I hope that editors will work that out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:5.152.72.140 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

IP keeps changing the date from the 13th-century BC to the 17th-century BC without any reliable source to support it. Seems like Tendentious editing to me. He has also begun edit warring other places, such as Mushki.--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. The IP editor makes lots of reverts but has never used a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:93.136.90.14 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014760504 by Kautilya3 (talk) even your map shows Xikang is bigger than just light blue, and light blue also includes parts of Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014760169 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1014757759 by Kautilya3 (talk) your map is ridiculous, it shows Sichuan as part of Xikang"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1014756810 by Kautilya3 (talk) it was de jure province, what you show didnt exist by law"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 999234067 by Kautilya3 (talk) not correct map"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 999234067 by Kautilya3 (talk) not correct map"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 3RR's reached */ new section"

Comments:

This editor seems like he can only talk in edit summaries of reverts. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly the editor reinstated my content after all this warring. But he also exceeded 3RR at another page:, , , . And there was no enagement on the talk page: Talk:Tibet_Area_(administrative_division). So, a warning, for now, would be useful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Xikang and Tibet Area (administrative division) have been semiprotected for a month each due to IP edit warring. This protection might be lifted if the IP editor will join in discussions and wait for agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Poojanthebeast reported by User:Nemov (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: →‎Leibniz: this is all a bit trashy, but at least rm the "for instance", since it isn't an instance undothank Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014855075 by Nemov (talk) - Erroneously removed section. Subject is a public figure and section is appropriately sourced and referenced."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014759979 by Nemov (talk) - Item is properly sourced, BLPCRIME is not applicable as Benjamin Rich is a public figure (see WP:PUBLICFIGURE) - removed judges comments on the case"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1014671719 by Nemov (talk) - The reference is sourced from a newspaper which has been in publication since 1888 and with an online version since 1998. . Please let me know if you have any concerns about the wording."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Bald and Bankrupt."
 * 2)   "/* Bald and Bankrupt */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* Bald and Bankrupt */"
 * 4)   "/* Bald and Bankrupt */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Bald and Bankrupt */"

Comments:

User continues to ignore direction. I've asked numerous times to find support for edits. Nemov (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User Nemov has incorrectly claimed: 1) section is "unreferenced" when the reference is sourced from a newspaper which has been in publication since 1888 and with an online version since 1998. 2) that it "violates BLP:CRIME" - this is not applicable as Benjamin Rich is a public figure (see WP:PUBLICFIGURE)

The additions made are factual, accurate, written dispassionately and properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojanthebeast (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to BLP we have to use caution when adding information without proper sourcing. User continues to add content without multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation. There's no notable sources that document if it's even the same person. I have requested that the user for consensus for change, but user continue to edit the page without multiple reliable third-party sources. - Nemov (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Poojanthebeast is warned for edit warring and for adding negative material to a BLP article with inadequate sourcing. Do you sincerely believe there is only one person in the whole of the UK named Benjamin Rich? There need to be reliable sources to show that this is the same as the Benjamin Rich who operates the Bald and Bankrupt Youtube channel. Poojanthebeast may be blocked if they revert again before getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B10E:561A:9D75:395D:8677:CD13 reported by User:AndreCarrotflower, 3rd offense (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There have been two today; and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Almost certainly a case of block evasion by User:76.180.123.71, who has already been warned twice about this (see here and here) and is currently still under a 48-hour block for the second of those, instituted by User:Acroterion. I have a feeling this user's access to multiple IP addresses might make semiprotecting the page a better option; do others agree? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Alluburam reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014866110 by Lone Warrior 007 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014848646 by Lone Warrior 007 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1014792279 by SangrurUser (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Issues and Party manifestos */"
 * 5)  "/* Election & Voter Turnout */"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1014789416 by SangrurUser (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1014678507 by SangrurUser (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1014660910 by SangrurUser (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1014638905 by SangrurUser (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1014624877 by 120.61.1.138 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 1014619029 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 1014618977 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 1014618792 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 1014618111 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 1014618040 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 1014617833 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 1014617754 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 1014617666 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 1014617647 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 20)  "Undid revision 1014617591 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 21)  "Undid revision 1014617519 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 22)  "Undid revision 1014617477 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 23)  "Undid revision 1014617412 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 24)  "Undid revision 1014617272 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014660910 by SangrurUser (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014638905 by SangrurUser (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1014624877 by 120.61.1.138 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1014619029 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1014618977 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1014618792 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1014618111 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1014618040 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1014617833 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1014617754 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 1014617666 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 1014617647 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 1014617591 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 1014617519 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 1014617477 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 1014617412 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 1014617272 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014617519 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014617477 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1014617412 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1014617272 by Manakpreet Singh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "new section" by User:Lone Warrior 007

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user keeps on edit warring despite requests to engage in discussion. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Yitbe reported by User:Hipal (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts with edit summaries:
 * 1) 07:34, 26 March 2021 Undid revision// It's better to put a "better source needed" tag where you doubt the source is unreliable. Action like this is most similar with vandalism.
 * 2) 15:50, 26 March 2021 Undid revision 1014346972 by Hipal (talk) most probably van
 * 3) 22:11, 27 March 2021 Undid revision 1014414712 by Kuru (talk) I did what's right
 * 4) 06:45, 29 March 2021 Undid revision 1014789962 by Kuru (talk) I added more RS to the article. Everyone can review it.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:53, 26 March 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 17:42, 26 March 2021‎ 19:22, 26 March 2021

Comments:

Yitbe appears unable to assume good faith of other editors (as indicated by the edit summaries above and ) and unable to identify reliable sources (as indicated by the edit summaries, edit-warring and ).

While Yitbe has finally responded on the article talk page, Yitbe argues and edit-wars to include unreliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes I did a reverts; I have also explained why I did the reverts.


 * While Hipal accused me of using unreliable sources, I asked Hipal to start a discussion under the talk page of the article. Though Hipal started a discussion, I responded to it after almost 24 hrs later, for I couldn't come online. But within this gap, Kuru reverted the edition with the reason "no response".


 * I added more RS for the article and copyedited it, for I was accused of using unreliable sources. (With the edit summary, "I added more RS to the article. Everyone can review it"). If it's called the edit-warring, I'm ready to be blocked or banned. But I request for a neutral admin to see my issues except Kuru. Thank you. -  Yit be  <i style="color:skyblue">A-21</i> 19:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Yitbe is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their changes on the article talk page. Other editors seem to think that Yitbe is relying on low quality sources that may not pass WP:RS. Here, Kitbe seems to be accusing the other editors of vandalism for being critical of his sources. From my own quick look, many of the sources appear to be self-published. Yitbe also wanted to use a paid obituary as a source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:BD20:B780:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:Tehonk (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's IP changes

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User does not participate to the talk page, as you can see I tried and opened discussion and invited them, does not provide source or explanation or anything at all. Only edit warring.Tehonk (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you make the original date change here without any source. It appears you and the IP editor are edit warring over an unsourecd date, but the IP editor is pushing for the WP:STATUSQUO date.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "original" date (that is just added about a month ago without any source, so I don't get why you call that "the original date") is not supported by anything, the only source presented on the page supports my correction, so I'm not making it "without any source", it's the contrary. I'm making it what the presented source supports. If the IP editor wants to change it, it needs to be added with a source that supports it. And, talk page is ignored, and I did not make more than 3 reverts while they didTehonk (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Will I breaking any rules if I revert this again now (would be my fourth but after a couple of days) even though I'm trying to use talk page and nobody participates & it's being ignored? Tehonk (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month, due to edit warring by a fluctuating IP. Please use the article talk page to settle the dispute. I would advise User:Tehonk to wait for agreement before making further changes. In fact, User:Jonathan A Jones is now participating on Talk so the issue's not being ignored. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:7081:1742:EF00:7444:A85F:6F6C:DE1E reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There are facts, but the correct term is scientific theory, which are more verifiable, testable, and falsifiable than facts. See https://www.realclearscience.com/2017/03/28/why_there_are_no_quotscientific_factsquot_275446.html"
 * 2)  "There are no scientific facts. There are facts, but the correct term is scientific theory. See https://www.realclearscience.com/2017/03/28/why_there_are_no_quotscientific_factsquot_275446.html"
 * 3)  "Please understand that there are no scientific facts. See https://www.realclearscience.com/2017/03/28/why_there_are_no_quotscientific_factsquot_275446.html for more information on this. Scientists do not speak in facts. Theories are better, since they are testable, repeatable, and falsifiable."
 * 1)  "Please understand that there are no scientific facts. See https://www.realclearscience.com/2017/03/28/why_there_are_no_quotscientific_factsquot_275446.html for more information on this. Scientists do not speak in facts. Theories are better, since they are testable, repeatable, and falsifiable."
 * 1)  "Please understand that there are no scientific facts. See https://www.realclearscience.com/2017/03/28/why_there_are_no_quotscientific_factsquot_275446.html for more information on this. Scientists do not speak in facts. Theories are better, since they are testable, repeatable, and falsifiable."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected for a month by User:Deepfriedokra. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User:M.A.H.T.P reported by User:KoizumiBS (Result: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: [link]

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

Comments:

The user removes information from Reliable sources. Doesn't respond to arguments. The participant came to the project clearly not in order to be useful, but for a senseless struggle. In particular, he changed the origin of ethnic groups from Mongoliс to Turkic. Clear violations of the WP:CONS & WP: WAR rules.--KoizumiBS (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The user continues to remove sources and doesn't respond on talk page. Big request to take restrictive measures. Diff 1, Diff 2.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the user has not shown any ability to communicate Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mohammadrezaaam reported by User:Wretchskull (Result: Already Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuously blanking sourced content by edit warring. Wretchskull (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * — Kralizec! (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User: Npovobsessed reported by User:Daiichi1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No reason why this content is 'less' important than others"
 * 2)  "The entire 'Activities' category should be deleted in the logic. Reverting the edit."
 * 3)  "Create a talk page if you want. Reverted"
 * 4)  "You need a sufficient further explanation on the Talk page if you want to alter this article. As far as I know, your reason cannot delete a sourced content on the article according to the rule. Reverted"
 * 5)  "CANNOT DELETE A SOURCED REASON WITHOUT A SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OR DEBATE. DID YOU READ MY COMMENT? POSTING THIS COMMENT AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU READ. REVERTED."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: User refuses to discuss edits after multiple attempts to get him to do so in my edit summaries, they even refuse to give a justification for their edits. The user is also currently involved in another edit war on the Anti-Korean sentiment page with another user. His behavior is unconstructive and it seems he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, this edit on the talk page of the Anti-Korean sentiment page (which he later reverted) indicates a clear conflict of interest as he admits to editing in order to prevent damage to the reputation of Korea, he also didn't assume good faith and immediately made accusations of nationalism against a user with Japanese characters in his name, this shows clear impartiality and bias doubly so given the long history of tensions between the two countries. A topic ban wouldn't be a bad ideaDaiichi1 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, although it makes sense that you wrote a biased comment of the edit war, you did not mention why you, not me, are involved in the edit war over the article Voluntary Agency Network of Korea. All Wikipedia editors, including me, are allowed to revert the blanking of contents with an appropriate source. If you want to delete the sourced content in the article, you should have started a discussion on the talk page of the article. But you did not although I repeatedly warned for THREE times as you can see on my previous comments. Second, for the edit war against the user with Sino-Japanese characters, he/she repeatedly tried to add unsourced and factually inaccurate information on Anti-Korean sentiment article, and I believe that I took the right action to revert the user's edit. I should have reported potential edit wars before I start the edit war, but I could not since I am a new editor on Wikipedia who does not know how to report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovobsessed (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that after reporting him here the user reverted the page again. Daiichi1 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edit warring at Voluntary Agency Network of Korea and Anti-Korean sentiment. The impression given by his edit summaries is that he is trying to defend the honor of Korea. In this edit summary he declares he is "going through the edit history of the user (i.e. User:Daiichi1) and "undoing string of vandalism, editwarring, and pov editing". I have also semiprotected the latter article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:98.213.52.136 reported by User:Assem Khidhr (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rearranged somewhat, as matzah and salt water are not on the seder plate"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014734915 by Fleabite531 (talk) Right, but they gave no sense of notability. A JVP campaign might belong on the JVP page, but not on the page for a practice of 10000x more people"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1014705868 by Fleabite531 (talk) A paragraph in the same fluff piece published in several outlets is evidence for existence, not notability. Wikipedia isn't the place from every minor practice some group of 100 people invented one day"
 * 4)  "Don't reinsert without an argument for notability"

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

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

Comments:

See relevant discussion Assem Khidhr (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, when warned about edit warring, IP switched to another IP and performed the same revert . Bad faith editing, now using misleading edit summaries to try and conceal the edit war. Ifnord (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected for a week by User:Ymblanter per a request at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2800:810:483:8918:4967:e2be:9d62:b0d4 reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: linked

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm just trying to keep the material in this article referenced, and keep the references error-free. Mikeblas (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. This is a slow edit war, but each time the IP makes a change, they leave a red error message in the reference list: . I hope the parties will use the talk page to discuss whatever this issue may be and agree on an update which does not create this error. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Npovobsessed reported by User:新世界へ (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

I've explained on this users talk page here why a number of his edits are unacceptable and why his justifications for them make no sense, he reverted me and went back to the wiki page and reverted that again. I have given him a warning on his talk page here a few days ago for disruptive editing, it isn't technically an edit warring warning so im including that here and not in the other section. User has also edit warred on the Sojunghwa, and Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (another user has already reported him for that) pages. He also uses his ip to edit which he admits to on the Mimana page in this edit summary where he reverts someone who reverted this  edit he made under the ip. Another user points out his use of his ip and user account to revert the same edit here on the Mimana talk page. Under his ip hes twice  made the exact same edits on the Anti-Korean sentiment page that hes been edit warring over under his user account. 新世界へ (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * smh. 1. I clearly said that my talk page is not the place to debate about edits. Furthermore, although I did not read carefully, I felt like you wrote my talk page to personally attack me without any constructive behavior.
 * 2. For Sojunghwa, I did not commit 3RR. Same for Mimana; someone who opposed my edit on Mimana started a constructive debate, unlike you, and we made a conclusion for the debate. THOSE TWO ARTICLES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EDIT WAR. YOUR REPORT PRESENTS FALSE INFORMATION TO PERSONALLY ATTACK ME.
 * 3. The User:新世界へ, has written an absurd report against my IP on the same reason for edit warring on Anti-Korean sentiment, which is eventually dismissed. Now, this user is reporting me again for the same reason. *sigh* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovobsessed (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * — UwU wug's this? 21:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:37.146.163.103 reported by User:Dam222 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1015267368 by Doggy54321 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1015265477 by Doggy54321 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1015265105 by Doggy54321 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1015263171 by Doggy54321 (talk): Song is WP:NALBUM"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1015260940 by Doggy54321 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* March 2021 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

undoing the other user's edit without discussion. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP listed above is a sock of User:Zhmailik (SPI). I don’t think this section should have been made per WP:DENY, but the faster the sock gets blocked, the better. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * — UwU wug's this? 21:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Dan Wescher reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Talk:General Hospital"
 * 2)  "including Plainlist per MOS:ACCESS and MOS:LIST"
 * 3)  "page does not exist"
 * 1)  "page does not exist"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:General Hospital

Comments:

User has long-term history of edit-warring at the page in-question, and despite engaging ONCE in the conversation, is still insisting their preferred edit be used, which would show an obvious non-neutral point of view, not to mention their continued violation of WP:PERSONAL and making this a WP:BATTLEGROUND-type situation. User also did not engage in the discussion until it was pointed out to them, and, in doing so, still re-edited the page to their own preferred edit. User also has note on their talk page, which is a clear violation of WP:PERSONAL, and a complete attack on an editor, not the content of an edit, and has a history of such behaviour, as well. Not to mention, this edit summary is not appropriate in any way shape or form.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 16:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) I was not the one who started the edit war; I was simply fixing the formatting of the names. Live, however, kept reverting them and forcing me to stop editing the page, which itself is somewhat rude. 2) I tried contacting them multiple times regarding this issue, and all they did was delete the messages. 3) I eventually replied to them on the GH talk page, and instead of simply replying saying whether they agree or disagree, they attacked me and constantly said I was on a "battleground". 4) Livelikemusic has apparently been engaged in edit wars with other editors such as HaysonDage and Kwaby Kang, which itself violates WP:WAR. — Ð W (T·C) 16:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To quickly respond before I must leave for my job, I will state this: I have never stopped any editor from editing any page on Wikipedia. As for contact made to me, the first revert was due to my own feeling the discussion should happen on the article's talk page, per WP:BRD, which the user in-question should have initiated as they were the ones originally reverted, instead of continuing to attempt to re-implement their preferred edit (said discussion was, again, later initiated and ignored for eight days). The second was due to it being a WP:PERSONAL issue, which I find inappropriate on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia's own policies. As for my conduct elsewhere—again, speaking on the content, not the editor (a.k.a. myself)—it is all done in guideline within either a template or MOS policy. In regards to "HaysonDage,"—who is not a soap opera editor, though, why would that type of content matter, any way?—they were reverted once due to unsourced content being added into an article, which is a warn-worthy offense (mass-changing of genres without source). And, once again, I ask we speak on the editing content, not the editor, which continues to be ignored. Also, how is this acceptable in the eyes of Wikipedia?   livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 16:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Here you go again, still targeting me. 2) Leave my user page out of this! — Ð W (T·C) 19:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is worth mentioning user has once again made the same edit, and has continued WP:PERSONAL attack on their user page (see edit history). User is clearly WP:NOTHERE right now for the right reasons, and is beginning to seem a bit retaliatory in action.  livelikemusic   ( TALK! ) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Livelikemusic, again, is personally attacking me. It is clear that they are only here to start edit wars and revert users' edits, and is behaving very repetitively. It is also worth mentioning that this user has vandalized my talk page multiple times and even ignored one of the rules I placed there. — Ð W (T·C) 02:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * * from the article General Hospital. You can still discuss changes on the talk page, but once the blocks expire you both need to stop using the undo button. This has been going on for weeks, and if you don't cut it out the next blocks will be longer. — UwU wug's this? 21:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Dokabutts6 reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: warned)
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:

I arrived here because I've been trying to clean up referencing errors. has also reverted this user (for these edits) a couple of times. Note that there's some concern about COI; see the user's talk page. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No 3rr violation so block isn't immediately needed. If they keep going, after the warning then a block is next. — UwU wug's this? 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Kolya77 reported by User:Sørhaug (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I made an edit on the Moldova national football team page, slightly expanding one of the sections so that it is more consistent with other national team articles. This user then reverted my edit, saying that it is not the manual of style, and that it was a "pointless" edit (he wrote this in edit summaries, see the page in question). At that point I don't see any reason to revert his edit, because I am sure he will just revert it back again, so instead I go to his talk page to discuss it with him. He claims that the section I edited has a MOS, even though he doesn't give me any evidence of this MOS's existence. He also doesn't elaborate why he thinks the edit was pointless, even when I quite clearly ask him for a reason. He says that I have "ruined his work" and that I don't show respect to other people's work. I have never gotten accusations like this before in my time on Wikipedia. He also accused me of making edits I have not made, and not following MOS, without any proof or viable explanation for these accusations. I don't know if this is the right place to report this, as I have never done this before. Looking at this user's history, it seems he has gotten warnings in relation to his behaviour before. (In hindsight it would have been more correct to discuss in the article's talk page perhaps, but I did not know that at the time.) Sørhaug (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss on talk per WP:BRD — UwU wug's this? 22:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:95.237.101.118, User:79.40.93.211, and User:80.117.213.132 (same editor) reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is one person using three different IPs, all of which geolocate to the same place in Italy. Three editors (Ada's Gaze, Kierzek, and myself) have removed their edits. All three IPs were given 3RR warnings on all three talk pages after their fourth revert, but editor came back for their fifth one. The editor has also been warned before about using multiple IPs to edit, by Meters,, and I have warned them (on all three talk pages, and on the article talk page) about the same thing in relation to these edits. A block seems necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All 3 IPs notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems, based on their editing at Gaudie, as if User:95.232.101.120, User:95.237.101.220, User:95.245.99.136, and User:79.24.158.93 are also art of this menagerie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of an abundance of caution, I have notified the above 4 IPs about this thread, because they are mentioned even if not reported for edit warring (although it may well be justified to do so.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Went back in for their 6th revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And now a seventh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since February multiple Italian IPs have attempted to insert the unsourced claim that the student newspaper Gaudie id far-left. Multiple named editors have undone this as vandalism. I started a talk page thread but I don't expect any response. Meters (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * — UwU wug's this? 22:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:MowgliDm reported by User:Acousmana (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (13:30, 1 April 2021‎)
 * 2) (10:18, 1 April 2021)
 * 3) (10:06, 31 March 2021‎)
 * 4) (08:54, 31 March 2021‎)
 * 5) (16:57, 30 March 2021‎)
 * 6) (02:06, 23 March 2021‎)
 * 7) (12:54, 16 March 2021‎)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (10:51, 31 March 2021)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (10:56, 31 March 2021)

Comments:

Single purpose account:, possible WP:COI. Flagged user's talk page regarding reversion twice before 3RR warning, ,, and left link to direct user to talk page discussion, appears uninterested in communicating. Acousmana (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * — UwU wug's this? 22:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Userupgrade2 reported by User:TheBirdsShedTears (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Programs and projects */ I don't know why are you trying to do this because the content is informational and authentic at the same time. The content contain all the information relevant to HEC Degree Attestation."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1015424965 by TheBirdsShedTears (talk) This is not a personal blog. This is a organizational blog with reliable sources from the Higher Education Comission of Pakistan itself. The article on PakistanOnline is just giving complete information on the HEC Degree Attestation and its also verifying all of its information by confirming them with HEC first."
 * 3)  "This is a reliable source that I have added to the degree attestation project. The source is a complete and authentic article about the project of degree attestation by the HEC."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is persistently introducing spam link to the article. They said that the source link is verified and authentic, However, the external link (blog) belongs to the editor in question as stated on their userpage TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User was never warned about 3RR before the report was filed. —C.Fred (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have left a message for the user about the 3RR policy and about WP:NOR, as they are trying to cite their own blog as a source. Hopefully the user learns from this and goes on to edit constructively; if there were to be another attempt to add the blog as a source, then a block would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Problem doesn't seem to have returned since — UwU wug's this? 22:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:LongnamXL35 reported by User:ScottishFinnishRadish (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There's many types of auto-firing,include hand crank type."
 * 2)  "Rapid-firing is a fast trigger press firing for semi-automatic weapons."
 * 3)  "Stop re-editing my edits!!!!!"
 * 4)  "Don't you guy understand what auto-firing is?"
 * 5)  "Re-edit the page to make the information rights."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Hasn't edited the page since they saw the warning so I think no action is needed right now. — UwU wug's this? 22:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:82.16.238.5 and Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:BAD8:600:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:JalenFolf (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This has been an ongoing content dispute since 24 March, which includes removal of sources. IP refuses to discuss and acknowledge warnings. I also reported at ANI here. Jalen Folf  (talk)  16:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * — UwU wug's this? 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:RaphaelQS reported by User:Wizmann (Result: Nom blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weizmann_Institute_of_Science&oldid=1015471607

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weizmann_Institute_of_Science&oldid=1015508224
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weizmann_Institute_of_Science&oldid=1015508116
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weizmann_Institute_of_Science&oldid=1015507942
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weizmann_Institute_of_Science&oldid=1015507252

 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weizmann_Institute_of_Science#A_campaign_of_Weizmann_of_self_promotion

Comments:

As mentioned in the talk page, it seems that the institute wages a war for protecting its false reputation, via some employee in the past or presenet, it seems weird that users commits 4 revers in a row.--Wizmann (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * — UwU wug's this? 22:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in no way affiliated with this university (or any other for that matter) but I am involved in the WikiProject Universities since many years. I explained why I reversed the original research in the talk page of the article. --RaphaelQS (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:243:CC00:FF30:4BD:411C:F434:468D reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1015535806 by Ifnord (talk)"
 * 2)  "What is going on here? I have explained why this change is appropriate each time but I keep getting messages that I don’t include an explanation. Reason: The conservative labeling is inappropriate."
 * 3)  "Deleted “conservative” label; by contrast, CNN and MSNBC do not have “leftist” or “liberal” labels.  Labelling something “conservative” adds no value to the article."
 * 4)  "Deleting irrelevant characterization"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:, I don't rightly understand your edit summary: they did explain. Now, if you find that a BS explanation, then explain that. , you too: just warn/report as vandalism--deleting sourced content without a proper explanation, etc. Reporting here takes so much more time and effort, and they're not worth it. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor may believe they are performing their duty by removing a bias label from a media/new organization. They've explained their actions but they may need a timeout so they can read up more on how the process works here. I will not invest any more time here, and will ignore any future edits tonight. Ifnord (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for vandalism by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

User:User1527 reported by User:JBchrch (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

previously as:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First series of edits  Reverted by
 * 2) First series of reverts  Reverted by DeCausa
 * 3) Second series of reverts  Reverted by me
 * 4) Third revert  Reverted by me
 * 5) Fourth revert  Reverted by Njd-de
 * 6) Massive, unexplained removal of content removal . Reverted by me

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previously (implicitly) to the IP:.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is adamant about introducing poorly-sourced content to this GA because he personally disagrees with the scholarly sources cited. Does not engage clearly and constructively in the talk page. --JBchrch (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Updated the diff as of signature time --JBchrch (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

User:IrelandCork & User:KrakDuck & 178.35.85.84 & 85.104.67.119 & 176.112.166.214 reported by User:Reiner Gavriel (Result: Protected)
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:
 * Talk:Imam_Shamil
 * Talk:Imam_Shamil
 * Talk:Imam_Shamil

Comments:

All these users appeared after User:Arsenekoumyk block and are editing the same articles. They get into several edit wars with several users and are pushing an, in my opinion, nationalistic narrative. They say provocative things like calling people bots and "Chechen baby". Also accusing people of things, which in my opinion are really close to insults, seems to be common (1, 2, 3, 4). Now to the edits on Imam Shamil. Several users, including me, have pointed out that Imam Shamils Kumyk ancestry is nothing proven and uncertain and only legit according to some (Kumyk) historians, which is why the others and me pointed out that his Kumyk ancestry is nothing certain. I suspect several of these users to be sockpuppets of ArseneKoumyk. Apologies if reporting several users like this is not allowed- Reiner Gavriel (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I made only one edit in Shamil's article, removed a space, hardly an edit warring. Also, based on the history of Shamil's article, Reiner Gavriel started edit warring with KruckDuck by adding some personal thoughts which are unproven, going against stable consensus version without any talk. So basically by this request Reiner Gavriel demonstrates that he's is possibly someone's puppet creating this request out of some grudge on me, and it will be checked in a relevant request.--IrelandCork (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my ever only edit in Shamil's article # .--IrelandCork (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment on the report, I have linked comments of yours and explained why I am reporting you. Also please stop with your accusations, you have accused me and others, including several moderators, of things. If you have these suspisions you are free to report me but stop throwing them randomly at me. Accusing someone is not an argument. Also referring to you claiming "going against stable consensus version without any talk", there is no stable consensus, several other users have pointed out the biased edits of KrakDuck and possibly his sockpuppets. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Reiner Gavriel Now I checked your content claims. You insert words "by Kumyk historians". Neither Bliev nor Khalilov are Kumyk, for starters. Bliev is a doctor of historical sciences, most famous historian on Caucasus as they can be, not a youtube blogger, and he's [Ossetian]. Khalilov is nowhere said to be a Kumyk also, with two widely cited works on Shamil. So, you basically inserted a lie in the article, and it was reverted. All of those secondary/tertiary works rely on two Shamil's contemporary sources - Chychagova, who interviewed Shamil, Чичагова М. Н. Шамиль на Кавказе и в России (биографический очерк). — СПб.: Типо-литография С. Муллера и И. Богельмана, 1889., and there is also earlier source - Некоторые биографические подробности о Шамиле // Военный сборник, № 12. 1859. So here are three questions:
 * Why lie about "Kumyk" researchers.
 * Why conduct an edit warring for a lie and bring me here, who just added a space with no participation in content dispute.
 * What's your general problem with "Kumyk" researchers, if they had a say on it.--IrelandCork (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I clearly stated that 2 of the 3 sources are by the Kumyk historian Arslan Magomedovich Khalilov in my edit, which is why it should be noted that it is not only according to some sources, but also majority Kumyk sources. Whats with these silly accusations again? I have 1. not lied about Kumyk historians, 2. explained why I am also including you in the report in my comment and 3. 0 problems with Kumyk researchers, simply pointed out that it's important to note that they are Kumyk in this matter since it is relevant to the statement. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reiner Gavriel Then you need to go to talk page, raise your concerns, prove that Khalilov is really a Kumyk and that it's something worth noting (like it would be bad when history of Russian or England are written by Russian or English). 2. You did not, but I know why already, so it's fine.--IrelandCork (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked you nicely to stop throwing your shady accusations at me. I will file a report against you. Concerns about Imam Shamils doubtful Kumyk ancestry were already raised, Khalilovs ethnicity is not part of the debate. He is a Kumyk historian who has done mainly work on the history of Kumyks, easy to find out when you google it. I'm curious what you are trying to achieve with those accusations? Trying to make me look bad? ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * While there might be issues of sockpuppetry, it's not obvious at first glance. I would recommend Reiner Gavriel take this to WP:SPI and explain their suspicions there. — UwU wug's this? 22:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will do that. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Kinsley Bottom reported by User:SinkingInMercury (Result: Both partially-blocked for 1 week)
Page:, &

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-Face&diff=1013561569&oldid=1013561505
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman&diff=1012917227&oldid=1012315816
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catwoman&diff=1013347768&oldid=1013347654

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-Face&diff=1014601585&oldid=1014582603
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-Face&diff=1014880631&oldid=1014869446
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catwoman&diff=1014795734&oldid=1014763552
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catwoman&diff=1014817066&oldid=1014812825
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catwoman&diff=1014880307&oldid=1014819603
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman&diff=1014457540&oldid=1014426833
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman&diff=1014547322&oldid=1014468744
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman&diff=1014601641&oldid=1014582627
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman&diff=1014696670&oldid=1014603560
 * 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman&diff=1014795767&oldid=1014762301
 * 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman&diff=1014880113&oldid=1014827065

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

SinkingInMercury (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

I constantly kept telling the user that he has wrong and to provided sources of decades long relationships. He has the same amount of reverts as I do. He made the original edits, I told to have a discussion regarding this issue so neither of us would get blocked. I was busy doing stuff outside of Wikipedia, and instead of waiting for my response, he reverted the edits again without my response. He has no patience waiting for response. He assumes he is right just because it happened for a little bit. I accept that we were engaged in this edit war, but him constantly making these claims without discussing and sources of decades long relationships is disingenuous. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I already provided my sources in the article when User:Kinsley Bottom asked in the edit summaries. User:Kinsley Bottom still kept reverting them nonetheless and failed multiple times to explain why they should be removed. Also, User:Kinsley Bottom still has not provided explanation for removing the character's other abilities from the article, which were sourced. SinkingInMercury (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * (partial block - Batman, Catwoman, Two-Face).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * SinkingInMercury, Kinsley Bottom - You two really need to put aside the frustration and work things out peacefully on the talk pages of the articles. The edit warring over Batman, Catwoman, and Two-Face is extensive and very disruptive, and both of you absolutely know better than to do that. ;-) I've only blocked you two from editing those three articles, not the entire website. The block will expire in one week. During the seven-day block, please take the time do peacefully work things out properly, discuss the issues and the disputes on the articles' talk pages, and come to a consensus between the two of you regarding everything. This way, when the blocks expire, one of you can publish the appropriate changes to these articles (if any) that reflect what the both of you agree on. :-) I expect that this is going to happen, and I also expect that the edit warring will not continue on other articles, nor will it continue when the block expires. If this happens, I'll have no choice but to impose further blocks. Please don't make me have to do that... :-/  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Kinsley Bottom does not seem to be getting the idea. The editor is continuing another edit war on Miles Morales (another cartoon/comic book topic), with three more reverts after the above warning: .Meters (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m making my case on that issue. Seriously. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:BulgeUwU reported by User:VideoGamePlaya (Result: Both partial blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1011267684&oldid=1011267659

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section: Possible issue with article pertaining to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in lead section

Comments:

This is a controversial subject, and by default disagreements like this are unavoidable. The information the reported user found objectionable has existed on wikipedia, without objection, for some time. Upon the user's first removal of the contentious information, I tried to resolve the issue by restoring and rephrasing it into something perhaps we could both agree on. This was folly on my part as a short time later this too was deleted, with no reciprocative attempt at compromise. I again restored the information, creating a relevant section on the article's talk page, inviting the user to clearly explain his objections, and then, after a conclusion is reached, shall we decide how to proceed. Again, this seems to have been folly on my part, as all the sources I had unearthed (highly respected mainstream newspapers, see talk) were dismissed by him as "fringe conspiracy theories" claiming everything they asserted was ahistorical, whilst offering none of his own to backup such a wildly inaccurate allegation. Before even giving me a chance to respond (to the extant one can respond to something like that), he'd already re-deleted the information in question. I again restored it, citing the BRD cycle and called for a cease fire, asking for patience until the talk page discussion is concluded, ideally with the input of others. I even asked him to personally suggest a reword-- something we could agree on-- anything we could do to resolve this, but it landed on deaf ears. Didn't even acknowledge it. Again, he re-deleted the information, this time on the pretext of the sources used being WP:Bare URLs. I made it clear the guideline blatantly states that while bare URLs are not ideal, they are permissible. I then asked him to provide some sources to prove that he was correct. This was ignored, completely, and he again proceeded to delete the information in question, this time not even leaving an edit summary. Despite my best efforts, I'm of the firm belief this individual cannot be reasoned with, which is a shame. As such I feel it is necessary to report the situation here, else there will be no end to it. It is odd, as this person is clearly at the least a somewhat experienced user and must know how unacceptable this is. As it stands, the information is no longer present on the page. I would restore it again, but it would not be long before Mr Bulge yet again decides to arrogate himself to the position of arbiter of what should and shouldn't be included on this website.VideoGamePlaya (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've partially blocked you both from the article itself, so you can both discuss on the talk page. You've both had a few reversions. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * My friend, I literally just made it perfectly clear I have no intention of making any further edits to the article, so this action achieves absolutely nothing in the way of resolving this problem, which, obviously, is the reason I'm here. I wasn't seeking to have anyone "blocked", me or the user I reported. I simply want this issue resolved. The line "so you can both discuss on the talk page" baffles me slightly. This tells me you didn't properly read (or at the very least misunderstood) what I wrote, as, again, I thought I'd just made this clear-- I have attempted-- to the best of my ability, to resolve this in a sensible, grown-up fashion via discussion on the talk page. I instigated said discussion-- Proof of which can be seen here in this edit summary:
 * "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1015346533&oldid=1015300071 'This information has existed on Rhodes' page in some form since this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cecil_Rhodes&diff=1009897511&oldid=1009850248 over a month ago. It's removal should therefore be discussed on the talk page as per 3 revert rule-- which i have created a relevant section for.'"


 * As stated in my previous comment, however, these talks have been fruitless-- my attempts at compromise utterly (and quite rudely) ignored, and the user I've reported has repeatedly removed reliably sourced information based on nothing more than his own personal opinion, completely dismissive of said discussion on the talk page, not even giving me chance to respond. I do not believe any further dialogue will resolve this issue which is the entire point of my being here. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place? As stated, as it currently stands, reliably sourced information has been removed, and remains removed, based on someone's own personal objection to it. Further discussion is pointless and I refuse to waste any more of my time in doing so. What do we do to have this matter resolved? Is there a formal process?VideoGamePlaya (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Knottinghill (Result: No violation)
Page User being reported: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "‎Leibniz: this is all a bit trashy, but at least rm the "for instance", since it isn't an instance"

Comments: Insisting on deleting new information on Asian philosophy, which was added after conducting serious academic research and providing all its credible citations. Since the page only discusses European philosophical history and not ideas from other countries in the sciences, these edits were introduced. User has not given a proper reason for his actions but insists these pieces of information are "trashy" and "irrelevant". Has also been demeaning and not providing reasons for his explicit disruptive behavior on this page. This disruption has gone on for a few days already. Requesting for assistance in this matter. Just trying to use the page to teach my students. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knottinghill (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I have only three reverts there. Which is the same number as K. The most recent edit by Czello also re-removes K's stuff. Notice K's Just trying to use the page to teach my students - that's not what wiki is for William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke WP:3RR. This is a content dispute about Philosophy of physics which needs to be resolved in the usual way. That is, by seeking WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached there, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:Heartfox (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

This editor has justified imposing their personal style preferences on an article by citing it as the "standard format", despite the fact alphabetical order for awards and nominations tables is widely used across featured lists and elsewhere. They have made these changes without consulting other editors on the talk page, despite the fact the table has been sorted alphabetically since June 2020. Heartfox (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As an affected party, this was not necessary. versacespace  talk to me  03:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Years first format has been widely used and accepted for years - I don't know why we have such a problem with this ?, Awards should never be done in alphabetical order as it means when they recieved the award would be all jumbled whereas in a Year format it's going from Years ago > Most recent .....,
 * I also don't understand why VersaceSpace felt they need to join in and tag team as that doesn't help anyone.
 * Anyway this is a mountain not worth dying on. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

you misunderstood me. i don't think you needed to be reported. versacespace talk to me  12:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ah sorry I misread you - I thought you said it was necessary so apologies for that, At the end of the day I edit warred without going to the talkpage so Heartfox cannot be faulted, (They did what any editor would do). I've been here long enough to know edit warring is never acceptable but I chose to edit war anyway. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Davey2010 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Doja Cat without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. Davey2010's statement above suggests that they won't continue to revert so no block is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)