Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441

User:BUDFJDK reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Indefinite partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1046415361 by Masterhatch (talk) relevant information on claims to Bir Tawil is being removed without sufficient reason"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1046413574 by Masterhatch (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1046412189 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1046411203 by Bonadea (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1046407635 by Masterhatch (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bir Tawil."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."
 * 3)   "/* September 2021 */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There have been plenty of talk page discussions over a period of several years, and there is a robust consensus against including the kind of claims BUDFJDK keeps adding. BUDFJDK has been pointed to that consensus, several times. bonadea contributions talk 15:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely from editing Bir Tawil. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

User:212.70.245.180 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1046440096 by Sjö (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1046439284 by Notfrompedro (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1046438187 by Notfrompedro (talk)"
 * 4)  "better with these girls"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

User:LambdofGod reported by User:SnowFire (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Old version Diff of LambdofGod's original bold edit

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: Talk:Henri de Tonti

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

Comments:

LambdofGod is an Italian nationalist editor out to say that every famous person in history with a vague connection to Italy was Italian, even with none-to-shaky sources (see additions to Charlemagne talking about how he was secretly descended from Romans from the Italian peninsula sourced to rootsweb (not a reliable soruce) diff or really any of their contributions. To be sure, this is not always incorrect, but Tonti in particular has a very loose connection to Italy (lived hundreds of years before Italy existed, served the Kingdom of France, wrote in French, etc.).  Opened a talk page discussion and happy to work with him if he can provide solid, reliable sources, but he prefers to just do a slow-moving revert war instead without discussion, here and on other articles.  SnowFire (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Joker Twins reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* List of monarchs */There is no any independent page called "List of New Zealand monarchs", so remove it. I sincerely ask every rollbackers: The sentence after my edit is so fluent and accurate, without any problem or mistake. Why you revert my edit again and again without any proper reasons?"
 * 2)  "/* List of monarchs */There is no any independent page called "List of New Zealand monarchs", so remove it. What's the problem about the sentence after my edit? Please don't revert my edit without any proper reason, which may seem to so random."
 * 3)  "/* List of monarchs */There is no any independent page called "List of New Zealand monarchs", so remove it. What's the problem about the sentence after my edit? Please don't revert my edit without any proper reason, which may seem to so random."
 * 4)  "/* List of monarchs */There is no any independent page called "List of New Zealand monarchs". "After that New Zealand gradually gets its full sovereignty" means New Zealand gets its full sovereignty step by step since its proclamation of dominion status in 1907. The rollbackers, can you learn English well? The meaning of the sentence is so simple."
 * 5)  "/* List of monarchs */Please let the rollbackers to clarify the enough and proper reasons to prove my edit really makes no sense. Don't rever my edit without any proper reason, which may seem to so random."
 * 6)  "/* List of monarchs */The sentence after my edit is so fluent and accurate. The original sentence indicates the Dominion of New Zealand ended, however it still continues and exists. Please let the rollbackers give the enough and proper reasons to prove my edit really makes no sense, if they insist on reversion. If the rollbackers can do, I may accept. Otherwise, the rollbackers' reversion may seem to unreasonable, unreliable, ridiculous and random."
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 1)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring is also taking place at Dominion of New Zealand. CMD (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

User:46.2.60.185 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Said IP has decided to add ethnicity to the lead of the article, which violates MOS:Ethnicity. IP has also made ethnic additions to other articles as well.Xerxes of Sophene and Zariadres.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * IP has made even more reverts ever since this section was opened. Just added those diffs. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And another revert by the IP! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. Edit warring at multiple articles and no usage of talk pages. Most of the IP's edits are being reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

User:StalwartGrantist reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1046051753 by HistoryofIran (talk) Added correct flag of Pahlavi Iran for infobox "Succeeded by." Added template:History of Azerbaijan. The Pahlavi Iran article itself states that its official ENGLISH name was "Imperial State of Persia" until 1935 (When Reza Shah requested that it be changed to match the native endonym "Iran"). This article should match that pattern, since Qajar immediately preceded Pahlavi."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1046047759 by HistoryofIran (talk) "Persia" was the official ENGLISH name of the country used by foreign powers in correspondence with Qajar Iran (this is an English-language article). The Qajars and the rest of the Qizilbash were Persianized/Iranicized Shia Oghuz Turks living in Persia/Iran (i.e. the basic modern definition of ethnic Azerbaijanis)."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1046045894 by LouisAragon (talk) It has to do with the classification of the Qajar tribe, which includes the Qajar royal dynasty, as Azerbaijanis. It's the source used in the Qajar Tribe's wiki article"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1045989564 by Excommunicato (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* AA2 advisory */"
 * 2)   "/* 3RR */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Said editor is using an ethnographic source from 1994 that specifically deals with the Russian Empire and Soviet Union to press a pro-Azerbaijani narrative, in violation of WP:DUE, WP:RS and WP:VER, on an article about a historic Iranian realm. They are persistent in changing "of Turkic origin", into "Azerbaijani Oghuz Turkic origin", and are also trying to add "Template:History of Azerbaijan" to the article. Zero attempts have been made by said user to open a talk page section in order to reach a WP:CON (thus structurally violating WP:BRD in addition to WP:WAR). It must be noted that said user, although being registered on Wikipedia for a year, has already received numerous warnings by other editors within a relatively short time span, as can be seen on their talk page, so I believe this is more than just an overal issue in relation to sheer edit-warring and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:StalwartGrantist is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Qajar Iran unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Zifmer reported by User:KoA (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Sept 18, last rough clean version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:20, September 26
 * 2) 16:30, September 26
 * 3) 16:50, September 26
 * 4) 20:08, September 26

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:

There have been issues with Zifmer edit warring and avoiding the talk page recently in a few different content streams, and especially today until another editor cautioned them about their behavior here. However, after a brief talk page comment, they made the fourth revert reinserting disputed sources (e.g., trying to use PETA as source in the lead). I provided the 3RR template and notified them they were actually at four reverts. Their response two minutes after was to start blanking their talk page instead of undoing their last revert, and there has been no response since.

I'd usually wait longer than an hour before escalating here, but that response is concerning enough I thought it was better to ask for help here considering I'm short on time today, and the behavior from this editor is looking to be a time sink on multiple fronts. Thanks. KoA (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Zifmer here. Apologies for the multiple reverts. I am new to editorial disputes and can see how my actions can be described as edit warring. I previously responded to an editor with whom I had a disagreement and started a Talk section on Culture for that dispute. I have also responded to KoA in the Talk in the Lede section and undid my 4th revert. At this point, I will stop editing the Meat page to allow proper time for other editors to reach a consensus on the page. Zifmer (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the above and Zifmer's self-revert to show good faith, no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User:176.92.33.89 reported by User:Notfrompedro (Result: Partial block, 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:


 * from Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020 article only. IP is free, and encouraged, to discuss the matter on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:98A:4100:76:1E83:1694:B251:8AF2 reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* September 2021 */"

Comments:

No attempt at discussion or anything (not even edit summaries) despite me explaining clearly to them that their edits are disinformation. Clearly WP:NOTHERE in addition to the disruption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one week by another admin per WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Gkl329Hf293 reported by User:Elwoz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I did not post anything on the article talk page myself, but I did post on the user's talk page, inviting them to discuss their reversions with me on the article talk page. This seemed more likely to get their attention, since the user appears to be new and might not be familiar with talk pages. They responded by blanking their talk page,, and reverting the article again (revert #4 above).

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

Comments:

Looking at this user's contributions, they appear also to be reverting (e.g. ) and I wonder whether  and  and  are the same person.

Elwoz (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * While I was writing this notice, edited for the first time ever — to perform the exact same revert that Gkl329Hf293 has been performing:  Elwoz (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I got all you noted and more. They are all blocked and tagged. Please let me know if I missed any or if new ones show up. Note that they edited quite a few different articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I listed all the socks I knew about, will keep an eye out for new ones. Elwoz (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Now filed at Sockpuppet investigations/EAXAE. (I updated the name of the sock case). EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User:119.74.173.81 reported by User:Robertsky (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Career */One sided account, such as leaving out Rafael Poliquit's and other witness statements stating that Ashley Liew did not slow down. Matter is before the High Court of Singapore."
 * 2)  "One sided account, such as leaving out Rafael Poliquit's and other witness statements stating that Ashley Liew did not slow down. Matter is before the High Court of Singapore."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1046736090 by Robertsky (talk)"
 * 4)  "Matter before Singapore High Court."
 * 5)  "Matter before Singapore High Court. Also irrelevant to career."
 * 6)  "/* Career */Fixed typo"
 * 1)  "Matter before Singapore High Court. Also irrelevant to career."
 * 2)  "/* Career */Fixed typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Censorship of material on Soh Rui Yong."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Soh Rui Yong ‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

ip editor has been trying to censor information out from the BLP. despite claims that it is one-sided for excluding BLP's own witness' statements, the information presented on the page seems fair since no witness' statements of both parties have been written. No resolution on talk page initiated as the information has been included for a second time (first was by another editor, independently, which was reverted by the same ip). The ip editor has continued to revert without additional valid justifications in their edit summaries despite being after level 4 warning have been given by another editor on their talk page. – robertsky (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

User:BeŻet reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Removing relevant tags
 * 2)  Removing relevant tags, restoring questionable content
 * 3)  Removing relevant tags. If that edit isn't deemed substantial enough, the next two edits  (removing tag from a clearly unreliable source) and  (POVing added text) most definitely are.
 * 4)  Straight up revert
 * 5)  More WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal. Note the false edit summary - the information is sourced to the RAND source given in the paragraph.

Arguably this is a SIXTH revert, where BeZet moved text I added to an inappropriate section, but we're so far beyond 3RR that it doesn't really matter.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (removed by editor) and subsequently

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion here, here, here and here. BeZet's comments have been mostly of the "no, you're just wrong" and "I proved you wrong" (uh, no) or simply asserting that they get to decide what the article looks like - which is a pretty clear indication of a WP:OWN problem here. Some of the comments by BeZet honestly make me feel like they're just messing with me - here they pretend they don't understand what the issue is but say "if you would like to add more details (...) I will welcome those additions" yet they quickly remove/revert any such additions. This appears like just a WP:TENDENTIOUS tactic to wear someone out. This comment is in similar vein: hey let's debate... while I revert every single edit you make to the article hahaha! Come on. Who has time for this. Then this degenerated into BeZet adopting a condescending, insulting tone and telling me to "calm down" (I was and am perfectly calm - I just got done writing up a dozen different detailed explanations as to the objections on content). Here they double up and repeat it and add in an insult and a personal attack calling me "an angry child" (probably doesn't need to be said but I am neither angry nor a child) and adopts a further belligerent tone. As anyone who's been involved in a disagreement knows very well, telling the other person to "calm down", which automatically insinuates that the other person isn't calm, is a pretty standard tactic of trying to get someone riled - i.e. to not be calm. Then this was followed by more comments which discuss the editor and not the content.

Overall BeZet has made almost zero effort to actually discuss the issues raised (they finally made one substantial comment after I had to ask them to respond like six times) but has instead chosen to focus on discussing the editor involved rather than content while trying to force their way in the article through multiple reverts.

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

Comments:


 * I have already self-reverted one of the reverts that I didn't count, which takes me to three reverts. I explained to Marek how reverts work, as he wrongly counted them. Some of my reverts were around Marek removing sourced content he didn't like. However, you can go to the Talk page of the article about Socialism and see his unwieldy behaviour (which at least two editors criticized), which he even didn't resist expressing here. You can see for yourself how I was "insinuating" that he wasn't calm. BeŻet (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, just to add, I would appreciate if you didn't take his description of the situation at face value, and looked at the Talk page filled with his ALL CAPS, bolding and underlining of text, frequent loling, expressions how "ridiculous" certain paragraphs are, exclamations etc. to get a better picture. I'm not going to attempt to describe it myself and leave others to decide. BeŻet (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You restored one measly tag (just now) after you’ve undone almost every single addition I tried to make to the article. Note that those five reverts above only show the Diff for the FIRST edit in a sequence (the “official” revert) but each one is followed by a number of subsequent edits which also undo other editor’s work. If you made say, seven, consecutive edits (all of them undoing someone else’s edits), then yes, only the first one counts as a revert, but you can’t just self revert that first one out of seven and claim “oh look Im back down to only three reverts”. Sorry, but that seems like a pretty blatant attempt at WP:GAME.
 * If you’re serious about self reverting (and then making an effort to actually work out a suitable solution on talk) then you should self revert to a version before you went on a revert ping spree. Such as this one (I can re add my later edits after that so you don’t have to worry about it).
 * And no, I didn’t falsely count the reverts. You just claimed I did, which forced me to explain and show explicitly in detail on your talk page how the edits I listed actually weren’t “consecutive” (despite your false claim). This is actually kind of illustrative of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that’s the problem here.  Volunteer Marek   22:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I was counting my reverts, but you messaged me about the one you missed, which I admitted I missed as well, and reverted it. But like I said, I'm sure other editors will have a bigger issue with your overall conduct and communication than with me missing one revert. BeŻet (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why both? Can you link diffs to 4 reverts by Voluneteer Marek? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . After another review of Volunteer Marek's contributions to the article, I found that my original count of the number of reverts was wrong and have unblocked them. Bbb23 (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Ficzere21 reported by User:Why? I Ask (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent addition of original research and poor grasp of English Why? I Ask (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Ficzere21 reported by User:Neodop (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Sept 9 - vandalism starts, ongoing edit war since then)

Diffs of the user's reverts: These are just the latest, many more in history.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see also warnings at User talk:Ficzere21)

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

Comments: User has explicitly said in his talk page that he will not stop unless we leave the article as he wishes. He has provided no rationale or sources for any edits and refuses to cooperate. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Neodop (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple users have helped fix this mess, mostly by reverting Ficzere21's disruptive edits: User:Binksternet, User:MollyPollyRolly, User:12dstring, User:Lotje, User:Why? I Ask. Neodop (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:103.210.146.65 reported by User:FDW777 (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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Long term disruption from this editor, previously blocked for the same disruption as and repeatedly as. FDW777 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Normsupon and User:Anonymousread reported by User:Dudhhr (Result: Anonymousread blocked as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported: and Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Special:Diff/1046878070 Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Permalink/1046991749
 * 1)  (Normsupon)
 * 2)  (Normsupon)
 * 3)  (Anonymousread)
 * 4)  (Normsupon)
 * 5)  (Anonymousread)
 * 6)  (Normsupon violating 3rr)
 * 7)  (Anonymousread)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

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

Comments: I am not a part of this edit war, having only reverted to the last good version before the edit war. I am reporting two users, of which one has broken 3RR and the other has reverted 3 times.  dud  hhr  Contribs 13:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Anonymousread blocked as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have educated Mormsupon on their talk page and am attempting to educate Anonymousread via UTRS. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 14:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Echo1Charlie reported by User:103.255.6.106 (Result: Various)
Page:

Page: User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: <br / He is continuously warring and Reverting. He has been warned for many times but he doesn't listen. Please forgive me if I have committed mistakes during reporting because it's for the first time I'mdoing it.103.255.6.106 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mentioned the reason here and, —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ip user is also vandalising other articles too for example Akash (missile) see the edit summary targeting a particular religious group Hinduism his user diff, please check his geo location too, I hope his intentions are clear from this —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also this edit is the first I made on that article with clear edit summary i.e one diff submitted here is not a revert but my first edit, and hours later he and another Ip user came (please check the time of each edits also) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked 103.255.6.106 for 72h, blocked Special:contributions/203.135.44.0/23 for two weeks, and semi-protected the article for one day.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see this edit this ip user made, This Ip account is a clear WP:VOA —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:InfiniteNexus reported by User:Tehonk (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: These 3 against me This is I noticed later against someone else which makes it 4 revert
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

I just saw an unnecessary "citation needed" tag for a sentence and removed the tag because there was no reasonably need for such a tag because it was already mentioned in article in some refs such as Deadline user reverted me 3 times despite I explained it's already referenced and then noticed they reverted someone else too previously with an interesting reason like "trailer itself cannot be used as the source" when the trailer itself was provided as reference just today and that makes it 4 reverts. Very disruptive behaviour. You don't need to tag every single word or sentence with citation needed especially when it's already mentioned in the refs of the article.Tehonk (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You failed to warn of edit-warring, and you failed to notify them of this report, which is required. You also have failed to discuss the content dispute with InfiniteNexus directly or on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, close this then, but if I tag bombed an article with unreasonable tags now, and then disruptively reverted everyone who reverts me by breaching 3RR etc, I don't think that would ever be considered a "content dispute" and there would be a need of a discussion and such before I was promptly blocked. But OK, I withdraw, other users are involved and user in question stopped so whatever. Tehonk (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem not to know how citing references work here. Even if the information in question is already discussed in another source, it still needs to be tagged with it OR another reference. You failed to do that, so a Citation needed tag was needed. Also, I only reverted you three times (which does not violate WP:3R), as the "fourth revert" you cited was not a revert and was made prior to this incident. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

User:81.147.111.162 reported by User:CPClegg (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I appreciate the number of reverts is relatively low; however, the user was directed to the talk page discussion and responded in the edit summary with "take your talk there", which, I believe, can reasonably be regarded as uncivil language. As the user is unregistered, I have been unable to post a notification on the user's talk page.CPClegg (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to slow revert-warring by three different IPs (probably the same person). Please use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Waysidesc reported by User:5.29.25.224 (Result: Warned user(s))
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:

--5.29.25.224 (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no much I can say. I noticed an anonymous editor deleting an image from the article for the wrong reason. I explained why they are wrong. But the anonymous editor continued deleting, ignoring me at first, then threatening me, then discussing for a bit, and finally ignoring me again. One thing is common: They want to delete the image; the pretext and context doesn't matter to them. This looks malicious editing to me. Waysidesc (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, this is precious: See what happens there? He kept deleting content from the article, thinking he could report me to some moderator who kicks me out. (Because clearly, the moderators are on his side! /s) Now that he has expended that option, he is starting to think clearly and seeing that maybe there are better options than deleting things he doesn't like. As far as I'm concerned, this situation has been resolved. Waysidesc (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You both need to stop edit warring. You may be blocked from editing that article should it continue. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Tron4444444 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Soft warning (first message on new talk page) ; Stronger warning ; User removes warning and responds that they don't have to follow the rules:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: This seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Sundayclose (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:SlinkyGlide reported by User:Fyrael (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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: User continues to restore both their own unsourced content and that of an IP, including a 3RR violation, with no attempt at communication after my first revert in either edit summaries or on talk. Admittedly, I haven't started a talk page discussion, but there's nothing to be said aside from "you must provide sources".&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now created a talk page section and pinged the user (after posting this report).&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Aziz.N1987 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juglans_regia"
 * 2)  "/* References */fixed typed"
 * 3)  "/* References */Fixed tipo"
 * 4)  "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107003484"
 * 5)  "Fixed tipo"
 * 6)  "Fixed tipo"
 * 7)  "Fixed tipo"
 * 8)  "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juglans_regia#cite_note-12"
 * 9)  "Original habitat	Edit One of the centers of origin and diversity of Juglans regia is Iran.[11] However, as with other old and widespread cultivated plants, it is not easy to reconstruct the original distribution and determine the borders of the past natural ranges. There are many reports concerning the earliest fossil pollen and nuts of J. regia, and the conclusions that various authors draw are somewhat contradictory. Taken together these finds suggest that J. regia possibly survived the last g"
 * 10)  "Histori walunt ,Juglans regia"
 * 11)  "/* Further reading */"
 * 12)  "Histori walunt [4]"
 * 13)  "https://www.irandriedfruit.com/walnut-history/"
 * 14)  "Histori walunt [4]"
 * 1)  "Histori walunt [4]"
 * 2)  "https://www.irandriedfruit.com/walnut-history/"
 * 3)  "Histori walunt [4]"
 * 1)  "Histori walunt [4]"
 * 2)  "https://www.irandriedfruit.com/walnut-history/"
 * 3)  "Histori walunt [4]"
 * 1)  "https://www.irandriedfruit.com/walnut-history/"
 * 2)  "Histori walunt [4]"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Walnut."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Walnut."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring over inconclusive history  */ new section"

Comments:

new editor warrior, unfamiliar with MOS and use of English - needs a 24 h break. Zefr (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Estnot reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Both blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning:, his revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Engaged in edit warring on Meng Wanzhou for several days using excuses in the edit explanation section such as the material is "too detailed" or biased. The user is a newly created one, only starting in September, and has been on an editing spree on similar articles related to US-China relations and has been engaged in similar behavior in other articles. He asked to discuss on talk page, which I did, but he did not respond before he reverted me again and only engaged in discussion after I called him out on it:. Does not discuss in good faith on the talk page. When warned of edit warring Estnot reverted it on his talk page and accused me of playing victim. I made edits on Meng Wanzhou aside from the original reverted content and he reverted that too. Qiushufang (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven’t been on an “editing spree” and I haven’t been engaged in such disruptive editing on other articles. Prior to my edits on this article I had only been using Wikipedia occasionally and nearly all of my edits have been unreverted. in this situation, the facts don’t lie. Qiushufang is playing victim because he or she is accusing me of doing something that he is doing even more of. He is attempting to add contentious material and I have been reverting them asking the user to discuss his changes (this request appears to be a matter of Wikipedia’s policy as laid out in WP:BRD). Not only has he reverted me back (so this would appear to be a violation of WP:BRD) but he has also been doing this WHILE we have been discussing the issues on the talk page (I have been discussing the issues at length with him on the talk page so i cannot see how I  am not discussing in good faith). I have pointed this out to him on every single occasion that I’ve been reverted and asked him to stop, but the only response that I’ve got is more reverts. In addition I think it should be noted that the user has just recently been edit warring with at least two other users on separate pages and appears to have stalked one of my edits on a separate, unrelated page. Whether what I am saying is convincing enough I’ll leave for the administrators here to decide but I really don’t see how this report can be filed in good faith Estnot (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No one else in the article's history has ever characterized the material as contentious until you started reverting additions by not only me but also another editor as well with the same excuses and reasoning. See:, . He also reverted basic details I added to the article: based on the sole reason that I should "talk" it out on discussion. The reasons given always default to either "biased" or "too much detail." When asked to provide examples of unbiased, counterarguments, or balanced content drawn from the sources Estnot ignored my questions entirely. If this is what he calls discussing in good faith then I don't know what the discussion is meant to solve as he either ignores me or invents new rubrics for what sort of content should be included. Again, no user prior to him considered the content contentious or controversial. Qiushufang (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I first made my initial call to resolve the situation with Estnot at 23:50, 28 September 2021: . By that time I had made changes to my edits based on Estnot's advice to make it more balanced: . I did not simply revert him and had taken Estnot's concerns into consideration. Estnot reverted me again at 19:21, 29 September 2021: . He had not made any effort to engage in the talk discussion I had started at this point. I reverted him at 1:11 30 September 2021, asking him to engage in the talk discussion: . He still would not engage in the talk discussion. He reverted me again at 10:12, 30 September: . Since he STILL had not engaged in discussion AT ALL, I reverted him calling him out on the fact that I DID create a discussion on the talk page at 16:44, 30 September 2021: . Only then did he do so at 23:15 30 September 2021: . He has so far ignored all my suggestions to provide counter material or material that would balance or at least prove his accusation that I have cherry picked material to prove a point. Qiushufang (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven’t been adding “basic details.” You’ve been adding highly partisan material in a highly non neutral way that skews the article in one direction. that would be obvious to anyone who gave your edits even a fleeting look. I’ve been discussing my position at length on the talk page but all you’ve done is basically ignore what I have to say and revert my edits on the main article while the discussion is going on (that also appears to be why you are filing this report - because you dont actually have the arguments to respond to mine). I think it should also be noted that the history of the article in question shows that you actually wrote the vast majority of the information there and have been edit warring or otherwise aggressively reverting anyone who doesn’t toe your line. So while it is natural that you would be very defensive to any changes that you disagree with to what is essentially your pet project, that isn’t a reason to treat policy and my adherence to them as your pet peeve Estnot (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that Estnot did not deny that he did not engage in the talk discussion until I had to ask him twice. He stated that "Not only has he reverted me back (so this would appear to be a violation of WP:BRD) but he has also been doing this WHILE we have been discussing the issues on the talk page," while he did NOT engage in discussion until I HAD to tell him twice. Nor that nobody else besides him had a problem with the material, which is also true. Qiushufang (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There is nothing more for me to add to what I’ve already said. My record particularly on the talk pages speaks for itself. I will leave it up to the administrators to decide who is right and wrong and I’d suggest you do the same Estnot (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have blocked both users for 48h for edit-warring on Meng Wanzhou and Extradition case of Meng Wanzhou.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Alte Kanzlei reported by User:Snooganssnoogans (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (29 Sep)
 * 2)  (1 Oct)
 * 3)  (1 Oct)
 * 4)  (1 Oct)
 * 5)  (1 Oct)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warned prior to 4th revert in 24 hrs)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: (warned prior to 4th revert in 24 hrs)

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Chubbybunny60 reported by User:Czello (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Adam Cole title reign  */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Adam Cole title reign */ re"

Discussion on my talk page:

Comments:

User now also appears to be making the same disruptive edits on other articles — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 15:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Haseebmirza306 reported by User:Elmidae (Result: Socks blocked)
Page:

User being reported:
 * and their obvious sock:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Single editor - it's all on their talk page. Of the 33 notices there, 14 (by my count) are about this article. Not a peep of response. Some of the more recent attempts to get the editor to pay attention are: User_talk:Haseebmirza306, User_talk:Haseebmirza306, User_talk:Haseebmirza306

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

Comments:

Editor has no other desire than to have an article on what I assume is their home village. Completely impervious to any messages about required minimum sourcing, has been rejected at AfC/draftified/reverted/notified by getting onto a dozen people. Judging by this, next step will be merry socking, so suggest semi-protecting the redirect as well. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both master and sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

User:36.68.220.192 reported by User:Benjamin112 (Result: No action, resolved)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "no one see it anyway. You may want to update cycling again"
 * 2)  "invisible for readers anyway. I know you do this for edit count right?"
 * 3)  "It is for tomorrow. Hence why they are commented."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1047821974 by Benjamin112 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1047821974 by Benjamin112 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on 2021–22 Premier League."
 * 2)   "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on 2021–22 Premier League."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Edit warring Benjamin112 &#9742;  19:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * False accusation. Misleading. The 6 of 6 is unnecessary because it is invisible from the page (commented) and if anyone deletes it there won't be anything different above in the reading page. 36.68.220.192 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have erased and nothing happened except underneath the source. A basic programming lesson will teach that everything inside comment (see source to prove what I said) is invisible. Anything else? 36.68.220.192 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved. Benjamin112 &#9742;  23:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No action based on resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

User:111.94.6.152 reported by User:SunDawn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 2017 refusal to report alleged sexual assault */ It's already clear, this is a criminal case that should have strong and valid information to make it feasible as published content. Don't share the allegation information without analyzing the legal context."
 * 2)  "/* Controversies */ It's a criminal case. As public information platform, we should share valid information with solid evidence. Don't share your assumption or opinion related to a criminal case."
 * 3)  "/* 2017 alleged sexual assault cover-up */ As said, the university "taking further steps to investigate" doesn't mean university coverup the case, but we must share the valid information with solid evidence that strengthening by the court verdict, not an allegation based."
 * 4)  "/* Controversies */ It's an allegation without solid evidence and court verdict - don't share false information"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 2017 alleged sexual assault cover-up */ Reply"

Comments:
 * . Favonian (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Br Ibrahim john reported by User:Suneye1 (Result: User blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,,
 * 1)  Undid revision 1047914769 by Tayi Arajakate (talk)
 * 2) Undid revision 1047918084 by Tayi Arajakate (talk)
 * 3) Undid revision 1047920023 by Suneye1 (talk). Lead must be concise. Discuss controversies in body
 * 4) Undid revision 1047921632 by Suneye1 (talk) Removed unrelated content and pov. I don't understand wha

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

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

Comments:

This user was previously blocked one week for edit warring. Despite discussion on three different pages and opposition from two different users, the user reverts it to their desired version. The user told If you are interested in discussion, use the topic talk page and not my talk page. but pings me at Tayi Arajakate's talk page to discuss.. In my opinion, this user doesn't understand many polices or is WP:NOTGETTINGIT.-  SUN EYE 1  09:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Both User:Tayi Arajakate and User:Suneye1 are restoring unsourced and pov content in a Biography Joseph Kallarangatt.
 * See . They are removing all comments in support of a controversial remark made by the person and are adding theories and baseless accusations. Their opinions may be or may not be correct but they are adding pov. Please see User talk:Tayi Arajakate for further details.
 * //Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of sexual assault allegations in the Church//
 * --->This information is wrong. There is no case against him. And there are no explicit and direct allegations.


 * //He has also been accused of using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations from agencies under the Narendra Modi government.//
 * ---> This is clear pov. It is an opinion without proof.


 * The following section is sourced however, it is not related to the person.
 * //In early September 2018, the Church became the subject of a major controversy after a group of nuns led protests over inaction against Bishop Franco Mulakkal, accused of having raped and sexually exploited a nun multiple times over a period of 2 years. The nun was complaining to various authorities in the Church hierarchy since 2017 but it had elicited no response. She eventually lodged a police complaint against Mulakkal on 28 June 2018, the protesting nuns stated that Mulakkal had powerful supporters within the Church.//
 * --->Must be removed. Because it is not related to the person. The Church involved is not his Church and the people involved have no relationship with him.


 * Another serious problem with their edits is their persistent removal of the Church head's reaction and addition of some nuns' comments, which fails notability criteria.


 * //The Catholic oriented Joint Christian Council (JCC) and the Kerala Catholic Reformation Movement (KCRM) criticised Kallarangatt on similar lines, raising concerns//
 * ---> Who told them that these organisations are 'Catholic oriented'?? Not only they use weasel words but also use these kind of comments of some organisations in the lead without making it clear that it was just the opinion of these organisations.


 * //It was criticised for ignoring large population boom in India and for going against the existent two-child norm in Kerala, the critics from within the Syro-Malabar community described it as an unethical and immoral scheme created for petty political gains and as interference in the sexual lives of married couples by unmarried clergy.//
 * -->These are weasel words. There are not specifying who are thise critics. Clearly they saying their own opinion. Must be replaced with explicit mentioning of the 'who said what and when'. It should be also noted that there's no two-child norm in Kerala. The users are deliberately misleading readers.
 * //The Hindutva proponent right wing Bharatiya Janata Party // What's that? Again pov. BJP is a political party and it is its definition, not 'The Hindutva proponent right wing'. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I am aware that this may be considered an edit-war. However, since this is a biography article, it is our responsibility to be truthful. We cannot accuse a person of rape, covering up of sexual assaults, and conspiracy with right wing until we have enough reliable evidence for that. The two other users involved are continuously adding these kind of baseless accusations that lack reliable sources. How can we spare a Biography article is such a condition. Why should we remain silent when people in Wikepedia are themselves maligning notable personalities??Br Ibrahim john (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources for all of the quoted lines and they are accompanied by the Bishops's responses and his supporters' as well which Imbrahim john hasn't mentioned here. If you want details, I've addressed these point-wise on my talk page, the write up above is a copy paste from there. I've also tried explaining policies such as those on neutral point of view, reliable sources, notability, etc to them but by the looks of it, it doesn't appear to have worked. They are also barely coherent and I think they might have issues with communicating in English, for example Kallarangatt isn't the one accused of rape and neither does the article say so but they seem to think otherwise. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 11:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no misunderstanding. //Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of sexual assault allegations in the Church//. This was what that was in the lead. But it is clearly false and maligning. The bishop is not involved in any sexual assault allegations. The case that was mentioned in the article, which I removed and these users were repeatedly restoring, is in no way related to this person. The institution, organisations and people involved have no relationship with the person.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You still seem to misunderstand that. The article does not say that there were sexual assault allegations against Kallarangatt.-  SUN EYE 1  14:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * --RegentsPark (comment) 12:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Sukant9993 reported by User:Zoglophie (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

The discussion in Talk:Pramod Bhagat clearly stated as cited by ample reliable sources that the subject's *birth place* is Hajipur, Bihar not Attabira, Odisha. User changed the birth place here first then again, thrice and violated WP:3RR by reverting yet again here.  zoglophie  10:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The user hasn't reverted since the last warning. Please remember to notify the user when posting here (I've done it for you). And note that you're flirting with 3RR as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To, are we going to give wrong information to public about the subject in stake of the Wikipedia's three revert rule? He removed reliable references and made changes as how he wanted it to be, and even after five hours, no body gives a damn thing to revert it to the stable version again?  zoglophie  13:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Every source I've seen says you are wrong and the other user is correct. And at least some of the sources, e.g., ESPN, are reliable. Indeed, at least one of the sources you cite supports what the other user says. I suggest you take a long break from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hindustan times, Times of India, Deccan Herald, Navbharat Times are some high quality sources which say otherwise. They mention the line "Native town as Hajipur, but he moved in his childhood to Attabira, Odisha when he was polio stricken". I am now stopping to check this page again, but please note that I have no connection with the subject, my interest to this article was only due to the sport. Thankyou.  zoglophie  15:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I went back and looked again, and I see now that the sources are conflicting. Some sources say he was born in Hajipur (e.g., Times of India), and others say he was born in Attabira (e.g., ESPN). The only way to resolve that is to form a consensus on the article Talk page. Edit-warring certainly isn't the way.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Pahlevun reported by User:M.Nadian (Result: No violation)
Page: User being reported:

This user deleted my content and created an editing war.

He misread all my sources and deleted all my edits, including Infobox "See Also". I used Fars News Agency for the issues he talked about, but he considers Fars News Agency, which interviewed Rahimpour and covered his work, to be completely invalid. If those resources are only for the topics he talks about, not the important part.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hassan_Rahimpour_Azghadi&diff=1047794234&oldid=1047774313
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hassan_Rahimpour_Azghadi&diff=1047773842&oldid=1047773282
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hassan_Rahimpour_Azghadi&diff=1047082271&oldid=1045843007

I wanted to solve this issue, but he only adds to the problem.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pahlevun

I told him to delete the parts he thinks are wrong but he deletes all the parts.

I just want finish it, I think it isn't ban user(s) for this isuee.

thanks.M.Nadian (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The third diff linked above is not a revert, as I wrote in the summary it was starting the article over because it was being used as a WP:SOAPBOX and the content was not backed by reliable sources. Pahlevun (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If I continued, it was not clear how many times you would undo my edit. The sources were completely credible compared to what I used. I said in above.

If you had a problem with a particular source, you must not have deleted all my edits you shot and deleted that source.M.Nadian (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke WP:3RR. If there is actually a long-term dispute, please try to explain on the article talk page what it is. So far neither party has used the talk page to make their case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Cheezypeaz reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Closed, no action required)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1048030666 by Aquillion (talk) discuss in talk"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1048030156 by Aquillion (talk) discuss in talk"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1048028723 by Aquillion (talk) take it to talk"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1047978523 by John Jones (talk) take it to the talk page He's a politician which you have argued to keep. also  has an MA in history and has written a proper history book."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1047918236 by John Jones (talk) This has already been discussed at length in the talk area under Church of Wales conspiracy theory"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1047777022 by Monsyn (talk) - See message to you Monsyn in the talk area before reverting this again." (This one is just outside 24 hours but included for completeness.)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Friendly WP:3RR warning. */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Some things that should not need saying */"
 * 2)   "/* Martin Johnes on the Welsh Not. */ new section"

Comments:

When I notified them about the WP:3RR on their talk page, they made it clear they had no idea what it is (and I believe them, since they immediately took it to WP:AN, here, which is hardly something someone who knows the relevant policy would do.) I was reluctant to report them given their lack of experience, but after that conversation went nowhere I think they need at least some sort of warning to make it clear that they know how seriously the 3RR is taken. -- Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it was a vandal. I thought that the WP:3RR rule was over the same stuff so I asked at ANI to clarify the rule, I had no idea this page existed. I will revert my reverts and provide an explanation afterwards. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted my reverts. So the page is as it would have been if I had not reverted. Like I said I believed the rule was for reverting the same edit three times. Now I know better. I'll wait a couple of days before fixing. Cheezypeaz (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment At least 3 of the examples are not edit wars, specifically the John Jones and Monsyn reverts (different content etc. Somewhat knowing what they were doing in removing/reinstating content that had been discussed in the first instance that Cheezy reverted). The Aquillion ones are. But it seems like a pointless block now as they have both got down to discussion, Cheezy reverted his last revert and have something that I think they both agree with, even if Aquillion has stopped on talk page for now. Games of the world (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - No action appears necessary. If no objection from User:Cheezypeaz or User:Aquillion, I will close this discussion. Deb (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User:RafaelJC12 reported by User:Haminoon (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This use of primary sources does not violate Wikipedia rules."
 * 2)  "This use of primary sources in no way violates Wikipedia rules."

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

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

Comments:
 * However, I will warn one more time that if they try to re-add the "tracing drama" stuff again, they will be blocked.    Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User:199.67.203.142 reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1048145964 by The Grand Delusion (talk) nice, big daddy came to the rescue for Serols - I clearly explained why I removed the ref, if you dont like it, you have a problem, not me"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1048131419 by Serols (talk) I clearly explained it, there are no refs required on already premiered shows - stop the bullying"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1048130842 by Serols (talk) unexplained revert - refs are removed from already premiered shows"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1048130495 by Serols (talk) refs are removed from already premiered shows"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Reverted 2 edits by 192.193.116.143 (talk) to last revision by 192.193.116.137"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of Hulu original programming."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been repeatedly removing references without giving a valid reason for doing so, and has made false claims of "bullying" from and has displayed an antagonistic attitude with the latest revert. I understand that it's precedent to remove sources when a show has premiered, but I think it's a precedent that should be abandoned since there is no valid rationale established for it. The Grand Delusion (Send a message) 15:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * – Five days. Both parties broke 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:134.195.198.201 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:IP has continued to revert 3 different editors.

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

Comments:

IP134.195.198.201 reverted me(I left after being reverted a 2nd time), making demands and not using the talk page until being reverted by the 3rd editor Noorullah21.

On the Battle of Anandpur (1704) said IP did not understand the word "capitulated" and edited warred to include WP:OR(added a person dead since 1701) into that article. All of this AFTER being told multiple times to read the article talk page where I have quoted the source used and what it states concerning this particular siege/battle. Then they posted this in their edit summary.
 * "Sources do not mention Mughal Victory or Sikhs surrender either.

I believe this editor may not be competent in English, having not understood what "capitulated" means. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Editor Kansas Bear wasn't being civil on the discussion page on Battle of Anandpur and nor was there any discussion about term capitulated as I clearly mentioned that I was reading different page of reference (914 as I did quick search after downloading pdf file). I am very well aware of the term but Kansas Bear has own personal view which has no fact to it. Later, Kansas Bear, made the change and the change wasn't reverted on Battle of Anandpur page. Only thing I would recommend is for Kansas Bear to be civil on discussion page and not to try to escalate the dispute. He even told me to talk to admin if I have issue with him being uncivil. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * as far as Afghan Sikh wars is concerned, there is talk page discussion on the article's page with another user Noorullah21. Its joint effort in improving the article with updated sources, fixes and information from both editors. The discussion changes and fixes are ongoing. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page indefinitely semiprotected due to a long term problem. There is edit warring from multiple IPs. See also an AN3 complaint from January, 2021. Afghan–Sikh wars are mentioned in four SPI complaints over the years. To certain editors it appears very important to credit the true victor in the various real-world battles. The SPI complaints show that large rangeblocks have been used in the past to deal with these IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: "Difficult to post due to fast paced nature of Portal:Current_events Multiple days, same behavior.  Examples from Sept. 19th shown below.  Behavior has been ongoing for months."

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045432916&oldid=1045430468
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045400547&oldid=1045399945
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045375066&oldid=1045366985
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045303309&oldid=1045302097
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_September_19&type=revision&diff=1045272572&oldid=1045271722

Adding second example of 3RR from 10/1/2021 (Edited 10/2/2021)Araesmojo (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047642463&oldid=1047637998
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047643131&oldid=1047642752
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_October_1&type=revision&diff=1047649964&oldid=1047649055

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_May_12&type=revision&diff=1022949962&oldid=1022925020%7C

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events&oldid=1023348929

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlsoriano97&type=revision&diff=1045470261&oldid=1043461440

Comments:

Long standing issue with user Alsoriano97 on the page Portal Current Events that has proved difficult to resolve due to rapid pace of Portal Current Events, and the current page changing every day. User has a history of 3+ reverts on multiple days over multiple months and has often been enforcing their personal view of what Portal Current Events "should" contain. User has been warned previously, and had a long discussion on the talk page of Portal Current Events that has been linked. Discussion has further examples of revert behavior. Have also archived list of all stories on Portal Current Events redacted (usually with limited comment) at User:Araesmojo/News_Stories_Redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araesmojo (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This dispute seems to be about similar changes that are made on multiple different days at Portal:Current events. At first sight it is not easy to follow. I've left a note on User:Alsoriano97's talk page and hope they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. If you think you have a dispute across multiple articles (not just one) you need good quality documentation. There is not enough evidence of abuse here. I asked User:Alsoriano97 if they wanted to respond, but they did not. Their filter log does have a lot of hits on 'deprecated source'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:102.250.3.69 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clearly edit warring on the page, original change also by User:102.250.3.82 clearly related, user warned on both IP addresses. Last edit to Tatum article re-adding the same new entry as well as vandalising other entries to prove a point violating WP:POINT, and clearly WP:NOTHERE JeffUK (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Further, the IP was not warned about 3RR before the report was filed. Also, it's been a few hours since the last revert. If the reverts were to resume, under the same IP or a different one, then you may re-report it here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Porhacer reported by User:Elenora.C (Result: Both warned; then blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Porhacer is a user who is known for acts of vandalism on Spanish Wikipedia from which he has been banned and is known for other acts like the edition wars. He returns here in a more moderate way to continue his actions on Camilo Sesto's page by removing a reliable secondary source, and therefore referenced information. And this, 4 times in a row. Despite a warning on the talk page. --Elenora.C (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of you are edit-warring, and neither has yet violated 3RR. you are both warned that if you continue to edit-war, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Porhacer removes a referenced info; here are Camilo Sesto's certifications. Here you will find more information about the source. This debate has already taken place on the Spanish wikipedia. Porhacer is known there to remove referenced information and sometimes to replace it with fakenews or personal reviews. Please believe in my sincere participation in wikipedia.--Elenora.C (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia; decisions made there do not automatically carry over to here. In some cases, our policies may be very different from theirs. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * However, in this case the user does appear to be continuing the behaviour that got them indeffed at es.wiki (chartsinfos is not a reliable source) and therefore I have blocked them here as well. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I know it well, but I prefer to specify it. Why is chartsinfos not a reliable source? ?--Elenora.C (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an aggregator for other charts, and also accepts crowd-sourced information . They also admit that their data may nt be completely reliable . Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Tron4444444 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

NOTE : Previous 3rr report on this user four days ago was archived today with no action. User apparently has taken this to mean that the edit warring can resume. Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441 for seven previous reverts from a few days ago. This editor appears to be an SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. I'm copying the reverts from the previous report. Two Four Five additional reverts were made in the last 24 hours, for a total of nine eleven twelve reverts:
 * 1) 08:14, September 29, 2021
 * 2) 21:53, September 29, 2021
 * 3) 01:31, September 30, 2021
 * 4) 02:08, September 30, 2021
 * 5) 02:12, September 30, 2021
 * 6) 07:12, September 30, 2021
 * 7) 07:18, September 30, 2021
 * 8) 06:45, October 4, 2021
 * 9) 18:33, October 4, 2021
 * 10) 17:44, October 5, 2021
 * 11) 17:50, October 5, 2021
 * 12) 18:29, October 5, 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Soft warning (first message on new talk page) 17:27, 29 September 2021; Stronger warning 23:03, September 29, 2021; User removes warning and responds that they don't have to follow the rules: 01:39, September 30, 2021; Third warning 14:36, October 4, 2021; Fourth warning 18:25, October 5, 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 19:07, October 4, 2021

Comments:

Sundayclose (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Ponyo has indefinitely partial-blocked User:Tron4444444 from editing the article Midnight Mass (miniseries). EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI
User has resumed the same disruption/edit warring at same page, and refusing to engage on tp. Now using (only has six "4"s instead of seven). -  wolf  07:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked, and original account's block changed to site-wide indef by .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:DominicReymysterio619 reported by User:Czello (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* The New Day (2014–2020) */"
 * 2)  "/* The New Day (2014–present) */"
 * 3)  "/* The New Day (2014–2020) */"
 * 4)  "/* The New Day (2014–present) */"

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

Comments: User has been notified his edits are incorrect in edit summaries and as part of the talk page message. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 18:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:DominicReymysterio619 has been warned for edit warring by User:C.Fred. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Akhetan76 reported by User:Tenryuu (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1048372580 by Tenryuu (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1048367180 by Tenryuu (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1048359007 by Tenryuu (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning"
 * 2)   "Final Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Stop adding promotional content */ new topic (CD)"

Comments:

Reported user is the subject of the article (as declared in this revision's edit summary) who has been adding promotional and unsourced content. There's also an IP whose sole contribution is a reversion; while I can't say for certain the IP is Akhetan76, the timing makes me think it is. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've left a COI notice on the user's Talk page and warned them that if they make any more edits to the article directly, they will be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's reverted the article after 's warning. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:107.88.177.34 reported by User:x4n6 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

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

Comments:

IP persists in removing reliably sourced content and refuses to stop despite repeated warnings. X4n6 (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This user has also recently revealed another IP that it uses. 107.88.177.19 That IP also had to be recently reverted by an admin on a different article. See here. X4n6 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Rangeblocked the /24 for two weeks for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Omniscopic reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed politically biased edits based on a single magazine article"

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

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

Comments:
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Dineshwilson. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edit warring to add promotional language. "Best-selling writer and polymath" is not a phrase often found in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Nazran225 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Malaysian language:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Malaysia:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  25 September
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

Slow moving but persistent and mostly unexplained edit warring across Malaysian language and Malaysia. Also now pushing the same view on Malay language. CMD (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:LucrativeOffer reported by User:Aman.kumar.goel (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:47, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎  13,142 bytes +1,650‎  restoring sources and image position, revert again and you'll be reported
 * 2) 05:03, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎  13,142 bytes +1,650‎  do you have consensus for your edit?
 * 3) 05:09, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎  13,142 bytes +1,650‎  There is no consensus, get a consensus first
 * 4) 06:55, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎ 11,586 bytes +94‎  removing misrepresentation of source as discussed at the talk
 * 5) 07:16, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎ 11,642 bytes +75‎  adding a citation
 * 6) 08:27, 7 October 2021‎ LucrativeOffer talk contribs‎ 11,640 bytes +346‎  there is no source for other associated cuisines

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:

6 reverts involving the insertion of same POV on lead in less than 4 hours. This is a clear breach of 3RR. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's only three reverts, the first three diffs, the rest were regular edits. I was careful not to breach 3RR. On the other hand, User:Aman.kumar.goel has been edit warring and misrepresenting sources in the article. He is already on 3RR,, , . LucrativeOffer (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You were careful with gaming WP:3RR as you note that "I was careful not to breach 3RR", but you have ultimately made 6 reverts involving the addition of the same POV i.e. "Old Dhaka in modern-day Bangladesh" on all 6 reverts you have made. To say that I violated 3RR but you haven't violated 3RR just shows your poor understanding of the entire dispute in question. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These are not reverts. Why are you making a false claim? You are literally claiming every edit is a revert which is not. Reverts have tags like "Undo" or "Manual revert", there is no such tags on three of the diffs you showed. LucrativeOffer (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You consider only those edits to be revert that "have tags like "Undo" or "Manual revert"". Thanks for proving my point regarding your attempts to game WP:3RR but ultimately failing to do so. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The diff for edit warring warning doesn't show any link to WP:EW or WP:3RR, how is that even a valid warning? Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel reported by User:Za-ari-masen (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Today at 4:21 AM‎ "RM misrepresentation, not restricted to Dhaka"
 * 2) Today at 1:08 AM‎ "Undid revision 1048640976 by LucrativeOffer (talk) Apparently yes if you ignore false smears"
 * 3) Yesterday at 11:40 PM‎ "Restored per WP:STATUSQUO, any further edit warring will be reported"
 * 4) Restored revision 1045386582 by Gotitbro (talk)
 * 5) Undid revision 1046122398 by 107.117.204.58 (talk) unexplained revert
 * 6) Undid revision 1046923452 by 107.117.204.52 (talk) misleading edit summary; TOI is more reliable which you removed

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: Pinged on this page.

Comments:

has been continuously edit warring on the article, tag-teaming with others and gaming WP:3RR to push POV on the article. The diffs are just the recent reverts, there is a long history of unabated edit-warring by this user as shown by their previous blocks. The user seems to have no intention of listening to other parties and exhibiting clear WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page which essentially makes it nearly impossible to reach a consensus with them. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:178.143.107.60 (Igec133) reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Igec133 is warned)
Page:

User being reported:

This is editing while logged out. They have also recently edited from (during which they were reported at AIV for disruption but avoided being blocked as the report fell off the page before it was acted on) and  (on both IP accounts they received warnings for disruption or non-constructive editing). They have been disruptive across a range of articles, including (where their edits have been reverted eight times by different editors in the last fortnight) and  (where they most recently blindly reverted back in a photo that didn't match the caption). They've now breached 3RR on the election article (diffs below).

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:36, 7 October 2021 (a revert of this edit)
 * 2) 21:35, 7 October 2021
 * 3) 21:39, 7 October 2021
 * 4) 05:21, 8 October 2021

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

Comments:

Frankly I'm getting sick of them appearing on my watchlist, as it's rarely a positive contribution and the disruption has been ongoing for some time now. Action would be appreciated (blocking the main account and protecting the articles that have received the most disruption for a while may be the optimal solution as they seem to switch IP every few days). Cheers, Number   5  7  08:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

– Igec's reaction:
 * I would like to comment on this.


 * Regarding the section on IP address and login. I admit, this is happening to me and it is entirely my fault. I don't have automatic login set up, so sometimes I edit not logged in. However, this is not an intention, but an ordinary human error.


 * As for non-constructive edits. At the National Council, I adjusted its composition and simplified it. I used the official website of the National Council as a source and marked only official parliamentary clubs on the article. In my opinion, this cannot be perceived as an unconstructive edit. The version, which, by the way, had no overall source, I replaced with a version whose source was the official website of the Parliament where its composition was listed.


 * As for the Next Slovak Elections, I simply pointed out here that only official parliamentary clubs should be in the main template. In Slovakia, the parliamentary club must be approved and it must meet some conditions. If not, party deputies are non-attached. And so they are officially mentioned in the media. At the same time, I would like to point out as an example that even in the template for the German elections, there was no Die Partei, even though it held one seat and was de facto a parliamentary party. And Number57 added non-attached parties there and invented his own abbreviations.


 * In conclusion, I would like to say that I consider this a normal and ordinary editorial conflict. I would not like to solve it with some blocks and I prefer the debate. I don't find this report fair and I would never do it. But I am willing to defend myself in a cultured way.
 * --Igec133 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that you were editing while logged out, but that you have been edit warring and making disruptive edits across numerous articles for the last two weeks, and have now breached 3RR despite being fully aware that you were doing so. And to correct your claim, I did not "add non-attached parties there and invent [my] own abbreviations". I was restoring another version of the article by someone else because your edits were not an improvement. Number   5  7  17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Igec133 is warned they may be blocked if they continue to edit logged out about Slovakian politics. They are also warned not to revert again on Next Slovak parliamentary election or the other articles mentioned here without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

User:English Surname Origin reported by User:Stroness (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The original wiki result"
 * 2)  "To correct the original result that wiki always stated"
 * 3)  "The facts!! This I was not a Scottish victory!, BiAS Wikipedia!!"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has persistently ignored polite recommendations to go to talk page to discuss in dedicated section. User has also resorted to personal insults towards other editor. Stroness (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Twozerooz reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edit is fully sourced. Use the talk page and do not engage in stonewalling."
 * 2)  "Please use the talk page and reach a consensus before removing sourced content"
 * 3)  "Edited preamble"
 * 1)  "Edited preamble"

Other recent reverts
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Let's settle this */ new section"

Comments:

This is the continuation of a long edit war from Twozerooz. They have been reported to this noticeboard before, involving the same page, and it resulted in a block. They have violated 3RR before that though.

After the block they went dark for a few months, but they came back in August, altering the lead by mislabelling it as vandalism. Ever since they've been edit warring over the lead, and meanwhile has been reverted and asked to go to the talk page by no fewer than three different editors: myself,, and. Nonetheless, they continue to ignore WP:BRD.

I suggested to them they create an RfC, and they agreed but later backed out. Instead they continue to edit war and make little effort to engage on the talk page. Finally, they've gone over WP:3RR with another lead which contains an unreliable source, and one that they still have no consensus for. Sadly this user cannot accept WP:QUO and insists on meddling with the lead without consensus. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 17:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

User:178.41.240.18 reported by User:Doniago (Result: One week)
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:

IP repeatedly violating WP:FILMPLOT despite multiple requests not to do so. No communication from them other than edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked one week for disruption on this and other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Adelphopolis reported by User:Interfase (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User did not attemt to move to the talk to explain his disputed edits.

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

Comments:


 * ~TNT (she/her • talk) 08:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Hamkar 99 reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User is removing pashtun dynasties off the page, and is disrupting it, pure vandalism.Noorullah21 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Dawnleelynn reported by User:WWGB (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: numerous attempts in edit summaries to engage with editor

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

Comments: The reporting user has undone my versions at least a couple of times. His sidekick, Refsworldlee has a 3RR on the same article on my edits this evening. I am confused because I only recall clicking the Revert twice on this article today and not on other articles today. Is there another way I am making edits in the version history that causes reverts and I am not realizing it? I have been here since 2015 and this has never happened to me before. I was sure I only did two reverts today. Anyway, it was definitely not intentional. My history will show I have good behavior and no incidents. And I have been trying to get some edits into the document mentioned above, but the two editors are acting like they own the document. I have been courteous throughout, and patient. I should not have to beg to add at least a comma. Thank you, dawnleelynn(talk) 05:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3RR is acceptable, as you well know. Exceeding the three is the violation. (There are no "sidekicks", by the way - in fact, if you examined our editor history you would find plenty of disagreements and arguments between the two of us.) The reversions have been happening in an effort to maintain a consistent style of presenting Hall of Fame credits within entries. The original revert of the edit was designed only to bring the entry back in line with consistency throughout the history of the project. And there are no bragging rights going on here - certainly not on the part of myself. Your use of commas/pauses (which you continuously call "apostrophes") is not in line with good English grammar either - another reason why the reverts have been happening. Nobody owns anything in Wikipedia, but many dedicated editors try to keep articles looking their best, and that's all that is happening in the case of Deaths in August 2021. Thank you. Ref (chew) (do) 09:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Dawn for 24 hours for violating 3RR. I don't see any indication of courtesy on her part. Indeed she has been increasingly uncivil in her remarks. As for how many reverts she has made, either she is being disingenuous or she is clueless as to the policy. Assuming the latter, I suspect she believes that she has to make 4 reverts on the same day, as opposed to a 24-hour period.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sheesh people, this was over two commas. I mean, yes 3RR is a hard line, but I do wish there would’ve been an admin warning that went up first. For one thing, using the revert command versus going in and making hardcopy edits is an area where the 3RR policy is not 100% clear to those who haven’t had to wrestle with it very often. Also, I do see a bit of incivility on both sides, in terms of a bit of a dictatorial walled garden attitude on the part of the maintainers of these lists. Even if somebody is technically right, you can still be civil and polite about it. (As I have been told numerous times when I’ve gotten too sharp with people,  by the way.)  Montanabw (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Follow up: if you look at the timestamps, this warning went up very close to midnight last night in the user’s local time zone, and whule she responded, the discussion here occurred around 3am her time, and you have blocked her at about 7 AM the next morning. She put up an explanation for her actions and even apologized at her talkpage, which apparently was unnoticed by the blocking admin.  I’d rather wish you could’ve put up a warning, per comments that dawn did not engage in discussion. She did.  Montanabw (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

User:CatCafe reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted own edits -"
 * 2)  "as per talk. No RS stating the LGBT+ society and the Student Union Women's Officer both criticised the Vice Chancellor"
 * 3)  "Not noted as nonRS to at WP:RSP Undid revision 1049472755 by Sideswipe9th (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* 3RR revert on Kathleen Stock */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News */"
 * 3)   "/* Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News */"
 * 4)   "/* Better-source tag on Lesbian and Gay News */"

Comments:

Earlier I tagged an unreliable source on Kathleen Stock with Template:Better source needed. In response, rather than WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM by searching for a better source, as the claim made by the source is verifiable by primary sources, CatCafe has engaged in disruptive editing to repeatedly remove the content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   02:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite efforts to draw CatCafe's attention to the use of the better source template, and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM in the article's talk page, Cat has now made a fourth revert attempt resulting in an orphaned missing citation, and now a fifth edit sourcing to only a primary source. Given that I've opened this ANI, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to revert them a fourth and fifth time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate under any circumstances. Stop edit-warring yourself, there have been four or five edits since I closed this. And this isn't ANI.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And I still count only three substantively similar reverts by CatCafe. You may not edit war because you assert that you are correct.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sideswipe9th you are being unreasonable. You criticised my work and you put on CN tags. Then you convinced me that my sources were not RS, so I removed my own additions and cite and I'm in in the process of finding new sources to satisfy you. But then you are reverting my reverts of my own work and putting back nonRS. Why do you want to reintroduce back the nonRS you've criticised - that makes little sense considering you want it gone. Unless you are wanting to editwar? Now you want to make official complaints about me. Please realise that I'm trying to edit to fix the problem you raised, and you're doing the reverting.  CatCafe (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of you return to the talkpage and leave the article alone until you've worked this out. AN3 isn't the place to negotiate content or sourcing.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

139.192.151.122 reported by User:ZaniGiovanni (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 article talk page: [diff]

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

Comments: IP keeps edit-warring and modifying the lead with grammatical errors incorrect change to the first name. They were notified about edit-warring, but it didn't stop them (see 4th diff). Multiple editors have asked them to discuss and even opened talk discussion, but IP refuses to participate. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: @, : Wanted to jump in and say that this user has been disrupting the wiki under various IPs since at least June., , , , , , and maybe more. All the IPs originate from Jakarta, Indonesia, and most of their contribution histories seamlessly transition from one to the next (there are likely more that I didn't find). I noticed it when they repeatedly edited Emomali Rahmon's article to Russify his name and/or change his photo and was going to start an AN discussion of my own before I found this one.  · • SUM1 • ·    (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * SUM1 That is such a weird edit-pattern and history, literally no improvement to the articles. Yet they're not hesitant to edit-war and disrupt the pages further even after they get reverted/warned/invited to talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:‎192.94.31.2 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Pblock)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

They may not be alone, but they did breach 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC) Note as I went to post the notice I saw they are any ANI, it was a report made at the same time I was writing this one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fifth [edit: and sixth] reversion added. Cambial foliage❧ 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Partial-blocked by User:331dot from Turning Point UK for 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Dman170 reported by User:Cossde (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

The User:Dman170 has been engaged in disruptive edit waring. Cossde (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * – One year EC protection due to sockpuppetry. This page is covered by WP:GS/CASTE, which includes South Asian social groups. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Vucein reported by User: Pra2310 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Anupamaa: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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]

I asked them not to revert my edits again and again due to which even I was warned. And the user who warned me warned him also to consider atleast necessary changes which I do to add in the page. But they started accusing them also. Even now they just show track and stuff which is 1 month old. Not latest track and stuff which is necessary like plot, episode counts and some important stuffs in cast and soundtrack section
 * Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:87.97.21.203 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "violating WP:OVERLINK"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1049525648 by Packerfan386 (talk) subsidary here or there, it still violates the overlink rules"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1049415888 by Asher Heimermann (talk) excuse me??? EXCUSE ME???? How lol?"
 * 4)  "America link which is STRICTLY against the rules of Wikipedia"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1049415888 by Asher Heimermann (talk) excuse me??? EXCUSE ME???? How lol?"
 * 2)  "America link which is STRICTLY against the rules of Wikipedia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edits have been reverted by three different users Tommi1986 <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 12:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's still constructive. I was just removing something that isn't allowed, that is, an America link. - 87.97.21.203 (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one week for general disruptive editing, including edit-warring, personal attacks, and a battleground mentality.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:CatCafe reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  - in spite of the misleading edit summary, this edit does not only "revert own edits" but also removes once again the material removed in CatCafe's previous edit, so it is another revert.
 * 3)  removes a source also removed in the previously listed revert.
 * 4)  removes material CatCafe had added on October 11 "for NPOV". Belated POV-pushing, many edits later, by excluding material an editor previously added for balance does not count as a "self-revert" AFAICT.
 * 5)  is a straight up revert to the previous version of the lead paragraph, linked above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kathleen Stock

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

Comments:

In addition to the ongoing revert-warring, this editor has continued to show a particular POV in their additions to the Kathleen Stock article, has been banned from the Jessica Yaniv page for adding inappropriate images to that BLP (one also controversial in relation to transgender issues) and maintains a sandbox consisting largely of links related to transgender issues and related controversies, usually reflecting that editor's own point of view. This may put the current edit-warring in a somewhat more serious light. Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, most of those edits have been dealt with |above on this noticeboard with 'no violation. And the edits you raise have been discussed on talk (and seemingly resolved) |here, that you chose not to contribute to. So if you disagree then join in the discussion on talk rather than reporting me here. CatCafe (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * CatCafe, if you make some reverts, someone files prematurely to 3RRN, and you continue to make reverts within a 24-hour period, you should not be surprised if some of those same reverts make their way into the next filing. It also doesn't matter if some of your reverts align with LOCALCONSENSUS. WP:3RR is a "bright-line rule", and applies even if the version you revert to is "correct", unless your reverts fall into WP:3RRNO (which none of these do). Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also note that the clock turning to October 13, GMT does not entitle you to another three, or four, or five reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial please contribute rather than this. If you have a problem with what's been reached then please contribute on talk - which you've made no effort. The other editor and I cannot find any RS to support "The university's LGBT+ society and the Student Union Women's Officer both criticised the Vice Chancellor's response" - as discussed on talk. But if you can please find the sources and return the sentence, rather than expending energies here. CatCafe (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue here is your disruptive conduct, not the content of the page. Let's stick to the issue relevant to this venue. Newimpartial (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion on the talkpage and coming to conclusions about text in the article space, and then editing that, is not disruptive.  Contribute to the discussion and the article won't you. CatCafe (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Violating 3RR, outside the provisions of WP:3RRNO, is always disruptive. Continuing to edit-war after being taken to a noticeboad for it is doubly disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to read and contribute on talk then you would discover there was no RS to support the sentence. You've been involved with editwarring on the said page previously. Now if you want to continue discussion of your other harassment and naming toward me, then please do so over at your talkpage - and if you want to resolve what's really eating at you, then don't delete the discussion this time. CatCafe (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK Newimpartial, noted that you refuse to discuss your other issues with me on your talkpage by deleting the discussion. So I look forward to your apology for your insults toward me here then. CatCafe (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Being right" is not grounds for WP:3RRNO, and the desire that you understand that and refrain from edit-warring from now on is, in fact, the reason I made this filing.
 * As far as discussion of (my) other harassment and naming toward (you) - those are unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS on your part. If you find that something I've done is eating at you, I would be happy to discuss anything specific at your talk page (or, barring that, at WP:ANI). This, however, is clearly not an appropriate place. I certainly have not directed any insults or other unCIVIL language at you, but again, this is not the place for ASPERSIONS or explanations. Newimpartial (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for considering me "Being right" with the editing and talkpage conclusions. Perhaps you should contribute on talk about your issues with the content and sources if you have any? But as discussed you have editwarred there before. And as you're the one following my edits around, trying to find fault, it's becoming a bit stalky. So your the one with the problem, and it needs to be discussed on your talkpage, not mine, as you're the initiator. CatCafe (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now Newimpartial part of your complaint above is that you claim I "maintains a sandbox consisting largely of links related to transgender issues and related controversies". As that's [part of your complaint against me, please tell us how the following subjects on that page relate to "transgender issues and related controversies" - Pete Evans, Bettina Arndt, Grace Tame, Potters House, COVID19, and Antivax. CatCafe (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll let any interested admin evaluate the Sandbox, thanks. And no, I am not the initiator of anything. I don't know why you would say that. Newimpartial (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Aardwolf68 reported by User:LM2000 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: It's slow moving, but disputes like these are why professional wrestling articles are under general sanctions.LM2000 (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Aardwolf68 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Becky Lynch without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Look, I didn’t want this to be an issue because I believed that this was fairly obvious. If you just search in “Becky Lynch Heel Turn” you’ll find multiple sources confirming the heel turn and multiple opinion pieces about the subject. I don’t know why this has to be an issue Aardwolf68 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:WatanWatan2020 reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Blocked for 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:

Sections to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Levantine_Arabic
 * 2) Talk:Levantine_Arabic

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

Comments:

Two uninvolved linguists commenting on the discussion (Taivo and Austronesier) have agreed that the consensus is against WatanWatan2020, and one of them (Austronesier) reverted one of WatanWatan2020's blanket reverts, only for WatanWatan2020 to revert them in turn. I'd say three, but I'm involved in the sense that the other editor in this dispute (A455bcd9) has adopted some of my suggestions for improvement, including compromising with WatanWatan2020 on some points (in the layout of the info box). The only independent complaint about the opposing editor A455bcd9 is a 'wall of text' objection by Austronesier, and my agreement that I wasn't going to read all that in order to comment, which is why A455bcd9 started a 2nd discussion thread.

I offered to not file this ANI report if WatanWatan2020 self-reverted and brought their points of contention to the talk page instead, or to cancel it if they self-reverted after I filed. They refused to self-revert and said they'll explain themselves here. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello there. I suspect that there was an in-tandem effort to get me to revert the page back to its original form at least 3 times in order for the excuse to be made that i violated the 3RR rule, thereby having a complaint put up against me here.


 * The page was returned to its original form, where the contentious points that were being discussed in the talk page would not be changed. There was no consensus on those points, hence no legitimate right to change them. This user who is reporting me has disregarded the talk page discussion and rules of WP:Consensus to make the changes on his own merit. This is a violation.


 * To discuss the core issue in detail, the matter revolves around 9 points that was proposed by another user @A455bcd9. Mind you now that this user has had practically de facto control over this article since he edits and deletes as he wants. I have no issue with it. Although when i implemented information myself, he took issue with it and made deletions. An edit war broke out and he reported me to Admin. Upon getting looked at by Admin. We were warned not to edit each others contributions, especially him since the contributions getting deleted were mines only. So he started a discussion on the talk page, and proposed 9 points to make changes to. After contesting them, i decided to compromise with him and allow for 7 of the 9 points to be implemented in the hopes of reaching an overall consensus and putting the matter entirely behind us. Yet, he maneuvered again to have the 2 remaining points changed in his favor.


 * So an online discussion has been had since he proposed the 9 points. He has pinged users personally to come join the discussion which proposed their thoughts on the matter, some even agreeing to certain points. Again the compromise was made by me to accommodate that.


 * Although, A455bcd9 has been engaged in “SEALIONING” (check wiki for definition) for the longest time. He recently changed edited the page while disregarding the talk page discussion results and the general WP: Consensus policy. Thereafter, 2 more users, including the one doing the reporting here doing the exact same thing. Although, one of them (not one of these two) seems to have understood when i explained to him that no consensus has been reached for a change to be made.


 * So the user reporting me to ANI here and A455bcd9 are in violation of WP:Consensus. I have the personal suspicion that this effort was made in tandem where they edit the page to A455bcd9’s version in which i then revert the page back to its original form at least 3 times to have the excuse of me violating the 3RR rule, so that a report could be lodged against me.


 * And to add, user A455bcd9 claimed to have spoken to some of these users outside of wikipedia which helps increase the count on his side regarding the matter. Since when did speaking to people outside of WP count towards a consensus? and may this be a case of some form of meat-puppetry?


 * With full honesty, i tried to reach a wide enough agreement as possible. I compromised on 7 of the 9 points he wanted changes to. He has made 0 compromises. He has also added to the page continuously during the discussion and contention and i have no issue with it, never opposing it. It is only when i or someone else has made the changes, did he take issue with it.


 * It is all documented, whether in the edit logs or in the talk page discussion. Please see.


 * To conclude, This was not a matter of edit warring on my side. I reverted back to the page’s original form, that doesnt include changes to the points discussed in the talk page. Any other addition to the article is not being reverted, removed or challenged. I am sorry in advance if there has been such, but only because the user is looking to implement material during a conflict like this, maybe in the hopes of portraying me as deleting everything that is being implemented? to make me look guilty? I am not too sure. But i welcome it and have no issue with it.


 * The users changing the article should see no consensus has been reached, especially from the situation within the talk page. Thanks.


 * PS: the mention of 2 linguists being a good reason to “reach consensus” is not a good reason. I myself am an Arabic speaker with native knowledge and study in this field. For any linguist to challenge and claim that Levantine Arabic is not indigenous to the Arab countries and communities in the Levant.. should not be considered a linguist. This is literally what is being challenged and proposed to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * To add after reading @Kwami post here recently, that is why there is an issue. He mentioned that he wasnt going to read the original discussion because of ‘walls of text’ … this means he did not read the original discussion which is directly linked to the new one started (both the discussions are the same, the newer one is just a short, cleaned up one that shows only A455bcd9’s side and argument). This is the reason why he did what he did, which was to disregard the WP:Consensus and the core discussion altogether. And the claim by @Kwami that @A455bcd9 made compromises with me is flat out false. O compromises were made with me. He has engaged in WP:SEAlIONING and has bothered me with repeated inquiries and questions -the same ones practically - to which i answered multiple times in the attempt to wear out my patience so that i may make a mistake of some sort. O compromises were made with me, while i made 7 with him.


 * I urge anyone to actually read the discussion, and not say “i wasnt going to read it” and then make a decision based off of that.
 * Thanks


 * WatanWatan2020 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, to add for a third time here… my suspicions were right. On Kwami’s talk page, user A455bcd9 and him have a discussion under the title “third opinion request”.


 * After A455bcd9 inquires “what should I do next?”, Kwami responds: “Pretty simple, really: if they refuse to accept consensus, then they need to rv each of us, which runs afoul of 3RR. It would be better of course to resolve issues through discussion, but if they insist on escalating, they're likely to lose. They just reverted you twice and Austronesier once. I've now restored the consensus version, and warned them about 3RR. (That's the 2nd warning 3RR for this article, and they've been blocked before, so it's not like they don't know how this works.) I haven't touched this article in years, so these aren't my contributions, except indirectly through the discussion. If they rv me, report them to ANI, or I can”


 * This goes to prove my suspicion that there was a joint effort to get to me to violate the 3RR rule to put a complaint on me. This has to carry some form of consequence, really. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated at all. There was no consensus either.


 * PS: I am sorry that i cannot link directly to Kwami’s talk page. I dont know how to but i am learning to do these things.
 * WatanWatan2020 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you revert multiple editors who are enforcing a consensus, you'll have 3RR problems. That's part of what consensus involves. This wasn't a trick: you'd already violated 3RR before I made those comments to A455bcd9 on my talk page, explaining to them what was likely to happen if you continued to edit-war, and I warned you on your talk page, and then when you edit-warred yet again, offered you another chance -- the option to revert yourself, so as to avoid ANI. You chose not to. And I see below that you've continued to edit-war even after you've defended yourself here on ANI claiming that you aren't edit-warring -- that's pretty blatant. — kwami (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an overwhelming majority of editors commenting agree against you is a WP:CONSENSUS. You don't have to agree. You don't have a correct understanding or appreciation of consensus. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm involved in the dispute so I won't comment it but I'd like to note the previous reports regarding WatanWatan2020:
 * 3RR, Sept 2021. Result: both WatanWatan2020 and I warned,
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive335, Aug 2021. Result: archived without being closed or resolved,
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056, Jan 2021. Result: archived without being closed or resolved. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Update Another revert. –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The intention after Kwami and A455bcd9 was to engage in edits in order to get me to violate the 3RR rule. This is clear in the statement there. The excuse above by Kwami is trying to deduce from the exposure of this intention and subsequent action. He didnt start the edits until you informed him of this plan, right?

And what does WP:Consensus state? for example, “it is not unanimity or the result of a vote”… “Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority”

What are you guys not understanding from the above statements quoted from WP:Consensus??

There is literally a challenge to “Levantine Arabic is indigenous to Arab countries and communities within the Levant”.. this statement right here is what A455bcd9 takes issue with. What is wrong with it?? Is this statement being denied as not true?

This is an in-tandem effort to get me violated. It is the number one intention here. Once i am violated, they can operate with free reign on that article. This is the plan it seems.

To add, user A455bcd9 has been harassing me for quite some time now. WP: Sealioning. This could be seen in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved comment As background: The article is on my watch list for years, but I haven't edited it for a long time and I'm not involved in any way. It's clear WatanWatan2020 is in the wrong here, and their battleground behavior and many personal attacks above only make it worse. I would consider an indeff as per WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please also note previous warnings on WatanWatan2020's talk page:
 * User_talk:WatanWatan2020: unsourced content
 * User_talk:WatanWatan2020: edit warring on Lebanon
 * User_talk:WatanWatan2020: edit warring on Jordan
 * User_talk:WatanWatan2020: edit warring on Arab Air Carriers Organization
 * User_talk:WatanWatan2020: edit warring on Saudi Arabia
 * User_talk:WatanWatan2020: August 2021 on Levantine Arabic
 * Levantine Arabic: October 2021, edit warring
 * Previous contributions show WatanWatan2020 regularly accuses other of "vandalism" and even attacks other contributors in edit comments (bold mine):
 * : "The continual false changes by an arrogant Israeli onto the page of an Arab nation that does not recognize the “state of Israel” in its entirety should not vandalize such a page. The Lebanese Republic does not recognize such a state, it only recognizes Palestine in its entirety. Understand the fact that even by including “Israel” here, it is a goodwill gesture. Palestine is to the south of Lebanon, it borders it. Do not come on Arab countries’ Wikipedia pages to invoke personal arrogance."
 * : "Who does the West Bank belong to? Palestine as well. Yet in the arrogance of an Israeli, such person will not put the name Palestine, but rather the West Bank. Buzz off to your own Wikipedia pages, do not interfere in the pages of Arab countries. Enemy bias should not be allowed on such pages." A455bcd9 (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

These were in the beginning when i first started my journey here on WP. Also, it was in response to massive POV pushing against Arab articles, which happens quiet alot on here. A455bcd9 has been engaged in the very same thing.

He has also published false information on Arab articles. An example is on the “Mashriq” article. He listed Israel as an Arab country. When i went to edit that, he reverted it back to the false information. Please check the Logs on the Mashriq article.

He has also repeatedly harassed me with the same questions and inquiries in the form of WP:Sealioning to wear out my patience. When I made the changes or brought citations as he was requiring, he would fish for another excuse to get his way. Everything is on record there in the logs. There is nothing to hide. That is why I am firm in my responses here.

And if i was wrong to the extent that i am made out to be here, I would have been dealt with long ago. Although time and time again Admins have seen that i was not in the wrong, rather equal disputes had come about.

And besides A455bcd9 was warned that he would be blocked had he touched my edits once again. He has been defacto controlling this article for the longest time, and has deleted the contributions of others as well. I dont understand why this is not concerning anyone here. This is a big time issue.

WatanWatan2020 (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Update: Another revert. (This time at least, WatanWatan2020 only reverted a few sentences and not the whole article...) A455bcd9 (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours, since this is the first time the user has been reported blocked for edit warring. when this block expires, please accept that consensus is not with you in this case and do not resume edit warring. Any concerns or suggestions you have should be discussed at the talk page, rather than repeatedly imposing them on the article when others disagree. If you continue edit warring in this fashion then the next block is likely to be much longer. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , as mentioned above, please note that this is not the first time the user has been reported for edit warring. First time here. Related warning by Donald Albury on WatanWatan2020's talk page here. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * true, I meant the first time they have received a block over it. Amended. Hopefully this will be a wake up call for WatanWatan and they'll start engaging constructively to find consensus with others at the talk page, but if not then a longer block will certainly follow. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Rikadon reported by User:Frietjes (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novashnaq&type=revision&diff=1048827622&oldid=1046268118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novashnaq&type=revision&diff=1048827622&oldid=1046268118]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novashnaq&type=revision&diff=1048920273&oldid=1048887316]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novashnaq&type=revision&diff=1048988337&oldid=1048934202]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novashnaq&type=revision&diff=1049107444&oldid=1049037138]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novashnaq&type=revision&diff=1049252209&oldid=1049205873]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novashnaq&type=revision&diff=1049375178&oldid=1049277237]
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novashnaq&type=revision&diff=1049481196&oldid=1049423174]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARikadon&type=revision&diff=1049205932&oldid=1049037431] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARikadon&type=revision&diff=1049277317&oldid=1049205932]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novashnaq&diff=prev&oldid=1049424213]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rikadon&diff=prev&oldid=1049424535]

Comments:


 * It doesn't appear that this user is here to build an encyclopedia, they have repeatedly added nonsense to the said page despite repeated warnings, and have no useful edit history. Blocked indefinitely. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Interfase reported by User:Adelphopolis (Result: Filer indeffed)
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:


 * The filer was indefinitely blocked by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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:

This user has been doing long lasting edit warring on the article. I don't argue about the context, however this user's so called sources are not sources. Either linking a website, video or simply a picture. Plain description of WP:OR. Please see sources [70][71][72][73][74]. Beshogur (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The four reverts in question were not made within 24 hours, so there isn't a 3RR violation here. Also, both parties here have been edit warring without seemingly attempting to discuss the issue on the talk page or seek a WP:Third opinion. Please do not edit war in future. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Cristiansr 99 reported by User:Ïvana (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Original version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 2 3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User didn't attempt to resolve the dispute and simply reverted the corrections.

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

Comments: Four different users warned Cristiansr 99, 3 on the article page and one on his talk page. There was already a consensus to delete the section he is repeatedly trying to add. He was notified about edit warring and ignored it. - Ïvana (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:179.177.173.112 reported by User:89.172.79.221 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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


 * Result: Page semiprotected three weeks by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Georgi1 reported by User:Steverci (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The Vrats dasht article was created last month by User:SonofJacob, who is now indefinitely blocked. Though the name of the subject may constitute a small article, SonofJacob filled the article with wildly undue claims that were not even verified by the sources he was citing. Some of the sources were even bizarrely out of place, such as one about Oxford music. I have explained on the talk page the all of the sources failed to verify their claims, but Georgi1 continues to keep restoring them. --Steverci (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone,
 * I was the first to point out to Steverci that he was edit warring. It is a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG.
 * He is the one who violated the 3RR rule :
 * First revert of Steverci
 * second revert (my first revert)
 * third revert (Steverci's second revert and violation of the 3RR rule).


 * I then kindly asked him to come on the talk page : "Steverci (talk) raise it in talk please. There is no consensus we need to discuss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vrats_dasht"


 * '''Stareveci has been reverted twice by two different users on this :
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vrats_dasht&diff=1048738192&oldid=1048573137
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vrats_dasht&diff=1049658289&oldid=1049658032
 * So I didn't revert the same user three times in a row, because I also made improvements in the sources and added more relevant sources.
 * WP:BOOMERANG

'''
 * He also uses these methods very often on wikipedia, which damages the encyclopedia.
 * --Van Gogia (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:DrKay reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Current Version (DrKay's preferred version), Previous version (my preferred version).

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1 06:29  10 October
 * 2) 2 19:37 11 October
 * 3) 3 19:40 11 October
 * 4) after removing sections after edits I made so one full revert couldn't be done 06:54 14 October
 * 5) 4, another revert was again made 21:10 14 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: manually-added 3RR warning link, Twinkle-added 3RR warning link

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Manual notification of this Report, diff

Comments:


 * DrKay is an admin, a user since 2006, with almost 140,000 edits. This editor should know better than this.  I should not be filing an AN3 report against an admin, yet here we are. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge University is in Cambridge, England, not Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University is in Cambridge, Massachusetts, not Cambridge, England. The United Kingdom of Great Britain ceased to exist in 1801. Cite journal requires a journal name. Correcting the locations, correcting the country name, and adding the journal names should not require explanation. They are obvious improvements and clear corrections. Neutralhomer needs to explain why they are undoing these edits, none of which meets the bright-line rule. It is reasonable to assume that their refusal to accept these corrections is because their reverts are being performed indiscriminately as part of a personal vendetta and not because they have examined the edits with care or given them any thought. DrKay (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Pinging User:Rjensen and User:AManWithNoPlan, who can provide third opinions on whether editorial boards should be listed in citation templates. DrKay (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * However, if y'all carry on reverting without discussion, there will be blocks. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion DrKay is correct in reverting the disruptive edits by The Exterminating Angel. They are degrading the quality of major artricles. Rjensen (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * i asked on the citation template talk pages and everyone agrees that editors are only useful for things like books. I would add that for editorials by the editors, they are authors.  Just becsuse a parameter exist, do not mean it should always be used.  For example there is a parameter to include where the author physically did the writing which is silly almost all the time.  Also, execessive weight is given when there are 5 editors and 1 author.  Lastly, overfilling of parametes is a problem: do we really need to know that the NYT is in NYC in NY in the USA and published by NYT corp.  With them all linked and USA fully spelled out? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Dealmaces reported by User:Didelphi (Result: )
Page:



User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Mephisto (Marvel Comics)
 * List of Spider-Man enemies
 * Doctor Octopus
 * Venom (character)
 * Eddie Brock

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

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

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

Comments:

User Dealmaces keeps persistently listing Mephisto as "one of Spider-Man's four archenemies" or his "true archenemy" in Spider-Man-related pages, but no source has ever considered Mephisto as such. The user has cited a number of sources (which I list below) to support this claim, none of them primary (they're opinion blogs), and none of which actually refer to Mephisto as such either; therefore this is own research. The only actual matches when googling for "Mephisto Spider-Man archenemy" are these Wikipedia pages they're editing.

The user's edits have been reverted many times by several contributors, but they keep restoring them; usually mixing them with other edits on the page which makes them harder to revert (not stating that this is the user's intention, but noting it as a caution as regular revert is not possible, and explaining why most of these reverts are manual).


 * https://www.cbr.com/miles-morales-one-more-day-deal-mephisto
 * https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/marvel-superior-spider-man-doctor-octopus-mephisto-deal
 * https://screenrant.com/spiderman-green-goblin-origin-kindred-harry-mephisto
 * https://screenrant.com/spider-man-greatest-villain-mephisto-sinister-way

Didelphi (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I already removed that yesterday. Check the pages. Dealmaces (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I still reverted some of those edits today right before submitting this report, and you restored a few even after your above reply:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mephisto_(Marvel_Comics)&diff=prev&oldid=1049881310
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Spider-Man_enemies&diff=prev&oldid=1049881717
 * Also you seem to be removing mentions of the other archenemies now as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venom_(character)&diff=prev&oldid=1049881148
 * Didelphi (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake. WP:TOOSOON. Dealmaces (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:VarmtheHawk reported by User:ItsKesha (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please follow the processes outlined in the linked articles before posting the template."
 * 2)  "Being the longest article is not in violation of Wikipedia policies."
 * 3)  "Nonsense. None of the statements in that warning are true."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

asked user to discuss the process on the talk page, flat-out refused All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC) I have no problem with the template being placed at the top of this article as long as the approved process is followed. As no proposal was placed on the Talk Page, there was nothing to discuss. The complainer and their collaborator saw fit to change the article repeatedly without coordination, all of which were reverted, it is incumbent on them to coordinate the changes with the other editors.VarmtheHawk (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's four discussions already on the talk page about this issue? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are numerous proposals on the talk page which are ongoing. This is not relevant to this noticeboard however, as you've violated 3RR. If you have concerns about other editors for issues other than edit warring, there are other places for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The talk page has become so toxic that I see no way any progress can be made on the content dispute. Basically, User:ItsKesha has pissed so many people off with their confrontational and uncivil approach that any suggestions they make are likely to be rejected out of hand. Not saying the page can't be improved, just that any future improvements are probably best done without the involvement of this editor. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Max, can you pack it in with the personal attacks and try discussing this on my talk page? And let's be honest, it wasn't me who, when asked to give an example of a Wikipedia article, opted to respond by saying "the phone book". FYI, that was the first interaction we had with each other. I guess that's an example of civility? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * has now performed a fourth revert: "The issue of this warning has been elevated to the Administrators' noticeboard and adding it back is counterproductive. No proposal has been made on the Talk Page". — All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Violation of 3RR normally requires four reverts, rather than three. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

For the purpose of making sure that everyone has been notified of this discussion who ought to be, I note that has also participated in the edit war. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have made one revert to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have formally asked VarmtheHawk to self-revert on their user talk page here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:VarmtheHawk and User:ItsKesha are both warned. If either of you reverts again without getting prior consensus for your change on the article talk page, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Rob108 reported by User:Venkat TL (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1050228492 by Venkat TL (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1050227290 by Venkat TL (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1050226785 by Venkat TL (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Singhu Border Lynching of Dalit (2021) */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Murder */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Murder */ Reply"

Comments:

this user's draft has already been rejected. Draft:2021 lynching and killing of dalit by farm protestors. Now he is posting the stuff at other page and edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Response: A section on the brutal murder was already there at the given article on singhu by user dhy.rjw https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singhu&oldid=1050182395  So I did not add any new information but merely added context to existing section. The user VenkatTL is bullying me by deleting all my contents. This harassment of new user must be stopped and VenkatTL must be put on alert for vandalism. Thank you Wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob108 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)   Rob108 (talk)rob108
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:113.21.228.238 reported by User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "How is this not related to the topic? It clearly shows Jesus couldn't abrogate the capital offences since the story is inauthentic."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1049904513 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1049730544 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Some guidance you should look at */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Capital punishment in the Bible."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Nearing WP:EW territory */ new section"

Comments:

113 and I are both at 3 reverts (BRRRRRDR), so 3RR hasn't been broken, but we are editwarring. Based on ES and refs they seem to edit from some specific Christian POV, and won't discuss on the talkpage. Would like an admin to say or do something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not used to reporting here, I used twinkle and did my best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. I recommend handling this disagreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Chaturaji reported by User:力 (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)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Reverted 4 different editors in 26 hours. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 03:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Canalsider reported by User:Grandpallama (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Brand new account registers, makes a null edit to remove redlinked username, and five minutes later begins scrubbing material critical of the article subject. Ignores requests to open a talkpage discussion in both edit summaries and the "soft" edit warring notice left on their talkpage. Edit summary talking about criteria for inclusion additionally suggests that this is not a new user. Grandpallama (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not "scrubbed" anything critical.
 * This user "Grandpallama" has not offered any concrete objection to my edits.
 * Their report here is dishonest, falsely presenting my initial edit as a revert. Canalsider (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. And even if it did not, one does not need to violate 3RR to be edit warring. Grandpallama (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Ergzay reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Ergzay boldly merged content into the article. I reverted this, and they reverted my reverted. I have asked them to self-revert, but they have not done so. This seems to be clear edit warring, even if 3RR hasn't been violated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not edit warring. That's a content dispute.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's edit warring over a content dispute. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is false reporting. @Onetwothreeip is using this page to try to silence discussion after I stated on the edit page that I would revert the split if there were no objections, I got no objections form him so I reverted. He then reverted my revert and continued to not participate in discussion so I again reverted his revert, after which he finally started discussion and simultaneously posted a ridiculous Administrator-looking warning on my talk page. I called it rude and warned that if he decided to stop discussing that I would again revert it, and after stating that he reported me here (even though I hadn't yet reverted anything). This user has numerous issues with incessant splitting of articles across Wikipedia (and almost received a Ban for doing so but it was for some reason closed). They are acting in bad faith. Ergzay (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In this report I've given examples where I have made my objection known to you, as well as myself reverting your bold edit which is itself an objection. I didn't revert your revert, I reverted your change to the status quo of the article, and then you reverted my revert. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're simply looking for a discussion on the article talk page, I'd be willing to withdraw this report if we return the article to the status quo before your bold merge, and we can continue from there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * . At most has made two reverts; it depends whether you count the first edits as a revert or simply an addition. Either you folk work it out on the Talk page, or if  thinks Ergzay's addition is bad enough to compel administrative action, take it to WP:ANI. This board is unsuitable.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Mooproop1 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1050400690 by Equine-man (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1050400416 by Anaxial (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1050400131 by Anaxial (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1050399580 by Serols (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1050392764 by Rastakwere (talk)"
 * 6)  "Unsubstantiated claims from bias places and it doesn't belong in his main biography"
 * 7)  "/* Aanolee massacre */ didnt happen. These are my source that are reputable. Please stop changing it back and stick to the facts wikipedia. and also make menelik page so it can't be edited. its very important in the times ethiopia is facing"
 * 8)  "I changed the aanolee massacre as this guys sources are bias. I've put my own source that are much more reputable that will prove these things didn't happen"
 * 9)  "/* Aanolee massacre */ didnt happen. These are my source that are reputable. Please stop changing it back and stick to the facts wikipedia. and also make menelik page so it can't be edited. its very important in the times ethiopia is facing"
 * 1)  "I changed the aanolee massacre as this guys sources are bias. I've put my own source that are much more reputable that will prove these things didn't happen"
 * 2)  "/* Aanolee massacre */ didnt happen. These are my source that are reputable. Please stop changing it back and stick to the facts wikipedia. and also make menelik page so it can't be edited. its very important in the times ethiopia is facing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Menelik II."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Avilich reported by User:Lightburst (Result: Warned for personal attacks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred: remove both personal attacks

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) Another personal attack was in the last edit.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I went to the editor's talk page to request that they revert the PA, but they added a new PA calling me an "immature child". 

Comments: Appreciate the removal of both personal attacks. per policy. WP:ASPERSIONS WP:UNCIVIL WP:AVOIDYOU. editor was recently blocked for edit warring. 
 * This report should not have been filed here. However, I've removed the personal attacks and concurrent "discussion" from the AfD. If you make any more personal attacks, you risk being blocked without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:82.1.235.57 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: Warning, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (I don't know what to do with "diff is preferred" when what this is asking for is a link to a version, not a diff.)

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: Basically, the user seems to be trying to beat some points to death about the ACCA's disciplinary proceedings, to the extent of repeating the same thing in different ways three or four times or adding trivial details that, rather than supplying additional information, are tautologically true. I removed the repetition and then, when it was restored, cautioned the user on the user's talk page and began a discussion on the article's talk page. Even if the other use is able to make a satisfactory case for keeping the additional material, and can get the consensus of others that it's fine, the user has refrained from engaging in such a conversation. Largoplazo (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: IP warned, and page semiprotected one month. I advise the IP to explain their point on the article talk page and try to get support there. At first glance this appears to be a user's personal grievance against the actions or policies of this association. I've left a warning on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:CRS-20 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See introduction by Revision as of 16:28, 16 September 2021 (edit) (undo) (thank) GoingBatty (talk
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1050466978 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1050463987 by GA-RT-22 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1050463987 by GA-RT-22 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* ref tags */"
 * 2)   "/* ref tags */"
 * 3)   "/* ref tags */"
 * 4)

Comments: Though the edits are trivial, the editor was asked by three different editors to stop repeatedly making these edits which do not comply with MOS guidance. The editor's response was to remove the other editors' requests from the article Talk page, and then to repeat one of the edits again, even after being warned about EW. The editor seems to be trying to make a point. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 05:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Edit warring and removal of others' comments from the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Rohanmurali reported by User:Kaustubh42 (Result: Malformed)
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:


 * Result: No action due to a malformed report. No diffs were supplied and the editor in question was not notified of the 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)