Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive433

User:109.93.0.125 reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

User:109.93.0.125 is disregarding the relevant discussion from approximately two months ago, namely under Talk:Turkish_Land_Forces, where consensus was reached, while at the same time violating WP:NOPA and WP:CIVIL guidelines as seen in the "reason" of his second diff above, but also in a comment he wrote in the talk page, namely this one. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User:109.93.0.125 is WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia, violated repeatedly the WP:CONSENSUS, and is making personal attacks against editors using their ethnicities, which I had to remove myself: --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much to say. This IP user is doing unconstructive edits, personal attacks, and edit warring.--Visnelma (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:History of the Earth and World and history and history reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

The first revert is by an IP, which is most likely the same user. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Zeinab mandour reported by User:CaroleHenson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and discussed at the Teahouse

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

Comments:

They have declared a WP:COI and seemed to indicate that they were aware of the WP:COI policy, but have kept on editing the article, no posts on that talkpage. I suggest a block from editing the article (not the article talkpage) for the time being.

Note:, your Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; link is to article-talk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I was very confused about the whole process. It happens that it did post on the article talk page - actually twice it seems... and I thought it was supposed to go on the user's talk page, so I posted it there. So, it looks like it posted three times in total. Yikes!–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I looked at the instructions for reporting here once and yikes indeed, was not going to attempt that. But I have twinkle now so I may try it one day. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24h by Cordless Larry. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am assuming that from this point forward, discussion should take place to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. So, I started Edits made with specific points to discuss based on their attempted changes to the article that the user can comment on when their 24 hours is over.


 * My question for moving forward is: since this user has declared that they have a conflict of interest, is the user allowed to make edits to this article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the guidance at WP:COIEDIT they shouldn't. I think it's fairly likely an admin would consider such editing WP:DISRUPTive, and block again. They are of course welcome to contribute BLP-good sources at the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Sergow reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Deleted by editor with edit summary "go away" )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; (editor deleted with edit summary  "go away" )

 Comments 


 * Account was created on 30 June 2020, but only made first edit yesterday.


 * Unless I am missing something I am only seeing 3 reverts, so not a 3RR violation. You seem to list a bold edit as a revert above for some reason with you two tied at 3 reverts each. Though I will agree it all looks fishy. PackMecEng (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reviewing admin should note that PakcMecEng is like a carrion crow in regard to me, sticking his nose into my business whenever and wherever possible.  He is totally biased, and any opinions he expresses should be automatically ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed some really basic grammar errors. I described what I was doing in the edit summaries. I did not expect thanks, but I certainly did not expect to be attacked in this way. This aggressive and thoroughly unpleasant user has not made any coherent case for undoing my edits. Obviously, there is no coherent case for restoring ungrammatical text. They have claimed that I need to establish a consensus for correct grammar, pestered me repeatedly on my talk page, and now report me here. I cannot imagine a more ludicrous reaction to someone fixing errors in an article. Sergow (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also note that items 1 and 3 on the list here are not reverts. To be attacked and misrepresented in this way for fixing grammar errors really is quite disgusting. Sergow (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The nature of the edits is irrelevant. Your edits were disputed, which means the dispute needs to be cleared up on the talk page, before the edits can be restored.  You were told this on the article talk page and on your own talk page, but ignored this to restore them.  All the edits were the alteration of existing material (hence reverts, per WP:Revert), not the addition of new material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your dispute, exactly? Sergow (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not for discussion here, that's for the article talk page, and you don't get to restore your edits until that is resolved. This is about your editing behavior in not waiting for resolution, which generally only comes from other editors get involved. There is no critical need for your grammatical "corrections" to be put in the article without delay. (See WP:There is no deadline)  Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At some point you're going to have to reply to the question of why you§ reverted..... stop the run around to the question posed to you directly a few times. What are the problems with the edits????? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already answered you on the article talk page: your grammatical "corrections" were not improvements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The allegation that has made against  involves a strangely made-up, utterly pointless disagreement concerning the use of proper grammar (that is, the standard grammar used by educated people in an English-speaking country).

The issue is that BMK prefers the sentence:

"A new village was built nearby after the war, but President Charles de Gaulle ordered the original maintained as a permanent memorial and museum."

rather than Sergow's sentence (actually, Sergow's improvement made the single run-on sentence into two sentences). "A new village was built nearby after the war. President Charles de Gaulle ordered that the ruins of the original village be maintained as a permanent memorial and museum."

Sergow gave a very cogent explanation for the changes on the article's talk page.

BMK's reply was "You may have carefully considered them, but they're still not improvements."

BMK has a consistent behavior of finding a recent change and reverting it without making an edit summary to explain why the change was made. BMK does this even when the change is an improvement to the encyclopedia. This is what BMK has done here. Consistent with past behavior, BMK's process is to revert/disagree, with little more than an opinion,/revert/disagree, and then declares an edit war. And as BMK's want, takes it to here to the Administrator's Notice Board seeking endorsement. BMK has difficulty with collaboration and compromising with other editors.

BMK's doesn't present any logical reasons for maintaining the "status quo ante" other than a dislike of Sergow's change and the peculiar requirement that the change does not have WP:CONSENSUS. Seriously, correcting poor grammar requires a consensus? On the article's talk page, Sergow makes a very cogent observation, "Either you do not understand English grammar, or you are just trying to be a bully." I vote "bully" and since Sergow's first edit was on May 1, Beyond My Ken is BITing.

If this was the first time BMK created such a tempest in a teapot, I would not be involved; however, BMK does this type of warring and bringing his "issues" to this notice board frequently to have his changes endorsed. When called out, BMK, usually has no legitimate argument, so will fall back on some misdirection claims all of the great editing done in the past and how hard BMK has worked. (BMK you don't need to make that argument here as I have just done it for you. What you have or haven't done in the past is not particularly relevant to this unwarranted disagreement with Sergow.)

Osomite hablemos  05:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As the reviewing administrator will obviously understand, whether Sergow's edits were "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. I believe them to be not improvements to the article, but Sergow obviously believes otherwise, that's in the very nature of an editing dispute.  Nor is this board intended for general character assassinations such as Osomite's just above.  This board deals with edit warring, and, as WP:EW clearly says: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * you have no logical argument to support your position, so you rebut with the charge of "character assassination". Have you no sense of decency? Osomite  hablemos  19:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Sergow and User:Beyond My Ken are both warned. I see three reverts by each person. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate being "warned" for having been attacked by this editor. They have given up on this fight, it seems, but have immediately sought another fight: . They are clearly out of control. Sergow (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Khirurg reported by User:Randam (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; diff

Comments:

I complained earlier about the disruptive behaviour of user:Khirurg here on this page, where he only got a "warning". However, this user keeps continuing these practices. The latest example is where this user leaves the discussion in the talkpage unanswered for 3 months, but is quick to revert edits in less than 1 whole day, only to still keep the talkpage unanswered.

Secondly, the user gives me the impression of pov-pushing instead of talking (see point 4). Because again, the user is not even checking his own references beyond the title, as explained here, and still keeps on reverting. Randam (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One edit a month isn't a major problem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Beyondsweetful reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
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: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:

I believe admins need to take a look at the activity of this user. He makes no contribution other than edit warring, despite multiple warnings, and does not seem to be willing to engage in a constructive discussion in order to reach a consensus. He violated the 3RR rule, as could be seen from the above diffs. Grand master  21:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Knownnotknown reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is my 2nd request but instead of edit war (which I will loose since you have more edits), why will you not discuss at the existing long discussion with more eyes at WT:MED. See the FAQ link in the header of the destination.  This is not a link to primary source. It is an implementation of the primary source. An implementation of a primary source is by its very nature a discussion of the primary source. The FAQ page has an evaluation of the PHP9 over 1000+ patients by a trained psychaitrist"
 * 2)  "WT:MED is the right place for this discussion. Do not involve me in a edit war. You have more edits then me and I will loose the edit war. Please present your viewpoint on WT:MED existing discussion. Why are you not doing that?"
 * 3)  "Quote me where on WT:MED I have been told that this is a primary source. Please continue your discussion on WT:MED instead of continuing your edit war from yesterday. Like I pointed out on WT:MED you had not read the destination links before reverting my edits. Have you had time to look at the destination and look at the FAQ there. PHQ9 is not a primary source it is a well researched gold standard of measuring depression.  Find me alternative link, I will replace. Given stigma this is impt. tool"
 * 4)  "PHQ9 is a clinically validation reliable source. This was discussed in length at WT:Med. To prevent edit war continue discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Referencing_the_use_of_the_PHQ9_for_depression"
 * 5)  "PHQ9 is gold standard of measuring depression. It is clinically validated in large scientific trials. The linked tool is private and non commercial. Private tools nullify social stigma. Stigma stops ~50% from seeking help. If you can find another private non commercial tool, I will replace the link. See long discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Referencing_the_use_of_the_PHQ9_for_depression To prevent edit war please continue the discussion at WT:MED"
 * 6)  "Please discuss if this is spam at WT:MED in the existing comprehensive discussion. That is the right place to decide if it is spam instead of your pronouncement."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Referencing the use of the PHQ9 for depression */ new section"

Comments:

''' My opinion on mental health comes with 20 years of working on mental health with the most innovative startups in silicon valley.

I am trying to use my experience to point out that lot of research shows mental health stigma causes millions of deaths worldwide. Since people due to fear of being judged do not seek help. I am sure each of you reading this can relate to social stigma's negative effects on mental health.

Mental health of today is the AIDS of 1980's

The way to counter stigma is to provide early detection tools where people are certain that their information will not be stored in a giant database and then used for advertising or worse yet being leaked and resulting in social stigma.

I gave link to clinically validated and researched tool to measure depression. This is the gold standard of measuring depression. I was told by moderators on WT:MED e.g. WhatamIdoing that this was a relevant external link but not a reference. This destination URL is secondary in nature based on the results of the research which comes from over 1000 depressed patients discussed on the FAQ section of the tool.

I would like to point out that MrOllie reverted multiple edits without looking at the destination URL. I was able to expose him on WT:MED since during yesterday's discussion on WT:MED a moderator commented he could not access the tool. I sent an email to the webmaster and I got a reply saying that the tool was only accessible within 5 miles of Stanford (ip-based-geo-tagged). Subsequently they removed the block. I would like to point out I requested MrOllie and Megaman_en_m multiple times to continue conversation on the WT:MED existing discussion which they did not.

Also the destination link is completely non-commercial. There is not even links to other tools or articles on the destination link.

I have no stake in the destination URL. Find me an alternative link and I will gladly replace. My only stake is to make this privacy-first tool that nullifies mental health stigma available to the masses. I am convinced this will lead to early detection of depression and save 1000's of lives.

I have come to this with best intentions. I hope you are able to see through the edit war started by MrOllie where my comments were just ignored, opinion from other moderators on WT:MED was ignored and the destination URL was not even seen.

Knownnotknown (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You should stop reverting even if you think it is correct. There are other ways to resolve disputes. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

User:74 observer 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

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

Comments:

Clear attempt to repeat this addition, virtually word for word including the needless capitalisation of "Cleansing". User was informed about Troubles 1RR restriction, chose to revert anyway. FDW777 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Also 1RR breach at second article at Provisional Irish Republican Army, to this version. Revert #1 and revert#2. FDW777 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Strong concerns here about Wikipedia being used as a platform for whitewashing the Provisional IRA and promoting their and other IRA incarnations' subversive agenda. Wikipedia should not allow itself be used for that disingenuous purpose. This behaviour has manifested in, for example, FDW777 claiming that the murder of a completely innocent civilian in Rosslea, Douglas Deering, is not 'notable', see: Talk:The Troubles in Rosslea. The Provisional IRA page is now in a ridiculous state with a plethora of inaccurate and biased 'citations' (over 400). 74 observer (talk)
 * Result: User:74 observer is warned not to violate the WP:1RR restriction which applies to all articles that fall under the WP:TROUBLES decision. If you believe that IRA-related articles need improvement, you'll need to work for consensus on the talk pages. Due to the vivid language you used in your response above, it sounds like you have strong opinions on the matter. If you believe that FDW77 is editing in service of a personal bias, you should be aware of the rule against personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do believe that FDW777 is editing in service of personal bias and there are a number of other users doing so in The Troubles area as well. It seems they have the experience of using Wikipedia process in weaselling the result they seek (apologies - 'vivid language'). I've updated the page in question here with two murders that IRA supporters do not want remembered. It would be wrong not to do so. 'Wikipedia' will need to decide whether these IRA murders should be covered up (at least on Wikipedia). 74 observer (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:74 observer is now blocked 48 hours for continuing the edit war after being warned to stop. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Buralar Dutluktu reported by User:Buidhe (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Although this editor's preferred lead is substantially similar to earlier versions

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff and again by another editor:diff
 * 1) 02:24, 4 May 2021
 * 2) 02:37, 4 May 2021
 * 3) 03:17, 4 May 2021
 * 4) 03:58, 4 May 2021
 * 5) 04:14, 4 May 2021 not a revert to the same old version, but it is a revert of the previous edit

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The current wording in the lead was settled during a discussion on the talk page here. The discussions were extensive so I can't really give a diff here, but just look at the talk page and you'll see extensive discussion about the correct wording to use. Buralar Dutluktu has not edited the talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; diff

Comments: The editor made five reverts despite being warned twice about 3RR. They were reverted three times by ‎General Ization, twice by myself, and once by Srnec. They also label edits they disagree with as "vandalism". They are a new user, however. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Plea: I did it because I think it was serious attack of anti-Turkish and Islamophobic racist vandalism campaign. There is no consensus of "ethnic cleansing" on talk board. There are no valuable sources or scientific facts rely on historical evidences. They did more reverts than me today. Thank you for your time and consideration. Buralar Dutluktu (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC).
 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Dokabutts6 reported by User:Fyrael (Result: Blocked)
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: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:

Another reversion after their previous 24-hour ban. They have yet to make any attempts at communication.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Stale . The last revert was a week ago. Report this issue again if it continues and mention the prior complaint EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User is now blocked 3 days since they continued reverting on 4 May. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:249:1781:1230:D0A0:D59A:ECE:8E87/64 reported by User:Retrotechexpert (Result: Semi)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1020373539

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1020672972&oldid=1020373539
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1021103320&oldid=1021043841
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1020688784&oldid=1020685619
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1021380257&oldid=1021318332

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3AD0A0%3AD59A%3AECE%3A8E87&type=revision&diff=1021320802&oldid=1021317956 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3A5507%3AB3C4%3A2879%3A6C15&type=revision&diff=1021320814&oldid=1021318585 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3A8110%3AD56D%3A172E%3ADBDD&type=revision&diff=1021320764&oldid=1021318985 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:249:1781:1230:E033:3538:52DD:F9FF&oldid=1021388914 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeLorean_time_machine&type=revision&diff=1021399118&oldid=1021388588

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DeLorean_time_machine&oldid=1021389495

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3AD0A0%3AD59A%3AECE%3A8E87&type=revision&diff=1021320802&oldid=1021317956 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3A5507%3AB3C4%3A2879%3A6C15&type=revision&diff=1021320814&oldid=1021318585 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2601%3A249%3A1781%3A1230%3A8110%3AD56D%3A172E%3ADBDD&type=revision&diff=1021320764&oldid=1021318985 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:249:1781:1230:E033:3538:52DD:F9FF&oldid=1021388914 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.45.255.223&oldid=1021400070

Comments:

See previous submission for identical edits where this (apparently) same user was blocked for sockpuppetry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1020721423#User:MikeJones19888_User:GullWing88_reported_by_User:Retrotechexpert_(Result:_Socks_blocked) -- this user continues to make edits to the above article with the intention of replacing valid references in lieu of advertising and solicitation web address links. The "DeLoreanRental" web address advertises DeLorean Time Machine rental services. The page has been scrubbed numerous times for this offense, but this user is very determined despite blocks. Retrotechexpert (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User continues to make identical edits (this time as 2601:249:1781:1230:E033:3538:52DD:F9FF) to add advertising/solicitation web address links for DeLorean rental services in continued acts of spam vandalism. Retrotechexpert (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Would administrators consider adding the domain at the center of the edit war -- deloreanrental.com / www.deloreanrental.com -- to the Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist to prevent further edits by this motivated spammer? Retrotechexpert (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User at another IP now 73.45.255.223 continues to make edits to add spam. Retrotechexpert (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. There is a lot of spam energy here. Unclear if any IP blocks would be worthwhile. If these guys are all advertising a single web site, www.DeloreanRental.com, it might be worth filing this at WP:WPSPAM because blacklisting is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User:EnPassant reported by User:122.56.201.177 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Markovian_Parallax_Denigrate&action=history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Markovian_Parallax_Denigrate&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes, multiple people have tried to reason with this user on talk page and they don't care.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; User will revert it but here you go.

Comments:

The user is a troll 122.56.201.177 (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Also i know that Veverve is a sockpuppet or their friend. 122.56.201.177 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "Troll" and "sockpuppet" absent some kind of evidence in the form of diffs are personal attacks. Pure bad faith report from an IP who keeps editing against consensus to push their preferred version and inserting content gathered from a non WP:RS. ♟♙ (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected six months. The IP editor seems to be promoting a Youtuber. They have been triggering the edit filter. This page had to be placed under WP:ECP back in 2020; let's see how it goes from here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User:50.68.189.119 reported by User:Pupsterlove02 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1021403503 by Malcolmxl5 (talk) We need the word (composer) on there, so that nobody will get confused with another bill brown, or else the people would get confused"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1021402842 by IceWelder (talk) But we really need the word (composer) on there, so that nobody will get confused with another bill brown"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1021402658 by IceWelder (talk) We need the word (composer) on there, so that nobody will get confused with another bill brown"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1021149859 by IceWelder (talk) We need the word (composer) on there, so that nobody will get confused with another bill brown"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple users have attempted to discuss with IP at their talk page, but IP keeps blanking; see talk page history. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Apart from their own talk page, they also reverted Category talk:Video games scored by Bill Brown, where I had responded to them. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – 6 months for disruptive editing by User:K6ka. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:Darouet (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported: Previously editing as

Previous version reverted to: (see below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) @ 15:53, 2 May, "Undid revision 1021000963 by Deku link...
 * 2) @ 16:00, 2 May, same revert
 * 3) @ 16:05, 2 May‎, same revert
 * 4) @ 16:11, 2 May, removes recently added content, also disputed ‎
 * 5) @ 16:20, 2 May, as above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Horse Eye's Back states that the fourth and fifth reverts don't cross the WP:3RR bright line because "That fourth diff isnt related to the other three". This is despite my protest, "Just because the statement was contested a couple days ago doesn't mean that removing it now no longer counts as a revert," and the definition of 3RR at WP:EDITWAR:

Horse Eye has subsequently argued that they "removed a statement in breach of WP:BLP (a WP:3RR exception even if it was a revert)". However, Horse Eye has breached 3RR to remove the imam's insistence that his mosque — the most venerated in Xinjiang — is real (widely reported in Chinese media, e.g. here ). As discussed on the talk page, it's highly dubious to use WP:BLP to effectively slander a living person and prevent them from defending themself or their religious community. Horse Eye's insistence that BLP exempts them from 3RR looks like a classic case of WP:CRYBLP, that while

I've asked Horse Eye to self-revert, and instead they've doubled down with a 5th revert and they have not done so. Unfortunately, because Horse Eye believes that a 4th revert on other contested material on a page doesn't break 3RR, and/or that they are exempt from 3RR in this case, they have effectively promised (e.g. here ) this behavior is not going to stop. -Darouet (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Clause struck, and italic text added, per Horse Eye comment below. -Darouet (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Current consensus on Xinhua is that they are not a reliable source for such statements "Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.” I went through a great deal of trouble to replace an unreliable source with a reliable one, Darouet even thanked me for doing so[]. The contention "I've asked Horse Eye to self-revert and instead they've doubled down with a 5th revert.” is false, my last edit to the page was *before* Darouet’s first edit to my talk page . I made it clear that I was acting under BLP in my talk page edits as well as in the relevant edit summaries, there was no consensus to include the contested BLP information so it *must* immediately be removed or sourced to a WP:RS, thats exactly what I did. Beyond all that there is no ongoing conflict, why Darouet thought it was necessary to file such an aspersion filled and error ridden report is beyond me. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also jeezy petes Darouet by "this behavior” do you mean removing a completely unsourced BLP statement or do you mean removing a poorly sourced BLP statement? Because both happened in that diff and both are required by policy. we are all required to do that per WP:BLP "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors support inclusion of the text, and Jume's comments are also video recorded, leaving no doubt as to their veracity. BLP is meant to protect living people, not prevent them from defending themselves. If an editor believes 3RR no longer applies to them because they can spuriously claim a BLP exemption, they will edit war without acknowledging 3RR. That's what has happened here, and you're promising it will continue to happen. -Darouet (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors have also opposed inclusion... As you well know, without a consensus to include a poorly sourced BLP statement stays off the page (or perhaps you did not know that?). BLP is broader than that. How does their being a video change the WP:RS situation? Videos are as reliable as the source which publishes them, they are not themselves sources and videos are no more veracious than any other form of media. I promise to continue to follow our WP:BLP policy, if the policy changes so will my editing behavior. It would be wonderful if you would start following the BLP policy. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also please acknowledge that you now understand that you were mistaken about the timeline of events and that all my edits to the Id Kah Mosque happened before your first post on my talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A BLP exemption to 3RR requires a clear violation of BLP policy, not a dubious case. Otherwise both BLP and 3RR become meaningless. -Darouet (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Using Xinhua for a BLP statement related to Xinjiang, islam, and the the Uyghur genocide is a clear violation of our BLP policy, we clearly have consensus that Xinhua is not a reliable source in that situation. Did you see the second post? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this is proving my point - you believe that WP:3RR doesn't apply because you're right, but here you're using "BLP" against the subject in question. If this issue isn't handled here it needs to be escalated to WP:AN because according to this logic, you can break 3RR to remove Chinese-language news sources all across Wikipedia, any time a human being ("BLP") is involved. -Darouet (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No claims are being made against the imam and we’re only talking about Xinhua not Chinese-language news sources all across Wikipedia, what are you talking about? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's well covered in the complaint above and on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. It is unclear that 3RR was violated on 2 May and anyway that is now three days in the past. The parties seem to be engaged now at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about a similar issue. Trying to get an answer at RSN looks to be a better idea than an edit war. If the RSN regulars don't believe the issue belongs there, the matter may need to come back to Talk:Id Kah Mosque or go through DRN or an RFC. In my opinion people may be trying to get answers that the sources are not strong enough to deliver. We can't know everything we would like to know. The final answer may be to tweak the prose so it doesn't exaggerate WP's level of confidence in whatever is really happening. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Luwanglinux reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:

I am not TrangaBellam, but I would point out that the editor warred with four different editors here: me,, and. The talk page discussions are akin to beating a head against a wall. No conclusions are ever reached. The editor also gives all of us warnings on our talk pages:, ,

The user has a persistent history of edit-warring, ever since came on the scene. His contributions history tagged mw-undo shows him doing: Some of this edit-warring was also regarding WP:COPYVIO, for which he had to face an extended block. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Comments I wonder if user Kautilya, TrangaBellam forgot wikipedia is a platform for collective efforts,most of the time I faced revert from him it was because of this specific reason Manipur was not a part of India or Manipur was sovereign(independent). I am not trying to shove my personal POV to wikipedia but trying to help improve the content and correctness of information in the article I edited with reliable references,The specific reference I added to Causes section of Anglo Manipur War was Kautilya choice as a notable source. I discussed a lot on talk pages and even corrected his concerns regarding punctuation.To me Kautilya and TrangaBellam behaviour is like we don't like this so this is not allowed. He did not even like the insertion of Major Paona Brajabasi at first, he even reverted two times on Khongjom battle content &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 3 reverts at Puya (Meitei texts) all on 24 October 2020
 * 1 revert at Manipuri cuisine, also no 24 October 2020
 * 6 reverts at Meitei people ( 4 reverts between 24-26 October 2020)
 * 13 reverts Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 (4 reverts on 29 October 2020, 3 between 25-27 November 2020)
 * 4 reverts at Manipur (princely state)
 * 5 reverts at Anglo-Manipur War, plus two others apparently not tagged as mw-undo
 * "Collective effort" by no means implies that you get to railroad your POV, no matter what objections may be raised. All Wikipedia content requires WP:CONSENSUS. It is ironic that you open a talk page section called "Seeking consensus" and then reinstate your content! You were specifically warned by TrangaBellam that he was the fourth editor that was oppositing your edit, and if you reinstated it, you would be taken to this noticeboard. You still reinstated it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What user TrangaBellam did was not a revert,he firstly removed the One event two state journal reference and next thing he edited a bit and finally removed the causes section stating badly drafted,with due respect I asked others opinion time and again including yours as well as listened to their opinion and reflect it on my edit and give edit summary as anyone to freely improve the content I added with reliable source which is totally in a collegial spirit but you were acting too bossy and acted as if you don't like certain lines so this can't be accepted irrespective of the source. &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the difference between your original contribution and your latest reinstatement. As you can see, most of the content is still there, except for one small passage that removed, saying it was duplicating material that is covered in another section. My original objection saying that it was too much space being given for one scholar's views (not facts) has not been addressed. TrangaBellam said the section was "very poorly drafted". That has not been addressed either. You added four new citations at the end. They were all deadlines. I flagged them, but you haven't bothered to fix them. Neither do we know where in those book sources support for the material is supposed to be found.
 * Since you start off by claiming that your content is fine and reinstate it immediately, your claim that you are "listening to their opinion" isn't evidenced. You are basically WP:STONEWALLING the discussion and reinstating the problematic content endlessly. Our only option seems to be to get tired and give up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I have stated anyone can modify my edit on causes section by using reliable source, and I did not object your point of view when you reminded me I neglected the rot in Palace of Manipur among the brothers ( any one can refer talk section) and blamed only British Government .Problematic content for why? because It was not written in the way you want?..user TrangaBellam and you are similar in editing style removing content or reference or texts he do not like sucha as this ..No matter how much one try to cooperate if the other party is like a curled tail of a dog, consensus is almost impossible. Also in the article of Kabaw Valley you claim the history section as POV even if there is clear evidence of all content added with reliable source, it seems like your usual habit to put POV tag if the contents do not satisfy what you expect and you never bothered to modify or improve the history section of that article with reliable source to remove that tag yourself...My only option seems to be ignore every article you took interest in too..  &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that User:Luwanglinux is risking a block for long-term edit warring on South Asian topics. He might be able to avoid this if he will promise to make no more reverts on articles he has previously edited without first getting a consensus on the talk page. His comments above suggest he sees no problem at all with his editing. He is constantly being reverted by many other people, some of them quite experienced. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not reverting article on my personal POV or without reliable source, I never say my edits are all genuine( His comments above suggest he sees no problem at all with his editing. He is constantly being reverted by many other people, some of them quite experienced. ) but I hope for a cooperative editing environment instead of reverting every edits users have a better choice of checking the information added and present it in a more readable way , Was I at fault for inserting topic about Khongjom battle along with Major Paona Brajabasi role in the war with source which Kautilya reverted twice...hope other editors do check why such edit warring even happened ?, am I the only one who is at fault in edit warring of Anglo Manipur War ? &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Luwanglinux, please answer yes or no whether you agree to wait for a talk page consensus before making any reverts on South Asian articles you have worked on previously. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I always agree to wait for consensus not only on South Asian article but any article in English wikipedia, but its very hard to reach consensus if other party act like owner of article and have right to choose what should be inserted or not, should not consensus be reached based on the topic and its reliability with notable source? Also admins kindly see the the edit warring history of the user Trangabellam (the one who warned me for edit warring also reported me to ANI ) his edits were not constructive at all, see his latest edit on Manipur related article , user like him never bother trying to search for source or checking the information added previously  &#x1f432; ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ  ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * – One week for long term edit warring. I was hoping that this user would agree to wait for consensus on the disputed articles, but a discussion at User talk:Luwanglinux did not result in clear acceptance of my proposal. I'm opting for a regular block. Since the user has been alerted to WP:ARBIPA, a topic ban remains an option if the unusual editing pattern continues. Luwanglinux has extreme confidence that he is right while constantly clashing with long time contributors, even giving them templated warnings for their misbehavior. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Ckruschke reported by User:KidAd (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revert #1
 * 2) Revert #2
 * 3) 3RR violation

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Fairly clear-cut case here. Ckruschke has violated WP:3RR for the purpose of inserting the names of non-notable individuals under "notable alumni" on South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. User has repeatedly ignored WP:ONUS, which states The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. In response to attempts to engage with them on the article's talk page and a standard warning template warning them of their WP:3RR violation, they left me a personalized and highly condescending message that reads, in part, Hi - welcome to Wikipedia! I see you have been an editor for a little over a year and its great that you have taken such an interest in Wikipedia! We need more editors with your passion. Unfortunately, I am firmly in the right on this issue. While I appreciate the welcome, it is three years overdue. And though I appreciate that Ckruschke took the time to complement my passion, however sarcastically, I must disagree. Wikipedia needs more editors who can abide by WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF guidelines. KidAd  •  SPEAK  19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It appears that my friend, KidAd, is very protective of his edits. I was attempting to restore the page as his non-constructive edits constitute a clear change to the Notability policy on the SDSM&T page (WRT notability being primarily embodied in whether the person has a Wikipedia page which is astonishingly laughable). Instead of taking the issue to Talk, since the WP:ONUS is on  KidAd  as the editor who is attempting to change policy, he kept reverting my restoration to the original page so that discussion could happen on a clean slate. Clearly the editor does not understand what WP:ONUS means and is simply using it and other Wiki terms, like WP:3RR, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:AGF, as hammers to further his viewpoint and shout down a dissenter. Its too bad that new editors get their back up after an editor reaches out to them (sarcasm? No...) and learn all the "get out of my yard" Wikipedia buzz words to tell other editors to shut up long before they understand what terms like onus and civility actually mean... Note that the only time this editor reached out to me was to use the Admin hammer so clearly WP:CIVILITY is for lessor editors than he.
 * I started a Talk post on the page, which is the clear way to solve this rather than bringing it to admins and what he should have done after my first restoration. Whatever you guys decide is fine with me - I don't have an ego so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Ckruschke (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Result: Both User:Ckruschke and User:KidAd are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again (or if they modify the list of alumni) unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair. Thanks again - Ckruschke (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

User:Magherbin reported by User:Ayaltimo (Result: Withdrawn)
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: This user is incredibly disruptive literally waging edit wars on multiple pages and was recently blocked for edit warring. It seems like he didn't learn his warning. Ayaltimo (talk) 21:36, 04 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ayaltimo keeps defending Ragnimo's edits who is now blocked for socking and I was reverting their disruption across several articles Ayaltimo and Ragnimo have been harassing me for quite some time including personal attacks on talk pages see . I warned the user  but it has continued . Ayaltimo now claims I made 4 reverts on the Adal Sultanate article when i've only reverted twice  I've read the references in most of the articles in question and they do not state whats implied on the pages. This user and I are currently in a content dispute with an ongoing RFC, it is not going in Ayaltimo's favour hence this report. . We can continue to discuss on the talk pages, i'm fine with that, I had thought the user would understand the consensus from the RFC which clearly reveals users oppose the views held by Ayaltimo and Ragnimo sock Magherbin (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You kept removing sourced content and I kept restoring the revisions on Adal Sultanate like four times and some of them even were before when Ragnimo got banned. You have a habit of randomly removing sourced content and not discussing it on the talk page. You may not do it three times within 24 hours but you still do it regardless of how long it is and you think this is a way to avoid a warning. You are incredibly disruptive and you have been ever since you were unblocked from edit warring. Let the moderators review your behaviour because this cannot continue. Ayaltimo (talk) 23:28, 04 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not see you in the previous discussion I had with the sock puppet Ragnimo yet you claim I dont discuss my edits on the talk page. Read the talk pages carefully before making accusations . Magherbin (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * When I undid your revision on 27 of April you came back a week later making the same comments "see talk page" when you could've just tagged me.  then you continued to edit war. You're very disruptive and you did the same thing on other pages. After you were blocked you should've learned your lesson so it's important I report your misconduct again. Ayaltimo (talk) 00:26, 05 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've explained why I removed the content, however the edit summary provided by you here is insufficient, and you have broken 3rr before and let off with a warning hence pretending otherwise is futile . Even after that warning you continued editwarring but no action was taken My suggestion is to withdraw the case or risk a block as well. As I stated earlier I will not continue reverting and I have not violated 3RR. Magherbin (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ayaltimo seems to have withdrawn per this edit . Magherbin (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by the submitter, User:Ayaltimo, per this edit. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Tony1811 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Tony1811 repeatedly included a BLP violation (i.e., criticism toward the subject when no source that exists mentions such criticism, not even the ones they cited). Sources they cited include a video from Newsmax, a deprecated source; a Washington Examiner report via MSN, a source that should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims per WP:RSP; LifeZette, a questionable source; and Fox News, which is biased or opinionated for politics per RSP. Please let me reiterate as well that none of these sources even mention the criticism included in any capacity. They claimed that their violation of BLP policies was part of a larger conversation around left-wing bias in the media as well as free speech issues. KyleJoan talk 00:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Alright, it looks like the talks on the talk page are over. Here is the restored text with adjustments. If one would like to know where they can find more detailed info about what is covered in the lead in the article, they can consult the Geography section, the Economy section and/or the navbox. Glad this is over"
 * 2)  "Look at his contributions, all he does is revert peoples edits and he never contributes anything of value, its gonna be hard to get approval from this guy"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1021454989 by Magnolia677 (talk) revert vandalism"
 * 4)  "thirteen provinces and territories, kuroshio current, english de facto, borders what, area, Vancouver population, politics"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1021454989 by Magnolia677 (talk) revert vandalism"
 * 2)  "thirteen provinces and territories, kuroshio current, english de facto, borders what, area, Vancouver population, politics"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on British Columbia."
 * 2)   "/* May 2021 */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * The editor left this on my talk page as I slept before resuming the edit war:
 * I have noticed that you have are in an edit war, reverting good edits and citing false reasons for doing so. Like in the article, the paragraphs introduce resume and talk about: the less than 5% arable land that is used for farming, forestry and mining, cinematography, shipping, the real estate market, tourism, geography, climate, population size and area size. You can find this information in the article itself in the Economy section and the Geography section. Furthermore, the introduced texts revises the lead by making it neutral and straight-to-the point, creating a more encyclopedic leading text. Do you have any further questions or additions? Safyrr (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor decided to carry on a discussion on their own talk page rather than on the article's. This is what leads me to believe that the editor is new. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

New editor who is pushing specific (and poorly formatted) content. Not clear on WP:BRD or discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring The reported editor thought that they could close the discussion]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That edit is what made me decide to look into this user. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Odd. I thought I copied the link. I'm sorry that I failed to paste it in. The editor has been wikihounding me as well: reverting two explained reverts I made. I am currently opening a discussion on the first article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I noticed the wikihounding. On the other hand, the user has been inactive for over an hour. I'm going to wait and see what they do next. I'm monitoring their contributions. If they participate civilly in talk page discussion, all is good. If they continue with edit warring or wikihounding, then I'm prepared to block them. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable approach. As I noted, they are likely a new, enthusiastic editor. WP:AGF, I recognize that the edits were an attempt to improve the article, even if it was not particularly well received or successful. I do not want to annoy someone who is earnestly attempting to improve Wikipedia. I do want the editor to start behaving in a more cooperative way. I noted on the article's talk page that it was a sincere effort to improve the article, and hope that we can collectively achieve this goal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Like Walter I think we have a new editor that wants to help. They just need to learn the wiki ways. ....that unfortunately is a huge learning curve. Think they are a bit younger....well then me a 60 year old. ....why? because they rely on websites over scholarly publications. They are doing well with additions regardless of minor problems formatting and sourcing preferences. We just need them to understand we have a process and that process is not fast.... we are not McDonald's we are any encyclopedia bulit by consensus. Let's get someone to welcome them with open arms and try to explain a little bit how things work. I would but my disability causes my grammar voice to text to be horrific. Pick 3 of a potential good editor here if we can just point   them in the right direction Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 20:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Gaeltober 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

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

Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction per Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. I attempted to meet the user half-way by retaining some of their addition, and also twice requested they self-revert their 1RR breach, and in the latter request asked them to seek consensus for the change on the article's talk page. They refused to do so. FDW777 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 has not attempted to "meet half way". He objected to "speculation" about Martina Anderson retiring, once the "speculation" was confirmed by Martina Anderson, he objected to the edit being too long. It was shortened. ~He then objects to the edit also saying why she is retiring. God knows why. The edit warring is his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaeltober (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for violation of the WP:TROUBLES 1RR restriction. The user was given a chance to self-revert but would not do so. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:78.43.29.7 reported by User:Poojean (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1021478265 by FDW777 (talk) Adding a paragraph of what it is sometimes called isn't a really scientific way of propagating a topic. Please let's avoid adding terms which "some people" say to Wikipedia and focus on facts"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1021477874 by FDW777 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1021476882 by FDW777 (talk) Adding a paragraph of what it is sometimes called isn't a really scientific way of propagating a topic. Please let's avoid adding terms which "some people" say to Wikipedia and focus on facts."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1020700704 by Semsûrî (talk)"

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

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


 * Result: The IP editor, User:78.43.29.7, has been partial-blocked from editing Dersim rebellion for two weeks by User:ToBeFree. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks, I should have closed the report as well. I had probably found this via AIV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User: Derwood1558 reported by User:Rockchalk717 (Result: Partial 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * User also threatened to edit war here-- Rockchalk 717 20:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Partial blocked for 48 hours. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:RossButsy reported by User:RPBG (Result: No action)
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:

Turning pages into a battleground when explaining they would refrain from edit warring (3RR not violated) RPBG (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please engage in discussion at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Fram reported by User:Tom.Reding (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1021927364 by Fram (talk): Perfectly working version, nothing is disrupted, and an RfC gets easier by using this."
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Pigsonthewing (talk) to last version by Fram"
 * 3)  "No sandbox was used in the changing of this template"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Discussion (look of Authority Control) */ +"

Comments:

Warning 1, warning 2  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Recent and longterm disruptive editing re Authority control related topics I think warrant a WP:TBAN.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Two issues, the reverts and the "long-term disruptive editing warranting a topic ban".
 * As can be seen, the "attempt to resolve the dispute" was objecting to the use of a sandbox for this purpose. Therefor, I moved it to a live environment instead; No further attempts to resolve this were made, only reverts by people opposed to this template and this change in general.
 * The long-term disruptive editing (no evidence presented at all for this requested topic ban!) is=
 * The creation of Template:ACArt, which was nominated for deletion but kept
 * The creation of an RfC about a new look for authority control, which was widely supported and closed as supported on 1 April
 * The discussion of the implementation of this RfC, where every attempt was made to incorporate reasonable objections and suggestions of the three most vocal and strident opposers of the RfC
 * The start of an RfC about the implementation of the RfC, which was requested by 2 of the 3 opposers of the original RfC, but when it was opened was described as "Forumshopping" by Tom.Reding (how an RfC at VPP to get wider input on a template being discussed at the template talk page, and following on from an RfC on that same VPP, can be forumshopping, is not clear).
 * Note that this EW was started at 14.22, nearly 30 minutes after I informed Tom.Reding about an ANI discussion about these issues. For someone who cares so much about Forumshopping, it certainly looks poor form to ask for a topic ban here and now without any evidence except the current reverts. Please give them a boomerang trout and refer further discussion to ANI. Fram (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What does an AN/I notification have to do with your WP:3RR violation?  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't help but think you informed relevant parties of the AN/I discussion (1, 2, 3) TWO minutes prior to 3RR'ing. Kinda seems intentional, as if you thought that would absolve you of WP:3RR (of which I had no part, mind you).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This (and the ANI report, and the RFCs and VPP discussions and everything else) is too complicated for me to look at, but I do want to nip one thing in the bud, before any more electrons are spilled. We don't do topic bans here.  Someone will be along, I'm sure, to review the edit warring issue, but any time spent by either side about the topic ban here is time wasted.  If a topic ban discussion is a good use of time - and I have no opinion on that - it should be done at ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fram had a recent 3RR violation last month as well, April 2021, regarding another template that interacts with Wikidata.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While I (or anyone else) shouldn't edit war, you are aware that a 3RR violation is normally when you have 4 (or more) reverts, not when you have 3 reverts? Fram (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you've admitted to WP:Gaming the system. If it looks like an edit war, and walks like an edit war, it's an edit war.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia." Please explain how showing a perfectly working version of a template, which closer resembles the actual community consensus as expressed last month, on 1% of the articles that use this (leaving the other 99% with the old version), during an RfC to decide between the two versions, and where I noted that the new version could be seen through this template (with link), is "editing in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia". Everything in the version you and the other opposers reverted worked just as well as in the version that is there now. Please, if you throw around links, at least make sure that they somewhat resemble what happened. If I had wanted to game the system (assuming that this change ever could be used for that), I would have done it quietly, not during an RfC at the village pump where I linked to these in my opening post. Fram (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No violation as there are only 3 reverts, if you think there's a long-standing issue here that needs to be dealt with by the community, WP:ANI is the location to do so. We don't do topic bans here, even if your signature indicates that you WP:DGAF.  Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Fredbasing & User:148.252.133.24 reported by wolf (Result: Protected)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (as Fredbasing)
 * 2)  (as Fredbasing)
 * 3)  (as 148.252.133.24)
 * 4)  (as 148.252.133.24)
 * 5)  (as 148.252.133.24)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (DE warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: (see comments)

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

Comments:

Edit amounts to removal of a significant amount of content. Was first attempted twice by way of another IP address on April 24. Seven edits in total, the last five linked above occur in the space of less than 2 hours. Reverted by 4 different editors, with repeated encouragement to use the the talk page, which this user couldn't have missed as they've shown they're quite familiar with edit summaries, using them extensively. (Also see the near identical summaries between the IP and registered accounts). User also familiar with EW policy, stopped at 3RR with the IP account, then created the user account and continued with the exact same reverts. This kind of policy-dodge should not be permitted. - wolf  16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Zero attempt at resolving the editing not attempt made in the talk page or information on why edits where being reverse however I have put into the information box why I was removing the unnecessary information from the page FredBasing 18:07 5 may 2021 (bst) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbasing (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't delete part of the report, you can contest them here in the comments, (as you just have), but really, you should be trying to explain why you feel your repeated attempts to remove that content was justified, instead of leaving it be and discussing it as you were encouraged to do. (Not now, back then). - wolf  17:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * when multiple editors are reverting you it is you that needs to start discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User:95.235.96.59 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Repeated poorly explained attempts to insert apparent original research by IP unwilling to engage in discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31h for disruptive editing. Black Kite (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Egeymi reported by User:194.103.189.16 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Egeymi ignores the sources, the references do not match text on the page at all.The text is simply false and based on personal opinions.

(One source links to a Press.pl publication by a journalist from a rival - both economically and ideologically - newspaper. The publication is not about the Do Rzeczy, but about its chief editor. It is not neutral!)

This topic is treated as a private blog. Just check the sources and versions of this topic in other languages.

Egeymi keeps things that way by undoing all corrections.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.189.16 (talk • contribs)

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

Comments:


 * I just keep the original text. IP user should provide other sources showing the statements that s/he does not like are incorrect instead of deleting these. Egeymi (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 194.103.189.16 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Answers:  - Please check existing references:
 * 1) 2 Is about is about the career of a chief editor - Lisicki. Name of the newspaper is Do Rzeczy - it means To the point. The publication′s title is Od Rzeczy - it means opposite. Publication is not neutral.
 * 2) 6 VoxEurop says Do Rzeczy is Conservative and liberal
 * 3) Currently deleted link to Eurotopics wich says Do Rzeczy is Conservative.

On the English Do_Rzeczy page in Wikipedia is It is clearly sombody′s personal opinions. We cannot use a single publication by a single opposition columnist and ignore the numerous other sources that say otherwise. On Polish and Russian is conservative-liberal, socio-political. My point is that the existing references do not support the text on the Wikipedia page.
 * 1) ultra-conservative,[2]
 * 2) Catholic fundamentalist[2] and
 * 3) right-wing populist,
 * 4) Right-wing populist to far-right[1][2].

194.103.189.16 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Kolya77, User:Redrose64, User:Parquito98 reported by User:EnLarissais (Result: No action)
Τhese users have reverted my edits at the following articles:
 * 2020-21 Moldovan Cup
 * Kent and East Sussex Railway
 * 2020-21 Slovak Cup--EnLarissais (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * hello, and welcome to Wikipedia - I see see you joined us this week. I've looked at the three articles you mention,
 * For the Kent and East Sussex Railway, your good-faith edit was reverted because our convention is for such boxes always to reside outside of the accompanying infobox. Among the reasons for this is that when a bordered table is placed inside another bordered table, this can cause issues with screen readers - see MOS:ACCESS.
 * In Slovak Cup, you placed the incorrect template in the info-box, which resulted in the country saying "Slovenia" instead of "Slovakia": . should have explained in the edit summary why this revert was made, however.
 * As for 2020–21 Moldovan Cup, I'm not clear why reverted you, and again they did so without an edit summary so I agree that that was a poor revert - Kolya77 then went on to add the final match back in anyway.

Much easier to revert amd end of story.Kolya77 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can explain why his edit was reverted. To many mistakes in one line. The match report was from completely differentmatch and few more issues. Why do i have to correct and look for someone mistakes ?

However, the important thing to say about this is that reverting someone once is quite a common occurrence in Wikipedia. That does not constitute edit warring. Even reverting twice, as did, is often OK if there's a good reason for it which is explained in the edit summary. The bright-line rule, and the only time we generally take action on this noticeboard, is if someone reverts for a *fourth* time, as explained at WP:3RR. Most disputes are handled by dialogue between the parties concerned, either on an article talk page or on the user talk page of yourself or that other editor, without any need to come to this noticeboard.

I'm therefore closing this report as "No action", and advising you to please seek dialogue with your fellow editors next time you are reverted, as in most cases that is sufficient to resolve disputes. If you have any questions, or need any help, please don't hesitate to come to my page at User talk:Amakuru and I'll be happy to help. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Result: No action. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Belevalo reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at: Talk:Special Air Service Regiment, which Belevalo commented in before their most recent revert and has since commented in without reverting themselves

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

Comments:

This is a report of prolonged edit warring despite the editor being aware there was a talk page discussion, rather than a 3RR violation. As shown by User talk:Belevalo, they have been warned multiple times for disruptive editing over recent weeks in related articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They have literally reverted twice following the 3RR warning. Four in 24, not good. ——  Serial  13:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an isolated incident. This user's history shows multiple disputes, with multiple editors on multiple pages, including slow edits wars, personal attacks and refusal to engage. (fyi) - wolf  15:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oooh. Even less good. Depending on what happens here, AN/I incoming. ——  Serial  16:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The 4 reverts span 40 hours so there is no 3RR violation; I would defer to the above-mentioned ANI. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What did Nick-D say, ? ——  Serial  16:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no ANI report. I'd be grateful if an admin could action this report. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Belevalo is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the article unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Newtlamender reported by User:TriiipleThreat (Result: Warned)
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:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

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

Comments:

User has continued to edit war despite warnings from multiple users.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Just noting that user wanted to resolve the issue here. Since I am neutral I would recommend an actual consensus this time. Since his last discussion didn’t have results. Jhenderson 7 7 7  19:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that this attempt was made after repeated warnings and posting on this noticeboard.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In my defense, until TriiipleThreat revealed to me the other means that could be used to end the discussion, I didn't know about them. When I did, I looked into ending this discussion trough these means, and stop reverting the edits. — Newtlamender (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I didn’t mean to bite because you might be new. Hopefully you editors come as a compromise or something.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * then how do you explain the reverts you made after your were warned against further edit warring? Or your response to the warning? And this isn't about "ending a discussion" (which btw is still ongoing), it's about the reverts you continually chose to make, despite multiple warnings from multiple editors, both on talk pages and in edit summaries. - wolf  03:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Newtlamender is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

User:24.47.214.156 reported by User:Mikehawk10 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is not relevant to any topic…"
 * 2)  "This is not relevant at all (how is this a current event)? Stop removing my rightful edits"
 * 3)  "This is not relevant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP is repeatedly removing information from a project page in a manner that appears to have violated the 3-revert-rule. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - The IP user is still at it. Love of Corey (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Generalsagar reported by User:Srijanx22 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:30, 2 May 2021 diff hist  +1,106‎  COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ →‎2021 - The edit he made over which he is edit warring.
 * 2) 07:11, 2 May 2021 diff hist  +1,106‎  COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ Undid revision 1020982987 by ViperSnake151 (talk)
 * 3) 11:27, 4 May 2021 diff hist  +1,107‎  COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ →‎2021
 * 4) 05:01, 6 May 2021 diff hist  −204‎  COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ →‎2021
 * 5) 02:14, 7 May 2021 diff hist  −207‎  COVID-19 pandemic in India ‎ Undid revision 1021853684 by Yoonadue (talk)
 * 6) 04:58, 7 May 2021‎ Generalsagar talk contribs‎ 178,953 bytes −208‎  →‎2021: Butt-hurt Modi bhakts are removing the facts
 * 7) curprev 08:01, 7 May 2021‎ Generalsagar talk contribs‎ 178,953 bytes −208‎  →‎2021: Readers need to know the facts and it appears that Modi's PR machinery is deleting it.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Making edits against the consensus held on talk page.

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

Comments: User has less than 300 edits in 10 years. With talk page full of warning, unresponsive attitude and offensive edit summaries this user is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Generalsagar is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the article unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MTR700 reported by User:McSly (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Demagogy"
 * 2)  "I provided data from the Russian technical literature. What was previously in the article is the speculation of American authors who are unfamiliar with the technical literature about the MiG-25. My information is reliable, and I don't have to discuss or prove anything else."
 * 3)  "The data confirmed by the source was restored. The link to the video containing a scan of the speed and altitude diagram has been restored. Added a link to the book "MiG-25RB Aerodynamics", page 85 for verification."
 * 4)  "If the video contains scans of documents, this video is the source"
 * 5)  "returned substantiated, sourced claims"
 * 1)  "If the video contains scans of documents, this video is the source"
 * 2)  "returned substantiated, sourced claims"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25‎ */ new section"

Comments:

Use made no attempt as discussion on their own talk page or the article's McSly (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   18:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

User:PostcolonialLitNerd reported by User:Pikavoom (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (specifically ""Depending on your point of view, Priyamvada Gopal is either a warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex." quote and framing of controversies as "media attention")

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20 April
 * 2) 21 April
 * 3) 22 April
 * 4) 22 April
 * 5) 23 April
 * 6) 25 April
 * 7) 29 April
 * 8) 30 April
 * 9) 3 May
 * 10) 5 May
 * 11) 5 May
 * 12) 6 May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: This is slow edit warring against multiple users, PostcolonialLitNerd is the only one reverting this version in and is reverted by myself, User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Xxanthippe, User:Atchom, and User:15. PostcolonialLitNerd might not have reached 4 reverts in 24 hours, but they've got up to 3 reverts a couple of times and has reached something like twelve reverts total on this content.

Furthermore, PostcolonialLitNerd is a WP:SPA that only edits this article, see: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and the user's talk page where multiple users have raised concerns about their involvement.

In addition, PostcolonialLitNerd has been combative against other users and BLP journalists on talk and has engaged in blatant canvassing on the talk page with selective pings (,  "I will continue to revert edits that are malign and foolish",, "was mindlessly restored by 15"). The user has persisted in canvassing despite warnings Pikavoom (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I too am concerned about the behavior here. User:PostcolonialLitNerd has made around 100 edits in their Wikipedia career. Everyone of them has been about Priyamvada_Gopal and many of them have been reverts of consensus views. There is not a single edit outside this subject. I conclude that User:PostcolonialLitNerd is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia but to fight one side of a particular political battle. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC).


 * Comment. I agree with what everyone has said above and shall not rehash the contents at undue length. PostcolonialLitNerd is a belligerent SPA who has engaged in blatant canvassing (despite being warned several times by several users), and who appears to be set on waging a war of attrition against all of the other editors involved (who are by no means in agreement about many issues) until they get their way. This is not simply a case of an over-enthusiastic editor feeling possessive about the page as per WP:OWN, but a case of blatant bad faith editing. Atchom (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Endorse block; continued edit-warring after numerous warnings, WP:BATTLEGROUND. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I want to take this opportunity to point out that Pikavoom, Xxanthippe, Ohnoitsjamie and Atchom have made no attempt to understand the legitimate objection I have to their edits. Moreover, it's instructive to note that the complainants have repeatedly reintroduced a slur and personal attack against Gopal into the article without consensus and in the face of opposition by other editors. The offending material reads: "warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex" & "the Torquemada of the New Woke Inquisition". These remarks are not presented 'responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone'. It's abusive and in contravention of WP:BLPBALANCE policy. Pikavoom, Xxanthippe, Ohnoitsjamie and Atchom have continued to revert to these comments. That was and continues to be my primary objection. Anyone who sets out to introduce material that unreasonably and abusively paints the subject in a less than favourable light is not fit to edit articles on Wikipedia. There are other minor content disputes covered on the talk page. I strongly encourage Administrators to read my edit summaries and comments on the talk page. I have carefully explained my changes and attempted to uphold Wikipedia's content policies. It is appropriate to revert changes that have not achieved consensus or contravene Wikipedia's policies and standards. Other editors have been supportive and thanked me for my edits. PostcolonialLitNerd (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am right and the four other users are wrong. The editor doubles down on their bad behavior and shows no insight into why their editing conduct has been found to be objectional enough to be taken to two notice boards. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC).
 * – 72 hours for long term edit warring. Since 20 April there are thirteen edits by User:PostcolonialLitNerd which have the 'reverted' tag in the edit history. This is evidence that their changes don't have consensus. Their statement  sounds like a promise to continue edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MalakiTT reported by User:Pieceofmetalwork (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user was also warned on their own talk page:

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

Comments:

The user repeatedly added the same WP:Synth material despite several different editors warning them not to, and reverting their edits. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: As of just now the editor in question is continuing to engage in warring over this subject, although they have moved past using the undo button and been doing it manually. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time MalakiTT has edit warred and they are continuing to do so . Also they refuse to engage on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long term edit warring. MalakiTT has reverted the article nine times since 6 May. Several different editors were on the other side of these reverts, suggesting that MalakiTT does not have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Anjo james reported by User:Jstore Master (Result: Page protected)
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: Unsourced words being newly inserted are *right-wing*, *insensitive*, *misogynistic*, *uncivilized*, *communal* etc.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Warnings were issued to this user on their Talk page by two users including me. All he did was to use abusive and obscene vernacular in his reply and a threat that the edits will continue. The article Talk page is now updated with details.
 * 1)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; Done.
 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments:

Person was warned multiple times by multiple users on their Talk page. But the person replied in abusive and vulgar language with a threat they would repeat the edits. Jstore Master (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please fix the report to include diffs rather than Oldids. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Jstore Master (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Stifle, the person has restarted vandalism after a 24-hour block. Please attend to this. Diff below. Jstore Master (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Diff


 * 


 * There are a number of editors involved in this, so the page is now protected for a week. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Cowardly Line reported by User:SomeBodyAnyBody05 (Result: both blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid edit warring"
 * 2)  "The idea that the best way to show the subject is repetitive photos of him staring at the camera is ridiculous. Profile portraits are a thing."
 * 3)  "Yet another photo of WM in a tie staring at the camera is redundant, not relevant."
 * 4)  "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images says  "Strive for variety.""
 * 5)  "This photo is better and adds variety, not yet another of him in a tie staring at the camera."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Walter Mondale."
 * 2)   "/* May 2021 */"
 * 3)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Walter Mondale."

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

Comments:

This user has engaged in an ongoing edit war with me over a image change at Walter Mondale. They have passed the WP:3RR on his page in one day and I attempted to contact this user and resolve the matter on their talk page to no response. I also started a discussion on Mondale's talk page with no response as well. This user needs at least a warning for his behavior. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with this block. But {[ping|Muboshgu}}, I'm curious why User:SomeBodyAnyBody05 wasn't blocked too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Gah. repinging --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , they made attempts to open conversation. I gave them one last warning to not revert the last edit made and they've agreed to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , hmm they reverted it before responding to me. Not sure if my request for them to step away was read or not before that. If you want to block them, I would not object. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've looked at this again, I cannot in good conscience allow SBAB's - to be frank - gamesmanship of 3RR to go rewarded. I suspect you know what I mean, but I can go into detail if you want. The block of CL was solid.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I attempted to resolve the conflict multiple times with the editor. He flat out ignored multiple messages from me on his talk page and the article's talk page.
 * P.S. I apologize for being disruptive on that article. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this a little further, but from how it looks now, I think I'll likely block SomeBodyAnyBody05 for 36 hours as well. A lot of really disappointing behavior on their part, and we are holding Cowardly Line to a higher standard. I don't think unblocking CL is the answer, I think blocking SBAB is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * SBAB blocked for 36 hours. - Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * SBAB blocked for 36 hours. - Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:BridgeBath reported by User:Ralbegen (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022420556 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022420365 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1022420158 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1022407348 by Ralbegen (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1022342049 by Rwendland (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022342049 by Rwendland (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022342049 by Rwendland (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Request for discussion with User:BridgeBath re deletion of well sourced basic bio info */ new section"

Comments:

User repeatedly removes material without engaging in discussion or even using edit summaries. Ralbegen (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User:BridgeBath is only the most recent of a series of essentially single-article editors that generally make edits removing info from the article (sometimes reasonably) or making positive looking additions, almost always without without useful edit summary and sometimes refusing to enter into discussion offered by more established multi-article editors. The previous one User:Edgekirov was reported for edit warring on 16 November 2020, but the report was archived before any admin had time to take any action (archived here). It seems quite likely more single-article editors will appear in the future for this article. The list of such essentially single-article editors is:


 * 1) User:Dan Norris MP (15 contribs 2007-9 May 2008)
 * 2) User:Accuracy Corrections (1 contrib 10 May 2008)
 * 3) User:Malky1935 (4 contribs 2010)
 * 4) User:Potent1000 (17 contribs 2011-2015)
 * 5) User:Edgekirov (25 contribs September 2020-13 March 2021)
 * 6) User:BridgeBath (27 contribs 15 March 2021-present)
 * Rwendland (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – Indef per WP:NOTHERE by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ArkaRana reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "ArkaRana moved page Ratna De to Dr. Ratna De (Nag) over redirect"
 * 2)  "ArkaRana moved page Ratna De to Dr. Ratna De (Nag)"
 * 1)  "ArkaRana moved page Ratna De to Dr. Ratna De (Nag) over redirect"
 * 2)  "ArkaRana moved page Ratna De to Dr. Ratna De (Nag)"
 * 1)  "ArkaRana moved page Ratna De to Dr. Ratna De (Nag) over redirect"
 * 2)  "ArkaRana moved page Ratna De to Dr. Ratna De (Nag)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Proposed deletion of Dr. Sudipto Roy */ moved"
 * 2)   "/* Page renaming */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Proposed deletion of Dr. Sudipto Roy */"

Comments:

User is engaged in page moves that do not follow WP:PRECISE. I have made a comment on their talk page and instead of replying, they are edit warring. They have moved the page again. They were also warned by other user, and have not replied to any of the talk page comments. This page move is also being done by them here. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 21:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 month by User:Jimfbleak for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 reported by User:Justice1980 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version before User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 reverting: [| old version]

reverted User:Aceuswa to User:SounderBruce [|diff1]

reverted User:Justice1980 to User:SounderBruce [|diff2]

reverted User:Justice1980 to User:SounderBruce by User:Firestar464 [|diff3]

User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 demonstrated the same pattern on Joe Nguyen page. User:SounderBruce conducted reverting twice, then User:Firestar464 came and did the 3rd reverting.

Attempted to talk with User:SounderBruce at [|Message to SounderBruce] and [|another message to SounderBruce]. Suggested User:SounderBruce to edit instead of completely reverting.

Also let a message for User:Firestar464 at [|Message to Firestar464]

Comments:

User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 apparently are either the same person or closely related and conspire to work together in edit war. Proof: User:Firestar464 removed the message User:Justice1980 left for User:SounderBruce [|msg for SounderBruce]

If they are not the same person or related, why did User:Firestar464 even bother to edit the message meant for User:SounderBruce ?

The contents that User:Justice1980 added were helpful contributions to the Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States page with history to back up. Why would User:Firestar464 blindly remove those entries without any prior engagement on that page? — Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The accusation that Firestar is == Bruce has also been made at SPI; I've rejected the case. Sockpuppet investigations/Aceuswa may be of interest here, though. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 16:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The accusation that Justice1980 == Aceuswa is false. Justice1980 is an independent account with no affiliation with Aceuswa. User:Blablubbs has no evidence to back up his claim. Also, User:Blablubbs failed to explain why User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 conveniently coordinate to revert others edits not once, but twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice1980 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The so-called "coordination" was simply the result of bringing up the problematic edits on WP:DISCORD while seeking advice. As for the content, there's been some heavy brigading on Joe Ngyuen and Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States related to a state bill that failed to pass in this year's session. A trio of editors have been trying to place an undue weight on this bill for both pages using unreliable sources like LinkedIn, an opinion page in a local newspaper, and non-specific links to legislator homepages. It would be fine if it was a sentence or two that went over the controversy, but 6 paragraphs on the bill is excessive. I've simply been reverting to keep the former in line with BLP standards (as trying to suggest racist intent is slander) and the latter from getting out of control.  Sounder Bruce  19:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Justice1980's edits on Joe Nguyen page were simply adding his wife's maiden name and a link to her Linkedin profile. Which Wikipedia rule justifies User:SounderBruce's removal of those entries? And User:Justice1980 made many edits on Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States page. If User:Firestar464 was simply providing advices, and was acting independently, why did he remove User:Justice1980's multiple edits and revert everything back to User:SounderBruce's version? Among those edits, User:Justice1980 actually pointed to an existing Wikipedia page. And no one should ignore the pattern that  User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464 established: User:SounderBruce reverted the 1st and 2nd time, then User:Firestar464 jumped in and reverted the 3rd time. Also worths pointing out is that User:Justice1980 tried to work with User:SounderBruce by leaving a message and suggesting him to edit, not completely remove other's contents. If  User:SounderBruce truly thought 6 paragraphs were too much, he could edit, instead of completely removing the entry.Justice1980 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From WP:BLPSOURCES: "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."
 * From WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources."
 * From WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: [...] 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources"
 * From WP:3RRNO: "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: [...] Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy."
 * And for good measure, LinkedIn is listed at WP:RSP as an unreliable self-published source and "LinkedIn should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons."
 * Needless to say, there's a lot of policies you didn't bother reading.  Sounder Bruce  21:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Justice1980 did not quote anything from Linkedin, rather, just added a link to Linkedin. This is different from quoting Linkedin. And let's focus on the complaint here: the irregular pattern established by User:SounderBruce and User:Firestar464: User:SounderBruce reverted the 1st and 2nd time, then User:Firestar464 jumped in and reverted the 3rd time. User:Justice1980 provided reasons for every edit entry. User:SounderBruce could edit to help improve the content, yet chose revert the content entirely. And when he was at the 2nd reverting, he enlisted help from User:Firestar464 to carry out the 3rd reverting. They have done this not once, but twice.


 * , you edited, one editor reverted you. You reverted back (meaning you ignored WP:BRD) and another reverted you, then you came here.  Since you are the one wanting to add information, the onus is on you to build discuss and build a consensus on the talk page.  Really, the only worrisome editor is you.  You simply do not understand policy, in so many ways, I just don't have time to cover them.  But yes, you are the problem here.  If you get reverted, you need to go to the talk page and discuss with others, instead of reverting back.  If you can't get a majority of people to agree with you, well, then the text isn't going to be added, no matter how wonderful or useful you believe it is.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's get the records straight here: User:SounderBruce reverted some else' edits first, User:Justice1980 reverted it back after User:SounderBruce's first attempt to revert and left comments. User:SounderBruce then ignored WP:BRD and reverted the second time. Per User:Dennis Brown's comment, User:SounderBruce should seek consensus, rather than bluntly revert the 2nd time. User:SounderBruce did not seek consensus, and knowingly ignored WP:BRD.  — Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:Justice1980, has been blocked indef per NOTHERE by User:Muboshgu. There is a related SPI involving Justice1980 at Sockpuppet investigations/Aceuswa. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SteveBenassi reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect. See   ...   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022258100 by NonReproBlue (talk)Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1022240960 by NonReproBlue (talk) Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect"
 * 4)  "/* Research */ Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He reverting to this edit on 7 of May Shrike (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Benassi broke the rule and a sanction is probable. But the case is a palmary one of biting the newbie, and the persistent reverter who helped provoke this is probably not new to Wikipedia, despite registering recently. No one should have been reverting there until the discussion on the talk page, and at RSN, ran its course.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Question Why not blocking Benassi temporarily for edit warring because looks like many user are conduct edit war against Benassi? 110.137.161.129 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi was warned about edit warring at Eran Elhaik and elsewhere several times but ignored those warnings, as well as the edit summaries by both myself and others, instead continuing to revert and to leave repetitive summaries that did not engage with objections. He has also continually refused to discuss in Talk. He appears to be continuing to edit war on other pages, just recently at Genetic studies on Jews ([]), where he has added similar disputed material to what he continues to add to Eran Elhaik. He is persistently reinstating and adding disputed material while refusing to discuss or engage with other editors. Skllagyook (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – 36 hours for edit warring by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Pizzafan300 reported by User:Zachary Daiquiri (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You treat it like it's your article it's not, you troll users by undoing their information and start edit wars with them, That is enough to report you."
 * 2)  "I gave gave the source! so why are you undoing this info?!!?"
 * 3)  "Both of you, knock it off.."
 * 4)  "I can do this ALL day, Mr. undo user"
 * 5)  "https://www.amazon.com/SpongeBob-Movie-Sponge-Run-UHD/dp/B08SHPT4FS/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=The+SpongeBob+Movie%3A+Sponge+on+the+Run&qid=1620533948&s=instant-video&sr=1-2"
 * 6)  "OH MY GOD. STOP REMOVING LEGIT INFORMATION ALSO QUIT THRENEDING TO BLOCK ME FOR ADDING INFO THAT'S TRUE AND YOU THINK IS NOT, I AM SO TIRED OF PEOPLE TRYING TO BAN ME FROM THIS SITE."
 * 7)  "The movie not available on Apple tv, Vudu, or any other streaming platforms anymore in united states. it's exclusive to Paramount+."
 * 8)  "Stop acting like a baby and quit vandalizing this page."
 * 9)  "Hey! I given source, so don't start any edit wars."
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1022201866 by Magitroopa (talk)"
 * 1)  "Hey! I given source, so don't start any edit wars."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022201866 by Magitroopa (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022201866 by Magitroopa (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Also, judging by his attacks toward User:Magitroopa, I beleive that he might be a sock of User:Zjholder.  Zachary Daiquiri  Talk? 16:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, honestly would think this is a bit of a stretch to think this is a possible sockpuppet- I honestly don't think it is, but obviously could be entirely possible. I wouldn't tie it to that, though.
 * Anyways... also going to point out that some of the reverts such as this was due to the fact they were removing previous information (that was sourced as well!) and also failing to follow WP:CITEVAR. As I was attempting to fix/update it, they reverted 1-2 more times, before I was finally able to get it fixed here without having the information/source removed that they continued to persistently remove. Magitroopa (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: Pizzafan300 was blocked for personal attacks by before this report was filed. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole reported by User:HAL333 (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: (which they quickly removed)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sagan standard

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

Comments: The user repeatedly removed a hatnote, despite ambiguous policy and a failure to gain consensus. ~ HAL  333  16:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The first diff was an edit, which this editor even acknowledged here . It was also over thirty hours from the first edit to the last revert. The editor continued to insert WP:SELFREF's back in to the page, despite being warned that doing so was disruptive, and acknowledging that they read the guideline but still refused to use a method to make the selfref less damaging (such as using selfref or adding the  parameter to a template invocation where said template supported the parameter). As WP:SELFREF is a guideline there is a community consensus that . The self reference in discussion does not meet any of the potential exceptions provided for. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Selfref does not apply to hatnotes. ~ HAL  333  16:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – But editors ought to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution before either of them reverts again. User:Locke Cole should be aware that attempting to follow a guideline doesn't grant you immunity from 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I had no intention of reverting again, and the only reason I mentioned the guideline was the reporting editor claiming a lack of consensus in their first comment. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 17:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ZinaidaVolkova reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022499978 by Praxidicae (talk) The connection is literally proven. I told you the source. Just go to the Adonis page, read his origin story that is a clear parallel to Odin's Yggdrasil story, and then check the etymology."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022499659 by 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) Apparently you all don't know how to read (or probably you're just racists troll guarding this page)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1022498321 by Viewmont Viking (talk) It's not unsourced. Literally just read the story of Adonis, which predates recorded Norse mythology by a thousand years, then check its etymology. The connection to the African "Adon" is not only probable, but outright proven if you cross-reference any of the pages. If you continue to engage in this black erasure, I'll take this higher up."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1022411659 by Alcaios (talk) some angry nazi reverted my inclusion of the African roots of the name"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * I blocked the editor for personal attacks in edit summaries. --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:100.12.28.237 reported by User:Meters (Result:partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022263389 by Ita140188 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022216408 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1019585717 by Ita140188 (talk)"

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

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

Comments:

This IP has made the same unsourced WP:POV edit 13 times in less than one year. Diffs for the 10 earlier edits not listed above:
 * 1)  02:24, April 24, 2021‎ "Undid revision 1019562468 by Ita140188 "
 * 2) 17:20, April 23, 2021‎ "Undid revision 1019398350 by ClueBot NG "
 * 3)  03:10, April 23, 2021‎ "Undid revision 1018632826 by Ita140188 "
 * 4) 04:00, March 4, 2021‎
 * 5)  07:56, November 24, 2020‎ "No it itsn't"
 * 6)  00:22, November 9, 2020‎
 * 7) 18:10, July 9, 2020‎ "Undid revision 966757295 by Ita140188 "
 * 8) 21:07, July 8, 2020‎ "Undid revision 964683295 by Wtshymanski "
 * 9) 17:42, June 26, 2020‎ "I'm sorry but it's true."
 * 10) 10:53, June 17, 2020‎

IP was previously warned for edit warring in November: by user:Opencooper.

IP is aware of the current edit warring issue since IP posted to my talk page accusing me of edit warring User_talk:Meters/unprotected when I have never edited this article, let alone reverted this edit. I simply warned the IP for edit warring and opened a thread about the edit on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've partial-blocked the IP from Bruce Nuclear Generating Station for a month with a note that I will unblock them earlier if they are able to get consensus for the edit.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User:98.116.80.134 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022319505 by Beyond My Ken (talk) Returning balance to the page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022172579 by Sangdeboeuf (talk) You have already been told that this source does do book reviews, and it being WP:FRINGE is your opinion. I view the New York Times as a left-wing think tank, perhaps it is WP:UNDUE"
 * 3) Special:Diff/1022097778
 * 4) Special:Diff/1022014251

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) User_talk:98.116.80.134
 * 2) Special:Diff/1022319947
 * 3) Special:Diff/1022172762

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

Comments:

Slow-burn edit war with no sign of stopping. Discussion took place on the talk page but it appears the IP has abandoned discussion and taken to repeatedly reinstating the same contested change without consensus. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Appears to be the same person as 74.101.92.198 (who edit warred at Special:Diff/1020691953, Special:Diff/1020365836, Special:Diff/1020361193). — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

User:obi2canibe reported by User:Jayingeneva (Result: )
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1022318321
 * 2) 1010845835
 * 3) 1010865972

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 2

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

Comments:

I'm trying to improve citations in some Articles plagued with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Any advice would be appreciated. The user has resumed WP:EW. In two separate Articles, an IP Address had introduced information without sources/citations. When I reviewed the existing sources/citations, I found they contradicted what had been written by the IP Address. When I corrected what was written by the IP Address, the user immediately reverted my edit. I was hoping the user would stop WP:EW after the WP:DRN. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The user did not provide sources/citations to support WP:RV. Instead the Revert removed sources/citations. --Jayingeneva (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Goldielabrador reported by User:FDW777 (Result: CU-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:

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

Comments:

The Peter McBride part of the article is under a 1RR restriction per Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Editor was specifically informed their first edit was a revert yet chose to make a second. That they regard the factual inclusion of a murder conviction as a "tit-for-tit partisan diatribe" says plenty about this editor's motivations. Likely sockpuppet used for topic ban evasion also, see Sockpuppet investigations/TopGun1066‎. FDW777 (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC) This is completely unacceptable, biased intimidation by FDW777. This may be my first edit but I am not a sockpuppet. McBride is covered extensively at History of the Scots Guards (1946–present).Goldielabrador (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to add that the change they are reverting to was called pretty much inexplicable by at at WP:AE. FDW777 (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Reaver55 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022693447 by MartinezMD (talk) - Please Refer to the TALK page before editing.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Competence is required */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I must add that the user is gaming the system with this edit summary: "Any further edits reverts will result in a warning for Edit waring and potential loss of editing privileges" (i.e., you are edit-warring, not me). Other edits to consider include this edit summary and this personal attack. Also, NFAC has discretionary sanctions related to post-1932 politics of the United States. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 02:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , as much for personal attacks and disruptive editing on this noticeboard as for edit-warring.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Srodgers1701 reported by User:AleatoryPonderings (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/1021815132

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1022790096
 * 2) Special:Diff/1022792122
 * 3) Special:Diff/1022793815
 * 4) Special:Diff/1022809495
 * 5) Special:Diff/1022813401

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1022810074 (my warning); Special:Diff/1022812966 ('s warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1022794799; Special:Diff/1022806889 (WP:BLPN), Special:PermaLink/1022814209

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; Special:Diff/1022814729

Comments:

If someone wouldn't mind revdelling the lovely Special:Diff/1022814578, Special:Diff/1022810782, and Special:Diff/1022815614 as well, that would be appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * by . While the edit summaries are by no means polite, they don't rise to the level of warranting revdel. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MazRx reported by User:Ng.j (Result: Partial block, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user’s talk page:

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

Comments:

MazRX was previously warned about promotional content that was not cited. I have tried to explain on their talk page that their edits violate WP policy, with links to several policies and urging them to familiarize themselves before editing again. MazRX has also repeatedly deleted content critical of Dogecoin, along with relevant references by several other editors. Complaints on the Dogecoin talk page center around promotional content and lack of criticism, which has previously been deleted as well. The page itself is semi protected due to the financial conflict of interest of many editors. Ng.j (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * From an edit warring standpoint, though, I only see one revert. —C.Fred (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There’s a lot more in the Dogecoin page history. For example, the reverts to include the “instant, fun, and free” phrase without a proper citation. And also removal of content and references that explain how Dogecoin started as a joke, like this one in Mar h. This is a major part of Dogecoin’s history and is mentioned in almost every Dogecoin article. Yet it is removed by this user at every opportunity. Ng.j (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * from the Dogecoin article only. They've restored the moon mission twice today, so that's a 1RR violation. I've partial-blocked them to encourage them to engage in discussion on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

User:BHB95 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022804139 by Eggishorn (talk) I think the source the information is referred to is reliable."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022774035 by Alexbrn (talk) Please check the source I've added before reverting!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1022768577 by Alexbrn (talk) I have now founded a reliable source"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1022766487 by Alexbrn (talk) let the information be left until a reliable source is provided"

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

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

Comments:
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:37.238.22.13 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Partial block, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022834951 by Laplorfill (talk) It does not even exist in iraq, why iraq was written here, there are many sources prove that camel urine is common in iran"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022833589 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) added more sources"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1022832529 by Laplorfill (talk) what is wrong with you?? the is source is work."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1022832020 by Laplorfill (talk) what is wrong I added Source???"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) At the article talk page
 * 2) At user's talk page

Comments: These edits have all been to insert one high-profile case of possible camel urine consumption in Iran into the first sentence of the article. I have no opinion on the reliability of the sources, but they do not support the sentence this editor is creating, which states that Iran has a centuries long history of cultural use of camel urine as medicine. Also, these edits are removing Iraq from the sentence, seemingly part of a pattern of unexplained removal of info about Iraq. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * from the page Camel urine only. IP is welcome—and encouraged—to participate in article talk. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the IP user is clearly block evading: Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:123.243.124.76 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Shut the fuck up Hong Kong prick"
 * 2)  "/* Language */"
 * 1)  "/* Language */"
 * 1)  "/* Language */"
 * 1)  "/* Language */"
 * 1)  "/* Language */"
 * 1)  "/* Language */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Culture of Vietnam."
 * 3)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Culture of Vietnam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeatedly adding unreferenced content with of Shut the fuck up Hong Kong prick. It's also 3RR since the first edit partially reverted. — MarkH21talk 12:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now they’re . — MarkH21talk 12:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Burningfire22 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Partial block, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Repeating myself again, All relevant reference are provided for my change. Talk please. Undid revision 1022969468 by Praxidicae (talk)"
 * 2)  "I have referenced all the relevant articles that back my change, please talk to me before you undo. Undid revision 1022968112 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1022967665 by Slatersteven (talk)"
 * 4)  "Aded Details about tahir hussain and his role in delhi riots"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1022964647 by Slatersteven (talk)"
 * 6)  "Details about Umar Khalid add and how he provoked Anti-CAA protestors to come on road and cause a choas."
 * 7)  "Fixed formatting issue"
 * 8)  "Removed irrelevant section and added reference links"
 * 1)  "Removed irrelevant section and added reference links"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020 Delhi riots."
 * 2)   "/* May 2021 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been informed by myself and others about edit warring and has chosen to ignore the 1RR restriction on this article. YODADICAE👽 15:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I was in the process of writing this myself, and saw this while looking for the edit war warning. Looks like an SPA and POV warrior adding BLP iffy content rejected multiple times at the talk page over the last year (so in fact their first edit restored rejected content). No effort to make a case at talk (whilst demanding others do). I also note that DS are in place (they have been told).Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * from 2020 Delhi riots. In the best case, the user will discuss the matter at the talk page and work toward consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Erennica reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: User given guidance, no sanctions necessary)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Withdrawn edit request."
 * 2)  "/* Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021 */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1022971452 by Praxidicae (talk) It's my comment and i changed my idea."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1022970822 by Buidhe (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 1022789716 by Erennica (talk) you may not edit others comments"
 * 2)   "Reverted 1 edit by Erennica (talk): You cannot refactor comments"
 * 3)   "Reverted 1 edit by Erennica (talk): You are not permitted to change the comment after someone has responded."

Comments:

user continues to edit war responded to comments and discussion between editors from the talk page YODADICAE👽  15:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User doesn't appear to have been taught about use of a talk page. I'm working with this user on that matter. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am closing this thread for two reasons. First, I have left messages for the reported user about expected behaviour at talk pages. Second, I do not feel that removing the thread will distort the history of the talk page, and—more importantly—I have the consent of the other editor to remove it. So, the thread is removed, and the immediate trigger of the edit war is addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Twozerooz reported by User:Erzan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * 1)  Here is a link to the admin noticeboard, you can see this same user has engaged in an edit war over the same introduction and sentence. It was agreed by the admins in the previous noticeboard that the user and I will use the talk page to reach a consesus. Since then the user has been undoing the introduction and changing it after this agreement several times. Despite my attempts to carry on in the talk page explaining how the sources, which were not disputed before, do back up the edit and so on. The user then edits the introduction several times, 3 times today alone. These edits were also made by this user while a dispute resolution was opened up by me today here . Sorry if I have not got everything right in terms of layout and diff.
 * , your canvassing of other editors to join the dispute and blatantly game WP:3RR as you did here is completely unacceptable. Another admin will review the merits of this report, but any further such behavior will very likely result in a block separate from the edit warring issue. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Ponyo I have just read that talk page between the user being reported and the other user here. How is this allowed? This is further evidence that the talk page and edits are pushing a POV, the user is not interested in the sources and undoing edits to 'win'. Am I able to open up another report on this or do I have to wait until this report is resolved? thank you. Erzan (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A report at WP:ANI would be appropriate. — Czello 19:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest not taking this up elsewhere. This is the edit warring noticeboard and the inappropriate edits are directly related to edit warring. I imagine that the admin reviewing this entry will take all aspects into consideration. Bringing it to AN/I while this report is open and the behaviour already raised may be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, that edit is very telling, and beyond the pale. As far as I'm concerned this is not only WP:GAMING but even outright WP:NOTHERE territory. Supporting an indef of Twozerooz immediately. — Czello 19:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours to User:Twozerooz for continued edit warring on the lead and explicit canvassing of another editor: Twozerooz, this behavior is a quick way to get yourself into a lot of trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Czello and @Ponyo am I allowed to revert the changes to the previous version? which is mentioned on this report? Not 100% sure on the rules so just checking first. Thanks. Erzan (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind it has been reverted, thank you all. Erzan (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Luckstar23 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022901321 by Ravensfire (talk) I apologize for the unexplained removal a few mins ago. I removed some parts to this page due to poor grammar and unnecessary details, and the photo since it's too bright. I hope you understand why I made this change."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022866350 by Sam.Johnanderson (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1022866350 by Sam.Johnanderson (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Also see their history on Devoleena Bhattacharjee with 4 reverts in a 5ish hours with an IP. Just looking through their recent history, the revert button is very quickly hit, rarely with any comment.  Ravensfire  (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Continued reverting on Saath Nibjaana Saathiya 2 page -  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants reported by User:The owner of all (Result: OP warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Lede section issues */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Lede section issues */ reply"
 * 3)   "/* Lede section issues */ reply"
 * 4)   "/* Lede section issues */ clarify"
 * 5)   "/* Lede section issues */ reply"

Comments:

Revert links are https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snopes&diff=1023025046&oldid=1023024265 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snopes&diff=1023025667&oldid=1023025575 The owner of all ✌️ 22:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ummm, that's two reverts, and it looks like you've reverted 3-4 4-5 times on that page, . If you revert your last one now, I won't block you for edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I apologize, I did not realize that my edits from yesterday were still within the 24 hours. I reverted the last edit. The owner of all ✌️ 22:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well now I'm confused. You reverted more than MP even just today, but you reported them here? Anyway, everyone is aware of 3RR now, and the reverting has hopefully stopped, so discussion can continue on the talk page.  Assuming there is no more reverting (for example, TOOA, do not revert as soon as the 24 hour clock has reset, that's gaming the system), I'll close this as "OP warned" in a little while. Have to go get dinner first. Pho! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Note, the gaming behavior isn't confined to this board: TOOA claimed they were dropping the issue about two minutes after performing a revert in which they falsely accused me of using deceptive edit summaries. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I was dropping from the discussion of my proposed changes. You went ahead and made your own changes to the article, and I dispute those. The owner of all ✌️ 22:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with '{ {delete| reason }}'"
 * 3)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with '{ {delete| reason }}'"
 * 2)  "←Blanked the page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Paid editing without disclosure under the Wikimedia Terms of Use."
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing."
 * 3)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
 * 4)   "Warning: Vandalism."
 * 5)   "Final warning: Vandalism."

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

Comments:

Not sure if this is more 3RR or more vandalism or more UPE. Editor who created two identical pages for their company. They have persistently deleted article talk page notices. No response to multiple warnings and advice. A block based on promotion seems reasonable as well. --- Possibly (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A block for blatant promotion may be in order, but I don't see edit warring as an issue—at least not after the pages in question have been deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * – Indef for advertising by User:Mazca. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:86.14.189.55 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Partial blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (was on my user talk page rather than the article talk page)

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

Comments:

A suspected sockpuppet of Best known for IP long-term abuse case. I asked them directly if they were this editor, with evasive answers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not this "sockpuppet". This "admin" is constantly reverting good faith edits. This "admin" is waring with me and preventing me from making good faith edits 86.14.189.55 (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Partial blocked from M11 link road protest for an extended period. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite -- I doesn't matter now. The 'admin' has accepted the correct edits. You really need to get a grip on these people who take issue with innocent editors, expect them to understand random things like "WP:BKFIP" (WTAF?) and accuse them of all sorts just for putting on a 'citation needed' tag. The waring was from the admin consistly reverting solid edits 86.14.189.55 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:A T5345588 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: indef block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The truth"
 * 2)  "The truth"
 * 3)  "Palestinian Authority is historically accurate, no such thing as Palestinian state"
 * 4)  "Israel occupation for the anti LGBT law is irrelevant, Palestinians always had their own law, also if the Palestinians were subjected to Israeli law than gay people were legalized."
 * 1)  "Palestinian Authority is historically accurate, no such thing as Palestinian state"
 * 2)  "Israel occupation for the anti LGBT law is irrelevant, Palestinians always had their own law, also if the Palestinians were subjected to Israeli law than gay people were legalized."
 * 1)  "Israel occupation for the anti LGBT law is irrelevant, Palestinians always had their own law, also if the Palestinians were subjected to Israeli law than gay people were legalized."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* The reason I keep on reverting */"
 * 2)   "/* The reason I keep on reverting */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is an SPA with an axe to grind whose only edits have been a slow burning edit war at the above named article where they vow to "tell the truth" and refuse to actually discuss a long established consensus in the article. YODADICAE👽 20:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:68.132.99.144 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: blocked for six months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (April 24)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (May

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See comments

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

Comments:


 * Two editors have disputed the IPs edit, and they have edit-warred against both of us for 3 weeks. The IP refuses to use the talk page to try to gain consensus, although the WP:ONUS to add to new material is on them, not on those disputing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The other editor involved is . Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP has been editing for 9 months. They were blocked on 6 January for vandalism, on 4 February for edit warring, and on 21 February for disruptive editing.  I requested that the admin who levied the most recent block to intervene in this case, but they did not respond, which I took to be a decline.  (FWIW, my last block was on February 8 for edit warring, but I was unblocked after admin discussion.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked for six months. The crazy has gotten out of hand. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

User:198.52.186.179 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

More or less all of this IPs edits are disruptive/edit warring. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 2 weeks (previous block was a week). Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

User:UgandaH reported by User:ScottishFinnishRadish (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Facts of Human rights violations"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1022826574 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1022772669 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)"
 * 4)  "ICC complaint"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The downside of SFC and its Leadership */"
 * 2)   "/* Facts of Human rights violation */ Replying to UgandaH (using reply-link)"

Comments:

I've tried discussing with this editor, and they've been reverted by another. Discussion doesn't seem to be making any headway as they haven't responded in any way other than posting the same screed on my talk page, their talk page and the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if there's anything else I need to do with this report. The only reason reverts stopped is because I gave up and stopped editing to not continue the edit war. The only communication from the editor has been the "Facts of Human Rights violation" section they posted on their talk page, my talk page and the article talk page. The only edits this account has made has been on the Muhoozi Kainerugaba article to add this material to the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action for now. If reverts continue without proper discussion, consider WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Locksteel888 reported by User:Hipal (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:54, 10 April 2021
 * 2) 17:00, 20 April 2021
 * 3) 21:05, 22 April 2021
 * 4) 14:12, 15 May 2021
 * 5) 15:46, 15 May 2021
 * 6) 15:58, 15 May 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:48, 15 May 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:19, 11 April 2021, Talk:Ray_Dalio, User_talk:Locksteel888, Education_noticeboard

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; 16:54, 15 May 2021

Comments:

Locksteel888 claims to be a student that was apparently not prepared by their instructor for the requirements of editing Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User Hipal claims to be an administrator who continually harasses and deletes edits, sometimes without any consideration. Hipal has been following Locksteel888 around the innerwebs, continually deleting edits on multiple pages and giving no critique. No feedback is given and then entire paragraphs are wiped out without consideration of improvements. User Hipal claims that certain edits are violations of Wikipedia guidelines policy. However, they are simply expressing condescending behavior, threatening new editors, and blocking any progress that is being made on multiple Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locksteel888 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would just say that is a new editor, and we need to give them some additional guidance. However, the accusations against Hipal in the above post are concerning and may warrant sanctions on their own, besides any issues related to edit warring.That said, I've encouraged them to engage in discussion at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Attached is a screenshot of a fellow editor who had issue with Hipal stalking them. She claimed that they would constantly follow her around and harass her when new edits were made, without any constructive criticism. She also said that she felt threatened by Hipal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locksteel888 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at User talk:Maravelous, and I see nothing untoward with Hipal's behaviour. On the other hand, it raises valid concerns about the behaviour of Locksteel888 and Maravelous...concerns which would be better addressed in a different forum than this one. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Locksteel888 is warned against making personal attacks and is warned against restoring their material again before getting consensus. So far they have not used the article talk page at all. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

User Locksteel888 does not intend to cause any harm or personal grievances. That being said, they feel threatened by the increasing encroachment on their privacy. Also, where is the article talk page? User Locksteel888 has only been able to use personal talk pages with specific editors that have not been effective.
 * The article talk page is at Talk:Ray Dalio. The material you added to Ray Dalio probably would be helpful to some readers but we are usually suspicious of any language that may appear promotional. If you can track down some books or articles by others (third parties) who have commented on Dalio's work, it is safer to quote their opinion of Dalio, rather than just repeating the words of Dalio himself. EdJohnston (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Trailblazer101 reported by User:WeGotThatBeduguhuc (Result: No action)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Me warning him on his talk page, now illegally removed by him: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATrailblazer101&type=revision&diff=1023310499&oldid=1023210627:

Me notifying him about the report: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATrailblazer101&type=revision&diff=1023313671&oldid=1023311891;

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly reverting a useful nugget of info that I added to an invisible note THAT I ORIGINALLY put there in the first place (that was also expanded upon by others, which I only briefly built upon further), after a brief disagreement on how the cast for Eternals (film) should have been listed, we reached a settlement on the articles talk page, later I added a notice around the cast list to remind people not to change anything and to fall in line with the current consensus, and that the cast list would be changed whenever Marvel released a new poster billing order. I also made it clear that there are VERY LITTLE set in stone rules on the cast ORDER for FILM (NOT Television) cast billings, and that it is up to the users on the talk page to decide, this was so more people could consolidate the current consensus, or if more people joined the article and had different ideas, they could also bring about change that way. It is simply wrong to pretend that the consensus on this article is set in stone and could not be subject to possible change of consensus in the future. I have done nothing other than fully accept the consensus despite not initially agreeing with it, and will continue to accept until the current consensus may or not be countered by more people in the future.

I initially planned to send this report after the user reverted for a fifth time, but he REMOVED MY OWN CAUTION MESSAGE ON HIS TALK PAGE, so now I will be sending it, here is the diff of that again just for good measure. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATrailblazer101&type=revision&diff=1023311891&oldid=1023310499 WeGotThatBeduguhuc (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I've restored the article to the condition it was in before the edit war started. I'd like to see both editors work together through discussion without needing to sanction both of them. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, there's nothing wrong with the user removing a warning from their talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Eternals (film) and Talk:Eternals (film) for the established consensus and all points this editor was given but disregarded with personal belief, and the history of my user talk page for the threatening message they gave me for upholding the policies of WP:3RR in reinstating the status quo, abusing the qualifications of such report options. This user clearly mistook me for another editor in their claims I reverted them five times and that I started this. I chose not to respond to this until my fellow MCU article editors weighed in on the Eternals talk. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: No action for now. But if reverting continues, admin action is likely. See the above advice by administrator User:C.Fred. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Spagnuolo Mariachiara reported by User:Tol (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision #1008216402 is before all recent edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Initial edit: diff #1022271415
 * 1) 10 May: diff #1022450383 (restored biased paragraph)
 * 2) 10 May: diff #1022455868 (restored biased paragraph)
 * 3) 11 May: diff #1022561355 (restored quote at top)
 * 4) 15 May: diff #1023316629 (restored biased sentences in paragraph)
 * 5) 17 May: diff #1023591013 (restored biased original research)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NPOV warnings 1 and 2, just gave edit warring warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * diff #1022464550: →‎Recent additions' neutrality: new section
 * diff #1022653511: →‎Recent additions' neutrality: Reply

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff #1023378926

Comments:

The user has been repeatedly restoring biased content and an improper quote at the top of the article over several days, and has ignored two NPOV warnings, two pings on the article's talk page, and a talkback pointing to the article's talk page. Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 02:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Spagnuolo Mariachiara is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. So far they have never used a talk page or responded to any complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:It'sover340! reported by User:IronManCap (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Malhun hatun is a historical character who says she is fictional, litterly now don't edit and don't write fictional instead of historical. My edits are exactly correct pls don't do that"
 * 1)  "Malhun hatun is a historical character who says she is fictional, litterly now don't edit and don't write fictional instead of historical. My edits are exactly correct pls don't do that"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Warning */"
 * 2)   "/* 16 May 2021 */"
 * 3)   "/* 16 May 2021 */"

Comments:

Clear violations of WP:3RR, WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:EDITWARRING. Block needed. IronManCap (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the first edit listed a revert or the original bold edit? —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that first series were the original disruption, so striking those. Very much still a violation of WP:3RR despite warnings though. IronManCap (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Page has been EC protected for one month by User:MelanieN. (This prevents editing by anyone with less than 500 edits). By my count 3RR was not violated. A group of consecutive edits by the same person counts as at most one revert. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:HistoricalNameisPersianSea reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; VViking Talk Edits 13:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

I am reopening this (hopefully this is allowed) due to two new reversions (1 & 2) and an attempted cut and paste move here. Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 04:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the user has self-reverted their last revert (see here and, so I don't think administrative action is necessary. The next step is discussion on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No longer relevant, user has been Tol &#124; Talk &#124; Contribs 06:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:RamTripathi33 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
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:

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

Comments:

RamTripathi33 has been reverted several times by several esitors, with links to the relevant Wiki-policies in the edit-summaries and in the warnings at their talkpage, to no avail. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Modification3 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It's been two times that you do not give me an explanation."
 * 2)  "I will withdraw it when I am given a valid reason. In accordance with the rules of wikipedia."
 * 3)  "Can I have an explanation on one point. Why the addition is it not appropriate ? I do not see what there would be to debate on this subject."
 * 4)  "Sorry to bore you. Why would I need to open a talk page ? These are facts. Sufficiently sourced."
 * 5)  "I am not the same person."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The editor appears to be continuing a long-running (at least month-long) edit war at this article, and the edits were reverted as an apparent sock of another editor making the same edits. The editor denies being a sock, but is clearly edit warring over this content.  General Ization Talk  16:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Likely a sock, given that other editor stopped, and this account was created -> immediately takes up the same edit warring. Both have ESL grammar but I can't tell if it's the same ESL grammar. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s quacking loudly for me. Blocked indefinitely for block evasion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Neel.arunabh reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1023305336 by Praxidicae (talk) See talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1023304545 by Praxidicae (talk) File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav are both salted pages. Taking it to the talk page. ]"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1023304389 by Praxidicae (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Creation protection (salting) */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* File:Map.jpg and File:Sound.wav */"

Comments:
 * Please also note the countless edit warring warnings and discussions on their talk page. YODADICAE👽  17:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Neel.arunabh made at least three reverts with his edits on 15 May, but self-reverted at WP:Protection policy per a request on his talk page. That might be enough to allow this report to be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: No action due to the self-revert by User:Neel.arunabh. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)