Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive438

User:Alexbrn reported by User:MarshallKe (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Discussion was brought up by another user as early as October 2020. Alexbrn made reversions and made no attempt to discuss the matter until December 2020. Alexbrn continued to make reversions while users continued to add concerns to the talk page. There is now a noticeboard post, which Alexbrn himself created. User is aware of edit warring policy and is smart enough to evade the 3RR rule, and instead cooperates with another user to evade edit warring guidelines. While 3RR has been avoided, slow edit warring is still edit warring. MarshallKe (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * three days.Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, protection for a few days is fine, but if Alex and a few other self-appointed anti-alternative guys keep reverting every attempt to make the article a touch more NPOV, and get rid of his bold claim not supported by the cited sources, where will we be then? From the looks of it, he has earned a topic ban at least. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We can cross that bridge when we get to it. It's nice to take a 3 day break from the issue and give time for discussion to happen. MarshallKe (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Long-term WP:STEWARDSHIP is not edit-warring, and the encyclopedia does indeed need to be defended against poor/fringe content in line with prevailing consensus and the WP:PAGs. For that, I deserve a barnstar more than a visit to AN3. Note that was WP:CANVASSED to this discussion as the OP's sole "ally" among the many editors who have contributed, which makes it pretty clear what's going on. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn is making reverts without any established consensus. Because Dicklyon was a recent participant, I thought they might be interested. This is not canvassing. Also, we are all allies here... MarshallKe (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh there's consensus alright, even if you don't (yet) understand that; but even if there weren't, per WP:NOCON the usual practice is for established text to remain until/unless a modification is agreed, rather than repeatedly trying to force a change (as you did). As for canvassing, anybody can see you notified just ONE editor, the one editor who agreed with you, who faithfully came to heel here. Some editors aren't "allies" here, editors who believe there is a cabal of "self-appointed anti-alternative guys" for example. Alexbrn (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see how my notification of Dicklyon could be misconstrued, so in a gesture of good faith, I've notified Roxy the dog, who is in agreement with Alexbrn. I also see how my one revert could be misconstrued. I made that revert because I tripped a filter and thought somebody merely reverted it as a kneejerk reaction, which turned out to be, well, correct in some sense, but not the way I thought. I made a small mistake there. As for your WP:NOCON point, it's possible I made a mistake there. My addition of the disputed tag is the edit I should have made from the beginning. MarshallKe (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The established text was the original line that explained that research had not demonstrated qi or meridians. The lack of consensus is with Alexbrn's removal of this information and replacement with his POV, so because this is a deletion discussion, the original explanation about the science should remain. If Alexbrn had merely added his POV without omitting the explanation of the science, this would be a different matter. MarshallKe (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why have I been notified of this malformed noticeboard post? Give the OP a boomerang. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 12:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:71.92.49.134 reported by User:HaeB (Result: Partial blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The removal of what has been removed is about the BLM as it isn't important toward the racing driver's career and shouldn't be plastered as if it makes him any better, or worse, then any driver else."
 * 1)  "The removal of what has been removed is about the BLM as it isn't important toward the racing driver's career and shouldn't be plastered as if it makes him any better, or worse, then any driver else."
 * 1)  "The removal of what has been removed is about the BLM as it isn't important toward the racing driver's career and shouldn't be plastered as if it makes him any better, or worse, then any driver else."
 * 1)  "The removal of what has been removed is about the BLM as it isn't important toward the racing driver's career and shouldn't be plastered as if it makes him any better, or worse, then any driver else."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also this earlier 3RR warning by C.Fred. HaeB (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2 021 (UTC)


 * IP already partial blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Bearsfan101 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1035515167 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* COVID-19 */ non-primary source not needed since primary source is reputably published and no interpretation of the source is offered"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1035488888 by RandomCanadian (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1035487237 by RandomCanadian (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1035487096 by RandomCanadian (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1035486233 by RandomCanadian (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1035486071 by RandomCanadian (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1035483254 by Animalparty (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1035479786 by 76.198.24.189 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1035281034 by Alexbrn (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 1035417207 by Alexbrn (talk)"

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

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

Comments: This editor has been disruptively editing Peter A. McCullough and is not responding to talk page pings or warnings. The history of their user talk is revealing: they've received multiple warnings from multiple editors and are clearly aware of them as they've been blanking all warnings. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, this was overdue, — Paleo Neonate  – 15:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Northheavensky reported by User:MrCattttt (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

Diff of an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page: Talk:Pencak_silat

Comments:

The reported editor did not provide any edit summary in the first revert while in the following reverts, the editor simply wrote "Reverted" or "Wrong and very manipulating”. I have tried to engage in the Talk page but the editor just wrote "There are no sources to support your claim" despite me already provide all the in-line references. Please help me resolve this issue MrCattttt (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pencak_silat. Northheavensky (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You are discussing on the talk page, which is good. Per WP:BRD, you introduced new content and were reverted.  The next step is to gain consensus for your suggested change on the talk page.  You should stop warring for your preferred version immediately and continue discussion.  I do not want to block while you are discussing, but you need to cease warring or that's likely to happen.  --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:JJNito197 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Partially blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff removing info on Buddhist influences and Shanakara's pov, next diff selectively re-inserting Shankara's pov; a repetition of Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring just two days ago
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * diff warning at Talk:Adi Shankara
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff
 * diff warning at my talkpage
 * diff warning for disruptive editing at user's talkpage

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAdi_Shankara&type=revision&diff=1035600604&oldid=1035324747 diff]

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

Comments:

As noted above, a repetition of Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring just two days ago. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Joshua_Jonathan is gatekeeping this article and I am simply trying to add in information without it being reverted. This user has added extensive BOLD edits to the article without taking it to talk, and the user wonders why people are reacting to it. I had reverted once and that was paragraph arrangement, the latter reverts was a result of removal of sourced content. I have been trying to collabrate with the user in order to progress , by changing my edits and removing where required. I have repeatly been struck down with the user telling me to 'update your knowledge' and spamming my user box with templates. This user also has reached the 3RR point. This user has already been using the Administrators noticeboard to deal with users reacting to his controversial edits. I will request further intervention if this continues. You can see by my edit history I only want to improve wikipedia. The user has also admitted gatekeeping the article, for which I had warned him. JJNito197 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No explanation provided regarding the removal of my edits, I just made grammatical improvememts since mamy info was written in a rather informal way, the source "Echo parei polles fores pragmata apo ta skoupidia" is mentioned at least 5 times in the text which is an exaggeration so I removed it several ones and finally she has publicly said Bebe Rexha is her icon, I had added that info a long time ago and no one had removed it till now."
 * 2)  "1) The edits sb had added were too informal for a site read by everyone worldwide like wikipedia so some info had to be deleted 2) The only content I removed was the info about her grandfather which I wrote in the controversy part in a better way than before + at the part it was written before, the reader cares about the basic info and then a more thorough analysis on the subject is made 3) wiki does not need multiple references of any kind of info, once is enough 4) source about Rexha provided"
 * 3)  "No arguments provided to my latest version of editing so rv."
 * 4)  "You are the one constantly undoing my changes and instead of providing arguments if you have a disagreement you just keep reverting to your own version. So why should I be the one accepting your behaviour which is just calling my editing "disruptive" without either arguments or finding any faults to the sources I provide? This is at least disrespectful."
 * 1)  "You are the one constantly undoing my changes and instead of providing arguments if you have a disagreement you just keep reverting to your own version. So why should I be the one accepting your behaviour which is just calling my editing "disruptive" without either arguments or finding any faults to the sources I provide? This is at least disrespectful."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continued warring activity after being warned by an administrator here. Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,. Its unfortunate that the editor would not heel to admin EdJohnston's warnings. I have reverted now Dealer07's latest edits since they appear to be disruptive and not an improvement for the article, and, from the looks of edit warring, they lack the necessary consensus. Dealer07 however, doesn't want to stop. They are keeping up with their edit war and I had to revert their disruptive edits again! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

No. You did not "have to." Edit warring is wrong even when you think you are right. More so. If you're wrong but think you are right, what does that make you?? -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DDE: If reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request administrator assistance via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Provide diffs of the multiple reverts by the tendentious editor. If you for some reason believe that the multiple reverts of the editor which were removing references and sourced information without providing a valid reason on their edit summaries and without seeking a consensus building for their problematic edits, do not fall within DDE's rules, then my apologies. I had the impression this is exactly the case and I felt compelled to do what people usually do in such cases of disruption: revert the disruptive edits and provide information to the ANI for assistance, and so I did both steps. If I have misunderstood something about DDE, then you have my sincere apologies and your advice will be much appreciated. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * by . --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Wallnot reported by User:Aussie Article Writer (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Home_Secretary&diff=1033319030&oldid=1033289446
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Home_Secretary&diff=1033570657&oldid=1033539914
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Home_Secretary&diff=1033789631&oldid=1033780592
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Home_Secretary&diff=1035634003&oldid=1035633815

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:

There is a dispute about the title of the Home Secretary. See Talk:Home Secretary and also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wallnot has reverted once today and you have reverted three times. If anyone is going to be blocked here, it would be you.  See WP:GLASSHOUSES.  --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I tried for consensus. But from my understanding, if you revert three times (and once where you try to make a change with quotations, which was a compromise) then it's not something I would have thought is blockable? And I respect the opinion of the person reverting, and I have agree not to make any more changes and I am discussing it on talk. I don't think there is any need to be so aggressive.
 * My point is not that you should necessarily be blocked at this moment -- you have not yet violated WP:3RR, but neither has Wallnot. My point is that when I look at the page history, I see Wallnot reverting you once and you reverting other editors three times.  It seems very unwise to be filing complaints at AN3 against other editors when you are a much more active participant in the war than they are.  You are one revert away from a 3RR violation; Wallnot is three reverts away.  Filing this complaint was foolish.  --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You did write that "If anyone is going to be blocked here, it would be you." However, I did indeed make a grave mistake when filing this. I am not going to say otherwise. How do I withdraw it? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is not actionable, then I accept the adjudication of the board, which is why I have taken this here. May I ask you to assume good faith? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears I am mistaken in my summary. I retract my report, with apologies for . I will personally apologise on his talk page. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a carte blanche to violate policy. If you revert one more time within the next day or so you will be in violation of the three-revert rule regardless of your intentions.  As long as you are not going to continue reverting while you discuss on the talk page, there is no reason to block at this time.  --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have not violated 3RR, sure, there is no need to block me. I'm not sure why you would think there is, at least under the 3RR policy. But thank you for promising not to block me outside of policy :-) Anyway, I unreservedly apologise to . - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that one can still be blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR. 3RR is a bright line that will nearly always trigger a block when crossed, but (from WP:3RR): Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring ... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.  However, as you don't seem interested in continuing the edit war, a block would not prevent any disruption and so is unnecessary at this time.  --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping me here. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * how does one withdraw a report on this noticeboard? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * per above discussion. --Chris &#124; Crazycomputers (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:89.107.6.68 reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1035650401 by JayBeeEll (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1035650179 by JayBeeEll (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1035648765 by Sapphorain (talk) That version is ugly."
 * 4)  "STOP MASHING REVERT. What you claim is true only of the version you are protecting."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Farrel Alfaro Ho reported by User:Flix11 (Result: User blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1035680520 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1035678530 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1035563929 by Flix11 (talk)"


 * I have indefinitely blocked the reported user following a report at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Mia34985 reported by User:Tpdwkouaa (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

Multiple reverts over the course of two days (most recent 4 listed above) performed against multiple editors. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked the user as an obvious sock of User:Vanessa566. I believe there's a good possibility that both accounts are socks of User:Cassandra872, but without behavioral corroboration from users more familiar with that LTA or technical corroboration, I didn't feel confident enough to designate them as such.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:InNeed95 reported by User:Pipsally (Result: Page protected & user blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1035635184 by Pipsally (talk) No consensus found thru Talk-Page discussion. (Editor is unwilling to cooperate)///Refrain from editing the Article again. Since without explainations, this can be view as Vandalising."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1035613597 by Pipsally (talk) No consensus found thru Talk-Page discussion. (Editor is unwilling to cooperate)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1035604286 by Pipsally (talk) No Edit-Warring is visible."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent Reverts on the Article */"
 * 2)   "/* Recent Reverts on the Article */"
 * 3)   "/* Recent Reverts on the Article */"

Comments:

I restored the last stable version of this article last night. There have been extensive too and fro reversions on in it in the last week or so - the usual Balkan nonsense. I have repeatedly asked them on the talk page to explain what it is he wishes to add and to seek consensus but they make no effort do engage on the actual content or seek consensus. This is a pattern across other articles where they remove anything they don't like as "controversial".

They were warned for edit warring yesterday but that was removed - I've restored for procedural correctness just now.

I should add that my Edit summary on my first edit to restore the stable version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo_Serbs&diff=1035604286&oldid=1035277501 in this was poorly phrased - I said edit-warring when in fact  it's a number of editors removing and re-adding different bits of the content rather than two individuals, but the end result is the same, and no-one was discussing on talk except.

Pipsally (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Consider opening an WP:RFC to decide what percentage of Kosovo Serbs should be stated in the article (4% versus 7%). There is a lot of discussion of numbers in the last two sections of Talk:Kosovo Serbs/Archive 1. In case some sources might be considered biased, you could ask for advice at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * by

User:Blazing Phoenix reported by User:Nightscream (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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


 * You failed to warn the other user about 3RR before their 4th revert, and you have not attempted to discuss the content dispute with them. Declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Reverting more than 3 times, and reverting against two editors, is indeed a blockable offense. In any event, how am I supposed to warn him? I'm not an admin for one. For another, I'm the one whose edits he was reverting. The guy's been editing here for almost a year. You think he doens't know about edit warring? If he already disregarded my edits and the edits of the other editor that he reverted, then what makes you think a warning by me on his talk page would give him pause? Moreover, by reverting it, he's already gotten what he's wanted; I can't revert it back, becuase then I'd be violating policy too. So what do you think a warning by me on his talk page would do? He has violated policy by committing blockable offenses, period. And you're refusing to do anything, and allow this to continue, once again based on some bureaucratic technicality? Nightscream (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Talk to aoi reported by User:Krazytea (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Talk_to_aoi

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

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

Comments:

User has been warned three times, twice on their page and once on the pages talk page. They were asked not to include disruptive material unless discussed on the talk page. While some dialogue has appeared they still continue to add information that has raised some concerns. I would suggest a 24 hour block until they can engage in collaborative dialogue as to whether to include or exclude the material of concern on the BLP.  Krazytea  (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:FLJuJitsu reported by User:The Eloquent Peasant (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: [link]

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

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

Comments:


 * . has not violated 3RR. However, when they return to Wikipedia (they have not edited since their last revert), they should participate in the discussion  began on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Groobabygroo reported by User:Piotr Jr. (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Groobabygroo

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

Comments:

As explained at their talk page and edit summaries, the user's edits violate manual(s) of style and introduce incorrect information. I am reporting this so that someone can intervene, perhaps semi-protect the targeted articles. Because my messages to the user have been ignored. Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor appears to be disregarding the advisements and warnings elsewhere, as seen now at another D'Angelo-related article, reverted by. Piotr Jr. (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

And now again, adding incorrect information to Voodoo (D'Angelo album). Piotr Jr. (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Now here to Send It On (D'Angelo song). Piotr Jr. (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. The user is changing articles to suit their own personal preference and is ignoring feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:2A04:4E41:28:1:0:0:8510:3785 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked 2a04:4e41:28:1::/64 for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: See also, , and as different IP edits.
 * 1)  "Do you have a functioning brain? IT’S SATIRE. STOP DEFAMING PEOPLE."
 * 2)  "Reverted edit by the deranged leftists who think everything and everyone is racist, even though the real problem is their severe inability to detect sarcasm and nuance from a satirical tweet. Raise your IQ above your age."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User:2a04:4e41:28:1::43b0:b2e9, User:208.98.223.119 and User:199.119.235.237 seem to be the same person, making the same edit with similarly worded edit summaries. Zudo (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Favonian (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:178.4.50.110 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result:1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

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

Comments:

Straight 4RR+ vio. Very likely to be same user as who just came off a block 2 days ago for making the same disruptive edits, with the same abusive edit summaries as this IP. -  wolf  16:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously the same editor previously blocked for the same disruption. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:MangaEternal5 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Raw 2 is just as slow as switch 2k18's fps"
 * 2)  "So did half of the gamecube games, know what those led to? The day of reckoning games, all 3 Xbox games sucked ass, but they put games on the 360."
 * 3)  "Be Optimistic, if 2K wants money they'll putt it on as much platforms as they can"
 * 4)  "Prove that it won't be on switch gaylord"
 * 5)  "remove the switch again fuck ass user i dare you, they gave the switch another go with 2K Battlegrounds that's my source"
 * 6)  "Whoever removed the switch is a dumbass"
 * 1)  "remove the switch again fuck ass user i dare you, they gave the switch another go with 2K Battlegrounds that's my source"
 * 2)  "Whoever removed the switch is a dumbass"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit comments clearly not civil either... did not warn them as do not want to enter into conversation with someone with this attitude. JeffUK (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – Indef for NOTHERE by User:Ponyo. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Granticus31 reported by User:EEng (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1)  Cambridge
 * 2)  Cambridge
 * 3)  Cambridge
 * 4)  Cambridge

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Granticus was warned on his talk page a month ago for similar behavior, and is now edit warring on two articles, against two editors, to force in some pet material of his (5 reverts at Harvard, 4 at Cambridge in less than 24 hours). Attempts to discuss (on article talk pages and his own talk page) have elicited rambling grievances and attacks. EEng 16:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of the supposed "reverts" in question were in fact addressing reverts made by EEng, for example EEng suggested improving the source (in an insulting way), and so the article was reverted to preserve work and then edited to improve the source, thus addressing the concern. I contend that this does not constitute a revert. EEng makes an insult ("rambling") and then complains of "attacks" when he says "rambling grievances and attack" EEng continually violates WP:CIVIL with me and others, including saying to me EEng also has a history of this with others, for example, just a few taken from the Harvard page: Granticus31 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "it's obvious you know nothing about Harvard."
 * "bluster" "ridiculous" "beyond preposterous"
 * "overbearing pedant"
 * "if you actually read those...chapters"
 * "please, not this nonsense again", "sorry you went to Yale", "what in the world are you talking about???", "Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong."
 * Granticus31 -- it might behoove you to read WP:3RR. This is a bright-line rule and whataboutism, even if it were justified, does not excuse a violation.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Granticus31 -- why do you think John Harvard belongs in the lead section of University of Cambridge? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Exzachary reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Partial blocked from the article)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1035960659 by Soibangla (talk) Business Insider is a reputable source."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1035957723 by Muboshgu (talk) this is worth adding to the Chinese spy section"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1035952594 by Muboshgu (talk) this is newsworthy"
 * 4)  "/* Tenure */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Notice */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eric Swalwell."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Breitbart article */ Replying to Soibangla (using reply-link)"

Comments:

It's not a Breitbart article. It's been mentioned in Axios, New York Magazine and San Francisco Gate Exzachary (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PBlocked from the article, indefinitely. I see no reason for an edit-war where one side is trying to push dubiously-sourced statements into a BLP.  The only reliable source is Axios (from where the BI story comes), and even that says "Swalwell immediately cut off all ties to Fang, according to a current U.S. intelligence official, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing.". Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Insha22 reported by User:LearnIndology (Result: Article space blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Comments:

Despite being warned by multiple editors Insha22 have continued to vandalize Wikipedia. They are using blogs as sources despite editors making them aware of WP policies. Apart from that they are pushing a POV by replacing Ancient India to Ancient Pakistan. LearnIndology (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * PS
 * With this edit, they have violated WP:3RR too. LearnIndology (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Add This user appears to be unstoppable. The persistent addition of a telephone number borders on vandalism or at least a severe CIR-problem. I have seen that the user hasn't got a warning before the report, so I have dropped one just now. –Austronesier (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did warn them about 3RR a bit earlier today, but they've kept at it. – Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User was article space blocked for one week by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:FPPF1 reported by User:阿pp (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Case 1: Deleting Oxford comma:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Case 2: Changing order or sections without reaching censensus:


 * 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:

Activities include: Igoring and against Olympic Manual of Style and other community concensus, changing "People's Republic of China" to "Mainland China", changing "China" to "it", changing "China is competing/participating at" to "China is active at", changing order of section without proper reasons, deleting oxford commas, changing phrasing of a sentence regarding Hong Kong causing grammar error. --阿pp (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional information: User:FPPF1 might be User:Dustyveil--阿pp (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * you make false excuse that this order is a consensus while it isn't and the page you provided does not contain any guildline of value that demonstrate how it was consented other than some irrelevant examples. As I asked you to point to the relevant discussion, you failed to do it. FPPF1 (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

G 阿pp openly refused to discuss (see here) while he continue pushing his view on the editing arena. This person also seems to have trouble with misunderstanding descriptions and has a relative language barrier. FPPF1 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * – Indef as a sock of User:Albertpda by User:NinjaRobotPirate. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Dustyveil. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Dnywlsh reported by User:Ebahapo (Result: Duplicate report)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Comments:

User started commenting on my talk page and, after a few unsuccessful interactions, I took the conversation to the talk pages of the respective articles in question. However, the user refuses to wait for other comments and continues to engage in reversals of reversals. The sources that the user relies on are not reliable and do not state what he alleges that they do. ebahapo (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Duplicate report. Both editors have been warned per another complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ebahapo reported by User:Dnywlsh (Result: Both warned)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:LTE frequency bands, Talk:5G NR frequency bands

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

Comments:

User:Ebahapo is continuing the edit war, after declining to continue the discussion on the talk pages. I have provided 8 sources supporting the edit I made. User:Ebahapo has provided no sources supporting their edit. Dnywlsh (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Ebahapo and User:Dnywlsh are both warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again on one of these pages without first getting a consensus in their favor on an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * User:EdJohnston - There appears to be no consensus. My edit was sourced, with 8 different sources. Their edit was not sourced, and no one has been able to present a source for their edit. Shouldn't unsourced edits be challenged and removed? Dnywlsh (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:Edit warring policy doesn't allow sourcing issues to take precedence over the rules about reverting. Better get agreement on Talk, or use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * User:EdJohnston - It's very disappointing that the admins here care more about bickering than articles having unsourced, incorrect information. I literally cited the FCC's website, and my edits are being removed. If the FCC is not a reliable source, what is? Maybe this is why Wikipedia is considered unreliable. The admins do not appear to care about articles having reliable, sourced information. Dnywlsh (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:198.53.108.48 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "he and i will work this out. i saw your invocation of verifiability on the talk page and it shows how uninvolved you actually are. see talk for the direct relevance as he has requested."
 * 2)  "remove 1986 mention, focus on 1973. as it stands, this is relevant and deserving of its own section due to fletcher's attitude. every line here is sourced"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1035652875 by VQuakr (talk) it was only contested on relevance, and the discussion showed the original reverter has not shown how it is not relevant. if the congressional hearings and such remain on this page, so too should the mention of the GAO reports that document how this disaster could have been avoided. add sources presented in talk to significantly strengthen argument."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1035442225 by Balon Greyjoy (talk) buddy, you're risking WP:3RR at this point. you're wrong. the congressional investigations are on this page, and the GAO investigations are related to that."
 * 5)  "it's actually the government accountability office, not accounting. either way, this is most certainly important and the only reason for its removal is a npov because thiokol should have never gotten the contract. the first GAO review reflects that."
 * 6)  "/* Government Accountability Office */"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1035375734 by Balon Greyjoy (talk) um it is most certainly related to the disaster. thiokol being awarded the contract is what caused this disaster! i'll put it in its own section, but to claim it's wp:unrelated is comical and suggests wp:npov"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1035375734 by Balon Greyjoy (talk) um it is most certainly related to the disaster. thiokol being awarded the contract is what caused this disaster! i'll put it in its own section, but to claim it's wp:unrelated is comical and suggests wp:npov"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Space Shuttle Challenger disaster."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* the GAO investigations and their relation to the U.S. house hearings */ re, collapse wall of text with some editor-focused distraction."

Comments:

Uninvolved user here, but one who's been watching this mess unfold - I'd urge anyone reviewing this case to also have a look at IP's edit summaries on their contribs page, and the history of their talkpage (which is full of warnings that they've deleted). I'm not certain if their attitude is conducive to cooperative editing. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * hi, these are the facts. as it stands, this is not about the window-dressing of the 1986 report. it's about one editor who has completed dominated the page and decided that the GAO investigation from 1973 isn't deserving of its own section.
 * on the talk page, i have argued that it does merit its own section because the sources support the claim fletcher's attitude had a significant effect on the eventual disaster.
 * in particular, mcconnell's book, considered among the foremost sources on the incident, states fletcher went out of his way to defend thiokol and it had a significant effect on the eventual design of the boosters.
 * i do not think this is related to the o-rings. the reason the quote is emphasised is because, again, he went out of his way to defend thiokol. in reality, the comment about the seals is more about fletcher's defence (when he was confronted with the reality both proposals would end up costing about the same).


 * i am being accused of edit warring because one editor who has dominated the page feels the GAO report belongs in a section discussing the o-rings.
 * i disagree.
 * the primary focus of the 1973 GAO report was about cost-effectiveness and concluded both proposals would end up being in the same range.
 * on that basis, it strongly urged fletcher to reconsider the award and he did not.
 * in refusing to reconsider, he went out of his way to praise the design and this was determined to have significant effect on the eventual outcome


 * in short, this is why the 1973 report deserves its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you should make a case for inclusion at the talk page. You may not try to force the information into the article by edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

User:EditorHeaven reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This single-purpose editor did not make all of these reverts over the course of 24 hours but he or she is still clearly edit warring against multiple editors with little effort to engage in the discussion that was opened nearly a month ago. Slowly edit warring is still edit warring and it needs to stop. ElKevbo (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined While 3RR/24h is not a hard and fast rule, this is really stretching it. I don't see any sanction that would be both proportionate and effective at the moment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * So we're allowed to make any number of reverts of multiple editors and own an article as long as we stretch it out over a few weeks. Got it. Thanks for the help; I appreciate when administrators support editors! ElKevbo (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * According to policy, edit warring is when contributors repeatedly revert each other's contributions rather than attempting to establish consensus, and "it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so" (bold mine). Very questionable interpretation of policy here. MarshallKe (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , 3RR isn't my specialty, but I have to concur with MarshallKe. This is clearly an instance of an editor continuing to make reverts rather than seeking consensus after being clearly told doing so is not allowed. If this noticeboard isn't the appropriate recourse, then what is? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * EditorHeaven has been inactive for more than 48 hours now. Let's continue to monitor the situation. -- King of ♥ ♦<b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 18:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:ZeroSD reported by User:7curator78 (Result: 7curator78 blocked one week)
Page:

Users 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:

I have tried to tell three users to stop reverting my edits when I added a controversy section for the article Masters of the Universe: Revelation. They repeated it was WP:UNDUE and since I was the only one who disagreed I tried to edit only the development section. That too was denied. So I tried to engage in dialogue at the Talk Page telling specifically which sentence they disliked starting with the first sentence that stated, "In 2020, Screenrant reported that the Netflix reboot of He-Man will relegate the main character He-Man to a background role while the main character will become a woman character called Teela. The reports were confirmed when the show was marketed at the 2019 Power-Con in Anaheim featuring Teela as the main character." The citation I used was https://web.archive.org/web/20200528155530/https://screenrant.com/masters-universe-revelation-release-date-story-cast/ and the specific portion in the article where I got he information from is "One major difference is that though He-Man will certainly be around, he won't be the main protagonist anymore." However they do not tell me why this sentence is wrong. I can't even add a single sentence to the article! 7curator78 (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This user is engaged in contentious editing and has been warned the matter will be raised here eventually, I guess this is them getting their retaliation in first. I will put together a set of diffs in the morning, in the mean time I would recommend taking a look through their edits or the ediuts on the page to get the full picture. Artw (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not added because it's not notable and also redundant with what's already there, the information on the characters is already in the plot summery, and the controversy is merely articles from rumor sites. Your edits are being reverted- by a variety of editors- because you aren't supposed to spam edits when you haven't convinced anyone they're worthwhile additions. ZeroSD (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why am I singled out when I can't contribute to Wikipedia. All I said was that simple sentence. Can't I add that sentence (User talk:ZeroSD)? Please tell me right now can't I add the sentence, "In 2020, Screenrant reported that the Netflix reboot of He-Man will relegate the main character He-Man to a background role while the main character will become a woman character called Teela. The reports were confirmed when the show was marketed at the 2019 Power-Con in Anaheim featuring Teela as the main character."? 7curator78 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Listen. You are trying to do the same edit over and over again. That's the issue. Put something new or useful in some article, that's fine, go find a stub article somewhere and expand it, but being allowed to add to wikipedia doesn't mean you get to just decide that this one thing will go in even if a lot of other other editors disagree and see no value in what you're adding. Teela being a major character is already in other parts of the article like the plot section which has more context on her exact role, screenrant mentioning it in an article is not important information any more than any other article releasing info before a series comes out matters once it's out- that is to say, not at all. Also you've stated that you intend to do a piece-by-piece til you get back to putting in the mountain out of a molehill 'controversy' stuff, which definitely isn't notable. Also 'a woman character named Teela' is such an odd choice of phrasing for a major character in the 80s show, like your main issue is her being a woman. ZeroSD (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have blocked 7curator78 for one week for edit-warring and for acknowledged socking with User:Fri74eodo (now indefinitely blocked) on the article Talk page with the preposterous notion that the the account was a "clean start", even though both accounts were created on the same day and then both used, although the sock edited far less.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Shankargb reported by User:111.119.178.136 (Result: Reporting user blocked for 1 week)
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:


 * I am exempted from reverting a blatant sock of blocked user Kthxbay. Sock is clearly visible by these two edits:  See WP:NOT3RR. Shankargb (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you fighting me. I just added the refs from the google which tell the the wrestler was Pakistani since 1947 and he is buried in Pakistan. What is the issue?

I have also requested User:Fuzheado to look into it since he asked me to add reliable refs which I did but this user is reverting my references on biased basis.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.178.136 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, the unreliable source that does not support anything that you are trying to add, just like you did with your main account. Nothing has changed. Shankargb (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added those reliable refs which are available on google for the verification but you are removing them again and again and wrongly accusing me of a sock.


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.119.178.136 (talk • contribs)
 * They don't verify your information. Repeating yourself won't change it. See WP:EVADE. Shankargb (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you fighting me. I added refs which tell that the wrestler was Pakistani since 1947 and he is buried there. Why are you so perturbed?

User:Jaydoggmarco reported by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (Result: Both users blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "Undid revision 1036242747 by "
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1036069812 by 141.126.156.55 (talk)Let's discuss on the talk page before adding back."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1036056408 by 141.126.156.55 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1036052464 by 141.126.156.55 (talk)dissident voice and black agenda report are not reliable sources, Take it to the talk page if you disagree."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1035889062 by 141.126.156.55 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Very poor sourcing."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Democracy Now! Talk:Democracy Now!

Comments:

& have been edit warring on both Democracy Now! and Ricky Schroder, which resulted in full protection of the latter page now for the second time. Almost all of Jaydoggmarco's other contributions have simply been reverts: Special:Contributions/Jaydoggmarco. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to post the same thing here as I did on the Democracy Now talk page:
 * Jaydoggmarco blanked an entire section with the rational of "piss poor sourcing". It seems to me that due to his other edits (one of them concerning deleting a category to "pander to trumpers and anti-vaxxers" in his own words.  It seems to me that Jaydoggmarco based on his edits is running afoul of WP:AGENDA. I also feel like it's straight up vandalism to blank an entire section, ESPECIALLY a criticism section of a political party of which he belongs.  Again, I JUST saw this after reverting, but will refrain from doing so again.141.126.156.55 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This [] is the edit I was referring to in the above statement. There is also this thread [] that I could not link because the exact edit is crossed/greyed out, but Jaydoggmarco says and I quote ""Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot" Actually that's 100% true especially for trumpers (Even though you meant it as a joke)." Taken as a whole this is extremely problematic.
 * If you take a look at most of his edits, they are mostly reverting User:TJD2 and User:Animalparty while pushing an agenda. Given these circumstances, I feel that a topic ban may be appropriate.141.126.156.55 (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that this is the second time Jaydoggmarco has been reported for edit warring. It doesn't look like anything came of it though [].  I definitely think that Jaydoggmarco is trying to push an agenda on Wikipedia, and I fully support a topic ban.  I don't think he should be blocked outright because he has shown interest in other topics on the site such as music and TV shows, and has made constructive edits [like this].  In fact, the IPs link shows User:ScottishFinnishRadish opining "This is the kind of statement that should immediately disqualify someone from editing American politics related articles. If you had already been notified of the discretionary sanctions I would have requested a topic ban," before proceeding to post a warning. As far as Democracy Now, section blanking is a pretty big WP nono and should not be done unless it is unsourced.  Claiming the sources are poor does not permit a complete removal of the section - it should be discussed BEFORE removal.TJD2 (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I just gave a short block to for violating 3RR. (Diffs:  Warning: ) No comment on whether there should be additional actions against either user. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * is also blocked for violating 3RR on Ricky Schroder. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:David-dalus reported by User:LittleJerry (Result: Blocked for 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user was already banned on the 25th of July and keeps doing the same things again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleJerry (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:190.163.211.224 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Blocked for 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1036207785 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1036207654 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1036207520 by Flix11 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1036207520 by Flix11 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on 2021 CONCACAF Gold Cup Final."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Limitthrow reported by User:FormalDude (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The controversy should be discussed absolutely, but making an effort to highlight it and use as negative language as possible is where the issues come in."
 * 2)  "One person doesn't have the right to decide the controversy section for themselves, particularly when their version is so ripe with BLP issues"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Need to request edit protection for this page to prevent people adding WP:SYNTH information claiming connections to Confederacy */ Comment"

Comments:

User has been circumventing the consensus forming process and appears to be WP:NOTHERE. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:110%"> talk </b>) 00:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While the reported user initially removed sourced material without explanation, there has been no violation of 3RR and both users are engaged in the talk page discussion. I don't see anything actionable by the admins here. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:The Drover's Wife reported by User:Nouraudes (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:



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

For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary Warn the user if you have not already done so. 

You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too 

If you file a report on this board, you must notify any user you have reported. 

Comments:

The article has been nominated for deletion, The Drover's Wife deleted uncited text which was fine. I have reinstated what can be backed up by reliable sources, yet editor resists and has gone onto make unsubstantiated claims that I am a sockpuppet and paid editor. Nouraudes (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This article is seeing a concerted paid editing effort. (The original editor at AfC disclosed paid editing, then disappeared and was replaced with two sockpuppets exclusively dedicated to promoting the nightclub.) They are attempting to add in material that's completely unrelated to the nightclub (e.g. that Shirley Bassey once performed at a theatre restaurant that once rented the same space a decade before the nightclub was established) in the hope that nobody will look closely enough for long enough for it to survive AfD. This paid editor has reverted eight times and refused repeated attempts to get him to produce sources that would either verify the notability of his claims or otherwise verify the notability of the subject, instead just trying to include misleading material through sheer force of edit-warring. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry Nouraudes but thought will show that someone with 37 edits should not expect must support when aggressively editing an article created by another new account that arrived less than two weeks ago. Try WP:DR or WP:COIN or wait to see if the AfD result clarifies matters. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Andrewgprout reported by User:EireAviation (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1033782887 by 2A02:8085:3240:C080:E18B:DCD0:4D26:298E: Please listen to what you are being told. Removing templates without resolving them is considered isruptive behaviour. WP:BURDEN is clear and you are not supplying proper secondary references for these start and stop dates. Please STOP doing so or you will find yourself blocked from editing for being disruptive."
 * 2)  "Left message on Andrewgprout talk page. This is a rolling issue with this user, who continues to remove verifable material with references that have been provided and are verifable, Andrewgprout can't be bothered to verify the material therefor likes to remove it. This continued vandilism is not acceptable."
 * 3)  "As a testament to why booking engine references are valid, the JTR original launch from 2020 that was postponed to 2021 has no article that confirms this, however from EI booking engine the commencement date 24 JUL 21. Reference updated."
 * 4)  "failed verification- please find a reliable secondary reference that says when the service starts. Deriving such a date even if it was absolutely necessary from when you can buy a ticket does not give you a start date it only tells you when you are able to buy a ticket. The two things a different. And this is an encyclopaedia not a directory."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning issued at 10:57 UTC, 31 July.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user insists on removing references that link to a verifiable source - For context, due to the Covid-19 pandemic many routes planned for launch in Summer 2020 were differed to Summer 2021, however articles will not reflect his unless a new press release is created, therefor the most accurate way of verifying such dates is using an airline booking engine with source provided. The user insists this is not correct, and in their tunnel vision block removes new routes in such incidents linked, block removes other routes and plagues a whole page with Synthesis labels. Despite attempts to communicate with the user via their talk page they have continued on this path despite multiple attempts to communicate to stop it. It is blatantly clear, the user does not use the references provide to determine that the references are indeed valid, there is a history of the user in edit warring and on other pages with other users of similar encountered warring here. EireAviation (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Neither editor has discussed the dispute on the article Talk page., your comments in edit summaries are uncivil; this seems to be a habit of yours and is not conducive to collaboration. Finally, you have failed to notify of this report, which is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:223.16.153.31 reported by User:Seloloving (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1036401955 by Seloloving (talk) Arson, assaults, are "riots", not "protest", as per dictionary definition of riot: a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1036380990 by Seloloving (talk) "Pro-rioter" wording deleted to neutral tone. References remain valid."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1036236130 by Uranium Site (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1036234296 by Uranium Site (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1036233827 by Justanothersgwikieditor (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1036231825 by Justanothersgwikieditor (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning issued on 8:54 UTC, 30 July.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP insists on labeling the protests a riot and is continuing to edit war despite warnings by other editors to discuss the issue on the talkpage. Even though they have not breached 3RR after the warning (having only done three reverts with their fourth revert 8 minutes after 24 hours had passed), their behavior qualifies as edit warring. Seloloving (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:Deancarmeli (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user keep reverting edits relating to the 2020 Summer olympics. Here are some examples, in addition to those shown above:
 * 1) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 48 kg: →
 * 2) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 52 kg: →
 * 3) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 57 kg: →
 * 4) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 63 kg: →
 * 5) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 70 kg: →
 * 6) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 78 kg: →
 * 7) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 60 kg: →
 * 8) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 66 kg: →
 * 9) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 73 kg: →
 * 10) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 81 kg: →
 * 11) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 90 kg: →
 * 12) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 kg: →
 * 13) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's +100 kg: →
 * 14) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Mixed team: →
 * 15) Judo at the 2020 Summer Olympics: →
 * 16) Israel at the 2020 Summer Olympics: →

The user has been Warned time and time again in edit comment, as well as on their talk page and relevant pages' talk pages – to no avail. Deancarmeli (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are refusing to discuss any of the material or provide any sort of policy regarding all of your reverts. You have repeadtly reverted all of my edits on the above pages to restore content, you prefer and then run to the talk page and provide absolutely nothing of substance or policy to support your edits. Pot meet kettle. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've asked you many times, lastly here, please ping users when you address them. I have provided 30 links as evidence of my claims, and that's probably a partial list at that. Most of the reversions of you warring have been merited and explained. You removal of referenced, sourced information is baseless and does nothing to improve the knowledge gathered in here. Please, I understand that you might take offend from you will being opposed to, but try to add to other editors work – not subtract from it when it is factual. Deancarmeli (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again I am not required to ping you. The first two links you have provided ARE NOT reverts. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" you put in a unrelated diff here. You did not start a discussion at all. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no general requirement to ping other users when addressing them; many users turn off pings. If you personally want users to ping you, you may have a statement requesting that on your user page; some also put it in their signatures. 331dot (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider this a warning for both of you. Both of you, please use talk pages to work out differences between your edits. 331dot (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @331dot Would this be considered a violation of the warning Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Restoring the version that was before the inception of the edit war, until a support for your wanted change could find a consensus in the Talk page discussion, as I myself have informed you? I think not. p.s., nice to see that you found the pinging template. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It would have been better if someone else had restored the status quo antebellum, but if that's the way it was before the dispute, it's okay., perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but your PS comment comes off as snarky. As I said, there is no general pinging requirement, and even if you want others to ping you, there is no means to compel it. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:KabylePerson reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1036595266 by M.Bitton (talk) I don't care, I am a person of facts, not feelings. The primary sources are provided, and the true, truth, is evident, not only by the clan name, but by the texts from 800 to 1400 CE. These baseless secondary sources with no reference are worthless. If you want to dispute the primary sources, go to the talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1036589258 by M.Bitton (talk) Are you this mentally ill? Have you even clicked the [1][2][3] secondary sources provided and seen that they have no primary source references inside them to claim Zenata? You exposed your pure ignorance and the Fedora on your head. Have you even read the primary sources provided? Astounding ignorance and lack of care for facts, only baseless opinions."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1036583958 by M.Bitton (talk) There is no edit war. They complained no sources, sources were provided. Starting to believe people here don't care about facts at all."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1036569604 by Serols (talk) THE SOURCE IS PROVIDED: IBN KHALDUN Kitab al-Ibar DOWN TO THE EXACT QUOTE. You can even check Al-Bayan al-Mughrib here: https://archive.org/details/Al-bayanAl-mughrib/page/n3/mode/2up"
 * 5)  "minor edit to add the direct link to the books on archive.org"
 * 6)  "provided french translation of ibn khaldun where it is sourced from so you can read it yourself before claiming "unreliable source""
 * 7)  "Correction of "Zenata" claim to Zayyanid dynasty, which is actually part of the Kutama as follows: Nafzaouî -> Oulhassî -> Tîdghas -> Thabet -> Zayyan"
 * 1)  "Correction of "Zenata" claim to Zayyanid dynasty, which is actually part of the Kutama as follows: Nafzaouî -> Oulhassî -> Tîdghas -> Thabet -> Zayyan"
 * 1)  "Correction of "Zenata" claim to Zayyanid dynasty, which is actually part of the Kutama as follows: Nafzaouî -> Oulhassî -> Tîdghas -> Thabet -> Zayyan"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Zayyanid dynasty."
 * 2)   "/* Time to stop */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The persistent uncalled for personal attacks such as (to quote just two): The literal retards here can't even click on the links and read the "secondary sources" to see where they are sourcing their information from, utter ignorance. and Where are the primary sources in your secondary sources you literal imbeciles? make it impossible to reason with them. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for edit-warring and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:RogueShanghai reported by User:ChicagoWikiEditor (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:

The editor has a history of disruptive and clearly bias edits pertaining to this article. Somehow thinks copying an article word for word from a different online encyclopedia is a reliable source. Edit warring with multiple users and refusing to accept the fact (in this instance) that actress is not notable to the career fame of the article subject enough to lead. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of the article, this does not appear to be an edit-warring issue, but more of a persistent editing behaviour one, and would thus be better at WP:ANI. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reported user reverted chicagowikieditor's edit again; seems having no problem with e warring. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Cornerstonepicker reported by User:RogueShanghai (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Hi, I'm an editor at the Nicki Minaj article, and I'm here to address a concering level of what seems to be complete disregarding of WP:HANDLE, disregardment of consensus and constant WP:BIAS.[User:Cornerstonepicker] seems to have a history of unconstructive edits to articles about female rappers he seems to not like in music. , especially Nicki Minaj. 

He seems to have a WP:AGENDA for the female rappers he likes, and doesn't like. This seems to have been ongoing for quite some time now, with his agneda seemingly to discredit Nicki Minaj and her legacy in the female rap game. For the Minaj article specifically, he completely disregards talk page consensus (especially for the honorific nickname of "Queen of Rap.") that was already decided by multiple editors and seems to edit onto how HE thinks it should be, breaking WP:Handle. He seems to always revert everything and never discuss it on the talk page, so I've given up hope of ever trying. 

A really good example of this is the Barbie Dreams article. There was sourced information about it being critically acclaimed by music critics, and Cornerstonepicker removed that. However, he didn't remove the *unsourced* critical acclaim claim from Bodak Yellow, which by his logic also breaks policy. This shows how he seems to only enforce Wikipedia "policy" (we'll get to this later) when it comes to other female rappers, but not the female rappers he seems to have bias for. This is another really good example of straight up false information. He changed "one of two" to "one of five" despite the source stating outright that Minaj is one of two. In the Megan Thee Stallion article, he directly removed a statement BY MEGAN saying she was inspired by Nicki Minaj. I added information about Minaj's unofficial online remix to Single Ladies since there seems to be no information about it at all online. And yet, instead of helping me add a source or get better information on this remix from her mixtape days, he removes it. 

He seems to be pro Cardi B and Lil Kim, given by the fact that he always consistently tries to make them look better. Notice how when it comes to Kim and Cardi, he always adds positive stuff about them, but when it comes to Minaj and Doja Cat, it's always removal or adding stuff about their controversies? There is a clear pattern here.

It isn't just me either. He's been accused of making unconstructive biased edits by other editors to Megan Thee Stallion, Normani Kordei, , and Nicki Minaj.

He's also seemed to personally attack me for my open transparency about being a fan of Minaj and consistently accuses me of "revenge edits"  when there's no place for personal attacks here, going as far as to misgender me, whether intentionally or unintentionally. (I had they/them pronouns on my old talk page and was open about being non-binary. It's only blank right now because I'm waiting on a friend to help me out with my talk page, visually.) This seems to be much more than just edit warring, this seems to be geniune bias that hasn't been called to attention at all yet.

Paging since they've all had an interaction with Cornerstonepicker at some point. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!" (talk to me!~) 04:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The user RogueShanghai that wrote this essay has a long problematic history, as anybody can see on the user's talk page. The user is undoing 's edits and somehow battling with a reviewer as we speak. My explanation for this is that there's an ongoing consensus happening (proposed by me to solve this stuff) that has bothered the user's behavior. By the way, I want to invite more experienced users from ANEW to leave a comment there. I don't think I have anything else to add. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This dispute is also being discussed at WP:ANI. There was also a prior ANI discussion on 8 July at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1071. At first glance, it appears that RogueShanghai is reverting to keep promotional language in the Nicki Minaj article. RogueShanghai has made 53 edits at Nicki Minaj since July 1st. In the current ANI thread, User:Black Kite has stated EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Samsonite Man reported by User:Piotr Jr. (Result: Warned user)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

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

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

Comments: This editor has repeatedly refused to discuss the content dispute, ignoring my pings to the talk page or messages to their talk page, instead reverting back to their changes. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The editor is just continuing to remove content that had been established through the article's FA review. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor appears unwilling to discuss this openly and civilly. . Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is nonsense! My edits are self-explanatory. I've only done constructive edits to the article and moved info to other related articles. This editor stated an "edit war", but he's the one persistently removing sourced and relevant content. After threatening blocking me, he's now complaining that I can't have a civil discussion. Preposterous!Samsonite Man (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ., please use the article talk page to discuss your changes. You reverted three times before your first talk page comment and you have yet to seriously engage with 's objections. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Scott Burley Did you read my edits? Define "seriously engage". I've left a message on the article's talk page.
 * You left a message complaining about being warned for edit warring. Address the other user's points and explain why your changes improve the article. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Danny B MT reported by User:Ravenswing (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Orr&oldid=1036696533

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: Edit warring and 3RR violation by SPA.   Ravenswing     22:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Concur with Ravenswing. The SPA seems to be pushing some kinda anti-Bobby Orr agenda. Also, note that the editor had went 12-years without a single edit & suddenly re-appears. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Danny B MT did not violate 3RR (only 3 reverts). Nor was he properly warned. However, his edits were fairly serious BLP violations, which is the basis of my block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Shejsisijdwjdj
This user with a keyboard-smash name repeatedly removes Kurdish information from Iraq-related articles in a very short time and accuses others of vandalism. See, , and. Cubhic124 (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">!ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  23:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:103.155.118.24 reported by User:IdreamofJeanie (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

aggressive, foul language insults, and threats. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * had to revert some threats on the talk page and warn for personal attacks Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is WP:LTA/NS we're talking about here too. IanDBeacon (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * as a p2p proxy. <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">!ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  23:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * can this IP's TPA be yanked or at least semi-protected? IanDBeacon (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Lewnwdc77 reported by User:Saucy (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1036561050 by Saucy (talk) difficult to tell what "1 edit" was deleted; appears hours worth of editing was removed. Please specifically identify the 1 edit you wish to make."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1036530941 by Saucy (talk) not appropriate to delete all edits over a concern that some content wasn't properly sourced. In fact, all references point to reliable sources. All info presented was properly referenced."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1036525137 by Prcc27 (talk) do not remove new section about Federal Transportation Mask Mandate and legal challenges thereto. All sources are cited. Edits do not violate Wikipedia policy."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1036525291 by Prcc27 (talk) do not remove balanced statements regarding scientific evidence showing masks are not effective and harm human health. Original article was biased in favor of pro-mask opinions."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1036524543 by Prcc27 (talk): edits are permitted under the Wikipedia policies cited. Original task was biased in favor of masks and did not include anti-mask views."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1036524543 by Prcc27 (talk): edits are permitted under the Wikipedia policies cited. Original task was biased in favor of masks and did not include anti-mask views."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* POV pushing edits */"
 * 2)   "/* POV pushing edits */"

Comments:

Broke 3RR. Insists he is fixing the neutrality of the article, in my opinion he's making it worse. I've tried talking about it on the talk page, but he hasn't made a direct response to my specific concerns. As it is a COVID-related article, sanctions may apply; I checked if 1RR applied but couldn't find anything about that. Saucy[talk – contribs] 10:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just added the diff of edit warring warning to Saucy's comment. Lewnwdc77 was warned by me about edit warring, on their talk page, before breaking WP:3RR. Prcc27 (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . The block is for violating 3RR but also for having a clear political agenda with respect to COVID and mask mandates. If after his block expires, he continues to edit any COVID-related articles, I recommend a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions, which,, do not include 1RR restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the more easily enforceable indef-partial block from Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and its talk page? They have a clear conflict of interest (they've been pushing pdfs from what is clearly their own site, complimented with pre-prints and the like)? That would at least prevent the COI POV pushing, and might be more effective than a broad topic ban by preventing the disruption, which so far seems only to be limited to that page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Wikinotmyname reported by User:Filetime (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

See also: Atherton, California Filetime (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for edit-warring across multiple articles and being WP:POINTy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:DonaldObamaBiden reported by User:新世界へ (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

User refuses to provide reason for removing content from the page. Seems to be only interested in being confrontational, in the edit summary of his last revert he copied mine "Last warning, remove this again without reason and you'll be reported" im not attempting to remove anything from the page, he is. He also removed a warning I left on his talk page and copied and pasted it onto mine. 新世界へ (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:DonaldObamaBiden is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Slavery in Japan without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Since 5 July they have removed the see also links to Slavery in Korea and Slavery in China from the article five times, while never using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Logare reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""no valid reason"? the points provided are left hanged. I did not start the edit war and I'm reverting the other editor who primarily refused to discuss: if you don't have a complete understanding of the situation, don't engage, you are taking side and also taking part in warring edit"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1036931697 by M.Bitton (talk) irresponsible reversion, the change is explained and supported by obvious and already-stated Wikipedia's guildlines, remember, the onus is not on me, you're the one that is seeking to initiate an edit war"
 * 3)  "you still re-add irrelevant and poor sources (from a 3rd party) not supported by any official statement, please stop and discuss if you wish to continue"
 * 4)  "what you are doing is addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content, tagging isn't required if this is the case, you even just admitted that there is no source for what you're trying to keep"
 * 5)  "the newly established provisional government hasn't stated anything regarding the official religion or the LGBT law, the source you kept is based on a verdict implemented by an obsolete political entity (by the HoR in 2014 when the country's political structure was unsettled and divided between multiple political forces), please provide an actually relevant source officially stated by the current unity government."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Blind revert */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Blind revert */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Libya."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Persistent content removal Logare */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Persistent content removal Logare */"
 * 3)   "/* Persistent wholesale content removal by Logare */"
 * 4)   "/* Persistent wholesale content removal by Logare */"

Comments:

They keep removing properly sourced content while refusing to engage in a discussion. When the easily attributed content (such as Libya's state religion and the fact that homosexuality is illegal there is illegal) was sourced, they removed the sources again without a valid reason. In fact, if you look closely, they literally gutted the article and are edit warring over all attempts to restore any of the content that they removed. M.Bitton (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

They decided to use talk page only after I reported them, and still they refuse to answer the questions, insisting that they won't repeat what they Explained via edit summaries. M.Bitton (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "...refusing to engage in discussion"? Various points are made here and here, not to mention the summary boxes. None have been addressed by M.Bitton (up to when this comment is made), and while not replying anything, they kept their fists on the edit tool. "...properly sourced content"? Confirmation bias? It's the other way around. The content was added not through discussion and if this is the case, it will be anyone's right to remove the content if it's deemed poorly sourced or irrelevant.
 * "...decided to talk page only after I reported them", wrong, talked and stated points here, before the second revert, and M.Bittion did not answer those given points. And it's not "only explained via edit summaries", as said, it has been spoken of in the talk page, prior to your report. Logare (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "refusing to engage in discussion"? The unanswered questions on the talk page (that you used after being reported) speak for themselves.
 * this edit that you reverted is properly sourced, and the fact that you keep banging on about "third party" (as if the article is meant to be written according to what the Libyan government says) makes me believe that you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedi'a policies. Finally, the idea that Libya's state religion is not Islam or that homosexuality is not illegal there is frankly risible. M.Bitton (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Define "properly sourced"? What the government says (aka 1st party source) is not always needed, true, but it is required in this specific case: we're talking about legal proceedings. And about the source "illegal there" you provided, as said, is from an obsolete unofficial entity, during the time of division and civil war, and it's a personal statement out of thrust, not a legal document. For more details, let's leave this for the relevant article's discussion page. Logare (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't split my comments by adding yours in the middle of mine.
 * it has been spoken of in the talk page, prior to your report There is no trace of you using the talk page prior to being reported.
 * Like I said, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and what constitute a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, don't remove the comment that I replied to and quoted (like you did here). M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "...There is no trace of you using the talk page prior to being reported". Actually yes, there is a trace in here, you asked, I answered. The problem is? You did not continue replying after that and instead switched on to the editing area and press the reverting button. So who's warring edit? Logare (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt at removing the comment above is the ultimate proof that you know perfectly well well that I'm referring to the article's talk page and the questions that are still left unanswered. M.Bitton (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a breathe. That's not your comment, it's my comment and is copy-pasted out of error so I removed it. Logare (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I'm not trying to hype up the tone but can you stop making me chuckle? There are constant edit conflicts here due to your interruptive replies, some of my comments are often misplaced or falsely repeated, so I just have to remove and replace them, what's so strange about that? Logare (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

They have now reverted u|ValarianB's edit. At this stage, there is no doubt in my mind that they are on mission to blank any content they disagree with. M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging, the other involved editor. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours to User:Logare. A brand new user seems quite familiar with Wikipedia and gets into an edit war on their first day of activity. Then they continue to revert while the AN3 report is still open. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for you to restore the stable version, please? M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not propose your change on the article talk page and see if others want to comment? EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a change and we are already two editors (I and ValarianB) who want it back to the stable version. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Br Ibrahim john reported by User:Mugsalot (Result: Both blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1036603401

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1036981657

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1036710557

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1036984964

Comments:

Please also see user's previous ban for edit warring on the same article. Mugsalot (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

User:SlySneakyFox reported by User:Ryk72 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1036692221 by Ryk72 (talk) As reliable as a French vice article"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1036691953 by Ryk72 (talk) refer to my comment and WP:RSN"
 * 3)  "Even if you disagree let this stay up for WP:RSN to look at." and later..
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1036711984 by Czello (talk) can't have a consensus with 2 people with different views."
 * 5)  "" Similar content; differently sourced; but no consensus for inclusion on Talk page.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 23:19, 3 May 2021‎ "Warning: Three-revert rule on Otokonoko."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See also: Talk:Otokonoko, Requests for page protection/Archive/2021/07
 * 1)   "/* Trap section */ - re"
 * 2)   "/* Trap section */ - re"
 * 3)   "/* Otokonoko (again) */ new section"

Comments:

Long term edit warring to include poorly sourced content, despite objections by multiple editors - close to 20 reverts adding essentially the same content. Editor is an SPA editing solely on this topic. Participates on Talk pages, but only to repeat the same argument while also reverting the article; does not actively engage with other editors arguments. Ryk72 talk 08:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think this should have been taken to ANI to evaluate the conduct of . An edit-warring report in and of itself doesn't look very good. On July 29, fully protected the article for a few days because of the dispute. As soon as the protection expired, you and SSF started edit-warring again. From that perspective, you look just as guilty as SSF. I'm not taking any action against either of you, but you have made it more difficult to take action against SSF (I might be inclined to indefinitely block them as WP:NOTHERE based on their history) because of your own conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider me suitably chastened. I'll come and knock on your door if there's a repeated reversion without a consensus having been established for inclusion; and continue to work towards establishing a consensus one way or the other. - Ryk72 talk 14:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional revert added, above. - Ryk72 talk 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that the additional revert, #4, above, was made after the comment by Bbb23. - Ryk72 talk 02:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * and Please note revert has been undone as I have learned of it. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you wish so much to report first on your own edit war then I'll wait and see WP:RSN comments (if any do appear) before re adding. But I will stand that it would be easier for them to judge said sources with the added information up. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional diff added, above. - Ryk72 talk 00:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * An extraordinary amount of chutzpah. Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:Phyzome (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 13:27, 2021 August 4
 * 14:30, 2021 August 4‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: |Attempted discussion on talk page; |reaching out on user talk page.

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

Comments:

This user and I are engaged in an edit war. I made |an edit to correct the description of a meta-analysis, and within 3 minutes they reverted with no description of why, just "Better before". I beckoned them to the talk page and asked for an explanation, but they have refused, so according to WP:ROWN I re-reverted and again invited them to have a substantive discussion. Their response has been to accuse me of POV-pushing, warn me of possible sanctions, put an edit war template on my user page (while continuing to revert), and otherwise refuse to engage on matters of fact. I see from this user's history and talk page that they have a pattern of this.

I don't know what their contention with me (or this article) is, so I'm bringing it here in hopes that someone else can help lead us to consensus. In the meantime, I've allowed the latest revert to stand (which has been made by another editor closely associated with them). -- Phyzome (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask to join us here since they've joined the edit war. -- Phyzome (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say an editor who has thrice tried to force the same edit] reporting an editor on 2RR is ... brave. An explanation was given on talk. In any case, I have disengaged and also raised the issue at WT:MED so let's see what the wider consensus is. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You've misread the history -- your first link is my original edit. Since then, we have each reverted twice. If you don't think 2 reverts is notable, shall we each put in another, so that it becomes 3 by each user? I'd rather cut to the chase. -- Phyzome (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment is unconstructive, as is the filing of this report. I strongly suggest that whatever discussion you participate in to resolve the content dispute you behave better.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What I wrote was entirely correct: you made the same edit 3 times, whether that's 2RR or 3RR depends on how "revert" is interpreted (different admins take different views), but complaining at AN3 with dirty hands is bad idea, especially when you don't notify the reported user(s), which looks sneaky. As I said, I have disengaged and raised the issue at WT:MED. Let's see what others think. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify whether is this a determination that an edit war didn't happen, or that there wasn't a violation? Or that no mediation is required, either way? There is finally a good discussion happening on another page, which appears to be a result of filing this notice, so as long as Alexbrn is willing to accept the outcome of that discussion I suppose I'm satisfied -- but I'm a bit uncertain about whether that's related. (Thanks for your involvement.) -- Phyzome (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there's definitely an edit-war going on, but as it appears no editor has actually reverted more than twice, there's no violation of WP:3RR (for which one would usually have to revert four times). I'm sure this is something that can be discussed at the talk page or elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, apologies then! I didn't realize 3RR specifically had to have been violated for this page to be used—I thought that it was for when an edit war was happening more broadly. Given that, I retract my complaint here! And I'll try to find the page that gave me this misapprehension so it can be corrected. (Somewhere in the DR pages.) Thanks for setting me straight. -- Phyzome (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

User:130.193.200.90 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Moroccan are Arabs. Deal with it."
 * 1)  "Moroccan are Arabs. Deal with it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Some complete reverts, some more subtle just changing 'Moroccan' to 'Arab' in fewer places. also seems to be changing multiple other articles in the same way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/130.193.198.178 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/130.193.220.248 seem to follow the same pattern JeffUK (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:A2013a reported by User:Auroravisa (Result: Already protected)
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]
 * 5) [diff]
 * 6) [diff]
 * 7) [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:

the infomation is being silenced Auroravisa (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The article has already been protected. You will need to address your content dispute at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:LeontinaVarlamonva reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1037288448 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) with due respect, "stable version" was what was before, which you change capriciously with unfounded reson"
 * 2)  "this is capricious, no legitimate reason provided for deleting valuable content other than basic not liking it"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1037243292 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) please don't, there is no image sandwich after I rearrange, also with content, if you don't help, I will make necessary changes so it is covered"
 * 4)  "please don't delete this info. WP lead says "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", most these are covered to some extent, others are noted as common practice in country articles. images could be rearrange, no need to delete indiscriminately"

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

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

Note that the warning was given after the latest revert. However, I bring this here as the edit warring has been followed by the incivil casting of wp:aspersions in the edit summaries and in the talk page discussion. The edit summaries ended up along the lines of "this is capricious, no legitimate reason provided" and the latest stating my edits were "capriciously with unfounded reson". These sentiments were also given in the very first talkpage post, which included "it seems capricious that you seem intent on having problem with such content on Georgia article and not other countries" and "I think this is one of those situation where someone has decided that a small poor country cannot have anything nice said about it in the article and nothing more than personal bias". Their second talk page post opened with "Your dismissive tone just confirm what I said above, which is your personal bias against Georgia" and after which they specifically made an edit just to add "it is your personal bias that is against it because it is a small poor country and it bothers you that something not depressing can be said". Their latest post following my request to discuss the specifics, again repeats the aspersions about my reasons, including quoting that I am objecting to something "positive", which despite the quotation marks is not something I said. CMD (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems disingenuous to provide the above three discussion points as "attempt to resolve dispute" when in fact you continued to revert before hearing what I had to say in the discussion and throughout the discussion, including by removing content about wine that was there for months without problem.
 * It is not "aspersion" to say your edits were "capricious" because the reasoning seemed arbitrary and you singling out this particular country. Also it is not "aspersion" to take issue with your obviously dismissive tone. You accuse of me "selling" and "touting" which make me think you assume bad faith and want to delete things you just don't like, you could have easily offered me better way to word the text or proposed edit yourself instead of delete. And yes, I do think it is bias and obvious double standard when you single out particular content on this particular country but not elsewhere.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, just because I used to work in tourist industry does not mean I am all about "selling", so please restrain your biases and bad faith--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion specifically to discuss and see what you had to say, and what you had to say was aspersions of some sort of vague particular campaign I was making. I find it odd you have chosen to continue that here. As for your assertion that I "accuse[d]" you of selling something, that is another misattribution of something that I did not say. It is very hard to carry out a discussion if much of the content is misquotes and aspersions rather than actual discussion of content. (The three points were how the twinkle tool formatted it, I've replaced it with a diff.) CMD (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Johnashu reported by User:Pavlov2 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Acquired programming */False information"
 * 2)  "/* Acquired programming */How many times do I have to tell you it never aired on smile you just think it did even though it clearly never aired on Smile"
 * 3)  "/* Acquired programming */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Editing NBC Kids."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Kept on removing Smile although the Smile (TV network) has proved it aired on smile Pavlov2 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Johnashu has not violated 3RR. Neither of you has discussed the content dispute on the article Talk page. That would be constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, we discussed in both user page but not the article talk page. Maybe we could move them to it? Pavlov2 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dogmeetsdog reported by User:Drmies (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again, this is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and subjective interpretation. Take this to the talk page, or some other venue, at least."
 * 2)  "The sourcing is there. Your argument here is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT because a  subjective interpretation of the sources. Leaving a message on my talk page also doesn't help make your subjective IDONTLIKIT argument any less ridiculous."
 * 3)  "WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid"
 * 4)  "Scholar study is absolute "real world notability""

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps referring to IDONTLIKEIT, which is a violation of AGF at best, and a sign of incompetence in the evaluation of sources to boot. Also pinging User:Onel5969. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I'm referring to IDONTLIKEIT because this is the entirely subjective basis on which the sources used are being dismissed. There has been no attempt at discussion. The sources themselves are valid, or at least have not been demonstrated as invalid outside of entirely opinion based "it's a crappy thesis". Not to mention there are other sources besides the scholar study source which have not at all been discussed or dismissed. All I have been doing is undoing entirely unjustified reverting of a as-of-yet seemingly legitimate and sourced article based on flimsy summaries that amount to IDONTLIKEIT. --Dogmeetsdog (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see much respect here: WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear enough. Theses are to be handled with care, and certainly not accepted without any consideration. You want to argue it's valid? Use the talk page and invite discussion. Plus, I didn't say "crappy". I see no indication in your editing behavior that you can properly assess scholarship. But even if you are right, you've now reverted five times, including this one, which repeats the same tiresome violation of AGF. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you . There were a few more. But User:Cappack is not the first, I think: this is likely a longterm problem, given the archive dates on the soon-to-be-deleted Iris Wilson. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:188:C300:14B9:B031:A48A:EC24:78A0 reported by User:Fremith (Result: /64 range blocked 6 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have given more than adequate reasons, every time for my repeated edits, ACCURACY AND RELAVANCE!!!  12yr old, irrelevant and extraneous political content that is only there to harm people and for political partisan reasons, is not needed to know who a person is on Wikki or any place else.  And in NH, State Reps. Are not paid, we are volunteer servants, and have a right to privacy and not be publicly and repeatedly harassed on-line."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

We're repeatedly vandalism edit warring. <span style="text-shadow: -1px -1px 1.5px red, 1px 1px 1.5px yellow, 1px 1px 1.5px lime, -1px 1px 1.5px blue; color: white;">Fremith  <b style="color: purple;">Let's talk do it!</b> 18:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * /64 range blocked 6 weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Jaydoggmarco reported by User:TJD2 (Result: Jaydoggmarco blocked 72h; Not-PCwoke indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: [] [] []

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Jaydoggmarco has been edit warring on the Jimmy Dore page with User:Not-PCwoke for the last week or so on the Jimmy Dore page, and has not attempted to discuss changes or reach a consensus on the talk page. This comes right after Jaydoggmarco was [blocked for 31 hours] for doing the same thing on Democracy Now!. He was also edit warring on the Ricky Schroder page attempting to add a category of "American Anti-vaccination activists", but instead of trying to resolve the issue on the talk page kept reverting an already established consensus. He did not comment on the talk page for Ricky Schroder until a month later and did not attempt to have a productive discussion about his proposed changes. [Jaydogmarco's contributions] show that of the last 20 edits he has made, 13 of them are reverts.TJD2 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What the fuck, actually it's User:Not-PCwoke who has been engaging in edit warring and been warned by numerous editors to stop his biased editing. His edits have also been challenged by other editors. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Watch your language please, (I attempted to remove the offending wording in question, but it was put back apparently) I warned you several times and you were also blocked over this same thing. I also warned Not-PCwoke of this same thing. You cannot say you aren't biased when you removed an entire criticism section from Democracy Now! and said "'Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot' Actually that's 100% true especially for trumpers (Even though you meant it as a joke)" []. It is laughable that you are talking to me about being biased. Now let's keep this focused on Jimmy Dore. Why did you not reach out to User:Not-PCwoke for a talk page discussion or consensus between editors? I told you not to edit war and you removed my warning without further reply or action. 90% of your edits are reverts - you understand what you are doing, and are being reported accordingly.TJD2 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I blocked Jaydoggmarco for 72 hours for edit-warring, and Not-PCwoke indefinitely for general disruptive editing on multiple articles, and various other bases noted on the user's Talk page and the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:DragonFury reported by User:Leyncho (Result: Article protected three days; Leyncho indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037249962


 * 1) [diff]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037392528


 * 1) [diff]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037409800


 * 1) [diff] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037562163

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sifan_Hassan#She_is_Oromo-Dutch_NOT_Ethiopian-Dutch

[diff]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sifan_Hassan#MoS_Permits_Ethnicity._Administrators_Approved

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DragonFury#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

[diff]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DragonFury#Reported_to_Admins_for_Edit_Warring_on_Sifan_Hassan's_Page

This user has just been mostly ignoring my talks and calls for discussion and blindly reverting without even giving explanation for revert, even when I horn/tag him. After I give my explanation in talk and don't see a response from him, I assume he has conceded and usually proceed to revert the following day. He then almost immediately reverts without explanation and still ignores my talk page discussion most of the time. I then go back to talk page and present my points again and further call for discussion, and then revert while explaining again that he can't just revert without explaining or continuing discussion. Leyncho (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Diffs span more than 24 hours, so this does not meet the letter of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyncho (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 Aug 2021 (UTC)

Not pointing out the 3RR rule but edit Warring while ignoring talks for discussion and not explaining your revert. I didn't want to engage to the extent it leads to violation of 3RR rule so I just waited for the next day before making my revert. That's what I recall Wiki guides recommended. To stop edit Warring. He in turn was just mostly ignoring my discussion, and reverting anyway with no explanation. Leyncho (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * As a rebuttal: Over the past few days this editor has been belligerent and insulting towards myself and other editors. They have made several edits on the pages for Mo Farah and Genzebe Dibaba similar to the edits they have made on Sifan Hassan, all of which have been reverted by other editors with clear explanations given on the talk pages, which this editor has ignored. On the Talk Page for Sifan Hassan they have falsely claimed consensus, falsely claimed admin approval for their edits, and generally behaved in an inappropriate manner. In the edit summaries they called other editors "pussies" (Link), "stupid little fuckboys" (Link) and on the talk page for Genzebe Dibaba they have referred to editors as "colonizers" (Link). Added after the editor in question removed a large part of my rebuttal: Removing a section of my response to your accusations clearly shows you are not editing in good faith. DragonFury (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That is an absolutely false lie. I DID NOT ignore them and revert AT ALL. Literally not even once. Every time I discussed THOROUGHLY and argued my points EVERYTIME. I literally even STOPPED REVERTING on those two pages. DESPITE me recalling that I was the last to respond to the talk and present my points a final time Leyncho (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

On the Talk Page for Sifan Hassan they have falsely claimed consensus,


 * WHAT I SAID WAS YOU ARE IGNORING MY TALKS so I'm going to ASSUME CONSENSUS. EVEN AFTER I WAITED ABOUT A DAY. TO WHICH YOU THEN ALL OF A sudden want to pop up and revert WITHOUT NO EXPLANATION and STILL OFTEN IGNORING MY CALLS AND TAGS TO TALK. Leyncho (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

falsely claimed admin approval for their edits,


 * NO I DID NOT!!!! I LITERALLY EXPLAINED "admins have locked Nikola Tesla's lead in the same format I'm trying to put it as, so it is safe to assume they will do the same in any event where admins will have to intervene here as well". I said something similar to that IN THE TITLE, BECAUSE ITS LITERALLY THE SHORT TITLE TO EXPLAIN THE GENERAL POINT. Leyncho (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

and generally behaved in an inappropriate manner. In the edit summaries they called other editors "pussies" (Link), "stupid little fuckboys" (Link) and on the talk page for Genzebe Dibaba they have referred to editors as "colonizers" (Link).


 * As I told you already, I'd appreciate it if you did not bring up my past. As it is not the man I am now or the man I wish to be in the future. That was at a time when I did not know those heinous actions were against any Wikipedia guidelines. And before a Wiki user was kind enough to notifying me with a warning on my page. Bless that person's soul. Thank you. Leyncho (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The article has been fully protected for three days by another administrator, and I have indefinitely blocked Leyncho for many reasons, of which edit-warring is only a small part; the reasons are listed on the user's Talk page in my block notice and some are listed in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Avilich reported by User:BaylanSP (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

BaylanSP, an account that is only three weeks old, has already been involved in edit warring on this article, at Spanish language, and at Joaquin Phoenix, including logging out to edit as an IP. They've yet to use an article talkpage, but they're happy to revert their edits back in and accuse others of problematic behavior. I'd say they merit a warning about WP policy (in addition to not using talkpages, they appear unaware of WP:ONUS) and to stop edit warring. Grandpallama (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They also didn't bother to notify Avilich. Grandpallama (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks for notifying me. We're both in the 3-edit limit for this page (including one he made as an IP), and I half-jokingly suggested he denounce me here, but I didn't think he'd actually do it. The point of contention between us is not an easy topic of research, and a talk page discussion would've been very much appropriate, but not this. Avilich (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * BaylanRS is now spamming his way through Talk:Theodosius I without engaging in dialogue with editors who have replied to him. He is incapable of indenting posts or writing paragraphs with more than one sentence. Certainly I'm not the one that needs a deterrent. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the edit warring now also at Spaniards, where BaylanSP has been removing sources, introducing copyvio and ignoring WP:CWW, and changing the lede to claims that are not reflective of the body of the article. I had assumed this was just a good-faith editor struggling with policy, but they are edit warring on almost every article they touch (see also recent edits to the lede of Russia, Arabs, and their attacks on editors and consensus added to the talkpage at Theodosius I). Grandpallama (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They have also now broken 3RR at Spaniards. Grandpallama (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Noticing that 14 of BaylanSP's article edits on August 7th have been reverted by others, I have posted on their talk warning them they are risking a block for edit warring. I asked them to respond here and to agree to moderate their behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, I will moderate my behavior, but I think that also, particularly in Spaniards, I should be allowed to edit in peace. Many of my editions in it is content supported by sources or obvious editions such as putting a national flag of Spain in the Spaniards article, as is the standard in those types of articles. I think it isn't normal to be chased by Grandpallama constantly reverting everything I do. Also mention that I have participated a lot in Talks when there has been a dispute. BaylanSP (talk) 8:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From my experience, your participation in talk pages has been to show extreme obtuseness, refuse to get the point, and deliberately reach mistaken conclusions in order to portray yourself as reasonable when the body of evidence is clearly against you. Avilich (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your response to being warned about your editing behavior is to say you should be allowed to "edit in peace," when your edits to the article in question have been challenged, have included copyright violations, tinkering around with the infobox to put information in the wrong fields, attempts to downplay (in other articles as well) the influence of non-European peoples, and don't generally reflect the content of the body of the article? I don't think you understand the warning you were just given. Grandpallama (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Avilich has already had numerous behavior problems for precisely the same reason that he accuses, particularly from Edit Wars and Talks from his writing actitud, most recently with Kansas Bear.


 * Grandpallama, again I don't even know what you're talking about, seriously. I do what I can to fix and improve everything that you constantly erase. Stop making assumptions. A pleasure guys.BaylanSP (talk)
 * Since BaylanSP's account was created on July 12 they have made 152 edits including plenty of non-consensus editing at places like Theodosius I and Spaniards. BaylanSP has determined that all Spaniards have a Romance language as their mother tongue, apparently including the Basques. (How would they know this?) They even filed this AN3 report to complain about the bad editing of someone else! Their response above shows no understanding of our policies. In my opinion the best response would be an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I only ever got a single 24-hr block for an unrelated edit-warring incident. I usually don't remove warnings from my talk page, even if I think they're unjustified, so you're free to reach whatever inaccurate conclusions on by behavior you wish, based on that. Your own behavior leaves much more to be desired. You shift to others the wp:onus of proving the validity of a controversial edit; you falsely claimed yours was the stable version after adding a load of outdated and demonstrably incorrect information to the lede; you kept ref-bombing (see wp:bludgeoning) in the talk page w/o indenting and without taking note of the rebuttals; you refused to acknowledge a difference between semi-reliable tertiary sources and reliable secondary sources; you went ahead with your preferred version anyway by falsely claiming the talk page outcome supported it; and, finally, you went to the French wikipedia, found that it supported exactly what I was saying all along, and falsely claimed that it could be reconciled with your own talking points. You then stormed out in pompous fashion by paraphrasing Kafka and calling other editors 'mediocre and close-minded'. It's simply impossible to talk to you and explain things. Avilich (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC) And you'd probably have gotten off scot-free if you hadn't brought me here. When you came to my talk page, I thought you were simply trolling, so I half-jokingly suggested you take your concerns here – and you actually did it! Avilich (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, Avilich, I don't share everything from the paragraph you have written, and many of the things that you accuse can be seen in you, a mirror basically.


 * That said, I am currently improving to scrupulously pin content to Wikipedia's rules and initiating Talks when there are points of contention. Calm, it's summer, even in Russia! BaylanSP (talk) 8:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer blocked indef for edit warring, per my rationale above. (See the above mention of the 14 reverted edits in one day, and BaylanSP's peevish comments about other people such as Avilich and Grandpallama who revert them). Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that BaylanSP will follow Wikipedia policy in the future and work patiently for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:7080:4E43:1B00:E5AD:75C9:8149:BC71 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk pages: and

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

Comments:

Straight 4RR+ vio, after multiple edit warring notifications. User's edit summaries indicate an unwillingness to engage or follow policy. -  wolf  04:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They are evading the block using this account. fyi -  wolf  17:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Noticing the evasion, believing this is the same person, I have blocked Special:Contributions/2603:7080:4e43:1b00::/64 one week. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

User:155.246.151.38 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1037961644 by 2001:8F8:1F34:CB5E:2:1:BBB0:62F2 (talk) rv sock Orchomen"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1037961514 by 2001:8F8:1F34:CB5E:2:1:BBB0:62F2 (talk) rev sock Orchomen"
 * 3)  "/* Bibliography */ Per RSN"
 * 4)  "Per RSN"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1037934114 by 176.204.120.115 (talk) Undoing sock. See Orchomen sockpuppet."
 * 1)  "Per RSN"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1037934114 by 176.204.120.115 (talk) Undoing sock. See Orchomen sockpuppet."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:155.246.151.38&oldid=1037963691 also undoing entries by other users on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard JeffUK (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Its an Orchomen sock. Please admins block Orchomen.155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If they are an Orchomen sock, then the violation of the WP:3RR would be okay per WP:DENY. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are they, evidence? because if they are not this is a wp:PA?Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that 2001:8F8:1F34:CB5E:2:1:BBB0:62F2 has just been blocked for block evasion, I would say that it is not a personal attack. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But JeffUK has not yet been blocked, and appears to have been editing since 2006. Moreover looking at the IP's talk page they already have (at least) one warning for falsely accusing users of being socks of Orchomen.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did I say or 155.246.151.38 say that JeffUK was the sock? The IP (155.246.151.38) is talking about the Dubai based IP (2001:8F8:1F34:CB5E:2:1:BBB0:62F2) which Sro23 has confirmed is a sock of Orchomen. Therefore there are no personal attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You did not the IP said (in reply to JeffUK) "Its an Orchomen sock. Please admins block Orchomen". So it may be just a misunderstanding.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've misinterpreted what the IP said. From context, the quote is clearly about the Dubai IP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Per WP:3RRNO. I can understand why this looks disruptive to an outsider, but the Dubai based IP's are Orchomen socks. Sro23 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood! Thank you JeffUK (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

User:NonReproBlue reported by User:Alalch Emis (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: version

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempt was made. Since the dispute is about removal, original reverter was directed to discuss on the talk page. (diff)

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

Comments:

They have only use been warned and did not edit war after the waring (yet) but this [] does not bode well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * May I ask why that does not bode well? I would think that a willingness to stop back-and-forth editing and discuss both the process and the content would be a good sign. I understand that I was wrong to think that middle ground "compromise" edits were acceptable in this situation, but in what way does this indicate that I am unlikely to engage in cooperative editing? Not trying to be petulant, if I come off that way, I genuinely would like to understand how my editing is perceived so that I may modulate it and avoid intractable arguments. NonReproBlue (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you do not seem to get you are supposed to discuss after you are reverted (read wp:brd), on the talk page. Not just keep reverting until a compromise is reached. It is also clear (as you ask why only you received the message) that you have not in fact read wp:editwar.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that I didn't violate the policy, it has been made clear to me that I did. I thought that several of my edits were acceptable compromises rather than reversions, and I was wrong. However, it just feels like a bit of an "it takes two to tango" situation. If two editors are engaged in repeatedly reverting each others edits, it seems to me that they are both engaged in an edit war. I will admit that I was initially unaware that a second editor (you) had reverted me, and had assumed that they were the only editor to have reverted my changes, as they were doing so on multiple pages. Other than ceasing to engage in further back and forth edits, apologizing, and seeking to better understand policy and how what I did violated it, I'm not really sure what else I can do here. My edit is not the current version (and was not at the time of this report) so I cannot self revert or else I would. NonReproBlue (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes they are, but only one (you) actually breached wp:3rr. But as you seem to accept you need to read up on policy and have agreed to not edit war I think we can close this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:NonReproBlue is warned for edit warring at Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. They may be blocked if they revert again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Gliplog9 and User:Hippo43 reported by User:Czello (Result: Gliplog9 Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: 3RR has not been broken, as far as I can see. However this back-and-forth edit war has been going on for over a week now. has been making dishonest claims of vandalism, which can be seen in the edit summaries of the links above. No attempt at discussion on the talk page, so I decided to start the conversation for both editors: however, the discussion hasn't been that productive and edit warring has continued. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 07:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Gliplog9 is blocked 48 hours for continuing to revert while this report was open and for making incorrect charges of vandalism five times in their edit summaries since August 1st. User:Hippo43 is cautioned that their reverts are not exempt under the edit warring policy. Further reverts are questionable unless you receive a prior consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

User:95.83.136.81 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:7000:9f04:fcc0:39fa:91e3:1eb9:5c63 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user so far was not interested

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

Comments:


 * Reverts include removal of reliably sourced material and addition of inappropriate statements in Wikipedia voise. The user apparently has no intention to stop and was not interested in discussion their actions.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This continues in real time, the IP is at seven reverts by now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Gilles de Retz reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 August 2021, (UTC)


 * Result: User:Gilles de Retz is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. By Wikipedia standards, it appears that the material you want to add is unsourced. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Emoorelcs reported by User:Mvqr (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */  Removed irrelevant content."
 * 2)  "/* History */  Removed irrelevant content."
 * 3)  "/* History */  Removed irrelevant content."
 * 4)  "/* History */"

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

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

Comments:

User:CycoMa reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * filed and deleted a complaint about these edits here showing they are aware of the policy. See also this.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * see Talk:Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals

Comments: (I originally these comments in reponse to a report here at AN3 by, since withdrawn). While neither party's behaviour is ideal, it appears (who has not been warned of EW policy) is at 3RR while  is at 4RR. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed it because nobody responded. But, anyway I was trying to tell that user the issues with their Edit and I even tried linking to a page on how to cite sources for that other user.CycoMa (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Also for the record I did warn about this.CycoMa (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the history of this page, reports are often not responded to as quickly as all that. You report did not show 3RR was broken (your second diff was to one of your own reverts), and in any case complaining about a new user at 3RR while oneself at 4RR, without warning them (there is no warning on their userpage), would seem problematic, no? Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Um what’s [this?]CycoMa (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a broken link. You appear to be attempting to link to the notification that you have reported them, but no warning was issued beforehand. Alexbrn (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Whilst there's no way in hell I'm putting this into google.. a whole chunk of the text seems to have been copied from some source directly, surely making this a copyvio and exempting  from the 3RR. JeffUK (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They're quoted extracts so the problem is a bit different. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As a wise editor once said "These large undigested quotations are not really suitable for Wikipedia," there's 30,000 characters of text copied directly from the source, if this isn't a copyvio then I don't know what is. From WP:FREER "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" 07:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wise indeed, but I purposely did not look at the content before filing this report, since no exemption was claimed per WP:3RRNO. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Removals of copyright violations do not count toward 3RR per point 5 of WP:3RRNO. I've notified notified AnarchistCitizen that their edits are causing concern, and invited them to respond here. Elementary googling shows a huge amount of copying by AnarchistCitizen, as pointed out above by User:JeffUK. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation, since User:CycoMa was reverting copyright violations by User:AnarchistCitizen. See WP:3RRNO for the copyright exception. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Angryskies reported by User:Velociraptor888 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen%27s_Hall,_Edinburgh&oldid=1031212531, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Costcutter&oldid=1035805773, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canongate_Books&oldid=1032195187, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usher_Hall&oldid=1027040849 Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usher_Hall&oldid=prev&diff=1038263944&markasread=225109637&markasreadwiki=enwiki
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canongate_Books&oldid=prev&diff=1038264223
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Costcutter&oldid=prev&diff=1038264166&markasread=225109777&markasreadwiki=enwiki
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen%27s_Hall,_Edinburgh&oldid=prev&diff=1038264003&markasread=225109656&markasreadwiki=enwiki

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angryskies&oldid=1037833270

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angryskies&oldid=1038280779

Comments:

User is compulsively reverting my edits and adding “UK” to pages, and has a history of this. Velo ciraptor  888  16:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Velociraptor888 fails to mention that they are removing content that has been part of the page for many years, the Scotmid article for example, which I mentioned in reply to a message on the talk page: . User:Velociraptor888's edit summary of (So much better.) is not a good enough reason for removing content. Angryskies (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I removed it, it was added again after a rather long time not being on the page. Velo  ciraptor  888  16:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As you can see from these examples: in 2007,  in 2011, it was there for a long time. Just because it was removed for a period of time, is not a good enough reason for removing factual content. Also, I would argue that I was engaged in rule 4 of Exemptions: WP:NOT3RR. Also this user has been warned on their talk page for this very issue for WP:CIVILITY in June 2012 for leaving this message on a user User_talk:Rangoon11's talk page:  while the issue was made about removing of UK from Infoboxes in 2014: . Angryskies (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Manoj Haagalavaadi reported by User:Msclrfl22 (Result: Manoj Haagalavaadi indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing; Msclrf122 blocked for 24h for edit-warring)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: The said user is not ready to discuss the matter and has been doing his edits even after receiving warnings many a times


 * Manoj Haagalavaadi indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, and Msclrf122 blocked for 24h for edit-warring. MH is a SPA and their edits have been egregious. However, Msclrf122 still shouldn't have edit-warred to resolve the problem. In addition, they did not warn MH properly and called the other user names many times, which is unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1038084354 by Calton (talk): Please start using common sense, noob."
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1038084354 by Calton (talk): Please start using common sense, noob."
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1038084354 by Calton (talk): Please start using common sense, noob."
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1038084354 by Calton (talk): Please start using common sense, noob."
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1038084354 by Calton (talk): Please start using common sense, noob."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on talk page here []

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned on talk page here [] They left the article for a few days then came back and re-added the link without an edit summary. Reverted it again and by the last edit summary seem intent on continuing to do so. JeffUK (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Warned for personal attacks left in edit summaries during this edit war (see edits #2 and #5). –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 07:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:190.151.175.211 reported by User:CodeTalker (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maritime_power&oldid=1031743240

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1038551995
 * 2) Special:Diff/1038552183
 * 3) Special:Diff/1038656351
 * 4) Special:Diff/1038656351
 * 5) Special:Diff/1038656351
 * 6) Special:Diff/1038658306
 * 7) Special:Diff/1038658306
 * 8) Special:Diff/1038660429

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1038659314

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1038659158

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1038661658

Comments:

CodeTalker (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   23:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:50.100.168.93 reported by User:Gummycow (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   23:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:484:C100:304E:D5D:E062:EDA3:35E3 reported by User:Mattplaysthedrums (Result: Protected, 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
 * 2)  "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
 * 3)  "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
 * 4)  "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
 * 5)  "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
 * 6)  "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
 * 7)  "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."
 * 2)  "Reverted good faith edits: kind of early for that."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: After the mobile editor is blocked, it might be best to semi-protect the article. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is the only article the IP is warring on, a block isn't necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . The IP is unblocked, so they may participate in discussion at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * He's moved onto to another article List of Pixar films, btw. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Special:contributions/2601:484:C100:304E:0:0:0:0/64 for two weeks. The disruption goes back to July 24.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

User:JimmyCrow reported by User:Oblow14 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1038817665 by Oblow14 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1038817433 by Oblow14 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1038817234 by Oblow14 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * The username is obviously offensive (Jim Crow refers to racial segregation laws in the United States and a blackface character), but I see no evidence that they are editing in bad faith. I can't comment on who's right or wrong in this dispute, but JimmyCrow obviously violated 3RR. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 01:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Abigblueworld reported by User:StarryNightSky11 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Grrrrrrr... 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 GIVE ME A CHANCE TO SHINE! LISTEN! I AM ANGRY AT YOU, SToP..."
 * 2)  "How though? Oh gosh, stop the edit war or it will be world war 3!"
 * 3)  "Does, we need info, stop it right now,,,"
 * 4)  "Extra, tell me what's wrong too."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: untemplated edit warring notification

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also WP:EW at Motion capture and Autodesk Maya — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryNightSky11 (talk • contribs) 02:54, August 15, 2021 (UTC)
 * Indef'ed for disruptive editing. Meters (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted, can revert any edits that need reverting that haven't already. Best StarryNightSky11  <sup style="color:black">(talk)  03:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Brackenheim reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Protected; users warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

I have no idea who is right, but being right or wrong is not a reason to edit war. If wp:fringe is invoked it is down to those who want to add it to make a case, they have not tried to do so.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is troubling. has violated 3RR, yet  in this edit on August 13, which set the article back to March 29, 2021, "triggered" subsequent events.  has not helped the situation by reverting Brackenheim, not because they think Brackenheim is in the wrong, but for the purely procedural reason that they believe that Brackenheim must follow WP:BRD, which in this instance is not clear, and certainly not a good reason to revert. Meanwhile, although there has been some bickering on user Talk pages, there has been no discussion on the article Talk page. I have fully protected the article for three days so the participants may resolve the content dispute, which is not a trivial one, on the article Talk page. I am also warning the users that any attempts to edit the article after the protection expires unless a clear consensus has been reached may be met with blocks without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, Brackenheim's ownership behavior is troubling, as is their original addition of massive amounts of disputed and undiscussed fringe and undue content. They have been made aware they have no consensus, yet they have edit warred. That content should be removed and discussion started. The article is currently protecting a dangerously wrong version that has zero consensus. -- Valjean (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to a formal consensus?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's part of the problem. Brackenheim knows their content has no consensus and is disputed, yet they edit warred. The article needs to be reverted to before their large additions. -- Valjean (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go to the Talk page and begin a discussion on the changes. And, frankly, it should have been done well before now by whoever objected to the changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lack of consensus was demonstrated by the first user to revert their edits. And WP:ONUS does not say it's down to those who remove content to defend their actions, its down to those wanting to include it. Now if you mean it should have been reverted well before, yes I agree, but some users may only pass by a page occasionally.Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Yoisi210 reported by User:Lullabying (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1038181691

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1038808690
 * 2) 1038865597
 * 3) 1038869501
 * 4) 1038871718

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 1038824234 (brief mention to discuss on talk page in edit summary}
 * 2) 1038869963 (warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1038871641

Comments:

Chiaki J. Konaka released a work earlier in this month that mentions politics, which was controversial to some and met with backlash. There are concerns on how neutral the wording of this article is. has been continuously reverting edits and removing/inserting statements that were not stated in the sources or have been agreed on by other editors of the page. lullabying (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User:FantinoFalco reported by User:Natanieluz (Result: Partial blocked, indefinitely, from article)
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: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user started arguing with me on mine talk page:

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

Comments:

That user is not ready to discuss the matter and has been doing his edits even after receiving warnings many times. Despite repeated requests and mine explanations, he still continues to remove those edits and attacking me, even despite my pleas to stop and seek a compromise. He violated the three-revert rule. Natanieluz (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Partial blocked from this article only, indefinitely. Since they are simply reverting and not using the talkpage, yet they believe (from the message on the reporter's user talk) that they have the right to remove anything they don't like, that pretty much means they shouldn't be editing it. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)