Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive448

User:Santasa99 reported by User:Manticore (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User continued to revert to their preferred version of the article, despite an ongoing talk page discussion and an edit warring warning on their talk page. On the article talk page they state "I was well inside my prerogatives" (sic). — Manti  core  06:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made my first edit on 06:40, 9 February 2022, two days earlier not on 12 February 2022, 00:02:12 as presented here. That single edit of mine was reverted by User:GenoV84 on 23:52, 11 February 2022 with an unprovoked accusation via edit-summary that I am engaging in no less than censoring and disrupting, so I used undo. Immediately afterward a barrage of warnings was attached on my Talk page by GenoV84 and Manticore, in, what appears to be an attempt to distract me from engaging the article. It started from there.
 * No, diff about "Attempt to resolve dispute" is my attempt - I was the one who initiated discussion, I am the one who made a significant effort to resolve this situation by initiating discussion and participating a whole time, I was pinging all around, and no, Manticore parachuted into dispute only with a revert without attempt to participate in ongoing discussion (when they reverted, discussion initiated by me was already ongoing for at least an hour or more, so i undid their revert and ping them to argue their sudden rv - that would be the reason behind my remark, having in mind WP:BRD - in any case, the only thing from them in entire first two-three hours of discussion was their reply on my ping with one line question why am I engaging in edit-warring - well, it takes at least two for any kind of warring)
 * Not that it matters, but I asked for reasons for the reverts and for some RS for something practically invented by editor(s) and extremely controversial, and during the long discussion, in which Manticore never participated, no other editor provided any.
 * Unfortunately, I was drawn into this situation despite whole a lot of experience. GenoV84 and my self stopped after I initiated discussion, which happened one revert each earlier and before thing escalated. However, Manticore and one other editor (all three editors appear to be members of the same article's wiki project) came later and started reverting again without even giving a one word of argument at already considerable discussion (which I initiated), pouring a gasoline on fire which I foolishly caught. Interestingly, they didn't mind that GenoV84 reverting themselves them self, they were concerned only with my edit on that page.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One more thing - curiously Manticore chose a very particular diff to show "Attempt to resolve dispute", should I say, chose unfairly(?), because it should present me in a bad light I suppose, as at that point I was already annoyed of being subjected to various pressures and discussions unfitting decorum preservation. But here's how I tried to resolve the issue few lines or paragraphs earlier, or here's from the beginning, my effort to initiate a discussion goes like this, followed with this, followed with this, and this, this, and so on.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then Manticore parachuted with a revert and I ping them with a constructive argument, to which they responded (their only respond) with question, to which I replied with as per diff they offered in report.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)




 * 1) decorum preservation.... Are you serious? Explain what is your definition of decorum preservation, because you have demonstrated to be unable to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, yet you also pretend to have the high ground to judge other users' conduct while claiming to have discussed with them respectfully because of decorum preservation, which can't be found anywhere in the article's Talk page, since you have repeatedly attempted to censor and disrupt sourced, encyclopedic content supported by multiple academic and reliable references in the article through many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries with a presumptuous attitude both towards me and other users ( and ), despite the fact that in my first reply I suggested you to try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively, because there's absolutely no need to behave that way during a dispute resolution, especially considering the fact that this entire discussion and edit war that you started is about something so innocuous as a wikilink.
 * 2) In my very first reply, I also suggested you to get familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including Behavioral guidelines and Content guidelines, in order to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner, and to check out the cited sources before accusing other users of ill intent both through your many, unnecessarily querulous edit summaries and messages on the article's Talk page, which is a blatant violation of WP:AGF. You did neither of those things, apparently.
 * 3) You're lucky that the aforementioned editors didn't report you to WP:ANI due to your reiterated insults, personal attacks, and offensive remarks towards them; for example, by insulting the user VenusFeuerFalle for expressing his own opinion and suggestions on the article's Talk page, denigrating him for being a non-native English speaker: I am really struggling to understand what you are writing - I am sorry but, really, I am having a hard time to catch your drift. My English is barely usable, but, boy, to my abilities yours is even worse. But, that being said, I think that my intentions were more than clear, and series of explaining, which I provided in my posts here from the beginning, should suffice for even the weakest user of English, or the finest connoisseur of literary English, if we are to consider both extremes.
 * 4) So far, I haven't seen any attempt by the user Santasa99 to cool down and behave properly towards other users, neither to check the cited sources, nor to find this mythical reference containing the Strawman designation that he/she seems so desperate to cry for. Furthermore, he/she didn't even try to properly cooperate with other users by providing this source in the first place, and continues to avoid doing so. Instead, he/she continued to explicitly deny the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty despite the fact that all the cited sources state exactly the opposite of what he/she claims, resorted to insult and denigrate other users multiple times, and continued to dismiss my explanations for the existence of the Sharia-based Islamic death penalty and related Sharia-based legal prescriptions for capital punishments and modes of execution in Sharia-compliant Muslim-majority countries     (including crucifixion, beheading, stoning, burning people alive, throwing people off buildings, etc.)        paired with citations of multiple academic and reliable references, which he/she asked for (But I am curious still, so please, do tell - what is "Islamic death penalty"? How that thing differs from any other "death penalty", is there a "Western death penalty" or "American death penalty or "Vatican death penalty" or "Atheist death penalty"?) and can be found in the very first paragraph of the article's lead section, by stating the same phrase over and over again: I am not interested in lecturing. GenoV84 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First you need evidence with links and possibly with quotes, and depending of what kind, placed them in ANI board, not here, but relying on sheer volume of text isn't enough, you need substance.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  06:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (Can't resist) I am curious to learn how is throwing people off buildings proper pipe for the wikilink and intrinsically Islamic, hence the "Islamic death penalty"; where in the sources the phrase "Islamic death penalty" is used by academic(s), thus, giving us the reason to re-use it? Also, please, try not use blocks of texts taken out of context, preserve the context and provide a link; all my discussions, everything I ever wrote is linked in my previous post, putting my fiery "attacks" and "insults" on display, except last exchange with VenusFeuerFalle which happened 6-7 hours ago, their post is almost impossible to discern and I had to say that. Just saw your block log, if you feel compelled to reply, please use my TP or better yet yours.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  07:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Begging for evidence when the evidence has already been provided with reliable sources and quotes, then dismissing the provided evidence by stating the same phrase over and over again (I am not interested in lecturing) with no counterarguments and without refraining from making personal attacks and offensive remarks about other users, is starting to feel like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I called Santasa99 out on that as inappropriate behaviour twice; instead of refraining from his/her reiterated tendentiousness, personal attacks, and disruption to illustrate his/her point, he/she refuses to take accountability for his/her inappropriate conduct by pointing the finger at other editors repeatedly. Meanwhile, user Santasa99 has continued to denigrate the user VenusFeuerFalle on the article's Talk page for being a non-native speaker of English, regardless of good manners and civility: as an additional reason, you are the last editor I would be willing to take her/his word on grammar issues, after this exchange! (the text is highlighted in bold in the original comment on the article's Talk page, not my addition). Moreover, there's obviously no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policy WP:EASTEREGG. It's depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote his/her own point of view, without providing any verifiable sources that support their opinion, resorting to insult and attack other users instead of collaborating with them respectfully. GenoV84 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not bagging for anything - you have accused me of wide array of transgressions, without evidence and links. This kind of pressure I rarely felt in my 14 years on the project, and it starts to affect me. It started from the very first encounter when you directed "censoring and disruption" accusations at me on my first edit on the article in question, and continued throughout with these same lengthy passionate expressions filled with the same accusations even before I started to feel effects of it. You really need to hit the brakes a little bit-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Evidence with reliable sources and diffs that directly indicate your disruptive edits on the article LGBT in Islam, along with your reiterated violation of WP:3RR, have already been provided by me and the user, both here and in the article's Talk page. And no, responding to your incessant, passive-aggressive comments and offensive remarks about me and the editors and  in the most polite way possible is not harassment: it's called manners. Did you manage to behave that way and treat other users like trash for 14 years without ever getting blocked or reprimanded by an admin? Impressive.... and depressing. Despite your attempts to repeatedly inflame the dispute resolution with uncivil comments and personal attacks by inciting me and the aforementioned users to push the boundaries even further, as you just did with your latest comment (You really need to hit the brakes a little bit), I'm pretty sure that I have already expressed my opinion far too well, both here and on the article's Talk page, and there's no need for me to restate my argument ad infinitum. I also took the initiative to request a third opinion from users that weren't involved in the dispute resolution in order to find a constructive way to reach consensus together, but so far nothing seems to work. Other users and editors are welcome to join the discussion and express their own viewpoint both here and on the article's Talk page, if they wish. GenoV84 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

To any of the resident admins, please, advise on the current situation, if it could be resolved right here or is it required that if new report should be created then be moved to ANI board. Editor's relentless pressure here and on the articles TP, copy pasted here from there (or the other way around) with unsubstantiated accusations and complete disregard for reality and facts, shows no signs of relaxation. Editors' block log shows pattern of edit-warring and similar dispute resolution discussion's MO, with at least four blocks in the last two years of active editing (apparently on the same topic area), while just several weeks ago editor barely escaped without much substantial community sanctions for refusing to accept community decision to delete the questionable userbox, so they recreated, what community referred as, Islamophobic userbox(es) three times until it was finally reported Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086. Editor seemingly escaped without sanctions because of supposed demonstrative retirement from English Wikipedia.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  02:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. Your edits were reverted by multiple editors in accordance with policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED, you attempted to apply those changes without consensus in the midst of an ongoing discussion, and you violated the WP:3RR rule multiple times, as user Manticore demonstrated both on the article's Talk page and WP:AN3 . There is still no consensus to change the aforementioned wikilink against all the cited references by suggesting that they don't contain the verbatim designation that Santasa99 seems to be so upset about, as three editors have already expressed their disagreement with Santasa99 and objected to his/her changes based on policies WP:EASTEREGG and WP:NOTCENSORED. Me and user VenusFeuerFalle have proposed new solutions by providing and citing multiple verified, neutral, academic, reliable references that contain more encyclopedic, formal, and specific legal terminology that could be used to replace the wikilink without incurring in a violation of the aforementioned WP policies.    Unfortunately, user Santasa99 has NEVER provided one, single, reliable source that could support his point of view, while simultaneously stuffing himself with words like "substance" or "evidence" and demanding reliable sources which I have provided and cited firsthand multiple times, all of which meet the requirements Reliable sources, Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research.    If there is anyone here that should amend for his reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors, that's you, not us. GenoV84 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, if those reiterated deficiencies and misdemeanors on his part weren't already enough, Santasa99 seems to (almost) entirely disregard the other editors' opinions and proposals regarding the appropriate terminology and solution, by explicitly stating that he doesn't care and will continue to do exactly the same thing that he did before, i.e. unsubstantiated disruption of sourced content without consensus:

How do you expect to collaborate with other users without providing any evidence that could validate your viewpoint, especially if you're not even willing to compromise with them when different solutions and proposals have already been made? GenoV84 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's what I intend to do, based on our core content policies and guidelines: I intend to remove any usage of the phrase "Islamic death penalty" [...] I intend to do this removal by rephrasing two sentences/statements which expressing exactly the same information, using exactly the same wiki-links, and exactly the same references, and are both inserted in the WP:LEDE, only few lines apart. By amending this repetitiveness, I intend to remove usage of constructed controversial phrase "Islamic death penalty";
 * 1) I am not intending anything differently from what I tried earlier - if anything, this intention is much more substantial in comparison with my earlier edit, which was reduced to removing only one word.

User:Z4i3r7tg6j reported by User:Unbh (Result: indef partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

SPA was warned and then blocked after ignoring warning by @user:EdJohnston for edit warring per this

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=1071051567&oldid=1071042948

has been reverted by multiple users, but continually reverts without discussion or useful edit summaries. Is now back reverting and refusing to seek consensus on talk beyond issuing personal attacks. EG "You are not qualified to edit this page" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephemeralization&diff=prev&oldid=1072171151 aand "Your failure to keep in mind the definitive first sentence of the article is indicative of a severe deficit of working memory, which is innate and incurable. There is no point in further talking to you, because you will make the same judgemental errors over and over again." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ephemeralization&diff=1072152770&oldid=1071566791 Unbh (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm feeling kind, and have blocked the editor only from editing the article. Note my warning on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:LordParsifal reported by User:Buidhe (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff No response

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

Comments: It's depressing that this editor is choosing to edit-war in order to promote an antisemitic conspiracy theory, without providing any verifiable sources that support their viewpoint. The article already contradicts the claims made, citing various sources that the participation of Jews in the Soviet communist party was in the single digits and not the "plurality" or "majority" as claimed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation. The antisemitic conspiracy theory is about the Jewish members of the Bolshevik Party forming a (Jewish) conspiration—an old trope. The fact of Jews being overrepresented in the Bolshevik Party is a fact, not the conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory pertains to the motives, not the ethnic makeup. 5 out of 21 members of the Central Committee being Jewish is 24%, and that counts as a high proportion compared to the overall proportion of 4% of Jews in the general population (Russian census of 1897). LordParsifal (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Uninvolved user comment I agree with User:buidhe that this was unacceptable WP:EW by User:LordParsifal. However, I do not think this series of edits, by itself, constitutes promotion of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. To quote the Jerusalem Post If the JPost can say it, I don't see why User:LordParsifal can't. That said, he should have gone to the talk page, rather than continuing to revert. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's ignorant, Jewish academia/media/culture is as subject to political polemics as any other. After all, the alt-right had two founders, one was Richard Spencer, the other was a Jewish man, Paul Gottfried. LordParsifal shouldn't be "saying" anything in wikivoice, even a quote from Jewish media should be explicitly attributed as such. We're not here to do Original Research. --60.240.148.170 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:LordParsifal is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert again at Jewish Bolshevism unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. I'm also alerting them to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:United States Man reported by User:Elijahandskip (Result: No action)
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: User talk:Elijahandskip/Archive 4 (User talk page, not article talk page)

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

Comments:

The user is simply upset with me for trying to perform routine merges on articles on events that were previously deemed as not meeting notability for an article because of some project article creating drive said user has undertaken for the 2022 calendar year. United States Man (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reporter - United States Man messaged me on my talk page stating "I have been doing this for over a decade, so I'm familiar with the policy." after violating the 3RR rule, which was reminded to them in the edit summary from me before the 4th revert (the violation revert).
 * The policy of article notability within our project, as I was referring to there. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The outbreak is not article worthy. If it was so, an article would've been created at the time. I have been doing this for over a decade, so I'm familiar with the policy." Posting half my comment here takes it out of context, so I posted the whole thing. United States Man (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also attempted to reason with the user via talk page but was continually reverted. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note from Reporter - The user being reported has removed the talk page notification from me with the edit summary of "Rvt spam". Elijahandskip (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." I did not perform more than three reverts, merely stopping at three. I do realize it was edit warring, although, as I said, I tried to explain to the user on their talk page and this is a routine move that I have done many times with other non-notable articles. I think this "report" here may not be valid. United States Man (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that I have previously challenged the notability of some of the user's article creations (which had nothing to do with the user and entirely due to the content), and it is possible that said user holds a grudge for that. United States Man (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will comment here since I am familiar with both editors here and the project. First, United States Man did not actually violate 3RR. There was the initial redirect and then three reverts from him after Elijahandskip reverted the redirect. Both editors are at exactly three reverts as of this writing. That being said, this case still constitutes an edit war, since 3RR is not the definition of edit warring. While the redirect may have started out as "routine," it stopped being that as soon as the reversions began. Both editors failed to follow WP:BRD and should have stopped reverting and kept this to a talk page as soon as the first revert occurred. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Was alerted to this discussion off-wiki. I would like to note that this was not a "merge" since no content was ever pushed into the target article (Tornadoes of 2020). This is rather tantamount to bold article deletion. Quoting, "If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Articles for Deletion." Such actions should be discussed first through AfD, not through bold merges. Chlod (say hi!) 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing could be merged because the article was essentially a copy of what was already on other articles. Hence why I thought this was just a routine task. I didn't think anyone would have a problem with me trying to improve the quality of articles in our project (which includes removing the non-notable tornado events). United States Man (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if you "didn't think anyone would have a problem", you should have stopped at the first revert by Elijahandskip because as the person who started the blanking, the burden of proof is on you to prove (a) that the article is not notable (through AfD for example), or (b) there is an existing consensus that such an article should not be made (of which I found none in Talk:Tornadoes of 2020, feel free to link to a discussion if you know where), especially when your blanking was challenged by another editor. I personally think that this "delete without discussing" mindset is rather unproductive to the project, because look where that got us now. We shouldn't perform out-of-process article deletions with the excuse of "[improving] the quality of articles in our project", especially since perfection is not required. Chlod (say hi!) 00:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reporter - Update I have discovered that United States Man "boldly merged" 2020 Dalton, Minnesota tornado with an ongoing discussion on the talk page about notability Talk:2020 Dalton, Minnesota tornado saying "This isn't notable. Merging."   I believe this behavior is a problem, especially since both articles now involved in this discussion had editors disagreeing and the user "Boldly merged" both. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that no edit warring occurred there and the relevance to this discussion is not apparent. It should also be noted that bold behavior is encouraged on here per WP:BEBOLD. United States Man (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reporter - Update A discussion has been taking place on User talk:Elijahandskip between Chlod, United States Man, and myself. One of United States Mans's comments  was "There's literally no information of notability that can be added to improve those articles. Hence why they didn't have articles to begin with.".  Chlod and myself attempted to explain how that logic is flawed, in short, saying if an article was not created during/just after the event, it has no notability.  But, that discussion showed United State Man does not understand that, so can an administrator explain that to them? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My comment was to try to explain that marginal tornado events receive no news coverage weeks, months, or years after the fact, so the later in time you go, the less notable information can be found to put into an article. Any article created on a marginal tornado event such as this one will be doomed to be a rehash of the "Tornadoes of XXXX" page and the monthly list page. That is my reasoning for removal. I don't need to have anything explained to me. United States Man (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Admins – I will say that I get the impression the reporter is trying to get someone to "teach me a lesson", likely because of past issues we've had over article notability elsewhere. I've tried to explain my reasoning on the user's talk page, but my comments get taken out of context and I am given links to "policy." United States Man (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Assurance from the reporter (myself) this has nothing to do with past interactions. As I stated on my talk page, I had been considering withdrawing the noticeboard, thinking United States Man and myself were coming to an agreement after  United States man asked me to see their reasoning, which I did.  I then asked them to not do a repeat of what occurred today, namely not following the proper procedure of merge proposals/AfD's once a bold redirect/merge was challenged.  The issue did not stop there and that was part of the message after the request to follow procedure.  I feel like United States Man is attempting to use our past encounters as a way to get out of this situation, though, a simple request from now two people to just follow the proper process has been met with arguments. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing about the process. I'm more concerned with notability in the first place. If you wanna do AfD instead of a merge/redirect, we can go that route. I was just trying to explain why I merged that page because I've been doing that same thing for years (i.e. merging articles that fail WP:SEVERE notability guidelines) and never been met with anyone who didn't agree. So, yes, I may have gotten heated and got into an edit war, but so did you, so I'm not the only one at fault here. You reverted me and I reached out to you first on your talk page to explain, so yes I got heated and reverted you back; that was a mistake. I am aware of how the process works, and my comments trying to explain the notability issue of these marginal outbreaks have been construed as me being completely ignorant of policy. I'm not sure why I'm coming off in that way. United States Man (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry if I created a non notable tornado outbreak article, but can we discuss the notability first? I undid the redirect for now. 173.251.82.226 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The report here gives a good summary of the policy issues. A bold merge is OK, but warring to reinstate the merge (if it is contested) is against policy. I hope that everyone who joined in this discussion (including User:United States Man) will be more careful going forward. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Desertambition reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22:08, 8 January 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:50, 16 February 2022 Restored previous edits by Aquillon. Every town has some level of autonomy, Orania is not "semi-autonomous" in any unique way. Reliable sources also describe the town as whites only.
 * 2) 16:44, 16 February 2022 Undid revision 1072232849 by Toddy1 (talk) Please find consensus before making controversial changes
 * 3) 19:00, 16 February 2022 Undid revision 1072245963 by Toddy1 (talk) Multiple sources have explicitly described the town as "whites only". At least two editors have recognized that. Stop edit warring and take your concerns to the talk page please.
 * 4) 20:49, 16 February 2022 Stop edit warring. The cited article literally has "Whites only town" in the title in addition to mentions in other sources on this article. You are not using the talk page to get consensus. Reverting to WP:STATUSQUO. I am not the only editor who has said this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:37, 16 February 2022
 * User talk:Desertambition

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Orania, Northern Cape

Diff of DANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 22:38, 16 February 2022

It is disingenuous for Desertambition to claim that he/she was restoring the WP:STATUSQUO, since he/she reverted to his/her preferred version, not the version before his/her edits. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

Comment Obviously I dispute these claims. I have tried to engage with discussion and I think my edits reflect that. Toddy1 falsely claimed I was the only one that believed the edit was right but I was restoring an edit by Aquillion that said the same thing. I will be busy for a while so forgive me if I don't respond immediately. I want to make it very clear edit warring was not my intention and never has been. All I asked was for Toddy1 to get consensus on their clearly controversial edits. Desertambition (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Yojimbro reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: 48 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1072305843 by Beauty School Dropout (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1072305447 by Schazjmd (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1072305337 by Beauty School Dropout (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1072305062 by Le Marteau (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Yannick Bertrand."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Yannick Bertrand."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Thulki reported by User:Nick Thorne (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Initial edit:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barramundi&diff=prev&oldid=1072368229

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

Comments:

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:0mtwb9gd5wx reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: See: Third opinion, Talk:WNYC, Talk:WNYC-FM, Talk:WNYC (AM), Talk:WQXR-FM .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Pokelova reported by User:49.225.136.238 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: have been communicating in revision comments

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

Comments: The reported user has been mass reverting my changes calling them unsourced garbage, in the meantime other editors have been posting changes to the page, which is active due to the ongoing nature of the protest. I have cited every statement that is not commonly known in NZ (I consider the Origin section to be common NZ knowledge). We have been communicating via revision comments. One of my changes removed defamatory content that was part of the original article regarding an individual who barged past police.


 * I have dropped a note on Pokelova's talk page telling them to more constructive in dispute resolution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Now as you have carried on edit-warring regardless. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Amigao reported by User:Sunderland Renaissance (Result: )
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: N/A

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

Comments:

Amigao is a politically motivated user who has a long and extensive history of aggressively policing China related topics to fit his own agenda. This includes removing the content of others arbitrarily without discussion, but in addition shaping his own work into the article without consensus and preventing change. The following diffs show he has violated 3RR on the Genocide denial page, an article subject to a general sanctions regime, by constantly reverting my changes arbitrarily and making no efforts at discussion whatsoever--Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I just warned Sunderland Renaissance about using misleading edit summaries like they did at Genocide Denial (primarily claiming that there was consensus for their actions on the talk page when there wasn't, theres not even a discussion on the talk page). In their edit summary they also accused me of being politically motivated: "remove false warning by politically motivated user". I think a swift WP:BOOMERANG is in order given the personal attacks and because, surprise, they're at four reverts . Given the nature of the edits I think we can excuse Amigao as reverting vandalism. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * After checking the history of the page, that page may have an active sock puppet. The four proxy IP or sock puppet accounts have the same edit.
 * 1) Special:Log/block&page=User%3A102.38.159.75 Proxy IP
 * 2) Special:Log?type=gblblock&page=User:88.166.58.158 Proxy IP
 * 3) Special:Log?type=gblblock&page=User:141.134.226.127 Proxy IP
 * 4) Special:Log/block&page=User%3Aאברהסה+בו Sock puppet account
 * Through WP:duck, 5.38.218.103,PlanespotterA320 or Sunderland Renaissance may also be one of them,like 141.134.226.127 or אברהסה בו.--Rastinition (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I just put the link and don't make any comments. 103.217.166.98 ,Conyeetol,HanKim20 ,PlanespotterA320 ,Sunderland Renaissance. It should have been started by Sunderland Renaissance at the earliest.. --Rastinition (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * CommentI am in full and total agreement. I don't normally get into these, (the politics of Wikipedia) but User:Amigao in my own personal experience consistently removes references to claim later information is "unsourced" oe as they call it or "redundant" or "refspam" to then have pretext later to return and delate it as "unsourced".  Point is it was sourced before.  If that is how Wikipedia operates on a regular, soon there would be no content at all if the point was remove anything not inline with your agenda. The point of articles isn't supposed to be one-sided and slanted on purpose by removing long time referenced material on purpose.  I hardly see how this helps keep Wikipedia open and credible. I would think without an agenda, more emphasis would be on taking things to talk page in such a dispute to seek if the community can find better sources. Also, it's not just me saying so, there's at least one articles online that I know about User:Amigao's tactics. Such as  here, on reddit which I have nothing to do with mind you. CaribDigita (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that really the reddit hate post you wanted to link to? Gems like "Amigao ironically accuses China of being racist against Africans." (Amigao didn't do that, WP:RS did) really make me question both the intentions and competencies of the poster. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no axe to grind. Or as we say in the Caribbean, "I don't carry water for anybody."  I stay non-partisan and just seek to put the full picture.  But I believe in doing whatever is right to preserve the future and integrity of Wikipedia.  I don't believe in getting into this back and forth between the US and China.  If the propaganda departments of both want to fight it out, then that's on them.  But one action is eventually going to spur a counter-action.
 * Now if one thousand Chinese come on here seeking to paint everything a next hue/colour because the U.S. is doing the same, then what's going to become Wikipedia in a political back and forth?
 * It's not going to serve anybody any good. And this place survives on donations (which are via eyeballs coming here), so the need to be free of this stuff is important. The day people stop coming or donating is the day this site may go dark. The propaganda departments and their enablers could careless and will just move on if Wikipedia is gone, but the rest of us would have to deal with the loss. CaribDigita (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How does slandering a veteran editor with a hate post from a Reddit group for pro-China political extremists become "whatever is right to preserve the future and integrity of Wikipedia." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Slander? That's a conclusion.  That's why we all have edit histories. And a good thing too. -- Special:Contributions/Amigao CaribDigita (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. What legitimate purpose does sharing a post from a fringe partisan reddit group have in this context? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * just FYI PlanespotterA320 was indeffed on the 15th, just before Sunderland Renaissance decided to come back out of hibernation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you allegations of socking, take them to WP:SPI. This is not the venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will copy these to WP:SPI.These links are not irrelevant to this edit warring. These links can prove that the edit warring has been going on for more than 8 months for the same content.These edit wars are all about removing === China === and adding === United States === . Rastinition (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I am happy to voluntarily undergo a check user and privately disclose my own IP to clear my name. I do not have any affinity with the above users. Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to comment at the WP:SPI. However, it is against policy to run a check to prove someone's innocence. That said, a check may be run for other reasons. That will be up to the checkuser.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Put a mask on mate! reported by User:Beshogur (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: This user had reverted my removal of "unofficial users" from the infobox, which has actually no place there per infobox template, and aren't actual "unofficial users". His first revert was with a false edit summary "Alphabetized users", but it was reverting my edit, second and third reverts were without any summary. Also removing the warning from his profile with a personal attack How about you put on a mask mate! not sure what he's trying to say. This account is a spa with less than hundred edits, engaging in edit wars in another articles. Beshogur (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . Three edits over about the last 3 weeks is not edit-warring. If this is a more generalized pattern of disruption, take it to WP:ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Txbangert reported by User:RenatUK (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Invalid reference removed ... again! Press releases and interview do not count as valid citations! Please discuss or wait for arbitration if you feel the references are not spurious. Also do not remove edits if you are employed for Khodorkovsky!"
 * 2)  "Deleted spurious reference ... again! A press release (probably self-written) is not a valid citation. Please discuss first ... or find a better reference."
 * 3)  "removed spurious reference"
 * 4)  "There seems to be quite a lot of discussion on lack of neutral POV in the talk already. I'm just summarizing this in the intro. It is an undisputed fact that Khodorkovsky was convicted of fraud and tax evasion, and served 10 years in a labour camp. That needs to be in the intro. He is not a 'philanthropist'."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Mikhail Khodorkovsky."
 * 2)   "/* February 2022 */ important notice"
 * 3)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Mikhail Khodorkovsky."
 * 4)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Mikhail Khodorkovsky."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Txbangert */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Khodorkosky Feb 2022 edits */ Reply"

Comments:

The user is not responding to messages on either the article's talk page or their own talk page. Renat 16:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Zanuda petro reported by User:ASpacemanFalls (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Warnings to user of sockpuppetry:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments:

Editor has been consistently spamming the same edit on Telegram (software) regarding a bug being reported by a security researcher, using two accounts as well as logged out edits. According to the editor's own edit comments, he is in violation of WP:COI as he is the researcher in question and is seemingly trying to paint himself in a more positive light. The editor uses a self-published Medium blog as a source and completely disregards warnings about WP:NPOV and WP:COI as well as attempts by me to resolve the issue without WP:EW, shirking multiple User Talk comments. I believe the editor made no effort to conform to any of Wikipedia's rules or guidelines and is acting out of self-interest and emotions. I am asking for a block for from editing that page on the grounds of repeated wrongful edits, conflict of interest and using a second account to push his agenda. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Thomas Whitebread (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported: User:Walter Görlitz

Previous version reverted to: 21:02, 19 February 2022‎ Walter Görlitz talk contribs‎ 5,664 bytes −2,410‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:02, 19 February 2022‎‎ Thomas Whitebread talk contribs‎  8,074 bytes +2,410‎  added member timeline
 * 2) 05:13, 19 February 2022‎ Walter Görlitz talk contribs‎  5,664 bytes −2,410‎ There is no need for a timeline for a simple membership like this, and not with a script for an end-date.
 * 3) 20:42, 19 February 2022‎ Thomas Whitebread talk contribs‎  8,074 bytes +2,410‎ Take this somewhere else, and stop removing timelines
 * 4) 21:02, 19 February 2022‎ Walter Görlitz talk contribs‎  5,664 bytes −2,410‎ Take this somewhere else and stop adding timelines unnecessarily

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10 ]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Have tried getting answers from them as to why they keep removing timelines, they have become resistive.

Comments:

This user has also removed the member timelines on other pages too, seemingly to prove a point. Their removal of timelines is still not explained by them and I have tried to forward the argument that band member timelines are useful for users like myself who have a better time understanding information through visual means. Can somebody please do something about this user, as they seem to have been nothing but trouble for several other pages and they refuse to confront me further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Whitebread (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So to clarify, you're reporting a user for edit warring on only 2 reverts? Or am I missing something?   Butler Blog   (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, I am more just trying to get him to stop because he has done this on Twenty One Pilots as well and it is becoming a problem because I have not gotten any answers from him. If you can inform me on either what I can do, what I am doing wrong, or what should be done about him, that would be great. Thomas Whitebread &#124;&#9993;
 * Well, seems you're already in the discussion cycle of WP:BRD. You need to give that time to play out and work on building consensus (and/or compromise).  what should be done about him?  You could start by trying to build some consensus.  Unless you've got an actual edit war going on (which IMO, 2 reverts does not an edit war make), then you need to stick to where you are in the BRD cycle.  If you can't come to consensus with only two editors, go to the proper noticeboard to get a 3rd party opinion.  But keep in mind, time is not of the essence here.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTFINISHED, so there's no need to get this all done in 10 minutes.  If it takes some time (i.e. day(s)), it's OK.    Butler Blog   (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I have raised the issue again at the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And sorry, as for an answer, "unnecessary timeline" is the best you will get if you ask on an article's talk page. I am attempting to get some general rule via the project. Many have objected to the timeline at Twenty One Pilots and other similarly uncomplicated articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess so, then, but for future reference, can necessity for member timelines be more thoroughly outlined or at least addressed? Thomas Whitebread &#124;&#9993;  — Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * . This is a content disagreement which needs to be resolved at Talk:Trenches (band). Since only the two users involved are discussing, and they're not convincing one another, I suggest trying to get others involved, for instance via WP:Third opinion. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC). Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I will try. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:93.182.106.36 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Partial block, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the reason im reverting this was because this was an ethno nationalistic POV edit"
 * 2)  "go to talk page please"
 * 3)  "already mentions aristotle many times please go to talk page rather than keep re adding image"
 * 4)  "concensus needed for new image"
 * 5)  "original image"
 * 6)  "already mentioned in etymology"
 * 1)  "original image"
 * 2)  "already mentioned in etymology"
 * 1)  "already mentioned in etymology"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Fast-paced edit-warring, removing reliably-cited material. Will not stop despite 3RR and vandalism warnings on their talk. Dr.  K.  18:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * from article space. Hopefully this editor will learn to discuss with other editors during their block. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Borsycle1 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First addition of content
 * 2) Revert 1
 * 3) Revert 2
 * 4) Revert 3
 * 5) Revert 4
 * 6) Revert 5
 * 7) Revert 6
 * 8) Revert 7
 * 9) Then more reverts by obvious sockpuppet

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Level 1 warning Level 2 warning (ClueBot) Level 3 warning Level 4 warning edit warring / 3RR warning

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

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

Comments:


 * Not only is this flagrant edit warring – editor has now been reverted by five different editors – it's edit warring for a flagrant WP:BLP violation that is completely WP:UNDUE, esp. in the lede. (See also this discussion.) This editor seems unwilling to either drop the stick or discuss. And they now appear to be engaged in sock puppetry. So a block is clearly in order here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Borsycle1 (separately filed by another editor). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Aardwolf68 reported by User:Mr. Crabx (Result: Filer blocked as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: The user has been warned on his talk page several times about not doing this, still doing it--Mr. Crabx (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mr. Crabx indeffed LTA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Redjacketap reported by User:Venkat TL (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 15:46, 20 February 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Wikipedia is a platform to provide genuine legal legitimate information to users. Wikipedia  users cannot be deprived of legitimate legal information provided with citation."
 * 2)  "Contents are with proper citation and could be verified, Wikipedia and wikipedia users cannot be deprived from data that's legally available on all leading media and new portals"
 * 3)  "Please give the reason before deleting genuine contents that are with citation. Content available all over the web on many news website legally."
 * 4)  "The data is available on websites of various news channels and digital media. Cant deprive wikipedia and wikipedia users from already available legal content. Please revert for any further discussion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
 * 3)   "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Adding Opinion Polls */ Comment"
 * 2)   "/* Adding Opinion Polls */ Comment"

Comments:

Redjacketap is edit warring against 2 editors and forcefully adding disputed content from unreliable source against consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Kingdavi1993 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "African American is a title that is currently being challenged with in the native black community of America"
 * 2)  "A more accurate description of an ethnic group"
 * 3)  "Another change to accurately describe Black American Heritage. The term African American applies to more than just those native to America but also those from the continent of Africa who have migrated recently which is misleading."
 * 4)  "African American is a title that is currently being challenged with in the native black community of America. Please respect their choice."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Soul music."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Soul music."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) opened after this report was made by Meters (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

The editor was reverted by several other editors. I came on later in the day. After a back-and-forth I was warned that I was Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor is only here to make a point and is not here to build an encyclopedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for 60 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Andriyrussu and User:Woodlandscaley reported by User:Stevie fae Scotland (Result: Both blocked 48h)
Pages:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Last version prior to most recent bout of edit warring.

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

Woodlandscaley:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

I've reported the diffs from the edit war at Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. as I am familiar with the dispute. It would appear similar in nature at Sergei Baltacha (footballer, born 1958).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Both editors were warned by for, I believe, edit warring at Sergei Baltacha (footballer, born 1958) Andriyrussu: Woodlandscaley:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion from July 2021. At that point, 3RR had been broken by multiple editors so the discussion was started. No consensus was reached so the page remained at the original revision.

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

Comments:

Dispute relates to the nationality of Sergei Baltacha. The correct transliteration of his name has also become part of the dispute. Prior to edit warring, nationality on the Inverness page was Soviet and not Ukrainian. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Abdul Baqi1960 reported by User:Curb Safe Charmer (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not discussed, as this is not an editing dispute but vandalism / self-promotion

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

Comments:

See also Sockpuppet investigations/Rasheed Hasrat. Update 23 February: SPI resulted in the account being blocked. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * – Indef by User:Girth Summit per Sockpuppet investigations/Rasheed Hasrat. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Muhmmadaht reported by User:KoizumiBS (Result:blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 15:46, 12:01, 22 February 2022

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]
 * 5) [diff]

Comments:

User removed the text from the article Mongolic peoples and continues the edit war. I have added information verified by reliable sources, including tertiary sources such as Great Russian Encyclopedia. The user is not responding to messages on the talk page. Calls for consensus were unsuccessful. I ask you to take action and warn the user about the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks.--KoizumiBS (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the following remarks of the Muhmmadaht: "Contents with untrue sources should be rejected". I consider my sources quite reliable, especially the Great Russian Encyclopedia. When I asked him to rely on reliable sources, he replied as follows: "No source was required for my editing of this article". I think that his edits are a prime example of disruptive editing.--KoizumiBS (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC), given continued edit-warring during the report and a bunch of warnings at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User:2A04:4A43:4D6F:FEBA:F13C:84F2:B915:702 reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: Pblock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1073279127 by Srnec (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1073236539 by Srnec (talk)"
 * 3)  "Stop removing sources you joke. You take your nonsense to the Talk page you troll."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1072001735 by Apaugasma (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1071930856 by Srnec (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision of a LIAR. I’ve given sources."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Fraxinetum an "Arab Umayyad state"? */ new section"

Comments:

First range catching all IPs involved at Fraxinetum is 2A04:4A43:4D6F:FEBA::/40. Though there are other disruptive edits on the range very likely by the same user (e.g., ), it's way too broad to block. Even the smallest one still catching two IPs, 2A04:4A43:4D6F:FEBA::/50, seems to contain an IP occupied by a different user. Can the page be semi-protected? ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The /40 range has been p-blocked by . Of course that was the correct solution, thanks for that! This can be closed now. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Another admin has issued a one-month partial block of the /40 range from edits of Fraxinetum. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Jr Tahun reported by User:Stvbastian (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Qualified teams */Final qualified teams: United States qualified as Pan Am Champion, Canada qualified as best ranking overall"
 * 2)  "/* Qualification process */"
 * 3)  "/* Qualification process */This user always thinks that this edit is an assumption, even though this has been accumulated #vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "/* 2022 Thomas and Uber Cup qualification */"
 * 2)  "/* The need for reliable sources */"

Comments:

This user made 3R to my edit with reliable sources. User:Jr Tahun contributions only based on tweet from twitter, prediction or user personal perspective. Stvbastian (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. 3RR was not broken, and nobody has used the article talk page to explain any concerns they may have with the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Contri20 reported by User:86.173.116.122 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:14, 23 February 2022‎
 * 2) 15:53, 23 February 2022
 * 3) 19:19, 22 February 2022‎
 * 4) 10:22, 22 February 2022‎
 * 5) 10:20, 22 February 2022‎
 * 6) 07:27, 21 February 2022‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Warning left by  at 23:38, 22 February 2022)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This is a BLP article written in a non-neutral manner (it reads like a puff piece from a PR company). A couple of people, including me and, have tried to make the article slightly less promotional in tone, but been reverted. CN tags left on his DOB and his wife's name (in the infobox) are removed, despite no source anywhere on the page. Any changes made are being reverted by Contri20. Some information was added early that was critical of the subject (as a counterbalance to the current state of the article) were reverted with the edit summary the information "contained unfounded claims and those that are pure speculation" – despite there being reliable references in there too. 86.173.116.122 (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User:BrickMaster02 reported by User:YoungForever (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I have attempted to resolve it, but the editor refused to talk and also decided to delete the entire discussion that I have started. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   01:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I've reverted to my edits because they cleanup the episode table. This is going too far, if you ask me. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is not, you have changed the citation style to your personal preference. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So? Other TV articles have that, because it's more streamlined. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER and per WP:CITEVAR, Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The citation style has been established since the start of the article. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   01:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * . The length of the block is warranted for the following reasons: the edit-warring itself, the refusal to discuss the dispute (reverting YoungForever's discussion initiation on the article Talk page), and personal attacks (BM02 filed a report at WP:AIV against YoungForever), and a previous block last year for 72 hours for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:HeroicSSD reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Indefinitely 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:

This user continues to Edit War on MeidasTouch Chip3004 (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Mplsnirvana reported by User:MPLSpolitico (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillipe_Cunningham&diff=1073617290&oldid=1073469159
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phillipe_Cunningham&diff=1073443775&oldid=1072461838

Edit warring with an agenda to paint the subject of the article in an overly negative light. Looking at other contribs for this user, they seem to have task of creating additional content to paint the subject of the article in an overly negative light: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPLSpolitico (talk • contribs)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Powderhorn_9
 * See also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. There is more about this dispute on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Mikythos reported by User:Mann Mann (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

The reported user just removes sourced content per their POV. I warned them and tried to clarify it for them. They insulted me., and refused to collaborate. Even another user warned them. They just ignored the warning messages and continued disruptive edits after 72H. In the last diff, they even removed WWE-related content too. The content they try to remove is notable material per WP:PW/SG and WP:PW/Sources. Mann Mann (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * More incivility after I posted noticed on their talk page. Should I take this case to WP:ANI? The reported user was registered in 2005 but acts and behaves like a WP:NOTHERE account. Mann Mann (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As the user who warned this user for his incivility I support this report. The notification as noted has been seen and removed - and presumably ignored. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:2001:EE0:4370:701C:A053:D4D9:3DD5:128C reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1074097556 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1074097556 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1074093650 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1074093501 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1073999409 by 69.27.12.22 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1074093501 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1073999409 by 69.27.12.22 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1073999409 by 69.27.12.22 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mickey Mouse (TV series)."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mickey Mouse (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User thinks that Doreamon was on this show but he wasn't at all. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The IP is also edit warring on List of Mickey Mouse episodes and has reverted to their preferred version four more times on each article in the five hours since this report was filed. CodeTalker (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:196.135.110.209 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Page semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Is that the only argument you have? Nevgen predictor is the most widely used at the moment and most updated on the different lineages while whit athey's is basically a dead tool Nevgen predicts a different result with a probability of 92% and the result mentioned by you at 0%
 * 1)  "/* 2012 Ramesses III */“Original research” which did the same thing: entering the markers in a predictor?

https://ibb.co/CMpyq4S

What a joke"
 * 1)  "/* 2012 Ramesses III */Expand text with the other prediction"
 * 2)  "/* 2012 Ramesses III */Expand text with the other prediction"
 * 3)  "/* Ancient DNA */

The "original research" is also a prediction with a haplogroup predictor, this too is a prediction based on another haplogroup predictor which is arguably better

The study is still presented as it is [Only obtained a few STR and Y dna markers (https://ibb.co/ypbLrzT, https://ibb.co/rQjfT9m)] and the text expanded with the other prediction."
 * 1)  "/* Ancient DNA */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1073915000 by WikiUser4020 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Ancient DNA */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1073913862 by WikiUser4020 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on DNA history of Egypt."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note this seems to be User:Pullbasket logged out to continue the edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pullbasket Doug Weller  talk 15:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Note this seems to be User:Pullbasket logged out to continue the edit war.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pullbasket  Doug Weller  talk 15:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)"

No I'm not this user. Most people actually familiar with the study would argue the same.


 * Highly unlikely. I think you are. Doug Weller  talk 18:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I seem to be wrong. Doug Weller  talk 08:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I should have said that the IP was adding obvious OR as agreed at NORN. Why my report has been ignored so long is puzzling. Doug Weller  talk 07:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * . has semi'd the article for a month. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Its not an unrelated study. It is the same exact Y-chromosomal data in the 2012 Hawass study put into the most advanced up to date haplogroup predictor there is today (Nevgen). E1b1a is also absent in Christian period Nubian genomes (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.17.431423v1.full) indicating it was not native to the Nile valley as a whole not just Egypt. WikiUser4020 made 43 edits on that article in the last 31 days possibly vandalizing that article.Pullbasket (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I've been told that Pullbasket is a sock of an editor I blocked a while ago, so I'm striking their edit (which ironically shows that they've been doing original research. Doug Weller  talk 08:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:121.121.57.31 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Other interpretations */  Nuns are not the bride of christ"
 * 1)  "/* Other interpretations */  Nuns are not the bride of christ"
 * 1)  "/* Other interpretations */  Nuns are not the bride of christ"
 * 1)  "/* Other interpretations */  Nuns are not the bride of christ"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Resolution not needed. WP:CB or WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. WP:SOCK is. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Add to. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Another WP:SOCK:. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:TThor reported by User:JoJo Anthrax (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This, and all other sections on the article Talk page.

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

Comments:

Not at four reverts, but the edit warring and disruptive WP:IDHT behavior of this SPA is clear from their edit summaries and their comments on the article Talk page. Note also their personal attacks/aspersions on the article Talk page; e.g., this, this, and this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad, User:Clarityfiend, reported by User:Korwinski (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Korwinski's version
 * 2) Bkonrad's and Clarityfiend's version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See talk and edits pages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Russia_(disambiguation)

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

Comments:

Hi! Situation is as follows:

There were multiple regions and countries named Russia throughout the time. I added these regions, but they were objected by the two users mentioned above on the grounds of "partial match" rule. I found sources confirming that confirm that these countries/regions were named or named in literature as Russia. With the exception for one to which I will get back later. Moreover, both users confirmed that at least some of my entries can be kept in this disambig pages. Yet they still remove all of them just because.

What I did from my side to resolve this issue:
 * 1. I refrained from edit warring and went to talk page to start discussion.
 * 2. I found sources for each entry to confirm full or partial match of Russia name usage.
 * 3. Clarityfiend asked me to submit request to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, which I did and received no objection.
 * 4. I participated in Dispute started Clarityfiend and ignored by Bkonrad. No objection to my edits from other users there as well.
 * 5. I asked Clarityfiend to open similar dispute on similar disambig page - Roman Empire (disambiguation), which as well includes all countries with full, partial or NO "Roman Empire" match whatsoever. Which he did, but in the end failed to receive any support despite the rules that these both users tend to "stick" with right now. Based on that resolution I decided to keep Lithuania-Russia as well, since it would be the only place in Wiki to include all countries with such name which is exactly what they had decided with Roman Empire countries.
 * 6. I had given more than plenty of time for each party to find any other form or sources before I return my entries back to the page.

Issues with these two users:
 * 1. They provided 0 (zero) sources to confirm their point or to dismiss my sources.
 * 2. After dispute and my request, all they do is reverting. I had asked them multiple times to get back to the discussion, but all they do is reverting and pointing to the "rules". And all I get is silence when I mention Roman Empire (disambiguation) with similar situation. I mean I would get the point if they were editing only Russia-related topics or they did not have time for any other. But no. You can see that from their edit pages. For some odd reason they wish to fight this specific disambig, but not the other.

Based on all of that I considered consensus to be established regarding this. And it's not just my opinion, but Consensus: ''Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.'' Yet still these two editors without any further discussion, without any sources etc. still try to undo changes just because.

At the moment I ask to:
 * 1. Revert page back to consensused one.
 * 2. Review these editors behaviour to see how it meets Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * 3. In case needed, I ask for their temporary or permanent suspension until they will understand how Wikipedia works. Korwinski (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you please clarify which part of my diffs is incorrect? Korwinski (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have provided no diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But I did? I added entries that you can see under "Korwinski's version" and other party simply does "undo" and switches back to "Bkonrad's and Clarityfiend's version". I can add multiple examples of that, but I'm not quiet sure how will that help. Korwinski (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Tbx3571 reported by wolf (Result: Page move-protected)
Page: / (Polish Land Forces Equipment)

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:

Straight 4RR+ vio, albeit with page moves instead of edit reverts. Tbx3571 has moved the page 5 times in the space of 61 minutes, against three editors,, and myself. Tbx3571 also moved the page a 6th time just 3 days ago. They have refused to engage on the article talk page, their own talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history where they were also pinged by another editor trying to bring attention to this disruption. Tbx3571 had been very active with edit summaries however, calling the page moves "vandalism", "grammatically incorrect", "BORAT STYLE grammar", "insulting to Poland", "racist", "trolling", and "incorrect & inappropriate". They also claim to be "a native expert english speaker", so... -  wolf  20:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * response: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbx3571 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * -I explained edit the title is inappropriate, it's grammatically incorrect and this insistence of making my country look unintelligent with insulting titles is racist, the users who are changing the title back to "list of equipment of the" are bullying and showing no consideration for the insult that they're making against my country. They list "guidelines" - but they don't have any proof of the "guidelines". When I look at the other Polish service branches - they don't say "List of equipment of the" for the Polish Gendarmie and Polish Special forces. Keeping with the guidelines visible for the Polish Armed Forces - the general guidelines are "Service branch name" + "equipment". I'm appalled at the people vandalizing Poland's title system, disregarding the insults that they're making towards all Polish people, and being hell bent on having contributing users banned. user "Eurohunter" presented NO GUIDELINES, made grammatical errors in his comments, and I simply explained that I'm a native english speaker, and that "List of equipment of the" is simply improper english, and the end result is that it sounds like Borat is talking with major grammatical errors, and I'm not calling anyone "borat" - I'm saying the title sounds like something Borat would say, and if the guidelines have such grammatical erros - then they need to be changed. It should be "service branch name" + equipment - it's simple, clean, and proper grammar. NOT ONE user wanted to acknowledge this - and because of that it comes across as VANDALISM - THE RULES SAY THAT VANDALISM DOESN'T REQUIRE AN EDIT COMMENT but I explained it anyway, and they responded with threats and no dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbx3571 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * -I explained edit the title is inappropriate, it's grammatically incorrect and this insistence of making my country look unintelligent with insulting titles is racist, the users who are changing the title back to "list of equipment of the" are bullying and showing no consideration for the insult that they're making against my country. They list "guidelines" - but they don't have any proof of the "guidelines". When I look at the other Polish service branches - they don't say "List of equipment of the" for the Polish Gendarmie and Polish Special forces. Keeping with the guidelines visible for the Polish Armed Forces - the general guidelines are "Service branch name" + "equipment". I'm appalled at the people vandalizing Poland's title system, disregarding the insults that they're making towards all Polish people, and being hell bent on having contributing users banned. user "Eurohunter" presented NO GUIDELINES, made grammatical errors in his comments, and I simply explained that I'm a native english speaker, and that "List of equipment of the" is simply improper english, and the end result is that it sounds like Borat is talking with major grammatical errors, and I'm not calling anyone "borat" - I'm saying the title sounds like something Borat would say, and if the guidelines have such grammatical erros - then they need to be changed. It should be "service branch name" + equipment - it's simple, clean, and proper grammar. NOT ONE user wanted to acknowledge this - and because of that it comes across as VANDALISM - THE RULES SAY THAT VANDALISM DOESN'T REQUIRE AN EDIT COMMENT but I explained it anyway, and they responded with threats and no dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbx3571 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * – full move protection applied to the page for one week. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:188.148.70.209 reported by User:Avilich (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff (with an accusation of vandalism and POV-pushing)
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments:

IP refuses to use the talk page despite being asked several times, and is obstinate to the point of accusing me of vandalism and POV-pushing, despite the edits in question being rather trivial. Avilich (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This edit in particular is not really trivial. It is important that the Commanders and Leaders section be complete as it has been in all articles pertaining to the Greco-Persian Wars. Removing commanders from one side only, and doing so in just one of the sub-articles, because of an arbitrary decision of what/who is or isn't "important", goes against NPOV. 188.148.70.209 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Then it warrants discussion. I strongly suggest the IP engage in discussion at the talk page and get consensus before attempting to add it again. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I never added anything. It is user who wanted to have certain Commanders removed. Important to make that distinction. 188.148.70.209 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You added them back, which is still reverting. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This IP doesn't seem to have a knack for discussions. See Talk:Second Persian invasion of Greece. "". "". "". All while I tried to address the issue with as few words as possible. Evidently he thinks I'm causing some sort of mischief, or is taking it too personally, or simply doesn't get the point. Avilich (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)  pinging you since I have to call someone's attention here. Avilich (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * IP has been cautioned about personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It gets funnier: "Gosh, how daft could you be". Avilich (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Zlogicalape reported by User:JJNito197 (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Zlogicalape is ignoring warnings about using WP:Synthesis, insinuating me being "biased" through a customized template, trying to insert unsourced material with no regard for the sources already provided, and removing sourced material. This user wants to change the text to "Middle-East", even though the source (multiple) specifically states "Arab world" and "Arab cuisine". The user also added unsourced content that accentuates the Lebanese origin of the dish, also unsourced. (diff 3.) The user seems to be trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. JJNito197 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments:


 * JJNito197 is ignoring encouragements for WP:VOICE, and has shown bias through cherry picking, opting for a complete disregard of inclusion and striving for segregation. This user wants to use "Arab world" and "Arab cuisine" in place of "Middle-East" and "Middle-Eastern cuisine" even though the sources state "Middle-East" and "Middle-Eastern cuisine" (alongside multiple other terms), leading to segregative effects.


 * "Middle-East" and "Middle-Eastern cuisine" is not only stated in the sources but is also inclusive of the countries without segregation hence achieving neutrality.


 * As per the policies in WP:NPOV, I made it clear to the user that multiple non-Arabian countries are included, such as Cyprus, Israel ..., which is why the terms "Arab world" and "Arab cuisine" would exclude other countries. (as is mentioned in the sources. NOTE: that the user has removed the latest sources that mention some of these countries)
 * Yet the user still chose to ignore neutrality accentuating that the foods are only part of the Arab world, possibly in favor of some form of Arab-centric views. Possible WP:FANATIC


 * Note: the sources use multiple terms such as Middle-East(inclusive term), Arab World(exclusive & segregative), Levantine (even more exclusive & segregative)... If segregation is the aim then why not use "Levantine", as this term excludes much more countries ?!


 * Regarding the allegation made in his report that I added "unsourced content that accentuates the Lebanese origin of the dish", I mentioned the country that introduced the foods through its diaspora (as per the source which the user as removed !) The user seems to be trying to WP:AOTE. Zlogicalape (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The source you added calls it an Arab cracked wheat salad. I didn't add Arab world or Arab cusine, its added there because it is sourced. I will be finding further sources to support this factual statement now.


 * Wikipedia is not a place to set the record straight, its about sourced content. You are ignoring those from North Africa that also eat tabbouleh by changing it to "Middle-East". May I remind you that the term "Middle-East" is vague and not informative.


 * You added "tabbouleh has become a popular food in the United States (through the Lebanese Diaspora" which was unsourced as it is not in the source you added, and you also added "mainly Lebanese Cuisine" which is also sythesis and NOT in the source. You need read through WP:Synthesis because you clearly don't understand how things work on wikipedia. You have insinuated me being bias, fantatical and more, and all I have been doing is sticking to whats in the source. You getting riled up is a perfect example of you not understanding how wikipedia works. JJNito197 (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, Arab world is more inclusive because it includes North Africa and the Middle East. If you call it a Middle-Eastern dish you have to call it a North African dish too. I have added in "Eastern Medditerranean" as it is less vague and ARCHAIC per source, and for the record Arab cusine doesn't mean Arabian cuisine. JJNito197 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

an Arbcom case]] about the I/P conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: I have EC protected Tabbouleh under WP:ARBPIA. See the existing notice of that decision on the talk page. Debates about the origin of various founds eaten in Middle Eastern or Levantine countries tend to verge quickly into nationalism. For example, see Hummus which was mentioned in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence|

User:Partialitarian reported by User:FlightTime (Result: WP:BKFIP sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1074555851 by Bermicourt (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1074555574 by FlightTime (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1074555116 by FlightTime (talk) How dare you revert my edit with a false claim?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1074551491 by JPxG (talk) malicious revert"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1074550843 by JPxG (talk) dishonest, malicious revert of perfectly clearly explained edit"
 * 6)  "WP:NOTGUIDE"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1074550843 by JPxG (talk) dishonest, malicious revert of perfectly clearly explained edit"
 * 2)  "WP:NOTGUIDE"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Simony Hut."
 * Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Vaitheeswran reported by User:Ab207 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1074511215 by 77Survivor (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1074473539 by 77Survivor (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1074422955 by 77Survivor (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1074310213 by 77Survivor (talk)"

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

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

Comments:

The new user only seems to be interested in reverting to their preferred version instead of discussing the talk page. Ab207 (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

<sub style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">📝see my work 11:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! Uninvolved user here; courtesy ping to @77Survivor, the other side of this edit war, to notify them about this discussion. <b style="font-family:Georgia;border-radius:3em;padding:4px;background:#962c2e;color:white;">‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"><sup style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">💬reach out to me


 * I've indefinitely blocked the new user for edit-warring and copyright violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Ogidigada reported by User:Rathfelder (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:


 * Result: User:Ogidigada is warned . They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user continued to revert about categories after being warned. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Heyjudek reported by User:MarshallBagramyan (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:

I've really grown exhausted with this editor. I reverted his edits, invited him to the talk page, and warned him on his talk page as well. Yet he still continues to edit war and insert very controversial allegations in an article about a currently living person. Not only are his edits poorly, mendaciously worded, but the allegations contained therein completely based on his own personal interpretations. Recent edits by me to flag the problems in his section have unsurprisingly been removed or manipulated by him and so I think it's appropriate that some sort of action be taken. Thank you. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely for BLP violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Ficaia reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Editor refuses to accept MOS:DERRY and persistently restores the term "Londonderry", inventing exemptions that aren't part of the MOS. FDW777 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is in fact User:FDW777 who has thrice reverted to his preferred edit on this page. I reverted to the original edit several times, and then, after responding to FDW777 on the talk page, proposed and implemented a compromise wording, which he promptly reverted. Ficaia (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposed an absurd compromise that's firstly historically inaccurate and secondly a MOS:DERRY violation. Even ignoring that, you don't get to own your article by insisting your compromise must stand. FDW777 (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The compromise is not a violation of MOS:DERRY because it is not using an equivalent form for the city ("Derry or Londonderry"), it is adding an explanatory clause to the end of the sentence. To be clear, you were the one who commenced edit warring on this page. I have compromised by keeping "Derry" per the MOS, and adding an extra clause to the sentence. Ficaia (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect once again. I made a single edit to correct a MOS:DERRY violation. As diff#1 shows, you reverted it without any explanation thus it was you who initiated the problem. FDW777 (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You made an edit. > I reverted the edit. > You thrice reverted to your preferred edit. > I offered a compromise to stop the back-and-forth. Ficaia (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to add that as this is a brand new article there is no pre-existing consensus. The only consensus that does exist is at MOS:DERRY (which Ficaia is subverting), and the sol-called compromise has been rejected at the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. FDW777 (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because you were "in the right" doesn't mean you weren't also edit-warring. Ficaia (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Ficaia is warned for edit warring about Derry/Londonderry. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on a talk page. At first sight the language of WP:IMOS appears to favor Derry in this context. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Jedorton reported by User:Zefr (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Watermelon."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Watermelon."
 * 3)   "/* February 2022 */ WP:3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* History vs. systematics */ new section"

Comments:

Jedorton appears to be determined to provide careless editing and duplicate source(s) as integrated into a Systematics section. No engagement on Talk:Watermelon or on the user's talk page. Suggest a temporary block and encouragement to collaborate. Zefr (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Jedorton is warned for edit warring at Watermelon. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. The editor has now begun discussing at Talk:Watermelon. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:138.94.155.32 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1073389929

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1074331856
 * 2) Special:Diff/1073314375
 * 3) Special:Diff/1072922681
 * 4) Special:Diff/1072225694
 * 5) Special:Diff/1070185303
 * 6) Special:Diff/1068903518
 * 7) Special:Diff/1067178061
 * 8) Special:Diff/1065252986
 * 9) Special:Diff/1063183139
 * 10) Special:Diff/1061010908
 * 11) Special:Diff/1057448341

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User was warned twice in their talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1074519740

Comments:

IPs from Brazil adding the same unsourced info into the article, sometimes with the same cryptic edit summary -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 18:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C8:A439:2D01:854F:1F91:FF02:D476 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Libel is illegal, it would be wise to stop allowing it. An opinion piece (op-ed) does NOT constitute as evidence to section in question, all opinions therein were of a sole individual and are therefore subjective. Hence why I am removing the section. If you can refute this with actual evidence then let me know and we can discuss. Otherwise stop allowing it immediately."
 * 2)  "/* World Peace */Libel is illegal, it would be wise to stop allowing it. An opinion piece (op-ed) does NOT constitute as evidence to section in question, all opinions therein were of a sole individual and are therefore subjective. Hence why I am removing the section. If you can refute this with actual evidence then let me know and we can discuss. Otherwise stop allowing it immediately."
 * 3)  "Libel is illegal, it would be wise to stop allowing it. An opinion piece (op-ed) does NOT constitute as evidence to section in question, all opinions therein were of a sole individual and are therefore subjective. Hence why I am removing the section. If you can refute this with actual evidence then let me know and we can discuss. Otherwise stop allowing it immediately."
 * 4)  "/* World Peace */Libel is illegal, it would be wise to stop allowing it. An opinion piece (op-ed) does NOT constitute as evidence to section in question, all opinions therein were of a sole individual and are therefore subjective. Hence why I am removing the section. If you can refute this with actual evidence then let me know and we can discuss. Otherwise stop allowing it immediately."
 * 5)  "Fixed, defamatory and subjective remarks have been removed."
 * 6)  "/* World Peace */Fixed, some buzzfeed op-ed is not a valid “reference” that will substantiate the defamatory claims previously made. It is an opinion. There is no proof for Sam Hyde being directly affiliated with ANY political group. Every time somebody adds this in I will remove it. If my IP gets banned, I will change it and remove it."
 * 1)  "Fixed, defamatory and subjective remarks have been removed."
 * 2)  "/* World Peace */Fixed, some buzzfeed op-ed is not a valid “reference” that will substantiate the defamatory claims previously made. It is an opinion. There is no proof for Sam Hyde being directly affiliated with ANY political group. Every time somebody adds this in I will remove it. If my IP gets banned, I will change it and remove it."
 * 1)  "/* World Peace */Fixed, some buzzfeed op-ed is not a valid “reference” that will substantiate the defamatory claims previously made. It is an opinion. There is no proof for Sam Hyde being directly affiliated with ANY political group. Every time somebody adds this in I will remove it. If my IP gets banned, I will change it and remove it."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Sam Hyde's connections to the alt-right */ new section"

Comments:

The edit summary of shows the intent of the IP to edit war, even if banned. Ifnord (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. See also the protection log. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Shamrock2020 reported by User:10mmsocket (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1074519998 by The Banner (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1074502132 by The Banner (talk) restored official airline source"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1074376508 by The Banner (talk) The Banner, you can't get a reference any more accurate than those published by the airline in question therefore, you need to stop depriving Wikipedia users of up-to-date and accurate information. You are being disruptive yet again."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1074325159 by The Banner (talk) Blah blah blah I just undid your revision hehe"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Three warnings given, , and.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User seems to have WP:OWN attitude towards this article, is repeatedly inserting poor references, and deleting maintenance templates, and is not responding to any messages on his/her talk page other than agressive / snide messages in edit summaries. Has been a problematic user in the past. Need some timeout to reflect on poor behaviour. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Shamrock2020 seems afraid for independent sources. Almost from the beginning he is trying to source info with the websites of airlines or even booking websites. Both types of websites are contrary to WP:RS. And this is definitely not the first time he is edit warring over the introduction of related sources. In this case: the replacement of an independent source by a related one. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * His present complete radio silence is part of his strategy to avoid consequences of his behaviour. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Shamrock2020 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Dublin Airport without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Please pay attention to the need for WP:Reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Gracias95 reported by User:Pbrks (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1074683314 by Pbrks (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1074683314 by Pbrks (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Medal templates in player articles */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User will not engage in discussion. See their talk page. There are many other articles, e.g. YellOw (gamer) and Flash (gamer). – Pbrks (t • c) 16:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Gracias95 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Bengi (gamer) without getting a prior consensus on the talk page for their edit. User:Pbrks should consider finding a central place to discuss the usage of medal templates, if that is the issue in dispute here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, just wanted to note that this user is doing the same thing on other pages, notably Impact (gamer) without engaging in conversation, or leaving an edit summery. I'm not entirely sure of the proper protocol but I did notice that Pbrks had reported him already, and wasn't sure if it would be better to make a new report seeing as his first revert on Impact was also on 1 March, and he has reverted for the sixth time today, 7 March. Thanks for the help! Chaddude (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Morgoonki reported by User:LongLivePortugal (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: The user has discussed the issue in the talk page, but he/she keeps reintroducing the controversial material every time he/she responds in the talk page, before any consensus is reached, even after having been told twice ( and ) to wait for consensus; this was the case with each of his/her two reversions. This is a breach of the WP:BRD cycle. Current talk page situation is that this user is the only one in favour of inserting the controversial sentence, while two other editors (including myself) have argued against it, and a fourth one has made a comment which does not take any side, but essentially asks for better sources. I think the discussion should take place with the article in the status quo ante bellum (as implied by WP:BRD). Please restore it. Thank you. LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With this reversion, they've now passed the 3RR. Loafiewa (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

User:2A01:E34:ECAC:93E0:6435:BDFA:9BFE:C99A reported by User:Praxidicae (Result:Already blocked by TheresNoTime )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1075036840 by Praxidicae (talk)Again, be neutral....."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1075035859 by Dunutubble (talk) Dude, it not supposed to be a propaganda site here; it an claims, probably false, it will be "claimed" as such. Even a baby would understand but considering the numbers of ourakinian/hungayans/ottoman trolls here..."
 * 3)  "Stop your propaganda. You must write claims as claims, not claims as facts....."
 * 4)  "Wikipedia, who was always know for fake information and propaganda, begin to look as nothinh more than a propaganda site......not a suprise."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1075035859 by Dunutubble (talk) Dude, it not supposed to be a propaganda site here; it an claims, probably false, it will be "claimed" as such. Even a baby would understand but considering the numbers of ourakinian/hungayans/ottoman trolls here..."
 * 2)  "Stop your propaganda. You must write claims as claims, not claims as facts....."
 * 3)  "Wikipedia, who was always know for fake information and propaganda, begin to look as nothinh more than a propaganda site......not a suprise."
 * 1)  "Wikipedia, who was always know for fake information and propaganda, begin to look as nothinh more than a propaganda site......not a suprise."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This /64 (see here) is on some kind of warpath including vandalizing user talk pages of those who disagree with them and calling any Ukrainian sources propaganda as well as mass reverting others without discussion. CUPIDICAE💕 15:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * by  Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

User:142.126.187.57 reported by User:Docktuh (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments I have tried for months with this editor. This is the second time I've had to report them. They've been at this for some time. They were invited to use the talk page on the matter, a message was even left on their talk page. Consensus contrary to what they insist has been established for months, they refuse to engage at all. Something needs doing. Docktuh (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – One week, for long term edit warring on various articles including Rastakhiz Party. This IP editor has never used a talk page. Most of their edits since last November have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Moro fr99 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is no country named western sahara in UN"
 * 2)  "Unjustified changes"
 * 3)  "Why you put wrong information ?"
 * 4)  "My reason is you give a false information, there is no country named RASD and Union nation not recognise this republic. As in the description this territory is still in conflict but there is no other country but the 4 Algerie Morocco Tunisia and Mauritania"
 * 5)  "Rasd in not recognised as a country by UN"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Maghreb."
 * 2)   "/* Unjustified content removal */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As usual, a nationalist SPA removing the mention of a founding member of the African Union and ignoring the explanations on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They also removed the mention of Western Sahara altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

User:86.98.115.17 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I already said that."
 * 2)  "I already said it will happen."
 * 3)  "It is going to happen."
 * 4)  "Then you need to leave it like this please. It is going to happen."
 * 5)  "STOP please."
 * 6)  "Do not remove it please."
 * 1)  "Do not remove it please."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bob the Builder (2015 TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User insists that there is another Bob the Builder show and refused to provide a reliable source. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked one month by another admin for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Thecleanerand (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Consistently uses unreliable news sources. Thecleanerand (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Malformed report, "consistently uses unreliable news sources" isn't edit-warring, and Thecleanerand's conduct appears to be of more concern than Vjmlhds's.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Anthonyc745 reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Religion & Symbolism */"
 * 1)  "/* Religion & Symbolism */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated addition of copyright violations without no acknowledgment of talk page warnings. DanCherek (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. Pattern of copyright violations and unsourced changes, no sign that it will stop. A new user who is not receptive to advice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:1.38.86.47 reported by User:Jthekid15 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early years and accession */"
 * 2)  "/* Career */"
 * 3)  "/* Sacrifice */"
 * 4)  "If the queen of england isn't calling former queen then the king's of Indian princely state is also not former king's."
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 2)  "/* Sacrifice */"
 * 3)  "If the queen of england isn't calling former queen then the king's of Indian princely state is also not former king's."
 * 1)  "/* Sacrifice */"
 * 2)  "If the queen of england isn't calling former queen then the king's of Indian princely state is also not former king's."
 * 1)  "/* Sacrifice */"
 * 2)  "If the queen of england isn't calling former queen then the king's of Indian princely state is also not former king's."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Gaj Singh."
 * 2)   "/* Titular Ruler Vs Current Ruler, Gaj Singh */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Titular Ruler Vs Current Ruler */ new section"

Comments:

I have tried to engage this user in a productive way, but they insist on not engaging in a discussion and continuing to make edits to Gaj Singh and related pages, such as his son's. I would like to ping User:AAhap36 who has also been active on those pages and may be helpful here. JC aka Jthekid15 (Communications) 17:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP editor was blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing by User:EvergreenFir. This is a new user, most of whose edits are being reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:107.115.243.38 reported by User:CreecregofLife (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This was the last one before he showed up

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "There's going to be a regular season this year"
 * 2) "Games are not canceled"
 * 3) "Opening Day saved" and there's this too, which starts a broader attack
 * 4) No edit summary
 * 5) Also no edit summary
 * 6) Another one
 * 7) Gone completely silent in the insistence

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring warning preceded by Disruptive1, Disruptive2 and Disruptive3

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: I don't know if I'm supposed to submit with this blank, then notify, then edit it in after, so forgive me

Comments:

The user has attempted to maintain a false narrative that the ongoing MLB lockout was resolved, pretending that the cancellations did not occur, a denial of reality.--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats fair, they did seem to finally leave it alone.--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverting edit(s) by Brightstarrrr (talk) to rev. 1018923895 by GreenC bot: NOV Issue, MOS:EUPHEMISM (RW 16.1)"

Comments:

Have directed editor to WP:MOS twice, editor apologized on talk page, but went straight back to making the same edits. Level 4 warning issued and ignored <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 13:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. It looks like you reverted a MOS:EUPHEMISM ("passed away" instead of "died") but you also reverted multiple times a sourced piece of information added by User:Brightstarrrr, without explaining why you removed it. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That bit, I missed, my mistake there. I have re-added the sourced edits. I will also add an apology on user talk page for the reverting of sourced content. <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 14:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Brightstarrrr is warned. A consistent pattern of ignoring Wikipedia's style rules, if you are reverting to enforce your own preference, may lead to sanctions. The issue that was reported here is WP:EUPHEMISM, 'passed away' versus 'died'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Morgoonki reported by User:LongLivePortugal, second complaint (Result: ECP added )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (this last one inserted the material in a different way and place, so it was not rigorously a reversion, but it was the same controversial material)
 * 1)  (this last one inserted the material in a different way and place, so it was not rigorously a reversion, but it was the same controversial material)
 * 1)  (this last one inserted the material in a different way and place, so it was not rigorously a reversion, but it was the same controversial material)
 * 1)  (this last one inserted the material in a different way and place, so it was not rigorously a reversion, but it was the same controversial material)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: —  —

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

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

Comments: I reported this user yesterday, following the second reversion, after which the administrator assessing the case considered that there was no violation. If a breach of the 3RR is necessary for intervention, it has now clearly occurred. The problem remains the same as yesterday: the user keeps inserting the controversial material in spite of a discussion being taking place in the talk page. It seems that the user wants the discussion to take place with the controversial material showing. This should not be the case. Please take action this time; this is clear edit warring behaviour. Please restore the original stable version of the page (which I am afraid of doing myself for fear of breaking the 3RR). Thank you. LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to raise the issue that this user was created one month ago, has 30 or so edits, mostly on talk pages, and is already nominating the article they're edit-warring over for Good Article Review. That's not something brand new users typically do, so, besides the edit-warring, admins might consider a sockpuppetry investigation. It might also be worthwhile to look at temporarily increasing the page protection for the article in question, NATO, which is receiving a certain amount of new attention in the past week due to the news.-- Patrick Neil, o Ѻ ∞/Talk 15:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment to the Administrators. The situation seems paradoxical to me since I could just as well have accused the three long-time editors of the NATO page LongLivePortugal, Patrickneil and Anastrophe and the less known editors BilCat, Chip3004 and FAHIMJOBAYER786 of edit warring. In fact, they have iteratively reverted my edits, for example here, here, here, here, and here, without providing any reasonable motivation in the talk page. If you read carefully through the talk page, in fact, you will notice evident problems in their way of discussing. If you further check on the archive of the talk page, you will notice how they have discouraged a number of other editors (see just one example here) who finally simply gave up (see for example the case of 2014, 2015, and 2018). If you think I am not behaving as WP requires, please lock me. I am afraid however that we are assisting to a systematic manipulation of history and censorship of facts probably motivated by a political belief (or worse). Morgoonki (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter you were editing warring and you are on the verg Violating WP:3RR as of March 2nd. Chip3004 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've increased the protection level because of this disruption and due to current events. Morgoonki, you are the one edit-warring here - don't blame others. You're getting a break with the protection, you could be blocked for the slow edit war you've been promoting.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Brightstarrrr reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: Partial block, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion */ reply to Brightstarrrr (CD)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "list needs some type of order applied"
 * 2)   "/* Messy article */ commercial entries"
 * 3)   "/* Messy article */ reply to Bbb23 (CD)"

Comments:
 * I just noticed that this editor was recently reported for behavior on a related article; see section WP:AN3. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * from article space. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User:C.Fred reported by User:Brightstarrrr (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Page history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Bruce_Lee

My version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Bruce_Lee&oldid=1075626636

The current version: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Bruce_Lee&oldid=1075627173

My complaints: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:C.Fred#Awards_and_honors_received_by_Bruce_Lee

Dear editors,

Please, don't delete any piece of information from my last version! I've worked very hard to compile all those awards/honors. It took me long to finish it.

It wasn't a good behavior to delete information related to top brands such as Nike, Nokia, Xiaomi, Casio and Hublot. I've been wise and careful enough to write an article that meets all generations' needs/expectations. For instance, teens find Bruce Lee Xiaomi smartphone a more interesting honor than a statue. Moreover, that kind of honors are recent. It's important to have an up-to-date article. Please, pay attention to sources dates/years. I had into account past (e.g. statues), present (e. g. Xiaomi smartphone) and future (a suggestion: Bruce Lee should be awarded with an Honorary Doctorate Degree).

Thank you for your understanding.

Cordially, Brightstarrrr

C.Fred, did you see the difference between my version and the current one? Did you see how many pieces of information have been deleted without permission? The editors who should be blocked are the ones who delete information, not the ones who add information like me. Brightstarrrr

Block page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brightstarrrr?markasread=241740171&markasreadwiki=enwiki#March_2022_2

I've worked really hard to improve this article, and some users simply delete my sourced and up-to-date version and block me for 31h. This is unacceptable...

Thank you for your attention.

Cordially, Brightstarrrr
 * What kinda of messed up report is this? GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One that won't go anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your behavior, based on your edit history, is problematic, and C.Fred was generous in only blocking you for 31 hours and for only issuing a partial block. You would do best to seek WP:CONSENSUS for the edits you want to make rather than edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User:CanadaLibertarianAccountablility reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Partisan Censorship fixed with viable source added"
 * 2)  "Fixed partisan vandalism by Walter, PPC is a growing party that was in participation in the recent federal election, making it viable to be listed under these conditions."
 * 3)  "Even though the PPC had not elected a member in parliament, The PPC is a fast growing party in Canada, regardless of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's partisan opinion."
 * 1)  "Even though the PPC had not elected a member in parliament, The PPC is a fast growing party in Canada, regardless of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's partisan opinion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Politics of Canada."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Politics of Canada."
 * 3)   "/* Unnecessary political bias */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* Unnecessary political bias */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have also informed WP:AIV that the editor is not here to create an encyclopedia but to win political points. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, stepped in to revert one of the four edits so I am at three reverts, granted it is appears that CanadaLibertarianAccountablility's edits could constitute vandalism as I explained on the editor's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I initially blocked for 48 hours, but following a personal attack directed at Walter, I extended the block to indefinite. PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:LVTW2‎ reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (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: Talk:Taiwan

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

Comments:

Not their first time edit warring on Taiwan, however the disingenuous use of a preferred "status quo" vs the actual status quo that is their justification for this edit warring means that this can't be ignored. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:Horse Eye's Back has refused to compromise with other editors in several occassions over the talk page and arbitrarily impose his version that many editors has disagreed about. What I am trying to do is to sidestep the issue and refrain from lingering into senseless edit conflicts, and making more constructive move for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LVTW2 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That first revert is of User:ImChessFan21 not myself and I don't believe that I am the author of the status quo version although I've been editing that page for a long time so I could be wrong about that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Besides, I made the descriptive change to the lede on 21rd February, which has since remained stable for the past two weeks, until a rapid altercation raised by @User:ImChessFan21 and then @User:Horse Eye's Back in the last 24 hours for their attempts to revert back to the disputed version. I did not intend to cause any edit war, and in every single one of my edits, I have described in details about my purpose in edit summary. LVTW2 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Hsynylmztr (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I added the word 'Turkoman' before the name of the Afsharid dynasty. It is also mentioned on the Afsharids. But this user was angry at that and reverted my edit even though ı had sources. So I opened a talk page and another user agrees with me on 'nothing is wrong with this brief mention', but he keeps deleting it and reverted it 3 times without any consensus. He asked me to reach a consensus but in fact, I opened the section, and he made the constant reverts.Hsynylmztr (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not a violation of the 3RR rule. WP:OUCH, I will be reporting this user to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:EDIT WARRING. Not a violation of the 3RR rule only because of it was not done within a 24-hour period. Yet, that's still an edit warring.Hsynylmztr (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll let the admins explain it to you. Also, enjoy . --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:JMwins19 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1075421466 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
 * 2)  "The work that this article covers has nothing to do with that world event, it is not mentioned lyrically to any capacity.  So no, it is not."
 * 3)  "Completely unnecessary information to include i. the opening paragraph. Shall we also include how it was recorded during the 2020 US Presidential election and the Beirut explosion? The intro paragraph is for information key to understanding the topic. Talking about whatever world events were taking place at the time is not necessary for a pop album with no lyrical mentions of them."
 * 4)  "This information in this clause is better suited for the background section than the introductory paragraph."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disputing content in the lede of the article, and decides to restore instead of taking to the talk page for further discussion about the content they are removing/changing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * After seeing this edit summary, as well as the contents of the user's user page, are there any female-identifying experienced editors who would be willing to mentor the reported editor? I maintain that gender doesn't make a bit of difference in editing capability, but this is a rare case where a female voice could go a long way in building a constructive editor. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to point out that this editor is trolling/threatening editors (See 1 and 2) who try to correct them, and uses uncivil words (3). The second link, especially, has made me very uncomfortable after I translated it to English.  ℛonherry  ☘  03:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling the user is not exactly to collaborate constructively. Threatens users and often argues the point she is being oppressed by male editors. Based on Ronherry's links, this goes back to at least 2021. Callmemirela  &#127809; <b style="font-family:Open Sans; color:#9cadad; text-transform:uppercase;">talk</b> 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:JMwins19 is warned for edit warring at Sour (album). (Their 3RR violation is now stale). They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. Their own warning to another editor should get an award for chutzpah. That tasteful remark was in response to someone who correctly removed a personal attack. If, as her user page declares, JMwins19 considers that any reversal of her edits is silencing the voice of a woman she may be headed for more conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Atlantico 000 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1075776850 by Walter Görlitz (talk)VANDALISM! Lack of content + the user himself got a warning for withdrawing content in the discussion. See discussion."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1075771857 by Walter Görlitz (talk) per: MOS:ETHNICITY, more: I saw your application and addressed it in the form of an objection. I do not understand your problem, since compliance with Wikipedia policy (MOS:ETHNICITY) has been established, and you yourself wrote that you have no problem with it (hence my surprise)."
 * 3)  "Two times renewed readiness to implement changes + compliance with the MOS: ETHNICITY policy. (see discussion)"
 * 4)  "remove nationality per MOS:ETHNICITY + per consensus reached in here Talk:Lukas_Podolski"
 * 5)  "ref for Podolski's birth name"
 * 1)  "ref for Podolski's birth name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Lukas Podolski."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Revived in 2022 */ r"
 * 2)   "/* Revived in 2022 */ +"

Comments:

Editor is attempting to be WP:POINTY and refusing to back-down. The editor is also reverting WP:GF edits along with the point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Objection, please read the discussion about Lukas Podolski. There, for many days, there has been a discussion about whether to remove the footballer's nationality from the lead. It has been shown that nationality should be removed in line with Wikipedia policy. There had been no consensus before; and I was deliberately waiting until the end of last week to make changes, and there was no vote against. It is more the user of Walter Görlitz who should be banned from further editing (per not referring to the arguments, forcing his point of view). Atlantico 000 (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * and then went on to make the fourth revert. The editor seems to know the policy, yet elected to walk over the line. I am not sure how an objection can be offered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And if you don't break the rules, what is currently on Podolski's website will be in line with Wikipedia's policy, the content of the discussion and the practice (per Matty Cash). Why write "the removal of nationality suits me well" (my paraphrase of your statement), and then be offended in a matter that is cosmetic and obvious. Atlantico 000 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I broke no rules. You were bold and made a claim to apply what you thought was the consensus. I reverted you and asked you to wait for an uninvolved editor to determine.
 * I would like to remove nationality from all biographies. I think it breeds division and hatred (as you have demonstrated quite well) but I believe that consensus is more important than my own opinion. The project has determined that nationality is important (in some cases) and so I fall back to what the group want, not I want.
 * Now that the editor has commented, would you like to self-revert and avoid a block? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, abstaining from editing the article, I will opt for the changes while debating the discussion of the article. Atlantico 000 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The request was not to abstain from editing the article, it was reverting to the earlier revision, which is an option discussed at 3RR. By the time I posted here, that would have been difficult due to a single, intervening edit, and within a few minutes, impossible without a lot of effort due to two others. You then edit warred to remove the uninvolved editor's closing of the thread, three times, and found yourself blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours by User:Favonian for disruptive editing. This editor, besides warring on the article, also reverted an RfC close three times on the talk page on March 7. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Danosauruscreck reported by User:General Ization (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1075481187 by General Ization (talk) see talk page"
 * 2)  "It says "Opponents". Read before reverting."
 * 3)  "Unsourced and incorrect. UN, Ireland and Netherlands not enemies of SLA."
 * 4)  "Absurd. Ireland an enemy? Yeah, sure. The UN was a neutral party."

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

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

Comments:

3RR violation after LV4 warning. Also note that the article South Lebanon Army is subject to active arbitration remedies, including 1RR (which I acknowledge even I did not notice until after the edit war stopped). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is also subject to a 30/500 edit restriction, criteria that does not meet. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Danosauruscreck is warned they may be blocked if they make any further edits at South Lebanon Army, which is restricted to extended confirmed users under WP:ARBPIA. I don't intend to block for the edits listed in this report because Danosauruscreck was removing nonsense (A prior edit by User:Eagleye1001 had classified the Irish peacekeeping force, officially neutral, into an enemy of the South Lebanon Army). This claim is what Danosauruscreck was removing). I will notify User:Eagleye1001 that they were mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've CU-blocked .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I made the edit because of the Battle of At-Tiri. I know many of the veterans of the battle. The SLA tortured and killed two Irish soldiers. Eagleye1001 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Cristiansr 99 reported by User:Emir of Wikipedia (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1075996565 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1075994740 by Emir of Wikipedia (talk)"
 * 3)  "Restored deleted column. Do not delete, add sources instead"
 * 4)  "Restored deleted column without any real reason. Do not delete, add sources instead"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* March 2022 */ trim"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of most-followed Twitch channels."
 * 3)   "/* March 2022 */"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of most-followed Twitch channels."
 * 5)   "/* March 2022 */ fix indent level"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Vandalism in this page */"
 * 2)   "/* Vandalism in this page */ Rename to Unsourced country data"
 * 3)   "/* Unsourced country data */"
 * 4)   "/* Unsourced country data */"

Comments: Blocked by. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Dmford13 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1076149941 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1076147839 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1076146524 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1076141138 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 1)   "/*  Washington, D.C. */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Washington, D.C. */"
 * 3)  3RV warning
 * 1)   "/* User:Dmford13 */ new section"

Comments:

Not sure what more I can do...have linked the policies in question to no avail. have talk ongoing on there talk page...and article talk (with a few others). Think all done in good faith but the are causing serious accibility problems to the article as per WP:SANDWICH and WP:GALLERY. Also adding odd linking to catagories for section see also links. FA arrticle not the place to learn the Wikiways. Block or page protectioin? Just need them to understand what they are doing and join talks over just editing Moxy - 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to discuss and reason with the user but they're only here to push their own edits, regardless of whether they're good, bad, in between and does not wish to collaborate as per their statements on their talk page: I have worked hard to improve an article that lacked detail and information. I will go through it and will update it to improve it. But people like you are why some articles are so weak. You won't let us improve them. Dmford13 (talk) 1:40 pm, Today (UTC−5) and then Block me if you want. CUPIDICAE💕  18:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring per the simultaneous complaint at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Wikiwikiguyguy reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Some.of it would be sourced by now of people didn't mess.around with this page so much.
 * 1)  "Some of it is actually sources and referenced,

I am trying to fix this.page but people keep.deleting information.

Why not help find sources instead of being.lazy and deleting everything?

I will just keep adding info and.sources no.matyer how often people delete it.

Which is hard with the time.I spend at work and how often people delete things or add false information to this pages.

However I will kee..."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user continues to add largely unsourced swaths of text that are either redundant or unencyclopedic to the aforementioned article. CUPIDICAE💕 16:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Wikiwikiguyguy is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Japanese domestic market without first getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Saiful Trismegistus reported by User:MarshallKe (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User has also been making repeated reverts on Dog meat. MarshallKe (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Added latest revert MarshallKe (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Saiful Trismegistus is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at either Cat meat or Dog meat without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. The user should also be aware of our policy on WP:No legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They've reverted again. MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Saiful Trismegistus is now blocked 48 hours for continuing the war at Cat meat after being warned. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

User:2409:4073:181:516:54A5:A7FF:FE6A:E1EA reported by User:Emir Shane (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1076140957 by Emir Shane (talk) Revert vandalism. Check properly"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1075943249 by Xplore Master (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1075943165 by Xplore Master (talk) Vandalism"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1075943165 by Xplore Master (talk) Vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on NGK (film)."
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on NGK (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months (Besides this EW issue, notice all the reverts of IP vandalism in the history). EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Gracias95 reported by User:Chaddude14 (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version Impact (gamer) 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:

Has reverted page 5 times total, and has done this on other pages, such as Huni (gamer)) and Faker (gamer). When I went to his talk page I noticed that another user had already made three attempts to discuss with him about the topic to no result, and posted a fourth message as an edit warring notice on Bengi (gamer). Thanks and sorry if I didn't fill this form out correctly, I wasn't sure of the correct way to link past versions of an article. Chaddude (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Chaddude14
 * Blocked for two weeks for violating 3RR at at least one article and edit-warring at other articles. Also, the editor has never talked since they started editing here and thus have not responded to any of the warnings or advice posted to their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

User:66.27.194.90 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Partially blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1076535349 by Doug Weller (talk) The quotes are sourced, so restored. Please use talk page when removing sourced quotes."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1076529241 by Doug Weller (talk) please change descriptions if incorrect. Talk page discussion would be appropriate."
 * 3)  "/* Impact crater in Greenland */  Manual revert of Aluxoam edits. These were very specific published predictions by prominent members of opposing camps. This should be discussed on the Talk page before removing."
 * 4)  "/* Impact crater in Greenland */ Reverted deletions by Aloxism. These are quotes of published statements that document specific examples of predictions by one of the most prominent YDIH advocates and critics, respectively."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Two reverts included unsourced descriptions of BLPs. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

User:AnneBarbierPH reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1076543856 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1076542208 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1076541852 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1076540433 by Elmidae (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1076539131 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1076538411 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1075462556 by MrOllie (talk)"

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

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

Comments: This comment sums it up, really. - MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Neocorelight reported by User:Awesome Aasim (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please see my talk page Blaze, there are many free vg logos on Commons but they're not used on articles because logos aren't alternatives to replace cover art. And read WP:VGBOX. Undid revision 1076416617 by Blaze Wolf (talk)"
 * 2)  "It satisfies NFCC like any other cover arts. The guideline at WP:VGBOX states that cover art should be used. Undid revision 1076363904 by Awesome Aasim (talk)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by EggplantTitan72 (talk): Unexplained change. Cover art is part of Manual of Style for video games."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User_talk:Neocorelight

Comments:

Edit warring with NFCC implications, hence the reason I reverted their latest edit. While not a violation of the 3RR, because of the implications with the NFCC legal policy, I am filing a report anyway. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 01:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've asked at WT:VG if WP:NFCC overrides WP:VGBOX as I'm fairly sure it does. However, just so I have a definitive answer I asked. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 01:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 3RR was not violated. If your real concern is that WP:VGBOX is too permissive regarding usage of video game cover art, you should wait until you get agreement at the thread you opened to get the video game project to change its usual practices. The source of your concern is unclear. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just figured I'd clarify that I opened the thread on WT:VG and Aasim opened the report here. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 23:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Riverflat2021 reported by User:Daundelin (Result: Indeffed)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (previous good version)  (diff)

last good edit

Diffs of the user's reverts: On Template:DragRaceProgressTable/UKVTW:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

On RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) (presented to show this edit-warring is across multiple pages):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have attempted on the user's talkpage:

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

Comments:

This user is not amenable to discussion, it seems. I attempted to correct their edits, and attempted to get them to stop. An admin needs to step in at this point; I have no interest in edit-warring myself. Daundelin ❁  18:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted becuase your edits are incorrect. I’m sure you’ve heard this before considering your extensive block history. But I have explained my reasons for reverting your edits and you’ve failed to listen. If I get blocked, so should you at this point for failure of co-operation. Thank youRiverflat2021 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest you discuss this issue at a talk page, probably for the article about the show rather than for the template, as the only explaining you have done is in edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I was investigating this on my own and did not realize you had ruled on the edit-warring itself. I have indefinitely blocked the user for disruptive editing, including edit-warring, personal attacks, and failure to collaborate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You got deeper into their edit history faster than I did. I didn't see an immediate issue per the diffs, but I did see some of what you mentioned. I defer to your judgment on this. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that 3RR is a bright line, while edit warring is not held to a specific number? Daundelin  ❁  18:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that 3RR is a bright line, while edit warring is not held to a specific number? Daundelin  ❁  18:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

User:BlueWorkers reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: Indeffed)
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: New editor unwilling to abide by advice. Also edit warring at Pop music and elsewhere. See also abuse here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)