Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive439

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: This user is preventing me from improving the Awdal page. I added sourced content while at the same time removing the excessive blockquotes in the demographics section per WP:Quotefarm however he keeps reverting it every single time, rejecting these sources stating: "I won't have to rely on your source, I have my own".

He has during our discussion at the article's talk page repeatedly accused me of "tampering" with references (which I haven't) and of breaking WP:Mainstream (which does not apply in this situation at all). I reminded him respectfully that he was breaching 3RR and also warned him on his talk page. He then proceeded to accuse me of breaking Wikipedia guidelines simply because I warned him on his talk page for breaking the 3RR rule (something that you have to do).

Overall, I don't think this person is here to build an encyclopedia at all and is refusing to accept sources and facts that contradict his POV. Dabaqabad

Just to follow up from earlier, as per the Wikipedia guidelines, you would need to add several sources to change the demographics, as Gadabursi being the majority clan in Awdal Region is an established and well known view. While Isaaq presence in "Eastern Awdal" isn't, so please add several sources if you wish to justify this claim. I also saw you tampered with a source and claimed it stated something it didn't which is why I reverted your edits. I did not remove your edits for no good reason and even left you several messages in the talk section of the page to explain my reasoning and why I believe you're in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I hope our dispute can be resolved amicably via a 3rd party instead of going back and forth aimlessly. Please refer to the relevant talk page. Many thanks. I've left a link to our discussion below for the moderator's reference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Awdal#Awdal_demographics Wadamarow (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to add some further comments regarding my objection to the source used byUser:Dabaqabad and context around procedural claims.

The source used by User:Dabaqabad is titled Beyond Fragility: A Conflict and Education Analysis of the Somali Context. The source makes a number of factually incorrect claims which I will highlight below.

On page 158, in table 15 the report states that the city of Berbera is located in the Awdal Region. This is demonstrably false, according to the Somaliland government which is the ruling entity, Berbera is part of the Sahil region. This is also confirmed by numerous academic, NGO and other credible governmental sources listed under the Berbera city Wikipedia entry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbera

On the same page and also in table 15, the report then goes on to state that the district of Gabiley falls under the Awdal Region. This is again false, Gabiley district is part of the Maroodi Jeex region. This is again backed up by sources from the Somaliland government and other credible 3rd parties. The sources can be found under the Gabiley city Wikipedia entry. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabiley Based on the facts established above, claiming Isaaq live in "Eastern Awdal" would be false since Eastern Awdal here is considered as Gabiley district by the report. This was my objection with User:Dabaqabad earlier.

Therefore, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, given the factual and demonstrable inaccuracy of the source, I suggested to User:Dabaqabad that he should bring another. As Wikipedia editors we have a responsibility to use accurate sources and uphold the integrity of the pages we edit.

I also reminded the User of Wikipedia guidelines.

Per WP:Exceptional, WP: Extraordinary and WP:Ecree, his content would require multiple mainstream sources to offset the 5 that have been on the page that doesn't factor or mention the point in which you are advancing. Given the factual inaccuracies of the report I've listed above, User:Dabaqabad has not satisfied the Wikipedia guidelines.

I hope that explains the crux of our disagreement and await judgement from the admin team.

Wadamarow (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I also wanted to add some more detail regarding the second source used by User:Dabaqabad.

The second source used can be found here.

https://www.faoswalim.org/resources/Land/General_Survey_Somaliland_Protectorate_1944-1950.pdf

The report does not state Isaaq inhabit Eastern Awdal, when this report was commissioned in 1950 the Awdal Region did not exist in its current form. The Awdal Region was founded in 1984, when the North (now Somaliland) was still part of the Somali Republic under the regime of Siad Barre. It is impossible for you to claim this source states, Isaaq inhabit Awdal for that simple factual reason.

So not only is User:Dabaqabad adding sources which do not state what he claims, he is tampering with the source itself. Because a rudimentary search of the term "Awdal" in this document will lead to no results as Awdal is not mentioned in this 100+ page report about the British protectorate.

I hope that once again clears up my objections, and in future I hope User:Dabaqabad refrains from tampering with sources as that's a major violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

Wadamarow (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Awdal at the time was the Borama district with identical borders. You do realize the regions of Somaliland are for the most part based on the district boundaries of the British protectorate right?

Like I said earlier my edits do not breach WP:Exceptional, WP:Extraordinary or WP:Ecree since I did not dispute the mainstream and factual claim (Awdal is predominantely Gadabuursi). You're misusing and bending the Wikipedia rules to suit you. All I did was try to add the presence of another clan in a corner of the region, something you seem to be against.

Again, stop accusing me of tampering with sources when I have not done so. You need to assume good faith, self revert and discuss what you object in a respectful manner on the talk page. Dabaqabad (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to request a Checkuser? The way he writes along with the sources he provides and the topic he usually edits reminds me of banned sockpuppeteer User:Middayexpress. Just want to make sure. Dabaqabad (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, you should be responding to me on the talk page where I have left numerous comments outlining my objections to your edits. You have failed to address any of my points in a constructive manner and decided to report me to the admin team.

Secondly, your source does not mention Isaaq live in Awdal because it is simply a survey of grazing lands and water wells used by nomads. I challenge you to ad-verbatim quote the passage which states "Isaaq live in Eastern Awdal/Lughaya" which is what your edit says. This is a clear example of you tampering with sources which is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The Awdal Region borders and Borama district borders are not identical, this is the Awdal Region page not the old Zeila/Borama district, your edits here are unjustified with that source.

Thirdly, you removed perfectly legitimate sources on a number of occasions in your edits which is why I reverted them. This is another violation of Wikipedia guidelines you're not allowed to remove references without good cause which is why I reverted your edits. All the mainstream sources (from the 21st century I might add) state that only two clans inhabit Awdal, Gadabursi and Ciise. If you wish to update the demographics section you would need to add a number of highly accurate sources to overturn this as per Wikipedia guidelines regarding exceptional claims.

You also have failed to respond to the fact that one of your sources included basic factual inaccuracies such as adding Gabiley and Berbera to the Awdal Region which I have proven is demonstrably false.

Please respond to the comments I have left you on the talk page, we can come to an amicable agreement provided you stay within the Wikipedia guidelines, or we can ask a 3rd party to mediate between us. You have failed to respond on either points and hastily opened a case against me for no good reason.

Also do not accuse me of using sockpuppet accounts without justifiable reasoning, just because we have a disagreement doesn't mean I'm acting in bad faith. Our aim as editors should be to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia pages. Wadamarow (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Both parties seem to have violated WP:3RR at Awdal. I hope they will respond here and explain why they should not be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:EdJohnston, I reverted the edits for a number of reasons

1. User:Dabaqabad in his first edit removed a legitimate and established source from the page without reason which I reverted.

2. User:Dabaqabad used an inaccurate source, and I explained to him the basic factual errors within it. Such as stating Gabiley and Berbera district are part of the Awdal Region when multiple sources on the Wikipedia pages of those cities state categorically otherwise. For that reason I asked him to use a more accurate source. I have left the Wikipedia pages for both cities below for your reference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabiley https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbera

3. User:Dabaqabad used a second source and misrepresented the claims made within the report. I asked him to quote the relevant passage from the report (Isaaq inhabiting Eastern Awdal/Lughaya) and he declined to do so which is why I reverted that edit. I also asked him to use a 3rd party mediator to resolve the dispute between us on the talk page, however he ignored me and made a complaint against me here. I have added a link to the Awdal talk page for your reference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Awdal#Awdal_demographics

In light of this I believe the original version of the article should stand. I wasn't aware of the rule, however in future I will follow WP:3RR. Thanks, Wadamarow (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello ,


 * Upon further inspection it seems that I did violate WP:3RR, and will therefore withdraw this report. I was not aware of my own rule violations and I do apologize profusely. It was an honest mistake and will not be repeated again, I can assure you.


 * I am an avid contributor to HoA articles, and especially to Somali-related articles, having created articles like Ishaaq bin Ahmed, Isaaq Sultanate, Somaliland War of Independence while also contributing to countless more. I wish to continue to improve the underrepresented parts of Wikipedia.


 * This will not be repeated, I can assure you. Dabaqabad (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Dabaqabad and User:Wadamarow are both warned. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Awdal without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:L8stbefore reported by User:191.156.190.155 (Result: )
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

This user is making use of Vandalism and falsification of statistics by reliable genetic sources such as the CIA and Britannica. Check the sources to note that the information (numbers and percentage) are different from the ones written on the White Mexicans page. According to the CIA, only 10% of Mexicans are white, which would be a population of 13 million based on the country’s population (130 million), so the figure of 59 million is an exaggerated and false figure, committing even more vandalism when citing the CIA. The Mexican government does not conduct demographic censuses, and the self-recognition censuses it has conducted show that more than 60% of the population is mestizo, 20% of the population is native, making the white group the third largest and not the first.
 * Hello User:191.156.190.155. This report won't be considered unless you notify User:L8stbefore properly. You have never posted on their talk page and there is no prior attempt to resolve the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:HIAS, User:Echo1Charlie reported by User:Alpha3031 (Result: Two editors warned)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the users' reverts:

HIAS:

mentioned both statements

rv, per WP:RSOPINION

rv, Unverified account.

rv, WP:RS does not mention JF-17

Echo1Charlie:

misquote, the part you're trying to add is pakistani military spoke person's press release

Biased, illogical, neutrality of the content restored

neutrality restored

Listed on the official website here https://martin-baker.com/news-events

Undid revision 1038872095 by HIAS (talk)confirmed by Martin-Baker

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Templated warning from HIAS to Echo1Charlie

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

Comments:

4hr old 3RR violation brought up on IRC -help channel. No recent ARBIPA warning on either user. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not an exception if my revert was not reasonable I'll accept any action taken against me. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence= edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder&diff=1038884822&oldid=1038884568) user HIAS was trying to add content not in the cited source, I was preventing misquote, original research and possibly vandalism please check whether it's true or not. Thank you.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence 2= edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder&diff=1038876816&oldid=1038876658) User HIAS was trying to remove cited content —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The controversial statement was introduced to the article by . The source clearly mention that the version of Pakistan Army is different from Indian army, I tried to achieve neutrality with the inclusion of both versions per WP:BALANCE. While Echo1Charlie's intention was to deliberate modify POV statement belonging to the official spokesperson of indian army as fact. India maintained that pakistan army missed the intended target while pakistan maintains that the target was the empty ground. HIAS (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't adding any official statements on the article (even though quote by Indian official was present in the cited sources), and the statement is not "controversial"; at least not in India and in rest of the world). The statement is supported by two citations ——Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that both editors broke WP:3RR on 15 August so both could be blocked for edit warring. The sourcing on both sides is at least plausible. The two editors could be well intentioned, but breaking 3RR is a serious violation in the India-Pakistan domain. Admins should take sufficient action to ensure that the problem does not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My Apologies, I have never been blocked since last 5 years. I assure you that a warning will work for me and i have no intention to repeat this behavior again, please consider my apologies for the last time. HIAS (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies, I'm a newbie here, but I know that's not an excuse, if you found that I've violated the policy then I'm morally obliged to accept the punishment. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:HIAS and User:Echo1Charlie are warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration and kindness. I'll be more responsible and abide by the policy, I promise. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:אברהסה בו reported by User:Firestar464 (Result: Indeffed sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1039171693 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 2)  "Restored revision 1039170978 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1039170939 by Aaron106 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Restored revision 1039170159 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 5)  "Restored revision 1039169831 by אברהסה בו (talk): Its Still Red"
 * 6)  "Restored revision 1038898733 by Transylvania1916 (talk): Last Stable before edit war user aslo tried to delete the talk page"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1039168674 by Aaron106 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1039166874 by Aaron106 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Restored revision 1038898733 by Transylvania1916 (talk): Its still red"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user was trying to make up their own history with the flag for the Ussr. Even when the sources that are used on the page for the  history of the flag says its same flag from 1955. They also tried to delete the talk page for the Soviet Union page .אברהסה בו (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I did make a mistake I admit it I will stop and move on from this I don't want to lose my editing privileges over this.אברהסה בו (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Aaron106 reported by User:Firestar464 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1039171693 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1039170978 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1039170865 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1039170159 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1039169831 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1039168772 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1039168140 by אברהסה בו (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1039166676 by אברהסה בו (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * No action as other user has now been blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Doreamon99 reported by User:Dāsānudāsa (Result: Indeffed)
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:

Ignoring talk page messages, clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia (and also very clearly a sock of a previously blocked user). Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing., do you have a previously blocked user in mind?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake -- I thought the previous editing on the page along a similar pattern was a different user but it was the same person Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Chinnusaikrish reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The title has been decided in the consensus and the same is used here. No changes in the title, It's abbreviation is just provided. Please don't misunderstand. Undid revision 1039227417 by Ravensfire (talk)"
 * 2)  "The title is used the same as was specified in the consensus. It's abbreviation is just provided. No need to be worried. The title still remains the same. Undid revision 1039226027 by Ab207 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Nothing against consensus. The title still remains the same as decided in the consensus. No need to be worried. It' abbreviation is provided. Undid revision 1039125672 by DaxServer (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Discussion just over a week ago about these exact edits here -, consensus was against what Chinnusaikrish wanted. They made no further attempts at consensus, just forcing their preference.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit warring behaviour of Chinnusaikrish is not one-off event. They attempted the same on 2 August and 4 August  despite being warned  (A discussion is also open at WP:ANI). -- Ab207 (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Notfrompedro reported by User:Tehonk (Result: Filer blocked for 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: varies

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First violation, 4 reverts that I choose to not report because I was trying to solve it via talk pages:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

And then, after he stopped participating, I made my edits justified in talk page but a few days later he started his edit warring again, another 4 reverts in 24 hour:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: User tries to "own" the article and refuses to solve it via talk page, makes blind reverts without getting consensus, continues before discussion in talk page concluded, starts edit warring before using talk page etc..


 * filer blocked for 31h. Five reverts, removing sourced material. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Tehonk reported by User:Notfrompedro (Result: Blocked for 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: Tehonk demanded references to show the film was considered "lost" when I did they just blindly reverted it numerous times. I kept adding more references but they would revert it. Then they demanded I find pre-2017 references (arbitrary) which I still did with a book and a quote from 2015 but they still blindly reverted it. I tried Dispute resolution noticeboard but they refuse to engage there, too. Notfrompedro (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31h. Five reverts, removing sourced material. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:24.31.191.44 reported by User:IronManCap (Result: Blocked 6 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings" (meant to refer to Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, corrected shortly afterwards).
 * 2)   "/* August 2021 */ wrong article"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Black Panther: Wakanda Forever."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has previously been blocked several times for adding unsourced content. An indef block may now be needed. Fyi, I have hit my 3rr limit trying to combat this, with the first revert being done over two singular reverts rather than a single use of Twinkle. IronManCap (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC) The user has now been given a 6-month block. IronManCap (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Frank6292010 reported by User:68.132.101.188 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Lang_(French_politician)&oldid=1038222145 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Lang_(French_politician)&oldid=1039335629
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Lang_(French_politician)&oldid=1039174351
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Lang_(French_politician)&oldid=1039322462
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Lang_(French_politician)&oldid=1039231508

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank6292010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frank6292010&oldid=1039196341

user deleted my comments on his talk page and did not respond to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frank6292010&oldid=1039230917

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

Comments:
 * I'll leave my account be gone forever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank6292010 (talk • contribs)
 * and page fully protected. No further action at this time as I'm already dealing with the user directly. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

User:122.179.124.59 reported by User:Qwerfjkl (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1039232570 by Princepratap1234 (talk) no reaso"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1039232020 by Princepratap1234 (talk) no Vandalism clean strat"
 * 3)  "←Removed redirect to List of nicknames of the prime ministers of India"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1039219351 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) Why don't you do it"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1039077200 by Isabelle Belato (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violation of WP:3RR. Qwerfjkl talk  14:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for violating WP:BLP. - Qwerfjkl  talk  09:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

User:42.113.0.181 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

User:170.249.157.51 reported by User:Cjquines10 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Cjquines10 just vandalised the page. Undid revision 1039176569 by Cjquines10 (talk)"
 * 2)  "stop missing with history/information"
 * 3)  "Talk to widow if you have copyright issue Undid revision 1027894869 by John of Reading (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: No idea where to report this. User has ignored warnings on their talk page of adding possibly copyrighted content. cjquines (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 week for repeated copyright violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Jimmskostaja reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You're vandalizing the truth. Kiss my asskrag..."
 * 2)  "No, it's real sonny jim. I don't think you understand just how close me and Ol' Chris were... by god not a day goes by I don't miss him. He died after hearing news of the Amazon version of Lord of the Rings. What a shame that was."
 * 3)  "So you're calling me and Ol' Chris a liar? I don't think you know what you're Tolkien about..."
 * 4)  "I don't believe you did, it's there. If you don't believe me, head directly to the Tolkien estate for some of the lesser known letters. This was also confirmed by my good friend Ol' Chris Tolkien (R.I.P.)."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Trying to add "Krags" as an alternative name for the character and their sources are "I saw it in a museum" and "I was friends with Christopher Tolkien". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Not sure how that one slipped through the cracks, but now indef blocked as a vandalism-only account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ...through the Krags! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: Article is under a 1RR restrction per WP:TROUBLES. FDW777 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Note comments in Revision History below;

Financefactz: Lol

FDW777: rv. Correctly referenced

Financefactz: the citation does not state or even suggest he is a policy expert on housing nor does he even have an undergraduate degree in a related field or ever appears to have studied in the field at any point. The individual journalist is also not qualified to be making that judgement. Cite an economist or recognised authority or failing that any source whatsoever"

FDW777: rv. Feel free to reword if you feel it's inaccuarate, ratgher than outright deletion

Financefactz: The onus is not on me to reword a deliberately misleading and uncited statement. There is an onus on you not to re-insert a second time a statement that is uncited and untrue. If you would like to reword it that is up to you but I am not doing your bidding.

Financefactz (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

User:M.Nadian reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

I presented 5 documents on the article discussion page and replaced the incorrect information based on those documents, most of which are secondary documents. On the other hand, no document has been submitted to refute my content. This is an attempt to lie in the article. You are the one who has to answer for canceling my edit three times. Again, I substitute the right content for the wrong content because you did not provide any documentation. I can provide more documents if necessary. Thanks.M.Nadian (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC) http://ensani.ir/fa/article/46129/%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A2%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85 Above University document http://ensani.ir/fa/article/46129/%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A2%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85

https://www.karbobala.com/articles/info/1769 I think 8 documents is enough!M.Nadian (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * M.Nadian refuses to follow any policy. His only rant is I'm going to add so and so documents. I see competence or good faith issues here, for the editor doesn't even try to understand what others have been telling him. At least a couple days block is in order. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 12:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:140:9180:EEE0:6D26:1C5F:E624:F72F reported by User:73.162.155.65 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Result: No action taken, since the reverts don't seem to be continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:阿pp (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

There is a disputed Politics section on China at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Since late July, the section has been removed and added back for several times by many different editors. Since early August, some editors involved began discussion on WP:OLY Talk Page. While the disputed section is temporarily removed, an NPOV issue template was put on the page as a result. While the discussion is still going on, User:FobTown kept adding the disputed section back, and ignored my invitation to join discussion on talk page. It is also worth mentioning that the disputed section has already been rewritten, rearranged, and added to a more appropriate page (diff). --阿pp (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Casualfoodie reported by User:阿pp (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Same case as the above one. Two editors revert each other. Both violates 3RR. --阿pp (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

User:74.139.232.145 reported by User:StarryNightSky11 (Result: Blocked 36h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1039649559 by HelenDegenerate (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1039649497 by HelenDegenerate (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1039649399 by HelenDegenerate (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1039649235 by HelenDegenerate (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1039648892 by LizardJr8 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked 36h by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

User:103.227.252.147 reported by User:Jr8825 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1039681208 (note: this is just their latest restoration of these additions, which have been reverted multiple times by different editors over recent weeks; please see the page history for a fuller picture of the scale of their warring).

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1039682152
 * 2) Special:Diff/1039682409
 * 3) Special:Diff/1039685113
 * 4) Special:Diff/1039685716

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1039685345

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Spanish Empire (same IP user, marginally different IP address, same overall content); Talk:Spanish Empire (ongoing discussion regarding part of the content they keep warring back in, which they have not engaged with).

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1039689196

Comments: There have been similar IPs making near-identical edits on this page over the last couple of weeks (recent examples: Special:Diff/1037568444, Special:Diff/1037568257). Not all of the additions have been clearly disruptive, but multiple editors have found parts of their edits to be problematic and non-neutral. A thread was raised on the talk page about these changes which the IP has not responded to, and the response by the IP had been to smash the revert button on whoever undoes their edits. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to identity the puppet master, but perhaps a range block is in order? Jr8825 •  Talk  04:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * IP range proxy-blocked by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:70.63.40.90 reported by User:Mattplaysthedrums (Result: Blocked 36h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1039651915 by Isabelle Belato (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1039651813 by Mattplaysthedrums (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1039651749 by Mattplaysthedrums (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1039651628 by Isabelle Belato (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1039650599 by LizardJr8 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Vandalism (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * IP blocked for 36h by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:PashtunNationalist reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

User is fixiated on adding the so called flag of 'Pashtunistan' everywhere, not only in this article but also others. Lowkey seems like a WP:SPA to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:B44B:1600:3D69:556F:5118:2775 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1039916477 by Bilorv (talk) inappropriate reverse because dislikes evidence and fact behind the point of view"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1039883594 by Lord Belbury (talk) there is evident marxist touch and the articles confirm that it is not a widely accepted gesture politics."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1039866863 by Lord Belbury (talk) it is not about characterising, it is about affiliation"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1039863587 by Lord Belbury (talk) it is absurd to attach the wrong meaning to the performance on ideological grounds and promote it as original or symbolic to particular era. Whilst it was copied as sources suggest, to represent previous precedent. It is not originated neither popular as it was promoted"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Taking the knee."

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

Comments: Editor with an amusing understanding of what communism is and a less amusing penchant for rapid editing, persistent edit warring and refusal to engage in discussion with anything bordering on relevant arguments. I'm losing track of what RR they're on but it's beyond 5. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been going on from this range for a while.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Pitzzaboy reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1039921261 by 2600:1012:B006:A614:2467:EB73:72C:E4CC (talk) check User talk:2600:1012:B006:A614:2467:EB73:72C:E4CC"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1039917667 by Muboshgu (talk) I understand that there are not only 2 Canidates but these are the main canidates please don"t Undo this edit."
 * 3)  (comment hidden)
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1039850687 by 2600:1012:B006:A614:2467:EB73:72C:E4CC (talk) don't undo it this time ok."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1039850267 by 2600:1012:B006:A614:2467:EB73:72C:E4CC (talk) you undid for no reason next time explain your reason fr deleting the top 2 canidets"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1039850267 by 2600:1012:B006:A614:2467:EB73:72C:E4CC (talk) you undid for no reason next time explain your reason fr deleting the top 2 canidets"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1039850267 by 2600:1012:B006:A614:2467:EB73:72C:E4CC (talk) you undid for no reason next time explain your reason fr deleting the top 2 canidets"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: throughout the user talk page

Comments:
 * for edit-warring to preserve copyright violations, among other things.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

User:113.178.0.75 reported by User:JalenFolf (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Signed artists */"
 * 2)  "/* Signed artists */"
 * 3)  "/* Signed artists */"
 * 4)  "/* Signed artists */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Geelong."
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Armada Music."
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Armada Music."
 * 4)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Armada Music."
 * 5)   "Warning: Edit warring on Armada Music."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User repeatedly edit warring unsourced content to this article; refuses to discuss. Jalen Folf  (talk)  16:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Widr (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Ekdalian reported by User:Ninja2019 (Result: Ninja2019 indeffed as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Ninja2019 indeffed as a sock--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Doctorhawkes reported by User:115.42.14.118 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Cooper_(rugby_league) [diff]

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

Comments:

The subject of the article is a living person. The subject was a professional footballer. User Doctorhawkes has repeatedly reverted the article to remove reference in the lede paragraph to the subject having played a second code of sport which diminishes the subject's reputation (denigration of a living person). The editor, Doctorhawkes, lists their interests as "This user loves Rugby League" and "This user supports the Wests Tigers" (a rugby league team and club) suggesting a bias. Outside narrow rugby league interests, the subject is best known to many for having successfully crossed-over to a second code of sport. The edit summaries provided made by Doctorhawkes do not justify the edits made.115.42.14.118 (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Neither editor has exceeded three reverts. The IP is warned for personal attacks in the report above - enthusiasm for a sport or league is not indicative of personal bias - stop that. Work it out on the talkpage, remembering that the onus is on the editor proposing the change to the status quo - the IP. And do it respectfully.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please identify the "personal attacks" in the above report. "suggesting a bias" is not a personal attack as having a bias is not a fault. The editor Doctorhawkes, in their Talk page, self-identified an interest, "love" and "support" - all biases. I support them in having those interests. The issue that to be judged was whether that bias affected the edits. The edits were all based on personal POV claims as to what was notable, without any cited or stated basis as to what was notable. Further, the edits were not in accordance with WP:MOS and WP:MOSLEAD as they did not provide a concise summary but rather reverted to only limited "notable" points selected on a POV. I would not have taken such issue with the edits but I noted the editor is a very frequent reverter across many articles. 115.42.14.118 (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:Atiru (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: page has a current 1RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Atiru (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Clever way to multiply "reverts" ad infinitum by selecting the same base revision, eh.
 * Enforcing WP policies falls outside of 1RR, and you've been repeatedly advised by and myself that your edits violate the project's policies.
 * I recommend that, as a very new editor, you take your time to go through the Identifying reliable sources guideline, the neutral point of view policy, the biographies' policy as well as through a handful of essays, such as for WP:NPOVS and WP:BRD. They may help you to edit effectively and minimise the disruption you have been contributing to. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain which of your reverts falls within WP:3RRNO, and bear in mind that the WP:BLP exemption is very limited.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take it as a compliment to be mistaken as a "very new user." I was worried this outfit made me look old. Atiru (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

User:TorpedoLaserz reported by User:Callanecc (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Semi-protection against vandalism will be required Jingiby (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1040061722 by Jingiby (talk)"
 * 3)  "Removed Kebab."
 * 4)  "/* Internet popularity */"
 * 5)  "/* Background */"
 * 1)  "/* Background */"
 * 1)  "/* Background */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:8001:9741:E300:2DEB:E7DC:23AC:60C3 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

IP keeps removing sourced information regarding the Kurdish population in Khoy because it doesn't suit his POV. I did already inform him regarding the edit warring rule, but he removed my comment --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, this continues; I have invited the user to the talk:Khoy page to discuss the article to no avail. Can whomever blocks this IP also revert their latest revision please (assuming they haven't added anything of value since I write this!) JeffUK (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

User:TillermanJimW reported by User:Crossroads (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1040195344 by Crossroads (talk) Note the NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1040194710 by Crossroads (talk) Hardly a single phrase. You haven't at all justified why the NPOV should be removed."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1040188586 by Beccaynr (talk) You haven't given any reasons at all; you haven't addressed the substance of why I put the NPOV up in the first place. Clearly a case of a questionable bias."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1040186509 by Beccaynr (talk) Don't think you can reasonably remove the NPOV tag without even looking at the justifications for it."

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

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

Comments:

Editor needs to not edit war his tag in. There was also some reverting on the talk page, but that is technically a separate page so I'm not sure how it factors in; I also think the editors removing his comment from the talk page were themselves in the wrong by removing a comment about content without justification from WP:TPG. Being wrong isn't a reason to remove a comment. Crossroads -talk- 04:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC) updated Crossroads -talk- 04:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked User:TillermanJimW for a week for violations of Arbitration sanctions. I think this can be closed.- gadfium 05:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

User:VeganBurger reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "C-O-N-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-V-E EDIT. Not sure if this is clear to you. Have a day off, seriously..."
 * 2)  "DO NOT REVERT CONSTRUCTIVE EDITS (REPEAT AS NECESSARY)"
 * 3)  "DO NOT REVERT CONSTRUCTIVE EDITS"
 * 4)  "Restored old edits from before revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Uw-revert ."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Stupid duplication of large sections of article. Editor ignored warning, & edit-warred it back in. Note also that there is a current SPI. David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not stupid. Enforcing constructive edits which are being reverted by an editor who clearly has it in for me... He has launched fraudulent SPIs for months now. He is nothing more than a virtual bully who is trying to silence me from editing because I have called him out for what he is. Stop supporting this nonsense. VeganBurger (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How does confirming that you are indeed a sockpuppet assist your case? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever the outcome here or anywhere else, I would also respectfully suggest being a little more cautious at North East England. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just North East England, it's any article he/she touches. This sockpuppet has only touched a few, but look at the IPV6 edits from Truro that precede or the confirmed SP accounts and you'll see the exact same pattern of disruptive edits and subsequent edit warring / article ownership behaviour in most / all of them. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

User:WonderWaage reported by User:110.174.155.199 (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: [link]

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

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

Comments:

While the first series of edits that added Paul F. Tompkins' photo to the page was vandalism. The subsequent edits were made in good faith and should not have been reverted. 110.174.155.199 (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Mehedi Al Mahmud 27 reported by User:Canberra2021 (Result: Sock blocked)
User:Mehedi Al Mahmud 27 is engaging in edit war and adding unverified content from youtube to List of active ships of the Bangladesh Navy Page. User:Mehedi Al Mahmud 27 is also deleting his/her talk page and engaging in argument about genuine reference request to the page. He has also reverting various content randomly for example BNS Nishan.

Thanks User:Canberra2021
 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy reported by User:Magatta (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1040348902 by Magatta (talk) If someone calls this Arena Rock album Heavy Metal, then it is not exactly reliable... really at all reliable. Heavy Metal is defined by repeating riffs and downtuned guitars, of which this album utilizes neither."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1040345777 by Magatta (talk) I mean it's three users here in quick succession have found issue with the grossly inaccurate genre described here. According to Wikipedia's official policy regarding genres, even sourced genres can be challenged if users disagree with it. You (one person) keep reverting it, and you can lock the page, but honestly that's just going to cause conflict. If it's reverted, I'm opening up a talk query.."
 * 3)  "Read below."
 * 4)  "Nah this is not heavy metal..."
 * 1)  "Nah this is not heavy metal..."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 2 edits by Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk): See my previous reasons for reverting. Just because you and others may disagree with a reliably sourced genre, it does not mean the sources are automatically invalidated, I will gladly further discuss this on the talk page."

Comments:

User does not seem to participate in discussion; does not appear to want to go by the sources provided. Displaying malevolent behaviour at the end of a message left of my talk page isn't reasurring either. Magatta (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't an isolated case, unfortunately - see the history of Undercurrent (Matisyahu album), where I attempted to make some changes based on Wikipedia guidelines and the editor's addition of poor sources, and was reverted with a severe case of WP:OWN and accusations of vandalism. Richard3120 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:173.77.215.131 reported by User:CanePlayz (Jacob) (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (also talked to him over edit summaries multiple times now)

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

Comments:

So this user keeps on adding the same movie again and again to this article. I've told him in edit summaries that he needs to provide a proper source for the info, especially because I couldn't find anything on that on the internet. I've also put a warning on his talk page, but he never talked to me in any constructive way. I think his talk page history gives you a good taste to what he's up to. CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Yuotort reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:31, 2 August 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:01, 3 August 2021
 * 2) 02:05, 16 August 2021
 * 3) 01:47, 25 August 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:24, 3 August 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 00:20, 3 August 2021

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 03:41, 25 August 2021

Comments:

Slow edit-warring with slightly different content each time, but consistent addition of unsourced, contentious material/categories with no attempt at discussion, despite being asked to provide citation(s). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Both users have edited/reverted at the article three times in the last month. Even as slow edit wars go, that ain't much. The editors should try to resolve the dispute at the article Talk page in a discussion where they do not simply trade barbs. I express no opinion on that score. Sangdeboeuf has posted at the Talk page, but it's more loaded than constructive. There are also other methods of dispute resolution that may be used. This noticeboard is not the right forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:AtmaramU reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: No violations)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has been disrupting edits, I am using the intention of MILMOS#INFOBOX to make the articles result more clear, another editor, HaughtonBrit also deems this edit as appropriate, however the user I am reporting does not. Said user does not appear to listen, so I have resorted to taking this to the edit warring noticeboard as they keep reverting my edits, and this is transgressing to an edit war. Noorullah21 (talk) 8:45, 25 August (UTC)


 * User Noorullah21 has been removing the content and the source links on the page even though multiple users have reverted the deleted changes. User states that he is using MILMOS#INFOBOX as a reason for deleting the content and the source links on the page. Its very clear that the user doesn't have a good understanding of MILMOS. Even though it has been mentioned to the user to not remove the content, the user continues to do so as per his own personal preference and what suits this individual alone as satisfactory. From history, you can see the number of times the user removed the content, being disruptive and engaging in Edit war.

Previous version reverted to:

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

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:

AtmaramU (talk) 21:44, 25 August (UTC)
 * Neither user has violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:AtmaramU reported by User:FDW777 (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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Editor makes the false claim the website has been deemed unreliable at WP:RSN]], as my post here debunks. Also says Also not sure what the second reference is suppose to show. Do not see any such statement to back the claim, when the reference says as clear as you like The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead. It's difficult to assume good faith with people that make such false claims. FDW777 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not false claim and please do not put such blame without making an effort to investigate the archives in WP:RSN. I told you to check the archives which you didn't. Let me help. Look in Archive folder 304, 341 and 342. Little effort can help all of us. Its as simple as searching the archive. Also the references you have included are not considered reliable. IndianDefencereview is not a reliable site. Please read what conflict of interest means. "Records, sources and notes taken during the battle" are called primary sources. Secondary sources make use of these primary sources to develop an overview of the event. Also recommend reading recommend reading WP:PSTS. Also for your kind information, The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. This is the the second false blame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I've already refuted your tired points, but I can see I'll have to do so again (for two of them, the other is a new refutation).


 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 304 contains one mention of the Indian Defence Review, with one editor saying it is not reliable in a discussion about a different subject entirely. People cannot be expected to monitor every single discussion on RSN in case someone happens to make off-topic claims about entirely different references. One person's comment does not make a consensus.
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 341 is about the same Wikipedia article, but about an entirely different reference. Indian Defence Review doesn't get mentioned in the entire archive, therefore how it can possibly make any judgement on the reliability is anyone's guess.
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342 is another discussion about other references entirely, where Indian Defence Review gets mentioned. The mentions are
 * On the other hand, LANCER is the foremost military publishing house in India since 1983. Its also an INDIAN DEFENCE REVIEW, a quarterly journal on military operations and strategic affairs launched in 1986 and remains the "Most Quoted" worldwide
 * Lancer isn't "an Indian Defence Review", it is the publisher of the Indian Defence Review which is irrelevant here
 * Indian Defence Review is relevant and like I said earlier and the officers are not using the in-house material but the sources stored in the Regimental centre including Digest of Services of the Indian Army dated back to British colonists period and are highly reliable which even the academic scholars refer to for research. Its OK to use these sources
 * Quite how you get to "Indian Defence Review isn't reliable" from those quotes is beyond my comprenhension.
 * That's the lot. I have investigated the archives, as my post on the talk page demonstrates. One person, in an unrelated discussion, has said it is not reliable. That is not a consensus, especially if anyone cares to look at Google Scholar. FDW777 (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , technically you did not violate 3RR because your fourth revert was made outside the 24-hour window. However, you have now been legitimately reported for edit-warring on two articles. You are therefore warned that if you persist in this manner on any article, you risk being blocked, even if you did not violate 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Taqueishon reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1040664508 by RandomCanadian (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1040664027 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) Meets you need to be in the article, please read the discussion of the topic in the Wikiproject: Olympics."
 * 3)  "The response in the Wikiproject discussion forum on this topic culminated in that this list can be placed in the article in case the coverage in the local media is demonstrated, so I place the necessary citations to demonstrate this point, and at the being part of the Olympism, these diplomas can be placed without any problem."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Attempted resolution at WP:OLYMPICS, but no attempt at communication there by the reported editor. Additionally, this disruptive edit warring stretches back to the beginning of the month, and it's really a case where "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made"...; especially given they have been reverted by multiple editors in the past few weeks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have been the main editor of the article and the changes I have made have been based on its evolution, I apologize in case of bothering someone, but since the beginning of the conflict I have been defending the reason for my edits, in the wikiproject have given me the option of putting it under certain parameters that I have met and I have tried to establish communication with the users involved and with the majority the negotiation has been successful, in the case of RandomCanadian it has deleted the communication line. As several users have given their reasons for this section not being in the article, others have supported it, an apology for all this, I just wanted to mention this. I hope you have a nice day. --Taqueishon (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any editor explicitly supporting this (there's some half-hearted "it could maybe go in if the nation in question won few medals", but this has not gained traction and isn't really grounded in policy either). In either case, you do not WP:OWN the article in question, and you cannot keep arguing the same thing when many others have objected. I've given a link to the discussion on the Wikiproject talk, to which you have so far not contributed at all, despite citing it as supporting your point (it does not). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The reverts are also not exclusive to the three listed above, its been an ongoing issue with the editor in question and its clearly an example of WP:OWN. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me an absurd discussion, taking into account that we both look for the best for the article, so I apologize if you felt offended with my issues and I refrain from the administrator's resolution.--Taqueishon (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy reported by User:Magatta (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1040348902 by Magatta (talk) If someone calls this Arena Rock album Heavy Metal, then it is not exactly reliable... really at all reliable. Heavy Metal is defined by repeating riffs and downtuned guitars, of which this album utilizes neither."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1040345777 by Magatta (talk) I mean it's three users here in quick succession have found issue with the grossly inaccurate genre described here. According to Wikipedia's official policy regarding genres, even sourced genres can be challenged if users disagree with it. You (one person) keep reverting it, and you can lock the page, but honestly that's just going to cause conflict. If it's reverted, I'm opening up a talk query.."
 * 3)  "Read below."
 * 4)  "Nah this is not heavy metal..."
 * 1)  "Nah this is not heavy metal..."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 2 edits by Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk): See my previous reasons for reverting. Just because you and others may disagree with a reliably sourced genre, it does not mean the sources are automatically invalidated, I will gladly further discuss this on the talk page."

Comments:

User does not seem to participate in discussion; does not appear to want to go by the sources provided. Displaying malevolent behaviour at the end of a message left of my talk page isn't reasurring either. Magatta (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't an isolated case, unfortunately - see the history of Undercurrent (Matisyahu album), where I attempted to make some changes based on Wikipedia guidelines and the editor's addition of poor sources, and was reverted with a severe case of WP:OWN and accusations of vandalism. Richard3120 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:173.77.215.131 reported by User:CanePlayz (Jacob) (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (also talked to him over edit summaries multiple times now)

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

Comments:

So this user keeps on adding the same movie again and again to this article. I've told him in edit summaries that he needs to provide a proper source for the info, especially because I couldn't find anything on that on the internet. I've also put a warning on his talk page, but he never talked to me in any constructive way. I think his talk page history gives you a good taste to what he's up to. CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Yuotort reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:31, 2 August 2021

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:01, 3 August 2021
 * 2) 02:05, 16 August 2021
 * 3) 01:47, 25 August 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:24, 3 August 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 00:20, 3 August 2021

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 03:41, 25 August 2021

Comments:

Slow edit-warring with slightly different content each time, but consistent addition of unsourced, contentious material/categories with no attempt at discussion, despite being asked to provide citation(s). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Both users have edited/reverted at the article three times in the last month. Even as slow edit wars go, that ain't much. The editors should try to resolve the dispute at the article Talk page in a discussion where they do not simply trade barbs. I express no opinion on that score. Sangdeboeuf has posted at the Talk page, but it's more loaded than constructive. There are also other methods of dispute resolution that may be used. This noticeboard is not the right forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:AtmaramU reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: No violations)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has been disrupting edits, I am using the intention of MILMOS#INFOBOX to make the articles result more clear, another editor, HaughtonBrit also deems this edit as appropriate, however the user I am reporting does not. Said user does not appear to listen, so I have resorted to taking this to the edit warring noticeboard as they keep reverting my edits, and this is transgressing to an edit war. Noorullah21 (talk) 8:45, 25 August (UTC)


 * User Noorullah21 has been removing the content and the source links on the page even though multiple users have reverted the deleted changes. User states that he is using MILMOS#INFOBOX as a reason for deleting the content and the source links on the page. Its very clear that the user doesn't have a good understanding of MILMOS. Even though it has been mentioned to the user to not remove the content, the user continues to do so as per his own personal preference and what suits this individual alone as satisfactory. From history, you can see the number of times the user removed the content, being disruptive and engaging in Edit war.

Previous version reverted to:

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

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:

AtmaramU (talk) 21:44, 25 August (UTC)
 * Neither user has violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:AtmaramU reported by User:FDW777 (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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Editor makes the false claim the website has been deemed unreliable at WP:RSN]], as my post here debunks. Also says Also not sure what the second reference is suppose to show. Do not see any such statement to back the claim, when the reference says as clear as you like The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead. It's difficult to assume good faith with people that make such false claims. FDW777 (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not false claim and please do not put such blame without making an effort to investigate the archives in WP:RSN. I told you to check the archives which you didn't. Let me help. Look in Archive folder 304, 341 and 342. Little effort can help all of us. Its as simple as searching the archive. Also the references you have included are not considered reliable. IndianDefencereview is not a reliable site. Please read what conflict of interest means. "Records, sources and notes taken during the battle" are called primary sources. Secondary sources make use of these primary sources to develop an overview of the event. Also recommend reading recommend reading WP:PSTS. Also for your kind information, The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. This is the the second false blame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I've already refuted your tired points, but I can see I'll have to do so again (for two of them, the other is a new refutation).


 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 304 contains one mention of the Indian Defence Review, with one editor saying it is not reliable in a discussion about a different subject entirely. People cannot be expected to monitor every single discussion on RSN in case someone happens to make off-topic claims about entirely different references. One person's comment does not make a consensus.
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 341 is about the same Wikipedia article, but about an entirely different reference. Indian Defence Review doesn't get mentioned in the entire archive, therefore how it can possibly make any judgement on the reliability is anyone's guess.
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342 is another discussion about other references entirely, where Indian Defence Review gets mentioned. The mentions are
 * On the other hand, LANCER is the foremost military publishing house in India since 1983. Its also an INDIAN DEFENCE REVIEW, a quarterly journal on military operations and strategic affairs launched in 1986 and remains the "Most Quoted" worldwide
 * Lancer isn't "an Indian Defence Review", it is the publisher of the Indian Defence Review which is irrelevant here
 * Indian Defence Review is relevant and like I said earlier and the officers are not using the in-house material but the sources stored in the Regimental centre including Digest of Services of the Indian Army dated back to British colonists period and are highly reliable which even the academic scholars refer to for research. Its OK to use these sources
 * Quite how you get to "Indian Defence Review isn't reliable" from those quotes is beyond my comprenhension.
 * That's the lot. I have investigated the archives, as my post on the talk page demonstrates. One person, in an unrelated discussion, has said it is not reliable. That is not a consensus, especially if anyone cares to look at Google Scholar. FDW777 (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , technically you did not violate 3RR because your fourth revert was made outside the 24-hour window. However, you have now been legitimately reported for edit-warring on two articles. You are therefore warned that if you persist in this manner on any article, you risk being blocked, even if you did not violate 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Taqueishon reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1040664508 by RandomCanadian (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1040664027 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) Meets you need to be in the article, please read the discussion of the topic in the Wikiproject: Olympics."
 * 3)  "The response in the Wikiproject discussion forum on this topic culminated in that this list can be placed in the article in case the coverage in the local media is demonstrated, so I place the necessary citations to demonstrate this point, and at the being part of the Olympism, these diplomas can be placed without any problem."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Attempted resolution at WP:OLYMPICS, but no attempt at communication there by the reported editor. Additionally, this disruptive edit warring stretches back to the beginning of the month, and it's really a case where "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made"...; especially given they have been reverted by multiple editors in the past few weeks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have been the main editor of the article and the changes I have made have been based on its evolution, I apologize in case of bothering someone, but since the beginning of the conflict I have been defending the reason for my edits, in the wikiproject have given me the option of putting it under certain parameters that I have met and I have tried to establish communication with the users involved and with the majority the negotiation has been successful, in the case of RandomCanadian it has deleted the communication line. As several users have given their reasons for this section not being in the article, others have supported it, an apology for all this, I just wanted to mention this. I hope you have a nice day. --Taqueishon (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any editor explicitly supporting this (there's some half-hearted "it could maybe go in if the nation in question won few medals", but this has not gained traction and isn't really grounded in policy either). In either case, you do not WP:OWN the article in question, and you cannot keep arguing the same thing when many others have objected. I've given a link to the discussion on the Wikiproject talk, to which you have so far not contributed at all, despite citing it as supporting your point (it does not). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The reverts are also not exclusive to the three listed above, its been an ongoing issue with the editor in question and its clearly an example of WP:OWN. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me an absurd discussion, taking into account that we both look for the best for the article, so I apologize if you felt offended with my issues and I refrain from the administrator's resolution.--Taqueishon (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

User:115.66.140.15 reported by User:Seloloving (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1040546126 by Justanothersgwikieditor (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1040425404 by Seloloving (talk)Aloysius Pang's death is not found on this page and should be added back onto this page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1040200637 by Seloloving (talk) But the fact is Aloysius Pang is already dead."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 8 Dukes of Caldecott Hill."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow motion daily edit warring on 8 Dukes of Caldecott Hill after having been warned to discuss the matter on the talkpage. While the IP has not breached 3RR, their behavior qualifies as edit warring after their latest revert today and is disruptive to the page. Seloloving (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Pagwghd33 reported by User:FMSky (Result: )
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=YNW_Melly&diff=1040691759&oldid=1040691197
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YNW_Melly&diff=1040692153&oldid=1040691931
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YNW_Melly&diff=1040693937&oldid=1040692445
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YNW_Melly&diff=1040854525&oldid=1040852378
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YNW_Melly&diff=1040870425&oldid=1040870251

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pagwghd33?vanarticle=YNW%20Melly&noautowarn=true&vanarticlerevid=1040693937#August_2021_2, and edit summaries

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

Comments:

copyright violations FMSky (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Haldir Marchwarden reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Both warned)
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:

I have repeatedly told the user to engage in the talk page until there is consensus and all points are addressed, yet he went ahead and kept reinstating the same version, slightly altered. He hasn't violated 3RR yet, but he clearly shows an edit-warring attitude. I guess the best way to resolve this would be to revert back to the stable version and protect the article for some days until consensus is reached. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Demtrios, for doing what I for first warned you I would do. I also see that you know how to use Wikipedia better than me! Kudos to you.


 * As I tried to explain, no matter how you see things, and no matter how much you don't like what the sources say, you cannot change them, and you cannot delete what they say from Wikipedia, nor add what you like to read unless it has sources. It was wrong of you making unsourced claims (about a Serbian ethnicity of Pash Gedik Ahmed) in the first place. I merely edited the article by deleting your unsourced claim about the subject's ethnicity, and expanded it by adding material backed by sources (actually, with quotes), and you repeatedly deleted my additions. Perhaps you never read (all) the sources I added. In good faith, it's the only explanation I can give to my self for your actions. Yet I still don't understand why you posted unsourced claims about the subject's ethnicity.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have already told the user that it wasn't me that changed the ethnicity to plainly "Serb"; another fellow editor changed it (diff), and that was the stable vesion for months now. The diff of mine that he shares above, is me approximately three months later trying to protect the stable version. This was explained to him in the talk page (diff), but for some reason brings it up again to justify his failure to engage in the talk page. Furthermore, i have already told him that the "Ethnicity" parameter in the infobox should be "Unknown", not "Serb" as he claims with a diff from the 14th of June. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Stable version, stable version... When I see some claim about something as hot as Balkanic ethnicity without sources I at least add a template. In fact, I verify the information, and if it simply doesn't match at all I delete the bit. Actually, in our conversation you clearly stated that you support(ed) the unsourced and fake claim. So, agreeing with the unsourced "Serb ethnicity", you willfully promulgated the wrong information. But just look at the article now. Each and every thing (I added) has sources and quotes.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The current version you rammed is problematic for the reasons i stated in the talk page. Furthermore, i do interpret what is described in Lowry's source as an association with a Serb ethnicity (the so-called unsourced claim), and you have a different interpretation of what he writes. That's what the talk page is for; you don't just ram a version you think is correct, and of course that wasn't the only issue being discussed. Regardless, i never supported that the article should refer to a Serb ethnicity, but verbatim how Lowry described it (member of the minor Serbian aristocracy). Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not problematic. Please read it. The only thing that's problematic is making or promulgating ethnic claims without sources, like you did. Also wrong is deleting material backed by sources that other editors published. As I tried to explain to you, Lowry does not make ethnic or ancestry claims, differently from the sources I provided. But regardless: what Lowry says is reported in the article (in fact, you have the whole book-page right there). However, you need to understand that you cannot delete what other sources say. Please read the article.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no point of repeating myself if you can't understand. For the admins reading, all you need is in the respective talk page and above. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the same thing. The talk page is definitely useful when there is actually something to discuss. Hopefully you'll finally read the article or simply come to your senses. If what those authors say displeases you, than I'm sorry about that... but please refrain from blocking other editors from contributing to wp in the future, especially if what they add is correlated with sources.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Haldir Marchwarden and User:Demetrios1993 are both warned. (The war seems to have continued on 26 August while this report was open). Either user may be blocked if they edit the Gedik Ahmed Pasha article again without first getting a consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Ariel Schnee reported by User:Notfrompedro (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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: The last few included edit summaries such as "I can do this forever, can you?" and "Your Challenge, Accepted". They clearly intend to continue edit warring. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Dawnseeker2000 reported by User:Teratix (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Telstra is a technology company that provides telecommunications services, web hosting, and web design services."
 * 2)  "the website for Collingwood FC is not a "work" – the publisher here is Collingwood Football Club"
 * 3)  "please don't use that word"
 * 4)  "date format audit, minor formatting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Your change to Taylor Adams */ comment"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Your change to Taylor Adams */ new section"

Comments:

See also refusal to respond to The Drover's Wife's queries, raised independently (1) and further refusal to discuss on SuperJew's talk (2) – Teratix ₵ 08:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You really should have had SuperJew report me. That would have been rather cool to have his name here in two consecutive reports. Dawnseeker2000  08:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the intent here? Do you want to continue to talk about the situation or just have me blocked? Do you have any questions for me? Dawnseeker2000  08:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be up for long though. Just home from work and it's nearly 2 am. Dawnseeker2000  08:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to discuss the situation. But it's not really a discussion if you brush off editors' concerns and continually override others to re-insert your preferred version no matter their concerns. If you'd self-revert your latest edit, it would be much easier for me to believe you were genuinely committed to resolving the situation and not just constantly reinstating your edits. – Teratix ₵ 09:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you folks not aware that the style that I am using is being done en masse via the sources script and that that style is what's being used in featured FC articles? Dawnseeker2000  09:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As The Drover's Wife tried to explain to you, just because you're editing with a script doesn't exempt you from needing to justify your edits. – Teratix ₵ 09:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you just said that and I couldn't believe that he said it either. You know, saying those kinds of things implies that I'm stupid and I'm not taking that well. It's really not a good argument to make right up front. It really isn't. It isn't polite and is overly simplistic. I would like for both of you to apologize. And we probably should just start at the beginning shouldn't we?I think we should start with the idea that Telstra is or isn't a publisher. You folks seem to think that a technology company that is providing content management services to a football club somehow is their publisher. That is not correct. That is not how it's done on the encyclopedia. That would be like saying that books.google.com is the publisher for all the books that that website contains. If both of you don't apologize I'm going to abandon this discussion because I really just don't need to be treated that way.  Dawnseeker2000  09:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You yourself responded by saying the style that I am using is being done en masse via the sources script. I was merely pointing out why that fact alone doesn't justify refusing to respond to other editors' concerns. I'm certainly not insinuating you're stupid. – Teratix ₵ 10:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You both underestimated me right from the start. If either of you had done that to me face to face, you know, out on the street or something... I'd walk away from you. It looks like that's what I'm about to do here as well. Dawnseeker2000  10:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the content dispute, as per this article I linked on your talk page (and Tetratix linked here above), collingwoodfc.com.au has had a facelift and there's significant work under the hood too as we race into a new era of digital publishing. Working closely with our technology partner Telstra and digital media technology company Pulselive, we have transitioned to a new Content Management System – the tool we use to make our content come to life. Everything you know and love on collingwoodfc.com.au is now being published from this new system as we aim to take user-experience to the next level. It seems to me quite clear from this that Tesltra is the digital publisher. Regarding what you wrote That would be like saying that books.google.com is the publisher for all the books that that website contains. it seems to me actually exactly the opposite - books.google.com is a website, much like collingwoodfc.com.au is a website. --SuperJew (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But, as Tetratix said, more concerning than the content dispute is the lack of communication (only after multiple users reverted and asked you did you give any comment for discussion and also only after bringing it up to ANI are you engaging in a discussion) and the way you are responding: refusing to answer, telling users to find a reasonable explanation on their own, threatning to not continue communicating if you don't get your way (If both of you don't apologize I'm going to abandon this discussion because I really just don't need to be treated that way.), and also personal barbs (such as You really should have had SuperJew report me. That would have been rather cool to have his name here in two consecutive reports. above). --SuperJew (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This whole situation is exceptionally strange - they're edits that appear to be inexplicable and the user has explicitly refused to explain their editing and gotten quite aggressive when asked to do explain their edits by multiple users. I haven't even edited the article, but was just baffled by their editing, and had no more luck than anyone who had edited the article in getting any kind of explanation. This user's responses on this page are basically indicative of the problem. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen many lame edit wars on this page, and this dispute has joined their ranks. You're arguing over who is the publisher of a source, and you've let the matter become personal., I think you should do what you said and walk away from this dispute. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time. And I would lose the sarcasm directed at . SuperJew, you should not be labeling Dawnseeker2000's edits as vandalism; they are not. From a policy point of view, Dawnseeker2000 has not violated 3RR as his four reverts did not occur within a 24-hour period. The best thing for everyone to do now is not to comment further in this forum as I can't see anything but continued and unconstructive bickering. If anyone wants to discuss the ref dispute on the article Talk page, that would be great; I don't see anyone having done that.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How would you define this kind of edit? In which, there is removal of information (removal of ) which is unexplained (the edit summary date format audit, minor formatting is nor relevant to that removal of information)? I am seriously asking to better my editing. What would constitute vandalism? I do apologise to if my labelling of vandalism was uncalled for, though I was mostly trying to get an explanation of their edit and engage in discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It would have been better had Dawnseeker included the removal of the publisher parameter in his edit summary, but that hardly constitutes vandalism, at least not without assuming extremely bad faith, which I see no basis for here. Surely, you can think of better ways to seek an explanation for an edit than labeling it vandalism. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

User:SoonerFan4life67 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Both partially blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Pending return to Manchester United */ This isn't official yet"
 * 2)  "Not official"
 * 3)  "/* Return to Manchester United */"
 * 4)  "/* Return to Manchester United */"
 * 5)  "/* 2021–22: Request to leave */"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1040947982 by Flix11 (talk) Not official"
 * 7)  "/* 2021–22: Final appearance and request to leave */ Not Official"
 * 8)  "/* 2021–22: Final appearance and request to leave */"
 * 9)  "not official"
 * 1)  "/* 2021–22: Final appearance and request to leave */"
 * 2)  "not official"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Insisting transfer has not happened, even when it is already said "pending return" and "subject to medical". When others edited the current club, I reverted back to Juventus, hence my warning ("subject to medical etc." on infobox) We are on the same side, but I could not understand why are you insisting to erase announcement from official website as if the principal agreement has never done. Flix11 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Both editors partially blocked from editing the article for one week by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Pincrete reported by User:XavierItzm (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:. User Pincrete reverted twice a 476 byte edit as can be seen in the diffs below. The page is subject to the 1RR as per

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. The user was also advised to resolve dispute on his TP.

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

Comments:

User Pincrete reverted twice a 476 byte edit. XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Response from Pincrete First of all I would like to point out that XavierItzm was reporting here at 18.47 - before he had even read the most recent reply on my user page. Had he less keen to come here he might have seen my suggestion that he actually ADD the information to the article that an affiliate of ISIS (not ISIS itself) was widely considered to be the perpetrator of the Kabul airport attack. This is precisely what the Gdn source says which is used. I had already added ALL this info to the affiliate's article.

I don't believe I did two reverts, I substantially altered existing text, then removed it when I realised that it was accusing the ISIS affiliate (ISIS-KP), not ISIS itself, XavierItzm reverted my removal, I left a note for XavierItzm explaining the situation then reverted his reinstatement. He came to my talk page already threatening to come here and has not attempted to resolve the matter constructively.

IMO this is a gigantic waste of time, XavierItzm and I, and all the sources agree that an affiliate organisation of ISIS stands accused of perpetrating the Kabul attack. Personally I don't think it deserves to be in the lead of the ISIS page, it certainly shouldn't say ISIS itself stands accused, since sources don't say that, but I have no objection whatsoever to this being in the body of the ISIS article, but was neither willing nor able to put that text in myself as I had RL commitments at that time. If I'm to be punished for removing text which I had substantially written myself, before realising it was inaccurate, so be it, but it would make so much more sense to just write accurate text since AFAIK we all agree about who is accused of bombing Kabul. Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the material that Pincrete removed from the main ISIS article has now been added by him to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province. So, is it correct to say there is no continuing disagreement about either article? EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pincrete and I duly hashed out each other's reasons on Pincrete's TP. If you consider the diffs, it is abundantly clear that Pincrete twice in a matter of hours reverted the exact same 476 bytes of text   which had been added the day prior.  If Pincrete genuinely is convinced this is no big deal, Pincrete could self-revert and this case could be speedily closed.   I appreciate Pincrete conciliatory response on this page, but this enormous waste of time and resources is being caused because Pincrete failed to respect the 1RR rule and has afterwards repeatedly failed to self-revert despite ample opportunities to do so.  Thank you. XavierItzm (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I failed to self-revert because I did not consider the removal of text I had largely framed myself shortly before to be a revert. If it is, it's a very partial and 'technical' rather than substantive offence. More importantly, since it was a way forward for all PoVs, I invited XavierItzm to add NEW text to the body of the ISIS article making the claim that an ISIS affiliate organisation was responsible for the Kabul bombing (this is what the Guardian source - and all major sources - actually say). I was both unwilling and unable (I had to go out) to spend time framing such text myself. Such text STILL has not been added to the ISIS article, so I can only assume that XavierItzm's real interest is to run here to complain rather than to improve the ISIS article. Pincrete (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be a "gotcha" report more than a genuine report of disruptive activity. XavierItzm added some text which Pincrete edited heavily  and later removed, with an unclear edit summary which they later explained they intended to add to the article on the subgroup actually responsible for that statistc. XavierItzm then restored Pincrete's version  which Pincrete removed again. I see that as one revert each, but XavierItzm sees it as two. Pincrete tried to engage XavierItzm in a discussion about the content but XavierItzm keeps turning the discussion back to the revert, which I don't see as very productive here. I don't see what would be gained by admin action here, nor by continuing to count reverts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 08:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given Pincrete's conciliatory language here on this page, which I am grateful for, I do intend to restore and modify the text and references Pincrete obliterated, as Pincrete now no longer objects to it, on the whole.  I appreciate that following several interactions, Pincrete first conceded at 18:47 (following the creation of this report) that yes, the text he nuked does belong in one way or another... but until he reverts, absent this report, I would have put myself at hazard of community sanctions if I had added back the text.  Are 1RR rules not to be respected anymore? XavierItzm (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course rules should be respected, but consider that 1RR is a rule meant to encourage editors to discuss content rather than reverting, and you both are now starting to do so. Personally I think that better serves our purpose of building an encyclopedia, rather than blocking one of you over what you both seem to agree was an inadvertent, technical violation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. User:Ivanvector's analysis seems correct. User:Pincrete should be aware that rapid editing of articles under 1RR can sometimes lead to bad results, even if all your changes are made in good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:3Kingdoms (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Over the last few hours the User has 4 times reverted the page despite being properly sourced from reliable sources. They have been asked to stop repeatedly, but have refused.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My warning after the third revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: To their credit they made this, but only after they had already reverted 3 times. I also made my view clear on the edit history page of any issue, but they ignored it

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

'''This user has been violating 3rr or almost violating on multiple pages, despite repeated warnings to stop. I feel doing this is the only way for the user to stop with this course of action'''


 * Propose boomerang, I’m seeing 4 reverts from 3Kingdoms and they appear much less willing than Binksternet to work constructively to come to a consensus. Note the irony of the edit summary for the fourth revert “You just violated 3RR you are now going to be reported.” Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained multiple times the issue with their editing. I was more than happy to work with them, the User refused to explain or correct mistakes. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * None of that appears to be true. You also appear to be dodging the real issue here which is your edit warring. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I point-blanket explained why I added the primary source and the secondary source that mentioned Stone. Bink ignored that and then switched to accusing me of trying to discredit Stone, when I was simply adding what Oshinsky implied. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * . Binksternet has made four reverts in less than 24 hours and thereby violated 3RR. So has 3Kingdoms. Rather than block both users, I have fullprotected the page for 5 days. Please work to form a consensus on the talkpage. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC).
 * I thought that reverting someone who broke 3rr did not count as myself breaking 3rr, but if that is not the case I am sorry and will not do again.3Kingdoms (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:190.25.168.77 reported by User:Telenovelafan215 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nurses (Colombian TV series)."
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nurses (Colombian TV series)."
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nurses (Colombian TV series)."
 * 4)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nurses (Colombian TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nurses (Colombian TV series)."

Comments:

I have asked the user to add source for the cast members they are trying to add to the cast list. I asked in my edit summaries and on their talk pages but they refuse to add a reference or even reply back to my messages on their talk page. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

User:AlbionMike76 reported by User:122.150.83.215 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albion%2C_Victoria&type=revision&diff=1041090484&oldid=1041077852

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albion,_Victoria

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlbionMike76&type=revision&diff=1041092536&oldid=968785059 [diff]

Comments:


 * – 1 week. Long term edit warring about the amount of detail to include. Please use the talk page to discuss whatever the issues are and search for agreement. Consider WP:DR if no agreement can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

User:The Replicator reported by User:Deancarmeli (Result: Deancarmeli 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 article talk page:

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

Comments:

Deancarmeli (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: User:The Replicator keeps reverting edits on the page:   Your intervention, please. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Deancarmeli for 24 hours. The user does not explain the content dispute in this filing, but this is a rather significant case of WP:IDHT. There are at least two discussions going on about a template that Deancarmeli created a few days ago and is attempting to push into the article despite everyone saying that the template should not be used. Two discussions are relevant: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 29. The deletion discussion is about a different but related template.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:6C64:737F:9113:1CCC:9306:1ACA:6593 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1041303568 by Ifnord (talk)"
 * 2)  "No, he showed documentation proving it."
 * 3)  "Please check the news and stop vandalizing the page. I thought you were just making a simple error before, but now it's clear that you're trolling."
 * 4)  "Someone accidentally reverted the article to include outdated information."
 * 5)  "Updating the article, as Soulja Boy is the new owner of Atari."
 * 1)  "Please check the news and stop vandalizing the page. I thought you were just making a simple error before, but now it's clear that you're trolling."
 * 2)  "Someone accidentally reverted the article to include outdated information."
 * 3)  "Updating the article, as Soulja Boy is the new owner of Atari."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Introducing factual errors on Atari."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Atari."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit war regarding ownership */ new section"

Comments:

User:BhagyaMani and User:Shaan Vinoth reported by User:12.246.51.142 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

User:SuperJew reported by User:Flix11 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restore to stable version. should be kept this way unless deletion discussion consensus is to delete. removing them also skews the deletion discussion leading to false arguments such as "unused templates""
 * 2)  "consensus is currently to have it as currently and this is the stable version. should be kept this way unless deletion discussion consensus is to delete. removing them changes the deletion discussion leading to false arguments such as "unused templates""
 * 3)  "/* Group C */ ISRvAUS result"
 * 4)  "/* Group C */ use templates as consensus on men's tournament and previous tournaments"
 * 5)  "/* Group D */ use templates as consensus on men's tournament and previous tournaments"
 * 6)  "/* Final rounds */ name of round"
 * 7)  "/* Participating teams */ Turkey are defending championships of women's tournament"
 * 8)  "/* Group C */ RPCvCAN goalscorers"
 * 9)  "add Events at the 2020 Summer Paralympics"
 * 1)  "/* Group C */ RPCvCAN goalscorers"
 * 2)  "add Events at the 2020 Summer Paralympics"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * I am not sure why this is brought up the way it is. I have explained what I've done - reverting to the stable format per consensus from previous editions of the tournament until resolution of deletion discussion.
 * The article was originally created by based of the format used in previous editions of this tournament. Later  was bold and changed the page from template style to use of sections to be transcluded. A few days later  actually reverted the page back to templates, before reverting themselves back again with no explanation in either direction (couldn't find any talk page discussion either). My change cited above as diff 4 is irrelevant to this debate and I am perplexed why it was included. In diff 3 above I restored the page to use templates as consensus on men's tournament and previous tournaments. Flix11 then made the edit again claiming there are discussion to delete those. Until there is a consensus, we shall maintain both. - as far as I know, when there is a deletion discussion, we should leave the templates in use, since deleting them "because there is a deletion discussion" skews the discussion, as can be seen on the similar discussion where it says some are used on the Great Britain at the 2020 Summer Paralympics article. You might want to substitute it's usage since it underscores your nomination.
 * As we can see on the deletion discussion of the goalball templates, Sportsfan 1234 opened the discussion after substing the templates, therefore artificially creating the argument "the templates are unused". All in all per the WP:BRD cycle, after Sportsfan 1234 was reverted, they should've waited until the resolution of the deletion discussion before restoring their preferred edits over the format per consensus from previous editions of the tournament. --SuperJew (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Will be unused; Content is merged with primary article is not the same as the templates are unused. The consensus on Olympic related pages as per a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS and what was done on related articles was to use section headings not templates. The fact is this is a discussion on 3RR, not if a template should be used or not, and its clear to me that you have broken that rule. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is pretty clear that your intent would be to revert again, and only because reverted themselves that the 3 reverts is spread over two users. Also, we see you aren't going by WP:BRD. I think the best thing for all editors involved as well as for the Wikipedia, is to not turn this into a petty, personal, filibustering discussion about edits, but instead have a real discussion about the content dispute and come to a resolution (and I mean also to have it for all pages of the type - previous editions of tournament too, and not only this specific set) --SuperJew (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, how have I broken 3RR? There are only 3 reverts done here - count above. The fourth diff listed above is obviously unrelated to the issue at hand. --SuperJew (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

User:SquirrelCrown reported by User:77TynyCae (Result: Stale; 77TynyCae subsequently blocked one week for disruptive editing)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * This report is stale. Additionally, has not warned  of edit-warring; nor has 77TC notified SC of this report, despite the claim above that they have. If anything, 77TC should be blocked for their disruptive activity at the article and elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 77TC removed this report, which I (obviously) have reinstated. I've blocked 77TC for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

User:2001:1C02:21C:4B00:2406:438E:84D9:2916 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

IP hopper is disrupting and edit warring at Ahasuerus. All these IPs are clearly the same person. Not to mention this bigot comment of his; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahasuerus&diff=prev&oldid=1041591901 HistoryofIran as a moslim (perhaps) you have no place in this item unless very modestly. There are many other topics to concern you with.] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, it concerns:




 * Who have been reported at WP:SPI for WP:DENY. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for two weeks by El C. GABgab 21:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

User:122.161.212.209 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 48 hours; block increased to two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1041729225 by FlightTime (talk) We even need the edit request. Ok?"
 * 2)  "/* Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021 */ new section"
 * 3)  "/* Please add the following text... */ Re"
 * 4)  "/* Please add the following text... */"
 * 5)  "/* Please add the following text... */ Added"
 * 6)  "/* Please add the following text... */ Yes"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1041722883 by FlightTime (talk) Nope we have to add that text."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1041639094 by Martinevans123 (talk) Do not edit war. Stop it ok?"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 971797624 by El C (talk) Stop this edit warring ok?"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1041639094 by Martinevans123 (talk) Do not edit war. Stop it ok?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 971797624 by El C (talk) Stop this edit warring ok?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Please reply */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Yisrael Kristal."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "misplaced template"
 * 2)   "/* Please add the following text... */  Query"
 * 3)   "/* Please add the following text... */ ?"
 * 4)   "/* Please add the following text... */ Further"
 * 5)   "/* Please add the following text... */ wording"
 * 6)   "/* Please add the following text... */  Ping Admin"

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Block increased to two weeks (LTA) by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

User:User4721 reported by User:FDW777 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (also see comments underneath warning here)

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

Comments:

I haven't included the revert at 12:35 as that was immediately self-reverted, but then reinstated in diff #4. Inclusion critera for "terrorist incident" articles were decided by Rfc here, editor's addition doesn't meet the criteria. FDW777 (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   16:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

User:83.200.72.29 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1041499528 by M.Bitton (talk) Admin please !"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1041493741 by M.Bitton (talk) There is no permission to use YouTube in WP"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1041481775 by M.Bitton (talk) YouTube advertising ??????"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1041306129 by M.Bitton (talk) YouTube ¿?????????!!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Police Special Operations Group."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: may not be aware of WP:NOYT that official videos are acceptable. For example, videos published by the police or by a television news program on Youtube. However, the citations WP:CITE are insufficient. Using Cite AV media there should be author/people, publisher and date. A trans-title would be useful and language. I use work although its not in Cite AV media for example work=television program and publisher=television network. Several of the Youtube videos are by Ennahar TV. While "centurion dz" and "AllInfo DZ" don't seem to be official. "NumidiaTV" seems to be a television channel. I am not fluent in Arabic so don't know if "centurion dz" and "AllInfo DZ" are republishing videos from reliable sources WP:RS.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They have been made aware of that (despite the fact that it's nobody's responsibility to teach them), but they clearly are not interested. All they are after is the removal of sources (links to videos that have been published by their respective owners) while claiming all kind of nonsense (you can't use Youtube, advertising, copyvio and whatever else they could think of). They also ignored this report (after breaking the 3RR) and are now gearing up for edit wars on other articles (they swiftly reverted the admin who reverted their content removal). M.Bitton (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging, the editor who created all the articles that are being targetted by the IP. M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. For edit warring at two different articles to enforce a misunderstanding of policy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:76.89.124.220 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Career */You are so pathetic IJ Ball. You’re nothing but a woman hating loser."
 * 2)  "Reverted 8 edits by IJBall (talk): WP:Edit warring."
 * 3)  "Reverted 6 edits by IJBall (talk): Purely (and sexist because you hate women with shorter hair. She’s an adult not a child anymore) WP:DE."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Please check the discussion at Talk:Alyson Stoner"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:TheMightyGeneral reported by User:Steverci (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

TheMightyGeneral had previously expanded the article to be built almost entirely on citations from a self-published article written by Andrew Andersen and George Partskhaladze. Andersen formerly had a Wikipedia article that was deleted because he was deemed not to meet WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Partskhaladze apparently teaches "mashinery engineering" and is not a notable figure at all. The source also makes no mention at all of the persecution of Armenian civilians both before and during the war, despite having citations for sources that include this information. I brought this concern to the talk page, and Alaexis agreed that Andersen and Partskhaladze are not reliable sources. I also rewrote the article based on reliable sources and added the previously unmentioned information about civilian persecutions. Despite this, TheMightyGeneral continues to revert back to the Andersen-Partskhaladze. He also removed all the added information about Armenian civilian persecution and then re-added parts of it with MOS:ALLEGED language. Despite both Armenian and non-Armenian sources confirming the persecution of Armenian civilians, TheMightyGeneral continues to insist that this is a POV claim, although he hasn't been able to provide any reliable sources giving any reason to doubt the information, despite being asked to more than once. TheMightyGeneral has been warned on both the article talk page and his own talk page, but continues to restore the version with unreliable sources and delete reliable sources that confirm things he doesn't like. --Steverci (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Freepsbane reported by User:Crossroads (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Original addition of Gorski material
 * Original addition of tag after "prominent journalists" sentence
 * Original addition of advert tag
 * Original addition of "Mey Rude" attribution

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1041904937 by Crossroads (talk) science based medicine and a world leading professor is not Undue weight on a medical source see wp:medpop please do not delete sources" (Gorski)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1041902589 by Crossroads (talk)please review them they are by Singal’ and published by him. Check the sources before blanking" (Gorski)
 * 3)  "/* Writing about transgender issues */ true, although now it’s undue as neither meet basic and both proclaim to have connections with him so until you can get an NYT saying the same, it’s questionable to claim someone who hasn’t been published in years is world leading because two people connected to him said so" (Prominent journalist tag)
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1041885423 by Colin M (talk) I suggest you take it up on the deletion page. A book with minimal reception and minimal sales should not be getting a huge promotion section. Else you should give the 999,99th ranking book (more notable than signal’s) a page as well along with every book more notable" (Advert tag)
 * 5)  "/* Writing about transgender issues */ at the very least attributing the hyperbolic claims to the authors avoids weasel wording. That said, I don’t think prominent journalist could ever reasonably be said for someone who hasn’t been published in years" ("Mey Rude")

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's a discussion here, but there's a lot going on in this article

Comments:

Overall, very much looks to be a case of WP:Tendentious editing, coupled with some very sketchy edits regarding BLP. This, for example, dishonestly fails to mention that in those very tweets, Singal was talking about 15 errors in Gorski's own site's coverage of the topic; it also ignores that Gorski has zero training or experience in pediatric gender medicine as well. Freepsbane threatened me with admin action after I gave them a 3RR warning. They were then condescending on my user page and tried to pass off an essay as a policy. Crossroads -talk- 06:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:JorgeLaArdilla reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: User blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "not true"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1041935429 by Kleuske (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1041745668 by TrangaBellam (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Content removal */ Replying to JorgeLaArdilla (using reply-link)"
 * 2)   "/* Content removal */ Replying to JorgeLaArdilla (using reply-link)"

Comments:

Please see the edit-history of the page which speaks for itself. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * --RegentsPark (comment) 20:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Ormegan reported by User:ProcrastinatingReader (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have put the explanation which is in line the Wikipedia rules so please stop bullying people Iliveaphisics. What is your argument to put tabloid news in an encyclopaedia and btw everyone has the right to contribute to Wikipedia."
 * 2)  "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid."
 * 1)  "I have put the explanation which is in line the Wikipedia rules so please stop bullying people Iliveaphisics. What is your argument to put tabloid news in an encyclopaedia and btw everyone has the right to contribute to Wikipedia."
 * 2)  "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid."
 * 1)  "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk -- editor did not reply
 * 2) BLPN

Comments:

Account is an SPA, incidentally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Überfranke reported by User:StarryNightSky11 (Result: Article fully protected three days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1042038333 by 80.39.138.40 (talk) - Undo vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1042036660 by 80.39.138.40 (talk) - Undo vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undo vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undo (vandalism)"
 * 5)  "Typo"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1041983973 by 212.145.95.187 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Sources added"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1041983973 by 212.145.95.187 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Sources added"
 * 1)  "Sources added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Misleading edit summaries when edits are problematic instead of being helpful StarryNightSky11  (talk)  22:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been fully protected for three days by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Dealer07 reported by User:Jochem van Hees (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1042038684
 * 2) Special:Diff/1042040756
 * 3) Special:Diff/1042058165

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: basically this entire talk page discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1042045051

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1042062692

Comments:

This user made a bold edit, got reverted by me, and then started edit warring, insisting that there was no good reason for my revert. To prevent an edit war I took to the talk page, where I have spent the past two hours explaining to them what edit warring means, and they clearly still don't understand anything. When I tried a status quo revert because the discussion was taking a long time, I was again reverted. We have now both hit the three revert limit and I don't want to make this edit war escalate. The only possible solution I see is blocking either the user or the page. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * While posting the ANI notice I found out that this user has been warned numerous times before, and was brought to ANI twice before (here and here). Thought that might be worth noting. Anyway have fun with this mess. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, this user only insists in their opinion and for the past 2 hours have not observed neither any of my arguments nor my proposal of waiting for other editors to express their opinions on the subject before reaching a consensus. Hope you study the subject thoroughly and not block me just because of the aforementioned request. Thank you in advance. &horbar;Dealer07 (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

User:LoudSecret123 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You a b*tch, go f*ck yourself. You're removing important information about my fetish. If you had this fetish then you would understand."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1042131030 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1042130533 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1041204782 by Grayfell (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Original research */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* August 2021 */  As before"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor seems to prefer using edit summaries to communicate: "You a b*tch, go f*ck yourself. You're removing important information about my fetish. If you had this fetish then you would understand." shortly followed by this edit where they say it's not a personal attack.

Also this one: "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fat_fetishism&diff=prev&oldid=1042130888 "Grey. I know this is unsourced, because there is no source. This wiki is the main information for Fat Fetishism on the internet meaning it is valuable and important. Fat fetisism is taboo on a societal standard, and therefore information is scarce and public understanding is minimal. Sources don't exist because it people don't think differently of fat fetishism then no sources will be made. Fat fetisism is apart of people sexuality. I will fight for that truth, no matter how many edits of this."] etc.

I recently filed a SPI for this user. Sockpuppet investigations/Vanillablu As I do not think this editor is new, I am not inclined to humor them any more on talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to mention that LoudSecret123 called another editor "some idiot" and seems to be using every edit summary they can to insult others. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure I'm that idiot. If this is part of the sock-farm, this is par for the course, as that sock farm cranks everything up to 11 immediately and seems to hold grudges. If not, it's hard to imagine this editor being a benefit to the project, at least until they can control their temper. Grayfell (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Indef for edit-warring to include unsourced material and personal abuse, as well as probably being somebody's sock.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1042078683 by Johnbod Restored RS content."
 * 2)  "Restored reliably-sourced content deleted by incompetent editor who thinks "What!" is a valid edit summary. It is not controversial, e.g., that "the Koran does not command the destruction of images of other faiths," and certainly not that Time reported as much (with attribution)."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1042000106 by TrangaBellam Restored sourced content."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

Comments:

I have never met someone so aggressive: termed me as a "vandal" and "incompetent editor" who is an "obvious meat/sock-puppet" of another user. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , they were blocked for two months, two years ago, by User:Sandstein for NPA (and TBan) violations. This lashing out at fellow editors might be a long-term pattern. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies if you are already aware. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

User:PMP1301 reported by User:DEFCON5 (Result: Blocked indefinite)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: tried to discuss the issue here

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

Comments:

The said user claims to be working for a company related to the subject of the article. I tried to explain the said user about guidelines like MOS:PUFFERY and WP:CITE. Even Yappy2bhere tried to explain the user about editing guidelines but he claims us to be working in nexus. defcon5 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * for UPE as well as edit warring. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Hjk1106 reported by User:Flix11 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1042320478 by Flix11 (talk) blatant lack of ASG is incredibly rude, you've just shown unable to reason with. This format best suits women's football as transfer means and contract lengths are less transparent. Released can be added to notes without comprehensively trying to detail it for each which isn't possible"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1042319696 by Flix11 (talk) citing usage in a different article is not a reason to worsen another"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1042319311 by Flix11 (talk) not an improvement"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1042281870 by Flix11 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Pot kettle, you've engaged in the exact same behaviour yet shown no attempt to provide reason for your actions other than "this is the way it should be" whereas I have repeatedly expanded on reasons for my edits. Try actually being collaborative with your editing rather than attempting to immediately block anyone who has a different pov. It's thinnly veiled overlitigation and intimidation at best. Hjk1106 10:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider both of you to be warned. Further disruption could lead to either or both of you being blocked. Use the talk page to discuss your edits. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time for Flixx11: User_talk:Flix11
 * Could someone take a look at these contributions and seek an opinion on the suspicion there may be block evading going on? What I've seen on User talk:Flix11 on the block review is about updating Paralympics related articles (which is exactly what happened to four articles) and then updating the 2021–22 FA WSL six times, page history on the league competition page and Liu Yutong suggests I am suspicious about this new account being a block evading type.
 * This is a turn-up for the books. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:93.138.142.12 reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: IP is attempting to add the Battle of Maritsa to the list article per the diffs below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 07:39, 31 August 2021 93.142.95.48 (talk) (→‎Medieval era) Initial addition that was challenged per list inclusion criteria.
 * 2) Revision as of 09:03, 31 August 2021 93.142.95.48 (talk) (Add other source)
 * 3) Revision as of 19:38, 31 August 2021 93.142.95.48 (talk) (Stop deleting sources from reliable books, all three sources say it was a military disaster.)
 * 4) Revision as of 03:52, 1 September 2021 93.138.142.12 (talk) (See talk page. That no additional sources are put here.)
 * 5) Revision as of 04:17, 1 September 2021 93.138.142.12 (talk) (You say this not historians and sources, see talk page)
 * 6) Revision as of 06:55, 1 September 2021 93.138.142.12 (talk) (Let's go to edit war so let the administrator decide. Don't act like a dictator here. Not to acknowledge reliable sources and reliable historians and to scold what will be written here. You have no consensus to delete reliable sources.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (see current and previous for both)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page discussion opened at Talk:List of military disasters initiated here

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

Comments:

The list inclusion criteria are given in the article lead per consensus at Talk:List of military disasters. Talk was initiated by. There are also matters of conduct that have been raised at Talk:List of military disasters by another edit and the edit comment made in diff 6. The IP opened this thread: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The IP appears to be partisan WRT the topic/geography. I believe that the topic of the edits is probably subject to ARCOM DS. The IP appears to have a knowledge beyond a novice editor that raises concerns as to the legitimacy of the IP. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Cinderella157 I think you should report yourself here for violating wikipedia's rule, not me. Let the administrators see that you are acting like a dictator and that it is just your editing page. User:Cinderella157 It does not acknowledge reliable historians who write as they are Caroline Finkel, John Julius Norwich, Richard C. Hall, Sedlar Jean W. And it wants to determine what will be written on wikipedia and what will not. Ignoring what is written in the sources of reliable historians 93.138.142.12 (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Read wp:editwar, you did violate it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * All right, Slatersteven, I broke that rule, so let him punish me. But what about those who do not acknowledge reliable sources and these historians? Their only goal is to erase what is written and to write only what suits them.93.138.142.12 (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See wp:npa, you need to show they are breaking the rules (wp:ani is the place to do it, note I advise against it, but this is not the place to say why).Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And with this [] you have just blown through 3RR and come out other side. Its time for sanctions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The IP made this edit summary "Let's go to edit war so let the administrator decide" so they knew full well they were edit warring and didn't care. Notfrompedro (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And they are still at it [], they need a block to stop the disruption, as it is clear they will continue until they get one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping edit warrior. The Battle of Maritsa falls under discretionary sanctions, though it would be impractical to invoke those sanctions against a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:93.138.63.81 reported by User:FDW777 (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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: User:93.138.63.81 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they try to add the term 'Pyrrhic victory' to the infobox of the article on a battle unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. The current wording of WP:MILMOS advises against the use of the 'Pyrrhic' terminology in infoboxes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Kettleonwater reported by User:Throast (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:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

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

Comments:

The dispute is regarding poorly sourced and unconstructive edits. The user reported has admitted adding original research in their first edit, yet persists that it should remain. Consensus seeking was taking place at the article talk, during which the user reverted for a fourth time. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 01:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is useless to do a scrutinizing consensus vote for two small lines of text at the moment considering the page is still under construction and information changes all the time. However, since you are so hung up about two small important pieces of information, and have gone to the length to report me here over information and explaining the purpose of a review (which possibly indicates YOU have bias), I will humor you and create a consensus vote in the talk page. You also said that my source was secondary, not original, but you seem to be a trigger-happy bureau for targeting an edit consisting of 25 words. Here is my reasoning as before:
 * "I even agree with you that the first source whether primary or secondary is not fully reliable, but there is a important reason for keeping it to improve the article (because the album's content has changed), and it can be easily independently verified ("A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", and this can be easily done by anyone by listening and comparing the former edit with the new edit, for example, it is easy to tell the fadeout of 24 is now completely removed comparing the earlier version). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I am not saying "Donda will release on [DATE HERE]", I am saying "There will most likely be a better source to replace this one soon" - even if self-published, the existing source IS verifiable by the listener. Ignoring the rules here for the meantime will add important information to the article, and as information about the album grows over the next few weeks (since this source proves a post-release edit) there will be significantly better sources for most information already present on the page.
 * As for the second source, I removed the initial bias, leaving only the remark about the reasoning for the zero star. No unnecessary weight is given, as the reason is directly in the headline: "Marilyn Manson’s inexcusable presence leaves a sour taste that no amount of gospel can cleanse". I do not think opening a consensus poll for this is necessary as these two points comprise only two sentences of the page. A section talking about the Independent review above starts mentioning "criticism of Manson and DaBaby's appearance", as a reason to deny it from the table, and while I no longer think it should ("a review is a review"), it remains it was the reason the topic was brought up, so I don't think people will disagree with it being cited as the reason for the zero stars (again, read the article). I noticed the article's headline does not mention DaBaby, however, so I will remove him." Kettleonwater (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Kettleonwater is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Donda (album) unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the review, but in what way exactly has the user been warned? At least I don't see a new message on their talk page. Or are you referencing my warnings? I'm only concerned about this because I believe that, without a proper warning, the user might be persuaded to continue their behavior. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 19:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just stop lol. I already know from this warning what I should have done - call direct consensus instead of wasting my time with you like I did, I just thought my edits were too small for someone to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I guess not for your type. I am fine with the other editors views, because they gave reasonable evaluations and compromises, instead of a patronising shut down. All your behavior does is disincentivize new edits by new users. Kettleonwater (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you being so openly hostile towards me does anyone any good. In my first revert, I pointed to specific policies which you could and should have addressed on the talk right then and there. You chose to edit-war and avoid consensus-seeking because you deemed it useless. I hope that, in the future, if someone reverts your edits, you don't view it as a "patronizing shut down" but as an attempt to do what's right and an invitation to initiate a productive discussion. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 21:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:95.69.125.28 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Block, Protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1042007964 by CodeTalker (talk) What's happening?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1042006793 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) At least give a valid reason, That's just unlawful ahd  undemocratic."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1042005211 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) It is reliable if the user only had that platform to expose it. Imagine if it was like this, then it would be erased in a matter of a second. It's legitimate if you actually read it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1042004372 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) i've put a legitimate source yet was denied because it was an external link... What I am supposed to do?"
 * 5)  "it shouldn't be allowed for people associated with Wotc to edit important information about their company."
 * 6)  "At least give a valid reason, That's just unlawful ahd undemocratic."
 * 7)  "What's happening?"
 * 8)  "This isn't something that belongs to a talk page, belongs to the public. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Public information, not private. The consumers need to know, end of discussion,"
 * 9)  "No reason, no nothing, just like your masters, alienated dogs who steal from the working force. You're a disgusting piece of s."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Stale revert-warring of unsourced negative claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP account has continued to edit war. I added the latest examples since they've slipped into incivility. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked, but I protected the page for a few hours in case they try another IP or created a throwaway account. BOZ (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring by User:GeneralNotability. Page semiprotected three hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:442:4600:8f20:3d62:9619:3ead:9121/ User:2601:442:4600:8f20:6d64:f7db:2380:e3a6 reported by wolf (Result: Partially blocked and semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: /

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (9121)
 * 2)  (9121)
 * 3)  (E3A6)
 * 4)  (E3A6)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) (initial notice of policy - E3A6)
 * 2) (actual warning template - 9121)
 * 3) (cross-notification to E3A6)

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * (E3A6)
 * (9121)

Comments: Straight 4RR vio (in less than 24hrs), with a clear intent to continue reverting to their preferred version. User, initially with IP ending with E3A6, then with 9121, was hostile on the article talk from the outset, refusing to engage in any meaningful dialog while using repeated personal attacks. After their 4th revert, they stated their intention to not discuss any further. They have refused to respond to posts to either IP-user talk pages and haven't acknowledged the possibility of an alternative solution to the issue or WP:DR. -  wolf  21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (partially, from Longest recorded sniper kills) and article semi-protected for six months. This has been going on for a while now. I have no views on the CSA/USA business, but edit wars over flag decorations are among WP's most tiresome afflictions. I realize that the semi-protection effectively is the same outcome as the partial block, but with the straight-up 3RR violation, the sanction should be made.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Koikefan reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: diff Request that the user finds the sources for the additions they are making. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, I removed the unsourced content on a BLP. The only reply I got was on my talkpage suggesting I should Google this info myself!

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

Comments:


 * The information I added to the article is basic information (in fact, I have now provided the references). In fact, the awards information I "added" was already in the article, in the Notes section of the director's filmography; I simply created a new section collecting the information (so an interesting question: why did this editor not remove that information from the Filmography section as well?).


 * They want references for the information I added? Please take a look at the Recognition section of the article. That section has references for the Best Director win at Cannes, the nomination of Captive at Berlin, and the nomination of Thy Womb for the Golden Lion. So that basically means half of the information I "added" (which, again, was information already contained in the article before I even started editing it) already had references. How can this editor justify deleting information that already has references? Could the only justification be that they did not read the very article they have decided to revert and simply had a bout of trigger-happiness with the revert button?


 * Consider the following contained in the link this user sent me: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Was I given time to add these references or was the information simply removed because the editor 1) is incapable of waiting 2) unable to realize that the information added was already in the article (fully referenced in half of the cases) and what I was doing was simply adding a new section (suggesting they don't even read the articles whose edits they choose to revert) and 3) can't do a simple Google search? I find it funny how I am accused of edit warring—shouldn't this editor have exercised good judgment and stopped reverting the content after the first 1 or 2 times they did so? They reverted the content 4 times! How is that not an escalation of edit warring? If I am guilty of edit warring, then so are they.


 * To summarize: this editor reverted information 100% of which was already in the article (so it's arguable whether they can be described as additions) and 50% of which already had references. Koikefan (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Without comment to the edit warring report itself, an editor's response to a request for sources should never, ever, be "just Google it". The burden is on the individual adding or changing the content to ensure it is reliably sourced, and this is especially critical for BLPs.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I will now take back my counsel for them to do a Google search. Instead, I will direct them to read the article and realize that I neither changed content nor added anything to it that wasn't already in it. Thanks. Koikefan (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Swift&diff=1039437573&oldid=1039435340

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1042001494 by Amaury (talk) Please don't revert, until there has been reached consent"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1041853883 by Bettydaisies (talk) Can't you stop with your edit war? Don't add it the part, until there's an consent"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1041531952 by KyleJoan (talk) I don't agree to this. I'm very open to discuss it in the talk page too"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1041503329 by Bettydaisies (talk) It's still ONE perspective from ONE critic, so it shouldn't be included, because it's misleading. Like I said, Swift didn't invent writing about personal and vulnerable experiences"
 * 5)  "This is a critic's perspective and not a common narrative. Female artists sang about their exes long before Swift even was an artist."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also and. Has been reverted by three different editors, including myself, and yet continues to edit war. Amaury • 08:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This slow moving edit war has been ongoing for several days now. I believe in total, Mirrored7 has tried to implement their edit five times in the last four days and although there has been no 3RR violation, this has still been disruptive. Mirrored7 was given three warnings about edit warring for their behavior on the Taylor Swift article in the past few days:, including an express warning that even edit wars that do not violate 3RR can still violate the edit warring policy. Mirrored7 responded to all three warnings by removing them from their talk page and continuing to revert, showing that they are going to do whatever they can to maintain their preferred version of the page no matter what anyone else says.
 * I also note that Mirrored7 should be well aware of the edit war policy: they've been blocked for edit warring five times in the last 18 months and have received two other edit warring notices besides the three noted here since their last block in April. I do believe this editor is editing in good faith and have told them so in the past, but if 5 prior blocks and dozens (I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that) of edit warring warnings won't stop them from edit warring, I'm not sure what will (a topic ban from music-related articles maybe?). Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the older diffs to the report. I hope that's OK with you, please feel free to revert me if you disagree. Aoi (青い) (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. Mirrored7 has engaged in a long term pattern of edit warring about popular music. This is now the sixth time they have been blocked for edit warring since March 2020. The last block was for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Medyawatch reported by User:Kevo327 (Result: Medyawatch and IP blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User:

'''Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

'''attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no diffs, user repeatedly ignores calls to discuss per WP:BRD or calls to reach consensus in edit summaries.

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

Comments:

User also edited while loged out to try to circumvent 3RR. - Kevo3 2 7 (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Medyawatch and IP blocked 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Iylaq reported by User:Cwmhiraeth (Result: Two editors 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: [link]

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

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

Comments:


 * – 48 hours to User:Iylaq and to Special:Contributions/2A04:4A43:4D7E:6C97::/64. This dispute was also reported at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

40.133.142.193 reported by User:Twixister (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Acid Queen
 * 2) Goodbye to the Island
 * 3) Bonnie Tyler
 * 4) Neon Hitch

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user doesn't communicate on talk pages

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User_talk:40.133.142.193

Comments: This user from this IP address consistently makes unsourced edits on numerous pages. They usually don't provide source, but when they do it's from websites like Genius or they say refer to iTunes. They've been warned by various users on their talk page about disruptive editing, but there is no response. Instead of providing proof of edits from just one page, I listed the revision history page for a few articles which this IP address has made edits that other users have reverted. Twixister (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP editor is warned. They may be blocked the next time they make an unsourced edit on an article about music or musicians. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)