Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive437

User:MarioProtIV reported by User:Piquito veloz (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:
 * User reverts with subjetive reasons, for example he dont know difference between primary source (wp:or) or secundary and Tertiary source and 2° or 3° sources are allowed in encyclopedias.  User dont know that celestia is GNU, open source and sources of the images is, for example, from NASA (public domain).--Piquito veloz (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I do, and the reason why I removed them was because they were being discussed on your talk page, which seems to indicate that they are not allowed. I repeatedly advised in the later edits that the images should be removed until the discussion is sorted out about the images, which apparently are a copyright violation. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not copyright violations there because NASA guidelines are clear. Sources in the information of each image is clear. User dont know about licenses theme. --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Texture used to wear Kepler-7b in Celestia was downloaded of the server and webpages of the NASA. --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can read there the next text: "NASA content - images, audio, video, and computer files used in the rendition of 3-dimensional models, such as texture maps and polygon data in any format - generally are not subject to copyright in the United States. You may use this material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits, computer graphical simulations and Internet Web pages. This general permission extends to personal Web pages." --Piquito veloz (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do know about license difference but the fact that no consensus was reached on the images means they probably should not be there in the first place, and in some cases are redundant as some of the size comparisons are OR since there is no set value for some of them. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MarioProtIV is changing the argument, tend to alternate between non-existent copyright infringements (He does not know the issue of licenses) to subjective appreciations such as redundancy or OR (He does not know the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources), there is not a previous image in the case of WASP-62, and there lot of sources and descriptions indicate that the planet is a clarified giant    because alkali metals or sodium and user revert and now the article is without images again, where is the supposed redundancy there? There are a lot of images from Celestia in a large number of articles without reverting but, coincidentally, mine are reverted. Looks like harassment--Piquito veloz (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, a clarified giant texture is secondary or tertiary source because is based in descriptions of scientistcs and artist about apparience of the planets with strong sodium fingerprint in an exoplanet spectrum. --Piquito veloz (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the comparisons appear the size of planets in kilometers in the left corner of the pics, for example, can see it in kepler-22b appear radius as 15307 kilometers according to the source that appear in wikipedia about that Kepler-22b is around of the mean of 2.4 times the size of Earth and theres is not a redundancy of pics there too because there is not a previus pic with a comparisons of the size of Kepler22b versus Earth and texture of Kepler-22b is from NASA (public domain). None of the arguments that the user has mentioned are there, why reverts? What's going on there? --Piquito veloz (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Will he invent a new subjective argument from now on related to Kepler-22b?--Piquito veloz (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Same theme that Kepler-22b is in OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, in left corner appear size acording to source that appear in Wikipedia about the mean of radius, not previus comparisions pics (not redundancy),  texture of the planet by NASA (public domain) None of the arguments that the user has mentioned are there, why reverts? What's going on there?--Piquito veloz (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User acting like the owner of a lot of articles about exoplanets even without clear arguments or argument like there is not consensus just when he is the only that revert in Kepler-22b a stable version that was there during 5 days. and other lot of articles related. Here is a collaborative environment and not a place to collect articles imposing subjective criteria without clear arguments. If the user have reverser tools i ask to admins if he be able to use such tools. --Piquito veloz (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps new war of edits in Kepler-22b start again because user try revert again.  I back to pic version because was there during 5 days and lot of users saw it, more stable version is the previus version that he always try revert --Piquito veloz (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we don’t know the true size of Kepler-22b (and other planets) down to the kilometer (and assuming so via Celestia is probably OR), and it is always changing with new studies that come out. Plus, there is already a size comparison at the top of the page so the image is redundant. I do not understand why a discussion on the planet’s talk page was created about it instead of being constantly re-added despite objections or comments about them. Until the matter is settled I highly recommend they be removed until consensus can be made about these images. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Parameter is about the mean, if your argument is true why you dont run to revert here? if the mean changes the image changes too. Someone revert the info about the mean radius in the text only because is speculative too? Well, answer is no! --Piquito veloz (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we don’t know the true size of Kepler-22b (and other planets) why does you back to the next image in Kepler-7b? --Piquito veloz (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Celestia is GNU and is a tool to create images like GIMP or photoshop. This user have created this pic with his tools  and the info of sources is poor (only he said that source is public domain in info) and He doesn't mention which tool he used ¿Gimp, photoshop, what? In my image appear exact sources from the NASA and quality is better and my tool is Celestia.  I ask again if we don’t know the true size of Kepler-22b (and other planets) why does you back to the next image in Kepler-7b? --Piquito veloz (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Celestia is open source and GNU, if a parameter is wrong or outdated is updated acording new sources (based in sources mean is not an OR like WIKIPEDIA!!!) in the same way a user is creating new image with GIMP or Photoshop since public domain images and NASA sources to upload to commons --Piquito veloz (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User acting like owner of articles, now i try help readers to put a image (not is my image) in mass, size and temperature seccion and again user is using subjetive criteria. I revert him again, please someone admin help with this theme. I only try makes better the wikipedia to readers--Piquito veloz (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not act like I own the articles, I simply am trying to make them a simply better piece to read, and things such as redundant images aren’t really necessary. I do not understand why you did not start a discussion one any one of the talk pages about these images if you really want them to stay. That is how we usually gain consensus no? It is pettyish that I had to engage in this reverting because a discussion was not started and instead was resolved to back and forth edit warring which just simply runs the chances of the pages getting locked and possible blocks against either one of us. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:MarioProtIV always change the argument, when is not copyright theme is other theme to revert. Most of my images stay there during days without someone revert and he say is consensus if not aply according his likes despite the weight of the arguments. --Piquito veloz (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because User:MarioProtIV started with massive reverts in a lot of articles without ask in talks of each page I guess that to reach consensus the best way is here and admins see it too. For example, in the case of HD 189733 b the user revert to previus comparison where other user uploaded this pic and he was using tools of Askaniy, Askaniy is a well know russian user of Celestia that use same parameters to Celestia. According arguments of MarioProtIV is OR too or what? --Piquito veloz (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1° revertion,
 * 2) 2° revertion,
 * 3) 3° revertion
 * 4) 4° revertion

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:


 * Result: Both User:MarioProtIV and User:Piquito veloz are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Kepler-7b before getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. At first glance, the licensing of the Celestia images looks acceptable for Wikipedia but this needs agreement by editors. It is not an issue to be settled by reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:87.9.93.58 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]

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 page is under DS (user has been informed, specifically about 1RR []. Edit waring over altering a quote.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is likely the same editor as 87.11.249.85 which has just made this same edit again. — {Canuck  lehead}  09:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. This is probably the same editor as Special:Contributions/87.11.249.0/24, a range that was blocked just now by User:Malcolmxl5 for six months. Both IPs have been reverting at National Policy Institute on the issue of whether it is a white supremacist group. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Karma1998 reported by User:Pipsally (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1033062724 by Pipsally (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1033058383 by Pipsally (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1033058336 by Pipsally (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1033058336 by Pipsally (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Historicity of Jesus."

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

Comments:

Edit warring to push his OR driven deletion of sourced content. Pipsally (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Goodmorning. I have deleted such material because it supports the Christ myth theory, which is a fringe theory rejected by virtually all scholars. Thomas L. Thompson's works, in particular, have been subjected to devastating critiques by mainstream New Testament scholars such as Maurice Casey and Bart D. Ehrman (I will provide the links to their articles, if needed). Since Wikipedia does not accept fringe theories, I deleted it. I have tried to explain my point to, but she has ignored me.--Karma1998 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any evidence it is a fringe theory, you are using WP:SYNTH to remove sourced material and you are not waiting for consensus on talk, but reverting before it has been achieved. Also, it is not solely that I am reverting but the other changes you make through the article that are unsupported eg changing "most people" to "the overwhleming majority of scholars" and "Most" to "virtually all". these changes are not acceptable without good sources.Pipsally (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory is something that is already well known in the academic community. The point has already been discussed and decided on Wikipedia. There's no need for a debate, because there's already a consensus.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few examples to prove my point:


 * (Gullotta 2017, p. 312): "[Per Jesus mythicism] Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles."


 * Patrick Gray (2016), Varieties of Religious Invention, chapter 5, Jesus, Paul, and the birth of Christianity, Oxford University Press, p.114: "That Jesus did in fact walk the face of the earth in the first century is no longer seriously doubted even by those who believe that very little about his life or death can be known with any certainty. [Note 4:] Although it remains a fringe phenomenon, familiarity with the Christ myth theory has become much more widespread among the general public with the advent of the Internet."


 * Larry Hurtado (December 2, 2017), Why the "Mythical Jesus" Claim Has No Traction with Scholars: "The "mythical Jesus" view doesn’t have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance. Advocates of the "mythical Jesus" may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of Christian Origins, and the due consideration of "mythical Jesus" claims over the last century or more, this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly)."


 * Michael Grant (2004), Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, p.200: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."


 * Bart Ehrman (2012), Did Jesus Exist?, p.20: "It is fair to say that mythicists as a group, and as individuals, are not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars in the fields of New Testament, early Christianity, ancient history, and theology. This is widely recognized, to their chagrin, by mythicists themselves."


 * Maurice Casey (2014) "The whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."[31]

I think this settles the point pretty easily.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mightbe helpful if you put that sort of information in the talk page instead of here.
 * If there's consensus on wikipedia that it is fringe then I have to wonder why there there is such an enormous article on it, and given that it certainly seems reasonable to have the text as it stands.
 * You are still not able to justify all the other changes outside of this point.Pipsally (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The fact that Wikipedia has an article about the Christ myth theory (in which it is openly explained that it is a fringe theory) does not make it true. We also have an article about Young Earth creationism: this doesn't mean we support it, obviously. If you are referring to Thompson's article supporting his own theory, that is just empty circular logic.-Karma1998 (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * violated 3RR only if you count their first removal of material as a revert, which many administrators would not. Otherwise, Karma1998 and both reverted three times. Additionally, there was no edit-warring warning given by Pipsally to Karma1998. I see an ongoing discussion on the article Talk page about whether to include the material; that discussion should, of course, continue until a consensus is reached. Both editors are warned that any more reverts to the article may be met with blocks without notice, and that if a consensus is reached, it would be best to let another editor implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . This discussion will proceed on the talk page.-Karma1998 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998 is still edit warring: revision as of 00:40, 12 July 2021 --2db (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * has actually reached consensus on the talk page and merely defended it. I have left a message to Karma1998 on their user page and they agreed to refrain further from reverting. It seems Karma1998 may not have understood the 3RR properly. The edit referenced above just now, was actually against the consensus on the talk. I was about to revert it myself, but Karma1998 beat me to it.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for violating the 3RR rule and I will not revert any further. However, as pointed out, a consensus has been reached in teh talk page and I felt the need to defend it from unjustified reverts.--Karma1998 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ManfredHugh reported by User:FDW777 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See below

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

At the top of Talk:Belfast the 1RR Troubles restriction is clearly indicated, and the user has posted there many times. User was asked on their user talk page and the article talk page to self-revert, failed to do so. FDW777 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the Talk page for the Belfast page. Posts from May clearly indicate my readiness to discuss and seek consensus on serious factual and interpretive concerns raised by myself and another editor on the wording of the Troubles section to which FDW777 wishes to revert.ManfredHugh (talk)

User:FactDistributor reported by User:TechnicianGB (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: this was the page after agreeing with another account that the previous source wasn't reliable, this was discussed in an admin's talk page.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (3RR broken here, in this case he did again a copy&paste but he manually deleted one of the links so it couldn't appear as a manual revert but it's re-adding back everything except for a link which is anyways added in the text above the chart)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (two times, one a level 2 warning, later a level 3 warning, both ignored and he blanked his talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:   Not on the article's talk page but continuing a previous discussion on User talk:EdJohnston because I suspect that the reported user is a sockpuppet of another user trying to escape from edit warring on similar articles using the same site as a source. The admin told the main account to not to use that source because it's not reliable, so this new account suddenly appeared within 48 hours to revert using the same unreliable source.

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

Comments:

I've added the other comments above. All can be seen (and I strongly recommend to) on User talk: EdJohnston. Ed tried to mediate in between and saw how everything happened. This user as well as the other one I strongly think he's a sockpuppet of, both have the same behavior: both first write something in a talk page (page or userpage) to fastly revert or re-edit without even waiting for any reply, both use exactly the same unreliable source, both have the same writing style and use the same words, both blank their pages after they get warnings (how a "new user" registered less than 48 hours ago knew all of this already?) and both use the same arguments, as provable in User talk:EdJohnston. All started in that talk page because I warned Ed about the other user's behavior. After Ed warned the main account, the main acc remained silent and stopped doing edits to the pages. But then suddenly this "brand new account" re-started the action again. Can this be also used as a beggining of a SPI case? TechnicianGB (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:TechnicianGB reported by User:FactDistributor (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff with the original version of another user after TechnicianGB's hijack: Originally another user had posted data from meteoclub.gr This source didn't contain links and was deemed unreliable from TechnicianGB because the numbers seemed off. Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  I added some data + cited the National Observatory of Athens
 * 3)  He ignores National weather station of Lindos
 * 4)  (3RR broken here, He continues ignoring the data and accuses me of being a double account)

The user TechnicianGB is accusing me of being someone else: I try to do some discussion but he ignores my sources '''Complete Section of me being accused of being someone else and he ignoring National Weather Station of Lindos [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Sockpuppet? here]  Last attempt to reason with him:

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

Comments:

The user TechnicianGB thinks I am a second account of another user which apparently he had some similar arguments. I tried to explain him why Lindos has such weather pattern and gave him multiple times the data from the national weather station of Lindos. There was no weather station before 2014 and all the references he was citing were incorrect. I gave him the start of the measurements https://meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/lindos/2014-04.txt I also gave him the last month the database has results https://meteosearch.meteo.gr/data/lindos/2021-04.txt. He chose to ignore all the data Because the site doesn't provide data for the summary of all the last years, I also provided him the data for 2020 This article shows a mean temperature of 21.7 while his article showed 19. It is obvious that the years can't have such difference. All the data is there he can go through it if he wanted However he decided to accuse me of being someone else and he didn't even bother looking at any of my sources! I didn't cite meteoclub.gr anywhere as a source to support my edit! I am sorry if I violated some rule I am completely new to wikipedia. I am from Rhodes and found his edit really rude and his general stance from the beginning! He didn't even try to read my data he just wanted to report me and overwrite my edit! How can someone from another country without any knowledge of the island be so sure of himself and completely avoid analyzing the sources from national weather station of Lindos. New weather stations are installed in Greece in the recent years we must not use data that doesn't describe the place (i.e. is estimated from other parts of the island far away). FactDistributor (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, could you please revert his last edit on the page Lindos as right now it has that disruptive data? If I do it I would be breaking the 3RR, or in this case I wouldn't be breaking the rule as he got blocked? I'm not sure at all.
 * Also, I don't think me saying he is the same user under another nickname has anything to do here. I've just sticked out to what EdJohnston and two additional users pointed out on User talk:EdJohnston as all started with another user using "meteoclub.gr" as a source (which is not a reliable site) the admin said that use shouldn't be used on Wikipedia as it's not reliable and suddenly a day after, this brand new user appeared making his 1st Wikipedia edit on my talk page and restoring that source on the page Lindos. Since when "new users" start in an on-going issue inside Wikipedia? Just above he has said "I don't use that site, I don't know anything, I'm new here" but he literally used it in all of his 4 reverts where he broke the 3RR over the past 24 hours: 1 2 3 4 This is not even related to this but this is an argument to say why I'm highly suspicious that he's the same person (he might be using another IP address but the writing style, sources, arguments...) are identical to the other's user ones. Since I have outlined his attitude and I have reported him as a potential sockpuppet in an admin's talk page, now he also started with personal attacks against me in the talk pages of two admins (EdJohnston and GeneralNotability) can I use this also as the beggining of a SPI?
 * Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You would be violating 3RR if you reverted, so don't. I see no compelling reason for me to revert it, and I don't normally take a position in a content dispute when I've ruled on a conduct issue. As for filing a report at SPI, that's up to you. I suspect the two users are not related, but I could be wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, gotcha! Thanks for the info. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:85.255.233.18 reported by User:BrightOrion (Result: Both blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

User 85.255.233.18 has made 4 reverts. He is reverting my edit showing the pronunciation of "AA battery" which is referenced from a dictionary. His comment: "What does a dictionary know about batteries?"
 * . The IP reverted only three times. BrightOrion listed two consecutive edits as separate reverts. BrightOrion came close to reverting four times, but their last revert was outside the 24-hour window. Claiming the IP violated 3RR when they were clearly edit-warring was part of the reason I blocked them as it shows little insight into their own behavior. Both users were disruptive. The IP was particularly difficult in the discussion on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Pipsally reported by User:Karma1998 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

The user has engaged in a constant and continuous edit war against me, reverting all my edit failing to provide reasons, while inserting notorious fringe theories in the page. I cannot add all of her revertals, since they are basically countless--Karma1998 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * did you notify the user about this?CycoMa (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just done it--Karma1998 (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The user has repeatedly tried to insert sources supporting the Christ myth theory. Since such theory is a fringe theory, I and other editors (, and ) have reverted their edits. He/She has been repeatedly told to stop inserting new edits on the matter, since a consensus has already been reached. Instead of doing it, she has randomly started to revert all my edits with no apparent reason.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . This is not suitable for this board. Take it to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my mistake. I will take this to WP:ANI.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:CarlPhilippTrump.me reported by User:MPants at work (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

User is reverting against multiple others, while warning them against edit warring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  16:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also possible sockpuppetry: see Special:Contributions/Nowearskirts. Just noting this here before I head over to SPI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  18:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jorm reported by User:Filmomusico (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

To whom it may concern. Today I decided to edit The Beastmaster article, only to be greeted with a revert. Everything would have been fine, if upon reverting him and stating that I am confused what he is talking about, he reverted me again. This was already a second revert, so I decided to let it go, but because I found a good source, I decided to add it. Immediately I was greeted with a revert again suggesting that I shouldn't use Cite template, but, if that's the issue, why revert? Why not putting it in the proper place where it should be, right? So, I added it differently, as a Bibliography. Seems like a proper place for it, right? After the last revert I came here. His reverts are a grave concern, since what I tried to do is to improve an article. And yes, I did discussed the issues on the talkpage, yielding no result.:(--Filmomusico (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:CigaretteNightmares reported by User:Hemiauchenia (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]

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

Comments: User appears to be WP:NOTHERE. All of their edits have been attempts to promote fringe views about Aliens and UFOs. This particular edit appears to be motivated by the fact that Zeta Reticuli is mentioned in alien abduction claims, and the section contradicts the idea that the star has planets. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This page is still on my watchlist from the report I recently filed, and I saw this, and since I'm involved, I figured I'd add that the edit summary in their initial removal of this content paints a picture of an editor who is very clearly WP:NOTHERE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:FormalDude (Result: 1 week partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033208136&oldid=1033206284&title=Conor_McGregor

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1033219228 by FormalDude (talk)fight record as per Sherdog"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1033216247 by Bastun (talk)absolutely not. The fight record is as per Sherdog"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1033215208 by Bastun (talk)it needs to say what the source says, which it did. Mixed martial arts record link in infobox"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1033366246 by FormalDude (talk) unsourced and ignored instruction. This is HOUND and malicious."
 * 5)  "Correct before"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Conor McGregor."
 * 2)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021 */ Note to NEDOCHAN"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1)  "→‎Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021: r"
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033216757&oldid=1033216571&title=Talk:Conor_McGregor
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033217313&oldid=1033217165&title=Talk:Conor_McGregor
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033217530&oldid=1033217397&title=Talk:Conor_McGregor


 * As you can see, the first thing I did was discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033216596&oldid=1030768807&title=User_talk:Bastun
 * The project guidelines are very clear, and I have discussed on talk pages. Also, the version I restored is the stable version/ status quo. Discussion is taking place.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * User has been blocked twice before for edit warring. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 10:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place and I restored the status quo.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You restored what was on the page initially—not the status quo. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 10:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:STATUSQUO. 'The state in which before'NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The first thing Nedochan did was bring it to my talk page, rather than the actual article talk page, ignoring both the notice at the top of my own talk page and the existing discussion on the article page. As pointed out on the article talk page, the MMA project can't dictate what sources can or can't be used; in addition, there was an RfC on Sherdog's reliability, which concluded:. NEDOCHAN participated in that discussion, so is well aware of it (and even, ironically, opined in that very discussion!) UFC.com says the result was TKO - doctor's stoppage; ESPN says TKO (doctor's stoppage). I don't want to see NEDOCHAN blocked, but he needs to accept that editors other than the handful who participate in WP:MMA are allowed to edit MMA articles, and that they may most certainly use WP:RS other than sherdog. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The info you added was initially unsourced. And you have still not provided a source which lists the result as you did.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * UFC is a primary source and is notoriously unreliable. More to the point, however, the fight result is not listed as the way Bastun did so, anywhere. It is listed in Sherdog as how it was before being changed. Sherdog is the leading source for MMA fight records, hence its being part of the MMA infobox. All MMA fight records across Wikipedia use it. It's extremely important for the sake of WP:VERIFY that the records agree, verbatim, with the given source.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not true. The info I added was already in the body of the article, and was sourced to the same ESPN and other sources. Sherdog is not the leading source for MMA fight records, per the RfC, which has not been overturned. Your refusal to recognise the community consensus that other sources can be used is a problem - this is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour! Anyway; we've both made our contributions here. Let's not bludgeon the process. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The official result of the fight is not recorded as you have recorded it in any sources whatsoever. Not a good reason to overturn guidelines that apply to every MMA page in Wikipedia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that FormalDude was informed of why his edit was reverted here, by another member of the project. So it's not just me who's attempted to explain and discuss. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The simple fact of the matter is that Bastun changed sourced information and replaced it with unsourced information. He has still not been able to provide a source that states the official result as he did. I reverted him and posted on his talk page. He then reverted back to his unsourced version while discussion was taking place. Again, I restored the sourced information per WP:STATUSQUO. Rather than continuing the discussion, FormalDude again reverted the sourced information, then reported me. There is no official listing that says TKO (doctor's stoppage due to leg injury). Sherdog has it the way it was. CBS has the official result as well (look at the bottom where the official results are listed), although they don't say what was injured. https://www.cbssports.com/mma/news/ufc-264-results-highlights-dustin-poirier-scores-tko-victory-after-conor-mcgregor-suffers-leg-injury/live/NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The information is sourced in multiple places. The official results from the league running the fight says "TKO (doctor's stoppage)" and every reliable secondary source says that was due to McGregor's leg injury. Your argument has been completely void the entire time and you haven't made any new points or rebuttals. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 12:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 'The league running the fight'? That's not how it works. You could listen to what two highly experienced MMA editors have explained to you, rather than ignoring what we're saying while restoring made up official descriptions. Please show me a single source that list the official result verbatim the way Bastun did. Not a description, a result. The description is not being disputed, the MMA fight record lists official results as per Sherdog.The official results are at the bottom: https://www.cbssports.com/mma/news/ufc-264-results-highlights-dustin-poirier-scores-tko-victory-after-conor-mcgregor-suffers-leg-injury/live/ NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Results? Not "Method", whatever that means? We should change that heading, so. The result was a TKO, due to doctor's intervention, as McGregor had injured his leg. That's what I entered on the table: . Table entries don't normally require references. I added one anyway, after your first revert. The ESPN source says Per WP:V, per "verifiability, not truth", per the RfC referenced above, this can absolutely be included in the article, in that table.  At this stage, you are doing nothing more than arguing against community consensus as established at the RfC, demonstrating WP:IDONTHEARTHAT (, ignoring ESPN), battleground behaviour, and ownership, and threatening to edit-war. Once again: Sherdog is not the only source that can be used, and that won't be true no matter how many times you repeat it. In the face of this intransigence, I am reconsidering my statement that I don't want to see a block. Sheesh. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In a clear example of WP:HOUND, Formal Dude just went back to the article, changed sourced information that had been clearly marked as correct by another editor, in an article he's shown no interest in. This is clear HOUND in the hope of provoking an edit to add impetus to this absurd charade.
 * This silly and malicious report that is nothing more than a content dispute should be closed.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I implemented an edit request from Sosa 1917 that pointed out contradictory statements in the article. You then changed it to not match the source in the article. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 07:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sosa 1917 has fewer then ten edits, and their most recent one is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1033363283&oldid=1033363197&title=Kris_Moutinho NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I recommend the admin take note that this user has been blocked twice previously for edit warring. I think this encounter clearly shows they have no problem reverting edits over and over even when they are proven wrong beyond any doubt. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 07:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * --Chris (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Birdofpreyru reported by User:Laprivacidadimporta (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The matter at dispute is included in the talk diff. He has reverted edits many times to include a pretty long sentence in the first paragraph -which he hadn't even done before starting the edit war-. The sentence gives blatant undue weight to one specific theory, which seems to be disproved at this point. He has a history of editing articles to downplay racism and homophobia. Sorry if I myself also reverted his edits too many times. I honestly prefer to be banned if at least I can get his fringe viewpoints removed. Thank you so much for understanding. Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprivacidadimporta (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Later edit: I posted the warning wrongly and I didn't include the comment. I have ellaborated more on it and can totally admit my fault. I still hope I can get his edits to end. Thank you for being understading.


 * is no more guilty of edit warring than, looking at the edit history. I encourage Lap. to take the matter to the article's talk page, since they seem to be the one initiating the change. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Lap lies. It started with him removing the official statement by police, given by all media, which is still the official position: the crime had no homophobic motive. It was the long standing version of the article, written before me. Upon me returning the statement, then making it more explanatory, he went nuts and started the edit war. He also attempts to add his personal ideas to support his point of view (OR in wiki terms) not taken from cited sources. Note, I don't remove the wording saying that witnesses say it is homophobic in their opinion, i just defending the official pov Lap tries to remove. I belive you should penalies Lap, and here is no wrong doing on my side here. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

--

My "personal point of view" is the one defended by: At this point, every single branch of government, every media outlet everywhere in the world and definitely the public opinion agrees without any trace of doubt that it WAS a homophobic aggression. The police hasn't ruled it out either, it merely watered down the allegations the first day. Since then, it has become completely evident that it was a homophobic crime. That statement by the police cannot possibly deserve half of the first paragraph by any reasonable standard. We now know for certain that the crime was homophobic. It is so wrong and messed up that you are trying to tell otherwise. I ask administrators to, please, fix this quickly. Thanks a lot. —laprivacidadimporta (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the witnesses
 * The Primer Minister
 * Just one of many ministers of Spain
 * BBC here
 * BBC here too
 * The Guardian
 * CNN
 * oh, look, CNN again
 * NBC
 * Der Spiegel
 * El País
 * laSexta
 * laSexta again just because...


 * I think, it will be pretty clear to admins that you got a heavy butt-hurt here, and far from being neutral you are trying to remove official statements from the police investigating the case, because they don't fit into your narrative; and sure you can cherry-pick some articles which agree with you (although in some of the links you posted above there is no statement that it was homophobic crime). Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the "opinions" of literally EVERY single media outlet in the world, every Spanish public administration, etc... And once again, the police only said that on the very first day. Since then, we have come to know exactly what happened and how. And once again, that initial statement cannot deserve half of the first paragraph by any reasonable standard. You don't get to claim that you're the beacon of truth here when you are obviously extremely bothered by me trying to get factual information in the article. You are the one that has a very obvious fringe counterfactual narrative here. And it's clearly not a nice one or a tolerant one. —laprivacidadimporta (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Once again: you are trying to remove from the article cited position of the official case investigation, becase it contradicts your radical point of view. And you lie when you say that every branch of Spanish government considers it homophobic attack, actually in half of your citations above there is no mention of the position you claim. I just insist it should be kept until the police (or court) officially recognize it was homophobic attack, if they will. I don't see where your allegation of intolerance is coming from. I believe it is a time for you to calm down and wait what administrators decide. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Won't say anything else to let administrators decide, but my "radical point of view" will stay the one upheld by every institution and media outlet. That's my final word on this. You -and everybody like you- can steer opinions, but not change facts. Be tolerant. Respect. Show compassion. Laprivacidadimporta (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As a third-party, being the creator of this article and a fluent Spanish reader, I will review the sources linked by laprivacidad: : Sanchez says nothing about homophobia, he condemns the attack for being violent and calls for the police to clarify what happened, some general remarks about freedom and tolerance but nothing to say he said it was homophobic, don't put words in people's mouths. Ione Bellara is a minister from Pamplona who was nowhere near the killing, the source calls it "presunto", that is "presumed", homophobic killing. BBC calls it a possible hate crime, as does Guardian, "presunto" again in CNN. El País is paywalled but starts with "for being murderers, or for being homosexual. That is the question". La Sexta questions whether it was a homophobic attack, and says in the first paragraph that it is up to the police and then the judge to decide. I don't speak German so I can't check Der Spiegel, but if they know something the police in the city don't, I would be astonished. Your quote "At this point, every single branch of government, every media outlet everywhere in the world and definitely the public opinion agrees without any trace of doubt that it WAS a homophobic aggression. The police hasn't ruled it out either, it merely watered down the allegations the first day. Since then, it has become completely evident that it was a homophobic crime. That statement by the police cannot possibly deserve half of the first paragraph by any reasonable standard. We now know for certain that the crime was homophobic. It is so wrong and messed up that you are trying to tell otherwise. I ask administrators to, please, fix this quickly. Thanks a lot." is completely false and not justified by the sources that you provided yourself. You are either not comprehending the words in the sources properly, or...well I can't finish the sentence because WP:AGF. I will conclude with some words you wrote yourself "You -and everybody like you- can steer opinions, but not change facts." I know this is the board for edit warring, but I will point out to the admins, especially if they can't speak Spanish, that the sources provided by Laprivacidad to "prove" what he says is an undisputed fact, do not come anywhere near close to doing that Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey! It wanted to go through some of my references: in the first one the witnesses explicitly say "it was a homophobic crime" (the quote is also the headline so it's very easy to translate using Google or whatever). In the one by the prime minister, although it's true that he's been clearer on other occasions, he says "we won't take a single step back in rights and freedoms; we won't tolerate it". Obviously this wouldn't make any sense without homophobia included; murders were invented with humans as far as I know; he didn't say it even more explicitly to let the investigation follow its course. Same goes for the third one, from a Minister: "We cannot stay in the middle; all political forces must position themselves against this type of violence". What type of violence could it possibly be, if not homophobia? Did she just connect random words? The one from the BBC, literally in the headline again: "He was killed for being gay". The one from the Guardian is in English, but I'll comment that it's all about LGBT violence. The first one from CNN is, again, all about LGBT violence. The second one is a writer's opinion that deems it a homophobic act in the strongest and most explicit possible terms. That article definitely has no other interpretation. The one from El País is called "Why they killed Samuel". As you can already assume, the article goes on and on about why it was homophobic. The first article from laSexta is titled "Was it a homophobic murder?". Again, it goes on and on about why it IS: "If I come close to someone and see some gestures, behaviours or clothing and in my head that matches a gay stereotype, I will recognise it as such [...] After the discussion they identify him as gay and the aggression takes place". The second one is quite literally titled "Samuel's friends explain why it was a homophobic crime". It doesn't feel like I need to analyse it much further...
 * After two opinions against me, I'm pretty sure that my request will be rejected, but I wanted to translate parts of each of the articles just so that, at least, whoever reads this understands that I'm not expressing a far-fetched or marginal opinion. This is the opinion that all those newspapers endorse and, even if it doesn't make a difference, I would invite anyone to just copy and paste those articles on Translate. I cannot believe anybody would say they don't support what I'm trying to get across here. All those articles go on and on and on and on about the same thing. By the way, it feels important to note that the Spanish version of the wiki article differs very significantly from the English one and definitely doesn't include a sentence taking up half of the first paragraph emphasising so much the opinion you both hold.
 * I won't be checking this report because I see this is a pretty lost cause., but you both should be pretty ashamed of yourselves... You're not fighting a war here, even if you think you are. I don't normally edit Wikipedia articles; I only chose to edit this one because I felt it was necessary. Clearly shouldn't have, though... Any admin can quickly discard everything I've said; don't have any hopes on this... Hope whoever reads this has a nice day! Laprivacidadimporta (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a nice wall of text to ignore the facts that all of the sources that you provided called it "suspected" or "presumed" and that even LaSexta writes "Las autoridades no han confirmado que el asesinato de Samuel Luiz en A Coruña tuviera motivaciones homófobas, de hecho será el juez el que decida si se trata o no de un crimen de odio." - "The authorities have not confirmed that the killing of Samuel Luiz in A Coruña had homophobic motivations, in fact it will be the judge who decides if it will be treated or not as a hate crime". I will not be ashamed of following Wikipedia's guidelines on reflecting reliable sources, nor will I be ashamed of respecting the rule of law and the judicial process. You are doing the appeal to emotion and trying to shame others who do not agree with you. Even if Pedro Sánchez, that other minister, a newspaper in Britain and one in Germany, had said that this was a 100% homophobic crime - were any of them in A Coruna, are any of them the police who are investigating, and are any of them the judge who will rule on this case? There is absolutely no difference between you and the people who said that an innocent woman in Murcia was attacked for wearing a Spain-flag wristband, when instead the attack was part of a tit-for-tat between far-left and far-right thugs. There is absolutely no difference between you and the people who think every crime by someone with an Arab name is an act of Islamic terrorism, even if he was drunk or a drug dealer. In the supposedly "civilised" world we wait for investigations and trials to conclude. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

User:BMB2232 reported by User:Toofarfromhome (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1001540831&oldid=999258578

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1001540831&oldid=999258578
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1011440914&oldid=1010087325
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1016424936&oldid=1016029711
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1011440914&oldid=1010087325

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (cannot edit user page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Kimmel&type=revision&diff=1025340245&oldid=909059243

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; (cannot edit user page)

Comments:

has previously been protected (by ) due to vandalism. Toofarfromhome (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:EurovisionNim reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1033406123 by Davey2010 (talk) See Talk:Selfie. I am happy to be partially blocked from this section"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1033405844 by Davey2010 (talk) Stop. I am going to take this to ANI"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1033405465 by Davey2010 (talk) – I added some extras to the article and removed all my own works. In fact, some of your reverts weren't necessary"
 * 4)  "Restored revision 1033383817 by EurovisionNim (talk): Will fix up hang on"
 * 5)  "Restored revision 1031862902 by EurovisionNim (talk): Whilst I agree with your reverts, but i reduced the images down"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Selfie."
 * 2)   "/* July 2021 */ 3rr"
 * 3)   "/* July 2021 */ re."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Today Nim had made controversial changes to the Selfie article which I disagreed with and reverted, This resulted in back-and-fourth edit warring, In between the edit warring I was taken to ANI which as of writing this nothing's happened there.

I'm currently at 4rr due to 2 reverts and 2 edit conflicts (not an excuse but I lost patience with edit conflicting with them so just copied the entire article with my changes and pasted it not knowing what he did, I was by no means trying to sneakily add the content back - I just became fed up with hitting edit conflict time and time again) and I've not edited the article since - Nim on the other hand had reverted and had been editing it,

I've told Nim twice to seek consensus for their changes however they simply reverted and continued to edit the article, I'm certainly not blameless here as it takes 2 to edit war however in all fairness I wasn't the one making such controversial changes, I held off reporting this hoping something might be done at ANI but nothing has been Thanks, Kind Regards, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is not really any point reporting me here . Considering this is my one and only offence, there is no point taking action. I apologised. I am not like 2018 self where I would be pushy. I've changed now and since my ban from a certain topic area I have been achieving a lot of support and assistance from my excellent friends like . Its not worth your time and effort reporting me here as Celestina007 mentioned, its either better to do WP:3O or what I like to do a compromise. Is there better things to do than reporting users for 3rr when in fact you have other options? Look, my 2018 self is no more, and I went middle ground as this is the only way its going to work. In fact, you should be grateful that some of the new images I've added are long-lost ones like the drone one and the facial disorientation selfie. You seem to be cuddly with Vauxford with his images so why not mine? There isn't really any point and you are just wasting yours and my time here. I think if no action is taken, then we can move on, be happy and continue editing. In fact, if you want to stop your WP:OWN behaviour, that'd be greatly appreciated, as I do not have time to whinge and moan over this insignificant issue when I'm trying to improve the wiki to the standards of the other users. Remember you aren't the only one, and its always helps to do better, hence why I have been trying to avoid articles you have edited on because you will just end up reverting me but half of them look like a dog's breakfast, so I have been doing mass cleanups but I have not been replacing many images as you requested. My aim is to make any article I edit a WP:FA or WP:GA as this can be a good step for big things and get a lot of rewards for my hard work. Some users like Davey do not want to do that, but I have been doing a LOT less replacing images with my own like I did in 2018 and instead am uploading a lot less on Commons and using images which are available to spruce it up and recover it from a mess to a proper high quality tidy article for users. Isn't that the whole aim of editing on Wikipedia? -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite the apparent mea culpa above, continues to edit war  and be more disruptive by making an ANI against anyone who disagrees with him. Sjeintspen (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't edit warred in these two as per WP:3RR. I don't get the WP:NOTAGALLERY, but in hindsight, I don't see the need to edit anymore. You keep fussing about WP:NOTAGALLERY, when I want to try and improve articles for the better. If that's so, why am I here? Yes I do admit, I am being disruptive, but the facts remain, imposing the tban would only make things worse as then I cannot see the need. I have zero intentions to argue, but I have not done replacements this time (except MAN SL200 which I've initiated a discussion which sadly is being ignored. Without me knowing what I'm doing wrong, I cannot improve myself sadly., yes I do admit myself, but unlike the automobile area, I have not been replacing images randomly, instead this time I'm adding to articles as my wholesome objective is to get these articles to WP:GA and WP:FA. If that's so, I didn't think the adding issues were a big deal, but you need to note I am pretty picky with my edits, and avoiding the dog's breakfast scenario. Users who typically have behavioural problems tend to act out and do very bad things, and I want to avoid that, so yeah, in hindsight, User:Sjeintspen is not replying to his talk hence WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies to the user. Is this clear enough? Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And your solution is that I should ignore all rules. If you make massive changes to articles, you are quite likely to meet some resistace. Rather than attacking those who disagree, you would probably find it advantageous to work with other editors. Sjeintspen (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * EurovisionNim - Let's not point fingers at other editors and say that they're not listening to you. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't mean that someone didn't respond to your message on their user talk page and hence "didn't hear that". WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT refers to users who do not listen and take the feedback given to them multiple times by other editors, and who fail to understand, learn from their mistakes, and commit to improving their future edits based on that feedback. Sjeintspen probably just hasn't gotten around to replying to your discussion on his/her user talk page because they're busy adding information to this 3RR report. ;-) Let's be calm and civil; ending responses with things like "Is this clear enough?" comes out as being chippy and rude, rather than being open, receptive, and respectful toward other users. This report that Davey2010 filed is legitimate; you edit warred on the Selfie article rather than following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and starting a discussion on the article's talk page. There's obviously no need to take administrative action now, as it appears that the reverts have stopped. EurovisionNim, please read through this report and the ANI discussion, and please take this as a learning opportunity and an opportunity to improve how you respond to disputes. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Perfect. In fact, I will reread all the relevant policies. I've got a lot on my userpage so that works. Maybe I won't edit articles other users I know will likely revert me. Case closed, and I will take this as an opportunity to familarise myself consdiering i've only been back last week so getting my head to things -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Closing report, as the relevant discussions have taken place, and the edit warring seems to have stopped. See the relevant ANI discussion (permalink) for more information.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Oshwah for your assistance here and at ANI it's greatly appreciated - I'm sorry you were dragged in to all this I really am! Not to cause drama but I'm not entirely happy with the fact no action has been taken given he's also TODAY edit warred on a completely different article, That being said it takes 2 to edit war so guess it would be unfair to punish one and not the other. (I've been here long enough to know how edit conflicts work!)
 * Anyway I'm happy that Nim's recognised their problems and has read EW too.
 * I've gone ahead and restored the status-quo content and shall participate in discussions on the talkpage.
 * Thanks again Oshwah and Sjeintspen for your help. Take care, Warm Regards, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jorm reported by User:Filmomusico (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:
 * @User:Filmomusico: Are you sure you want to proceed with this? It is impossible for one person to edit war and the only way a sanction can occur would be for you both to be blocked. Also, Jorm is correct: don't use cite templates for external links. Ask about that at WP:ELN or WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said that Jorm is not correct. I know what External links are and how to use them, we do, however, do use Cite magazine or Cite journal in Bibliography sections, which this editor also disputed, although I seen it many times here when it was used. As for the block, if it will happen, it will be the first one for me, which means I will be blocked for 24 hours, not more. I don't think it will be even. The other thing that I can do is let it cool off for a week or so, and try to insert that source again, (or ask somebody to do it for me). The source, which is this one is quite important, and therefore, should be present in one way or the other.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, I will let it slide this time. I have some other articles to attend too. However, if the edit warring will persist on other articles, I will need to come back here. I think the above editors need to be warned at least. This wasn't his article, it's not mine either, but, any addition (as long as it's not spam), should be welcomed. If an editor disagrees with the citation method - fix it. Why revert an addition that is good to add???--Filmomusico (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * any addition (as long as it's not spam), should be welcomed -- I think I get the spirit of what you're trying to say here, but WP:N, WP:UNDUE, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE exist for a reason. --Chris (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Further, this bothers me a bit: As for the block, if it will happen, it will be the first one for me, which means I will be blocked for 24 hours, not more. I don't think it will be even. There's three things to point out here: (1) it shows that you either don't think that you violated policy or that you don't see an issue with doing so and may again in the future, (2) "they'll be blocked for longer" is not a good attitude to have in a collaborative project, and (3) it's not even correct. There's no reasons your blocks wouldn't be even. Is this really something you want to have said on the record? --Chris (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't told me it was WP:UNDUE or anything else, he just simply reverted as is his article - his way. I don't see a policy that states that you must ask another editor to edit the article either. Jorm reverted only because he disagreed with my citation style, while I do agree that citation style wasn't correct, I still thing that that source should have been kept in other form (or at least stated in the edit summary why it shouldn't be inserted, aside from citation style). It wasn't WP:UNDUE since the article is only half way cited. Let me rephrase about the blocks: According to our blocking policy we assert it based on the fact if the editor is new or experienced. A new editor might get blocked for less, depending on the scale of a violation. An experienced editor, who had previously been blocked for the same offence (if he did), will be blocked in accordance with his previous violation. Am I correct?--Filmomusico (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocks are not punitive: they are preventative. If admins are happy that Jorm will not revert again in violation of 3RR, no block is necessary. On the other hand, if a user makes comments implying that they will revert again to preserve their preferred version of the page, then a block is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Understand. As I said, I can let it go, but am worried that this type of editing will continue from Jorm. I never said that I am reverting to the version that is preferred according to me. The source was a necessity, I just don't know where to put it. You see, I was looking for a different film and stumbled on a source for this one. Pages 20-21 clearly indicate that this is a source about The Beastmaster, the only problem is is that the text is too small to read, so, to be safe, I put it in Bibliography with cite template. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, many of our film articles use cite templates in Bibliography. Maybe you can take a look and tell me if it belongs in the article? Will appreciate your input, or do I need a separate discussion for this to be open in dispute resolution?--Filmomusico (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't told me it was WP:UNDUE or anything else -- you made a general statement (any addition (as long as it's not spam), should be welcomed) and I replied with a general rebuttal, showing that there are some cases where this is not true. I am not applying it to this particular situation, only correcting your incorrect generalization.
 * I'm far more worried about your statement that you are effectively willing to be blocked since you think your block will be shorter. The fact that it it would not be aside (24h is standard for a first EW/3RR block, and neither of you have been blocked before), it concerns me greatly that you seem willing to have yourself and another editor blocked if you think your block will be shorter.  This is an extremely counterproductive attitude in a collaborative project and reeks strongly of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.  --Chris (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like a straight forward case. Filmomusico made 3 reverts and Jorm made 4. I don't really care who is righter in this situation, that does not apply here. It looks like there is no appetite for a block and the disruption seems to have ended. Probably a warning and a close would be best case at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. If the war resumes, blocks are possible. You might be able to get advice at WT:FILM. At first glance it may appear that Filmomusico is insisting on a non-standard way of adding references to the article. Some of Filmomusico's comments above may be more warlike than necessary -- even bringing this to the 3RR board at such an early stage seems premature. Filmomusico, in your post above you are already discussing which of you will get blocked (and for how long). This does not suggest a sincere desire on your part to resolve the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:FellowMellow reported by User:Number 57 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:33, 12 July 2021
 * 2) 21:39, 12 July 2021
 * 3) 12:06, 13 July 2021
 * 4) 13:09, 13 July 2021
 * 5) 14:02, 13 July 2021
 * 6) 15:40, 13 July 2021 (this is an undo of this edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:09, 13 July 2021

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

Comments:


 * So I was warned about something else about changing the election ongoing from no to yes. I did not continue doing that after I was left a message on my talk page. My edit is completely different from before. I fixed the results because they were inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FellowMellow (talk • contribs)


 * Looks like a good-faith update of the statistics by per what's on the cited source. I think they're trying to keep to the spirit of the rule.  I'd suggest starting a talk page discussion about the stats rather than changing again—or really, rather than changing anything on the article for a day or so, to play it safe. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It looks like various people have been rushing to update the article before final results are in. See also the above comment by User:C.Fred. This whole thing may be moot in a couple of days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Advaita2222 reported by User:Abhishek Sengupta 24 (Result: No action)
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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [diff]

Comments:


 * Reverting repeatedly, ignoring my resolution proposals.Abhishek Sengupta 24 (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Admin's suggestion. you both need to discuss your edits on the talk page and wait for consensus to be reached before changing the article. I would prefer you to work it out amicably, rather than to have either or both of you be sanctioned (discretionary sanctions or otherwise). —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, per the above comment of User:C.Fred. Note that User:LukeEmily has stated at Talk:Baidya that he is willing to help improve the sources. I suggest that the other editors should try to work with Luke. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Abhishek Sengupta 24 reported by User:Advaita2222 (Result: No action, see below)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * This is apparent caste glorification. The user belongs to the same caste. They have incorporated rankings that have no substantial basis whatsoever, in order to put their caste on a pedestal. Moreover, they have reverted four times by now.


 * Admin's suggestion. you both need to discuss your edits on the talk page and wait for consensus to be reached before changing the article. I would prefer you to work it out amicably, rather than to have either or both of you be sanctioned (discretionary sanctions or otherwise). —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. See another report of the same dispute below. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Discodave1889 reported by User:EdwardUK (Result: Partially blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  26 May
 * 2)  28 May
 * 3)  2 June
 * 4)  3 June
 * 5)  10 July
 * 6)  12 July
 * 7)  12 July
 * 8)  12 July
 * 9)  12 July
 * 10)  13 July
 * 11)  13 July
 * 12)  14 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The sections on fireworks and the ferret society are being regularly re-added to the article. Initially they were removed and the editor informed that lack of citations was the issue, then to avoid 3RR, tagged for "citation needed" to allow opportunity for references to be added. After a month without citations sections were removed again only to be restored on the grounds that "Sources are not mandatory on Wikipedia, which is why it is not authorised by educational bodies as a research tool.", ignoring numerous edit summaries and talk page notices. continuation of reverting even after temporary block. EdwardUK (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked from editing the article for one week for persistent addition of unsourced content by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Dealer07 reported by User:Johnnie Bob (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1033172901 by Johnnie Bob (talk)"
 * 2)  "I fail to accept having my edits reverted without sufficient arguments (especially when I have already provided one to what my co-speaker posed), if u keep undoing them without sufficient reasoning they will be reverted back."
 * 3)  "I'm Greek hun, if u don't believe you're more than welcome searching for it. Undoing without having searched first is both illogical and rude. I added a source in case you're still doubting."
 * 4)  "I already have an account and know how wikipedia works, if you do not provide sufficient arguments I fail to see any flaws with my sayings."
 * 1)  "I already have an account and know how wikipedia works, if you do not provide sufficient arguments I fail to see any flaws with my sayings."
 * 1)  "I already have an account and know how wikipedia works, if you do not provide sufficient arguments I fail to see any flaws with my sayings."
 * 1)  "I already have an account and know how wikipedia works, if you do not provide sufficient arguments I fail to see any flaws with my sayings."
 * 1)  "I already have an account and know how wikipedia works, if you do not provide sufficient arguments I fail to see any flaws with my sayings."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Eleni Foureira."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eleni Foureira."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I think I have figured it out, from the source that they added in their latest edit: they have simply not bothered to check their spelling, and have therefore insistently edited this to say that the man is a raper (a person who commits the crime of sexual assault) rather than a rapper (a musician who sings rap songs). They have still clearly gone over 3RR and failed to communicate with other editors, but it doesn't seem to have been a deliberate attempt at a BLP violation. jp×g 02:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , agreed. Editor will not be released from this WP:AN/EW complaint, however, since the editor vowed to continue edit warring over this indefinitely by his statement referenced above, "... if u keep undoing them without sufficient reasoning they will be reverted back." Johnnie Bob (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (more on above comment) It was immediately after the above edit containing the above comment that I elected to stop reverting the user's edits and file this WP:AN/EW complaint, since I had already posted the 3RR warning on the user's talk page. Johnnie Bob (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Dealer07 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Eleni Foureira unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. It looks like they made five reverts of the article on 12 July. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User: Mili977 reported by User:245CMR (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * (tried to resolve on his/her talk page, but he/she doesn't bother to reply)
 * Talk:Mahadevi (on talk page)

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

Comments:

The user is also having an edit war on Adi Parashakti also. He/She is removing all the content from the article Mahadevi, with the claim that Adi Parashakti (redirect to Mahadevi) is the real name. However, this was already discussed on talk page, see Talk:Mahadevi. Also the reported user has a history copyright violation and addition of non constructive content. . 245CMR . •👥📜 07:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked 36 h.  Sandstein   09:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As it was a WP:CUTPASTE move, I've undone the changes. Any changes made at Adi Parashakti that I effectively undid can be restored to Mahadevi through the normal editing process. No prejudice to a request at WP:RM to change the title.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the name was decided with consensus. . 245CMR . •👥📜 09:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but WP:CCC. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:24.151.9.82 reported by User:Kurisumasen (Result: Thatoneguylol101 warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1033615605 by Chip3004 (talk) Page protect this and you will be shamed. What if New WWE fans go   to this Wikipedia page not knowing Kane is in the HOF and see that it says Kane is a free agent?t"
 * 2)  "READ BEFORE DELETE: It doesn't matter when Kane is in the HOF. YOU 2 are in the wrong here. If Kane is in the HOF, He is in the HOF. Also, Kane was inducted in 2021 and the Royal Rumble was in 2021. Nothing will convince me otherwise. So unless you want me to say this AGAIN, do not undo!"
 * 3)  "Read below for reason"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1033431056 by Kurisumasen (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1033431056 by Kurisumasen (talk)"

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

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

Comments:

For several days this IP address has been reverting a correction to a wrestler’s status at the time of the rumble, saying ‘it doesn’t matter what they were at the time’. The issue is that Kane was not inducted into the hall of fame at the time of the event, and therefore is labelled a ‘free agent’. They insist that ‘hall of fame’ is retroactive; I and at least one other disagree. I posted on the article’s talk page but no acknowledgement. They also keep changing the link from ‘Kane (wrestler)’ to just ‘Kane’, which suggests they are either being deliberately disruptive for the sake of it, or that they do not fully understand how to edit. I’m not a hugely experienced editor myself, but having other editors repeatedly change back my incorrect edits would I hope give me pause in editing that article at least. Neither I nor the other editor can seem to get through to them so I’m filing this as a last resort. The issue of Kane’s correct status is a very minor one but I would like them to stop warring with us. Kurisumasen (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have spoken to them. They have responded to this. They say: "I have stopped edit warring. The situation is over. Also, I didn't know that Kane (wrestler) had to be added back as I accidentally removed it and didn't see that it got removed. I am sorry for my actions" They have stopped.Thatoneguylol101 (talk)

This is fine with me. We have reached a compromise on the page. I am sorry that things had to escalate this way. Kurisumasen (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite their comments, Thatoneguylol101 and the IP are obviously the same person. I have therefore warned Thatoneguylol101, now that they have registered an account, not to edit logged out in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Hlovekorean reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: Indeffed)
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:
 * 1)   "/* Hlovekorean */ new section"

Comments:

The editor made seven reverts against six other editors over three days, including four reverts in the last 24 hours. Esiymbro (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: Even more reverts today since the report was made. I've added the new diffs to the list above. Esiymbro (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have indefinitely blocked Hlovekorean for disruptive editing. They have only 52 edits, all to article space. They never talk, and their edits have been disruptive since they created their account, particularly on Hanbok and Hanfu.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Berig reported by User:Dan Koehl (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: I dont want to commit edit wars myself, so I didnt change Berigs last revert, when he possibly used to Rollback function, which is a No-No to use in discussion, with an experienced Wikipedia user. IF I would continue, he would probably revert me again, why write this report, and ask you kindly to revert back to the version with the NPOV template. I have during an almost two hours work explained on talk page, the reson why I submitted the NPOV template, and expect that others users follow the rules connected to, and described on the Template. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of reverting you again. I have actually decided to take a break from the discussion. I apologize for accidentally clicking on the rollback function.--Berig (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You may speak true, or not, but I thank for this message. However, I now also noticed that you are actually an admin, who should know that you should not abuseively use the the Rollback, which makes this case a bit more delicate, and may need some investigation. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * . Each editor has reverted twice. I'm not sure why this report was filed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:FMSky reported by User:Fateful apparition (Result: Fateful apparition sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "regarded by many as the greatest player of all time/commonly regarded as the greatest player of all time [with references]"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Me and another user reverted the case filer's edit (1, 2) because it was a long established consensus on the talk page (see 1 and the talk page itself). The person who filed the report (probably a sock looking at their edit history) should instead be blocked for edit warring. -- FMSky (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Nonsense! The talk page section referred to by the perpetrator was created only last night by Campió99 (talk), who spent great (and frankly superfluous) effort substantiating his edit on the player's talk page, as a response to his contributions being marginalised (as well as those of Irealkamran10 (talk)) by their persistent disruptive reverts (which have now totalled 5 (!!!), with absolute impunity, in only a matter of hours. It is my belief that the user should, at the very least, be permanently banned from editing as a direct consequence of their antagonistic behavior, which also includes their abusing my talk page and blanking theirs three times to hide that they were edit-warring. (Added by User:Fateful apparition without signing) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cristiano_Ronaldo/Archive_14#Final_Resolution,_I'm_the_original_writer:_%22Often_considered_the_best_player_in_the_world_and_regarded_by_many_as_the_greatest_of_all_time%22 FMSky (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * get a new consensus and stop wasting every ones' time-- (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , Nampa DC has not edited the article since July 11. If you believe that Fateful apparition is a sock, take it to WP:SPI; otherwise, keep a lid on it. Finally, although Fateful apparition has reverted three times, you have violated WP:3RR. I strongly urge you to self-revert your latest edit, or you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * has blocked Fateful apparition as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Im guessing the self-revert isnt needed anymore? FMSky (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should have made the fourth revert, but I'm not going to block you if you don't self-revert. Please take more care in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * SPI link for reference.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Itztrue reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reason for edit and Sources cited backing up the edits are available on the (talk) page"
 * 2)  "sources improperly cited"
 * 3)  "Sources cited are taken out of context and/or do not mention Nashville Christian School."
 * 4)  "Stop doing this. It doesn't help anyone. I am sorry that the facts don't fit your narrative. Site better sources"
 * 5)  "Using the same sources sited I simply gave a more accurate depiction."
 * 6)  "The Source for the "not allowing students of gay parents" insert was obviously not actually read by the editor because it does not refer to Nashville Christian School at all instead it is referring to Davidson Academy. Again Sources cited for the totally false and absolutely disgusting racists remarks about NCS are poorly sourced and out of context"
 * 7)  "Inaccurate depiction of article sited. Please Do not tell me I didn't give an adequate reason for this edit. Read the article"
 * 8)  "/* History */  This is the fact and it is really disgusting that it would be put in racial context as it was."
 * 9)  */* "Source Sited takes quotes out of context and is not accurate or supported by any other substantial source."
 * 10)  */*Undid revision 1033237201 by Isabelle Belato
 * 11)  */* Information was not properly sourced. Content pushed misleading, racist and completely false information
 * 1)  */* Information was not properly sourced. Content pushed misleading, racist and completely false information

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  */* Warning: Three-revert rule on Nashville Christian School
 * 2)   "/* July 2021 */ take it to the article's talk page. Nine removals is well into edit warring territory"

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

Comments:

The user made this edit seven times before receiving an edit warring warning, and then made the edit twice more. After being told that a talk page thread had been started and that the user should participate and wait for consensus the user commented in the thread and then made the removal a tenth time. Meters (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:123.195.130.73 reported by User:TwoChaGong (Result: IP blocked 24 hours; TwoChaGong indeffed as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1034020626 by TwoChaGong (talk)- I opened a talk section for you by your request, you want to reach the consensus then let us go for it"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1034019788 by 124.210.205.66 (talk)-every company has stated about their origin story in the summary, what is the purpose of deleting it? I will stand on my point firmly with determination"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1034019068 by 125.239.58.104 (talk) sorry it was cited by several sources confirmed that point"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1034017690 by TwoChaGong (talk)- every company have stated their first country of origin in the summary whereas their ownership was tranferred in whose hand"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1034004532 by TwoChaGong (talk)-unreasonal deletion of relevant contents and cited references"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP is constantly breaching 3RR and treating the Wikipedia as a battleground, with edit summaries such as "I will stand on my point firmly with determination" TwoChaGong (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for 24 hours for violating 3RR, and blocked TwoChaGong indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Berig reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Declined)
Page: User being reported:, , Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I dont want to commit edit wars myself, so I didnt change Berigs last revert, when he possibly used to Rollback function, which is a No-No to use in discussion, with an experienced Wikipedia user. IF I would continue, he would probably revert me again, why write this report, and ask you kindly to revert back to the version with the NPOV template. I have during an almost two hours work explained on talk page, the reson why I submitted the NPOV template, and expect that others users follow the rules connected to, and described on the Template. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of reverting you again. I have actually decided to take a break from the discussion. I apologize for accidentally clicking on the rollback function.--Berig (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You may speak true, or not, but I thank for this message.

However, I now also noticed that you are actually an admin, who should know that you should not abuseively use the the Rollback, which makes this case a bit more delicate, and may need some investigation. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems Berig did not really tell the truth, since he reverted again (see the last diff), as did users Adville and Tournesol. I have copied the rules about a NPOV template in the discussion, and when not to remove it, and theres obviously an ongoing discussion going on, reg the NPOV of the article, and its C-rate. Discussions abt the article is kilometers over 20 years, obviously a controversial topic, that a small number of editors refuse to solve, like owning of articles etc. I suggest, please revert to the version with NPOV template, and lock the page, so a constructive discussion about how to solve the problem can contribute to a better article, which is now C-rated, due to the problems. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sidenote, the admin Berig has apart from edit war, also abusively used the Rollback function, although being parts of discussions about the article. Reg admins; They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved., and ''Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should always be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanctions or even their removal.''. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Rollback is not a special tool for admins. Any user in good standing can request it. Not commenting at this point on the other facts of this case. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are wrong I cite from THE INTRO at Rollback:
 * Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed. Since rollback is part of the core administrator tools, an admin could be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely to remove those tools.


 * Dan Koehl (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't see that Berig is acting as an admin at that article; I haven't read the whole discussion but it look like they're just an editor there. Also they only reverted three times, and it looks like only once was a rollback. Not ideal, but a mistake almost everyone with access to rollback has occasionally made. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

, I see you did revert again after saying that you wouldn't?, you are getting dangerously close to edit-warring yourself, and the walls of text you're putting up at that talk page are disruptive on their face. No one is expected to keep discussing when you're doing that, and if you've got three different editors reverting you, you need to either drop the stick or take it to DRN. —valereee (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, . My bad. I forgot myself, wanting to uphold consensus from the talkpage.--Berig (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a comment: there are more user saying same thing as we on vikings on other similar discussion started the same time by Dan, with the same wall of texts, for example Viking expansion. There are a consensus for the removal, and even a professor of this field have answered Dan is not really correct (I translated it somewhere in all this walls of texts). Adville (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This page is not a page about the topic. The template has been removed against the rules. The entire idea behind the NPOV template is NOT that 5 users shall be able to SCEAR users from reporting that theres problems with an article, ownership, breaking NPOV etc. If 5 "article owners" are against that the situation comes to general knowledge, its not the idea behind the rules, that they simply make a "censensus" and remove the template, First the issues must be addressed, issues which has been discussed for over 20 years, and produced a C-rate of the article. a minority taking ownership of an article, is not the best for its development, or Wikipedia. Dan Koehl (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Dan Koehl, I'm not following most of that, please slow down and try to edit your replies so they're clear for readers. It sounds like what you're arguing is that the placement of maintenance templates is not subject to consensus, and that a single editor can force one into an article? —valereee (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please dont act as my interpretor. I ask for the Wikipedia rules to be followed. Dont try to manipulate this in any way. I want the rules to be followed. Everyone should follow the rules. Including admins like Berig, above, who has abused his tools in a situation where he is a biased part, the worst thing an admin can do. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There has been no violation of 3RR here. To the extent that is complaining about everyone's conduct, but particularly harping on  as an administrator, he can file a report at WP:ANI. This discussion is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:97.119.99.113 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "A third person with a history of partisan vandalism of this page has reverted my change. Need to provide citation for disputed claim. Undid revision 1033802024 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 2)  "Please provide a citation, rather than attempting to censor changes towards NPoV. Otherwise you are turning this platform into mere partisan propaganda. Undid revision 1033762718 by Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)"
 * 3)  "If documented a source would be cited, but even if so you are clearly more interested in propagandizing rather than reaching NPOV. Undid revision 1033744712 by Soibangla (talk)"
 * 4)  "Editorial declaration phrases such as "false conspiracy theoires" on controversial subjects amount to NPOV violation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Straightforward 3RR violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I also encourage users and administrators reviewing this request to peruse the last few entries on the talk page. While I was much more terse and blunt with them than I usually would be with 'new editors', I strongly suspect that they're WP:NOTHERE. Aside from edit-warring, they've quite quickly resorted to personal attacks, and are essentially acting as a fringe view WP:SPA on the Lou Dobbs article. I also (quite frankly) suspect that they're not a new user, but since their MO matches so many that pass through various AP pages, that's mostly supposition based on their invoking various policies (albeit incorrectly), despite these being the first edits made by the IP. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:86.31.182.118 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The user restored the same edit that got them blocked for edit warring in May. KyleJoan talk 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. Apparent logged-out edit warring by User:Tony1811. The same account was blocked back in May for warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:LearnIndology reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff plus violation of WP:BLP: addition of unsourced, unattributed, defamatory text "She has been engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism"; removal of sourced info Truschke has become a target of the Hindu right,
 * 2) diff repeated violation of WP:BLP, as above, ignoring the talkpage
 * 3) diff against consensus
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Audrey Truschke/Archive 1

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

Comments:

See also this retaliatory warning on my talkpage, and this misplaced comment on their talkpage. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Clear breach of 3RR. On a BLP. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a serious misunderstanding on my part. I have self-reverted my edits. Things got mixed up! I was only concerned with the lead and I will resolve that issue on the talk page. LearnIndology (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Schinhu reported by User:M.nelson (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: The "right version" before reverts, with the copyrighted image removed, is

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to resolve this through their user page prior to edit warring:

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

Comments:

User:Schinhu is edit warring to include a non-free image of a movie cover File:Champagne charlie movie.JPG in the article Charles Heidsieck, which isn't a valid usage of fair use. The file is a legitimate fair use at Champagne Charlie (miniseries) so requesting its deletion won't solve this problem. This user has also uploaded many copyright violations to Commons (c:User:Schinhu), many of which have been deleted and others nominated. They haven't broken 3RR in 24 hrs yet, but are not responding in any way other than reverting, including after notes/warnings on their user talk page. I would appreciate some help in resolving the issue. I posted yesterday to WP:AIV but was told that that wasn't the right spot. -M.nelson (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Pong3SouthFrieza34 reported by User:BaldiBasicsFan (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

WP:EW editing, and making claims that the revival is the seventh season of the original Johnny Test, but is actually isn't. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it stale? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Sucker for All reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Handled)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Per talk page, no objections articulated"
 * 2)  "talk in the talk page of the article. Do not issue personal warnings on my talk page. This is clearly not an advert. Same as z100 or power106 articles"
 * 3)  "article's no different than power 106 or z100. so definitely none of the 3 are ads. the other 2 tags are outdated"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
 * 3)   "Final Warning: Removal of maintenance templates (RW 16.1)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Ok. First of all. The talk page of the article in question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WABC_(AM)#Tag_at_Top_of_article . I asked BlueboyLINY specifically why he felt those tags were still appropriate at that website, and he didn't respond. This Administrators' noticeboard's unwarranted. Sucker for All (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Unrelated directly to this issue (as I am only aware of it because Sucker for All keeps regularly pinging me on his talk page with hysteric accusations and demands, and personal attacks naming me and three other editors (that I never encountered before) as "circle jerking" on his talk page), but worth noting that in a very short span he's edit-warred on the 2021 New York City mayoral election, Vanguard Group, Future Nostalgia pages as well and has been generally disagreeable, combative and hard to have to any good faith conversation with in any constructive manner. Seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE, as I haven't seen any constructive contribution from the user as on every page I've seen their work it's reverted by any number of editors and he does not seem to "get it". JesseRafe (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why's Jesse stalking me here? He opened up a sockpuppet investigation already on me that admins deemed false. I always WP:AGF, but this user clearly and persistently bothers me. Sucker for All (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I was inclined to block both parties for edit warring, but after review, Sucker for All appears to be the only one actually trying to have a discussion about the tags. Here's where I'm at with both parties:
 * I commend you for initiating discussion. However, after less than 24 hours from starting the discussion and not getting a response, you deemed the discussion over and reverted again.  I would give it 48-72 hours minimum for someone to engage you on the article's talk page.  There is no rush.  --Chris (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using a CV tool and deemed these edits to be disruptive, but you never stated why. Removal of content (including maintenance tags) is not always disruptive.  When performing CV work, please check edit summaries.  When you saw that this editor was arguing that the tags were not necessary, you should have either stopped reverting or discussed on the talk page.  You cannot claim a 3RR exemption for vandalism when reverting edits that aren't vandalism.

The way this should have transpired per WP:BRD: Both of you failed this process in different ways, BlueboyLINY more egregiously by ignoring Sucker for All's edit summaries indicating that they wanted to discuss and instead continued to revert with generic edit summaries and applied both unhelpful and inappropriate template warnings to Sucker for All's talk page. I would very much like to hear from both of you on this matter, that you understand how we ended up here at AN3, acknowledging your part in the war, and how you intend to avoid this kind of situation in the future. --Chris (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Sucker for All removes the tags.
 * 2) BlueboyLINY reverts the removal.
 * 3) Sucker for All opens a thread on the talk page offering their reasons for why the tags should be removed and pings BlueboyLINY.
 * 4) BlueboyLINY engages the discussion and offers their reasons for why the tags should stay.
 * Alright, I just worked with another user to improve the article after a good discussion at the talk page. Frankly, I feel like Jesse and Blueboy are attacking my character because they disagree with my edits. I always WP:AGF and have never filed complaints before, but how do I complain about these 2 specific users? Sucker for All (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the article and talk page and I agree that the activity has been productive, which is part of the reason I am very hesitant to block or apply page protection at this point in time. Discussion is proceeding (albeit without BlueboyLINY, but that is their choice) and I do not want to stifle that.
 * You can always report behavioral issues at WP:ANI but you should have very convincing evidence in the form of diff links before doing so, and ideally you should attempt to work it out directly with the other editors first. Prematurely opening an ANI thread, particularly without evidence, is discouraged (to say the least).  --Chris (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Are plaintiffs not also defendants here? In real life courts, where one user reports another, that happens all the time Sucker for All (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They can be, sure. I've already warned BlueboyLINY about incorrectly applying user talk page warnings as that is directly part of this edit war situation.
 * If there are behavioral issues extending beyond simple edit warring, ANI would be the appropriate venue to bring that up. You know your history with these other editors better than I do, and I can't dig through all of your contribution histories for hours looking for evidence of hounding, badgering, or incivility, for example.  If you can make the case with evidence, you are welcome to do so at ANI.  In your "real life court" example, neither the judge nor jury go looking for evidence.  That's the job of the plaintiff/defendant (and, of course, their legal teams).
 * Put another way, speaking for admins in general here, if a cursory glance at your contribution histories doesn't turn anything up and we have no prior knowledge of the parties involved leading us to believe that there might be a long-term conduct issue, we aren't digging for other behavioral problems. --Chris (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we calling this a good discussion? The other editor has just thrown up their hands in frustration.
 * @Sucker for All, I also have to say re: that discussion: just because there are multiple sources in a section does not mean there are enough. Every sentence should be sourced, and not to any source that comes in front of it. That literally means that with an extremely few exceptions, any paragraph that does not end with a source needs to be either fixed or tagged. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am having a constructive conversation at that location with PerpetuityGrat. He was annoyed at my formatting of his outlining his perception. However, just edited twice without consulting the talk page or explaining his logic. I am still waiting for him to tell me which parts of that article he believes contain original research.. Sucker for All (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am having a constructive conversation at that location with PerpetuityGrat. He was annoyed at my formatting of his outlining his perception. However, just edited twice without consulting the talk page or explaining his logic. I am still waiting for him to tell me which parts of that article he believes contain original research.. Sucker for All (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been open for a few days and I don't believe any action is warranted at this time, so I am going to close as. I should have checked the page first. It looks like the war over the tags has resumed. --Chris (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on BlueboyLINY's talk page requesting that they engage here or on the article's talk page. --Chris (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Given the resuming of edit warring while this report is ongoing I was tempted to block both immediately for edit warring. Given the length of the discussion here I will instead simply give my opinion that I support such action instead of acting unilaterally. HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 01:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The thought crossed my mind as well, or at least a partial block from the article. I would really like Blueboy to weigh in, but a full block may be needed to get their attention if they continue to ignore.  --Chris (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BlueboyLINY has a partial edit war block in their block history already. Sucker for All does not. A partial block would be sufficient to at least stop the disruption at the article. That may be enough. I guess less is more sometimes. <b style="color:Indigo">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 01:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that BlueboyLINY doesn't seem to engage much on article talk pages and only seems to engage on user:talk to leave warning templates, including about a dozen on SfA's talk. The section here asking for diffs showing attempts to resolve this at article talk is blank for a very good reason: BBLINY has never edited that talk page. BlueboyLINY, you brought this here. You need to come in here and discuss, and frankly your apparent extreme unwillingness to discuss anything anywhere could turn out to be a major problem. —valereee (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BBLINY has resumed editing, but not at any talk pages. I've p-blocked from article space to get their attention. No objection to any other admin unblocking once they've started discussing. —valereee (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time to bring this discussion to a close. BlueboyLINY indicated that they will avoid Sucker for All and also try to discuss more. There have been no reverts by either party on the article in question in roughly two days. Both parties appear to have learned from the experience and have moved on. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:47.206.140.66 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1034256081 by Uranium Site (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1034248671 by Isabelle Belato (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1034255952 by Uranium Site (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* See also */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1034248671 by Isabelle Belato (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1034248671 by Isabelle Belato (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1034248671 by Isabelle Belato (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . Note that a report on this noticeboard was unnecessary; these edits constitute vandalism and the appropriate venue for reporting that is WP:AIV. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:47.206.140.67 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1034257292 by Uranium Site (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1034257144 by Uranium Site (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1034256920 by Notfrompedro (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clearly the same editor as blocked vandal 47.206.140.66 RolandR (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * the /24 range for a week.  please report vandalism to WP:AIV in the future.  This noticeboard is for non-vandalism edit warring.  --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Weatherextremes reported by User:Average Portuguese Joe (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), 13:37, 17 July 2021 Reinstalled his edit after no-one agreeing upon his previous edits
 * 2), 19:54, 17 July 2021 2nd revert
 * 3), 20:56, 17 July 2021 3rd revert
 * 4), 09:45, 18 July 2021 4th revert

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) 01:24, 18 July 2021 Warned him on the three reverts
 * 2) 01:25, 18 July 2021 User deleted my warning
 * 3) 01:31, 18 July 2021 User copy-pasted the warning in his talk to my talk (for whatever reason)
 * 1) 13:52, 18 July 2021

Comments:

The user in question has a history of edit-warring and has been blocked before. Three users are against his edits, me, User:TechnicianGB and User:Lavalizard101, while on his side, a recently created user, User:FactDistributor, has been suporting his edits. The three users against him share the same opinion, 7 years for a climate normal is not enough to make any sort of statement. Still, after knowing this, and with no consensus, he proceeds to again put those averages and revert anyone who disagrees with him. All of the arguments against his edits and his self published blog can be seen on User talk:EdJohnston Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have calmly tried to explain to the editor above that the NEW proposed climate section has the agreement of two editors and he is the only one oppositing now AFTER the improvements. I have allowed 4 days for other editors to give us feedback. He did not bother to engage in the relevant talk page here: . Instead he kept reverting the proposed version that was agreed upon. I believe the editor should first try to engage for the resolution of the content dispute instead of trying to impose his own opinion with disruptive edits. Weatherextremes (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also let me note that the diffs provided by the editor are wrong (you will see he is repeating the same diff twice). I have reverted only twice and edited two more times. Weatherextremes (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm putting this as a 3rd party comment trying to keep WP:NPOV as I had the same issue with another user during the last week for the same reason. The Lindos climate data has been discussed on Ed Johnston's talk page (and the conversation didn't end, but we moved it to Lindos talk page) but since no user agreed with that edit, that's why no one has commented. Proposing something and because it didn't get no replies in 4 days doesn't make it a consensus. I see 4 reverts there, 1 2 3 4 the first one has a revert tag albeit it was adding previously removed data by a 3rd party, it's still an older version that got reverted. Then 3 following reverts. I see a WP:3RR broken there because of the addition and 3 reverts that makes it 4 reverts or at least 4 with the revert tag (automatically added) I have also left a message on Talk:Lindos. And about the page itself, there are 2 users agreeing with the changes of but one of them is a clear SPA account, although it's not a sockpuppet. So at the end there isn't any major consensus, I have reverted to the earlier aspect of the page (but fixing the link with the source) that was added by  adding a somewhat reliable source I found regarding Lindos.
 * And just a friendly reminder, please don't delete warnings and notices regarding your account until they're solved. When left you the WP:3RR notice, you deleted it after one minute. -TechnicianGB (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, it was my mistake inferring you agreed with the new proposed climate section which was fundamentally different from the one you objected. It now uses the Wayback Machine NOA link. The somewhat reliable source for Lindos was pointed out twice as unreliable. No years for the data since no station in Lindos existed before 2014 and most probably the data are for Rhodes city. So this source needs to go. Weatherextremes (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of order -- per WP:BLANKING, users are allowed to remove notices from their own talk page (with few exceptions, and a 3RR warning or AN3 notice is not among those exceptions). There is no reason under policy that they would be required to leave such a warning/notice on their user talk page.  --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added two more sources on Lindos, leaving intact the latest version by TechnicianGB. Unfortunately the climate.org source currently also in the article is not really reliable and would eventually need to go. Just to reiterate that I have genuinely thought (well inferred) that editors were in agreement with my proposed climate section version and that's the reason of the reverts. I am sorry for any inconvenience, I have tried to rectify the situation by adding two WP:RS's without changing anything from TechnicianGB's edits, but I think eventually we will need to resolve the content dispute. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Intervention on Ian Borg
Page: User being reported:

I am not sure if this is the right page but at the moment this page is receiving a lot of Vandalism and it has been reported in Malta: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/ian-borgs-profile-on-wikipedia-goes-rogue.887890

A user with: 94.17.246.202 is repeatedly adding the word "konkos" between the name of the Minister which translates to concrete in English. Can you please semi-protect the page?

Gian (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is not the right place; WP:RFPP is, but it's moot as the page is now protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:A Battlefront Gamer reported by User:Aspects (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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page;

Comments:

This editor has removed the single cover from the article seven times in the past three months without any edit summaries. They reverted themselves the first time, I have reverted them four times and User:Binksternet has reverted them once. They were blocked in May 2021 from Ode to Sleep for one month for edit warring and when the month was up, they went right back to edit warring there, so no lesson was learned. They rarely use an edit summary and was warned about this last month, and their editing leads me to believe that they are WP:NOTHERE to work with others to build an encyclopedia. Aspects (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

User: 86.49.242.107 reported by User:SteveCree2 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Joyce#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

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

Comments: I have edited the BLP Eric Joyce and removed libellous content along with unreferenced material and negative POV. The article remains unbalanced. An unsigned-in user keeps reverting my edits; the comments are personalised about the living person and abusive to me. I am not so concerned about the latter but am not sure what to do now, if anything, about the libellous content which remains. Finally, I am a new editor and not sure how to include versions above. Apologies. The problem is obvious at the page, though. SteveCree2 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no edit-warring violation by the IP. The IP is disruptive on the article Talk page, but that has nothing to do with edit-warring. Also, the IP has not edited since yesterday. You, however, are seriously white-washing the article, removing sourced material in a misguided effort to protect the subject. Such behavior can lead to a block. In addition, you should stop throwing legal words like libel about, or you risk being blocked for making legal threats.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

User:184.90.182.235 reported by User:0xF8E8 (Result:Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

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:

IP insists on replacing mentions of "transgender woman" with "biological male" and deleting large chunks of the article in spite of all warnings; currently at 4RR and counting. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

User:WalterWhite72 reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Partially Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  addition of sentence about "YouTube and internet personality" to lead and removal of Curbed source from lead
 * 2) revert 1
 * 3) revert 2
 * 4) revert 3
 * 5) revert 4
 * 6) revert 5 another revert after participating in this ANEW discussion
 * 7) removal #6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Kevin Paffrath (below the previous, closed discussion)

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

Comments:

Given we were editing the page around the same time it's hard to say if I'm at 3RR, so I'm coming here to avoid breaching it myself. WalterWhite72 is edit warring in line with past disputes on this page (see Talk:Kevin Paffrath, Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 89) where people have attempted to downplay Paffrath's status as a landlord. Note that WalterWhite72 was warned (not by me) for COI with respect to this page in May: User talk:WalterWhite72, and they are a single-purpose account. Now that I am at or around 3RR they are apparently using the opportunity to add blatant WP:PROMO content, like describing him in wikivoice as a "social media star". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Timing is a bit unfair here - multiple of my edits were coming up as "error this page has been edited." So the timing is definitely off. I provided new information and sources, then went to the talk page. Given the new sources are highly credible, they should stay until talk is complete. WalterWhite72 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've explained this to you. WP:STATUSQUO says that During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just came to report this user for a 3rr violation and saw this existing report. WalterWhite72 is clearly not understanding the rule, and reverted again while this discussion was ongoing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The dispute is on REMOVING new information - the new information shouldn’t be removed. The discussion is on removing that new info. 03:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Obvious edit warring. Partially blocked from Kevin Paffrath for 31 hours. <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">!ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An IP editor has just appeared to pick up where WalterWhite72 left off: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and semi-protected the article for a while, and left a stern warning about block evasion. <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">!ɘM γɿɘυϘ  ⅃ϘƧ  04:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Timaru99 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) first revert
 * 2) second revert
 * 3) third revert
 * 4) fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: BLPN link and talk page link

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

Comments:


 * The editor appears to have a COI in removing content from the article, in some cases stating a retraction from the source was requested and making claims not supported by the sources.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely as a sock. The previous two blocked accounts are in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Hehexd101 reported by User:ChicagoWikiEditor (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AnEsonGib

Comments:

Characteristically similar edit behavior and summaries of sock user. Warned to not make an edit before opening talk page discussion, but reverted anyway then opened talk discussion with personal attack. How many new users (as claimed to be) very first edit is a revert? ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The above accused editor literally just opened a new section from a separate account DarkerthanTar than undid the page further confirming sock activity suspicions. Stating quote "editor is also throwing personal attacks at me saying that im a sockpuppet without stating any evidence which I'm guessing is to scare me off the article. He also refuses to participate in the talk page discussion I've started even though he's the one who wants the term removed." before deleting and revising the same report comments (below) minus his direct association in the conflict. Please review this edit DIFF this "new user" came out of nowhere and has just now exposed himself. Furthermore he again reverted the page on this newly introduced account, attempting to bypass 3RR: and is now activity talking to himself on disputed articles talk page using the two accounts. .
 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ChicagoWikiEditor reported by User:DarkerthanTar (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AnEsonGib&oldid=1034744063

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

Comments:

The editor does not seem to want to educate himself on what the term Internet celebrity means and constantly keeps removing it from the article stating original research saying that the term does not apply to youtubers and that they need to be prominent on other platforms when one reference of Internet celebrity proves that that's not the case. The editor is also throwing personal attacks at another editor saying that they are a sockpuppet without stating any evidence which I'm guessing is to scare the other editor off the article. He also refuses to participate in the talk page discussion the other editor has started which i also mentioned in my last edit summary, even though he's the one who wants the term removed. DarkerthanTar (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ansar908716281 reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

Ansar908716281:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (03:42, 19 July 2021)
 * 2)  (06:09, 20 July 2021)
 * 3)  (11:27, 20 July 2021)
 * 4)  (22:38, 20 July 2021)
 * 5)  (02:06, 21 July 2021)
 * 6)  (02:09, 21 July 2021)
 * 7)  (04:41, 22 July 2021)
 * 8)  (13:51, 22 July 2021)
 * 9)  (14:35, 22 July 2021)

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;

Said user has failed over and over to reach a WP:CON, yet keeps edit-warring in order to shove information into the article, despite numerous veteran users clearly disagreeing with his POV. He has even logged out in order to continue the same disruptive pattern at the Mu'awiya I page. When one reads the edit-summary he posted when logged out, one can see that Ansar908716281 is clearly not here to build this encyclopedia: "Haha you’ve become a joke. First you ask for sources, now you reject them. Nothing will change. Your edits will continue being reverted." - LouisAragon (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Pinging and  as they have been involved with said user on the Mu'awiya I page. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The user is clearly a POV pusher with no apparent interest in "actually improving" the encyclopedia. The sole purpose of his editing on the article Mu'awiya I is to censor material which seems unfavorable from his point of view: The Caliphate paying tribute to the Byzantines. He has outright lied about one source, misrepresented another source, and insisted on using a primary source to supplant information based on a secondary RS. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 15:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Ansar908716281 for 72 hours for edit-warring, including editing while logged out.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Sumanuil reported by User:ThecentreCZ (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

This editor is removing normalized country name and keeps reverting it with non-rational comments, also posting non-sense talk notifications about summaries. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You're breaking files. That is vandalism. I've told you that. That is not "nonsense". I am also allowed to edit my own talk page. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. &#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Changing correct spelling of names is not vandalism, but correction and contribution to Wikipedia. What is that mean someone is breaking files? What files you are talking about, do you mean that correction of spelling is not possible? I think that vandalism is kind of way you are using by lefting behind disturbing summaries. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It is when the "correction" is part of a file name. Use the preview button. Specifically, the file in question is "Billboard for Andrej Babiš with handwritten text "Babiš steals" at Regional elections in Czechia in 2016 in Třebíč, Třebíč District.jpg". Changing "Czechia" to "Czech Republic" prevents it from displaying, because "Billboard for Andrej Babiš with handwritten text "Babiš steals" at Regional elections in Czech Republic in 2016 in Třebíč, Třebíč District.jpg" is not a file on Wikipedia. That, at least when you insist on doing it repeatedly, is vandalism. Telling you what you did wrong is not.&#32;- Sumanuil (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sumanuil: Your explanation doesn't make sense. The reverts listed above have nothing to do with changing a file name. The thing being changed (per the above) is a section header. Can you please re-check your argument? EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. The edits were changing *both* the section header and the file name, and the file name changes broke the display of the image. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:ThecentreCZ is warned not to break file names by careless name changes. Note that consensus supports using Czech Republic (rather that Czechia) as the country name, but *file names* are a whole other issue. If the spelling of the file name (containing Czechia) at File:Billboard for Andrej Babiš with handwritten text "Babiš steals" at Regional elections in Czechia in 2016 in Třebíč, Třebíč District.jpg is a major concern for anyone, try to get the name changed on Commons. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

User:UserUnknown112233 reported by User:David J Johnson (Result: No violation)
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 is edit warring and has been warned several times - including by an admin. Does not respond to any entries and warnings on Talk page David J Johnson (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please complete this report properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Having looked at this without the benefit of diffs, there is clearly no violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Khiikiat reported by User:GizzyCatBella (Result: Semi, Warnings)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1034775408 by GizzyCatBella (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1034773564 by GizzyCatBella (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1034766438 by GizzyCatBella (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1034765568 by GizzyCatBella (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1034765178 by GizzyCatBella (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1034763708 by 118.209.243.187 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1034721606 by 118.209.243.187 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1034657878 by 118.209.243.187 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1034657878 by 118.209.243.187 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* L. L. Zamenhof */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* L. L. Zamenhof */"
 * 3)   "/* L. L. Zamenhof */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recurring reverts of the sourced material without indicating reasons */ new section"

Comments:

I'm reporting the user who repeatedly overrides the addition of sourced material with their preferred version.

1st revert 

2nd revert 

3rd revert (4 consecutive reverts of the individual editor counted as one revert as per WP:3RR)    

4th revert 

5th revert 

Pledge for self-reverting is pending but still unanswered; please consider this factor as well. GizzyCatBella 🍁  20:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no edit war. This matter has already been discussed at great length here. Khiikiat (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming you didn't breach WP:3RR, and you didn't revert material that was not even discussed in the proposal linked by you? Such as these, ,,,? Seriously? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the article was agreed after a long discussion involving a number of editors. If you would like to change it, please start a new RfC. Khiikiat (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Khiikiat - Look, partner, I didn't change anything that was agreed on or whatever. I referenced the material recorded by another editor and made further unrelated edits that you reverted, breaching WP:3RR. You did that without any discussion or edit summary of why you are doing it. The best course of action for you would be to self-revert and explain your moves on the talk page, but you didn't even bother to address it . Claiming something that was agreed on does not make you immune from following the rules developed by the community. Okay? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@ admin. team members - The reported user has no prior blocks or warnings that I'm aware of.. Of course, the decision will be based on the equipped administrators' team members' study, but I'm not advocating for a block at this time, only a warning to follow WP:3RR. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Khiikiat was reverting ethnic vandalism by 118.209.243.187 and GizzyCatBella, who placed factually incorrect information against consensus in an RfC. User:Ziko also reverted this ethnic vandalism by the IP. GizzyCatBella also rushed to file this report, placing a specious warning on Khiikiat's page after all his edits, and then filing this report despite no more edits being made. This abuse is egregious in light of the vandalism of the article. --188.112.18.2 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear IP editor 188.112.18.2, wrongly accusing others of vandalism is uncivil. Would you mind familiarizing yourself with WP:NPA? We have widely accepted standards around here that all editors should follow, including you and the editor you courageously defend. People make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them, and that's the purpose of this report. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello User:GizzyCatBella. Can you explain how retaining the word 'Polish' in the lead paragraph is consistent with the outcome of the RfC? The RfC said:
 * –EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston, no, it's not consistent, but it wasn't me adding "Polish" anywhere, as you can see from the diffs. I wasn't even aware of that RiC when I checked if the editor who made that entry is right. After confirming that the reference is correct and studying other sources that reinforced their entry, I attached another source and moved on to make unrelated to the RfC edits (still unaware of the RfC). Then I noticed that the user is reverting everything, including the sources, like a trigger-happy WW1 heavy machine gun operator. Reverts were done with no explanation whatsoever, hence the report. I believe it's helpful to firmly warn the editor that WP:3RR is still a thing and needs to be respected. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP edits which contradict the result of the RfC regarding 'Polish'. User:GizzyCatBella and User:Khiikiat are warned they could be blocked if they revert again at L. L. Zamenhof without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston ... warning accepted, but please notice that I didn't revert anybody :)... so perhaps please consider correcting the word "again" relating to my person? Sorry for the trouble, but I'm pretty particular as far as details go. I'm not sure how to word it, but "again" indicates that I was reverting someone as well, which is incorrect. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually EdJohnston, never mind, disregard my last message to you; it's too much trouble for such an insignificant thing when I think about it.... I can live with that :) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually EdJohnston, never mind, disregard my last message to you; it's too much trouble for such an insignificant thing when I think about it.... I can live with that :) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ali mjr reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff, after this report was opened, and Ali mjr was notified of it.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland

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

Comments:

Reported editor is pushing WP:OR, against consensus of three established editors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the reporting editor's claim, there has not been a consensus made between editors for the later reversions. Granted, the initial edit was info added in the wrong context. However, the concerning info was later added to its specific subsection where again it was taken down. Granted, I did not add the info again for other editors to come into a settlement. But the issue is that it seems like the reporting editor does not want to, or is incapable of reasoning and has a sweet spot for keeping the word "suggestions" instead of "hypothesis", the word that is used unilaterally for the rest of the subsection involved. That is just illogical, if not WP:POV. mjrx (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:JAMES THE KOPITE reported by User:Bungle (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Summary totals */"
 * 2)  "/* Summary totals */"
 * 1)  "/* Summary totals */"
 * 1)  "/* Summary totals */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won."
 * 2)   "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * I have invited them to discuss their reasons within the edit summary of one of the reverts and explained the issue with their edit in another edit summary. Editor did not choose to follow this through into a discussion.

Comments:

User is edit warring the long established (and historically discussed) trophy count on List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won. The article has a long history of vandalism and has been subject to previous semi-protections from IP editors. User in question has only very recently registered account and has failed to engage in any dialogue, despite requests to do so, instead choosing to edit war. User already has enough time and edits that semi-protection would not be effective. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor continues to edit-war this article because no administrator has yet reviewed this case I have raised. The edit history of the article is fairly self-explanatory. Despite the case raised, the editor continues disruptive editing. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Security in mind (Result: No violation)
Pages: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Initial page

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) revert and removal of useful visual content - Page refactored for no valuable reasons, useful information like LSR infoboxes removed
 * 2) revert - and refusal to use newly suggested content by other editor
 * 3) revert - Page is about comparing implementation, not vendor. Refusal to understand.
 * 4) revert - Reversal because of apparent sock. I'm sorry, but check the backend. There is only one of me, no double accounts.
 * 5) revert - Removal because of non-notable library? MrOllie himself said in the talk page that BSAFE is a notable name. It just happen to be a product suite name with multiple different implementations, in C and Java.
 * 6) - removal of implementation Page is about comparing libraries, not vendor. Refusal to discuss.
 * 7) revert - Reverted because of COI. COI is not a good reason for reversal of non-COI content.
 * 8) revert - Reverted because of paid editor. I'm not paid by edits. Invalid reason to revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: All reverts above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

For a reason I do not understand, MrOllie is in an edit war with everything I have posted so far. Am I a RS on a subject? Yes. Am I a subject expert matter on the topics I write about? Of course! Am I paid to edit WP? No. Were my contributions made to promote anything? No. Is MrOllie's content removal lowers the quality of the information of the pages he's at war with me? Yes.


 * Obvious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry; see MrSaul76. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all, sorry. And my request is about an edit war with MrOllie's removal of technical content on WP. Please refocus on the request. - Security in mind (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Reviewing admin, see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard for context. - MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing admin, please do. Me no MrSaul76. Me nothing to hide. COI is not a reason to undo valuable, unbiased and legitimate contributions, which is what MrOllie has decided to do with what I have contributed so far to WP. - Security in mind (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll be looking at the behavior of some other editors, including the reporting editor, though.   Acroterion   (talk)   22:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:JorgeLaArdilla reported by User:Canterbury Tail (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: - Purely the 3RR breaking ones right now, see comments for more. This is the pure 3RR violations without taking into account the additional edit warring. See below.
 * 1) straight up reversion (note various edit warring has been going on for a couple of days in the history at this point)
 * 2) They made a different edit, it was reverted, and they reinstated the same info, but slightly refactored
 * 3) straight up reversion
 * 4) and again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (and acknowledgement by user that they are willing to accept the consequences

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm just linking to the talk page itself here, as the last 3 sections are all surrounding this and involving at least 5 other editors

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

Comments:

There are several active conversations on the talk page regarding the topics that User:JorgeLaArdilla is edit warring over. Note they are not reverting the same edits each time, there are a couple of topics going on. They are actively involved in the discussions but are continuing to edit for their preferred versions despite the ongoing discussions on these topics and have been slow edit warring for several days on the article in general now. At this point the user's activities are becoming disruptive and there is a fair amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on. Note I am not particularly involved here, have only made 2 clarification seeking comments in the discussions, but am still concerned about WP:INVOLVED to take admin action myself. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:38.87.50.131 reported by User:Doniago (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:

Despite IP being told multiple times to review WP:IPCV and then being told explicitly that, per IPCV, they are required to provide a source, they have been unable or unwilling to do so and have persisted in reinserting their material despite no consensus for its inclusion. DonIago (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. The IP editor should get consensus on the talk page to include their material. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:68.7.76.233 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "What don't you guys understand? Pansexual and omnisexual are not the same or synonyms, omnisexual isn't even a microlabel under pansexuality. I will keep removing this character because they do not belong on this list."
 * 2)  "Pansexual means attracted to all genders without a preference, omnisexual means attracted to all genders WITH a preference, they're literally opposites, and there is a difference, just put the character on the list of LGBT characters, not here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP has finally taken issue to talk <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 10:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:68.7.76.233 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Avdmoh reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Prelude:
 * 5 june 2020 removed birthdate from lead
 * 7 july 2020 removed birthdate from short description
 * 23 august 2020 removed info on birthdate from lead
 * 19 july 2021 moved info on Shankara's influence from the lead into the article - where it already was...
 * 19 july 2021 again


 * 1) diff removed birthdate from lead
 * 2) diff removed sourced info from lead
 * 3) diff idem
 * 4) diff idem

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:

See also this comment at my talkpage, You are engaging in your own biased PoV pushing while accusing others. This racist behaviour is not proper., for which I've warned them. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for a long history of a multitude of sins.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Street sting reported by User:Piotr Jr. (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

User:27.147.224.171 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "1 April Bangladeshi freedom fighters liberated Kustiya and bogura"
 * 2)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 3)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 1)  "1 April Bangladeshi freedom fighters liberated Kustiya and bogura"
 * 2)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 3)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 1)  "1 April Bangladeshi freedom fighters liberated Kustiya and bogura"
 * 2)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 3)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 1)  "1 April Bangladeshi freedom fighters liberated Kustiya and bogura"
 * 2)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 3)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 1)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 2)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 1)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 2)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 1)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 2)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 1)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 2)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 1)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 2)  "/* Before the war */"
 * 1)  "/* Before the war */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Timeline of the Bangladesh Liberation War."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Blackraider77 reported by User:GlenwingKyros (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff warned via edit summary

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

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

Comments:

Note, the edit was initially made an anon, I'm only assuming that they registered the account User:Blackraider77 as they continue where the anon left off, with the same types of comments in the edit summaries. However, it doesn't really matter since they have made 5 reverts now with the registered account anyway.

Anon user added an external link without comment. Although it is related to the article, I reverted it (for various reasons now detailed on the talk page, but in my first revert I did not explain the reasons; not good practice, I know). The user added it back, and I reverted again with my reasons explained, and tried to direct further discussion to the talk page. User:Blackraider77 reinstated the edit, arguing against the points I made in their edit summary. I reverted the page again, did not try to argue any points and instead directed them to make their arguments on the talk page, and linked them to WP:EDITWAR. User:Blackraider77 instead reverted again with rude comments in the summary and told me to start a talk page discussion myself.

At this point I stopped reverting their edits to avoid warring and just let it stay up, and created a talk page discussion (posted around 2.5 hours after their last revert). About an hour after that, I posted a link to the discussion on their userpage to make sure they see it (later moved it to their user talk page after I realized I put it in the wrong place). Around the same time that I linked the discussion on their user page, another editor Janke reverted their edit, and within a few minutes User:Blackraider77 was back and reinstated their edit again. It was reverted by Janke again, and reinstated by User:Blackraider77 again. User:Blackraider77 still did not respond to the talk page discussion at this point. I reverted their change one last time, directing them to the talk page discussion and linking them to WP:EDITWAR a second time. They have now responded to the talk page discussion, but continue to reinstate their edits without waiting for consensus, now constituting 5 edits with 24 hours. GlenwingKyros (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for WP:LINKSPAM (and edit-warring).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Popscenealrightt reported by User:StarryNightSky11 (Result: Warnings, EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1035140795 by ClueBot NG (talk) Rv - content doesn't belong in article"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1034577413 by Smelly.Spaniel (talk) Rv pov pusher who believes they own this article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring with another user StarryNightSky11  <sup style="color:black">(talk) <sup style="color:black">(cont)   00:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've just warned both of them to take their content dispute to the talk page. If the reverts continue, I'm prepared to partial-block the users. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Two editors have been warned by User:C.Fred. Another admin has applied EC protection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:89.196.34.165 reported by User:Idealigic (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: 3 IPs with the only purpose to add a think tank source to a sentence that is part of an on going rfc are taking turns to edit war. The article also has WP:CRP restrictions. I keep reverting them, but new IPs show up.


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:David-dalus reported by User:LittleJerry
The Secret of NIMH:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This users edits are identical to edits made by various IPs (, . ) and are likely the same person. The article was protected in on June 28 due to vandalism by the IP and they clearly created a user ID so they could get passed the lock.

The edits concern the "....which ends with the dying Sullivan killing Jenner and saving Justin's life". The user has continued to remove the bolded line dispute being given this justification for its inclusion and has refused to explain themselves or discuss. LittleJerry (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * . --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ace Frahm reported by User:Chetsford (Result: Partially blocked 24h)
Page: Chris Pratt

User being reported: Ace Frahm

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: The editor keeps undoing other editors to add a section title "Publicly Indifferent To Homophobic Policies Of His Church" and light variations of that (e.g. "Fans Distressed At Homophobic Policies Of His Church").


 * As their edits to the article demonstrate, their sole input to the article for months revolves around the addition of a problematic section. They can only be considered a net negative on the article. FDW777 (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * . --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Kavkas reported by User:Reiner Gavriel (Result: No violation)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2 <- straight up copies his own edits from Ingushetia, which are very doubtful to begin with
 * 3) 3 <- same as above
 * 4) 50 <- his last edit on the page as of this report
 * 5) 1 on Ingushetia <- I had removed unsourced, dubious edits of his and tried improving the article, which he reverted

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff warned via a comment on his talk page about his questionable edits and the request to revert to the last correct version and seek consensus. Warned him again diff after he threw accusations such as "he threatens me" against me, also claimed I was engaging in a state-sponsored "form of propaganda"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff This was a general attempt to stop sockpuppet attacks on the article. These sockpuppets have vandalised the article with the same stance as Kavkas, archive of the investigation

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

Comments:

If there are any further questions about why his edits are questionable, please ask me ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you may be at the wrong noticeboard. This one is for edit warring and, quite frankly, I don't see any edit war here.  I see 5 different groups of consecutive edits by this user.  Per WP:EW, a series of consecutive edits reverting multiple things counts as a single revert, so the maximum number of reverts we are dealing with here is 5, spread out over two weeks.  Then consider that the two edits separating the most recent three such groups were made by bots performing minor maintenance/cleanup tasks, and we are down to three logical groups of edits.  I don't even see any clear-cut reverts by this user on this article.  Unless you can provide some context or additional information, I'm going to close this report as "no violation."  --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, which noticeboard would be more fitting? The user is editing in the exact same nature as the sockpuppets before and he completly changed the article with falsified information. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2021


 * I also note that you did not inform the editor you are reporting of this discussion. You are required to inform any user you report here by placing   on their talk page.  I am closing this report as .  In the future, please make sure what you are reporting is actually an edit war, and if you do report an edit war, notify the user(s) you are reporting.  --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did inform the editor here. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2021
 * Ah. The standard way to do this is with an3-notice, and you're supposed to link to the diff of your notice in your report ("Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page" above, which is blank). Regardless, I don't see an edit war here.  Perhaps you meant to file this at WP:ANI?  --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the more appropriate place. Thank you! ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2021

User:2602:AE:127F:E00:5B9:7298:5CA0:548 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT CRAPPY RULE, YOU JERK!"
 * 2)  "This movie was also released in the US and other countries, NOT just in Canada because it was produced in Canada! Do you NOT SEE how film distribution works?!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: