Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive443

User:Larryboyjon reported by User:SuperSkaterDude45 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_harem_anime_and_manga&oldid=1054351937

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: I'm submitting this report after user reverted my edit on wanting to discuss on article talk. I've also noticed an IP address that was only used just to manually revert one edit within the article. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Zamarak reported by User:TheWayWeAllGo (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liu_Bei&diff=1054041603&oldid=1053158478
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liu_Bei&diff=1054191082&oldid=1054082080
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liu_Bei&diff=1054206968&oldid=1054201204

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: This person sole contribution ATM is modifying the top lead image of this article, I'm a major contributor of this page and related person of his era. I can affirm that this is not a good representation of him, Liu Bei was an emperor for the last 2 years of his life and spend around 40 years travelling and fighting from one lord to another mostly working as a general/leader of men. When people hear his name they think of his dramatic and interesting life, not of an emperor. Also the painting is clearly a hint toward his cultural depiction just before he takes his famous vow in the peach garden.TheWayWeAllGo (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No admin here but I doubt anyone's edits would be priortized more because they claim to be related to an era that happened 19 centuries ago. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misspoke, I guess, what I mean by "I'm a major contributor of this page and related person of his era." is that I also contribute to articles about general, administrator and strategist of his era.TheWayWeAllGo (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, I didn't get it earlier. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke 3RR, but blocks are possible if the war continues. User:Zamarak opened a discussion on the article talk page. User:TheWayWeAllGo (who filed this report without notifying the other party, and without using the article talk page first) is urged to join in there and offer his reasoning. See WP:DR if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Guillermo Sanders reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (before Sanders's first edit and subsequent edit war)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Edit summaries I provided, and the summary in the first revert of their addition by User:Nerd271, are pretty clear of what we see as problems here. I added a note in the template, "There is no evidence that that pdf underwent peer review and was published in a reputable journal", which the editor responded to with scorn and a falsehood. In addition, please see this post on WP:RSN--and please see this comment by User:Alexbrn. I'm not necessarily looking for a block--just for confirmation to the user that they did indeed engage in an edit war against two editors. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Comments:


 * No attempt to discuss on talk page? Having a debate on source reliability through edit summaries is usually unproductive.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 18:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:AlexEng, yes attempt to discuss on talk page: user talk page. Also unproductive: four reverts. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , you mean this? You didn't respond before coming to AN3. I mean, the person is obviously peeved, but they are trying to articulate a point. I don't happen to agree with the point (ERIC's reliability), but it would probably be best to discuss it before coming here. It's one thing if they don't respond, but they did. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 18:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are seriously going to expect me to take that response seriously? and in the meantime we just let their edit stand? because otherwise I'm the edit warrior? That's real nice: "the article is fine and your warning is fake" as a valid excuse for edit warring over unreliable sourced content that already indicated as "inflammatory". Drmies (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to fight. Just seemed a bit bitey to me. What's done is done, I guess. Maybe they'll come back after the block and be a better editor, or maybe they'll come back bitter and get indeffed. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 18:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:83:8080:23F0:CD4F:BB8A:D460:9E62 reported by User:Suneye1 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  No edit summary
 * 2)  No edit summary
 * 3)  No edit summary
 * 4)  No edit summary
 * 5)  No edit summary
 * 6)  No edit summary

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

No response from the user in the their talk page or in the edit summaries despite multiple warnings. Added a statement by a person who assaulted the subject as a fact with their personal opinions. Later removes reliably sourced content without an explanation.. Also, please protect the article if possible, persistent disruption by other users too. -  SUN EYE 1  15:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:DarkGlow reported by User:Connorguy99 (Result: Warned both users)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "going on dennis' credited name and Alyssa hasn't been given a surname"
 * 2)  "Reverted 2 edits by WikiFlame50 (talk): Alyssa has NO credited name. And Dennis' credited name is Rickman. Just Rickman. No Jnr."
 * 3)  "this is getting very ridiculous. not a credited name and no amount of sources will change that"
 * 4)  "→‎Alyssa: wonder how many times this will be readded!"
 * 5)  "→‎Alyssa: -"
 * 6)  "→‎Alyssa: no credited last name, assuming it's Lennox (or Rickman/Watts) would be WP:OR."
 * 7)  "Reverted 1 edit by Connorguy99 (talk): "Vandalism" 😭 get a job"
 * 8)  "Reverted 1 edit by Connorguy99 (talk): No source provided per WP:BURDEN"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff|Talk:List of EastEnders characters (2021)]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff|User talk:DarkGlow

Comments:

Just to add context here: is adding unsourced original research to said articles; my part in this is reverting disruptive edits. – DarkGlow • 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think something being added is wrong, report it. Do not edit war and disrupt the site by continuously reverting. Eigth edits in less than 48 hours is a disgrace, and you reverted many other editors not just myself. Connorguy99 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A note was added by myself which you ignored to add unsourced original research. I stated numerous times that you should provide a source for your change; reverting an unsourced addition is not inciting an edit war. – DarkGlow • 16:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet I was the one who started a discussion on the talkpage which you ignored. Connorguy99 (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I instead replied to the message you left on my talk page which was near-identical and posted within a short space of time as each other. (Not that reverting vandalism is a discussion in itself…) – DarkGlow • 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is my opinion on the matter. I believe both of you have a few wrong doings. Firstly, DarkGlow. The only thing I disagree on is the fact that you where removing and ignoring the fact that Dennis Rickman was always known as Dennis Rickman Jnr, despite not being credited this way in the show, a BBC site which is solid in terms of sourcing, even put his name as Dennis Rickman Jnr, His order of service, his tombstone not to mention even said the same thing. You infact ignored it, if it’s a valid source, it should stand. But as for you Connor, Dark glow is right about Alyssa. There aren’t any sources stating that her last name is “Lennox”, We don’t know, there aren’t any sources currently. Whenever someone rightfully removes an edit from Alyssa, Dark for example,  you always assume it’s because of her being black, Just like you assumed with Glory Bailey! It has absolutely nothing to do with her race, at all! And especially not to mention you continuously decide to ignore what people are trying to tell you, calling it “Vandalism”. Overall, and judging by both of your edit histories, the pair of you need to stop your constant feuding, otherwise in the worst case scenario, both of you will meet the same ending and get banned. I may not be an admin, but I know the difference between right and wrong. As my name was mentioned, I thought I should have a few sayings.WikiFlame50 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say that it was racism. I said that we shouldn't be treating black/white characters differently. Connorguy99 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, my point exactly. We are not and not intended on treating blacks and whites horribly. It doesn’t matter if the character is black or white, if there is no source, there is no source.WikiFlame50 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * the reporter and the reported user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mwtoews reported by User:Waysidesc (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Reverts DexDor)
 * 2)  (Reverts Rogerd)
 * 3)  (Reverts Vmavanti)
 * 4)  (Revert me)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User:Mwtoews has added a controversial statement to the SQL Server DAB page that violates WP:DAB. Over the course of four years, User:Mwtoews has been engaged in edit warring with four editor in this page:, , , and myself. All of these editors have recognized his violation and attempted to remove it. User:Mwtoews has reverted them and refuses to fulfill his burden of proof. His arguments amounts to "I believe it is true, so you must believe me." Waysidesc (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be considered a warning for both of you; this seems to be a slow-burning edit war but this issue must be discussed on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: what version of the article is it to be restored to? Versions of this entry have persisted since 2003-01-29 (not mine), this has been more-or-less the status que for over 18 years. There is no consensus on the Talk page, despite my invitation to start a discussion. The entry is there to be helpful, with some evidence here and here. It's a disambiguation page, so it's common to see links that refer to the words in the title (in this case SQL and database server). + m t  21:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1054675368 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1054674952 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1054672735 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1054353246 by M.Bitton (talk) My map was fine, and it was 'factually correct'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of ongoing armed conflicts."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of ongoing armed conflicts."

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

Comments:
 * They have edit warred over this in the past (see their previous edits and discussion with another editor), but after supposedly giving up, they came back to continue what they started. M.Bitton (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of their replies to the comments I left on their talk page: I'm not going out without a fight, so have fun reverting my edits, it wont end though and what do you make of yourself? Your not even an editor or a moderator. What are you even doing with your life? Do you get paid to do this or something. M.Bitton (talk)
 * I'm going to be honest, this resentment and anger that you have against me and my map is the very reason I can't possibly take any consideration about how you feel about it. I have been working on a new map, using the info left on my talk page. But your immediate removal of my map shows me deeper, more personal reasons for having done so. Therefore, I can't, within reason, listen to anything you have to say until you have removed your feelings from the discussion. I am working on a new map, so if you can find the strength in yourself to wait just a few more hours, I will have it ready. Until then, please stop whining about my map. ThatMapGuy (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I have never interacted with you before today. 2) Whatever map you feel like uploading would need to be properly sourced to start with, but that's another question. In the meantime, your edit warring and personal attacks need to be addressed. M.Bitton (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Nah. ThatMapGuy (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment (drive-by) Thatmapguy has admitted he made the map himself using Wikipedia as a source.[Diff]. Wikipedia is not a reliable source as most editors know, so I expect an Admin to try to explain soon, and ask that Mapguy stop edit-warring. -Roxy the dog . wooF 14:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even their interpretation of Wiki source is plain wrong. I could go on explaining to them like the previous editor did, but given their replies, that would be a time wasting exercise. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Roxy the dog I'm new to wikipedia editing and all, and nobody had really laid out any guidelines, but I appreciate the response. I'll quit trying to put my map on the page. Thanks. ThatMapGuy (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Quitting to introduce your map is not enough, you need to remove it (self-revert). 2) An editor tried to explain to you what the problem was, you ignored them and left, only to come back for another round. 3) You don't need to understand the guidelines to be civil to others (your personal attacks are unacceptable and the way you dismissed what I said above with your Nah reveals your true intentions). M.Bitton (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, you know what? I'm sick and tired of dealing with you. Want the map gone? Do it yourself. I meant everything I said about you, I quit. ThatMapGuy (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave TMG an opportunity to self-revert, but he refused. Blocked for one week for the edit war, for the incivility, and for the battleground attitude.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Suthasianhistorian8 reported by User:MehmoodS (Result: Both 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)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user committed 3RR Edit warring by reverting changes 4 times. I have reported user Suthasianhistorian8 once before but withdrew my request as I managed to settle dispute with the user. But this user just started reverting changes by removing information along with reliable sources as he felt that the information degrades the article but nothing in that addition or sources provide any such information. Its clear that once again, this user likes the appearance of an article as he personally finds suitable and will use any method of accusation to remove the information of other editors. Even on article's talk page discussion, he is stubborn to have the information removed which I clearly mentioned to him that there is no reason to do so. The same user has removed vast amount of information and sources from other pages providing invalid accusations such as on article Sikhism, or on article Sewa,  where his reasoning behind removing information and sources is that "needless promotion of organizations? Unfit for Wikipedia standards". Also on page Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, user removed information claiming "source is obvious biased and POV junk article piece)", . He has been persistent in making such invalid statements as a reason for removing contents and sources without any discussion on talk page earlier. Its clear that the user likes to perceive the article as it suits best by removing sources and information of other editors. MehmoodS (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The sources provided did not back up your claim that Onkar translates to Omkar (distinction being made between literal translation and meaning (exposition)), one of your sources also appears to be a children's or a book for laymen which very poor research. Moreover, my other edits on "Seva" was 100% justified, the article was clearly hijacked by trolls, and filled with honorific titles, irrelevant and thinly veiled agenda pushing, and one of the paragraphs was a strange tangent on a unknown charity. I cleaned the page up and I have cleaned numerous wikipedia pages and signifcantly improved the quality of them (such as Ik Onkar, Nanakpanthi, Sikh Empire which I fixed a incorrect claim on the size of the empire that was unchallenged for 7 years, Sikhism, Sikhs, Talwinder Singh Parmar etc etc, various Canadian election result templates which were either not up to date for months or reflected incorrect information). And yes the article in question in the Bhindranwale page was indeed a POV junk article piece, admins are more than welcome to confirm that. MehmoodS is making baseless accusations about me based on falsehoods I have asked you multiple times to learn the distinction between literal translation and meaning/exposition. Claiming that Onkar TRANSLATES to God is incorrect, Onkar translates to an epithet of God, and thus became a synonym of God, which I explained in the section before you reverted my edits.

Since my thread was deleted, I will post my side which I think is more than fair. The user committed 3RR Edit warring by reverting changes 3 times. He keeps vandalizing the etymology and nomenclature section of the page which I recently created. He keeps adding irrelevant, repetitive content that has nothing to do with the etymology of the phrase in question. The sources he provides are also poorly sourced and one is even a children's book it appears (the third one) on his claim that "Onkar is translated to God in Punjabi". His sources are quite poor in contrast to the ones I provided. I keep and have been trying explain to him numerous times the direct translation of the word "Ik Onkar". He claims that "Onkar"'s TRANSLATION is "God". I keep explaining to him that Onkar is a cognate of the Sanskrit "Omkar/Omkara", which literally translates to "Om Maker". I have provided sources for this from high quality encyclopedias and books. Onkar quite literally is Omkar, with a slight change in it's orthography (similar to color=colour, Muhammad= Mohammed, Mahavir= Mahabir, etc all those words are referring to the same thing or person/being just with a slight change in spelling and sometimes pronunciation). The source for this is on top of the article next to "one Om Maker" along with the ones I provided in the "Entomology" section. The TRANSLATION of "Onkar/Omkar" is "Om Maker", which is an epithet or quality of God in the context of Dharmic religions, thus "Onkar/Omkar" became a synonym, epithet, interchangeable word, byname of God within South Asia, and there is vast historical basis to back this up. Onkar translates to Om Maker which in turn became a synonym for God. It does not DIRECTLY TRANSLATE to God. It does MEAN God, but it does NOT DIRECTLY TRANSLATE TO GOD. Similarly, a name for God within Islamic traditions is "Al Rahman" which translates to "The Merciful", which in turn became a synonym, interchangable word to identify, name, describe God. It does not TRANSLATE to God. Similarily, Onkar/Omkar TRANSLATES to Om Maker, which in turn caused it to become a synonym, epithet, word to identify, name, and describe God, but it does not translate to God. I have asked MehmoodS to learn the distinction between literal translation and meaning at least one dozen times now. He ignores me every single time, and never once has he provided a source to back up the claim that "onkar TRANSLATES to God". 100% Onkar MEANS God, but it does not TRANSLATE to God, that is an a unequivocally false statement. And I've even attempted to compromise with him by adding "Ik Onkar" means "One God" in my previous edit which he reverted. But it is false to claim that Onkar translates to God, Onkar means God through an epithet of God (the being who creates the Om syllable). Moreover, the claim that Ik Onkar denotes One God is repeated numerous times thorughout the article, and it does not belong in the etymology section, as it cheapens and degrades it. In short, I keep explaining that Onkar translates to an epithet of God, and therefore became a synonym of God, but it does not directly translate to God, MehmoodS does not seem to understand this.Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Super ninja2 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Not a 3RR, but this user started to remove the "indigenous people" tag from the article by claiming they are indigenous of Asia. Crimea is European, however, the article's history section explained enough that they're a mix of many peoples native to Crimea, incl. Cumans that appeared in Crimea. And this user's approach to the topic is solely based on Russia's view, which occupies Crimea: it questionable as Russia does not consider them so., however the European Union, Ukraine as well as many NGOs called them an indigenous people. Then later, she says, she don't care: i don't care where they originated! and It's not my business or your business or any Wikipedian business to figure out where they originated!. So what's the point of those edits? Also definitely wp:nothere. Beshogur (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * as I've already said, Wikipedia is not intended to convey the opinion of Ukraine and European Union only as Russia is part of the article and part of the conflict and it is the de facto ruler of Crimea so its opinion matters. This is a conflict and If there is a conflict we should not take one side and leave the other.
 * And yes, I will emphasize what I've said about not caring about where they have originated because its not my job or User:Beshogur's job to find out that. Our job here is based on conveying information from reliable sources and presenting different points of view. We do NOT make our own conclusions, rather we convey facts and different opinions! Your edit is biased. And this is the full edit summary you cut out of context in purpose of proving your point i don't care where they originated! It's not my business or your business or any Wikipedian business to figure out where they originated! We only convey facts and if there's a conflict we do not take side but have to be neutral and convey different points of views!
 * I did not violate any guideline and User:Beshogur, you can NOT call me "WP:nothere" because you don't like my opinion! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your aggressive tone won't help. Also I don't get your I will emphasize what I've said about not caring about where they have originated because its not my job or User:Beshogur's job to find out that. so who's editing at those pages? It's my "job" to "find out", and I care where they did originate, because your disruptive editing began with they are indigenous of Asia. Crimea is European which is not true. I would like to call the administrators carefully reading the article. Beshogur (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Beshogur what you seem to not understand is that this is not the right place to resolve our dispute. This page is for reporting edit warriors. If you would like to resolve the dispute you should take it to the article's talk page or head to WP:DRN. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Super ninja2 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Crimean Tatars without receiving a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf reported by User:Ak-eater06 (Result: Malformed)
On Canadian Alliance, User:Vif12vf changed the infobox from "centre-right to right-wing" to "right-wing", without citations or an edit summary. I reverted his edit, explaining he needs to provide a source. He then reverted back his edit, without a source.  Ak-eater06  (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:User034273 reported by User:JoJo Anthrax (Result: Blocked 48 hours. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC) )
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:

Five rapid-fire reverts despite summary and talk page warnings. Note that the user blanked their talk page and replaced it with a laughable semi-threat about "Public Relations Office of the ASIO" JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours; IP also blocked. Forwarded. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Raginbakin reported by User:Czello (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1054308897 by Czello (talk) No. I kept the part that says "China has been characterized by many authors as an authoritarian dictatorship" while also offering an alternative point of view. There's no need for a "consensus" about objective information about an opposing side's point of view. I get that Wikipedia is pro-West and all, but can't we forsake ideology in favor of neutrality?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1054306145 by Czello (talk) What is your definition of "consensus"? I'm not even changing what's already been written. This is an addition of new, cited information, which is perfectly compliant with Wikipedia rules. You have no right to undo this revision"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1054251440 by Neutrality (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1054054368 by Czello (talk)"

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

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

Comments:

A WP:SPA and another in a series of off-wiki canvassers, brought to this article by this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZedong/comments/qdo46f/delibifying_wikipedia_one_edit_at_a_time/ — Czello 08:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that the username of this user is identical to the reddit user, so he's not even trying to hide it. Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 08:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Requesting admin attention to this before it's archived, please. — Czello 21:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Democracy in China is EC protected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Factsaboutnigeria reported by User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid disruptive editing. The article is titled Jasper's Riddle which is a project or band name according to various sources, not a biography of the subject. Biography of the subject does not belong here. A user is vandalising"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1054800863 by HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1054800742 by HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid disruptive editing. Jasper's Riddle is a project or band name"
 * 1)  "Undid disruptive editing. Jasper's Riddle is a project or band name"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Jasper's Riddle."

Comments:

User has repeatedly made disruptive edits and violated 3RR many times over, even after being warned by multiple users. Would add more reversions to the list but Twinkle doesn't go back that far - just check the Jasper's Riddle revision history. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

'''Please note that the reporting User has made disruptive edits and vandalism to the page which I reverted. I am also reporting her for vandalism. There were two other editors who also agreed with my edits, resolved on my talk page and no longer reverted the edits due to the fact that biographical content does not belong in a band page. The article references Jasper's Riddle only which is the subject of the article and is known as a project name or concept. This would be putting full biography about an individual person a page about the band itself. User should be blocked from further edits or unhelpful contribution to the subject which is not an appropriate page for a BLP. One of her edits is literally "there is no page for L. S. Zeickner so this should go here" which makes no sense. She is free to create a page for L. S Zeickner. Another editor WikiDan61 said: Since the article is currently undergoing a deletion discussion, it would be inappropriate to move it now. If it survives and does not get deleted, we can move it to the proper location at the artist's proper name.''' Factsaboutnigeria (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User_talk:66.60.183.102 reported by User:ChicagoWikiEditor (Result: Semi, Blocks)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

IP user continues to make bold reverts and add content to lede without source, on multiple pages using several proxies from same IP region. Additional accounts involving a pattern of this activity include    ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Jada Pinkett Smith has been semiprotected three months due to BLP vandalism. In addition, two IP ranges have been blocked three months each:
 * Special:Contributions/66.60.120.202/16 and
 * Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF01:20:0:0:0:0/64. – EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith reported by User:Factsaboutnigeria (Result: Nominator blocked indefinitely; vexatious report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts/ edit warring / 3RR warning:

1  "reversions"

2DIFF 22:07, 11 November 2021‎ HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith "there is no article named "LS Zeickner" so this information should go here."

3DIFF 22:08, 11 November 2021‎ HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith →‎Career: layout undothank Tag: Reverted

4/ DIFF 05:03, 12 November 2021‎ HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith talk contribs‎ 6,788 bytes −4‎  Undid revision 1054800335 by Factsaboutnigeria (talk) not sure how my aesthetic layout fixes are "disruptive editing" undothank Tags: Undo Reverted

5DIFF 05:05, 12 November 2021‎ HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith →‎Career: excess undothank Tag: Reverted

Kindly find full page edit history Comments:

Excuse improper formatting. There's more she did with no valid explanation, she simply started edit warring and vandalised article by reverting sourced revisions. '''Please note that the User has made disruptive edits and vandalism to the page which I reverted and reported me so I am also reporting her for vandalism. There were two other editors who also agreed with my edits, resolved on my talk page and no longer reverted the edits due to the fact that biographical content does not belong in a band page or page about a project. The article references Jasper's Riddle only which is the subject of the article and is the name of a project, confirmed by many sources including those referenced in the article this one included. This would be putting full biography about an individual person a page about the band itself. User should be blocked from further edits or unhelpful contribution to the subject which is not an appropriate page for a BLP. One of her edits is literally "there is no page for L. S. Zeickner so this should go here" which makes no sense. She is free to create a page for L. S Zeickner. Another editor WikiDan61 said: Since the article is currently undergoing a deletion discussion, it would be inappropriate to move it now. If it survives and does not get deleted, we can move it to the proper location at the artist's proper name.''' Attempt to resolve on my talk page after I had resolved with other editors. She reported me falsely when she is the one adding BLP that does not belong in this page (Bear in mind she also said in talk discussion that the subject she referred to is not notable yet is adding a BLP to an inappropriate page) Factsaboutnigeria (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The period of the block is indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Tobi999tomas reported by User:Half korrupted heart (Result: Declined, malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

User has undone more than 3 times has threatened to get me banned. And also is undoing changes that I have proof for please so something about it.


 * Although, there is no 3RR violation at Atreyu. —C.Fred (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

User:DeeHistorian reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (revert to repeat this edit)

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:

Previously been edit warring as and. FDW777 (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours and page semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mcphurphy reported by User:Vice_regent (Result: Indefinitely blocked; article fully protected one week)
Page:

User being reported:

On October 31, Mcphurphy was blocked by for edit warring. During their block, and after it, a number of edits were made by others. On Nov 12, Mcphurphy reverted those edits in a span of just 2 hours:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (edit summary says: "Undid reversion...") restores content removed in this edit
 * 2)  is a partial removal of content added in this edit (Mcphurphy removes "This is decidedly different from the case...")
 * 3) Mcphurphy uses two consecutive edits (combined diff) to restore their preferred version of the lead's 1st paragraph. This was a revert of this edit. Basically, Mcphurphy removes from the 1st sentence "The sexual exploitation of slaves by their..." which was inserted there by Nishidani. Before Mcphurphy was blocked they had done the same thing.
 * 4) this edit partially removes text added in this edit (Mcphurphy removes "with no prejudice attached to their origins").

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not necessary, as user was recently blocked for edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no one discussed this on talk until I posted something, by that time Mcphurphy had already made 4 reverts

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

Comments: Mcphurphy was blocked by on October 31 for editwarring. They waited a few days after the block and went right back to reverting others' edits to the same page. More worrying is that Mcphurphy canvassed a few users, and one of them (Dr. Silverstein) showed up 17 minutes later to revert to Mcphurphy's version (this link shows Dr Silverstein reverted to exactly Mcphurphy's version on Oct 28). Dr Silverstein had not edited the page in more than a year. VR talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * This edit was my only substantive revert in that article. Iskandar323 reverted me there but I did not revert him back. If I was an edit warrior I would have reverted him. But I didn't.
 * In this edit at 20:46 I was improving text added by our co-editor Nishidani on 31 October. I removed it so I could re-add it in a re-phrased manner, which I subsequently did in this edit at 21:15 which I had planned to make even before Nishidani had reverted the former edit at 20:48.
 * i) In this edit I did not remove any text which Nishidani added. All I did was move it down to the third paragraph. ii) In this edit I was rephrasing a sentence because the previous sentence of "Islamic law has traditionalist and modernist interpretations, and the former allowed men to have sexual relations with their female slaves." did not appear in any of the sources cited. How can we have information on Wikipedia which does not even represent what the sources say?
 * This edit was not a revert but an improvement to the article as it removed an unverified phrase. The quote given in Nishidani's edit of 31 October did not support the phrase of "with no prejudice attached to their origins." The quote from the supporting source merely said: "'With the transition from the Umayyads to the Abbasids, the upward swell of subaltern demographics thrust individual concubines unambiguously into the realm of elite politics. Whereas only the last three Umayyad caliphs were born to concubines, the great majority of the early Abbasid caliphs were sons of this heretofore nameless class of women.'
 * I am somewhat confused by what here counts as a revert and what counts as just an edit. As far as I know I only made one revert today. The rest was just editing and improving the contributions of my fellow editors. If Vice regent's standards are applied to define 3RR then almost any editing by anyone on Wikipedia would count as a revert because each edit we do is an improvement/modification of someone else's work. In fact, Vice regent would themselves be guilty of edit warring as they have done today:.
 * In fact in this edit Vice regent did a wholesale revert of my edits to the article. In the edit summary Vice regent says: "these last changes seem disruptive, please get consensus for this before reverting so many different edits". Yet no one had objected to my edits. Even Vice regent did not explain anything on the talkpage as to why they objected to my edits until I demanded answers on talk.
 * It is my mistake I did not appeal my last block as a result of the previous report by one of Vice regent's friends. I explained in that report that my editing did not breach WP:3RR.
 * Also I am puzzled why Vice regent has decided to file this report after themself admitting at 22:41 that my edits don't violate WP:3RR. In this edit summary Vice regent self-corrects their warning to me and says "it was 3, not 4" which was an admission on their part that my edits don't violate 3RR.
 * Then why has Vice regent filed this report? Its because 1) I told them that Dr Silverstein reverted to Vice regent's version of the page, not mine and 2) I asked them if they were colluding with Iskandar323 off Wikipedia. Vice regent has been asking Iskandar323 to edit the page even if others revert him. Iskandar323 has himself admitted to off-wiki planning with others about changing the article. Since Iskandar323 has started editing the article Vice regent has constantly been reverting other users such as and myself back to the version Iskandar323 has made. For example:  This is long term edit warring by Vice regent. Mcphurphy (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mcphurphy says I have "edit warr[ed] today: ." The 1st edit is indeed a revert (which I explained). The 2nd edit is a partial self-revert of my own 1st edit. The 3rd and 4th edits are not reverts at all as they don't undo anyone else's edits; they are novel edits and they have never been challenged.
 * By contrast, all of Mcphurphy's reverts are full or partial reverts of recent edits by others, which is why they've been reverted in the past few hours by several users.VR talk 05:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The most disturbing thing about Mcphurphy's recent activity is their vocal lack of contrition and apparent unwillingness to learn. Smoke and mirrors aside, shortly after coming out of a block and being warned about non-collaborative editing and the deleterious effect of reversion-focused editing, the user appears to have returned to much the same set of behaviours with little evidence of acquired insight. I was willing to give the user the benefit of the doubt and treat their new edits in good faith (since at least some appear to come from a position of understanding on the subject, as noted by EdJohnston), but I am most concerned by Mcphurphy's pointing to evidence of only 3 reverts, not 4, as somehow ameliorating the situation – as it suggests that even now, Mcphurphy has failed to adequately read WP:EDITWAR, where it of course states rather explicitly that WP:3RR is "'not an entitlement' to revert a page a specific number of times." – this seems to have gone completely over the top of the head of Mcphurphy, who seems to still think that, after recently coming out of an edit warring block, that 3 reverts in two hours is still completely policy compliant and unobjectionable. Moreover, the user is quite hard to engage in constructive dialogue. When I messaged the user about one of their recent edits, I received no response: User_talk:Mcphurphy, despite the user clearly being online and no doubt aware of the talk attempt. I wrote on their talk page (instead or ignoring them or issuing a warning for disruptive editing) in the interest of treating bygones as bygones, and out of willingness to treat the actions of the user (edit warring sentence served) with an assumption of good faith. But good will is fruitless without return engagement. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum To clarify, the user has now belatedly responded at User_talk:Mcphurphy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment The editing style of User:Iskandar323 is to bulldoze his changes through while talkpage discussions are still ongoing instead of achieving consensus first. If other editors object and revert, Vice regent or Nishidani revert them as a WP:TAGTEAM. It is extremely difficult to work with this group of editors. Several editors such as User:Grufo share similar complaints about this group of users.
 * Some diffs of these users edit warring instead of seeking consensus for their changes to the article despite my attempts to engage with them on the talkpage:
 * Iskandar323:
 * Vice regent:.
 * Nishidani has also been very aggressive in talkpage discussions. For example, in this comment they tell me to "desist from arguing and stick to editwarring." With such an attitude, how can content disputes be resolved?
 * I am always willing to co-operate and resolve disputes and seek dispute resolution. However, for this approach to work I also kindly request this group of editors to stop edit warring, tag-teaming and resolve disagreements in a civil manner first with other editors instead of bulldozing their edits through when they are still controversial. Mcphurphy (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apropos this, I can’t overlook the personal aspersion it contains in my regard.
 * "Nishidani has also been very aggressive in talkpage discussions. For example, in this comment they tell me to 'desist from arguing and stick to editwarring.' With such an attitude, how can content disputes be resolved?"
 * Anyone can examine that diff, which consists of 4 replies to Mcphurphy, none of which is ‘aggressive.’ The above remark is a good example of Mcphurphy’s by now characteristic distortions of texts and fellow editors’ remarks. He spins my remark as asking him to 'desist from arguing and stick to editwarring’. I wrote four brief points suggesting to him that they had completely misconstrued my quite straightforward remarks, and I enjoined him in ironic language to start to listen to what his interlocutors say and reply focusedly:
 * To show some 'enmity' Mcphurphy deliberately drops the conditional clause. I wrote:
 * "‘ If you cannot again construe the prose of your interlocutor, then desist from arguing and stick to editwarring.’Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)"
 * The accusation of WP:TAGTEAM, which involves co-ordinated meatpuppetry, is a serious one Mcphurphy, and not to be made lightly: "Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil." It is not a way to explain the actions of multiple different editors from different editing backgrounds when they edit in a way that is not to your liking. Given your own canvassing, resulting in co-ordinated edits, I would suggest you watch your words. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are merely repeating Vice regent's false accusation of canvassing. I pinged people of all points of view, including those who disagreed with me and were neutral - as I explained to Vice regent here.
 * I said tag-teaming because the three of you co-operate in reverting other editors to each other's versions (to give a more recent example.) and then together join in against opponents in edit war boards to get them blocked.
 * With VR encouraging you to edit over other people's objections and you yourself stating that you are discussing changing the article with people outside Wikipedia it is bound to arouse suspicions. Mcphurphy (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When you reference a Wikipedia term like WP:TAGTEAM, it pays to actually read its contents in advance. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged here, so I will try to give a little bit of background from my point of view. The discussions in that page have always been polarized between two groups of editors: The group of editors currently active has somehow shrunk, and the most active users remain group #1, with some exceptions. This is why I wish that people from other religions get involved too, as I had said in. And this is also why I think the WP:CANVASS accusation against is purely non-sense. On the one side there is a group of editors that, almost like a political party, intervenes compactly, while on the other side there is 's ping of sparse editors who had participated in the discussions of Sexual slavery in Islam but are not currently active (it will be a miracle if half of them will respond to the call).
 * 1) Muslim editors or Islam apologists
 * 2) Uninvolved editors or editors critic of religions

Many of the edits from the apologetic group are often motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT and look like preventive defense of religion against a non-existing attack. For example, compare the current incipit of the following three pages:


 * Sexual slavery in Islam
 * “The sexual exploitation of slaves by their owners was a common practice in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean societies, and had persisted among the three Abrahamic religions, with distinct legal differences, since antiquity.”


 * Jewish views on slavery
 * “Jewish views on slavery are varied both religiously and historically. Judaism's ancient and medieval religious texts contain numerous laws governing the ownership and treatment of slaves.”


 * Christian views on slavery
 * “Christian views on slavery are varied regionally, historically and spiritually. Slavery in various forms has been a part of the social environment for much of Christianity's history, spanning well over eighteen centuries.”

I to harmonize the incipit of Sexual slavery in Islam by copying the first sentence from Christian views on slavery and remove its whataboutism by changing “three Abrahamic religions” to “Islam” (as the page talks about Islam), and my proposed incipit was this:


 * Sexual slavery in Islam
 * “Sexual slavery in Islam is varied regionally, historically and spiritually. The sexual exploitation of slaves by their owners was a common practice in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean societies, and had persisted in Islam, with distinct legal differences, since antiquity.”

It goes without saying that my attempt was.

The accusation of reverting what Vice regent wants to make appear simply as “a number of edits were made by others” is somehow misleading too. Group #1 is currently trying to remove (again) the term “sexual slavery” from the title and there is a move request open. Personally I don't have the energy of both explaining why Wikipedia should use “sexual slavery” in the title of a page that talks about “sexual slavery” and at the same time check all the WP:IDONTLIKEIT edits that group #1 pushes into the article. So if someone like does that for me I am thankful. It doesn't mean is right and group #1 is wrong or the other way around, but it does mean that edits that were slowly inserted in the last weeks by group #1 are not automatically approved if editors from group #2 are kept busy with the name issue in the meanwhile or don't follow Wikipedia with the same intensity as group #1 does. --Grufo (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Grufo You are once again mistaking the WP:AN/3 noticeboard for a place to resolve content disputes - precisely the confusion that got you blocked two weeks ago:, where @Acroterion dissuaded you from a battleground approach. The fact that you think you can pigeonhole other editors into categories such as "apologists" and "critics" and that you still think that have the right of it after being cautioned by an administrator is problematic. For example, @M.Bitton, who only recently joined the discussion and "supported", if you will, preventing the reversions initially attempted by Mcphurphy, is a great example of someone that I have been at loggerheads in the past - we have both thoroughly annoyed each other over the editing of the articles on Couscous and the Barbary Coast. We are not a nefarious "group"; just some conscientious editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you mean when I came to WP:AN/3 complaining that the same compact group of users was POV-pushing sexual-slavery-related content into another page (Concubinage) in order to create the ground for renaming Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam” (or something related), and I was blocked for discussing about content at WP:AN/3? Guess what? That's exactly what is happening. I don't think a group of users is bad if it shares the same point of view, I think a group of users is bad if it tries to WP:GAME the system. --Grufo (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong page for allegations about users gaming the system. The correct page for that is probably WP:ANI (for blocks) but might be WP:AN (for topic bans). Reading Wikipedia:ANI advice two or three times before you do anything will help you.  Remember, it is a big step; you might want to sleep on it. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion was not opened by you, me or Mcphurphy: if it was opened withing a general framework of WP:GAME, mentioning WP:GAME is not just correct, but due. For example, as they mentioned the previous incident about concubinage and they are full aware of WP:BOOMERANG, I have a question for Could you explain here how  on my Talk Page, after  your imprecision that concubinage was a 14th century juridical revival, does not constitute an example of WP:SANCTIONGAME? --Grufo (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As you note Grufo, no one took you to WP:AN, WP:ANI or WP:AN/3 - you took yourself there and got yourself blocked for your abuse of the process and battleground mentality, so if there was a sanction game at work, it was the sanction game you played with yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't need to bring someone to WP:AN for playing WP:SANCTIONGAME. --Grufo (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's possible that more than one person could be at fault here, but User:Mcphurphy is one who stands out due to continuing the behavior for which they were previously blocked. In my opinion an indef block of Mcphurphy should be considered. In addition to the block, a closing admin might decide to fully protect one or more articles for a period of time to enforce discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree and have indefinitely blocked Mcphurphy and fully protected Sexual slavery in Islam for one week. The two other articles listed in the body of this report don't appear to require protection; however, if there is an article I've missed, please let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your decision enables WP:GAME behaviors. The same edits for which you condemn have been  immediately afterwards by, and I would have probably done the same if I had not been busy with the renaming dispute (but I have not been able to read through them yet). What I astonishes me is the fact ,  and  never get judged for their actions. I don't mean condemned, but judged – which means that an admin looks at what is reported about them and says “I see what you did, and it is right/wrong”. --Grufo (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like admins to "judge" my actions, please could you produce a clear statement of which actions you would like them to "judge" (complete with diffs) and explain why (in your opinion) those actions were wrong. Please do not do what you did last time, which was to accuse three editors of breaking the three revert rule based on two reverts by me and one by a second editor to the same page, and one by the second editor to a different page, and where the third editor had not made any of the reverts you were complaining about! -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I accused three editors (you included) of edit warring, not of breaking the three revert rule. The same three editors are still here on this noticeboard page after that. Sure. I imagine that you are eager to listen to an admin's judgement about you if you ask me to do that. So, how about we start from you from another user's Talk Page and using “remove trolling” as edit summary? --Grufo (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment It's amply clear from the above that the block will only address half the problem, the other being the assumption of bad faith and the unwarranted aspersions. The next logical step is to take this to WP:ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Grufo appears to have a conspiracy theory that the page has been taken over  by what he calls #group 1, presumably the 'tagteaming' bad guys are 'Muslim editors or Islam apologists' and the good guys,'Uninvolved editors or editors critic (sic) of religions'. That distinction gives the game away. Why, uniquely, are Muslim editors intrinsically 'apologists' if they involve themselves in articles on Islam? (whereas Jewish and Christian editors in their respective topic areas aren't subject to such suspicions) The assumption is that, as opposed to articles on Judaism and Christianity, where no one would insinuate that there is something wrong in editors of either Jewish or Christian persuasion editing pages dealing with those respective religions, we have to be wary of Muslims editing articles on Islam. This is an extraordinary position to take and not only injurious to collegial work, but smacks of an hostility to Muslims. They alone should be held to account unlike 'uninvolved editors' (?) or people critical of (their) religion. If that is Grufo's premise, he shouldn't be editing here.  Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have difficulties understanding what you are saying or trying to point out, but if you criticize my attempt to model the incipit by copying from Christian views on slavery and Jewish views on slavery, if I don't remember wrong it first, and it was one of the few times in which I agreed with you. Nothing is wrong with the beliefs of who edits Wikipedia, what is wrong is WP:GAMING the rules, edit warring, insulting other users calling them “trolls”, and poisoning collegial work with WP:SANCTIONGAME threats. If you don't believe an involved editor like me in the kind of poison that group #1 creates, you might read these words from an uninvolved editor like : “Because of all this, I have more or less stayed out of getting involved in these articles” [ permalink |  ] . Several editors are uninvolved because of course nobody wants to be called troll, being reported at WP:AN or playing WP:GAMES – I am maybe the only tenacious exception. --Grufo (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What I wrote was straightforward. If you cannot grasp a simple point, how do you handle reading our numerous academic sources, which deal in greater historical and conceptual complexities? You used language intimating that non-Muslim editors have to be very cautious about what Muslim editors contribute. Since that is what you strongly implied, and you have no reply, what you then do is shift the goalposts to raise content issues here. We report troublesome behavior here, and do not discuss content issues.Nishidani (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't attribute to me words I never said or thought. I said that the discussions in that page tends to be polarized between two groups. The fact that one of the two groups has showed problematic behaviors and is unable to keep a discussion WP:CIVIL has nothing to do with their beliefs. --Grufo (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why won't you take your concerns to WP:ANI? M.Bitton (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it is here that a mistake that risks to enable further WP:GAME behaviors has been made: that of blocking . And that is what I am asking the admins to reconsider. --Grufo (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A mistake made by whom? Bear in mind, that is something you have to substantiate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't attribute to you words you never said or thought. I construed the meaning of what you wrote, which you appear to have forgotten. I.e. the article is polarized between
 * "# Muslim editors or Islam apologists/# Uninvolved editors or editors critic of religions. The group of editors currently active has somehow shrunk, and the most active users remain group #1, with some exceptions."
 * There is not a shadow of doubt that here you assert Muslim editors are 'problematic'. If you actually read the talk page, it is reasonably civil, and most of what the so-called 'Muslim' editors write there strikes me as quite focused, and, nota bene, is consistently ignored or talked past by disruptive editors. I second Bitton's point. If you seriously believe what you are repeatedly affirming about a cabal of Islamic editors disrupting the page, then you should address that with an ANI report. Nishidani (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Sod2500 reported by User:Mandraketennis (Result: Filer blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Undid revision 1055407517 by Mandraketennis (talk): "clear WP:SNOWBALL; looking forward to the WP:BOOMERANG" This last edit Sod2500 went on to challenge me after i advised anyone that any further edit (the 6th incoming) would led to me reporting the edit war in here. Please note that he went on suggesting that actions would be taken against me, instead. I'm fine with that, if admin finds any, but i need to put a foot down and stop the edi war which is completely out of control on the tennis section. See more about it down.


 * 1) "WP:Snowball speedy keep - deletion nomination had 0 chance of success". This come after i have explained twice to fyunck that wp:snowball doesn't apply automatically to any non-admin AfD closure, but as per guidelines speedy keep is the right tag to be used. Fyunck went on and insisted that "any other user would have called it snowball" and i explained that this was not a discussion=votes case, and even if he has the right to have his opinion, that doesn't automatically converts a speedy keep into a snowball.


 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [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:

Hi, i am a newcomer, not even a month in here and a multi-year expert on tennis who used these pages and thought about adding some contribution in collaboration with the other editors in here. And i don't know were to start with the hostile environment i found on tennis section. So i start from the last. I put up 4 articles for AfD ( all other 3 are very similar to the one in the title: has the same exact edit war of the title above and so ). I could report also those cases, but the warriors are the same so i skip that part to be coincise. My rationale for deletion of that article was the lack the main ingredient: a working reference, which as per guideliens should be verifiable, that is working, and coming from a reliable source. And well, i was furiously attacked and called out by pretty much anyone as you can see in the right above link to the discussion, in particular by fyunck and wolbo who (both) accused me of.. "This seems simply disruptive behavior from the proposer after not getting their way in a recent discussion.", (i quote from the same Afd discussion link). That discussion he was referring to was about a proposal i myself dropped because he and adamsett9 pulled out a wall of technical and specific requests a one-week subscribed user like i was could not possibly have known and solved, plus that happened a week before i upped the 4 AfD so that was not me acting "resentful" as fyunck called me still in the same Afd discussion above, and not me acting out of spite, otherwise i wouldn't have enraged that very moment, instead i didn't make an edit on wiki at all for one week. Fyunck went to such a lenght with his thinking that i was resentful and disruptive that he posted on my talk page about it and to the point he suggested i could have been very possibly banned ). Following that and after i offered multiple explanations and the same rationales i am writing here on the discussion pages of the AfD linked above (there are plenty in any of the for Afd discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_WTA_Finals_%E2%80%93_Singles and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2021_Upper_Austria_Ladies_Linz_%E2%80%93_Singles in particular) nothing seemed to satisfy their rage. So i asked for help on the Teahouse on how to deal with this problem with senior editors in the post entitles "editors war" and for a change "David notMD" said that the problem "it's you", that is me, and my edits. Enough to say he went on along with the other senior editors and proceeded to sistematically revert every.single.edit i made in here. I just mention, but you can choose whatever contribution you want, they didn't left a rock unturned, adamsett9 (who was very vocal against my proposal) who proceeded to change the technical name of the surface, which i reported exactly as it was in the official draw  in the reference list of main page, look closely to the date of the tag:reverted and you'll see that was the same time he opposed my proposal, talking about being resentful..the same goes with David notMD  please keep looking at the timestamp, again, same period as his explosive reply on my teahouse post, and Wolbo  just after calling me "disruptive and acting out of spite" on the discussion of the AfD of the title, to be precise, 20 minutes later  he went on and reverted an old page i have edited a week later. Now, what can i do since they offered me the roman/egyptian treatment of erasing any contribution of mine? I'll do nothing, i feel sorry for the people who came here to look for info and are robbed of that because some senior editors have imposed a status quo's rigid practice. I came here and wrote this message to ask you to take some action about toward those editors who are pratically keeping a tight leash on tennis section ( who know since when?!). With this group of the status quo, you cannot make a change positive ( a proposal i made) or negative ( those 4 AfD) without incurring into their very much coordinated wall of editors ( yes, i suspect they are coordinating their move, because also they strategically appeared about the same time and take the same actions against me, so pardon me if i'm wrong on that), in my view they need to have a weaker grasp on the tennis section, probably nominating some experienced supervisor who could take a deep look into their action. I happen to notice, for example that fyunck has a tendency to jump the gun with anyone who doesn't comply with his thinking him, either by threating them with reporting to admin or through loaded replies on his talk page. Wikipedia was to me as a subscriber and editor a collaborative effort, but I have seen only a commandering one on tennis section, it's either you keep your head down and follow the flux, that is fill the templates, or the wall of senior editors is going up in no time. Today i 've just written my first two articles, on tennis section. I have the chronometer running since then, you know why. Mandraketennis (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: Mandraketennis was indefinitely blocked at 21:23, 15 November 2021. As I am mentioned above, I reverted several of Mandraketennis' edits (each, once) for having added factual information about the nature of the hardcourt surfaces being used in tournaments without providing references. As to the two articles mentioned being created, those skipped AfC. Whether Bahrain Ministry of Interior Tennis Challenger and 2021 Bahrain Ministry of Interior Tennis Challenger will remain or be draftified for inadequate referencing will be someone else's decision. David notMD (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:Mandraketennis, has been blocked indef by User:Bbb23 for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:49.150.75.30 reported by User:StarScream1007 (Result: Blocking seems unnecessary now.)
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:

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

Comments:  I do not think anon's edits are in bad faith, but anon has not attempted to reply to other editors or leave meaningful edit summaries. After a few more reverts, the Anon IP finally reached out the discussion page and is making contact with other editors. ---  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's good news, . Drmies (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Bitter Writer reported by User:Dāsānudāsa (Result: Partial Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

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

Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:71.112.240.132 reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This was just added the other day and DMY date format does not equate solely with British English.  Stick to the facts."
 * 2)  "Please see my response pointing out where your argument is flawed.  Undid revision 1055047939 by Chaheel Riens (talk)"
 * 3)  "The article wasn't created with British English.  You just made that change yesterday.  Just stop your nonsense.  It is an article about an American product and there would be no valid reason to write it in any form but American English.  You put YOUR proposal to discussion.  Undid revision 1055029329 by Chaheel Riens (talk)"
 * 4) 00:28, 16 November 2021  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:8980:5A4F:99E:2713 (talk)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Unnecessarily changing between British and American English on Cyanoacrylate."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cyanoacrylate."
 * 3)  Talk page discussion where I also state that we are both at 3RR.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */"
 * 3)   "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */ Tire or tyre?"
 * 4)   "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */ ce"
 * 5)   "/* BR-Eng, or US-Eng */"

Comments:

I'll admit straight up that I have also made (but not passed) 3RR, and made it clear that I won't, but this editor is refusing to allow the original phrasing to stay in place while discussion is being attempted. I have engaged - with some valid responses acknowledged - but the editor is pushing their version regardless. Warned about 3RR on both their talk page, and in the article talkspace.

Editor is not using "undo" function, but has clearly passed 3RR, and shows no intention of stopping. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal to CHAHEEL RIENS' comments above, from WP user 71.112.240.132: 

As I stand accused in this notice board, please allow me to point out a few things from another perspective and with needed context. What Chaheel Riens is purposely omitting here is that there are actually two edits in this article that should be considered, one is mine and one is his/hers/theirs. I will admit that I initiated an edit that consisted of changing two words from British English to American English, for the sole reason that; from my observations, the great majority of WP articles concerning (but not limited to) inventions and prominent individuals from the respective countries mentioned above also tend to be written in their respective dialects. This seems to follow an unwritten, but, widely acknowledged and practiced convention in WP. My edit does not reflect a lack of respect or tolerance, as my accuser would have you believe, but; is merely my attempt at pointing out and reconciling inconsistencies that exist on WP. That I also engaged in 3RR *on the content of my edit* is true as well and I now regret that I didn't go to Talk earlier.

However, please also allow me to point out that my accuser, User Chaheel Riens, that through an edit of his/her/their own, is also guilty of the same thing of which he/she/they is/are accusing me; namely, unilaterally editing this article Cyanoacrylate, **just three days ago** and continued to do so as recently as yesterday, without first reaching consensus in Talk, in what appears to be an attempt to retaliate against my insistence that this article about an American invention should be written in American English, by tagging the article as British English, when that doesn't reflect the reality of the article in the least. Any fair reading of the article quickly demonstrates this, as most of the article is written in American English. Chaheel Riens attempted to justify this edit with what I feel is a weak argument that goes as follows: In November 2020, someone edited the article to tag it with DMY date format and from that, Chaheel Riens now conveniently surmises (incorrectly) that the DMY date format is exclusively of British usage and from that, believes the article was always intended to be written in British English. Not sure whether or not Chaheel Riens' edit is also meant as an attempt at irony, or, perhaps as an attempt to bait me closer toward 3RR, but; the DMY date format is far from being an exclusively British calendar format and by acknowledgement of UN recommendation, is used in countless American-originated articles, especially in the realms of academia, engineering, medicine, law and among other disciplines, science, which, of course, is the basis of this article. In light of that well-known fact, one cannot honestly deduct that because of the usage of DMY format, this article was meant to be, or should be in the future, written using British English. Yet it is Chaheel Riens that made the initial edit to this effect, just three days ago and **it is also Chaheel Riens** who also refuses to also stop inserting said edit, as he/she/they re-inserted the British English tag as recently as yesterday, 14 November 2021. I have, by default, stopped editing the two words in question from British English to American English days ago, despite the ill-defined claims of Chaheel Riens. However, he/she/they, for the same reason, should not be allowed to continue to unilaterally tag this article as British English, an edit initiated just three days ago and continued as recently as yesterday, for what appears to be a misguided attempt to corral my POV on the issue.

In conclusion, it appears to that Chaheel Riens is demanding that he/she/they may engage in unilateral, non-consensus-based editing, but; I should not be permitted to do the same. If that were to stand, how would such a decision be fair to all concerned? 71.112.240.132 (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

PS - Please also note Chaheel Riens' selective documentation here of only my reversion diffs, to the exclusion of his/hers/their own, is very telling, as he/she/they was/were, quite contentious, at times, as well. While one might guess at that likely possibility I felt it needed to be pointed out, nonetheless. 71.112.240.132 (talk)

PS - As of just fifteen minutes ago, about an hour after the publication of my rebuttal, an anonymous unregistered WP editor just tagged the WP Cyanoacrylate article with the British English tag again, a tag that just three days ago did not exist. This is a clear act of provocation, the timing of which seems to indicate that this tag was re-posted in reaction to the content of this rebuttal. In that possibility, the identity of the anonymous editor may not be that hard to guess, either. Request WP administrators that this tag be removed immediately. 71.112.240.132 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a content dispute: this IP wishes to change the apparent status-quo WP:ENGVAR of the article prose (spellings of certain words). One or more other editors opposite this idea, and there is an on-going talkpage discussion about it. But simultaneously, the IP is edit-warring over the past 5ish days to implement their desired change prior to getting consensus. Bold changes are fine and discussion is good, but pending the resolution of the discussion, the article itself should be left alone, back at the state prior to the first attempt at change. WP:BRD, not WP:BR(RD)(RD)(RD)(RD)(RD)(RD)(RD). I'm involved as I made the first undo of the IP the first time they made the change, but have made no other edits to this article in a long time (and none previous that were related to this aspect that I can recall). DMacks (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "...the identity of the anonymous editor may not be that hard to guess..." - this appears to be a subtle accusation of sock-puppetry. Please reconsider and redact such an accusation.  What reasonable grounds do you have (apart from disagreement with you,) to make such a claim - even if oblique?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: Page protected 5 days. Please use the talk page to reach agreement. If you can't, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk)

User:Woovee reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16 Nov 03:01 –  – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
 * 2) 16 Nov 12:59 –  – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
 * 3) 16 Nov 14:17 –  – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
 * 4) 16 Nov 14:19 –  – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"
 * 5) 16 Nov 14:22 –  – Woovee removes "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bauhaus_(band)

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

Comments:

Woovee was blocked two weeks ago as a result of the previous ANEW report which described the same activity seen here. Woovee has not dropped the stick and is still edit-warring over the same material. Woovee was the lone "no" vote the RfC Talk:Bauhaus_(band), but Woovee has since insisted on a novel interpretation of that RfC in an attempt to void its result. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever seen a clearer boomarang. Both blocked for two weeks, entirely obvious double 3RR. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You blocked Binksternet for two weeks but Woovee for only one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks, misclicked. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:DeeHistorian reported by User:DuncanHill (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Editor has previously been blocked by for edit warring, block log, returned from log with exactly the same behaviour. Has not taken part in talk page discussion. Previous case on this board here DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When someone is blocked for 3RR and then comes straight back with no change in their approach it suggests we can't look forward to *any* cooperation from them in the future. An indefinite block would be logical. (The dispute whether someone born in pre-Republic Ireland was actually born in the UK is familiar, but tedious). People who engage in that national dispute (on whichever side) are often very persistent and they are hard for admins to discourage. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Shooting Spirit 007 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Squad */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1055332043 by Spike 'em (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Squad */"
 * 4)  "/* Squad */"
 * 5)  "/* Squad */"
 * 6)  "/* Squad */"
 * 7)  "/* Squad */"
 * 8)  "/* Squad */"
 * 9)  "/* Squad */"
 * 1)  "/* Squad */"
 * 2)  "/* Squad */"
 * 3)  "/* Squad */"
 * 1)  "/* Squad */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */"
 * 3)   "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */"
 * 4)   "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */"
 * 5)   "/* Camel / Title Case Goes Against the MOS */"
 * 6)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on India national cricket team."
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on India national cricket team."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is persistently editing article in violation of MOS:HEADINGS and has failed to respond to edit messages / discussion on talk page. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This user is WP:NOTHERE with continued false information being added to articles, such as the article for the 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads and other related cricket pages.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Momements after posting the above comment, they continue to edit-war/add incorrect information to the article I mention with this.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And a further revert.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. The user has made no response on the issue of MOS:HEADINGS. The only thing I noticed was "I made proper edits that are CORRECT!" When you are charged with edit warring, it is not enough to be extremely confident that you are correct. You also need to convince others. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Henchren and User:AndrejFaustin reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: AndrejFaustin warned)
Page:

Users being reported:

There has been a prolonged dispute on the Wikipedia page regarding the "Controversies" section. The last version prior to the dispute is here, where the "Controversies" section was intact. Since then several users have removed and restored it, with the most recent bout of edits occuring today between the two reported users.


 * Henchren's removals:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * AndrejFaustin's restorations:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Both users have few or no edits outside of this topic, and similar edits have been made by other usernames along the way, so there may be some footwear involved as well.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
 * Both users were warned about the edit warring on their respective user talk pages: AndreyFauchin Henchren. Henchren responded on my user talk page making arguments about WP:BLP violations which may or may not be valid, but which don't, in my opinion, rise to the level of violating 3RR.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHenchren&type=revision&diff=1055448092&oldid=1055430232 Henchren notice]; AndrejFaustin notice.

It should be noted the AndrejFaustin has not (at this point) edited the page after the 3RR warning was posted.

Comments:


 * Result: User:AndrejFaustin is warned not to restore the Twitter accusations of misbehavior by Kyle Bobby Dunn before getting a consensus of editors that these tweets provide a reliable source for the accusations. Consider using WP:BLP/N or WP:RSN to get opinions. These tweets appear to be from publishing companies but nothing relevant has been posted on those companies' own web sites. In particular, the Low-Point web site appears to still be listing Kyle Dunn's albums for sale, contrary to the tweet: "Low Point have also removed the remaining KBD LPs from sale." Also the twitter accounts are not verified accounts. Pitchfork (website) is one place where you might think that KBD's activities (good or bad) might get attention since they have published multiple reviews of his work. Pitchfork has reported nothing about this controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Maxbmogs reported by User:Draynor9 (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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


 * User:Maxbmogs was previously reported here in October: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive442. That report expired with no admin action. The October dispute was about the film Raya and the Last Dragon. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This report was filed early on November 13. Both User:Maxbmogs and User:Draynor9 continued to revert on November 16 while the report was open. Can they both respond and say why they should not be blocked? I see seven reverts by one and six reverts by the other since November 11, so this qualifies is a long-term edit war. Without admin action (or some assurance by the participants) the reverting could go on forever. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I should like to respond, that Draynor thinks it necessary to put down the real name and pseudonym of the actress in the upcoming film while I tried to explain to him/her that it wasn't. Maxbmogs (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an uninvolved simpleton who just happened to read this at this moment, it would appear, looking at the brief contribution history of, that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. They seem fixated on adding this trivial information to this article and nothing else. The lack of a comment here in the initial report is also concerning. I cast no judgment on Maxbmogs, however, they should be reminded to use edit summaries much more often. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer User:Draynor9 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at 1Up (film) unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:69.125.65.171 reported by User:Facu-el Millo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: These are just four that took place within less than 20 minutes: The last one was made in two edits, but there were around 16 instances where he edited or reverted to their preferred version against reliable sources and other editors, the first one dating back to August 8, 2021 (diff).
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  (removed by user )
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's a discussion on the subject at Talk:Pinocchio (upcoming Disney film), where the editor has not participated

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

Comments:

The editor keeps insisting on adding 2022 as the film's year of release, when sources say the film was delayed to be released in "2022 or later", being clearly ambiguous regarding a release in 2022. The editor didn't try arguing for their position, with edit summaries such as (diff),  (diff), and  (diff), with slight variations and other reverts without edit summaries.

The editor was blocked for edit warring for 31 hours (block log), after which they made a further revert, the last one so far. The editor appears to have been edit warring at Wendell and Wild (see article history) as well. —El Millo (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The editor has continued edit warring at, all these reverts in the span of four hours. They've used edit summaries such as and  —El Millo (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Ohnoitsjamie. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Sta6727 reported by User:Bluerules (Result: Warned)
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:

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

Comments:

Editor is removing references to Millburn, New Jersey, the town where the article subject was born. They are falsely claiming "Short Hills, New Jersey is its own town" and "independent" of Millburn, despite the Short Hills article explicitly stating it "is an unincorporated community and census-designated place (CDP) located within Millburn Township" and Short Hills not having a mayor or governing body. This editor may be a sockpuppet of User:Facts2020, who made the same edits and used the same zip code argument in attempting to remove the Millburn references. The IP 2600:8802:6408:9F00:FD86:91C5:C41E:247B may also be a sock. Bluerules (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Sta6727 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Bess Rous without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:NarSakSasLee reported by User:Echo1Charlie (Result: Fully protected one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1055574201 by Echo1Charlie (talk) You are the one making the claims against inclusion, the onus is on you to reach consensus with others. You're cross article reverting is also problematic and goes beyond WP:3RR"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1055573648 by ZebraaaLounge (talk) They are allegations under the legal umbrella"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1055568571 by Echo1Charlie (talk) RV. User is engaged in cross article edit wars over the same issue."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1055553067 by ZebraaaLounge (talk) RV. See WP:TOI - TOI is biased towards Indian government, but it quotes an organisation from Pakistan. Use of sources is allowed when it comes to quoting."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1055553067 by ZebraaaLounge (talk) RV. See WP:TOI - TOI is biased towards Indian government, but it quotes an organisation from Pakistan. Use of sources is allowed when it comes to quoting."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Warning */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Edit war */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Responses by Hindu Organisations in Pakistan */ new section"

Comments:

I find it funny this user has reported me here when he's the one that is actually engaging in edit warring. He has violated WP:3RR numerous times and refuses to engage in good faith editing or even attempting to reach consensus. He has now resorted to using these tactics to threaten me into submission. I will be providing evidence here gradually as it will take some time to gather the diffs. This user has been warned plenty of times to stop engaging in edit warring but absolutely refuses. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence of consensus not going to his way (which has resorted to him opening this against me)
 * Evidence of me engaging with the user to attempt to reach a consensus (but because things are not going his way he has now resorted to opening this against me).
 * Evidence of threatening behaviour, user leaves 3 warnings within the space of mere seconds (and is now trying to use these as evidence that I'm falsely engaging in vandalism. I've been on Wikipedia for 12 years.


 * Please refrain from removing part of report (warning given) as you did here —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will remove it when you're making false allegations against me. You pasted in those templates within mere seconds of one another and are trying to falsely portray me as having been warned sufficiently. Myself and other users have repeatedly been trying to reach consensus with you but when you're finding things aren't going your way you're resorting to this threatening behaviour. User:NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Admins he again removed part of this report, please note this behaviour. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully protected the article for one week., if I see you refactor a report at an administrative noticeboard again, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Admin you fully protected the article with content (disputed content) cited with WP:TOI, https://www.ucanews.com/news/a-family-at-war-blasphemy-and-religious-conversion/88353, and https://www.voiceofsindh.com.pk/marriages-between-hindus-and-muslims-a-result-of-love-affairs-not-forced-abductions-aphp/ — are they reliable to be retained?? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Echo1Charlie, it was due to Bonadea's edit. They have high edit count and experience. NarSakSasLee has lots of POV problems as can be seen from his talk page messages.ZebraaaLounge (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did you fraudulently and deliberately delete my signature and replace it with someone elses to make it look like someone else wrote my edits rather than me? Not only did you correctly sign your own signature in that edit you deliberately deleted mine. Do not ever do that to my signature ever again. NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Einheit947 reported by User:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1072:7EE8:D50F:6D69 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13:47, 15 November 2021  (This is his first revert, having previously made a bold edit at 03:31, 15 November 2021 that was subsequently reverted)
 * 2) 14:23, 15 November 2021‎
 * 3) 15:05, 15 November 2021‎
 * 4) 15:32, 15 November 2021‎
 * 5) 15:42, 15 November 2021‎
 * 6) 15:58, 15 November 2021‎
 * 7) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (at 15:46, 15 November 2021‎) - they also received subsequent warnings

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:No_Time_to_Die, in which Einheit947 was pinged three times (, and ) to join in the ongoing thread and has not done so

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

Comments:


 * Result: User:Einheit947 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at No Time to Die unless they have received a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston - Thank you for the warning. My apologies for any disruption caused, I had no idea how to participate in the entries talk pages at the time - communication s on this platform aren't exactly intuitive. I have, subsequently been made aware of the need to gain concensus.

I'm sorry the person who reported this matter couldn't have taken the time or trouble to explain what these terms entail or point to instructions necessary in order to understand first. It would at least have been constructive and prevented the matter going as far as it unfortunately did.

Ideas concerning the end as reported concerning this movie appear hugely fixed based on no real evidence other than opinion. I did introduce frame-by-frame frame footage of the scene in question proving that Bond is not shown to actually die on screen, hence the move to change the entry from "killing Bond" to "presumed dead" - however this was rejected, even though it's the same footage seen by the editors on screen which gives them the impression Bond is actually killed.

I have to be honest, I find the distinction about acceptable evidence a little odd. Evidence proffered for the opposite conclusion, that Bond isn't seen to die on screen, is the footage actually shown in the cinema, just presented in such a way what actually takes place can be clearly seen.

For your refference - https://ibb.co/smGFYgc

Once again, my apologies for my conduct, thank you for taking the view it wasn't malicious in intent. I shall endeavour not to give anyone cause to regret not punishing me further. Like I say though, a simple "word to the wise" on the part of the person reporting would have resolved the issue immediately. I genuinely had no idea correcting an error would cause quite this much fuss.

Thank you for the notification, won't happen again.

D

Einheit947 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)einheit947 22:21 17/11/2021


 * , thanks for taking the appropriate step here. As you can see from the above (and from the editor's talk page), this editor isn't taking on board the fact we have policies and guidelines (despite people pointing out the various pages that need reading). I suspect this editor will either be back here, or at ANI, given their WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude on the talk page, lashing out at people who are trying to explain how things should be done. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:50F5:ADFA:E981:296 (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mztourist reported by User:Lightburst (Result: Declined)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: I cannot provide any preferred versions

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff removing notes and reference
 * 2) diff removing notes and reference
 * 3) diff removing notes and reference
 * 4) diff removing notes and reference

For my part I am going to step away and
 * 1) Diff I reverted myself here

The editor refactors many other edits to fit their interpretations or they revert my edits with angry edit summaries. The following reverts involve a medal which was approved by congress in 2006 and awarded in a ceremony and an unveiling with Tuskegee airmen present in 2007. I am not willing to engage in an edit war regarding 2006 or 2007, but the editor has no consensus for this change.


 * 1) Diff Date change
 * 2) Diff Date change
 * 3) Diff Date change
 * 4) Diff Date change
 * 5) Diff Date change

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not taken up discussion. The editor has criss crossed the project showing disdain for me and for my edits. It is a non-starter. In addition, I am also unsure if I can even engage in a discussion with the editor about notability or credibibility, I am Tbanned from deletion discussions - so I spend my time improving the articles: this editor seems to be refactoring my edits to favor deletion so it is a catch 22.

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

Comments: The editor is doing the same thing on an article I started. But I am not going to continue the reverts. Diff And then the editor went to another article I started Diff Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * . This report should be filed at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 It is an edit warring report, please reconsider. The edits are disruptive to the project. ANI is not an neutral place which can evaluate the context of edit warring. Additionally I have been prohibited from going to ANI per a warning on my talk page from an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Though Ritchie can clarify it. I believe he meant stay away from ANI, concerning anything to do with retention/deletion of articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He can clarify, but that is not what the warning involved. It was about me staying away and made no mention of that issue. Lightburst (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wanted a break from admin stuff to focus on some content creation. Anyway, I think the only options are a) do nothing and suggest that Lightburst and Mztourist just avoid each other, b) suggest an interaction ban between Lightburst and Mztourist c) drag everyone off to Arbcom. For now, I'm going with a). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:EastonM25 reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Partially blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Luke McDonald."
 * 2)   "/* November 2021 */ expand"

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

Comments:

EastonM25 is repeatedly adding the same entry to this disambiguation page with zero communication or responses to attempts at discussion on the talk page and their user talk page. DanCherek (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Partially blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Iaof2017 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: No violation; Khirurg warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1055909864 by Khirurg (talk) rv, on going discussion"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1055904090 by Alexikoua (talk) rv POV"
 * 3)  "rv ip vandalism"
 * 4)  "rv ip"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In his last edit summary, he claims that there is a discussion in the talkpage and lectures others to go there, but his only contribution is to fan the flames and hurl personal attacks.

Comments: Brightline 3RR vio, he even reverted after I warned him. Minimal, perfunctory, talkpage participation, and generally uncommunicative, hostile behavior with lightning fast reverts. Topic area is subject to DS sanctions. I offered to withdraw the report if he self-reverts, his response was "nonsense". Khirurg (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How do the first two reverts count toward 3RR if they were vandalism (see WP:3RRNO)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP's edits are certainly POV, but it is not clear that they are outright vandalism. Khirurg (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * when will you finally stop with your absurd and nonsense reports? 3. and 4. was part of a disruptive IP user who was also reverted by other users for his tendentious nationalistic POV editing on numerous other articles. IP user further removed Albanian names on numerous infoboxes on different articles such as here  and, the definite Albanian form here  and idiotically replaced the names of several mayors to unexplained Greek names here  and . I assume that you agree with these edits? And what about you and your disrespectful behavior?  What is there to say about your absurd and useless report, its a typical attempt by you to report user when your arguments stay out!--Iaof2017 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The IP is vandalism-only and does the same thing regularly. It has been blocked for 1 year  and it's evading a block. The whole range needs to be blocked. The other two reverts of Iaof2017 are a content dispute which involves several editors - including Khirurg. The content was added today and it's disputed. Maybe RfC can be a solution for Khirurg and others who may still want to add it. 3RR violation in the dispute hasn't occurred by any editor. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , you've made a mess of this report by interpolating comments in various places. Also, bringing up old diffs of Khirurg's behavior is not helpful. Finally, you should change your sig so it includes your actual username; it's misleading.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He's edit warring at other articles now . Not only that, but the edits themselves are very clumsy, as he is deleting a map of tribes and replacing it with a map of regions, in an article that is about tribes. Khirurg (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleted map is controversial and has many inconsistencies also being involved in numerous disputes. Don't pretend you didn't know about it.--Iaof2017 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Khirurg, you are both in a content dispute and reverting each other. still no 3RR. You Reverted him once and he reverted you once at this article. you should not have used a the report to include vandalism reverts as a means to demonstrate that he reached 4 reverts. The IP he reverted has caused a lot of trouble with its vandalism. Durraz0 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this report is closed before the accusations become walls of text and more Balkan editors come to "contribute". Such Balkan reports have a long history of becoming a waste of time with accusations with weak evidence, and efforts to find a reason to get another editor blocked. The editors can, for the zillionth time, choose to follow WP:RfC to propose changes that are not gaining consensus. This Himara dispute has already become an eyesore. do not forget to solve the issue with your signature for all discussions, not only for this one. Also, someone needs to deal with or report the vandal IPs that Iaof2017 reverted - some of their IP range has been blocked for months. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment  The situation at Himara  is an "eyesore" because a well-coordinated tag team (of which Ktrimi991, Iaof2017 and Durazz0 are all part of) is stonewalling to prevent the inclusion of reliably sourced material they happen not to like. The situation has gotten out of control lately, as this group now has enough numbers to prevent the addition or removal of any content the like or dislike, and there is simply nothing anyone can do about. Any attempts at discussion in the talkpage are met with stonewalling and outright derision. Khirurg (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am a part of a tag team with those, or other, editors? Hahaha I hope you are trying to reduce tensions between editors with a few nice jokes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg You and some other editors who want to add this edit, have supported similar edits many times and reverted the same edits. Many others oppose your edits. I am not even a part of the dispute at himara yet you include me in your comment. You started a report of a 3RR and now you are accusing others just because they oppose your edits. Please do not do that. You can start a RfC for your proposals. Durraz0 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Khirurg seems to believe that Durraz0 who has 0 comments and 0 edits about the dispute is "tag-teaming" with others against his edits. The report was about 3RR violation and no 3RR has occurred. The discussion should be archived to prevent further WP:FORUM. Admins have a huge workload to deal with, they shouldn't be subjected to Balkan debates too.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I just came here to report the IP (range), and I find that is already ongoing discussion. As for the "Himara" issues I would support WP:RFC and especially the Talk Page discussions before some changes are done or undone. We had the case of  who for some changes opened a discussion in TP and the edits continued during the discussions, but fortunately a consensus was reached in WP:GF. So I would suggest staying strictly this way of editing topics like the one mentioned above. Bes-ART  Talk  19:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am closing this report as no violation because there has been no 3RR violation, as many editors have correctly pointed out. However, I have warned Khirurg about filing this report and their behavior on this page. As far as the IP, please take that up somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's really disappointing that Iaof preserves battleground mentality at this scale. A pattern combined with straight personal attacks in edit summaries in addition to minimal participation in talkpages: hostile tone ans off course blind reverts in a wide variety of article. I admit he crossed the line in the case of Himara which is technically a 3rr breach and he does not hesitate to launch another wp:NPA violation [] directly shouting at co-editors. Unfortunately Iaof can not follow NPA regardless how many times he has been reported in various noticeboards in the past.Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The report is over but it is problematic that the same thing which is obviously false is being claimed by Alexikuoa who opposed Laof's edit. When you have a content dispute with someone try to solve it. Do not come to this board and try to report them for a 3RR which is not there. "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring". @Bbb23 I really apologize for my exacerbation but we are on a public noticeboard and we are debating if edits which would be recognized by 99.99% of users of Wikipedia as reverts of vandalism are actually edits that technically constitute 3RR. Durraz0 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:TheDoctorWho reported by User:Posters5 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnum_P.I._(2018_TV_series,_season_4)&action=history

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: TheDoctorWho insists on engaging in an edit war with other users (primarily an IP user but also other registered users) regarding future events which may or may not happen. This is a violation of WP Crystal Ball. He is trying to predict the future just because he's a dedicated fan of the TV series. Other users have reverted themselves after agreeing with the IP user.


 * In my opinion this was not a clear cut case on whether or not it was a violation or not. In simple the IP editor, an unexperienced Wikipedian, was refusing to follow WP:BRD and gain consensus for his edits. At the time, no other editor had significantly weighed in on the discussion, only self reverting a revert based on a false positive. The IP editor should have followed WP:STATUSQUO but insisted on reverting to their preferred version and refused to engage in discussion unless their preferred version of the page was active. Once the case reached edit warring I ceased reverting, opened a WP:RFPP request, and engaged in discussion with the IP, even though they weren't being civil, and wouldn't leave the STATUSQUO. Given the unneeded scale that this escalated to, I'm not touching it again, even if I do disagree, making this a non issue at this point. The Doctor Who  (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP is not inexperienced. Check their contribution history and their block log. If I knew who they were, I'd block them (again), but, unfortunately, I don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From the way I'm seeing things, inexperienced enough to engage in an edit war instead of discussion. The Doctor Who  (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my, that's a novel view of Wikipedians. In any event, it's certainly a rather inapt use of the word "inexperienced".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * --RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:142.68.17.77 reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: 2 week block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1056086510 by Aloha27 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1056054104 by Aloha27 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1056053576 by Aloha27 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1055989029 by Aloha27 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sock of 47.55.50.49 who was blocked for one year by GorillaWarfare on 31 May. Open SPI at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/47.55.50.49 <b style="color:#9E0508;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  18:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * for block evasion. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Army06131230 reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been warned for disruptive editing but still proceeds to do it Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Partially ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 reported by User:Coretheapple (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

'''Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Multiple reverts against clear consensus asserted by multiple editors to add "war crime" to lead. User commenced edit warning several days prior to this latest flurry of reverts, and was given a 3RR warning prior to these latest reverts. Though the editor initiated a discussion on the talk page, they received no support for their position and continued to edit war. Note from last diff that the revert-warring by this user continued while this report was being written. Coretheapple (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC) to clarify, Diff No. 6 was a revert while this report was being submitted. Diffs 7-10 were added by another editor after this report was posted and after BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 was advised of this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:Trackratte (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * Alternate Name or Other name parameter has existed for at least 10 years in this template, is the longstanding status quo, and removing the paremter breaks the rendering of that information on a variety of pages that make use of that parameter.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Paremter removed, restored by User:Nikkimaria 27 May, reverted by Moxy 20 June.
 * 2)  Restored again by Nikk, reverted by Moxy, 12 September.
 * 3)  Restored, reverted by Moxy again, 18 November.
 * 4)  Reverted by Moxy again, 18 November.
 * 5)  Reverted by Moxy again, 18 November.
 * 3RR violated.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

No evidence of previous Talk discussion to remove parameter until today.

Request to cease edit warring and to undo third revert.

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

Comments:

As I made clear at WP:CANADA. We should use french along with english 'only' in the infoboxes of Quebec & New Brunswick. Use the required native (Inuit, etc) language 'only' along with english in Yukon, Northwest Territories & Nunavut infoboxes. The eight other provinces infoboxes, should be in english only. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That may well be. As there is no "one size fits all" these issues need to be tackled at their respective pages. As what applies to Ontario might not apply to the NWT for example. And deleting paremters out of templates that have been in place for 10+ years does not resolve these specific content issues and is not the way forward. And to then subsequently edit war over a template to get your way at the Manitoba Wiki page (or whatever page) is a highly disruptive and counterproductive method to so, and doesn't serve to tackle gaining consensus on those specific content issues at those pages. trackratte (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We already have a place in the infoboxes of the provinces & territories, for listing official languages. Therefore, we don't need an extra parameter at the top of the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you keep the conversation in one place, either at Can or here. I would say at the Can page as this conversation about parameters is what should be happening at the Template talk, and has nothing to do with what constitutes edit warring.
 * And place names have nothing to do with official language, places can have multiple (equally valid) names, and those names can be in a language other than an official language, or not be in any language at all. For example, Ottawa is an Aboriginal language word, which isn't an official language of Ontario or of Canada. Saint-Louis-de-Ha-Ha isn't in any language at all. Baton Rouge in the US has nothing to do with the language in use. Etc etc. Official language and place names are two completely different topics.
 * We also have an official national names database rooted in law, that all Provinces tie into. So what a place is named in Canada is ridiculously straightforward, as is if a place as multiple equally valid names.
 * All of which is to say feel free to talk about content or templates at those respective talks, but this is not really the place. trackratte (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's do keep the content dispute in one place. Rideau Hall & Citadelle of Quebec past-disputes were so much fun. Particularly when compared to the governors-general residence articles of the other non-UK commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor seems upset they were not around when original talk's happened...and now is demanding back to how they like it...not good ...that said they are now joining talk about the topic...this is a good way forward. Also would be best to read over WP:3RR before filing.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 19:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * – 1 week. If people are now reverting about an issue for which a previous consensus was found on some other talk page, it should not be too much trouble to add a link to the prior discussion. If anyone thinks the matter is settled by something in Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board please explain how that can possibly be true, given that the prior discussion is a mess. It should not be necessary to remind experienced editors that WP:RFC exists for just this kind of problem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:24.161.120.233 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1055956460 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) The national review has been around since 1955.  The subject of the article repeatedly interjected himself into public issues.  You seem to be interested in suppression of free discussion.  And why is the CHIEF JUSTICE of the state of California not a reliable source?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1055954299 by Firefangledfeathers (talk). All changes are supported by footnotes."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1055943455 by 69.242.68.113 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1055917416 by 69.242.68.113 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps reverting to add a massive block of negative info into the BLP's lead, with no discussion in the body. Firefangledfeathers 21:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. The four edits linked above are all to the lead. There appears to be an issue of whether the material is WP:DUE. Whoever is including it apparently wants the article subject to look bad. So far the IP has not participated on Talk. Well-sourced negative material can certainly be included if it's written neutrally and if it proportionately reflects what various sources have reported about the person. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis reported by User:KNAdamson (Result: Declined)
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:

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

Comments:

When I was initially reverted for "Rv unsourced", the reverts however did not cease (including against others) despite reliable sources (The Guardian, The Washington Post, etc) subsequently being provided. KNAdamson (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, this is a sock of this LTA, not for the first time rotating between IPs and accounts to deliberately generate a 3RR claim. Suggest RBIing it. CMD (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your evidence being what exactly? KNAdamson (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * – The filer, a brand-new account, is probably a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:136.57.191.25 reported by User:141.157.254.24 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  The user was then asked what made the milestone less notable then the others.
 * 2) They reverted back with no explanation
 * 3) They next claim they're removing it because it's unsourced, despite it not being the only unsourced content on the page
 * 4) This one was on another IP, moving onto the ones with CN templates claiming it to be not notable again, without any sort of consensus
 * 5) Here, after the Ridiculousness entries get sourced, they remove all targeted entries again without explanation
 * 6) They initially revert the whole thing again before removing Bubble Guppies again
 * 7) They then move onto removing the sourced Fancy Nancy addition by randomly declaring that the source is "not reliable" despite its usage on 55 other pages showing at least some credibility. And again, nothing to support their claims
 * 8) They doubled down

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

You will see they removed the warning under the false impression that only admins can do the warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page has a history of being ignored even for proposing action plans on how to handle content. I tried getting help from two different users, the latter of whom directed me here

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: I might have used the wrong template, I got confused, I'm sorry

I will try to get it, but considering they deleted the 3RR warning on dubious grounds, I don't trust it to stay up

Comments:


 * They're not interested in any sort of discussion to resolve the issue, wanting to be left alone by me and me only, which makes any sort of conflict resolution difficult. They seem to just be interested in steamrolling to get their way, no questions asked--141.157.254.24 (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one year. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's admittedly disappointing, because when the page was previously under such a state, no one would naturally visit the talkpage. Really, they still don't. I had 5 edit requests up or so until I had to drag someone in to implement them. The lack of regular natural talk page visitors is why I had the protection lowered. But I do understand--141.157.254.24 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Flesek reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1056262336 by M.Bitton (talk) I can keep doing this all day until you give a valid reason for your "undoing". ;)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1056261883 by M.Bitton (talk) No reason given for removing sourced content."
 * 3)  "“but more importantly we don't use either the text of the lead or the body to direct readers to articles that shouldn't be confused with the current one.”  I can’t find this statement anywhere in the “Manual of Style” article. As of the other remarks, i added a text in the body that summarises the paragraph in the head, and i added extra sources. ;)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1056219437 by M.Bitton (talk) I've literally red the entire page you linked, and i've seen nothing relevant that implies that my edit violates any terms. Instead of saying "read this", can you point out which terms i exactly violated?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1056213057 by SUM1 (talk) No reason given for removing a sourced statement."

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

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

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please revert their last edit as it has nothing to do with the article? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:110.226.28.89 reported by User:Sapedder (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: original version of the page

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Disrupted an active discussion to impose their view of the page without discussion, based on a completely different goal to the ongoing discussion.

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

Comments:

There has been a careful discussion going on for a few weeks on the talk page about the title of the page (not content). Based on nothing but personal dogma and with no prior discussion of edits to be done, the user has unilaterally reinstated their preferred version of the article in order to influence the voting on the talk page (or in opposition to it), and to suit their whims (now using a misunderstanding of self-published sources to manually revert a fourth time, again with no prior discussion.) Sapedder (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * . As mentioned at ANI (diff), 3RR warning was issued after the IP's last edit to the page. Also, this is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. El_C 13:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Banana Republic reported by User:Beccaynr (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is what I had added to the article on 16:41, 19 November 2021, later updated with expanded citations at 18:06, 19 November 2021 to help clearly support the content.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 17:54, 19 November 2021, 17:55, 19 November 2021
 * 15:21, 20 November 2021, 15:23, 20 November 2021 , 15:25, 20 November 2021
 * 15:28, 20 November 2021
 * 17:31, 20 November 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:31, 20 November 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This report follows a previous related AN3 report about Banana Republic filed on November 7, 2021 by. I also posted a request for page protection on November 18 and updated the request on November 20. There is a pending ANI complaint with some discussion of edit warring at this article, and a pending proposal for a topic ban for Banana Republic.

If this report appears to be redundant to the existing pending processes, please disregard. There appear to be multiple issues, and this board seems like a possible way to efficiently address one of them. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

As additional background, the RfC that began on October 27 about whether to include content about "Let's Go Brandon" is still pending. After page protection expired on November 16, an IP added LGB content , followed by Banana Republic , which I removed on November 18 , Banana Republic restored , and then removed content from the infobox on November 18. Beccaynr (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think this needs to be open alongside the ANI thread. I have trust that everything will be dealt with there and any bright-line violations can be brought there as evidence. Discussion about the event has been fragmented enough as is. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am concerned about the minimal participation of uninvolved users in the ANI thread and whether it will be capable of addressing this issue. I did not open the ANI complaint, and have never previously participated in an ANI discussion, so I am trying to figure out how to effectively ask for help in this situation. Beccaynr (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Drdpw reported by User:Shoreranger (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Presidency_of_George_Washington&oldid=1052235757 [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * There are not more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. The first reverting by both editors goes back to much earlier this month. As for edit-warring, as opposed to a 3RR violation, both editors are equally culpable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Moretonian reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: , a newly-created WP:SPA with a possible conflict of interest regarding Mohammad Gholi Majd, violated 3RR at Persian famine of 1917–1919 while declining to engage in the talk page discussion of Majd's self-published, WP:REDFLAG claims that (in the words of one academic reviewer) "almost the country's entire population" was deliberately starved to death by the British Empire as part of a genocide larger in scale than the Holocaust (claims that Iranian state-controlled media have been promoting in recent years). Moretonian has engaged in similar edit warring at Persian famine of 1870–1872 and Iranian famine of 1942–1943.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to engage with them but they are clearly not interested in working collaboratively. I suspect that this is not their first account as their very first edits showed considerable knowledge about editing. I suspect they may also have a COI with Mohammad Gholi Majd as their editing is exclusively aimed at adding references to this person and pushing his point of view on Iranian history. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. This user has made 65 edits but has never posted to a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:LefterisA reported by User:Jochem van Hees (Result: Partial block, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1056539339

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1056601535
 * 2) Special:Diff/1056607945
 * 3) Special:Diff/1056609353
 * 4) Special:Diff/1056610072

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1056609916

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1056588955

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1056610913

Comments:

Started by adding a wikilink on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021, I disagreed so I opened a talk page discussion, then they continued edit warring (and violating 3RR) on Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Have provided arguments to support my opinion but the editor kept on insisting on theirs so any extra effort to persuade them would have been more than needless (besides my argument being supported by other editors too and existing prior to the former one's). LefterisA (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record, LefteristA was the only person advocating for adding the link; previous discussions resulted in removing it. Not that it matters, since the point is that they violated 3RR. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * For the record. the editor keeps on presenting false points of reality since if you check the respective history page you will notice that other editors have continuously added that link with the former one being the only person removing it. Furthermore, the "decision" was taken by just them and another one so that doesn't make it a consensus, especially if there are more than one editors that disagree. LefterisA (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Disregarding the fact that the crux of the edit war is a clear instruction in the Manual of Style, it's clear that you have edit warred. I strongly suggest you self-revert. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you please check the respective talk page first before making such a consensus? Of course I didn't edit war without providing argumentary, it's just not fully presented there by the other editor. LefterisA (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * So you acknowledge that you have broken the three revert rule without a justifiable reason? Again, you really want to self-revert now. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is a pretty clear rule, and it does not matter if you have a gazillion arguments or none. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That meant I provided argumentary, guess 2 negations at once made it hard to understand. Anyways, the point was checking the tp first before making any consensus, that seems pretty logical to me (and I think everyone). LefterisA (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Consensus is irrelevant here. The only issue is your disruption of the article by violating the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you have not self-reverted, I have rolled back your edit, so you may consider yourself to be sitting at three reverts in the last 24 hours, not four. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, a pretty clear rule is trying making a consensus anew when there are more than one people disagreeing (something more than apparent with some research on the history table). LefterisA (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which rule are you referring to? 3RR is one of the very few harsh rules Wikipedia has. Maybe you're thinking of WP:BRD, but that's not a rule and you haven't been following it either. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't say so since it is how the disagreement actually started. LefterisA (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how we got to this point. The issue now is your conduct. Since you have broken 3RR again, administrative action is now necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * from the two articles where the user has been edit warring. Since the user showed intent on persisting in edit warring, administrative action was unavoidable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What about checking other editors' conducts besides mine? On the talk page of the one article, I received irony from the other editor but you did not even bother occupying with that one. LefterisA (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You're the only editor who broke 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Proper conduct expands to more than just keeping up with the 3RR rule hun but as it seems you still fail to understand it. LefterisA (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * True, but the only sanctionable issue was your violation of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for admitting my argument about your not making sufficient research tho before making a consensus. LefterisA (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What consensus? You broke 3RR, you got blocked. End of issue. Consensus is irrelevant to the behavioural issue. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't check the talk page (as I already told u) where the other editor made an irony towards me. So apparently it's not :) LefterisA (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * And what does that have to do with your conduct? You were reported to the edit warring noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And sarcasm is not punishable by anything more than a trout. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, enough bothering with that one. Just for the record, I will not let others impose their edits so easily from now onwards since noticeboard administrators fail to distinguish right from wrong as it seems. LefterisA (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "will not let others impose their edits so easily". I am concerned that you mean you will return to the same pattern of behaviour that got you blocked today. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:108.30.187.155 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=1056703996

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "NPOV Tag was removed without adequate discussion of the NPOV concern. The scope of the article is Assault Weapons, yet the article fails to discuss prominent controversies regarding assault weapons and merely discusses the etymology of the word "Assault Weapon."  Controversies regarding a topic must be adequately treated in the article even if the subject of the article is not well-defined"
 * 2)  "NPOV Tag was removed without adequate discussion of the NPOV concern. The scope of the article is Assault Weapons, yet the article fails to discuss prominent controversies regarding assault weapons and merely discusses the etymology of the word "Assault Weapon." Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is topic of the article is not the etymology of "Assault Weapon." Controversies regarding a topic must be adequately treated in the article even if the subject of the article is not well-defined"
 * 3)  "Again, I have begun a discussion of the failure of neutrality at the talk page. Please do not remove the tag again until the conditions for removing it are met."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Assault weapon."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* It's a variable-meaning term */ Sometimes articles can be about a term.  If that weren't the case then this article would not exist because the term has such widely varying official meanings that there would be no distinct topic."

Comments: The reporting editor here knew very well I had (as allowed by policy) started a discussion regarding my concerns regarding Due Weight and Neutrality (namely, the failure to cover relevant controversies related to the topic) on the article talk page. I then placed a POV tag on the article so that additional editors could join the discussion over the concerns I raised. This user then disingenuously posts warnings on my talk page, removes the tag, and posts here when they know perfectly well I started a discussion of the article's neutrality on the article talk page and had simply added a tag to the article as POV so that other editors could contribute to the discussion of whether or not the article contravenes Wikipedia policies. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor needs to review wp:IDHT. I am also somewhat concerned that the IP editor seems to know wiki policies. Knowledge of wikipedia's workings takes a while to gain. Perhaps this is an editor who doesn't wish to use their real account. Perhaps this is just an IP who picked this up quickly (and has prior blocks). Regardless, they have moved from someone raising their opinion related to the article to just plain disruptive. Springee (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this a trap? If I review the page that you linked, will I be accused of knowing too many policies? The policies are right there for everyone to read. I tagged an article as being not neutral for reasons I have attempted to raise on the talk page. All I did was add a POV tag and start a talk page discussion over my concerns over neutrality. Please stop removing the tag until the discussion is finished and engaging in these bad-faith attempts to win the debate by reporting me for being "disruptive" for placing a neutrality tag on an article with which you disagree. Make your arguments on the talk page, please. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the POV tag clearly states "Do not remove this tag until the conditions for removing it are met." The tag stating that the neutrality of the article is disputed should not have been removed prior to the conclusion of the discussion. I did not make any changes to the article during this discussion. I opened a discussion at the talk page, and subsequently tagged the article as disputed. I believe that the reporting editors who removed the tags are acting in violation of policy and attempting to short-circuit discussion. The tag indicates only that a dispute is occurring at the talk page. It would be ridiculous if a tag disputing neutrality could not be placed until a discussion has already concluded that the page is not neutral. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * . Clear 3RR violation (I counted 6).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Owerthise reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Checkuser blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No, other version is more islamophobic."
 * 2)  "I literally wrote a single quote of him, and put several cites to back it up. Not "millions of" quotes. Also, this became a controversial topic in Turkey, so is controversy."
 * 3)  "No, he isn't an extremist. No, he isn't only an imam. No, that quote is not descriptive enough. No, people didn't insulted her but just criticised."
 * 4)  "Deletion of sourced content for no reason"
 * 5)  "Can't revert it unless you find an excuse"
 * 6)  "Okay, got the sources. Any other problem?"
 * 7)  "Reverted - You're not neutral either"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

3RR warning:. bonadea contributions talk 21:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

And here is 8RR, with a particularly unpleasant edit summary. --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * :I'm not particularly happy about the edit summary, but user responded to messages on user talk page and is willing to abide by 3RR going forward. Based on that, I'm inclined to take no action but monitor their conduct. Were there to be further issues, then a block could be levied immediately. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * And now at Moon. Wikignome Wintergreen talk 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Diffs: Moon, the last after telling they "try" to stop edit warring.  Schazjmd   (talk)  21:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They're continuing to revert my corrections of their often unhelpful wording tweaks. I'm not sure what this means - that they'll keep going until they hit 3RR? Wikignome Wintergreen talk 21:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * this is a globally-locked sock trolling you. Now checkuser blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The spidey sense was starting to tingle that something wasn't right here. Thanks for getting to the bottom of it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Soapbox: This is the admin's dilemma. Block too early in a situation like this, and we're mean to innocent newcomers. Try to AGF, and the newbie turns out to be a LTA troll.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Smilealwayswiki reported by User:Knight Skywalker (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1056345682&oldid=1055503013

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055377602&oldid=1055377278

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055375833&oldid=1055365953

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055319132&oldid=1055319001

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055181667&oldid=1055166214

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He was warned by the administrator not to change the main section after he was blocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smilealwayswiki&diff=1055381239&oldid=1055379434

He told him that those terms are well sourced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raza_Academy&diff=1055377278&oldid=1055376518

After his block period expired, he is celeverly trying to show the organization in positive way. This time he pushed better sources in a different section, while using almost WP:PRIMARY source, where the Raza Academy praising themselves.

He was also using threatening words as ChalNikal. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smilealwayswiki&diff=1055376882&oldid=1055330952

I checked the article's history. Most edits were made by some blocked editors. Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The article Raza Academy faced biased one sided editing by User:Knight Skywalker see how he changed the lead to just one line propaganda term radical and fundamental. He is engaged in edit warring at more than one place see Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan check his talk page history which he recently deleted. He is accusing other editors in this language after receiving warning,If you don't give such warning to Narsaksaaslee that means you are acting as his friend. You people are here for long time, and created friends to support same POV. ZebraaaLounge (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC). More over, Chalnikal is not abuse anywhere and it is means leave me and go away. He is comparatively a new id also.
 * Basically, he is having a bias toward some particular community which is being reflected in his edits. The basic rule of Wikipedia is to maintain neutrality in articles. The lead of this article was changed to one line which says it is fundamental and radical. Though it was just based on personal opinion pieces from here and there. The attempt was to show it in bad light. Firstly i removed and tried to discuss these bad faith edits on talk page but no one discussed. Recently,i made the tone of the article neutral and accurate based on reliable sources. Even, i did not remove those terms and kept them in another heading but he reverted without going in to merit of the edits. I am of the view that he must be stopped from inserting bad faith edits to this  and other articles. The Raza Academy article may be restored to its previous version before Right wing Knight Skywalker changed the lead to his POV. Smilealwayswiki (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Smilealwayswiki don't want to accept that inserting well-sourced content (which might seem negative to someone's POV) is not right wing edit or left wing edit. He is possibly not a new editor. He created his own talk page, and in the first edit he mentioned, Earlier i was not having wiki id used to edit by ip address directly. I created now. I will try to positively contribute wikipedia. Why he was trying to convince about positive contribution? Knight Skywalker (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are some paid editors to target minorities in some countries. This editor seems to be one of them. His edits are proof of it that he did not want a neutral lead in an article which belong to some other communities. He is habitual problem creator and must be stopped from creating problems here. Smilealwayswiki (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Smilealwayswiki is blocked 31 hours for casting WP:ASPERSIONS — making unsourced negative assertions about other editors. Calling Knight Skywalker a paid editor with no evidence. It appears that User:Smilealwayswiki is eager to show the Raza Academy in a positive light, to the degree that he is willing to remove well-sourced criticism. He may not be able to edit neutrally on this subject. He is risking a longer block for inserting a personal WP:POV into articles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Govvy reported by User:Deancarmeli (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:

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

Comments:

The user was warned not to edit war before their 3rd revert, both in edit summaries and in the talk page itself. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You're pathetic and a bully, restore how you want to have your template, but don't remove my other edits on that page. It's a pretty simple request, which you failed to do. I didn't edit-war, I didn't break 3RR. And this whole thing is stupid. Your template is going to be deleted anyway. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No need for this kind of language, nor Ad hominem attacks. There are no templates that are mine, as this is Wikipedia. I have created some templates, true, by do not own them. If one of them shall be deleted per one policy or another, that is fair. That fact, however, has nothing to do with this discussion. In the 3 provided examples you haven't deleted a template currently being deleted and have reverted previous, status quo work – even after being warned not to do that for a third time, even after being invited to open a discussion about you wished edits. That is why you were reported. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again you make little sense to me, and from my POV you are the one breaking the status quo. I am simply cleaning up the mess you've made. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if that is so, there are rules in this place. As this conversation isn't very pleasant to me, I'll end my part in it and wait for an administrator. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Govvy is warned for making personal attacks in this report ("You're pathetic and a bully"). If Govvy reverts again on this article, or makes more personal attacks, they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would I revert again? I know the 3RR rule, templating someone's page, raising an admin board post, today I've just done more wiki-maintenance for the project than I normally would do. Hardly a personal attack there, I used very tame words, this whole post at ANEW is just wasting everyones time! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That very much is a personal attack, and you'd be hard pressed to find an admin who believes otherwise.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This whole process is just one side of a coin. And this edit here, is not reverting the one edit he is on about, but also an edit, (Results by matchday) which actually fixes an issue which was affecting mini browsers. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have a massive problem with WP:IDHT. I suggest you either acknowledge your bad behavior or at least stop posting more senseless messages here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can something be done? Govvy continues his undiscussed edits on the article: . Deancarmeli (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked User:Govvy 24 hours for continuing to revert the article after this report was closed. Whether the revert was intended by Govvy to fix a technical problem is immaterial, since my warning was againt *any* revert. Clearly Govvy's revert was undiscussed, as noted by Deancarmeli above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:64.251.57.46 reported by User:Johnbod (Result: Malformed)
Page:

Five reverts in 2.5 hours, all removing 2 images, one of which he objects to. Ip's first edits since 2013. Talk section does not support this. Several warnings on his talk. Notified of this. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, 6 times. The template didn't work for me. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:TruthAndContext reported by User:Aeonx (Result: Partial Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: User has also been reported as a potential sock-puppet:. User is a new account single-article editor who has shown a clear POV bias (which they themselves stated). Despite numerous attempts to encourage the use of the article talkpage, discussion and consensus before repeating the same edits, and after numerous warnings, the user continues to make the same disputed changes to the articles (albeit without technically using the revert function). I have tried to incorporate the non-controversial aspects of the user's edits so far as is appropriate. Aeonx (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 331dot (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Jannizzero1 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Globally locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User:Jannizzero1 has chosen to remove referenced quote(s) and referenced information. All under the guise of accusing me of cherrypicking information and ignoring the talk page and instead canvassing, 5 other editors. Their first revert from my last edit in September, they stated "Furthermore, a biased editor visibly cherry-picked sources to magnify Italian casualties and minimize French casualties". Yet they can not bring any sources to support their claim. I have quoted one source they and the IP from the Talk:Battle of Fornovo have continued to misrepresent in terms of casualties. Instead of discussing content, they are commenting on the contributor(just like the IP from the article talk page), and edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this lock have a time limit? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Global locks never have a time limit.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:The Real Punk Rockers reported by User:Woodroar (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Rhodes&oldid=1050836658

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23 November
 * 2) 24 November
 * 3) 24 November
 * 4) 24 November
 * 5) 24 November

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The Real Punk Rockers was initially warned in 2019 and partially blocked for a week. Today I left a BLP discretionary sanctions warning, BLP warning, and a COI warning as The Real Punk Rockers identified as the son of Bernard Rhodes.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The was a discussion about sources in 2019 which The Real Punk Rockers removed today.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notice posted. This was also brought up at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where I first heard about this article and editor.

Comments:

I just removed my own report, as I didn't realize this one was here. They continued edit warring after I provided more warnings. There are WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns with this editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked by .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose reported by User:Jienum (Result: Jienum indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1056958543

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1057023122

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He was told that the contents of the paragraph regarding the FX series were relevant to the article, especially the subsection, and that sources were provided. He cited weight as a problem, so excessive details were removed by me, and I told him that if he still had a problem, to discuss it on the talk page before reverting again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1056961980

He then reverted it again and then attacked me on my own talk page, accusing me of assuming ownership over the article and that I should be the one to seek consensus on the talk page, not him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1057023122 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jienum&oldid=1057024265

I answered by telling him I would once again revert the article and leave the subject open to discussion on the talk page, and gave him a final warning to not make personal attacks and baseless accusations against me on my talk page, and issued him a warning regarding the three-revert rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jienum&oldid=1057094371 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial&oldid=1057092313

As I have read on his talk page, Sundayclose has a history of reverting edits for no reason and being accused of making personal attacks against other users, yet he has not once been issued a proper warning to stop his malicious behaviour. I doubt very much that ordinary warnings are going to stop him, because he appears to be biased in O.J. Simpson's favour, which is why I am requesting administrators' help in putting him in line. Much appreciated. Jienum (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked Jienum.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

User:142.116.104.19 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Métis people in Canada */TO EDITOR: I DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNICAL KNOW HOW TO KEEP UP. THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO KEEP THIS RACIST NONSENSE DOWN UNTIL IT IS PROVEN. IT SHOULD NOT STAY UP WHILE A DEBATE IS HAPPENING. I DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE TO FIGHT THIS FIGHT. ALL I ASK IS NEUTRAL EDITORS ASK FOR FAR BETTER CITATIONS FROM THE PERSON WHO IS ERASING AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP. WHERE ELSE ON WIKIPEDIA - ANYWHERE - ARE ETHNIC GROUPS ERASED? WOULD YOU ALLOW ISRAELI EXTREMISTS TO CHANG..."
 * 2)  "/* Métis people in Canada */"
 * 3)  "/* Métis people in Canada */Removed racist conjecture."
 * 4)  "/* Métis people in Canada */"
 * 5)  "Expanded context. This page should be locked due to racist, colonial, exclusionary activists."
 * 6)  "/* Métis people in Canada */Removed racist, colonial, unsubstantiated conjecture. Not one of the citations says anything about Indigenous and Northern Affairs stating Eastern Metis are not Metis. The Department has never, not once, made that statement. In fact, many of the citations listed seem to actually support the reality of extensive racial mixing in 17th and 18th century Acadia, and the emergence of a distinct society and culture. Whomever is editing this needs to provide a full,..."
 * 1)  "Expanded context. This page should be locked due to racist, colonial, exclusionary activists."
 * 2)  "/* Métis people in Canada */Removed racist, colonial, unsubstantiated conjecture. Not one of the citations says anything about Indigenous and Northern Affairs stating Eastern Metis are not Metis. The Department has never, not once, made that statement. In fact, many of the citations listed seem to actually support the reality of extensive racial mixing in 17th and 18th century Acadia, and the emergence of a distinct society and culture. Whomever is editing this needs to provide a full,..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Link to their talk page showing the 3RR warnings

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  00:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

User:CorrectionAcct reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Content and links added by user CorrectionAcct

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) user hits undo
 * 2) hits undo again, ignoring requests to engage on talk
 * 3) reverts again, ignoring warning on user talk
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "don't just revert other editors" "don't just hit undo". User clearly saw it, as they took the time to refactor my talk page comment to remove the warning:.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I asked them in edit summary to take it to talk. They responded at my user talk, so I moved it to article talk: where they also responded.

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

Comments:

In the time it took to write this up and take a phone call, the user claims to have flounced/retired. Hard to say. Submitting anyway because who knows if they mean it. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's just hope he doesn't create a sock & go back at the article-in-question. We older folk, are quick to catch that. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The behavioral issues here make that a definite possibility. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 22:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  00:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)