Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive436

User:Newyawkah99 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: CU blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Democratic primary */ background changes"
 * 2)  "/* Background */Added in neutral language re: Yang subway, something user shoestringnomad has repeatedly reverted/deleted with no justification whatsoever."
 * 3)  "/* Background */Added in nymag bit again…for the fourth time."
 * 4)  "/* Background */Added in tapper comments again, also for the fourth time"
 * 5)  "Doesn't matter. Bits about Adams are neutrally worded in background and Yang bits should be as well, free from loaded and tilted language like "akin to a tourist". Tapper's comments were relevant and some of Adams' prominent supporters openly condemned the statement."
 * 6)  "/* Background */Added relevant bit about adams nymag article that was somehow deleted."
 * 7)  "/* Background */“Akin to that of a tourist” is heavily stilted and leading language. Added jake tapper comments on Adams comments (along w/source)"
 * 8)  "/* Background */Reverted back to previous version."
 * 1)  "/* Background */Reverted back to previous version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2021 New York City mayoral election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA has been editing against consensus to either non-NPOV change the factual reporting on Andrew Yang or/and use non-neutral phrasing to disparage Eric Adams on linked page. Also very suspicious behavior in quickly editing 11 seemingly random articles very superficially on June 14th when started *this* account to get seasoned into a confirmed user most likely, and then has edited nothing but this page. JesseRafe (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Edited to add that I hadn't noticed that the user had two warnings on their talk for EW, though none for 3RR, but it looks like a violation to me, and the warnings and reverting edit summaries were quite clear. JesseRafe (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

- NY99 -NY99
 * Hello:    While I recognize your beliefs that the vocabulary on Yang and Adams was neutral on the background page, it is telling that both you and user Shoestringnomad have been very active in editing Eric Adams' candidate page, the other user explicitly mentioning on his homepage how he was proud of his edits of "New York's Next Mayor, Eric Adams." Additionally, the addition of a negative article on adams (from NYMAG) was repeatedly deleted, while one mentioning Yang's controversial comments on the subway remained. Go ahead and think if that's a conflict of interest or not.
 * Comment: And they just... keep... going... After acknowledging this very notice by responding to it, Newyawkah99 made 5 more reverts (as of posting this comment). Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, user who is responsible for the overwhelmingly glowing edits on Eric Adams' page: You might not be the one to tell folks what's neutral and what isn't.
 * blocked as a ✅ sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Deedman22 reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: One week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1029908196 by RandomCanadian (talk) inaccurate statements made. Lysippos contemporary bust was not "rejected", and on talk user made indifferent comments indicating that he believes that it doesn't really matter what busts are depicted. user also reverted a contemporary bust (backed by an ancient source). inappropriate reversion"
 * 2)  "changed to more contemporary bust"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1029900841 by Pipsally (talk) there is nothing to discuss on talk"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1029891629 by RandomCanadian (talk) user reverted a more accurate model bust (that is the same used as the lead image) as well as a link to an individual. uncalled-for reversion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021 */"
 * 2)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021 */"
 * 3)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021 */"

Comments:

This is a longer term issue (see previous section from about a month ago), and the editor in question has shown no signs in attempting a compromise - when faced with policy based arguments, they instead dismiss them and try to edit war their way in. In either case, this isn't the first time they're breaching the brightline 3RR line on this article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See also here for a previous example of edit-warring (7 reverts by my count) between this editor and me and others - in that instance the page had to be protected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have gone to ANI instead. Well, I've just been called a "homosexual" (as though that was a meaningful insult) by the reported user, . RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one week. For the record, as I stated in the block log and on the user's Talk page, I blocked the user not just for edit-warring, but for personal attacks, a general battleground mentality, and failure to collaborate with other editors. All of these behaviors are interrelated and part of a very disappointing picture. I also noted on the user's Talk page that if these behaviors persist after expiration of their block, the next block will be (should be anyway) indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Hsjalizs reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1029867683 by M.Bitton (talk) please stop unjustified removal of scholar Erkek Ekinci reference which shows Fez mentioned in 17th century and not of Greek origin."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1029772138 by M.Bitton (talk) Rv disruptive edit. Unjustified removal of academic source of Erkek Ekinci."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1029742830 by M.Bitton (talk) please stop silencing Erkek Ekinci the scholars legitimate source. Stop the bias and OR."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1029689009 by M.Bitton (talk) Rv. Disruptive edits. Removal of sourced content based on POV and OR."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1029434139 by M.Bitton (talk) it is not misrepresenting it. Please stop deleting reputable source of denting Greek origin."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Fez (hat)."
 * 2)   "/* ANI notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Talk:Fez_(hat) "/* June 2021 */"

Comments:

Hi there, not an expert but M. BITTON is edit warring with me and he ubjustifiably removes Erkek Ekinci's scholarly source which states the Fez hat cannot have a Greek origin and that Evliya Celebi of the 17th century described it. Please stop such edit warring and removal of sources without justification and consensus. Erkek Ekinci's research is acceptable by Wikipedias standards whereas M. BITTONS OR is not. Also, M. BITTON started a similar dispute in ANI noticeboard. Why does he want to censore non-Western supremacist views? Hsjalizs (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also warned M. BITTON to stop edit warring on his talk page as well. Hsjalizs (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * From the moment they joined the project, this editor has done nothing but blindly revert my edits on Fez (hat). My explanation with regard to their editorializing to give undue weight to a non specialist was simply ignored and so were my repeated attempts as getting them to explain why they keep adding a named ref that failed verification, introducing WP:OR, adding a cherry picked quote to a source that is used to support different claims and removing an inline tag. M.Bitton (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

They have now broken the 3R rule for the second time. After I left a detailed comment on the talk page asking them to explain their edit, they reverted my edit (again) and left this tangential answer (the ultimate proof that they have no intention in answering any of the questions and all they're interested in is edit warring). M.Bitton (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note there is also a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about this same issue. I have protected the page for two days as an interim measure to stop the ongoing edit war and encourage discussion, but am not available to take a detailed look at the behavioral concerns, and so am not marking this as a formal "result". I will return to this issue later today if no other admin has intervened, but I would invite any admin to take any additional measures they deem appropriate (or conclude that page protection is sufficient with no further action). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have returned to this, and have decided to leave it with just the protection for now. However, I would strongly encourage M.Bitton or Hsjalizs to begin a discussion (WP:RSP, WP:3O, or WP:RFC are good options) to get outside input on the content dispute. Continuance of the edit war after page protection expires will most likely result in a block—you need to come to consensus first, then update the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:SobySobea reported by User:Augend (Result: Blocked; globally locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User:Melecie."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User:Melecie."

Comments:

Not edit warring per se, but repeated blanking of others' talk pages, and continued blanking after a 4im warning. (this comes after another L2 warning) Augend  (drop a line) 07:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * user has been blocked. although I have a slight suspicion that this user is a sock and/or a hijacked account, given their insistence on PLEASE STOP REVERTING MY EDITS when few of their edits have been reverted (with most edits seeming in good-faith) and soby seeming like a good editor prior to today's events. melecie   t  07:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The user was blocked locally for a limited time and locked globally. Based on what I see, it is unlikely to be a compromised account as it is identified on multiple projects as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Numidia-dz reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1030034230 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1030030430 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1030023453 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1030005913 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1029985436 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1029895455 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1029759568 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1029895455 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1029759568 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1029759568 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1029759568 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1029759568 by BhagyaMani (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1029759568 by BhagyaMani (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They are also vandalizing another article by misrepresenting what the sources say and adding baseless OR. M.Bitton (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:AtmaramU reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  14:36, 21 June 2021
 * 2)  14:54, 21 June 2021
 * 3)  15:30, 21 June 2021
 * 4)  15:40, 21 June 2021
 * 5)  15:59, 21 June 2021
 * 6)  16:12, 21 June 2021
 * 7)  15:44, 22 June 2021
 * 8)  15:55, 22 June 2021
 * 9)  19:19, 22 June 2021
 * 10)  20:32, 22 June 2021

This is the bloody limit: removing my talkpage-posts twice:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Unbelievable: the guy has even reverted my talkpage-additions, to solve this, *twice*. Can someone please block them rightaway?!? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Unbelievable is association with  in trying to discredit my edits for no strong reason. Admins, please take a look at the log of Vyasa and see for yourself that all I tried to do was add a content with reliable source but disagreed reverting my changes with no credible reasoning. On top of that when the issue was discussed in TALK page of the article VYASA, pinged the close associates who can help in supporting him such as the user who reported me here. himself reverted all the changes all the way back to June 16th (three times) when the topic of discussion was just about whether "Vyasa was a founder of religion". And I myself removed this disputed comment till the discussion came to a conclusion in the TALK page. And states that there will be no reverts from him but then  steps in to completely make all the reverts as far as back to June 16th, which wasn't even necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 22 june 2021 (UTC)

Also this user didn't even try to resolve this edit war on the article talk page. All he has done is reverted without a conclusive discussion. And just posted messages that I have been reported for Edit Warring.


 * Two times; learn to count. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Please respect Wikipedia "Be Nice" policy.


 * RegentsPark (comment) 20:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like that the user has once again tried to remove the warnings on his talk page. . . 245CMR . •👥📜 15:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@AtmaramU: Whatever you think, but I just asked some experienced users, who know about Hinduism, to help in concluding the discussion. . 245CMR . •👥📜 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Chiswick_Chap reported by User:RZuo (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

User:Chiswick_Chap kept reverting based on an obviously wrong rationale, and also accused me of editwarring when s/he was at fault.--RZuo (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * My The explanation on the article's talk page, posted initially to RZuo's talk page, was as follows:


 * "Dear RZuo, I am afraid you are mistaken or confused. You have three times attempted to add a redirect for the phrase "Leave outside the Immigration Rules" which one might expect to abbreviate to LOIR, were it to be abbreviated at all. A google search for "LOTR" does not turn up any page with that acronym and phrase in the first 10 lists of 10 pages; it turns up many pages of Lord of the Rings. There is no Wikipedia page named "Leave outside the Immigration Rules"; and the page you linked to, "Leave to enter", contains neither the words "Leave outside the Immigration Rules", nor the acronym LOTR, nor anything that would stand for that acronym. The gov.uk page on "Immigration Rules" cited in that article, needless to say, does not contain any of those three things either.


 * "Further, you have accused me of incivility by placing a mildly-worded informal warning notice, above. It was not incivil in any way; indeed I could readily have placed a formal warning instead; and your action in accusing others of incivility is itself unhelpful. Further, the other editor reverted you properly. I do hope, given the amount of time it is now taking to deal with your case, that you will accept gracefully that your proposed hatnote may well not be justified in this instance, and that other editors have (all) acted in good faith. All the best, (signed)"


 * I was not the only editor to revert RZuo's edits. Indeed s/he appears to have inserted the hatnote three times against consensus and without joining the discussion; s/he has also made multiple assertions about other users' conduct on very doubtful grounds. I'm happy to discuss the hatnote but so far it does not seem to be at all appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * i "inserted the hatnote three times against consensus and without joining the discussion"?
 * i inserted a hatnote in accordance with Hatnote,
 * and i was the first to start the discussion, even though users who removed valid material should have done started that discussion.
 * stop twisting facts.--RZuo (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You inserted the hatnote 4 times, actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, the person being reverted is expected to start the discussion. Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.
 * I would caution both of you that you are on the edge of WP:3RR. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I shall await consensus, which seems to be building on the talk page now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one.
 * when there was neither reason given in edit summaries nor a discussion on the talk page, the reversion was clearly disruptive.--RZuo (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No violation; the four reverts of the information were made by two different editors., you're newish, so I'll simply warn you that you're actually the one in violation of 3RR. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * i reported edit war, which is not limited to 4RR. i did not violate 3rr either. i did exactly 3 but not 4 reverts.
 * so, neither of your conclusion was correct.--RZuo (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Aight, miscounted. It remains that accusing others of/reporting them for edit warring -- while your own reversions are those of two different editors -- is at minimum disingenuous. You edited, CC reverted. You reverted him, SST reverted you. You reverted SST, CC reverted you. You accused CC at article talk of edit warring, then reverted him again. He reverted you, and you came here to report him. To me it's looking like its your own behavior that's the actual problem here. —valereee (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * you could of course defend your conclusion by omitting key events.
 * first, the accused user made a baseless accusation of edit war against me, only after that i had to start a discussion "at article talk".
 * second, i then reverted only after the accused user's 1st and 2nd reverts were evidently based on nonsense, as shown in his own words on the article talk page. he didnt even understand the hatnote itself, but kept reverting.
 * i wont reply further when a complaint is not properly reviewed.--RZuo (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Лобачев Владимир reported by User:Pofka (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page: Multiple pages described below.

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Multiple reverts in multiple articles, constant, systemic edit warring described below.

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: 1

Comments:

I am sorry in advance that this report is long, but I had to provide evidence I collected.

Hello, multiple users of multiple nationalities already encountered malicious activity, systematic and persistent edit warring and pushing of the Russian POV, WP:OR by user Лобачев Владимир. This user clearly does not seek to comply with the Five pillars, WP:NPOV and other rules of Wikipedia. As a result, I think he should be blocked permanently for his malicious activity and systematic attack of other countries, nations, their statehoods, languages, and similar because various warnings towards him already were proved to be fruitless. Seeing how systematically he attacks other countries identity (those which have quite anti-Russian sentiment like: Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania), he is most likely part of the Russian web brigades or similar groups (which certainly has no place in Wikipedia) and probably is even getting paid for such hatred. Knowing such topics as Propaganda in the Russian Federation, Internet Research Agency, Propaganda in the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that we encounter such disruptive users online, but they must be stopped as soon as possible and their malicious activity should be prevented. Evidence is presented below.

First of all, I encountered his malicious activity at the article Pahonia when he came up as a backup for other aggressive user Kazimier Lachnovič, who is already tagged as a disruptive user by two administrators (Barkeep49, Ymblanter), but still was brave enough to perform an enormous edit warring in this article. But user Лобачев Владимир proved to be equally aggressive. He persistently inserted unrelated Russian illustrations and attempted to Russify the Coat of arms of Lithuania in this article. See these edits: 1 (e.g. he attempted to prove that Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy are somehow related with Lithuania, when in reality Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Novgorod Republic, Grand Duchy of Moscow were constant enemies and aren't related see: Muscovite–Lithuanian Wars). Then I removed his unrelated illustrations with well-motivated explanation (my edit) and he began agressive edit warring and pushing of the Russian POV: reinserted these symbols which aren't related with Lithuania (2), then I removed them once again because they weren't related (my edit), but he kept reinserting Russian POV (3) and following my last well-motivated removal (my edit) I created a report at the administrators noticeboard about disruptive activity (now archived: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive332).

As a result, administrator El C became involved and warned that any continuation of edit warring will certainly result in sanctions because this article was already locked twice per one month (El C warning). For some time the disruptive editing stopped, but today user Лобачев Владимир showed that he doesn't care about warnings and attempts to provoke the same edit warring once again (see this edit). In today's edit he single-handedly removed the Lithuanian CoA with azure (blue) color symbol purposefully and inserted pure white horse rider which resembles not the Coat of arms of Lithuania (main subject of this article), but the Belarusian pure white horse rider (see: National emblem of Belarus). The initial edit warring at this article was initiated by already mentioned Kazimier Lachnovič who defended the pure-white Belarusian horseman as the "right" one: 1, 2, 3, which resulted in the first locking of this article (locking edit by admin Alex Bakharev). So his friend Лобачев Владимир obviously wants to provoke the same edit warring again and I really do not want to participate in it. He also keeps reinserted unrelated random illustrations (4) as Pskov Republic never was part of Lithuania. His POV and hate for the Lithuanians, who founded the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and created this CoA (evidence: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times" (ref from Britannica), is perfectly illustrated by this chauvinistic statement that the Lithuanian CoA belongs to Russia (Russian Empire) because at some periods of history Russia annexed Lithuania (see: Russian partition, Occupation of the Baltic states) and not to the Lithuanians and Lithuania. By the way, he performed identical edit warring, involving a pure white horseman, at Wikidata (see this page). But that's certainly not all of his disruptive editing.

User Лобачев Владимир also performed massive anti-Lithuanian edit warring at article Pogoń: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Pay attention that he found no problem to perform edit warring against three users there: me, Onel5969 (patroller, reviewer, rollbacker), Elmidae (patroller, rollbacker). And once again stopped edit warring only when admin El C became involved.

Recently he also performed very similar anti-Lithuanian edit warring at article Pogonia and once again persistently attempted to prove that Lithuania is "not" Lithuania: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Pay attention that prior to 1918 the Belarusians had no state (ref from Britannica) and no national symbols (ref from Britannica), therefore he purposefully refused to accept reliable information as it does not comply with his anti-Lithuanian POV and his desire to humiliate the Republic of Lithuania.

Nevertheless, his desire to attack other nations, languages, states and push Russian POV includes not only the anti-Lithuanian sentiment. See evidence below (collected from his edit history).

Attack on the Romanian language in Transnistria (an unrecognized, illegal region, pseudo state created by the Russian Army, see: Transnistria War): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Enormous amount of edit warring even against a bot at article Lapta (game): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Vandalism, fueled by his chauvinistic hatred for the Ukrainian language name of Kyiv (Kiev is a Russian language name, while Kyiv is the Ukrainian language variant): 1.

Inserted self-made illustration of a flag into article Grand Duchy of Lithuania (pure case of WP:OR): 1, same here: 2, thus replacing the existing one, which is based on the authentic 16th century image. By the way, pay attention that the Lithuanian CoA (horse rider) is once again white in his self-made illustration. This is part of his anti-Lithuanian routine because the authentic Coat of arms of Lithuania includes azure (blue) color, unlike the 1918+ Belarusian variant.

Pushing of Cyrillic alphabet (used in Russia) in Moldovan topics over the Latin alphabet, thus completely removing the Latin variant and performing edit warring: 1, 2, 3.

Failed attempts to separate modern Lithuania from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (all these pages were deleted by administrators): 1, 2, 3. As already mentioned before, this is part of his hatred for Lithuania.

More hatred for the Republic of Lithuania: 1 (same idea: Lithuania is "not" Lithuania), 2.

He also performed edit warring at article Moldavia and was warned for the violation of three-revert rule (warning by Rgvis): 1, 2, 3. Due to this edit warring, user Лобачев Владимир was warned by an administrator at the administrators noticeboard (see archived report here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432). Did he stopped edit warring in this article after the warning? Obviously not. See these edits he made 1 month later: 1, 2, 3. Was it the end? Nope. Here is more: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The problem with this reference was that he stubbornly attempted to prove (still continues this edit warring today) that the Russian nationalistic POV website, named cyber leninist (leninka), is "reliable" when describing Moldova-related topic.

This user's nationalistic-imperialistic POV is especially visible at the talk page of article Moldavia. Here he stubbornly attacked other users and attempted to prove two chauvinistic things:

1) First myth was that the Ruthenian language was the primary language of Moldavia (based exclusively on the Russian/Soviet sources): Talk:Moldavia. He even attempted to prove an absolute propaganda that West Russian language exists and was spoken in Moldavia, thus in a chauvinistic way denying that the Belarusian language, Ukrainian language exists (example of a supreme Russian nationalistic POV). In reality, the standard Russian language is just a Moscovian dialect (see: Russian language). See this discussion from Wikidata (with text "Ruthenian (Q13211)" in its title): LINK. Since this short chauvinistic discussion is written in the Russian language and would not be understandable for the anglophones, here is Google translate link to it: LINK.

2) Attempted to single-handedly replace the flag of Moldavia and failed to provide reliable sources when other users rejected his edits: Talk:Moldavia. I'm not familiar with these flags, but I'm quite sure they are somehow related with Russia, especially the Russian Empire as this user does not perform edit warring without attempts to Russify something. But I'm sure the Moldavian-Romanian users will clarify this.

He also removed the Lithuanian CoA with azure (blue) color from this Lithuania-related template today: 1. Basically, he will attack non-Russian topics and perform vandalism, insert his personal POV (WP:OR) as much as he is allowed to.

Also, here is a relevant example to grab his mentality and way of thinking. In Wikimedia Commons, he single-handedly denies Lithuanian sources reliability in a Lithuania-related topic and censors, blocks attempts to insert such reliable information. See edit history of this file:. Just a yet another example of his hatred for Lithuania. What is even more funny, is a "discussion" (see: File talk:Lob Печать Ольгерда.svg) in which user Лобачев Владимир reaches an agreement with Kazimier Lachnovič, who is already well-known disruptive user in English Wikipedia, that the Lithuanian sources are not reliable and they cannot be trusted. However, according to them, the Belarusian sources are fully reliable. Truly funny to see when two disruptive users, edit warriors (from Russia and Belarus) reaches an anti-Lithuanian agreement in a Lithuania-related topic between themselves and presents it as undeniable "truth".

Some more interesting findings from his talk page: 1) He was warned for disruptive editing already in 2018 (see this warning by Polyamorph); 2) Attempted to humiliate the Lithuanian language already in 2015 (last edit from the 2015 discussion), but was stopped by other users; 3) Performed WP:OR edit-revert warring in article Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 2015 (warning by Sabbatino, who has reviewer rights).

Short summary of this report. User Лобачев Владимир edit history consists of two distinct spheres: 1) editing of Russia-related articles; 2) Attacking, humiliating of other countries, especially those who were annexed by Russia at some point in their history. From the arguments above, it is evident that we gave enough chances for this user to adopt and act normally, but he simply refuses to comply with the Wikipedia's rules and constantly tramples them. This already is at least the third time this user is reported to the AN for his disruptive editing and his case of a constant disruptive editing is getting extremely close to Arbitration. Consequently, I request to permanently block user Лобачев Владимир because it is truly disturbing to constantly encounter his disruptive editing, vandalism, edit warring, WP:OR, pushing of personal/Russian POV in non-Russian topics, and humiliation of others. This mess, nearly constantly created by him single-handedly, should be finally over.

Pinging users who recently encountered Лобачев Владимир's malicious activity (notified them at their talk pages as well):, , , , , --  Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The participant accuses me of exactly what he is doing. For example, it tries to change the Moldavia article by pushing it forcefully. First it asks for the source, and then it changes the information anyway. In addition, unreasonable attacks on me personally violate the WP: CIVIL rule. I consider all accusations here to be unfounded attacks. The only violation - I succumbed to the war of edits with this editor. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:204:dc00:c6e0:ecde:5491:a433:ed48 reported by User:2A02:C7F:F8BD:F100:71BC:967F:C4A7:8E9 (Result: Semi-protected three days)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:204:DC00:C6E0:ECDE:5491:A433:ED48 [diff]

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

Comments:


 * three days. Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Лобачев Владимир reported by User:Pofka (Result: )
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Pogonia: 1. Moldavia, Pogoń, Lapta (game), Romanian-language schools in Transnistria: reverting the same things again and again.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Pogonia: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (pay attention that the 6th revert was made after this report was created and after his reply here; he clearly doesn't care about anything and will push his POV no matter what). Moldavia (first episode): 1, 2, 3; Moldavia (second episode): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Pogoń: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Romanian-language schools in Transnistria: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Pogonia: my edit summaries supports that user Лобачев Владимир was simply performing anti-Lithuanian WP:OR, while he refused to provide any counterarguments and left random summaries. Moldavia: he stubbornly attempted to prove (still continues this edit warring today) that the Russian nationalistic POV website, named cyber leninist (leninka), is "reliable" when describing Moldova-related topic. He failed to provide neutral source and keeps reinserting it. Pogoń: he performed edit warring against three users there: me, Onel5969 (patroller, reviewer, rollbacker), Elmidae (patroller, rollbacker) and stopped edit warring only when admin El C became involved. Lapta (game): he was fighting with a Wikipedia bot alone. Romanian-language schools in Transnistria: I did not participated in this edit war, but found it in his edit history. He is a systemic edit warrior, who attacks Lithuanian and Moldovan-Romanian topics.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; 1

Comments:

I shortened, simplified the earlier report: this report, which was too long.

User Лобачев Владимир was already warned not to perform edit warring by admin El C recently (El C warning). Also, this user was already recently reported to the AN twice: Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432 (he was warned by admin there) and Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive332. But since he was not blocked, he continues to provoke new cases of edit warring.

His hatred for Lithuania is perfectly illustrated by such chauvinistic statements like this one: EDIT (an example of Russian supremacy over previously annexed countries). All these anti-Lithuanian edits-reverts were made by him in order to humiliate the Republic of Lithuania and to push WP:OR that Lithuania is "not" Lithuania. I informed Romanian-Moldovan users about this report who also encountered his malicious activity and they will probably provide more information about his edit warring in Moldovan-Romanian topics.

Some more interesting findings from his talk page: 1) He was warned for disruptive editing already in 2018 (see this warning by Polyamorph); 2) Attempted to humiliate the Lithuanian language already in 2015 (last edit from the 2015 discussion), but was stopped by other users; 3) Performed WP:OR edit-revert warring in article Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 2015 (warning by Sabbatino, who has reviewer rights). Over the years he learned nothing and continues to be extremely aggressive. He could be part of the Russian web brigades as he aggressively attacks identities of countries which previously were annexed by Russia. I suggest to permanently block him because it is truly disturbing to encounter his disruptive editing again and again. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling that an editor who unleashes edit wars, justifying only with a personal glance, decided that if he complains about me, then he will be able to push his views in the articles quoted. I am guilty of two things: I do not support his point of view, which is not supported by the sources (1), and I did not turn here when he started the editing war (2). I think that in these applications, he again shows a lack of respect for opponents, allowing unethical statements and unfounded accusations (see the nomination above). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Pofka from the Pahonia article removes images that are described in the sources, but contradict his personal opinion (1, 2). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, lets look at the edit histories of articles Pogoń and Pogonia. You performed an edit warring against multiple users without providing any arguments in your edits summaries. Edit histories there perfectly shows that you are a systemic disruptive user who single-handedly performs edit warring and attempts to present the Russian/Belarusian superiority in other articles. All removals of images in article Pahonia were well motivated in my edits summaries. For example, Novgorod Republic is not related with Lithuania in any way (1, 2), so insertion of random, unrelated illustrations to a section about Lithuania should not be tolerated and your complains are baseless. Other users would do the same if anyone attempted to insert the French CoA images into the German CoA article, etc. Just another example of your disruptive editing with which you attempt to Russify a Lithuania-related topic. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You don't know history well. In 1261, it was decided to end the war with the Vladimir-Suzdal princes and involve them in joint actions against Livonia, for which Mindovg in 1261 sent an embassy to Vladimir to Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky, and an alliance was concluded with Veliky Novgorod (where Dmitry Dmitry Alexandrovich, son of Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky). Lengvenis was one of the sons of Algirdas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, and the ruler of Great Novgorod Republic (1389–1392, 1406–1411). One of the first images of Pahonia: the seal of the Pskov Prince Alexander Mikhailovich, 1331. According to the Novgorod chronicle, Prince Alexander became the Pskov prince "from the hands of Lithuania". --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I got the impression that for you your own ideas are always more important than any reliable sources. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just your ordinary WP:OR based on Russian sources in a Lithuania-related topic. Fails Reliable sources, Verifiability due to the Propaganda in the Russian Federation, Propaganda in the Soviet Union. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The problems mentioned in this noticeboard are similar to those that user:Лобачев Владимир constantly practices in the case of other articles. Unfortunately, even after long mediation discussions, he continues these disruptive editing practices, without taking into account the arguments of the other editors. By using all sorts of tactics (not only on Wikipedia, but also on the other sister Wikimedia projects), he has only one goal: to impose his personal POV, no matter what.

Some examples of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS practiced by user:Лобачев Владимир:

- Although he was shown that the source on which he relied did not support his claim +  +, he continued to use it and change the content accordingly;

- He disputes sources that do not suit him (for example,, or FOTW, ), but does not hesitate to use , or all kinds of blogs: , ; even his own sources contradict him , he continues to make the changes he wants ;

- In order to impose his own images (drawings), he labeled as "fictitious" similar images brought by other users over time, even if they had all the necessary explanations:, , ,  ,  , , , ;

Moreover, user:Лобачев Владимир continues to be a promoter of WP:FRINGE:, , , , , , , , although he has been constantly given valuable references ,  to those theories; in addition, he considers any prior debate on this topic held on Wikimedia project (Deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia + Deletion of Moldovan Wikipedia 2 + Deletion of Moldovan Wiktionary) to be irrelevant.

In my opinion, this user knows very well what he is doing, taking advantage of the fact that in recent years Wikipedia edits have become increasingly difficult to control, many honest users (including administrators) being completely overwhelmed by the present problems. Some time ago, these repeated behaviors of any user would have quickly led to the most drastic sanctions. (Rgvis (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC))
 * Thanks for providing even more evidence about this user's systematic disruptive editing in Wikipedia. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

These appear to be mostly content disputes based on shaky evidence (some of the "sources" Лобачев Владимир contested are not reliable or are abusively used, i.e. they don't support the editors' claims). If you actually check the history of the diffed pages, you'll see a history of slow-motion edit warring on both sides, a clear violation of process. Considering the topic area, all editors should be made aware of the discretionary sanctions applying to these topics under WP:ARBEE. Disclosure: I have been engaged in the BRD process in the article regarding Moldavia, endorsing some of the reverts listed here as evidence "edit warring". Anonimu (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Lithuanians are an Indo-European people belonging to the Baltic group. They are the only branch within the group that managed to create a state entity in premodern times" (I presented this information to him in this edit), so it is not dubious that the Lithuanians created the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But user Лобачев Владимир doesn't like it and what he does? See this edit: 1. A report was created about his disruptive editing yesterday. Did he stopped edit warring? Of course not. Take a look at his edit today: 2, while we were discussing it here. He has been doing the same style attack in other articles. He simply wants to distort information he doesn't like and to replace it with his personal POV, based on websites like cyber leninist and similar. If nobody would stop his editing, he would rewrite the entire Wikipedia according to his personal POV. His disruptive editing is supported by the fact that completely unrelated editors from Lithuania, Romania, Moldova noticed these edits at the same time. He certainly will perform edit warring again and again, and again until he is permanently blocked. He has been given enough warnings. By the way, by performing his disruptive editing he closely collaborates with another disruptive editor Kazimier Lachnovič (tagged as a disruptive user in Eastern Europe topics by two administrators: Barkeep49 edit, Ymblanter edit), who attempts to rewrite articles according to the Belarusian publications and see his edit today in article Pogonia: 3. Both of them performed edit warring together at article Pahonia previously. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Rray reported by User:Cigarlover (Result: Page protected)
User:Joshua Jonathan and and User:Rray has been committing repeated edit warring See []. These activities are highly suspicious as it is meant to serve the commercial interest of Eckhart Tolle's business endeavor. User:Joshua Jonathan has past history of repeated edit warring 3RR behavior on multiple wiki articles and thus disrupting the neutrality of the articles. A userblock on User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Rray would be very helpful, with little/no collateral. --Cigarlover (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have also rolled back to the last stable version, before the edit war that was a participant in. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Response by JJ:
 * Regarding These activities are highly suspicious as it is meant to serve the commercial interest of Eckhart Tolle's business endeavor. - the statement "as it is meant to serve the commercial interest of Eckhart Tolle's business endeavor" is ridiculous. Cigarlover is on a crusade against Echhart Tolle, engaging in WP:OR and violating WP:NPOV. See also this comment diff: We need to escalate this, as this seems like a concerted effort by a 70$ Million dollar Eckhart Empire to create wiki articles that promote his image.. I'm hardly willing to accept or tolerate misplaced accuations like this.
 * Regarding User:Joshua Jonathan has past history of repeated edit warring 3RR behavior on multiple wiki articles and thus disrupting the neutrality of the articles. - hard evidence please when casting WP:ASPERSIONS and breaching WP:GOODFAITH.
 * Regarding edit-warring:
 * 14:18, 24 June 2021 "Updated with citation. Any revert will be escalated"
 * 14:45, 24 June 2021
 * 15:33, 24 June 2021
 * 15:44, 24 June 2021
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  17:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Response by Rray:
 * I've repeatedly asked to discuss his proposed changes on the talk page. I even began the discussion of the problems with his edits on the talk page for the article. Looking forward to additional opinions and improving the article further. Everyone, have a great day! Rray (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * reverted the changes without discussing them objectively. An honorable editor, discusses and takes sufficient effort to resolve the issue, instead of making unilateral reverts to other author's article. You are clearly working towards boosting and maintaining a page which is unsubstantiated by literary, reliable sources. Justify, why did you repeatedly delete the article write by Staff of Vancouver Sun. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eckhart_Tolle&diff=1030231790&oldid=1030197949.
 * and you both need to disclose WP:DISCLOSE your affiliation with Eckhart's organization. If you are not affiliated and paid WP:PE by his organization, you should clarify that as that is a WP:COI--Cigarlover (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Dude, I don't even LIKE Tolle, much less have a conflict of interest related to him. I tried to resolve the issue by asking you to discuss your proposed changes on the talk pages. Rray (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Rray - I urge you to record your response as 'NO' I NOT am affiliated with Eckhart Tolle's organization or 'YES' and explain your relationship. I am happy to work with you on a collaborative manner to fix the distortion in the current page. As I noted, there is phrase like 'inner transformation' and the cited link in NYTimes has no content that has any traceability to such a statement. The page is filled with exalted image booster of Eckhart. Terms like 'transformation of consciousness' are incorrect and spreads misinformation. Further in an overarching attempt to promote ET's image, references were made by ET to 'Ramana Maharishi' and 'Jiddu'. ET runs a commercial venture to profit using the spirituality umbrella. To boost his credibility to general public, his commercial empire is managing his image through wiki. This has to stop. Consciousness is not something that is stateful and can go through a transformation. Neither buddhist teaching or vedanta which ET tries to associate himself with talks about this. Consciousness is singular, and the appearance that there are individual consciousness is an artificact of mis-identification which is known as the ego. ET's audience are people who are non-practitioners, hence gullible. ET does not even know the difference between awakening and enlightened as explained in WP:Buddhism or WP:Vedanta.


 * I am happy to discuss on substance.--Cigarlover (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "I don't...have a conflict of interest related to him" sounds like a pretty clear "NO" to me. I suggest you drop the stick. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 'C.Fred - Very well. Thanks for explicitly clarifying.
 * C.Fred I am politely, urging that  should WP:DISCLOSE his affiliation with Eckhart's organization. It is important to clarify so we can ensure there is no WP:COI.--Cigarlover (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * CIgarlover blocked for continuing aspersions after several warnings.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 Kindly help restore the neutrality of the Eckhart Tolle page. The page has content whose listed citation does not have any corroboration with the content that is cited. This page is a propaganda page which is being incrementally build by a set of folks who seem to working in the interest of promoting the image of ET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:47, 24 June 2021‎ (UTC) (talk • contribs) Cigarlover (UTC)
 * I have no affiliation with Tolle, or his organisation, either. Neither do I have the intend to spread the WP:TRUTH, or to use my own understanding of realitity as the measure for what Wikipedia should write about people like Tolle. If Tolle compares himself with Ramana Maharshi, that's fine, and relevant; see Neo-Advaita. Sober up, discuss your prposed edits to reach WP:CONSENSUS, and don't use Wikipedia to propagate your personal truth. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks. Did they even read my comment above, given his statement I am politely, urging that should WP:DISCLOSE his affiliation with Eckhart's organization, written after my comment above? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User:73.74.221.45 reported by User:Lard Almighty (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:    

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Harshit 3110 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Indeffed)
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:

And they seem to be at it here as well 2020 United States gubernatorial elections.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeffed for generalized agenda-driven, non-neutral disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User:31.134.178.99 reported by User:Calton (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was pointed to Talk page, but insists on reverting anyways.

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

Comments:

--Calton &#124; Talk 00:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see Calton instead of explaining their point(I don't think "unnecessary" nor "not coherent" is an explanation) in violation of WP:CON("All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)") is waging edit war by removing my content and writing templates and nothing but templates to my page. Meanwhile, the article talk page is ignored. 31.134.178.99 (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, there's a lie above: "but insists on reverting anyways" 31.134.178.99 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, it is Calton who is ignoring the article talk page and not me. 31.134.178.99 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interested parties should consult the edit summaries to see exactly how bot-like, mocking, and unhelpful the IP's edit summaries are.


 * Also note that 1) THREE editors have reverted the change, not just me; and 2) the IP doesn't -- or refuses to abide -- by the simple principle that the burden of proving AND KEEPING a change lies with the editor making the change, ESPECIALLY when three other editors have removed it. At this point, the has attempted six times to insert the change, demanding that other editors prove the IP's satisfaction that it doesn't belong. That's not how it works here, or pretty much anywhere else in the real world. --Calton &#124; Talk 02:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If what you call my mockery is hurtful, I apologize. No offence intended. Nevertheless, I cannot guarantee I won't do that in the future because: 1) sometimes by mirroring opponent's point I can show how much ground I see in it and why; and 2) sometimes it is a convenient and short way to show what part of opponent's speech I'm answering to, i.e. it improves readability, I think.
 * Neither of these three editors provided any reason why they had done so. Your "Unnecessary" is mirrored by my "necessary". No offence, I don't find myself obliged to find out whether they are sockpuppets or share a same bias. I don't think voting by removals is the proper way to reach a consensus. 31.134.178.99 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User:AshishHJain reported by User:Sharkslayer87 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1030391232 by Sharkslayer87 (talk)Information about the Kakatiya period also comes from Italian text 'Le Livre des merveilles du monde' of Marco Polo. It doesn't mean that Italian was the language of the Kakatiyas."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1030370531 by Sharkslayer87 (talk)"
 * 3)  "I don't know what your fantasy is about Sanskrit. But don't spread misinformation to satisfy your agenda."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "Restored revision 1030201412 by Sharkslayer87 (talk)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Kakatiya dynasty."
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Kakatiya dynasty."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Robjwev reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Partially blocked and warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Source is not quoted verbatim but mirrors what was said with additional information....I would be open to neutral 3 Party input on talk. Until then please leave my sourced edit in place. Undid revision 1030560666 by Rsk6400 (talk)"
 * 2)  "YouUndid revision 1030561779 by Alanscottwalker (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Indentured servants */Matches source any changes should have additional sources"
 * 4)  "If grammar issues exist feel free to fix them please refrain from changing properly referenced wording because you don’t like it. Provide rebuttal in talk and justify your changes Undid revision 1030510287 by Rsk6400 (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Indentured servants */Fixed water down language that didn’t  match with reference provided"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Slavery in the United States."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The case leaves me confused because I don't see a content dispute. I tried to explain myself to Robjwev on their talk page, but shortly afterwards they reverted another user and then me. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This editor keep changing my sourced edits for trivial reasons I asked him to stop undoing my edits or add sourcing that disputes mine but he refuses to engage respectfully I asked for nutral 3rd Party review and placed section on talk page. Rsk6400 is an experienced editor and knows how to bully less experienced editors to achieve his will on other editors. Robjwev (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Partially blocked from Slavery in the United States for 48 hours and warned about personal attacks and copyright violations.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Pikachu5D reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Partially blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Why let someone adding source and not me, all of sources are from french wikipédia. Check it."
 * 2)  "Adding source, now let's talk."
 * 3)  "Salah Rais was ottoman and bring last source from french wiki, check it and you will see that a POV Pushing"
 * 4)  "Salah Rais was ottoman ans not algerian and bring a source from french wiki. Stop vandalism all sources is from french wiki and it's write Ottoman victory."
 * 1)  "Salah Rais was ottoman ans not algerian and bring a source from french wiki. Stop vandalism all sources is from french wiki and it's write Ottoman victory."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Using multiple accounts."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Capture of Fez (1554)."

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

Comments:

This is clearly the registered account of Special:Contributions/2A04:CEC0:1085:4D76:F8DF:F977:2E08:EE (the IP that was edit warring on the same article 20 minutes earlier). M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and I did something wrong ? I try to add source to explain something but you dont want and it's more pertinent than removing without reading it and let others adding sources from same article.Pikachu5D (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting the obvious. Registering an account to continue an edit war is beyond the pale. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just in case a CU sees this, there is a also Sockpuppet_investigations/Ifni95 that is worth looking at. M.Bitton (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Partial block from the Capture of Fez (1554) article. Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

User:HarvardKing reported by User:Beshogur (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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:

This user is doing long lasting edit wars without trying to resolve the issue on talk page. See. Also faking up references such as here which he changes them to: are classified as a were pashtuns tribe, which you can see a sign of vandalism, not even gramatically correct. here you see he is adding a view (hypothesis) about Hepthalite origin, which isn't directly related to the Khalaj itself (Historians believe they are descendants of the Hepthalites), where this user puts faking references (You can control the sources, not even about Khalaj people, but Hepthalites). Also here I checked the source about Markwart, added what he really said. As you can see, he removes the actual source (about Markwart) and adding the other mentioned references. Beshogur (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . About as slow an edit war as they get. Certainly not suitable for this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Dan Palraz reported by User:Avilich (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) 5th diff
 * 6) See also (if relevant) diffs by the same editor using a different account back in February 1, 2, 3

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: User keeps pushing his own version while a discussion was taking place and despite the previous one having gone months uncontested. Avilich (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * --Chris (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

User:1to10 reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "it is misunderstood, as I said, the conflicted edits in June will be restored, I'm only revising the version before June because I thought it has better wording and overall format"
 * 2)  "no worries, I think that this is because the version before it was more objective in tone, wording throughout the whole article (this aspect is much more important per this guildline, the edits since June are more minor and can be easily restored, I'll gradually restore these edits"
 * 3)  "restore stable ver by From-Czech"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is restoring content added by a sockpuppet without discussing this on the talk page. I've told them to read WP:BRD in a edit summary but it seems like they didn't. Vacant0 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

User:1to10 blocked for other reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * indefinitely for sockpuppetry. --Chris (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

User:RogueShanghai reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: )
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:

Pose (TV series) has been protected numerous times due to users' attempts at rearranging the cast billing order in their respective preferences. An archived talk page discussion resulted in a consensus to follow MOS:TVCAST and maintain a specific order. It also did not result in a consensus to add qualifications in the lead to specify which actors appeared in which seasons. RogueShanghai is the latest user to challenge and blatantly disregard this, editing the page to suit their preference and violating WP:ONUS. KyleJoan talk 10:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to reach a consensus with you on the talk page to avoid edit warring, yet you have been extremely rude and uncivil so far and accusing me of edit warring when I am trying to reach a compromise with you. I didn't want to edit war and I wanted to talk about it on the talk page FIRST, but you kept reverting everything I tried to do.


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) Talk page


 * "Your bias is transparent", "You dislike the billing", "Please go do something else" is unnecessarily uncivil and rude assumptions and comments while I'm trying to reach a consensus on my proposed changes to the article for better accuracy. I stated multiple times that I wanted to discuss it on the talk page, yet you kept reverting my edits mere minutes after in the revert description itself I STATED I wanted to stop edit warring and reach a verdict on the talk page, with a third editor and fourth editor opinion as well.


 * In the diff where you "warned" me it literally states that "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right" but you reverted my edits literally minutes while I was trying to get a reply from you on the talk page to reach a consensus on the footnotes that add, in my opinion, important contextual information to the article. I have been trying to be civil and treat you with respect, but you have been rude, passive aggressive and quite mean, if I'm going to be honest. RogueShanghai (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Several-month long edit war between 5+ IPs
A bunch of mostly-anonymous users have been adding/removing a vegan example from this page since at least March. The edit war accounts for over half the edits on the first page of the page history and is still active as of yesterday. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 06:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * - WP:RFPP is where you can ask for the page to be protected. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Christopher 1167 reported by User:Firestar464 (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rlp is a reliable source."
 * 1)  "Rlp is a reliable source."
 * 1)  "Rlp is a reliable source."
 * 1)  "Rlp is a reliable source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on June 8."
 * 2)   "/* June 2021 */ ani"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Carl Francis reported by User:NewManila2000 (Result: No violation)
This user has been reverting other users edits without any reason. Also, the attitude of the said user is so disturbing.

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

He has been continuously reverting the edits which I had made and some other users. Also, he doesn't reads the edit summaries of other users there before reverting. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad reported by User:Uanfala, take 2 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  14:16 (UTC)
 * 2)  16:46 (UTC)
 * 3)  17:05 (UTC)
 * 4)  17:19 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:09 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:


 * It's now more than a week since this report, and the edit war in question has died down, so closing with no action. Noting that did violate the 3RR, and is warned that if this happens again, they are liable to be blocked immediately.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Boyomac reported by User:Drill it (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Actress iyabo ojo has been suspended by TAMPAN"
 * 2)  "TAMPAN Suspend Actress iyabo ojo over Baba ijesha rape saga"
 * 3)  "Actress iyabo ojo has been suspended by TAMPAN"
 * 4)  "TAMPAN Suspend Actress iyabo ojo over Baba ijesha rape saga"
 * 5)  "TAMPAN ban iyabo ojo over baba ijesha rape saga."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Iyabo Ojo."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Iyabo Ojo."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * . User was never specifically warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

User:173.56.190.28 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed ref to Daily Beast which referred on a Fox post. Daily Beast is not a valid source isn't neutral."
 * 2)  "/* Donald Trump presidency */ Removed potentially libelous statement and non neutral POV copy. Poynter is not a reliable source so removed that ref. Stelter's statement is not relevant to the article. Removed duplicate content as well. Can'"
 * 3)  "Removed non NPOV content. Again."
 * 4)  "Removed a personal attack, libelous content and refs to non-reliable source Daily Beast."
 * 5)  "/* Donald Trump presidency */  Vox, Daily Beast aren't reliable sources, removed another libelous statement,"
 * 6)  "To the blind editors: Removed potentially libelous statements and refs to Vox and Daily Beast - they aren't reliable sources just like the Gateway Pundit isn't"
 * 7)  "Removed weasel worded statement"
 * 8)  "/* Donald Trump presidency */ Again removing potentially libelous statements and unrelated content. Bash Fox all you want - do it on the Fox page, not a living persons page."
 * 9)  "Removed superfluous and irrelevant details which could be seen as an attack. Also the Daily Beast isn't a reliable source - never has been."
 * 10)  "/* Donald Trump presidency */ Removed potentially libelous statements and yet more Fox bashing. Bash Fox on its own page or not at all."
 * 11)  "Removed superfluous and irrelevant details which could be seen as an attack. Also the Daily Beast isn't a reliable source - never has been."
 * 1)  "Removed superfluous and irrelevant details which could be seen as an attack. Also the Daily Beast isn't a reliable source - never has been."
 * 2)  "/* Donald Trump presidency */ Removed potentially libelous statements and yet more Fox bashing. Bash Fox on its own page or not at all."
 * 3)  "Removed superfluous and irrelevant details which could be seen as an attack. Also the Daily Beast isn't a reliable source - never has been."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Here's my comment: I made edits and comments, I justified them, I then left comments on the talk page for the article as well. Aren't you a special little snowflake. Surely you don't believe the Daily Beast is a reliable source, do you?
 * You might do well to have a little peek at the RS/N archives. Though the results are not unanimous, what you find with regard to The Daily Beast may surprise you.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Skyring and User:Thescrubbythug reported by User:Spy-cicle (Result: Stale)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Skyring changes image
 * 2)  Thescrubbythug reverts image change
 * 3)  Skyring reverts back
 * 4)  Thescrubbythug reverts image change
 * 5)  Skyring reverts back

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

Comments: Uninvolved editor but had this article watchlisted for a while. Both editors broke the WP:1RR restriction that has been placed on this page, surrounding the infobox image. For what it is worth, Thescrubbythug changed the image back in January 2021. Though whether or not that has met silent concensus or status quo requirements should not matter as 1RR has been broken nonetheless.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I made the edit back in January when I found out the official Prime Ministerial portrait of Abbott (and Julia Gillard) was made available on Wikipedia, and while I didn’t look in-depth at the NAA website where the image is sourced from, it all seemed to check out to me (as well as to other users who made edits to the image over the months). Though there was a consensus in place for both the Abbott and Gillard images, they were tenuous at best (in Gillard’s case there was hardly any talk page discussion besides one that dated from January 2016, and in both cases any consensus on their images were made long before any official Prime Ministerial portrait was added onto Wikipedia), largely and rigidly enforced by a couple of users in recent years, and in any case (although this is de facto and not an official rule) it is customary that official photos of public figures (especially official images of heads of government/state from when they are in office) are used on the main Wiki page infoboxes once they are made available to us. This was why nobody took issue for almost half a year after the official photographs were included, and I suspect most (predominately casual) users would find it bizarre that any reversions of the sort that took place recently was even necessary; it shouldn’t be a controversial change for Pete’s sake! This was why I stood my ground and objected strongly to Skyring’s attempts to revert, and I make no apologies for doing so - it was a (brief) edit war that shouldn’t have happened in the first place. Anyway, Skyring and another user have since pointed out issues that they have with the interpretation of the copyright for both images, so it was decided to report the images in order for the matter to be cleared and to neutralise any possible copyright-related issue. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism
Background: The BLP articles on senior Australian politicians - such as Prime Minister Tony Abbott - have always had a problem with images. We cannot use the official photographs due to license restrictions, copyright prevents us from using the many news media photographs, and what's left are either amateur photographs taken at fundraising events and the like that are generally of poor quality, or US government photographs released into the public domain which often have an American flag in the background or some other defect. Every time a prime ministerial image is changed there's disruption because often it is changed to something which casts the subject in a poor light and the editor who supports the other party is happy with this because it's a boot in the face of their tribal enemy and the regular article editors restore the previous version which has gained consensus and has an appropriate copyright status for use by Wikipedia and there's generally some robust and enlightning discussion on various policies.

Without going too far back, we found a professional photograph of Tony Abbott which had been taken at a campaign debate - the same photographer also took a shot of Julia Gillard that night - and was good enough to upload his work to Flickr under a license we could use. There was some discussion in 2010 and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Abbott/Archive_2#Photo? 2014] but the photographs gained consensus and again and again and again. (There are examples of various photographs in the talk page discussions, the current version clearly shines out as far better than any of the lternatives we could use.)

TheScrubbyThug enters the picture in 2018 when he replaced the consensus image with one that had already been rejected and it was quickly undone with the edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Thescrubbythug (talk): Per consensus on talk page."

His next edit (late in 2020) is revealing. Another user changed the lead image and Thescrubbythug restored it along with the note in the infobox headings: "Do not change image without gaining consensus for such change on talk page."

In January 2021 Thescrubbythug ignored the instruction he was evidently aware of by replacing the consensus version with a government photograph which had a license we could not use (see reasons ) and notably without gaining consensus on the talk page.

Six months later - yeah, I know, but by this stage Abbott had been out of the PM job for six years and wasn't up to much and there wasn't a real lot of visibility on my watchlist - I spotted that the lead image had been changed and restored it after checking there had been no corresponding change in talk page consensus. I restored the note warning against change and used the edit summary "Photo appears to have been changed without consensus. Restoring." I added some comments to the talk page, though a more indepth discusssion may be found at the Julia Gillard talk page and it is worth noting that Thescrubbythug's preferred image there has been reverted three times by three different editors.

I've been part of the discussion on Prime Minister images for fifteen years or so. I know what the situation is, and it is that we don't change the lead images without consensus because it invariably leads to disruption when someone does it off their own bat. The infobox images have notes warning that consensus is needed for change. Thescrubbythug did not gain consensus before change and I viewed his actions as vandalism. There has been discussion on his talk page here along with a note by another long-term editor concerning his edit-warring immediately following.

In all this discussion subsequent to my restoring of the consensus images, Thescrubbythug has not once acknowledged that he ignored a clear warning not to change the images without consensus and of which he was well aware as noted above. He apparently has his own reasons for preferring an image we cannot use over one we can, but he needs to explain why he deliberately ignored the warning. He didn't even try to gain consensus!

Re the 1RR warning notice. This doesn't appear on the Julia Gillard article where most of the discussion took place, and I was in error in not noticing it on the Tony Abbott article. I didn't ignore it, I just wasn't aware of it and though I regarded my actions as reverting vandalism, I should have spotted the warning, complied with it and let others make the reverts, as (ironically) happened at the Julia Gillard article. Sorry about that. These warnings are not placed idly and I acknowledge my error. I'm aware of it now, it won't happen again. --Pete (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I’ve already had my say and given my two cents, my only response will be concerning my own history as detailed by Skyring. I was a new editor in 2018 and at the time I had a preference for an alternative image of Abbott which was one that was taken when he was Prime Minister. After learning about the consensus in place at the time for that specific infobox (though I reject any notion that it should be applied throughout Wikipedia, especially on pages where it specifically deals with Abbott’s time as PM), I dropped the matter - I never had any qualms with the quality of the 2010 photo myself; just that a PM photo of him was preferable, even if unofficial. As for the 2020 edit that Skyring cites, I regard that as totally irrelevant given that this was before the official Prime Ministerial portrait was uploaded onto Wikipedia, and therefore was not a factor in the slightest - it should be obvious that since 2018, so far as the main article infobox is concerned, I had no objections with maintaining the status quo when dealing with other unofficial photos available to us. I’ve explained my reasoning for everything else, and reject any accusation of vandalism on my part - particularly since it should have been obvious by June that there was a “silent consensus” as Spy-circle put it. As for the copyright status, that remains to be dealt with - though I would like to note that although it was Skyring and one other user who used it as justification for removing the image, neither of them felt strong enough about it to report the images themselves and to let WikiCommons resolve the matter (as of now, it is being investigated after I ultimately reported them for investigation myself). Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC))
 * My point is that you ignored a specific warning note to gain consensus, you made not the slightest move in that direction, and you have not explained why you ignored a note of which you were well aware, having restored that exact warning yourself. Did you think that it applied only to other people, maybe, and you were special? The fact that you went directly against the warning is why I treated your edits as vandalism. --Pete (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ”Did you think that it applied only to other people, maybe, and you were special?” my god you are unbearably arrogant, condescending and sanctimonious at times (not just with that comment, but other comments you have made, including on my talk page). That consensus, as I said, was in place so long as official photographs weren’t available to us on Wikipedia, which I have already detailed. And as I said, it is customary to use official photographs of heads of government/state from when they are in office if it is available to us - something that was evidently accepted by users for half a year until YOU came and reverted it, only justifying it on copyright grounds retrospectively. I’ve already explained all of this, so you can drop your attitude and wait until a moderator resolves this. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that you deliberately ignored a warning to seek consensus and have yet to acknowledge this. I accept that you had your own reasons for wanting a change and thought they were compelling enough that they trumped years of discussion, but that's not the point. Why didn't you personally heed the note and seek consensus? --Pete (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This will be my final response before I (and I recommend you as well) leave it for the mods to decide on this, but as I said, the “seek consensus” warning was put in place at a time where no official photograph of Abbott (or Gillard) was available on Wikipedia (putting aside potential copyright issues with the official photos uploaded by Lee Gok Da that was only subsequently pointed out by a different user and was not a factor in this initial reversion) and it was assumed that somebody would try to change it to another unofficial photo without consultation. It’s as I said on my talk page: “The decision to add the note to begin with was made without any Talk page discussion, and when the official photo wasn't available to us - and official photos are typically included as soon as they become available, as is the case when Joe Biden's official Presidential photo was uploaded to Wikipedia” (the first point “without any Talk page discussion” being in reference to Gillard). Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact is that there was a warning to gain consensus. You knew the issue was contentious; that's why the warning was placed in the first place. You didn't follow it in your rush to include an image that we couldn't legally use and that's why I treated your edits as vandalism. I had to open up a discussion because you didn't even bother to let other editors know on the talk page. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Shut up, okay? Why don’t you shut up and drop your unbearably sanctimonious attitude and your incessant need to get the last word when you and I have already given our two cents. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC solution
Recommend yas keep the status-quo image & open up an RFC on the matter (both the Abbott & Gillard articles). Would save a lot of 'back-and-forth' reverting & keep two passionate editors from getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't use the government images anyway. See why here. --Pete (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. That settles the dispute. No way around it. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was already agreed to suspend discussion and maintain the status quo until the copyright issue for the official photos were resolved by WikiCommons - though that didn’t stop Skyring from subsequently attempting to discredit me in the most petty and sanctimonious way possible on the Gillard talk page using outdated image upload mistakes I made when I first started around mid-2018. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

User:2003:D4:E739:6B00:48E0:ABDB:41E1:5953 reported by User:Firestar464 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:2601:5C2:300:62E:B5C3:7F1C:394F:748C reported by User:Drill it (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1031247369 by Drill it (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1031246779 by Drill it (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1031246421 by Drill it (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Danny Cevallos."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on User talk:2601:5C2:300:62E:B5C3:7F1C:394F:748C."
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Danny Cevallos."
 * 4)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Danny Cevallos."
 * 5)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Danny Cevallos."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP continues to attempt to add a referenced sentence and Drill it just reverts it blindly calling it vandalism. 2601:5C2:300:62E:B5C3:7F1C:394F:748C explained their edits on their own talk page and Drill it reverted it. When I asked Drill it what was his basis for constantly blanking the IPs OWN talk page he reverted that too. This is an edit war that Drill it started and refuses to actually explain. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The /64 range has been blocked for 31 hours for harassement by . has also been partially blocked from editing Danny Cevallos for 1 week by  for edit warring.  --    LuK3      (Talk)   15:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Uhudlu Okçu reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: }}

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link to the discussion diff of his participation in the discussion

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

Comments: There is a second 3RRV report on an other user for the same page. The page is within the scope of a 24h/1RR rule within the General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant This new user was aware of the discussion and some rather experienced editors (like me and others as well) just adhere to the rules, while the others just revert and revert.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

note: I have no relations with this account. BerkBerk68 (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Joe453534234yhjgfgfd reported by User:Drill it (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1031271062 by Drill it (talk)stop committing vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1031269851 by Drill it (talk) wikipedia is a fact page not a place to attack people because they disagree with you. The fact is Mr Malone did invent mRNA and you trying to change that won't change the fact that he did."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1031037564 by Drill it (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Messenger RNA."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Messenger RNA."
 * 3)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Messenger RNA."
 * Indeffed for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:198.48.187.109 reported by User:Drill it (Result: Boomerang)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Applications */  dating when mRNA was first used as a therapeutic;  sourced"
 * 2)  "/* Applications */  added we link for previous source"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1031037452 by Drill it (talk) Please explain why you vandalize this article??"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1031037266 by Drill it (talk) drill it - you are vandalizing this article. Stop it. Why are you doing this?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1031037099 by Drill it (talk) what is going on??! This is not vandalism. Do you even read ?? Or just delete?"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1031036734 by Uranium Site (talk) please don’t delete facts. Research before you delete. This is a legit edit"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1031036734 by Uranium Site (talk) please don’t delete facts. Research before you delete. This is a legit edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Messenger RNA."
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Messenger RNA."
 * 3)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
 * 4)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Drill it."
 * 5)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
 * 6)   "Warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:198.48.187.109."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Please help me someone. Drill It is deleting content on my talk page. He is constantly deleting everything I post, and he’s not doing it in good faith. I have not edit warred with him but surely my talk page is mine.198.48.187.109 (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC) I can’t post links as quick as him, but look at my talk page please198.48.187.109 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * First off User:Drill it stop edit warring on this IPs talk page. They are allowed to remove warnings and certainly allowed to draft sources there. You can get a edit warring block for that right now, but I would prefer if you just stop.


 * Secondly most of those diffs are from before their most recent block. The other two diffs look like new content? Are they reverts? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * General disruptive editing and suspected sockpuppetry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

User:198.48.187.109 reported by User:Drill it (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1031037266 by Drill it (talk) drill it - you are vandalizing this article. Stop it. Why are you doing this?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1031037099 by Drill it (talk) what is going on??! This is not vandalism. Do you even read ?? Or just delete?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1031036734 by Uranium Site (talk) please don’t delete facts. Research before you delete. This is a legit edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Messenger RNA."
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Messenger RNA."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * IP was blocked for disruptive editing. —C.Fred (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Drill it has been blocked and globally locked for sockpuppetry. — kashmīrī  TALK  13:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Mandygoo reported by User:Drill it (Result: 48 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Shum to Sum"
 * 2)  "Lydia surname is Sum not Shum"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Lydia Shum."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Lydia Shum."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Mandygoo has been blocked 2 days for edit warring, Drill it has been indeffed and glocked for suspected socking, with tpa revoked.  dud  hhr  Contribs 16:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

User:93.138.190.221 reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Dubrovnik does not write in the source, nor about any exodus in Dubrovnik, stop doing edit war"
 * 2)  "Wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWS you need to put the source from some reliable book"
 * 3)  "Websites can write anything. Reliable books are needed for such claims."
 * 4)  "Stop edit warring, with false claims from a website. Reliable sources from some books are sought for such claims, not what anyone can write on some news."
 * 5)  "Reverted because wikipedia is not WP: NOTNEWS, where anyone can write anything on a website. Reliable source required."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Hi. I just returned an unreliable source from some news where anyone can write anything and asked for a reliable source from some book. Because such claims need a reliable source, not from some news, so they have joined forces in edit war users User:Vaselineeeeeeee and User:LukeWiller here it can be seen on Vaselineeeeeeee talk page[]. I think I'm right, maybe I'm not, but I think that sources like this are unreliable and should be from some verified book, not some news that anyone can write on a website. Thank you93.138.190.221 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * IP and reporter both . Reporter stopped just shy of 3RR, with a fourth revert yesterday. Both parties are advised to discuss on the article's talk page or blocks will be forthcoming. --Chris (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

User:92.6.225.116 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Note they have in fact gone past 4RR, not sure of this should have gone to AIV as it is (in essence) just a BLP vilaltion being inserted onto the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MezzoMezzo reported by User:ScholarM (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Etymology */ restoring policy compliant version; Youbat, please go to the talk page and stop launching into accusations of OR. Every line I wrote is backed by RS and site policy. Explain rather than edit war"
 * 2)  "/* Etymology */ reverting clear violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NC policies per the talk page; there’s absolutely no way around this"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Reply to your accusation */ new section"

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

The user MezzoMezzo is in edit war continuously with several editors at various pages. He was reported for bad faith editing. He is doing disruptive editing at number of pages. An attempt was made to resolve the dispute by accepting his points also but to no avail. See his disruption here where he was forced to stop his disruption after prevented by User:Youbat. ScholarM (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

User:62.165.250.67 reported by User:Firestar464 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1031366155 by SunDawn (talk) it's "Several versions". Although Jack indeed does survive in the original and most common version, I'm clarifying that there are versions where he dies."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1031365758 by Rdp060707 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1031365585 by Rdp060707 (talk) ugh, fine"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1031365459 by Rdp060707 (talk) edit was sourced"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1031291058 by Sweetpool50 (talk) + adding source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also WP:MOS vios. Firestar464 (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP editor is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they get a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:214.60.76.193 & User:141.116.160.52 reported by wolf (Result: No action)
Page:

Users being reported: &

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (as 214.60.76.193)
 * 2)  (as 214.60.76.193)
 * 3)  (as 141.116.160.52)
 * 4)  (as 141.116.160.52)
 * 5)  (as 141.116.160.83)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: &

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk pages; &

Comments:

Straight 4RR vio. User refuses to engage. Has been notified of wp:ew multiple at least twice and requested to join tp discussion multiple times. - wolf  14:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand the frustration, but I'm inclined to view this as the IPs removing inadequately sourced info in a BLP, and I don't think blocking or page protection is the best way to go. I know they either aren't seeing your talk page messages, or aren't participating on the talk page, but I'd suggest not describing Horlander as "retired" until an actual RS clearly says he is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Fyi: edits were also made to the same content today from and. Possible COI as this is a US Army BLP and all the IPs are from the Pentagon. While it seems to be the same person, I don't believe this is deliberate socking. Perhaps page protection would be the best course of action to prevent further disruption. (jmho) - wolf  15:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, normally I'd consider full protection until a consensus forms, but in this case I'm not comfortable protecting it in a state where poorly sourced and possibly incorrect info is locked into a BLP. If I protect, I'd lock it in the IP's preferred state.  It seems like it would be better to temporarily revert to the IP's version, and then discuss on the talk page, and gain a consensus for something.  Again, not saying the IP's are really playing fair, but it's possible (likely?) they're actually right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw disruption and non-enagement and thought it should be reported. Now that admin eyes are on this, I'm satisfied and will defer to your judgement on this. (That's why you get big bucks.) - wolf  15:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. It is unclear that we actually know the end date of this general's most recent assignment. When time passes and all the official web sites get updated we may know for sure. In the above discussion, User:Floquenbeam has noted the poor quality of the sourcing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:178.79.46.3 reported by User:Beshogur (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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;

Comments:

Not sure if those are related. Along others, this ip user deletes sources content, his reasonings are:
 * Hello, I explained that there are no sources for this in previous edit. It doesn't matter whether I like it or not. Serbs were part of battle of Angora and Nicopolis, but not part of this battle, you simply don't have any source for this. I wouldn't bothering delete it if it was anything else, but it is shame for wiki to have this kind of disinformation for such an important event in history.
 * 1. Deleted Serbian Despotate - There is no single source that mentions Serbian Despotate taking part in this battle. 2. Deleted Serbian cavalry - Cited source doesn't mention Constantinople at all. It really has nothing to do with the topic, just biography some random janissary (Janissaries began as elite corps made up through the devşirme system of child slavery). 3. Deleted part of the sentence about Serbs taking part in the battle, because sources don't tell anything about it.
 * You don't know what janissary is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary). Janssaries are part of Ottoman forces not Serbian Despotate. You can read in talks about this page, that there were no Serbian Despostate forces engaged in this battle.

1st reasoning: there are no sources, there are literally two sources. but not part of this battle, you simply don't have any source for this. and There is no single source same thing. Cited source doesn't mention Constantinople at all it does: ""Allegedly, the Serbian detachment which participated in the siege of Constantinople in 1453 numbered 1,500 horsemen according to Konstantin Mihailović, who was a member of the unit. (p. 395)". just biography some random janissary user ignores primary sources from that period. Beshogur (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appologize. I've asked for citation and now I can see it, only after I was reported. I suppose many Serb editors will try to delete this, because this is not a common knowledge (and I still have doubts). Everyone knows about involvement in Battle of Angora and Nicopolis, but not in this Siege. In the meantime, I read the original source from Konstantin Mihajlovic, and he is not saying that he was member of unit, so it is not primary source. For such an important event, with lot of sources, I suppose there will be another source that would mention Serbian horsemen. 178.79.46.3 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This IP that persistently adding unsourced content should be reported to AIV. However, regardless of that, the vandals must be blocked quickly. 180.242.42.109 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:El C per a request at RFPP. See the RfC at Talk:Fall of Constantinople. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User: TheWeekdayz reported by User: Osh33m (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   Osh33m changes Career section after no comment on Talk page
 * 2)  TheWeekdayz reverts section, no comments on Talk page
 * 3)  Osh33m restores section and pings TheWeekdayz on Talk page
 * 4)  TheWeekdayz reverts section again, doesn't clearly address why on the talk page, Osh33m responds
 * 5)  Osh33m restores the page with a believed resolution and asks TheWeekdayz not to revert again without consensus on the Talk page
 * 6)  TheWeekdayz reverts section again, thus violating the 3RR without comment on the Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: On 6/25 (6/26 UTC) I posted a section on The Weeknd Talk page proposing an adjustment to the career section. I waited three days for input from other editors and received none, and proceeded to make the edit on 6/28. TheWeekdayz began reverting the edits shortly thereafter saying
 * It doesn't need an opinion for it to be factually incorrect. However, you should still bring up a topic on the page as it costs nothing and adds to the article immensely. This edit, however, did not. Tesfaye has stated that After Hours is finished, and you can find that all over the internet. Moral of the story: Do your research, consult the talk page.

I don't know how this comment pertains at all to the proposed edit I made, and I made my first revert and asked TheWeekdayz to elaborate on the Talk page to which they said:
 * It’s factually incorrect if you even read the sections in 2019-present. You’ll see information about new ear “The Dawn” that has nothing to do with After Hours. Tesfaye confirmed that After Hours is over. For the time being, I’m reverting it, as it’s just not true.

Which is still completely vague as to why they are reverting my entire edit. I believed they were referring to new music that the artist was referring to, and added that to the latest revision but TheWeekdayz proceeded to revert it anyway, thus violating 3RR and implied they would continue:
 * I’m going to revert it until a resolution has been reached on the talk page, as it was like this before you started the discussion

But they aren't looking for a resolution it seems, only looking to restore the page without discussion. --Osh33m (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that I have also had difficulties with this user. I've experienced their edit-warring a few times, reverting my edits without discussion, and constantly attempting to edit the article based on their own personal preference. I feel like their editing of The Weeknd has been somewhat reckless and damaging to the article, and has inconvenienced many editors of the article, such as myself and @Osh33m. I feel like I am too-frequently having to check what edits have been made by this user, and, almost all of the time, these edits are not helpful. I do however, believe many edits are made in good faith, but they are often drastic and require some sort of discussion, which this user rarely attempts to find. Many edits also seem unnecessary, and it often feels like this user is just editing for the sake of it, instead of with the intention to improve the article. I believe this article would be of a higher quality without this user's edits. HvndsxmeSquidwvrd (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long term edit warring. It is a problem when someone adds unsourced claims to a BLP article. This user has also managed to trigger the edit filter seven times regarding the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:BerkBerk68 reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: }}

Previous version reverted to:diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

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

Comments: The page is within the General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and has a 1RR rule in 24 hours which is shown every time one hits the edit button. The Editor has reverted several times within less than 24 hours, was warned also of the sanctions of the Sanctions regarding Kurds and Kurdistan and wasn't really cooperative at the article talk page nor is his editing behavior. Three different editors have reverted him.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The editor keeps on edit-warring. By now four editors have reverted him Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * By now five different editors have reverted BerkBerk68, 3 of which have been within the 24h/1RR rule.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

wrong information. 4 editors reverted me, one editor has reverted on my side. its 2 against 4, not 1 against 5. All the informations I've written are correct and sourced official European Commission and US' state.gov. One of the editors writed that he is ideologically supporting the Rojava in his own user page. I accept the fact that I did 3 reverts in one day meanwhile I shouldn't do that. BerkBerk68 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok great, BerkBerk68 just edited his Userpage enough times to be able to circumvent the page protection I asked for after here was no action taken. Can someone here take care of this edit warrior gaming the system?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked five days for 1RR violation on a page that is under community sanctions. User:El C has already removed their EC userright per a complaint at ANI due to gaming their 30/500 status. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Cs1327 reported by User:Novem Linguae (Result: WP:NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed inaccurate information"
 * 2)  "Removed inaccurate information"
 * 3)  "Removed inaccurate information"
 * 4)  "Removed inaccurate information"
 * 5)  "Removed biased and libellous edits"
 * 6)  "Removed biased and libellous edits"
 * 7)  "Removed biased and libellous edits"
 * 1)  "Removed biased and libellous edits"
 * 2)  "Removed biased and libellous edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: .

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Page Bret Weinstein was full protected to stop this person from edit warring. Why should the rest of us be blocked from editing this page because one person edit warred? Maybe a different solution is needed. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Cs1327 as WP:NOTHERE for this edit-warring and for their history of disruption and agenda-driven edits. I will not lift the protection as there was one other editor besides Cs1327 who attempted to white-wash the article. If you think the protection should be lifted, you should request that from, who imposed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:TomReagan90 reported by User:Dlthewave (Result: Pblock from the article)
Page: (1RR violation)

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:13 1 July 2021 "Doxxing" section blanked.
 * 2) 16:15 1 July 2021 "Credibility" section blanked.
 * 3) 07:57 2 July 2021 Material removed from "Credibility" section after it was restored. Note the claim that the source "doesn't even mention Ngo", even though there's a quote mentioning him by name right there in the reference. (Of the three diffs, I would consider this one to be the bright-line 1RR violation since it removes the same content a second time.)

'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'
 * 1) 17:18 1 July 2021 1RR notice from.
 * 2) 21:18 1 July 2021 Not a warning, but words of advice to avoid "pushing too much, too fast" from.

'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Current discussion. TomReagan90 tries to justify their section blanking by copy-pasting large sections of the BLP policy but fails to explain their specific objections to this content. They also say "I never challenged the sources in the two sections", so it's not even clear why exactly these passages are being challenged.

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

Comments:

Please see also the ANI report filed by TomReagan against after they restored the deleted content. –dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought I was removing a bunk link. Honest mistake. Look: https://ibb.co/njswzxT - This is the article that comes up for me, in my country (different continent). I even enquired about this on the Talk Page. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * On the Incident Noticeboard I wrote "(P.S. neither the Columbia Journalism Review - if the original article ever even existed, no one seems to be able to source it..." because, as you can see, I was looking at a completely different article. I still cannot access from my country the same one as you guys (presumably North American). I am however learning a lot about this Nancy character.... TomReagan90 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow. A blanket reversion of 15 of my edits. Over an hour's work. Is that breach of 1RR I wonder? I've honestly lost the will to live at this point, I can't even be bothered opening one of these for the editor who just deleted all my contributions. ugh. What's the point.. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. If you wish to edit controversial articles, expect to have to justify your edits. And if this leads to you losing your will to live, I'd recommend finding something else to do with your time. Take a break from Wikipedia for a few days. Or months. Or years. It won't have changed much when you return... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't I know it! (but, for the record, I painstakingly cited policy for every edit I made. it was all deleted with one click and the edit summary "whitewashing".... which I don't even understand that to actually mean.. but attempts at dialogue and quoting policy have only fallen on deaf ears. and weirdly, not a peep from a single admin? plenty of abuse though, plenty of that. Ad hominems galore. When I return I'll stick to more arcane subjects, and not get caught up in your country's Culture Wars...) TomReagan90 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Difs 1&2 are one diff. It's not 100% clear that counts as a revert or an original edit. It would be wise for TR90 to treat such changes as a revert as a way to avoid the gray areas of 1RR. Diff 3 is a revert but that puts us at 1RR so not over the limit. Andy is right about this being a controversial topic. Take it slow. Even if you are 100% correct if you piss off the regulars you are likely to get blocked from the topic even if your intent is good. Springee (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Bishonen has partially-blocked User:TomReagan90 from editing Andy Ngo for a period of three months, in response to a complaint of the same dispute at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Evrik reported by User:82.12.89.88 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woggle&oldid=1031445166

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.89.88 (talk • contribs) 18:53, July 2, 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look at this edit, you'll notice that the anon ip that's driving this edit also took out the category Category:Scouting uniform. Same with the second edit. Clearly, there is some bad editing here, whether its unfamiliarity or intentional, who knows. also reverted one of the edits and warned the ip. The third time the ip reverted me, I had actually added new content. This is someone acting like a troll. Please treat this as such. --evrik (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. I advise the IP editor against removing sourced content with no edit summary. If anyone thinks linking to woggleworld.com is incorrect, you might consider posting at WP:External links noticeboard to get advice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Santhoshkavin reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:24–17:25, 5 June 2021

The user wishes to change the city population in the infobox identified as being from 2011 census from 1,017,865 to 1,470,775.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:23, 5 June 2021‎ – 06:22, 6 June 2021
 * 2) 16:20, 27 June 2021
 * 3) 10:39-10:55, 28 June 2021
 * 4) 13:26-14:19, 28 June 2021
 * 5) 16:53, 28 June 2021
 * 6) 08:10–08:27, 3 July 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:14, 28 June 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Santhoshkavin

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

Comments:


 * – Indef for disruptive editing. The user makes constant unsourced changes to population numbers and does not seem to be here to improve the encyclopedia. They have made no response to any of the concerns posted on their talk page; in fact, they have made no talk posts of any kind. Any admin who believes this editor has changed their mind and will follow Wikipedia policy in the future can lift this block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Xprrt5 reported by User:Jorm (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Reverts after being first reverted
 * 2) Second
 * 3) Third
 * 4) Fourth, with "if you really think that readers won't understand this one particular"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was not attempting to collaborate; discussion was done through edit summaries; user expressed proficiency with understanding edit summaries.

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

Comments:

This is the stupidest hill to die on - a link to Wiktionary. This user has expressed exactly zero intent to collaborate at all. There's really not much more to say.--Jorm (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – The diffs are not quite right: the first one listed is not actually a diff. The first removal of the wiktionary link by Xprrt5 was a new edit and not a revert. Up till now, neither party has used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston:" Respectfully, no. There is a 4RR violation there; I apologize if I didn't get the diffs correctly, but they have made five edits to the page, four of which were to revert back to their preferred order.  I did not include the original edit.
 * This is a bad close. Please look at the edit history. Jorm (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a bad close. If you don't count the first edit as a revert, there was no 3RR violation because there were only 3 reverts in a 24-hour window. Even if you count the first edit as a revert, filing this report two days after it happened makes the report stale. There is a dispute, and it should be worked out among you but not in edit summaries. The only thing I agree with is that it is a stupid battle. Unfortunately, we see a lot of stupid battles on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So this cat gets to slow edit war forever. Nice. Good for them, I guess. Jorm (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is reverting without explanation expressing an intent to collaborate? User:Jorm did that, not me. Their attacks on me over this are strange and completely unnecessary and it seems to me they wanted a dispute. I hope this can be dismissed. Xprrt5 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Instance 1
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert


 * Instance 2
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Edit warring notice 1 - should have put this up long ago. FYI they have not reverted the specific edits referenced above since the warning was placed on their talk page.

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

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

Comments: Myself and Benicio2020 have disagreed on a lot of content concerning Braxton Mitchell. We both have reverted each others' edits, though they have ramped them up a tad, with very little to no interactions on their talk page and the article talk page, and honestly I'm at wits end. I make a lot of cosmetic changes to legislative articles (especially Montana articles) and I typically fix dates, infoboxes, templates, etc. But when I stumbled upon Braxton Mitchell, it was wholly negative and it really needed some work. You can see the lengthy and convoluted edit history from the article that there have been some editing disputes.

The history behind this report: Benicio2020 first reverted some content I added with an edit summary of "removed original research - none of that was in the source," then secondly they reverted the same content under the auspices of "not in the sources cited." In my following reverts I stated plainly that the content was sourced and "The content you are claiming is unsourced is in the article... please please read the article." Third, they reverted the same content for a third time within 24 hours with the edit summary "discuss on article talk page first."

I took the discussion to the talk page. After I had posted to the talk page (with a ping) they made another edit with the edit sumamry "remov[ing] opinion-based verbiage not in the sources." I pinged him again asking him to address how the content that I added was considered original research, unsourced, and now opinion-based verbiage.

While this is all going on, another user User:WikiEditorOffice was editing the article and both they and Benicio had their own edit wars/spat. Benicio2020 later comments in the referenced talk section and starts talking about WikiEditorOffice and their edits (which are not related to my own), and does not address what the section was about. Long side story short... through edit summaries, they alleged that myself and WikiEditorOffice were the same person, so I added a section with the WP:SPI link on their talk page. They also requested information about Sockpuppetry. They believe that somehow I'm the same user, and they continue to bring up their edits while I don't know them. (this will make sense down the line, because they continue to mention this user frequently).

With all this going on, I reply (albeit, a little snippy) asking him to address the above because it had been two weeks since I had posted in the talk page and they had yet to reply despite him further editing the article...

Two more weeks later (now a month later at this point) they respond and note that WikiEditorOffice was banned, and totally still doesn't address why they deleted/reverted my edits or justified why they claimed they were XYZ. Just recently they removed the same content, only now because I am purportedly trying to "soften the image of a politician."

Bottom line : it's been a month since I posted in the talk section asking for clarification as to why they removed (and continue to remove) the content I added. They have yet to reply to the core disucssion in the section. Instead they reply about another user and their edits. They have repeatedly (through edit summaries) said "discuss on talk page" but don't actually follow through themselves, but instead revert.

I'm hoping to keep the article clean and simple, and I have tried to communicate with Benicio2020 about the "original research" and such but they continue to revert my edits. I will say that they have indeed started to interact with me on the talk page (a month later), but the reverts are getting disruptive. I'm hoping to improve the article as a whole. I have recently asked for some middle ground to change a policy stance which I view as solely an WP:ATTACK. His response: "There's no reason to reword what I wrote other than to whitewash and try to paint Mitchell in a more positive light. That is, I believe, a violation of NPOV." It doesn't seem that they have an interest in collaborating with folks (or maybe just me). Just seems like WP:TALKDONTREVERT is completely ignored by the user and I'm hoping that something can be done about it. What I am asking for is some sort of intervention, warning, slap on the wrist, or anything to help Benicio2020 understand that civilized discussion can lead to better articles. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I violated the three-revert rule on this. But I do believe PerpetuityGrat did. Furthermore, I was involved in the talk page discussion with him, about him removing sourced material and accusing me of cherry-picking details, when he filed this report. Which surprised me. Benicio2020 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are the examples of PerpetuityGrat removing sourced info, 4 times within 24 hours: Benicio2020 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * you have been aloof on the talk page until just recently. It's been over a month since I first engaged with you on the talk page and all of a sudden you start to get chatty. You still haven't addressed the original discussion, yet continue to revert edits. In regards to the tweets... I probably should not have reverted that four times, but WP:3RRNO. You continue to post content that is unproven and WP:ALLEGED. Even the source uses the word alleged four times to describe the tweets. The twitter content is separate from the issue I have discussed above. There is no reason to keep content on Wikipedia about alleged tweets, especially when they disparage the subject of the article. You keep saying that I apparently know he tweeted them. Well, I do not. And Twitter screenshots aren't proof (WP:RSPTWITTER). Per WP:NOW, Therefore if an article contains false or unverifiable content, please correct it yourself. Immediately. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am frankly more concerned by your semi-admission here that this is not your first Wikipedia account. According to the page you linked, Clean start, aren't you supposed to disclose the name of the other accounts you used? Benicio2020 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * nope, not really required to. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up other things other than the core discussion. It's always something, and again, a month later you still haven't replied as to why you reverted the edits above, which is why this whole section was made in the first place. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So you did have/do have other accounts? Benicio2020 (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with this section at all. Again, this is you hijacking another talk section. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know, is it? I admit I don't know the exact rules on this, but it feels like if an editor is admitting they have multiple accounts, and they're engaged in whitewashing any negative info off a politician's page, especially one where another account (WikiEditorOffice) was doing the exact same thing to the exact same edits, then it must be relevant to the discussion, whether an editor had multiple accounts, and what they were. Benicio2020 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, it's not relevant, and you should stop bringing up other accounts unless you have a proof (or well-justified suspicion) that the editor has used them against Wikipedia policy. I also advise you to respond to the above complaint about your behaviour. —  kashmīrī  TALK  16:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Benicio2020 and User:PerpetuityGrat are both warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * can I get some clarification on this? I have drawn attention to their reverts in the talk page already, asked for their participation during a month-long period, and yet they have not given a reason for the reverts. They continuously changed their reasoning for the reverts via edit summaries but never addressed the reverts in the talk section. What would you suggest? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Dispute resolution for your options. Consider WP:DRN or WP:RFC. There is no 'duty to respond' but edit warring is against policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * can I get some clarification on this? PerpetuityGrat performed the last revert, in violation of the 3-revert rule, and I made the decision to not violate that rule. If he continues in his refusal to allow sourced material on the article (which he removed 4 times within 24 hours), essentially you're saying that I will be the only one punished if I restore the sourced material - all because he was the last one to make a revert. Meanwhile, his revert violated the 3-revert rule and he's basically getting rewarded for that behavior, is that not the case in practice? Benicio2020 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Benicio2020. Your section about the deleted tweets is problematic under WP:BLP and WP:V; your defending it as 'sourced material' suggests you don't understand our policies. If you restore it again (without getting a full prior review on a noticeboard) it would risk an immediate block under WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Pipsally reported by User:31.40.131.100 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user refuses to constructively cooperate and cancels my edits to the article that repaired violation of WP: QS where sources refer only to the opinion / rumors of people from the distant past and cannot be competent in this particular case. This user refuses to understand the meaning of the rules and, in his sole discretion, interprets such Wikipedia rules as: WP: QS, WP: BRD. Also refuses even to participate in the discussion about ths topic on the discussion page of atricle ALREADY created by another user. I guess we need to return my edit and protect the page - at least. *UPD* MORE: This user is also breaking WP: ETIQ 31.40.131.100 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is completely disingenuous. You are removing sourced figures, and have been asked to get consensus on the talk page and observe WP:BRD. You are the one explicitly saying you won't contribute to the articles talk page for goodness sake https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pipsally&diff=1032063963&oldid=1032062798 "There's no point leaving another message there of this kind".Pipsally (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia contributors must participate in the one that ALREADY is. No need for a new one same topic. There is a topic, but you have refused to participate. But the fact is that in this case is not supposed to be a discussion - I removed an obvious violation of the rules of wikipedia. There is nothing to "discuss" on the discussion page for the article.31.40.131.100 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to deescalate this I've added a new section on the talk page where you can share your input.Pipsally (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note The IP is now discussing on the talkpage, so hopefully we can draw a line under this.Pipsally (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion brought nothing. Better to wait for the decision of the administration31.40.131.100 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a shame. You'll need happier here when you understand that waiting for administration decisions to give you what you want isn't a thing. I'm sure we can find a way of addressing your concerns if you continue to discuss it


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Nuevousuario1011 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked one week)
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:

Nothing more to add here, except who in the not long time, who i am being editing, the only one who is constantly reverting edits. is the other user, please look at every conversation edit, who i have done in the last months, as well as his answers, and interference. As well as my questions being made to other users. Other articles of intrest could be Battle of Friedland and uprising at Valdepeñas. Cordially regardsNuevousuario1011 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Every edit who i made is warred by FDW777, thus is imposible not to war about it. I tried to explain, show sources and everything within a month, i commited a mistake i apologize, but the user take it as a sign of incompetence from me. The rivalry seems to be from early June when i contested a change who he made at the Quatre Bras article. In any case he got what he wanted, and i asked him if he could help with another articles, and just used it to speak against me. Please look at everything, edits, talk pages, third user talk pages, wiki project talk pages, and the only constant is the user FDW777 reverting my own edits, using credible words to defend an inaccurate fact. By the ways on the article of Berlin i talked to the user who made the change and told me who indeed there was no confrontation.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I was also asking other users especially admins for help, and the one who give me the welcome (who didn't answer) help regarding the rules of and what is aceptable or not. However again the same user just revert edits, and when i move them back he reverted them, or when i make my own edits he revert them, last time 46 seconds he took, impossible to even made a major edit. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if someone here oould look for what happen since early june, will understand my problem on taking serious the corrections from this user. I don't complained because i believed who at some point the user will acpet somee of his mistakes. And let me alone, but that didn't happen, so i use this to put fowards, the reasons of the multiple edits. and please do not doubt in asking me something. If you need.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

my question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruedi33a&diff=1032027773&oldid=1032004487

my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1032130791

the current edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Berlin_(1806)&diff=next&oldid=1032140031 Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Another source of dispute with the acusing user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=1032000328&oldid=1031995931

notice the comentaries please.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Other case of the user reverting my edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as&diff=next&oldid=1030552220 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as&diff=next&oldid=1030954407

Current form, with my edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as&diff=next&oldid=1031083525 Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Well the user FDW777 seems to now have gone to the incident noticeboard, with his version of the things, i answer there, altought if you ask i would answer here to anything you need.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User:73.148.161.187 reported by User:Crazycomputers (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1032035709 by Meters (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1032035709 by Meters (talk)"

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

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

Comments:

IP editor is warring to replace an image at Flip-flops and Sandals with a lower-quality image. has attempted to start discussion with them, and warned them about EW policy. IP continues to revert and does not engage discussion.

I made myself WP:INVOLVED by expressing an opinion on the quality of the image so I'm reporting here for an uninvolved administrator to handle. --Chris (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Alluburam reported by User:Nahtrav (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

This user has been reverting other users edits without any reason. He give districtsvname his wish which is not in government records, he is also changing election constituencies name. If we edit that, he comes and revert it always.He has been continuously reverting the edits made by me and some other users.He give names by his wish, but If I revert it according to government records, he again reverted it, many users are annoyed by him. Nahtrav (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahtrav (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Amhara Man 06 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Blocked one week)
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:

User is also reverting at other articles and wrongly accusing others of vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Popsmokes38 reported by User:Peaceray (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1032029859 by paid agent Peaceray (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Manual of style (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries (RW 16.1)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Vandalism (RW 16.1)"
 * 4)   "Caution: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Please see Talk:Imran Khan to which Popsmokes38 has failed to respond. Peaceray (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

This editor has started edit warring on a couple of articles & has reverted or been reverted by multiple editors. What I find most troubling is that the reversal of my BLP reversion was accompanied by the edit summary Undid revision 1032029859 by paid agent Peaceray. I believe this to be defamatory. Peaceray (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Obviously one revert is not enough to block for edit-warring. However, a review of Popsmokes38's edits indicates that they are a problematic user, so you might consider taking them to WP:ANI. If you do, though, you'll have to present more diffs than just the one to demonstrate a need for sanctions, e.g, marking edits as minor and failure to respond (they don't talk at all).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will do that if I see further disruptive editing. Is there another administrator forum in which I bring up the defamatory Undid revision 1032029859 by paid agent Peaceray edit summary? This certainly demonstrated a tremendous lack of WP:AGF. Peaceray (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ANI is the place to go for personal attacks, but I'm not sure how far you'll get if you bring up only that, maybe just a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad reported by User:Uanfala (Result: Bkonrad and Qalnor are warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 02:30
 * 2) 03:38
 * 3) 10:13
 * 4) 15:13

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not now, but on 29 June they were warned that if they break 3RR again, they're liable to get blocked immediately, see archived report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: After 3 unexplained reverts, Bkonrad did finally start a brief thread at User talk:Qalnor, but that hasn't stopped them from reverting again.

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

Comments: This appears to have been resolved after Qalnor's post at User talk:Bkonrad, but it was quite depressing to see Qualnot's well explained edits to the page get repeatedly undone by Bkonrad without explanation. I believe we need a clear signal that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable, and previous warnings do not seem to have done the job. – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, the actual edits by are nonsensical and completely unsupported by the linked article and the explanation provided was very nearly unintelligible and doesn't in any way justify the edits. The edits looked like vandalism (as suspected by cluebot as well). I mentioned my concerns on Qalnor's talk page and I was on the verge of blocking Qalnor. Though thankfully Uanfala has taken it upon herself the task of monitoring whether I ever make any potential incursions into 3RR (and occasional even appears to goad). older ≠ wiser 17:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You mentioned your 'concerns' that were minimally responsive after twice reverting the changes without any content. At that time your concerns mostly amounted to accusing me of vandalism, a behavior which I will not actually accuse you of, but more closely resembles your own behavior (i.e. making changes without comment, and while doing so making an article less factual rather than more.) Qalnor (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bkonrad (aka older ≠ wiser), given that you eventually removed the dab entry yourself, and so have apparently come round to Qalnor's point of view, I take it that you don't find their edits as nonsensical any more. At the time, you disagreed with their edit and their explanations for it: in that case, you should have set out to them why you disagreed, instead of continually reverting without explanation. (And FYI, I noticed the edit war after Qalnor posted on your talk page, which I have on my watchlist as I've recently posted there myself. I'm not normally bothered about people occasionally edit-warring with each other, but this is part of a pattern and I've talked to you about it before. I hold no ill will towards you and I would like to see you continue editing in this area, but the tendency for edit-warring is inexcusable and absolutely should stop). – Uanfala (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Uanfala, except I have not "come around" as you put it -- at least not in how the edits themselves were presented. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between an entry for 1929 and the contemporary shopping day. Nothing that Qalnor said lead me to understand this. It was only after following the redirect and reading the target article that I understood the redirect IS essentially a mistake. I reverted because the edit was nonsensical and the "explanations" provided in edit summaries were nearly unintelligible. No, it looked like vandalism and I treated it like vandalism. older ≠ wiser 20:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are Qalnor's edit summaries:
 * clarified 1929 black friday
 * Undid revision 1032015248 by Bkonrad (talk) no explanation given; re-reverting given the fact that Black Friday is definitively not the historical day on which the 'New York stock market crashed, initiating the Great Depression'
 * Undid revision 1032022657 by Bkonrad (talk) Undoing unexplained reversion. Information originally present has no historical basis.
 * clarified 1929 black friday without any reference to shopping, although truthfully without mentioning the reason why people call it black friday it is difficult to explain why it's here at all
 * While it may not be completely clear what the first edit summary meant, it was still perfectly intelligible, and the following edit summaries clarified the point beyond any reasonable doubt. I can't see anything that looks like vandalism there, and I can't understand why we're even having that conversation given that we all agree now that Qalnor was right. – Uanfala (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Uanfala, no these summaries were attached to edits that simply made no sense. Not a single one of Qalnor's edits made any sense. older ≠ wiser 22:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Bkonrad and User:Qalnor are both warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Black Friday without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:A8F9:0:6D5E:7228:B87F:A94C reported by User:Tigraan (Result: Partially blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1032408771 by Ashleyyoursmile (talk) They do not need a source. Please try to read the full chain of edits as you are just regurgitating what others have said."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1032408522 by Kleinpecan (talk) You are being negativistic."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1032407892 by Kleinpecan (talk) I'm not adding original research. You are being negativistic by jumping to conclusions and assuming I'm breaking rules and by complaining on my talk page as opposed to having an edit summary."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1032407063 by Kleinpecan (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1032402984 by SunDawn (talk) You are being negativistic. I very obviously don't need to add sources because this disorder is nonsense. Would you want me to add sources if I happen to change a wikipedia article saying that Bigfoot is real? No. So stop being negativistic."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

gave a few Twinkle warnings including the edit-war one at 6:21 (the four reverts occur later between 8 and 10), although not a 3RR warning. However, the likelihood of this editor heeding a 3RR warning seems pretty low to me. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 2001:8003:A8F9:0:0:0:0:0/64 partially blocked for 48 hours by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

User:173.76.57.10 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  "/* 2021 gun shop ban */  added opposition viewpoint"
 * 3)  "/* 2021 gun shop ban */  added opposition viewpoint"
 * 4)  "/* 2021 gun shop ban */  added opposition viewpoint"
 * 5)  "/* 2021 gun shop ban */  added opposition viewpoint"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * They've made it clear that they'll continue to edit-war on tehir talkpage.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Acoterion believes that the edit has no value and continues to remove cited content at will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.57.10 (talk)

Comments:
 * —C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ekdalian reported by User:Dr.SunBD (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Dear wikipedian, User:Ekdalian destroy informations with references by editwarring. This user's Warring activity against some castbase article specially Vaidya,Vaidyabrahmin ,Ambhastha. Please check  this user's editing history. Thank you.
 * Result: No action. It turns out this is an old report. Although undated, it was actually filed on June 24. At that time User:Dr.SunBD left this comment on Ekdalian's talk page, charging vandalism and edit warring. Around that time, User:Ekdalian left a comment on User:Bishonen's talk page, alleging POV pushing by caste warriors, for example on Baidya. At Vaidyabrahmin (the article mentioned here) Dr.SunBD seems to have been adding material to the article directly quoted out of the Mahabharata, an epic from ancient India. Why does an article called Vaidyabrahmin even exist? It's not about a caste, it is perhaps a religious topic. The edits of User:Dr.SunBD might need further review, but that user has not continued to edit Wikipedia since 24 June, so I am closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The account Dr.SunBD ceased editing after I warned them about edit warring, poor sourcing, misrepresenting sources, and caste glorification. Baidya has seen many new, or "new", users appear since then, but is now semiprotected. Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC).
 * I have stopped editing out of respect for Senior Admin User:Bishonen even though I know User:Ekdalian is misguiding him/her.

User:Dr.SunBD

User:David Gerard reported by User:Autonomous agent 5 (Result: Declined)
Page: User being reported:

11:24, 6 July 2021‎ - 14:33, 6 July 2021‎ reverted 12 edits

15:23, 6 July 2021‎, 15:27, 6 July 2021‎,  15:27, 6 July 2021

08:57, 7 July 2021, 10:38, 7 July 2021‎,  10:42, 7 July 2021

with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * . I don't see a clear violation of 3RR, nor have you shown where you attempted to discuss this matter on the article's talk page. Given that  has raised concerns of promotional content, it sounds like you really need to discuss this matter and get consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:David Gerard is giving what appears to be legitimate criticism in the summary and changing the article to show the criticism i.e. adding tags - but when this editor looks at the sources it wasn't possible to find how the sources aren't legitimate for the article - in addition this editor has made changes 21:57, 6 July 2021,  19:31, 6 July 2021 - the editor is not reasonably showing consideration for the material in the article -


 * 18:45, 6 July 2021 will not allow the "Publications" section
 * reverted the "Design" section @ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎ containing only green sources WP: RSP @  15:23, 6 July 2021 with the summary "rv promotional, crypto, deprecated content - Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion"
 * cite 6 @ this version "Chainlink is currently headquartered within the Cayman Islands" is yet again reverted from the article @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainlink_(blockchain) - the user has reverted this sentence @ 15:18, 8 July 2021, 08:57, 7 July 2021, ‎ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎


 * with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Nvtuil reported by User:Ecthelion83 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 0:39, 20 June 2021:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 09:40, 6 July 2021:
 * 07:56, 9 July 2021:
 * 07:43, 9 July 2021:
 * 19:53, 10 July 2021:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 19:56, 10 July 2021:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  09:52, 6 July 2021 and 20:35, 10 July 2021:
 * 2)  23:46, 10 July 2021:  - my remarks are at the end of this subsection

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;
 * 21:48, 10 July 2021:
 * 21:33, 10 July 2021:

Comments:

Yes, I am reporting myself in addition to, as I have just noticed that I am engaging in this as well. This is an ongoing dispute; I believe that without administrator action this pattern of edit warring may continue, even if I myself refrain from participating. I am also concerned that may not be a good-faith editor, based on his past edit summaries and his attitudes on being an IP editor (as ) prior to creating an editor identity.Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note that: 1) I re-phrased problematic wording, in good faith, which was brought to my attention by, and yet he later deleted the entire segment, even though it was relevant, reorganized, and properly sourced/cited (among the reasons given in his edit summaries are a blanket dismissal of what I believe to be credible sources).

2) then rewrote the entire first subsection (on Sri Lanka) based on his POV, which is counter to the purpose of presenting a debate that is not yet concluded ( does have 2-3 credible sources to support his POV, and I have a few sources representing an opposing POV; I believe these sources are credible and cannot simply be dismissed). His use of POV wording such as "wrongful" is, I believe, unacceptable in this article.

3) On his talk page, accuses me of accusing a scholar (one of his sources) of intentionally failing to discuss what he believes to be an irrelevant topic. In retrospect, the language in my original edits were very accusatory, and thus after he brought this to my attention, I corrected the wording. However, the point still stands that the different treatment of Japanese loans to Sri Lanka in comparison to Chinese loans is relevant, and the source, for whatever reason, did not address this. The fact remains that Sri Lanka has treated its debt obligations differently, and as a result this brings suspicion on the terms of the Chinese loans. That needs to be discussed, or at least noted. This contention was completely deleted by, even when re-worded appropriately.

4) took issue with my need for citations. He seems to fail to understand that I am adhering to a style of citation, in which either every sentence (i.e. every clause presented as a documented fact) is cited.

5) Along with this style, when referring to authors, public figures, etc., I refer to them by their title and their last name, even if I were to know these individuals personally and am on a first-name basis with them. Edits by to Deborah Brautigam's introduction are not only inconsistent with this style, but his characterization of this presentation as "redundant" wording suggests that he is not familiar with any style at all, and will likely revert any attempt I make to bring the article into consistency with a style of presentation/citation.Ecthelion83 (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Neither editor has made 4 reverts in a 24-hour period. Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:207.96.79.216 reported by User:Eric (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1033014110 by HopsonRoad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1033012056 by Eric (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1033011988 by Eric (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1033010800 by Eric (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1032985779 by HopsonRoad (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1032985779 by HopsonRoad (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Overly long contribution to the History section */ add note re edit warring"

Comments:

IP instantly reverts any attempt to edit their additions. No communication. Eric talk 02:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)