Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive431

User:Mirrored7 reported by User:Doggy54321 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Update: 6 and 7 have both been made not only since this thread has been opened, but also after the user discovered this thread.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None. The user's talk page has had plenty of sections opened on their talk page in the past six months (tomorrow is the six-month anniversary of their third edit warring block) regarding edit warring, including a December 2020 ANI case regarding their edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ariana Grande covers most of the edits, and Talk:Ariana Grande covers the last edits.

Comments:

This has been going on for six months. I'm tired of their edit wars. It's obvious they are still doing this. If you look at their contributions list, there have been consistent instances of edit warring since October 2020, and they show no intention of stopping anytime soon. Their December ANI case put them on thin ice, and that didn't do anything as they're still edit warring. I feel no need to warn them as it won't do anything, as demonstrated in the past. D🐰ggy54321 (the Easter bunny has been summoned...) 02:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (updated 03:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC))

There you go again. As you can see there are still on going discussions on the talk page. I'm very open to discuss, and of course it's not to go always my way, I'm pretty aware of that. But if the discussion not finished, then why reverting it back? You, and BawinV are doing the most on all of Ariana Grande's pages, for months now. Always trying to start pity arguments whetever she's should be considered a "real songwriter", or not, but add puffery on Taylor Swift pages. I even agreed to remove 'songwriter' from her description, just that you give rest, but you always find somwthing new to nag about. Admin, maybe it would be interesting to take a look on BawinV and Doggy54321's history of obsession on Ariana Grande and Taylor Swift pages. There you can see that their edits are hardly objective. I really have enough of this. Mirrored7 undefined 03:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that you participated in a discussion after you made four out of five of those edits doesn't change the fact that you made those four edits. From what I've seen, you are not open to discuss. You responded one time to the various messages I sent you. I do not get how you don't get the message yet. You have been contacted by various editors over multiple months, you have been told to pretend the undo button doesn't even exist by an admin, you have been advised to talk before reverting, and you have not done anything about it. I can bring up every page you have edit warred on over the past several months if I want to, but I don't think that's going to be very helpful here. Now, I would love to have anyone sift through my contributions and find times that I have shown a bias, as that would allow me to determine exactly what edits I have made in the past that are not acceptable, which would allow me to, moving forward, immediately halt this type of behaviour, and I know Bawin feels the same. But, no diffs have been provided through your multiple claims that Bawin and I have shown a bias, so please put your money where your mouth is and show us some examples. I'm pinging so that they can add their two cents as well. D🐰ggy54321 (the Easter bunny has been summoned...) 03:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I almost took Mirrored7 to ANI out of frustration a couple of weeks ago when they continued to hit the undo button at the Ariana Grande article while completely ignoring my multiple pleas to them to please explain their edits on the talk page. The editor then completely deleted the part of the lead that I was disputing, again without acknowledging my discussion, and finally deleted the entire talk page discussion that I opened without ever acknowledging my question. While other users editing this page have been far from perfect, the fact that Mirrored7 is continuing to revert even after this report was filed seems to indicate that they may not be able to edit in this topic area without being disruptive. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I told you that I'm not always on here, but I'm very open to discuss. I'm now on a discussion on the Ariana Grande talk page, but you and versacespace are reverting my edits, without even acknowledging my replies. And please don't start with. His edits has been distruptive, and he was reported because his edits multiple times. Your edits are very passive aggressive, and not as clear to read. You both seem to be a team what concerns the bias towards Taylor Swift and against Ariana Grande.

I'm sorry that I don't reply to you. But I'm not always in here. I took the "fashion" thing out of Grande's lead in the last days, agreeing to your edit, and even thanked you for your help on your talk page Mirrored7 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my bit wasn’t clear, I was just trying to point out the Tu quoque I was seeing. If you aren’t always on here, then take some time after the fact to follow up. You not being active but always being willing to discuss isn’t a valid argument as it can be disproven with the kind of edits that Aoi showed above, where you completely ignored and then deleted a thread in which you were pinged four separate times, or the edits to your talk where you removed sections without adding a reply. I’ll have you know that I am a massive Swiftie and a massive Arianator, and neither of those seem to be affecting my editing. Bawin and I aren’t a team that tries to puff Swift articles and deflate Grande articles, as that would be WP:NOTHERE and would result in blocks for the both of us. Again, Tu quoque... D🐰ggy54321 (the Easter bunny has been summoned...) 03:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Mirrored7 is doing the most to spurn tales about how Doggy and myself are some kind of a team (LOL). We both have multiple topics of interest on Wikipedia, where the common factor is TS. That's all about it. And for Mirrored's statement about me editing for "months" on Ariana Grande, I think he should do a quick fact-check. I haven't edited on Grande for MONTHS despite spectating all the rule-breaking happening in that article; why? because the whole atmosphere of that article made me feel so uncomfortable. It's extremely hard when one rogue editor takes control of an article and simply disrupts everything you contribute, and never wants to communicate (they simply delete my talk initiation from their user talk page). Therefore, I simply stopped editing on that article. I don't need that energy in my work. I'd rather put my effort in improving the quality of other better articles. Ariana Grande is nowhere near good quality (according to Wiki standards for biography, especially popular personalities), and we know why. I feel only bad for Doggy; their efforts to communicate with Mirrored7 was completely futile..Mirrored7 doesn't reply unless an admin is involved in the talk, LOL. That's why I think this discussion on Admins' noticeboard is very necessary for the good of Grande and related articles. BawinV (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly! I'm a kitten and it doesn't affect my editing of Doja Cat related pages (other than the fact that I regularly update them). versacespace  talk to me  03:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * – 2 weeks. Since March 2020 Mirrored7 has been blocked for edit warring by four different admins. They've also been reported at ANI. It appears that Mirrored7 is not getting the message. If they can't work with others they may have a limited future on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Viennese Waltz reported by 91.125.11.18 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014829201 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1014829901 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014829901 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014831692 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1014833493 by 146.199.206.3 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Editor has received repeated warnings from administrators and other editors over the past three years

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See edit summary 17:07, 26 March 2021

Comments:

This editor seems like he can only talk in edit summaries of reverts. 91.125.11.18 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 146.199.206.3 and 91.125.11.18 are both the banned user Vote (X) for Change. His contributions can be reverted on sight. He should not even be bringing this case. See WP:LTA/VXFC. --Viennese Waltz 12:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the cited page, which seems to consist of a lot of allegations unsupported by diffs and nothing relating to me.  For example, the last report is this .   I checked the science desk archive around the time of the report and found this, this  and this User talk:90.192.119.245.   There are two IPs involved 200 miles apart. 91.125.11.18 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not edit warring to revert the posts of a banned user. --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Declined, too much likelihood that the filer of this report is a banned user. Note that the reverts listed above are reverts of an editor,, who was recently blocked by User:Newslinger. This 149.* IP is suspected to be WP:LTA/VXFC, who is known to edit at the reference desks. It is plausible that the IP who filed this report, 91.*, is also VXFC. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirming that is likely a community-banned user. —  Newslinger   talk   19:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that at 19:54, 3 April 2021 Newslinger blocked 91.125.11.18 for 48 hours.  It's last edit was on 29 March.   So why did Newslinger show up to block it five days later?   He claimed it is "likely a community-banned user" but gave no reasoning.   On 29 March Viennese Waltz claimed it was a "banned user" but gave no reasoning.   Newslinger rejected Viennese Waltz's claim on 29 March so it was not open to him to block subsequently without going to ANI to seek Community sanction for his proposed action.   On 31 March EdJohnston claimed it was "plausible" that the IP" is [a named registered user].   That was wheelwarring, no reasoning was given, and more seriously since it is not permitted to link IPs to accounts it was WP:OUTING which attracts a permanent Foundation ban.   EdJohnston also claimed 149.XX.XX.XX "is suspected to be" this registered user but no report for this IP was submitted.   No reasoning was provided, so where was he getting his information?
 * Viennese Waltz also claimed (without giving any reason) that 146.199.206.3 was the same editor as 91.125.11.18.  As Newslinger had already ruled that 91.125.11.18 was not banned, that means that 146.199.206.3 is not banned either.   Checking 146.199.206.3's block log you will see that on 29 March Newslinger blocked it for "disruptive editing".   If it had been a sockpuppet or an LTA he would have said so and would have had to give reasons.   Again, at 19:41, 3 April Newslinger blocked 91.125.11.49 for one month claiming it was evading a block without giving reasons.   It last edited on 1 April and was not blocked.   So why did Newslinger show up two days later to block it?   146.199.206.72 also edited this section on 1 April.   It was not blocked, so why did Newslinger show up two days later to block it?   On 3 April Newslinger also claimed 91.125.11.18 had been engaged in "block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry" despite having given it a clean bill of health five days before.   It's obvious he had no evidence, because if he did have evidence he would have been able to say which (of block evasion/ban evasion/sockpuppetry) it was alleged to be.
 * Newslinger has also linked numerous IPs to the named registered user without giving any reason, but this is not permitted under any circumstances.  EdJohnston's sole argument is that IPs who edit the reference desk are ipso facto this named user.   146.200.241.113 edited this section at 17:50, 2 April and has a clean block log yet Newslinger claimed it was a block-evading IP without giving any reason.   At 19:41 on 3 April Newslinger blocked 91.125.11.49 for one month claiming it was evading a block.   It had edited this section on 1 April and was not blocked, so why did Newslinger show up two days later to block it without giving any reason?
 * Newslinger added a number of IPs to a page linking IP numbers to a registered editor.  Although this is illegal, anyone can do it without giving any reason.   For example, Jayron32 did this last year (IPs who ask reasonable questions on the reference desk and provide useful answers are never accused of being sockpuppets of any other editor).   Jayron removed questions and answers claiming the IPs he linked to this registered editor had asked "provocative and leading questions."   Provocative of what?   Our article "leading question" says it "is a question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed." One question was "Is everything in construction designed, even minor works?   For example, filling a pot hole or making good after doing work (whether that's ramping off edges or filling gaps between the road and hoarding etc."   None of the information in the answer given was in the question.
 * Jayron removed another question with the comment "apologies for good faith answer".  Why is he apologising for other editors' work in providing helpful answers to questions?   The IP submitted an unblock request and was told (s)he could register an account, which (s)he wouldn't have been told if (s)he) was a "block-evading LTA". 89.240.119.163 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User:180.252.247.184 reported by User:Assem Khidhr (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1015899304

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was given multiple warnings by multiple editors, including a final warning (none of which issued by me). Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The IP in question has been blocked for 31 hours for vandalism... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Claus st margarita reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1015729190 by StjepanHR (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1015728917 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1015728870 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1015728777 by StjepanHR (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1015728662 by StjepanHR (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is edit-warring on the page and is removing "better source needed" maintenance tag repeatedly. They have been asked to discuss on the talk page, warned about 3RR. But they have continued with this. Ashley yoursmile!  05:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – Indef as a vandalism-only account by User:EvergreenFir. The user's account is also locked globally. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:AntiSemanticCanard reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It's already been discussed in talk. Nobody has provided a source for the claim that Trueb et al are scientists. It's been shown several times they are dermatologists with a COI."
 * 2)  "/* Cause */ The article cited was [not] authored by scientists, rather dermatologists expressing an opinion."
 * 3)  "/* Cause */ This has been litigated in the talk. Trueb et al are NOT scientists. You were unable to provide a counter-argument. It explicitly states they expressed an OPINION. Opinions from non-scientists carry no weight."
 * 4)  "/* Cause */ The source does not match the claim. S"
 * 5)  "No scientist says PFS is caused by mass psychosis"
 * 6)  "This claim was made by dermatologists, not scientists. Dermatologists are not qualified to discuss the field of psychiatry."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: see User Talk:AntiSemanticCanard

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Post-finasteride syndrome

Comments: This could be resolved if User:Alexbrn weren't so biased in his approach. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Trueb et al are not scientists but dermatologists. They explicitly state they are expressing an opinion. Opinions from non-scientists are not valid. This is a cut and dry case. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You were previously linked to WP:EW where it plainly says that "being right" is not a defense (and you're wrong in any case). You have been warring against multiple editors. Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Source of the claim says: 'More recently, Rezende et al. (65) and Trueb et al. (66) published an article, Post-Finasteride Syndrome: An Induced Delusional Disorder with the Potential of a Mass Psychogenic Illness? The authors labeled patients with PFS as psychotic and delusional, as stated in their discussion, “In our opinion, PFS demonstrates some analogies to such controversial “mystery syndromes” as amalgam illness, multiple chemical sensitivity, Morgellons disease, and Koro for the following reasons: patients complain of symptoms that cannot be adequately explained biologically, and the frequency of consultations for the conditions parallels the respective media coverage, which points to a high degree of suggestibility.' No where does it suggest Trueb et al are scientists but merely dermatologists with a COI expressing an opinion.  Moreso, the lead author has a history of quackery, writing papers such as "Saint rita of cascia: Patron saint for women with frontal fibrosing alopecia?" and "Minoxidil for endocrine therapy-induced alopecia in women with breast cancer-saint Agatha's blessing?" and having them published in "peer-reviewed" journals.  So not only is this 'scientist' not a scientist, he's a bizarre quack with a history writing strange papers with a veneer of scientific integrity.

My conclusion is Alexbrn shares the same religious beliefs as Trueb and is therefore unqualified to edit the controversial topic. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with the content and are in a minority, you need to discuss that issue on the article's Talk page rather than repeatedly reverting everybody. An admin may wish to erase the potentially libellous BLP violation in the above (and there's similar at the article Talk page too). Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I already did. Nobody, including you, has provided a source for the claim that Trueb at al are scientists.  It's been shown they merely run a dermatologist practice and have a COI and a history of authoring papers about Catholic saints performing miracles. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * | RM Trüeb is an ex-professor in the University of Zürich, and credited author of |many articles and some books. Dermatologists are scientists and, indeed, medical doctors. NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Dermatologists are not scientists. And even if he were, he is not qualified to discuss "mass psychosis" or "histrionic personality disorders" as he is a clinician (not a scientist) of skin disorders. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

AntiSemanticCanard is continuing to edit war while commenting on this report. - MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The rule explicitly state: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." Dermatologists (with a history of writing quack papers) making claims of "mass psychosis and delusions" is an extraordinary claim. AntiSemanticCanard (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring by User:Cullen328. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:IAmPushpak reported by User:36.68.161.33 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)

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

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

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

Comments: This user has conducted edit warring and vandalism with ArnabSaha over addition of materials against the discussion/consensus related to the article and reliable sources and without following NPOV. 36.68.161.33 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:IAmPushpak is warned for making personal attacks in edit summaries, such as "The link redirects to a vandalised page that steals info from this page." Be polite, and use the talk page to find agreement on what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:185.46.78.5 reported reported by User:Harizotoh9 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments: Edit warring over last few days, plus BLP violations by inserting a controversy section sourced to Youtube vlogs. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Started discussion on article talk, though with 2 warnings ignored and at least 7 reverts over two days, I'm not expecting 185.46.78.5 to engage there. POLITANVM talk 23:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:MelanieN due to addition of unsourced content. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:107.10.140.224 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Legacy */Removed irrelevant content. An obscure 8 year old speech is not pertinent to the film Stand and Deliver and its legacy. It is incumbent on the individual who referenced the speech to show that it is an impactful aspect of Stand and Deliver's legacy.  If someone says this edit is invalid, the burden of proof is on you to explain what about it is invalid."
 * 2)  "/* Legacy */Removed irrelevant content.

An obscure 8 year old speech is not pertinent to the film Stand and Deliver and its legacy. It is imcumbent on the individual who referenced the speech to show that it is an impactful aspect of Stand and Deliver's legacy. I submit that it isn't."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been blocked twice for edit warring, recent blocked expired and user has gone back to removing content, also attacking other users Tommi1986 let's talk! 19:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:107.10.140.224 has been partially blocked by User:Deepfriedokra for one week from editing the Stand and Deliver article. The IP editor has two previous edit warring blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Klaysaurus reported by User:Wjemather (Result: Blocked)
Pages:

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: n/a. Previously discussed policy on user talk page.

Comments: User readding content in clear violation of policy. Seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE, only edits are to preempt golf tournament results. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

userlinks:Wjemather --> This user was the one edit-warring by inputting incorrect information. If you go to the section in question mentioned, you can verify that my edits were correct while the undos by the user in question were incorrect and intended to be disruptive. We have gone over this issue numerous times before and he keeps repeating his ludicrous and questionable behaviour even when other admins have stated that I am not under any violation. At this point, I have accepted this user to be an insecure clown trying to cause disruption and chaos over and over again. As for me, I will continue to be a valuable contributor to the Wiki community here. Thanks again! Klaysaurus (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that some of your predictions have turned out does not stop them being in violation of WP:V and WP:NOT. Several editors have reverted these predictions and you have edit-warred over them. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: user also edit-warred at ; diff, diff, diff, diff. Has previously edit-warred over their policy-violating predictions at several other articles, as can be seen from their contribution history. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A review of the reported editor's edit history shows a flurry of activity on Sundays—and a pattern of WP:CRYSTAL edits. I am also deeply troubled by the personal attack in the message here. I suggest that make sure to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines about sporting events, especially about not forecasting the winner of an event still underway. Otherwise, there may be a Sunday in the near future where the administrators are discussing at the incidents noticeboard whether to topic-ban Klaysaurus from golf tournaments currently underway and their participants, broadly construed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Klaysaurus is blocked 31 hours for making personal attacks: (see his comment above). Klaysaurus's user talk page is full of previous warnings. I agree with User:C.Fred's observation above. WP:CRYSTAL is part of policy and violations should not be taken lightly. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Blissfield101 reported by User:Avgeekamfot (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines&oldid=1015856867
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines&oldid=1016000837
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines&oldid=1016002728
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines&oldid=1016003539

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

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

Comments:

He warned me about no more than 3 revisions but then I saw he did it too. Hope I'm doing this right
 * Result: User:Blissfield101 is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert about Seattle's status as an American hub unless they first get a talk page consensus in favor of their change. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Blissfield101 reported by User:Avgeekamfot (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport&oldid=1015856905
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport&oldid=1016000986
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport&oldid=1016002528
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle%E2%80%93Tacoma_International_Airport&oldid=1016003482

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

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

Comments:

Same as the one above. He warned me about making more than 3 edits but he already did? Also I started discussion on the discussion page of both.
 * This user made a factually incorrect statement about Seattle/Tacoma being a hub for American Airlines. He cites a Bloomberg article that uses the term hub in a general sense, not referring to a specific . Seattle/Tacoma is a hub for American's partner, Alaska Airlines, but it was never declared by AA itself. What this user doesn't understand is that kind of language is used in airport articles all the time when referring to this kind of stuff. That does not mean it passes the WP:V test. Where is the statement from American Airlines announcing Seattle/Tacoma as an American hub? I tried explaining, but he keeps insisting on reverting my edits. Blissfield101 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You sent me a rule that says it's a "bright-line rule" not to undo another editors work more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. You've clearly done so and therefore you seem to be in violation of the rule you told me about. I await your block.
 * Result: User:Blissfield101 is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert about Seattle's status as an American hub unless they first get a talk page consensus in favor of their change. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Isento reported by User:Mo Billings (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]  Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * The above is not a diff of edit warring, but a diff of their talk page comment. isento (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * That is a talk page post I started (and largely led) in order to resolve the dispute. isento (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

The article was on my watchlist from when I made an attempt to clean up the wording of one sentence back in February. Isento edit-warred then, too, and I just gave up. The edit in this 3RR report was originally made by a fairly new user, but reverted by Isento with an edit summary of "not important". That seemed like a very poor way to deal with a new user making a reasonable edit. Isento seems to have WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Mo Billings (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This guy has been hounding me ever since that first content dispute at New York Dolls (album), which mind you I tried to discuss at the talk page but the editor responded aloofly and without much civility or intellectual responsiveness and accused me of ownership, which offended me. Then they occasionally followed my edits elsewhere:, , , , (another bad faith assumption) ... As for this recent dispute, I thoroughly explained my reasoning for undoing at their talk page (including the fact that the "fairly new user" had cited self-published content to this featured article), but they are too slow to understand that they continuously were introducing inconsistent and badly formatted sourcing and still apparently do not understand that the content they are accusing me of removing already exists in footnote form beside the sentence they are badly rewording. I brought up WP:BOLD and WP:3RR as reasons why the discussion ought to be continued at the article talk page, but they once again chose a measure most severe to me and opened this report. Maybe this is an issue of competence, but I am doubting it. isento (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have had a busy stressful day and made one of those reverts in haste on my phone at work, and I didn't properly explain in the first edit summary. But this report is unnecessary, after I clearly was willing to discuss this with them. I don't understand this obsession they seem to have with me. isento (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Their attitude at the first talk page discussion made it clear they didn't care about engaging with anything I had to say and they even said . That they returned to it in this manner, after following my activity elsewhere, tells me they're hounding and/or being pointy. isento (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the comments above demonstrate, this editor is aggressive and hostile, which does not make me want to engage in long discussions with them over small changes to an article. Mo Billings (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to be held accountable for the things you do and say, why should you have any expectation that others ought to be? isento (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to change the format of the references in that article. I agreed with isento, your edit was sloppy. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't edit war back then, the time they are referring to of our first encounter. I reverted once, opened a discussion at the talk page, offered a compromise phrasing in another edit, and notified them of WP:BRD. This person seems more interested in annoying me than in any compromise. I even expressed an openness to their ideas in this current dispute so long as they discuss their point of view properly at the talk page instead of just reverting to their preferred revision. isento (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I was hoping to take a break from this site when this happened. If you're gonna block me for however long, you ought to ban this person from interacting with me. The earlier encounters, especially his nomination of some subpage I had for deletion, in retrospect are creepy. I don't understand his continued interest in me or my activities. And I don't want to. I had a strong interest and passion for this article because I had devoted much energy and care to getting it to FA-level a while back (and preserving that quality), and this person's interest seems to just be disruptive and petty and not about the article. isento (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note for closing admin: Isento continued to post on my talk page after I filed this report ( and ). After that I asked them politely to stop. They have posted two more messages since then, both of which are very aggressive ( and ). Isento seems to have difficulty controlling their anger. I don't think other editors should have to deal with that on a collaborative project like Wikipedia where editors are expected to be able to work together. Mo Billings (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke the WP:3RR. But if there is still a dispute, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. In their comments here and on the talk page, neither party will win any awards for diplomacy. If the issue is that you don't like someone's attitude, there is not usually a good remedy, unless a comment is so bad it justifies a WP:NPA block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not in it for the awards 😏 isento (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1702:30D0:4270:94E2:62F4:12AA:4708 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Semi, Warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:    

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * has clearly violated 3RR. Worse, the content he is reverting into the article is extreme pov pushing that grossly misrepresents the (unreliable) sources being used. The user has been IP hopping to push this content: see . This user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to wage their own personal vendetta. Laplorfill (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:SECREngineNo592 clearly same user as IP, making exact same changes and leaving very similar edit summariesTommi1986 let's talk! 21:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP edit warring. I'm also warning User:SECREngineNo592 they may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. Note that fan sites and blogs are not generally considered WP:Reliable sources for use in articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:AFB22 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1016424474 by XLinkBot (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Paid editing without disclosure under the Wikimedia Terms of Use."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:ONUS

Comments:

There is no reason to expect any form of communication from, any form of disclosure, or stopping to re-insert promotional content after multiple reverts, if they are not blocked from editing the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "Your edits are mostly redundant, too many al at once, and some constitute overlinking"
 * 2)   "Rv redundant edits by johnbod; take to the talk page if you must; much later is nonsense"
 * 3)   "Reverted edits by Johnbod (talk) to last version by Fowler&fowler"
 * 4)   "No one has responsed to your Roots of Hinduism section; I was merely parodying it. A dispute can't be about one person's dissatisfaction"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion ongoing at Talk:India

Comments: User:Fowler&fowler has been edit warring repeatedly with many different users in a short period of time, including established users such User:Johnbod or User:पाटलिपुत्र. User is a long timer (14 years) and is therefore well aware of 3RR rule. Many of his reverts are vexatory in nature, in addition to exhibiting strong WP:OWN: in essence nobody can edit this article but User:Fowler&fowler himself. He is blocking the editorial process. User shows no remorse for his edit-warring behaviour. पाटलिपुत्र Pat   (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have already replied to this frivolous ANI. One of those edits involved removing a "disputed" tag added cavalierly to a 17-year-old Featured Article, outside of any review process.  I have already replied on my talk page.  The user is miffed that I took down some of his just-under-the-radar, gray zone, edits on a number of other pages, so is attempting to trap me into making some error, come what may.  The proactive admins, such as RegentsPark, who oversee the India page, are not around, and won't be until the end of this month, so POV-promoters are feeling emboldened, and I'm helpless.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Fowler&amp;fowler is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at India about the dawn of Hinduism unless they first get a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. An WP:RFC is one way this could be settled. Your objection to placing a 'disputed' tag on a featured article looks like a stretch —- an FA is still an article, and people can still disagree about it. If you think the quality of the article is suffering due to poor edits, you might consider another FAR nomination. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to nominate the article for another FAR late this spring or early this summer. We've talked about it on the talk page starting early this year, and some preliminary work has been done: Rjensen has contributed an Education section and Johnbod one on Visual Art. While they are not quite FA standard in my view, they are a good beginning, and have been put into the article.  SandyGeorgia and Moxy have made comments about the placing of images, other format issues.  There has been a proposal presented on adding a  subsection on caste in the Society Section. Furthermore, EMsmile and Femkemilene have already written their (sub) sections on Climate Change and Climate. In all the noise being created by this storm in a teacup, I did not even notice their recent posts.
 * Not a peep was heard then from this disputing editor during this time.
 * As I've indicated before, the lead (about which these editors are expressing their discontent now) and two sections were reviewed over a period of a month in August 2019, with dozens of editors and at least half a dozen admins watching and contributing; and then copyedited by the coordinator of the WP:League of Copy-editors, user: Two-fingered-typist in September 2019 before the article made its second Today's Featured Article appearance on Mahatma Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary on 2 October 2019. I did an epic amount of work: see Talk:India/Archive_46 and Talk:India/Archive_46. There are 61 references in the lead itself.  See also comments on the day of the TFA: Talk:India/Archive_47. It had the support of Vanamonde93, Johnbod, MilboneOne, and many others.  RegentsPark, El_C and others left these messages on my talk page.
 * Not a peep was heard then from this disputing editor during that time either.
 * I am a human being. I do a superhuman amount of work on the India page. While I do accept the cautions expressed in your message, I'm disappointed by your giving primacy to the obvious violation of etiquette, none at all to the provocations, expressed all at once without so much as a couple of day's discussion, that have led to it.  I accept your judgment, of course, but sorry, but I'm deeply disappointed.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Harimua Thailand reported by User:Custardbandlers (Result: Partial blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

is constantly changing the table of this page with wrong information and presentation, I tried explaining to him what he's doing wrong on his talk page by linking manual of style and guidelines but doesn't want to really talk, he is instead sending random copy pasted warning message about irrelevant matters. He also thinks that he owns the page and is even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=1016413763#Aikatsu_Planet! asking for ownership of the page]. I warned him multiple times and tried to remind him what Wikipedia is but keep ignoring my messages by saying that he is now in charge of the page and that I've been "fired" from editing. Custardbandlers (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the article has nothing but primary sources, and underwent an AfD (Articles for deletion/List of Aikatsu Planet! episodes) in February of which the result was Merge, I have redirected it. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Partial block Having looked at this a bit further, telling an editor to stop editing a page, and then going to RFPP to try to get them removed there is completely out of order. I have partially blocked Harima Thailand from the page. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:71.230.208.46 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "it's time to stop"
 * 2)  "i see some problem with the article so i fix it. why edit war"
 * 3)  "hhhhhh thats funny, i put where to go to look at the talk section and you remove it. that's weird"
 * 4)  "my friend, please have a look on talk, I opened a section about the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dakhla,_Western_Sahara#Regarding_%22occupation%22"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1016593132 by M.Bitton (talk) how about read the edit summary again. Rv. real disruption"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Dakhla, Western Sahara."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an obvious sock of the highly disruptive editor Taha Khattabi (see previous SPI). M.Bitton (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After completely losing the plot, disrupting multiple articles and resorting to personal attacks (as they usually do), they have now been blocked. M.Bitton (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * They had been reported at WP:AIV, thanks and . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have time, please have a look at this SPI (I'm fairly certain that this is the same person). Many thanks to you and to . M.Bitton (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:104.15.130.191 reported by User:Grandpallama (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of very similar reverts going back to 2020:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear violation of 3RR, with only a single post to the talkpage, falsely claiming that these edits are substantially different than the ones previously rejected. IP ignoring consensus on talkpage, which specifically objected to these re-additions, in what has become a slow-motion edit war. The IP's talkpage reveals a long history of edit warring in general at this article, going back to 2017, with plenty of incivility to boot; multiple editors have tried to clean it up, at which point the IP reappears and reinserts reams of problematic verbiage. Probably needs a pageban in addition to a short-term edit warring block; IP seems to be static, given its long history at this page. Grandpallama (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Per the talkpage, this IP is almost certainly also 67.48.200.162 who has edit warred at the same page, with similar edit summaries and language on their user talkpage, and is also a static IP. As their edits are a part of this long-term edit war to cram in as much trivia and cruft as possible, suggest an indef pageblock for both IPs. Grandpallama (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the first time this particular ip user has been involved in an edit war on a USN-related page, with the same 'everyone is wrong, I'm right' attitude on the talk page. Last time the page was locked in lieu of them being blocked. Seems they took the free pass for granted. (fyi) - wolf  21:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As Grandpallama pointed out, this EW goes back to 2020 with this same IP. I've added some additional diffs above. I brought this editor's disruption on this page and ip-hopping to ANI last year  but didn't get much attention. I think indef semi-protection on this page is in order at a very minimum.  Consensus has been clear on the talk page but this editor won't drop the WP:STICK and is clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Toddst1 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected indef. There has been a discussion on article talk, but it seems the IP editor does not listen to others' opinions. For an example of the problem, see this IP edit from January, 2020: (a) adding material that seems excessive, (b) snarky and hostile edit summary about a "'triggered' editor who uses poor judgment". Since this user has access to many IPs, semiprotection may be the best choice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Rapt0r.toronto.12 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is also some probable socking with  Kind Regards  VViking Talk Edits 14:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:HOA101 reported by User:MfactDr (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: sourced contents removed

Diffs of the user's reverts: existing sourced contents been deleted, replaced to attempts to evade detection.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [ Tigray war added unsourced contents

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (HOA101) did not want response and reached consensus as he deleted my message from his talk page as shown here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: After deleted my message, I am asking other editor User talk:Eridian314 to help the issue

Comments:


 * In the naftenya pages He claimed “ One particular example used by Ethiopianist Oromos, like Dr. Merera Gudina, against OLF.”   I have gone through Both sources never mentioned. this statement is original Research. diff is
 * Adding words between sourced contents
 * In the Prosperity Party page: He claimed  “On the occasion of attacks on the Wollo Amharas in Ataye, Oromia Zone of Amhara Region allegedly by the Oromo Liberation Front ” as the shown in here . the provided sources never says this statement at all that I have gone through each of them.
 * in the Ethiopian nationalism page the sourced contents was removed by HOA 101 as shown here and  here  and removed existing sourced contents placed under footnote by replacing what words of he think right.MfactDr (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * [See Oromo Liberation Front article for further attribution HOA101 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC) ]


 * [And I repeat for the billionth time as seen in User talk:Landroving Linguist, these sources already contain information that was not transferred into this Wikipedia article that needed to be included in order to properly express the findings of the author. HOA101 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)]


 * [Next time finish my whole sentence for further context: "On the occasion of attacks on the Wollo Amharas in Ataye, Oromia Zone of Amhara Region allegedly by the Oromo Liberation Front and attacks on Wallo Oromos in the Oromia Zone of Amhara Region allegedly by Amhara region militia in March 2021, OPP and APP came with opposite statements, each blaming the other ethnic group for being the cause of the violence and killings. ." Which gives equal weight to both sources instead of using only one source that supports your own political views. HOA101 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)]


 * [I did not remove a sources, I only added several others, you were the one who removed sources HOA101 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)]


 * We've already discussed all of this, again and again. Why are you rehashing this with several other people all the time? All sources have been cited, just because your political views disagree with the sources does not make it unreliable and when there are sources with conflicting views, facts, and evidence both would have to be mentioned instead of just picking one side, especially on issues related to Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa which are almost always controversial with limited authoritative consensus on such topics in the both the academic world and the general public sphere. We've already gone through this before: here are a few examples, User talk:Eridian314, User talk:Landroving Linguist, and Talk:Ethiopian nationalism. All of the sources have been cited and things that were already cited in the Oromo Liberation Front article have been copied and paseted to its respective article with the correct citations copyed properly. HOA101 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @HOA101 Please leave your comment as Above. It looks confusing as you are inserting your statement between into my message. If you want response leave your note in new line.  You are keep refusing to answer for this evidence of edit warring and claiming some thing not in the source and removing sourced contents. you responding to an accusation by raising a different issue not related like political believe. we talk about Wikipedia policy not personal believe. I will leave to administrators to judge!MfactDr (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Jamirowikee reported by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1016366260 by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) - this has to do with his views on feminism within the world of music, your opinion does not change this fact."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1016301798 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1013052210 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  1RR Warning
 * 2)   "Adding Discretionary Sanctions Notice (ap) (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* 1RR */ Replying to Vaselineeeeeeee (using reply-link)"
 * 4)   "/* 1RR */"

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

Comments:

The editor had broken 1RR/WP:AMPOL restrictions on Ben Shapiro. The editor had been given many opportunities to self-revert, but they have refused. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The above user has been asked to provide a good reason as to why the reversion should be granted, i.e. why the information added to the page ought not to appear, and has repeatedly failed to provide a reason and only made threats re possible sanctions etc. This is not good faith.--Jamirowikee (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorsing block. Jamirowikee's response on their talk page and here indicates they do not see anything wrong with violating WP:1RR. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Possible sock puppetry? . Vaselineeeeeeee</b>★★★ 12:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The user endorsing block is the user who first removed the information i.e. vandalized the page due to their own personal views. Their endorsement is therefore considered worthless. No user has yet provided a reason why the information should not be included on the page nor have they acted in good faith at any point by engaging in meaningful dialogue despite repeated requests to do so. It is senseless that the parties who wish to remove relevant information be allowed to do so with impunity, while failing to engage in dialogue, and then demanding sanctions be placed on those who revert their vandalism. --Jamirowikee (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed this section three weeks ago after it was amplified by Jamirowikee on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. It was stable. Now when you add it back and is reverted right away you follow WP:BRD. You don't edit war past WP:1RR. That is the reason you were brought here, and it is troubling that you do not see that it is the edit warring that brought you here, not your content. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 22:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Many policy-based reasons had been provided, as shown here, here, and here. No vandalism has occurred either. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism has occurred in the form of removing relevant information due to user's personal opinions. @Vaselineeeeeeee it is evidently the content which has brought us here as numerous good faith requests for reasons to omit the information have been made, none of which have been responded to, only threats made. This is not good faith. As stated, it is senseless that vandals be allowed to remove any information they wish to omit while simultaneously allowing threats to be made against those who revert this vandalism. Good faith dictates the user who wished to remove the information ought to have entered into dialogue in the first instance, however this did not take place. The information added and later removed, reverted being the issue in question, is relevant to the subject's page, coming under the section for the subject's views and the information pertaining to the subject's views on music. --Jamirowikee (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Making vast assumptions and generalizations of an editor is not good faith last time I checked. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 23:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No vast assumption has been made, nor vast generalisation offered. Only a request made in good faith for a good reason that the information be removed from the subject's page has been requested, and in bad faith users have refused to provide any such reason and made only threats and now raised this issue with admin. Again, in good faith, it is requested that a good reason for the information being removed be provided. Upon receipt a reversion will be forthcoming. How many times must this request be made before an answer is provided? --Jamirowikee (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * has started to engage in personal attacks:, . Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No evidence of any personal attack has been provided, only commentary on the above users choices to keep on avoiding meaningful dialogue and instead completely avoid it while making threats, bullying, and complaining to admin rather than talk. Again, for the umpteenth time, in good faith it is requested a good reason for the reversion be provided. Upon receipt the reversion will be made. Based on history it seems the above users will continue to avoid providing any such reason. --Jamirowikee (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Some form of dialogue is now taking place on the article's talk page, however as can be seen no argument of any weight has thus far been provided. --Jamirowikee (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There has always been "dialogue" on the talk page and on the editor's user talk page. However, the editor refuses to listen to other users who are trying to explain to them why their edits are incorrect. The editor has still refused to revert their edits or abide by WP:ONUS. They have received no consensus for their edits. Their behavior on the article talk page is borderline bludgeoning. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This is false. Prior to this issue being raised with admin no dialogue had taken place, only threats. I have not refused to listen, but have read every word typed attentively. No explanation for why the edits are incorrect have been offered, only assertions such as the edit being "beyond trivial" has been given, but absolutely no explanation as to why the edit might be considered as such. All assertions have been rebutted. No assertion has any explanation following. Assertions alone are worthless without explanation. If a justified reason for reversion exists, all one asks is that this be provided forthwith, so that this matter be dealt with in a civilised manner. --Jamirowikee (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC) --Jamirowikee (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith the edit in question has been removed. A proper, full, and reasonably argued explanation as to why the edit should remain removed is now requested. --Jamirowikee (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Logging out while editing :, why would you log out and pretend to be a different user? Lying will only make things worse for you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What a suspicious mind you possess. I did not log out and pretend to be anyone. I asked another resident of my household to read the exchange and provide their honest opinion, which they duly did. More threats? I see my gesture of good faith has not resulted in any reciprocation. It is plain to see that despite repeated requests for a full and proper explanation as to why the edit in question ought not to appear in the article, one has not been offered at any point. This is because one does not exist. All that has taken place here is various groundless accusations have been made in an attempt to bully. Jamirowikee (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It is comical to see the argument's within the article's talk page called "borderline bludgeoning". It is clear that even engaging in dialogue is useless as this results in nothing more than further baseless accusations intended to undermine. I suppose if one does not have any weighty argument to offer one must resort to other tactics. If reasoned, logical, and detailed rebuttal of baseless assertions offered without explanation can be called borderline bludgeoning, then alas, so be it. Jamirowikee (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an 1RR-based sanction, as the user had not been formally aware of the sanctions when making their reverts at Ben Shapiro. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Srnec reported by User:Rashicy (Result: No violation)
Page:

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:Srnec constantly reverts sourced content and was warned several times, this user has engaged in many edit wars with users who edit the Barbaria page but no one even reported the case., even after sevreal users told him to discuss in the talk page many users have urged him to stop and he has ignored it. After a long dispute he took a break from the page and returned not king after and decided he was going to delete everything on the article,and this is unacceptable, after I reverted his edits on a certain page he targeted me and reverted my edits on certain articles and just after my article was published he put it back in the draft space. He keeps on harrasing me, and is giving me a hard time build this encyclopaedia. I’m not the only he despises he has also engaged in sevreal edit wars with other users that follow the periplus such as user Ragnimo,User Yaqoub 316 and TBTF. Really this user keeps on ruining the page and also does this with other articles based on the same topic (East African city states. I tried talking with him but he ignored it, and I’m actually tired, I hope you can  find this yours: Rash-icy
 * This article is a sockpuppetry-infested mess, and the previous reverts are justifiable. Regarding the reverts affecting you: You have not yet sought consensus for including your proposed addition (WP:ONUS, WP:BRD). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Legoines reported by User:Knuthove (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:

Legoines has not violated 3RR (as far as I can tell), but he refuses to engage in discussion, and has now posted this on the main article, which I can not revert without running afoul of 3RR myself. I think it might fall under the "obvious vandalism" exemption, but I thought I'd take it here to be on the safe side.

Reading the three revert rule more closely, it seems like I might already have inadvertently violated it. I thought it applied to reverting the same content by the same editor, but I see now that it applies to all reverts. In that case I plead that this revert by me was reverting obvious vandalism, and that I'll be more careful in the future now that I know the rules better. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Knuthove (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The problematic edit above was reverted as vandalism by another editor. Legoines further actions,, , , makes them seem less than coherent, and perhaps WP:NOTHERE. Knuthove (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Passani reported by User:Modulato (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1016044859 : Vandalism (Modulato is a  and has undisclosed WP:COI). See Talk page"
 * 2)  "I removed the word "Italian" to avoid nitpicking."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1016007339 Vaccara is a US journalist. Italian OdG has nothing to do with it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1016002761. Added total legit reference!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* La Voce di New York */"

Comments:

This user, creator of the article, went berserk after I nominated it for PROD (objected to by him) and later for AfD, claiming I am a "hater". Opening a discussion in the Talk page has only had the effect of attracting new anonymous meatpuppets. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 12:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Can a senior editor take a look at this? Modulato has an undisclosed WP:COI and to bring La Voce di New York to disrepute and kill its WP article. Thanks Passani (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on what do you assert an undisclosed COI? —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have asked Modulato to affirm he/she has no WP:COI and he/she always refused/word around the request. Plus the amount of work Modulato is placing in repeating false claims that have already been shown wrong without showing any good faith in the discussion. He also makes modifications at the speed of light (meant at triggering some less known rules that relative beginners like me may not be aware of) to cry foul. Passani (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Having a page on one's watch list, where they can see as soon as an edit is made, is not evidence of a COI. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I invite you to take a look at how the discussion has unfolded in Talk:La Voce di New York to see what I mean. Modulato states that a journalist is not a journalist citing lack of references. I add (more) references to reputable sources and he'll remove them claiming that it is not reputable. Same goes for VNY address (they have an office inside the UN building and provide that address. Modulato uses this info to imply that VNY is representing affiliation with the UN, which they are not). Something fishy is going on here. Passani (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that claiming "The United Nations Headquarters New York, NY 10017" to be your address (homepage, at the bottom) means you are not affiliated with the United Nations? Wow, excellent reasoning. And for the record, the public source is https://www.odg.it/elenco-iscritti —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 16:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am saying that claiming "The United Nations Headquarters New York, NY 10017" to be your address does not mean that you are implying affiliation with the United Nations. About OdG, not relevant (Italian-born US journalist vs. journalist registry in Italy) Passani (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For a couple of years, the article stated that this individual is an "Italian journalist", until you whitewashed it two days ago (by deleting "Italian") after my post in the talk page. And please don't keep telling us that you are supposed to be located in "The United Nations Headquarters New York without being affiliated with the United Nations", because it insults people's intelligence. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 06:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As explained in the Talk:La_Voce_di_New_York, when I wrote "Italian" in the original article, I meant "Italian-born". I had no idea that this would be used as an excuse to justify what seems to me as a fully-fledged cyberattack against the page. Anyway, I removed the adjective, so problem solved. Modulato keeps attributing things to me I never wrote. What I am saying is that it is proven that VNY's editor (Stefano Vaccara) is a UN correspondent (UNCA.com website), that VNY has an office inside the UN building (see more evidence at Talk:La_Voce_di_New_York), so providing an address at the UN building does not raise any flag: that's exactly the place where the editorial team can be found on a regular work day. Apart from that, I really need the Wikipedia Gods to start paying attention here. This page is being targeted for deletion by what appears to me as a hacker who knows the system well enough to trick it. In addition to the suspected WP:COI, Modulato has not shown any signs of wanting to cooperate to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Passani (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Modulato has not shown any signs of wanting to cooperate to reach WP:CONSENSUS": for the record, I was the first to start a recent discussion in the talk page. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 21:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not so. I have provided evidence that the UN address is real, Modulato ignored it. I have provided evidence that the editor is a journalist (UN correspondent) and a published author. Modulato ignored it. I have repeatedly asked Modulato to pinpoint the parts of the article that he/she finds problematic, Modulato ignored it. No intention to improve the article by Modulato, just a clear intent to kill a legit article for reasons that remain unknown. Passani (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like nominating an article means you are a "vandal", "hater", and "COI editor". Oh well. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 13:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He keeps insulting (up here) and deleted the RPA tags. Unbeliavable. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.&#128233; 19:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , if you keep reverting, you will probably be blocked from editing the article until the deletion discussion has ended. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Springee (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - original addition of content

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

added content to the Jared Kushner article related to the Abraham Accords. Part of that addition was that Kushner was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Snoogan's first revert was to remove that nomination. I restored that content. The second revert was to change the tone/implication of the sentence by modifying the sentence with a "poison the well" type comment. Snoogan's edit summary suggests the intent was only to say who made the nomination, Alan Dershowitz. However, they also added that Dershowitz defended Trump during his first impeachment. That information is not relevant to the nomination and changes the implication of the sentence I restored. Absent being able to remove the content as Snoogan's wished, they sought to poison the well with an off topic inclusion that, absent additional information suggests the nomination may not have been based on merit. Springee (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That is not second revert. The edit rephrased the content so that it reflects what the cited source says: "The two former deputies to then-President Donald Trump were nominated by American attorney Alan Dershowitz, who was eligible to do so in his capacity as a professor emeritus of Harvard Law School. Dershowitz defended Trump in his first impeachment trial last year". The claim that the "information is not relevant to the nomination" is false. A Trump administration official being nominated for something by another person involved in the Trump administration is relevant. That is after all what the cited source highlights as pertinent info. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the intent of any of the edits, there isn't a 1RR violation here. This is not the correct forum (and I'm unconvinced that there's enough here for other forums either, though YMMV). I won't close this yet though to see if any other admin wants to chime in. Black Kite (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If someone adds a sentence, it is removed and then restored, why isn't a change to that sentence considered a revert? Where is that line if not at changing the sentence (other than m type minor corrections)? Springee (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the second one didn't remove the re-added material, it only added further to it. ("A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part"). And yes, this is one of the reasons why I've never been convinced that 1RR works well on contentious articles. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to alert me if this is not the proper forum for this, but I am concerned about Springee making false claims about edit warring and breaking 1RR/3RR warnings. They similarly made a false complaint about me on another page related to conservative politics (in that case Andy Ngo), seemingly ignorant of the difference between a revert and an edit. This is despite having more than a decade of experience on Wikipedia and a seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of Wiki policy at other times. I'm concerned this is part of an extended pattern of litigiousness and WP:LAWYERING on their part that serves to spook other editors and dissuade them from editing on pages Springee is passionate about Noteduck (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – As noted by User:Black Kite, diff #2 is not a revert. It was the addition of new text (mentioning Alan Dershowitz) that was never in the article before, so 1RR was not broken. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Prasadmarur reported by User:245CMR (Result: Partial block 48 hours)
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: see revision history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is not willing to listen to me despite my efforts. He is removing the neutrality of the lead and adding his own POV. If he has sources, then he must add his content in history section in a brief style as per WP:MOS. Don't forget to ping me please. . 245CMR . •👥📜 06:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As this involves a new user, I issued a short partial block from Vishvakarma but added a warning re EW + Copyvio + NLT. Let me know if problems resume. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ok

User:91.124.116.230 reported by User:Nearlyevil665 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "try to read what is navbox"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1017112591 by Sjö (talk) - LOL try to read what is navbox"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1017108076 by Jusdafax (talk) - do you know something about navboxes?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1016796048 by Jusdafax (talk) - reason?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2021 World Wushu Championships."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User also keeps blanking their talk page nearlyevil  665  22:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This user has added the text of navbox repeatedly, instead of the calling of navbox! Blatant violation of WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX. 91.124.116.230 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User has made yet another revert today and is not responsive to multiple warnings. Keeps blanking their talk page. Three different users have already reverted their consistent additions to the page. nearlyevil  665  18:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you know something about navboxes? Or see the button "Revert" only? What is wrong with edit? 91.124.116.230 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Three different users have objected to your edits and you have violated the three-revert rule by consistently adding said content despite the objections from multiple users. You have also on multiple occasions blanked your talk page to hide warnings from multiple users. I strongly suggest you read on the three-revert rule and participate in the discussion on the article's talk page instead of consistently violating Wikipedia policy. nearlyevil  665  18:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a right to do it per WP:BLANKING. What I should to discuss if there were NO any explanations of the reverts reasons?! The navbox should be called but not copied in the text. Don't agree? Try to read WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX first. 91.124.116.230 (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As of this time your edits have been reverted by five different Wikipedia users. I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page. I strongly recommend taking your objections there. nearlyevil  665  19:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that five users (including you) don't understand nothing about navboxes. I strongly recommend taking your objections, not only fake warnings. "My revert was because other five users reverted"? It's a shame for you. 91.124.116.230 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks due to 3RR violation by the IP editor. Personally, I wonder why the navbox shouldn't be used as a navbox, but the matter is up to consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Nonameonlyusername reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Don't revert such a big information without discussion and the most part of article is right."
 * 2)  "corrected inline template."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1017202982 by Kautilya3 (talk) There were alot of good edits, along with meaningful and correct well cited information added with alot of hardwork. Don't remove it such like this."
 * 4)  "/* Hindu minority State/Union Territory in India */ removed disambiguation."
 * 5)  "/* Notes */ Added topic of cuisine."
 * 6)  "Thanks for the edit, but please dont r/v good edits."
 * 7)  "/* Second Urbanisation (600-200 BCE) and early Hinduism (200 BCE-320 CE) */ I think the sub-heading was too long."
 * 8)  "/* Hindus development in various fields */"
 * 9)  "Re-added researched part and also removed some pervious faults."
 * 10)  "Also added the reference and details for cow slaughter laws in India."
 * 11)  "/* Decreasing Hindu population */ R/v some old edits."
 * 1)  "Re-added researched part and also removed some pervious faults."
 * 2)  "Also added the reference and details for cow slaughter laws in India."
 * 3)  "/* Decreasing Hindu population */ R/v some old edits."
 * 1)  "/* Decreasing Hindu population */ R/v some old edits."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has added 67,300 bytes of content to Hinduism in India over two days and is essentially refusing to discuss it. See User talk:Nonameonlyusername and Talk:Hinduism in India. I have lost track of how many reverts he has made. But he continues to reinstate his content despite the objections being raised. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:24.217.146.104 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Critical reception */"
 * 2)  "/* Critical reception */"
 * 3)  "/* Critical reception */"
 * 4)  "/* Commercial performance */"
 * 5)  "/* Critical reception */Removed malignance unrelated to the content of the record, rather fueled by the author's ulterior motives and irrationality towards the artist"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabaqabad reported by User:Rashicy (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:Dabaqabad

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: This user will not listen to me I tried warning him I don’t want to partake in a edit war with him but he refuses to listen, he then tried to change the image and made it look like he was telling me not to start a edit war,. This user keeps on adding original info to the Berbera port article and as you can see it is not sourced, I’ve warned him around 3 times and after he reverted my edits 3 times I had enough. I tried my best but he still keeps reverting my edits.'''
 * Result: Both and  are warned. Either of you may be blocked if you revert again without reaching consensus on the talk page, which now lacks a thread on the dispute. Academic Challenger (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Askelaadden reported by User:ABIDALAA (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020%E2%80%932021_Western_Saharan_clashes&oldid=1016696371

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see revision history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020%E2%80%932021_Western_Saharan_clashes#Debate_on_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Askelaadden#Undoing_editing_in_2020%E2%80%932021_Western_Saharan_clashes

Comments:

The user is not willing to listen to me despite my efforts. i try my best since april 8 to avoid escalation into editing war, by talking in his talk page , and article talk page , but no gain , He is removing the neutrality of the casualties claim , in favor of POV of one parties in conflict , despite his own source contradicting UN own statement and UNSC. suggesting that peace keeping mission is hiding or holding the numbers of true casualties. User:ABIDALAA (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC) I do understand how WP:Reliable sources policy works on Wikipedia, issue is sourcre contradicted it own citation , UN , as mention in talk page Instead user claim that UN hide the numbers of casualties, perhaps this is first time UN does such thing, how can you ignore this ? User:ABIDALAA (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:ABIDALAA is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at 2020–2021 Western Saharan clashes without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. The thread on the article talk suggests that ABIDALAA may not fully understand how the WP:Reliable sources policy works on Wikipedia. I also advise User:Askelaadden to read WP:NOT3RR since their reverts are not excused under that rule. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:웬디러비 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: deleted by User with incomprehensible comment:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: 웬디러비 has blanked their UP and UTP and changed status to Retired, so I assume that this can be closed and I can revert their last edit to the status quo ante?. Mztourist (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since they made only three reverts. But in any case, the reported editor's changes have already been reverted by someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Maneesh reported by User:Vaticidalprophet (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1017342612 by Vaticidalprophet (talk)Nope, 'intersex' just isn't a MED:RS term, it's quite vague. You can see the cites to Fausto-Sterling in this article which include XXX and XXYY."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1017337426 by Trankuility (talk)Why does what was decided on that page mean anything for this one? Triple X syndrome is on a lot of reliable sources that list intersex conditions, as is XXYY. There are many sources for these claims."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1017331526 by Vaticidalprophet (talk)Intersex is rather vague umbrella term. Easy to find sources that include triple X and XXYY etc."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) Talk:Disorders_of_sex_development

Comments:

Discussion on the talk page for Disorders of sex development led to consensus that some conditions previously listed in that article and Intersex were inappropriate for the articles, and I was encouraged by to make the changes for the latter. Maneesh has disputed these changes and reverted them when inserted by me or, and has been unresponsive when explained the situation in edit summaries (and also seems to have some misunderstanding of what conditions were discussed, despite attempts to discuss/resolve). <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 07:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reporting this, User:Vaticidalprophet. Trankuility (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Maneesh is warned they may be blocked if they revert again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:103.246.39.31 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (@ 22:09, 11 April)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (@ 01:10, 11 April)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff at ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;

Comments:

Straight 4RR vio, user shows no willingness to stop reverting or discuss, as their comments have descended into personal attacks. - wolf  02:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You have also failed to discuss.103.246.39.31 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your talk page speaks for itself. - wolf  03:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your actions speak for themselves too.103.246.39.31 (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this pattern of parroting everything I say is a game, a form of trolling, or any of the wp:cir factors, but it accomplishes nothing. - wolf  06:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JShark reported by User:HAL333 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Not sure what to put here. Sorry.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - This instance is not a straight revert, but JShark removed all content recently added by one user.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: specifically for the Elon Musk page, and a second warning for another page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Although I was not involved in the reverting of this content, I was active in the discussion started by regarding this edit war. JShark has been on this platform for 4 years now and should know better. ~ HAL  333  03:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:JShark is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:herr chagall (Result: Advice)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user’s reverts:



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

Comments: User:Walter Görlitz has been repeatedly reverting recent edits pertaining to the full club name, which included verified sources. He shows strong WP:OWN; in essence, hardly anybody can edit this article but User:Walter Görlitz himself if it doesn’t align with his personal preferences.

Initially, he demanded a source for the edit. When a first source was provided, he claimed that the name listed only referred to the legal entity, not the team participating in the MLS. When in turn various additional sources—including Atlanta United’s official about section and a book published by the club’s Director of Sports Science— were provided that proved the opposite, User:Walter Görlitz chose to ignore them and maintained his edit-warring behavior, reiterating his unfounded claims to which he failed to present corroborating sources, as can be seen in the discussion on my talk page . He effectively decides which sources are reliable or permitted and interprets what they state, rejecting any that do not support his WP:POV.

There is no apparent valid reason for blocking and reverting the addition of the club’s full name to the article. He has displayed WP:OWN in regard to this article in the past, three years ago . The consensus among football editors was that a club’s full name should generally be included in the article together with the nickname or abbreviated term. .

It is worth pointing out that there was no attempt to change the article title or anything that could be construed as misleading or controversial. As with other articles about football clubs, the full name was supposed to be added only, however this has not been possible due to the user’s disruptive reverts. -esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The only reason to revert the content is that it's not what the club itself uses as a name: https://www.mlssoccer.com/clubs/atlanta-united/ and https://www.atlutd.com/ The editor even did the same at FC Cincinnati at least three times, applying a name that the team itself has indicted "is not to be used in any sporting references to the team, or in any public discussion" and using that source.
 * No edit war as the activity has been going on over several days so 3RR has not been broken. Appeals to this new editor to discuss on the article's talk page have gone ignored. A recent request to even take it to the WP:FOOTY project have been similarly ignored, but the editor knows of the project having linked to it in a recent diatribe on their own talk page.
 * In short, we have an editor who is trying to make a point, has no ability to accept comments from other editors telling them they are incorrect, and refuses to discuss openly. We have a borderline WP:NOTHERE editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User resorts to deflection and non sequitur arguments. The club calls itself a football club on its official page: We are called a Football Club because we are more than just a team. The club’s Director of Sports Science, Ryan Alexander, calls the club Atlanta United Football Club (MLS) in his book Complete Conditioning for Soccer. The Atlanta City Council proclaimed an Atlanta United Football Club Day on November 6, 2017, in honor of the club . Sources with relevant news and football related media have been provided that confirm that FC stands for Football Club, which is basically what the entire point of the edit was, to reference said fact. User changes his line of argument along the way, adapting it in response to refutations of his previous claims in order to be able to maintain his unfounded claim and does not shy away from using red herrings.


 * Contrary to his claim above, consensus on this matter in favor of referencing the full name along the common name has already been reached three years prior: In the end, the Football Club full name should be referenced even if they only use FC everywhere else. (by User:Koncorde) the article should start "Atlanta United Football Club are ... " and the infobox should have "Atlanta United Football Club" (by User:Jts1882) I support the option 2, such as "Atlanta United FC" in the article title and "Atlanta United FC" or "Atlanta United Football Club" in the lead section. (by User:BaboneCar)


 * User chooses to deny/ignore the consensus and acts against it regardless.


 * The argument used in the instance of FC Cincinnati doesn’t apply, for the Wikipedia article in question serves an encyclopedic purpose, and thus does not fall under the quoted restriction.
 * The last comment by the user unfortunately applies to him entirely. He has a history of applying the tactics mentioned above:   on numerous previous occasions.


 * User has been warned and blocked repeatedly over the years (quick selection), which means that he is well-informed about Wikipedia rules and knows how to take steps in order to avoid easy detection:


 * warned -
 * blocked -
 * spared from being blocked on this occasion due to christmas season -
 * This clearly shows that he does not intend to change his disruptive behavior but rather is a repeat violator of wikipedia policies who displays WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. He has been the subject of numerous lengthy discussions:
 * User had been notified about the report but removed my notification from his talk page. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the facts. You have decided not to discuss at the proper forum. You are conflating the team's name with a legal entity. Atlanta is probably the better case that Cincinnati, but still, you should discuss with the larger community rather than try to force your way in by trying to get me blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * In name of transparency: have previously had several run-ins with Walter. In most of his day to day stuff I have no issue, but then he will occasionally get an absolute WP:OWN issue coming up and I have either been a Uninvolved editor sliding in from being asked to on the WP:FOOTBALL project page, or been the one to run into the issue on the talk page. It then becomes very much a WP:BLUDGEON on the talk page if you can get past the initial recurring 3RR / BRD process intact. Unfortunately I can't remember specific instances, but I have no doubt I contributed at some point to a warning he has received (on weight of probabilities). Walters general attitude isn't always conducive to free exchange of ideas, can be very arbitrary as to what sources that he chooses to recognise as relevant, and dismissive of others - but I don't think it rises to WP:NOTHERE or similar. He just has strong opinions that when faced with disagreement he defends / attacks a little more pointedly than seems to be required at each point of the discussion and escalates to a good level of bloody mindedness (and there are a few guilty of that who are still otherwise fine Wikipedia contributers). I wouldn't support any prolonged action, but I do wish Walter would look into historical discussions and points made and take them onboard. Koncorde (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No block. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break WP:3RR. There does seem to be a long term edit war. User:Walter Görlitz and User:Herr chagall are advised to open an RfC, or to create an explicit talk discussion to decide between 'FC' and 'Football Club'. Continued reverting may lead to sanctions. The link provided above to a 2018 discussion does not seem to have any clear outcome, so it's hard to perceive a consensus there. The title of the club that is written on their current logo is 'Atlanta United FC'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Taking a logo as a deciding reference is something I wouldn’t have expected, given all the other official sources. There was no goal to decide on one of the two options exclusively, as I tried pointing out, but rather include the full name. Given the user’s conduct and documented history of behavior, I shall invest my time in different endeavors. Cheers. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Ed, one follow-up question: shouldn’t the lead text and article title about the second team be changed as well, since the current logo says ATL UTD 2, so »Atlanta United 2« is incorrect and should really be ATL UTD 2? - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why we don't primary source stuff with WP:OR. Badges and branding is routinely changed. The whole idea behind the naming of articles is that it is based on some idea of permanence (or at least longevity) demonstrated by this comment about my own home town team who have changed the way they write their name seemingly every time they order new stationery. Koncorde (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It is very telling that the admin chose not to respond to my question (where a source is valid when it supports a POV, but not when it refutes it). The decision in this case is consistent with the practice to drive away editors who either don’t want to engage in edit wars with users like the one I reported here or tolerate their behavior, and is one of the reasons of the declining number of WP editors. - esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mahatmakaashirwad reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (informal)  (formal, and DS notice)

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

Comments:

Note, they are now at 5RR and are very much a SPA that keeps marking huge changes (ver POV ones) as minor edits.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:75.118.112.126 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "ok I am quitting with most of it expect I still don't get how a official page is not a credible source but this source but hunter street is not over here is the official blooming media page who make the show with a photo from filming and talking about filming which because it is the creator of the show is a credible source https://bloomingmedia.nl/"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1017563022 by IJBall (talk) i got multiple other sources for it"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1017497838 by Amaury (talk) ok maybe I am just stupid but how is something from one of nickelodeon's official pages not enough to add to the article as the sneak peak proves season four is coming"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1017484682 by Magitroopa (talk) I think I fixed this it is actual information the only errors from my edits I fixed in this except the link from the YouTube video which I don't know how to properly link but i am asking for help on how to properly link it and if you copy and paste it to your browser from right here www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJscpzRDa8c you will see it is legitamate"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1017482596 by IJBall (talk) because it was reverted for not being properly sourced i think i properly sourced it this time because of the fact the source is from Nickelodeon UK's Youtube account i don't know how to properly source youtube video's i think i did it right but if i did not can you please create a talk thing on my page showing how to properly source it but I think I fixed the sourcing"
 * 6)  "I updated stuff for season four and season four was confirmed today officially with episode one of season four being released on Nick UK's YouTube channel in the form of a sneak peak but it is listed as a full episode and from one of nickelodeon's official channels is a pretty credible source and here is the link for the video I also left it in a reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJscpzRDa8c"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warning at User talk:75.118.112.126. Discussion at Talk:Hunter Street (TV series). Amaury • 15:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:14A:C100:1B80:44C3:4E4C:793:BCAD reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Sorry, long ago I reported the last time, but this will get solved soon enough anyway. If anyone is interested just check this edit history. The IP triggered the cluebot several times and leaves the article in a worse shape than before.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * . No activity by reported IP on that page in 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Declanhx reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Partial blocked)
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:

Comments:

The user has already come off one block.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Also maybe an SPA (One edit about 3 years ago, then editing in one topic over the last week or so) I wonder if it fact its a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And still at it [].Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * He also repeatedly mischaracterizes my known bias in the absolutely opposite direction, and deleted my explanation of this obvious mistake. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

-- SlaterSteven, I really do not know what your problem is with me. Have I done something in real life to upset you? It's really irregular that someone who be so passionate about an edit I have made to an article.

My intentions are clear:

1) Make the article as user friendly as possible. This includes making information easy to read, formatted and properly organised. 2) Make the article as least biased as it can possibly be.

SlaterSteven is guilty of WP:STONEWALLING. I am trying my best to make the article a better place. I am not removing content. I am simply adding new editions to what already exists. Why should I bother editing anything if some random user is just going to revert my edit because they don't agree with it? I've tried talking on the discussion pages and so far my discussions with SlaterSteven have not been productive. He does not provide alternate solutions.

I am a new user, Give me a break.

The article has severe bias throughout, and the user's above are being authoritative over it. Both user:inedibleHulk and user:slatersteven are fuelled by a quest to silence opinions they do not agree with, not to uphold the rules, otherwise they would have clocked that the witness list is missing 3 witnesses that got removed via an dumb excuse made to remove another of my edits. This is a website for information. Not their blog. The fact that they're glued to the article says enough. Declanhx (talk)
 * You need to wp:agf. And being a newbie does not mean you can just ignore policy, you have been asked to stop with the wp:pa and the edit warring. You have chosen not to do so (whilst I might add threatening to set the admins on us).Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I were to assume good faith, I would need to be shown good faith in the first place. You are NOT the authority on what content is displayed on that page. Declanhx (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And only someone guilty of their actions would be offended at the idea of me getting the admins involved. You've been arguing on here for a few hours now, don't you have something better to do? Declanhx (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not offended, you want to report me to wp:ani go ahead (I would not if I were you, but that is where you would do it), I just find it ironic that you have (more then once) threatened to call the admins, whilst breaking many many policies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:slatersteven, Operate in good faith please, and respect wp:pa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declanhx (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also unoffended and unafraid, but would clarify that we've both been arguing for over nine months, before a few hours in agreement. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven and I are polar opposites on this case, bias-wise, always have been on different quests and different fuel. If we agree, it must be plainly true. Here, it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

-
 * I am the user that Declanhx is referring to when he said "dumb excuse made to remove another of my edits". For context, this was his first article edit after coming back from the block and it included unsourced BLP info. I removed that content in this reversion. I strongly disagree that removing this content as a BLP violation was "a dumb excuse". It feels even more like personal attack after:
 * he removed my two BLP warnings with the edit summary "removed troll" in this user talk page edit
 * he described me as "trigger-happy" for removing the contentious info, and my reasons as "stupid", at the article's talk page in this edit
 * he responded to my appeal to good faith on his talk page here, but here he is again with the "dumb excuse" language
 * I am hopeful this context is helpful in this EWN discussion; I know these aren't strictly EW issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And they are still at it [].Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

---


 * First of all, the "Dumb" excuse was that you removed it for not having a source. It DID have a source, as I later proved. what's "Dumb" about it is that multiple summaries of the testimony DID NOT have a source, and were left untouched. Hence the calling of you "Trigger happy". The edits you made suspiciously only removed the information that would make the prosecution look bad, not what would reasonably have been done. Declanhx (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * What's worrying, is that even after agreeing to operate in good faith in you, and giving you benefit of the doubt, you still persist on finding the negatives in what I said. I would also like to ask, how is it that you found this discussion exactly? I removed it from my talk page within a few minutes. So either you have such a passion against me to stalk the talk page's history, or another user messaged you with a link. I would consider the former to be creepy and the latter to amount to harassment. I don't think user:Slatersteven or user:inediblehulk would like it if i invited users they had conflict with to come here to my defence. Declanhx (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like that, but doubt you could find someone. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * user:inediblehulk keep personal attacks off wikipedia, thanks. Also, good faith does not involve stalking user's profiles to persist on getting them banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declanhx (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You have now been blocked, take the "hint" that you were in the wrong and drop it before you get a permaban. You asked me to not post on your talk page (I think) so can't even tell you why you may well be about to get one (this is not the place).Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Slatersteven, Take the "hint" that your behaviour is unreasonable and harassing. When I have time I will be reporting all 3 of you to the admins. I've already removed your content from my talk page 3 times now. Your hypocrisy is evident, and the admins will be made well aware of it and take action. You can bow out for real now. Declanhx (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not attacked you, or suggested any ban. You're welcome. But you don't know what I like, face it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can explain whatever you like to the admins, i'm not interested in talking to you. Declanhx (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then maybe stop addressing me by name, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:InedibleHulk, please use good faith when participating on wikipedia. Declanhx (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think all that needs to be said has been said. So I will bow out now, and let the admins decide if this was a violation of wp:3rr (the link is for the accused).Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Partial blocked from State v. Chauvin, indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the case, and if you haven't noticed, the users have been harassing. Declanhx (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:IncrdibleHumans87 reported by User:Blaze The Wolf (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1015155046

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1016102643
 * 2) Special:Diff/1017566439
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1015988690

'''Comments:I was not actually involved in the warring myself. I just happened to notice that there was edit warring after reverting an edit by another user that also was not part of the warring.'''

Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. 3RR was not broken and there have not been any reverts since 13 April. I hope that those interested will give their full attention to Talk:Polisario Front. This issue needs WP:Reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TheeFactChecker reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction per Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. The editor replied to the 1RR notification at 22:37, prior to making the second revert at 22:40. FDW777 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. In addition to the warring, these changes go against WP:DERRY. The sanctions of WP:TROUBLES are available if User:TheeFactChecker does not get the message. The editor was notified of the WP:AC/DS prior to their last revert. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:125.26.13.234 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: blocked, 3 days)
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:

Persistently changing DOB despite being reverted by a number of other editors. 4im warning issued and ignored. <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 12:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * — Kralizec! (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:General electric p30ch reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been repeatedly warned by multiple editors to not remove the TfD tag from the template they created. They are now also doing the same at P.A. Problems (episode) Laplorfill (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Removing TfD and AfD tags from pages, after being warned. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 14 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: by

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Another reversion after a warning about a week ago. No response on talk page or user talk page. The reversions keep adding visible referencing errors to the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Dokabutts6 is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Darren Kelly unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . But are you sure that's the right resolution? You didn't leave a warning at User:Doktabutts6 talk page -- the warning there is from the previous incident. As you can see, that report was resolved with the comment that a warning would be left, and if the behaviour continued, the result would be a block. Why did you decide to warn this user instead of blocking them? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainly because this report was stale (8 days since their last revert). Now warned the user on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So edit warring is acceptable, as long as it's not promptly detected and reported? Didn't know that, thanks! -- 16:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At the top of this noticeboard, (bolding added). The editor is clearly not behaving well, but some of their edit summaries suggest BLP concerns: "inaccurate referencing and slandering".  No idea if his concerns are valid; he seems to be referring to whether or not he was fired from various teams. At least a minimal talk page discussion may be warranted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:86.143.34.185 and User: 2804:14c:7f81:8373:58a4:8d63:c61f:f7db reported by User:Iggy the Swan (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: and  as they are used recently

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1015155046

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1017100695 (by 86.175.90.53, who is presumably the one now using the 86.143.34.185 address)
 * 2) Special:Diff/1017566439 (by 2804:14c:7f81:8373:a4bc:bf3c:a3c5:fef6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1017475780

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1017613318

'''Comments:Different IP addresses have been used by two people to repeatedly changing a very small part of the article from one state to another then back to the original state. Former IP address wants the FC in "São Paulo" to be hidden from view, the latter wants it to be displayed in view. This edit warring has been going on for at least two years and may have been reported on this noticeboard in the past. '''

Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: I have semiprotected the Hernanes article indef due to IP edit warring going back to 2015. See also
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Josepolivares/Archive and
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AH999/Archive
 * An example of he 'FC' revert by Josepolivares can be seen in this edit of 23 November 2017 where he unpipes São Paulo just as in the present report. The recent trouble is mostly from IPs and it's unclear if any registered accounts are making similar edits. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That has gone on longer than I thought it was. I have now noticed a bit more than the ones earlier than 2019. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Maudslay II reported by User:Free1Soul (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (this a 1RR violation, page has edit notice)
 * 1)  (also personal attack), additional revert to
 * 2)
 * 3), this is 10 hours after revert 2 above, so this breaks 1rr again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Alerted ARBPIA. Then warned of breaking 1RR and personal attacks on this page-

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Page is under WP:ARBPIA 1RR. Maudslay II has been alerted and warned of 1rr, but still did the last revert afterwarrs, breaking 1rr.

Maudslay II is adding categories and content not supported by Western sources, who call this a raid and say that the target were Amal militant fighters after a large car bomb the day before.

Maudslay has also been moving warring:

Also an IP, that previously edit warred for Maudslay as pointed in Sockpuppet investigations/Maudslay II removed the Afd notice disruptively:.

Maudslay is warring against consensus.Free1Soul (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think #1 and #2 were more than 24 hours apart. The third edit was a revert of a confirmed sockpuppet, so allowable.
 * I would encourage admins to review the edit history of the filing editor, who is only just over the 500-edit ARBPIA requirement but the vast majority of their edits were a repeat of a single automated edit, changing “an” to “a” across a few hundred articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Newtown2302028 reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1017732844 by Greyjoy (talk) Inappropriate and incorrect challenge as valid citation has been provided as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources in relation to the public university."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1017732154 by Greyjoy (talk) Valid citation provided as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The content should be retained until the disputer takes it to the talk page and a consensus is made there."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1017731290 by Escape Orbit (talk) Not required as it is in reference to statements by a public university appointee whose public appointed role has not yet been renounced by either themselves or the public university, addressing the initial reason for reversion."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1017729877 by Escape Orbit (talk) It is in relation to an appointed titled public academic representative of the university."
 * 5)  "Valid source as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources now provided."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1)   "/* Controversy */ new section"
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Citobun reported by User:86.9.227.81 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:, and

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:07, 13 April 2021‎ "Repair"
 * 2) 18:03, 23 March 2021‎ "It is notable"

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

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

Comments:

I report Citobun as he is the one who gave me a warning without carrying out the edit himself, Envysan and FungTzeLong was the ones who made the reverts.

I made the decision to report here rather than engage in an edit war as I was short of going into my 3rd revert.

I removed this entry as it was too off-topic for an article about a school and it was totally unnecessary. That edit was about the subject who is not Wikipedia notable; was only known for a single event and most of us don't even know the guy's name at all and yet it goes off topic about the events of him after and not the school. When I made the removal, I made this clear in my edit summary but instead, it got reverted and I got a warning, which is why I came here. They did not have a real reason why other than gave me an automated message calling it 'disruptive editing'.

Envysan made the first revert, FungTzeLong made the 2nd and then Citobun gave me a warning out of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.227.81 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The filing IP did not notify the three reported users: User:Citobun, User:Envysan and User:FungTzeLong. I have now done so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks EdJohnston. I would like to point out that IP is not reporting me for edit warring, but for placing a warning template on his talk page. The IP appears to be the one edit warring, repeatedly blanking content which is cited to several reliable sources including Hong Kong Economic Journal, South China Morning Post, Hong Kong Free Press, and Radio Television Hong Kong. The blanked content is directly relevant to the school. Citobun (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The IP editor has listed a total of two reverts that happened in different months. This is not sufficient. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the WP:3RR. If there is a dispute on whether Tsang Chi-kin should be mentioned in the article I recommend that those interested open up a thread on the article talk before making any more reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:184.145.22.163 reported by User:SunDawn (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1017893277 by SunDawn (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1017876931 by Doremo (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1017873474 by SunDawn (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1017870087 by SunDawn (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1017870087 by SunDawn (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Barbara Pit massacre."
 * 2)   "Level 3 warning re. Barbara Pit massacre (HG) (3.4.10)"

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

Comments:

User keep pushing his POV that the people killed in Barbara Pit massacre are fascist sympathizers. User is not responding on his talk page, and also on talk page of the article. SunDawn (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Alex Mili reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: first bold edit

Diffs of the user's reverts: The following are not exactly identical, but all the same theme in the same block of text:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, DS, 2nd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user appears to be new, but two warnings have been received and this has gone on for a week now. CMD (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , following another attempt to restore the disputed content this morning. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Reywas92 reported by User:Rantemario (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I said discuss first, but they ignored and violated the 3RR rule. Rantemario (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey genius, the first edit there was my initial edit, not a revert. The third edit is modifying my own edit, not a revert. This is not a 3RR violation and I'm closing your nonsense. Maybe realize that the original image is not legible so it does not illustrate the topic? Reywas92Talk 03:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – But please avoid personalizing disputes ('hey genius', 'nonsense', etc). EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Osmand Charpentier reported by User:Tercer (Result: Indef)
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:

I haven't tried to resolve this in the talk page, because after warning the user on his talk page he accused me of being a sock and compared himself to Christopher Columbus. Tercer (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The user has been spamming the Columbus comparison across multiple pages . In fact, the entirety of his editing history appears to be inserting links to his own non-peer-reviewed writings and getting angry at people who remove them. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This user seems to be solely interested in pushing their self-published work. I would recommend an indef NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – The user seems to be here on Wikipedia only to promote their own self-published work. In their replies to others, they accuse them of sockpuppetry and vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Erasmus Sydney reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Advice)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Andrew Hastie
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * John Anderson (Australian politician)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: This is not intended to be reported as a violation of 3RR, but I think guidance is needed for this editor who appears insistent on edit warring. These two articles are biographies of living people which have been subjected to some organised attempts at inserting promotional material about the subjects. These articles are about Australian politicians which have been on my watchlist for some time and I have edited them long before these particular instances. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I welcome the involvement of admins - and thank them for their time. As of a week ago, both these articles had a lot of problems. In the case of the John Anderson article, lots of missing citations for one thing. But as you might see on the talk page, dozens of other problems besides. I find it surprising that any genuinely interested editor could be content with that. In the case of the Andrew Hastie article, big gaps of information, particularly with regards wartime service. So, I've begun bringing that information in. I would have appreciated some pointers on any given paragraph that might be improved or tidied up. But instead I can see that several thousand bytes of content I put together was simply deleted with a dozen words given as a justification. I saw no attempt to refine or improve or even discuss. I experience this unilateral, un-collaborative and non-constructive. Thanks for your consideration.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation of the edit warring policy, but the edits of User:Erasmus Sydney do raise some concerns. The issue is more clear at Andrew Hastie where there was intense discussion in the fall of 2020 about pruning the article. Though I didn't carefully examine what Erasmus is re-adding in April 2021, it seems likely that they will be revisiting many of the issues that were dealt with at length on the talk page in the fall of 2020. (One of Erasmus's reverts listed above adds 25,000 bytes to the article). Simply restoring a lot of material that was removed in fall 2020 doesn't seem to be a good idea. A sincere desire to improve the article doesn't remove the requirement to get consensus. If Erasmus believes that the fall 2020 removals were unwise, they need to get support on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for your direction. I do believe the consensus in 2020 shows support for those changes - such as the 25,000 byte revert. But I will follow your counsel, return to discussion on the talk page, and see if there is consensus for that now.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:DevilInTheRadio reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It is not watering down nor whitewashing since it was not what Evola was known for, nor was it his occupation. Discuss it where actually appropriate."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1017791404 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
 * 3)  "Placed in proper context."
 * 1)  "Placed in proper context."
 * 1)  "Placed in proper context."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Julius Evola."
 * 2)   "/* April 2021 */ WP:NONAZIS"
 * 3)   "/* April 2021 */ WP:ANI notice"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Julius Evola."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "whitewashing"
 * 2)   "/* Whitewashing */ WP:CONSENSUS"
 * 3)   "/* Whitewashing */ vilolating consensus"
 * 4)   "/* Whitewashing */ WP:ANI"

Comments:

Also opened a topic at WP:ANI, but other editors have not yet reacted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. The relative importance of Julius Evola's acknowledged antisemitism needs to be decided by the consensus of editors, not by revert warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Pinchme123 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "top: the territory was colonised, but here's a compromise to satisfy the need to reference the military operations"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1017507480 by Tbhotch (talk) "conquer" does not mean "colonize. Both are key."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1017508031 by Tbhotch (talk) learn to read the dictionary. Nowhere on the linked definition does the word "colonise" or "colonize" appear)"
 * 4)  "per extended discussion on chat, objection is only to replacement of "conquered" not to additional information added by "colonised")"
 * 5)  "top: enough of this. Content experts call Chad colonised, it was colonised. Added multiple high quality WP:RS to put an end to this"
 * 6)  "improperly explained removal of well-sourced material. Supposed reasoning on Talk is wholly inadequate"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Above edits vary slightly but cover the same issue. I have pointed to WP:DR twice on the talkpage, but that seems to have gone ignored in favour of continuous reinsertion. Given I was just given a final warning by Pinchme123 simultaneously with their making of the most recent revert, I thought best to bring here so both sets of behaviour can be evaluated. CMD (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note, edits do not merely vary slightly, but show key differences and are spread out over several days. First, I replaced a word with another on April 13 early morning, the first in the list. This was not a revert, but new content. When that was challenged by two separate editors, I turned to the talk page with RS to support and to begin a discussion. At this point I had reverted twice, so I stopped. CMD showed a lack of understanding regarding the concept at hand: colonization. After an extended discussion over nearly 3 days, during which their reasoning for opposing changed repeatedly, and after CMD stated they opposed replacing the one word with another, I changed the article again the middle of April 15th to include both words, the fourth link in the list. This again was new content. When this was immediately reverted, I reincluded the second word and added multiple peer-reviewed academic sources to support and reinstated this substantively different change after CMD again reverted. CMD continues to change their reasoning for opposing. I've tried hard to not war; I've made changes to the proposed content many of the linked times, including academic citations. I have since listed this disagreement at Third Opinion for a neutral party to chime in and will not be editing any WP articles until someone else does just that. --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: an editor has provided their third party assessment, so I have self-reverted and will no longer be discussing this page's content. --Pinchme123 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since User:Pinchme123 reverted their last change and indicates they will not be continuing the war. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Shirshore reported by User:Dabaqabad (Result: Blocked)
Page:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)
 * 20)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This person has been on a campaign of unconstructive and disruptive drive-by edits affecting Somaliland-related articles. All he has done is promote a Somalian ultranationalist POV by replacing mentions of Somaliland with Somalia, in violation of a long-standing consensus. Shirshore has in addition to that, without reason, unilaterally blanked the Isaaq Sultanate page as shown here. I have tried to reason with the person as shown here however to no avail.

Shirshore has also repeatedly added unsourced original research to the Badhan article as shown and when informed that it was indeed original research he kept reverting the edits of other editors to restore his original research as shown here  and here.

Overall, it is clear that this person is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and is constantly breaking WP:NPOV.

Dabaqabad (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Derwishi10 reported by User:FMSky (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Barbara Luddy."
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Maude Eburne."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

same behaviour on Barbara Luddy, and sockpuppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Weeely123 FMSky (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No vio on Maude Eburne. However, they have violated on Barbara Luddy and socked. SPI created. Firestar464 (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok but why "no violation", I mean he/she was obviously edit warring on that article? FMSky (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3RR, afaik. Edit warring is disruptive anyway, however. Firestar464 (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Indef blocked User:Derwishi10 and the two socks per Sockpuppet investigations/Derwishi10. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Osamaorf reported by User:KoizumiBS (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

In the article Tatar confederation, add their own judgments (WP:OR) and remove sources and references to major historians Mehmet Fuat Köprülü, Peter Benjamin Golden, Vasily Bartold and other, who, in the opponent's opinion, 'resource that is not reliable or directly related to Kashgari's writing and can only be classified as a conspiracy theory aimed to distort the original understandıng of the context'. Diff. Diff. The user uses anonymous, so I ask you to protect the article and take action against .--KoizumiBS (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 5 days to User:Osamaorf for apparent logged-out edit warring. In addition, I have semiprotected the page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Hungryhippo112 reported by User:Karagory (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has not responded on Talk:Amy_Chua

Comments:

Editor Hungryhippo112 is using a non Reliable Source for contentious material about living persons; editor is also not responding to repeated requests for consensus discussion on Talk Page. Karagory (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hungryhippo112 here. Sorry, Kargory, about not responding earlier. I'm new to Wikipedia and I only saw one notification about this content just now. I don't think I'm using "contentious material" and I can provide the links again for consideration. The sources I've cited include but are not limited to Yale Daily News and Above the Law (website). I've also cited an open letter published by Amy Chua herself which you can find by clicking here. However, I'm open to discussing these sources should there be any misunderstanding. I am also open to providing other sources such as one by the New York Post which you can find by clicking here. I hope we can discuss this further to reach a consensus. Thank you. Hungryhippo112 (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Hungryhippo112


 * We will work it out on the talk page. Karagory (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. I'm also removing the material about Chua that was cited to the New York Post. WP:RSP indicates that the newspaper is "generally unreliable for factual reporting" and WP:BLP places a high standard on quality of sourcing when writing about living people. My discussion with the editor on their talk page was not successful. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Some Dude From North Carolina reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "If you agree with Praxidicae, why did you revert their edit?"
 * 2)  "Unexplained edit was unexplained."
 * 3)  "Reverting disruptive edit."
 * 4)  "Your edit is now disruptive. Saying something is "long-standing" does not provide a reason for adding incorrect information. The link doesn't go to what you are describing but a disambiguation page. Your edits are now becoming disruptive and you should start a discussion on the talk page to address the issue."
 * 5)  "Godfather goes to a disambiguation page. There's no point in specifying another use when a disambiguation page shows all of them and "other uses" works just fine in the hatnote."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   Corrected typo.
 * 2)   "Hatnote" discussion

Comments:
 * I agree with Gareth (their comment in the section below) that my own actions weren't the best that could have been taken at that particular moment. My sincere apologies, won't happen again.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The report is obviously perfectly valid, you both edit warred. If a reviewing admin had arrived before these reflective comments were posted, you would probably both be blocked right now, but since everyone seems to have calmed down and realized how foolish this was I'm inclined to let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please take this to the article's Talk and follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You have been "Bold" and have been reverted. Now you need to establish a consensus. The onus is on you to gain approval. Until interested editors have had their opportunity to have a discussion, do not keep adding it to the article."
 * 2)  "Restored revision 1018190115 by Praxidicae (talk): Thank you for agreeing"
 * 3)  "Reverted edits by Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) to last version by Gareth Griffith-Jones"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by Some Dude From North Carolina (talk): Stop being boring"
 * 5)  "Restored long-standing version"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

warned here TAXIDICAE💰  18:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I consider myself to have behaved badly over this issue. Please accept my apology. I shall put it down to being a grumpy old man who will be 79 in under two weeks. Regards,


 * The report is obviously perfectly valid, you both edit warred. If a reviewing admin had arrived before these reflective comments were posted, you would probably both be blocked right now, but since everyone seems to have calmed down and realized how foolish this was I'm inclined to let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Casualfoodie reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "My original edits were not even wrong.  Also Why should critique be on the very top??. intro should fairly introduce itself by laying out what it is and its history. Like every other controversial topic. Got issues - take it to talk page to explain your case. But my first edit was WRONGFULLY reverted despite it was factual and neutral. Am willing to take this to arbitration courts."
 * 2)  "Done nothing wrong here.. specified that the claims are from a Nature opinion piece and that there's currently limited research that is still ongoing to prove if TCM has real world basis. https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2046-4053-1-46"
 * 3)  "Not watering it down mate. Read the ABC article https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/06/04/27924.htm it's only recently that more and more research is trying to figure out if there's a physiological basis behind meridian points and accupuncture. We don't even know for a solid fact that it doesn't exist as we don't have enough research and that should be noted and NOT CENSORED."
 * 4)  "Giving balanced context that there's currently a lack of research on the field as well as lack of quality evidence https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/06/04/27924.htm and the description given, condemning it as 'having no logical basis" is still from an opinion piece from an author who has done zero research to prove that TCM is ineffective as a fact. Unlike other researchers ."

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

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

Comments: * Partial block since it was just the one page, hopefully the point has been made. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1702:31B0:2C50:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:MarioGom (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1017679441

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1018013044
 * 2) Special:Diff/1018226729
 * 3) Special:Diff/1018227434
 * 4) Special:Diff/1018229946
 * 5) Special:Diff/1018235981

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

Comments:

Added diffs for today's dispute, but the contribution list shows a more persistent pattern of edit warring. MarioGom (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Dylan smith1234 reported by wolf (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notification on user's talk page:

Comments:

Straight 4RR vio. I'm basically a non-involved party. Once this user made their 3rd revert, it appeared none of the parties would engage in discussion, so I reverted to QUO and started a thread on the article talk page, pinging each party and encouraging them to discuss, as opposed to continued edit warring and disruption. This user then reverted for a fourth time, and mentioned the talk page in their edit summary, indicating they had no intention to discuss and every intention to continue edit warring (they still have not posted to the talk page as of this report). - wolf  21:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * – 5 days by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had requested that protection myself. What about the 4RR vio? Thanks - wolf  02:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

User:HindusforNepal reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked for username)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1018346723 by Kautilya3 (talk) Enough is enough, all edits are right and if you have problem talk in talkpage instead of whitewashing it."
 * 2)  "/* Affiliated organisations */ Ok reverted but some edits are useful and is already accepted by experienced users."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1018339718 by Kautilya3 (talk) Till the conclusion, dont remove content as it is informative."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1018336520 by Kautilya3 (talk) Edit thanked by 1 user and is useful."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Newbie editor, poor quality edits, can't accept that they are reverted. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on what indeed seems like edit warring with a strong sprinkling of incompetence, I'll note that I blocked the editor for their obviously unacceptable user name (does not clearly denote an individual). In addition, of course, their account name is POV, and their edits might need to be evaluated in that same light if they request a new user name and are unblocked. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Bruhsmilla reported by User:Borsoka (Result: one week, partial)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (Not a classical series of reverts, but a nice example of PoV-pushing edits and of total ignorance of other editors' concerns.)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 1)  (+1)

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

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

Comments:

ignores all attempts to discuss the issue. Perhaps also wants to comment this report. Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already proposed the page Hunyadi family for protection. Jingiby (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * . Partial block. El_C 18:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Escorban-Han reported by User:Rashicy (Result: Insufficient violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: User Escorban refuses to listen. I tried everything with this user you name it he refused, he reverted all my edits even after I warned about the 3 time revert rule. He claims my sources are fake however I provided him the info in his talk page I gave him 5 sources which support my case but this user claims they are fake, the user was even told by a admin to refrain from what he is doing   and I thank the admin for telling him but this user won’t give up, after I reverted his edits he nominated  every article I created For a speedy deletion for no good reason and his edits have since been removed by the following admin. I even tried discussing with this user in the talk page but this user couldn’t care less even after I pinged him 3 times and I can assure you this user was active on Wikipedia while I was pinging them on my alt account. after he didn’t respond I tried reasoning with him on his talk page but he ignored it and in fact deleting everything I wrote on his talk page. . I’ve had enough and I’m really tired of giving this user multiple chances and warnings before I report them. I hope my case is reviewed:


 * User had not violated 3RR at Adal Sultanate, since the edits took place over a number of days. Further, their removals were noting that the sources were insufficient (works published by self-publishing houses). I have asked the user to comment on the relevant article talk page. I don't see any administrative actions necessary for edit warring at this time, but I will be monitoring them. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It is as you said Fred and the other sources used to do not contain what written to the page. Btw can you look at all the pages that user has created and put them up for a speedy deletion. Those articles look like they was all made up and invented by that user


 * Escorban-Han (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * as you can see this user is still trying to delete the articles I created please tell them to stop this user is even claiming I made all of them up. can you not see what your doing the articles are all sourced and your claiming it’s fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashicy (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those concerns are outside the scope of the edit warring noticeboard and will not be addressed here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As for Adal Sultanate all the sources used do not contain what was added to the page. This source Trimingham- Islam in Ethiopia. go to page page 57. And this source Narrative of the Portuguese Embassy to Abyssinia during the Years 1520-1527 No mention to what was written to the page. All that is added to the page is completely made up by him. With the exception of [https://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Unfinished-African-Dream-Eritrea/dp/1684716497 The Dynamics of a unfinished African dream. Mohammed Kheir Omar] which is from a self-publication service

It looks to me that this User reported me to avoid someone from checking his edits. I also deleted what he left on my UserTalk because it looked like an angry dump spam.

Escorban-Han (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Those concerns are outside the scope of this noticeboard. Please address them at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It will only take a minute to look at and i don't think that user who is inventing stuff is going to care about me adressing something on the talk. But Alright i might try, i have copied it to the talk page as you requested Talk:Adal_Sultanate Escorban-Han (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Zero response on the talk page and he reverted it again with no explanation.

Escorban-Han (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Rewindturtle reported by User:Elmidae (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Constant re-addition of an objectively wrong map, while stoutly ignoring the discussion on the talk page. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've invited the user to engage in talk page discussion. I'm waiting to see how they respond before taking further action. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User:RossButsy reported by User:DarkShadowDude (Result: warned)
Counter-productive edit warning. DarkShadowDude 💬 18:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It would help if you used the full template when creating a new report.


 * No evidence of 3RR warning before this report. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Ukelele47 reported by User:122.11.212.253 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: |

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Removing of some design and template design for the page, claiming that it has violated the MOS rule.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Undid by and - He shouted out that asked the editor to refer to the last year templates and keep the Chinese text (yeah, because the award show is in Chinese)
 * 1)
 * Undid by
 * 1) - the user asked the editor to read the response on the talk page and told the editor to stop his disruptive and vindictive reverts.
 * Undid by
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: |link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Awards_2021&diff=1018437427&oldid=1017733016
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ukelele47#Star_Awards_2021

Comments:
 * There has been ongoing dispute between the user and Unknown152438, who he did more on the award ceremony articles and its experience before, specifically the Star Awards articles (I saw his page). Then, the day with the ceremony (from what I heard) saw that there was an ongoing war and Unknown152438 claimed that Ukelele47 was vandalizing Star Awards 2021 so that it can improve the MOS rule.


 * This is a new user, suspecting some inexperience edits.


 * I've already given editing warring and demanded this user to read previous years' articles before making any changes of the current articles but no avail. This is an annual ceremony which is given out for excellence Chinese media in Singapore which necessarily need the Chinese Language as what previously did.

122.11.212.253 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC) (Unknown152438 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC))
 * Result: User:Ukelele47 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. It appears the talk page is not being used very much given that the article is so active. Keep in mind MOS:FLAGS which restricts usage of flags in articles. I notice that User:Canterbury Tail, an administrator, has participated on the article talk page and they might have some further advice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)