Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive449

User:2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 reported by User:Pavlov2 (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "this has been really clearly explained--do not restore copyright violations again; Undid revision 1076551762 by Pavlov2 (talk)"
 * 2)  "as explained, restoring last good version"
 * 3)  "rv to last good version, prior to repeated copyright violations, promotional intent and WP:COI"
 * 4)  "again, see much of the board's bios, and perhaps other recent edits as well"
 * 5)  "coi--see, for instance, promotional bios of board of directors"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keep reverting for several times. Pavlov2 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a report of incompetence. See the article edit history, along with my summaries and previous reversions by two administrators. Pavlov2 doesn't understand that we do not accept promotional content or copyright violations. Please see edits by the WP:COI, first as an IP, then continuing as a registered account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IP editor is correct to have removed this content as COPYVIO and SOAP. Further, the IP editor did not violate 3RR (and WP:3RRNO would have applied anyway), there was no warning to the IP editor, and no attempt to resolve the issue on the article's talk page. please be more cautious and judicious before filing reports like this.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry,seemingly I made a wrong report. Pavlov2 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes,, you did. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, copyvio aside, you restored "a global talent network that connects brilliance with opportunity around the world"??? How much more blatantly promotional can one get? Drmies (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I followed the cluebot and most the time the bot seemingly right. I'm not intended to do that. Pavlov2 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I only focus on the term of 3RR instead of anti vandalism work of that IP user. Pavlov2 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be more cautious next time before filing a report. Pavlov2 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you. mistakes happen.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

User:DmitryShpak reported by User:DiophantineEquation (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076566879&oldid=1076562569

Diffs of the user's reverts: My reverts of their deletion of content:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076629897&oldid=1076614733

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076553657&oldid=1076536117
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076572920&oldid=1076566879
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076653752&oldid=1076636764
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076579846&oldid=1076579019
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076576222&oldid=1076575064
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076555344&oldid=1076553657

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076015496&oldid=1076002174
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076400015&oldid=1076384750
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076634401&oldid=1076554872
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_boycott_of_Russia_and_Belarus&diff=1076665988&oldid=1076655350

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DmitryShpak&diff=1076667870&oldid=1075824756

Comments:

The user has duplicated the page Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine from List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War and tried to call the pages List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War and 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus "inactive". They began deleting content from 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus and "moving" it to Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

I disagreed, stating that it would be more efficient to transfer 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus into a table first, since many users on the talk page agreed that we should have it in table format. There was no consensus to move the page to Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, in fact, it was agreed that we merge the table from List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War instead on the talk page here. Furthermore, I have agreed to a move to a separate list, but I stated that the current page should be finished first rather than arbitrarily deleting content here and there.

The user is now engaging in an edit war and has just stated they will do it their way. I am requesting some form of administrator action since there is no form of cooperation from the other side. DiophantineEquation (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I am a third party to this. I supported the reported user's proposal. But however there was no consensus to the proposal. Only one support isn't consensus. I agree with it being an edit war. Felicia (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was no consensus to the proposal to move to a new page. However, there was consensus to merge the 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus and List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Considering Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a duplicate of List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, I don't see why DmitryShpak is forcibly moving content over. If DmitryShpak is interested in duplicating the content over, that is fine, but deleting content is a different story. DiophantineEquation (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit war was resolved after the reported user agreed to come to a compromise and stop deleting entries on the talk page. Hopefully it stays resolved. 03:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiophantineEquation (talk • contribs)


 * Result: User:DmitryShpak is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again unless they get a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

User:MeraAwaaz reported by User:B203GTB (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: Repeatedly revert edits on article Angika..

Comments:
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. It is possible that a number of articles on Indian languages may need EC protection, due to the intensity of dispute on some of them. Such protections are allowed under WP:ARBIPA.  EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:180.150.38.92 reported by User:Lol1VNIO (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on News.com.au."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on News.com.au."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on News.com.au."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverting edit(s) by 159.196.189.20 (talk) to rev. 1073084393 by LizardJr8: non-constructive (RW 16.1)"

Comments:

Edit warring unsourced and non-NPOV sections lol1VNIO (talk &#8226; contribs) 10:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 1 month for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:JohnnyPedro1998 (Result: Declined)
Page:, , , , and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Salman_Humanitarian_Aid_and_Relief_Center_(KSRelief)&oldid=1076112065

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Salman_Humanitarian_Aid_and_Relief_Center_(KSRelief)&diff=1076985957&oldid=1076112065
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_bin_Salman&diff=1076889155&oldid=1076833911
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia&diff=1049541302&oldid=1049390663
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamim_bin_Hamad_Al_Thani&diff=prev&oldid=1072090917

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=1076997746&oldid=1076988209

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&diff=1077003294&oldid=1076997746

Comments:

This is a comprehensive view of the whole account mentioned, and not a singular particular incident. After reviewing the user's past contributions, I am noticing a specific pattern of reverting and removing many referenced & noteworthy edits that carry a positive or sometimes neutral tone to the articles that are linked under authoritarian political entities, especially in the Middle East. The user's explanation for the edits would be to simply accuse of pushing a propaganda for the regime or mentioning words like: "absurd", "puffery", or "ludicrous" when it's simply adding new material to the article. This undertones a level of unjustified blanket anti-authoritarian bias involved in the Middle Eastern politics which violates WP:NPOV. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans did not violate 3RR, WP:3RRNO applys anyways, Snooganssnoogans had the right to remove the content since it was unsourced. Chip3004 (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . This report is a scatter-shot attack against an editor with whom the filer disagrees. I'd be careful of WP:BOOMERANG.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:RxxingAddict reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1077115252 by Joseph2302 (talk) I provided a source"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1077114833 by Joseph2302 (talk) I did read it"
 * 3)  "/* Entries */ https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60738120"
 * 4)  "/* Entries */  it literally says on source that he will become “Hamilton-Larbalestier”"
 * 5)  "/* Entries */  said he will change his name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Lewis Hamilton name change */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Lewis Hamilton name change */ 3RR violated"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Hamilton name change */ new section"

Comments:

Speculatively changing Hamilton's name, which is itself a BLP violation, and ignoring my messages on the article talkpage, and on their talkpage. The source they mention doesn't confirm what they say anyway, and so their edits are massive speculation and non-collaboration Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 3RR warning was issued at the same time as the last revert, so I don't see where the user has reverted after a 3RR warning was given. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t even know what that means, so how can I get banned for that? RxxingAddict (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * uw-ewsoft placed on User talk:RxxingAddict now . —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . User had not received a clear warning about the 3RR bright-line, nor had they broken it when this report was filed. Since they have not reverted further, I don't see any further action needed, other than the warning I've already given. User is aware that further reverts can result in a block, even if it's not a technical violation of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Hungryhippo112 reported by User:Karagory (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting"
 * 2)   "Editors quote is from NYPost not Forbes; NYPost not a reliable source"
 * 3)   "Editor showed no balance on BLP"
 * 4)   "Editor not showing balance as BLP requires; editor unwilling to discuss in talk page;"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "editor not discussing on this page"

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

Comments:

Editor using Not Reliable Sources, removing existing balance to article, and editor not discussing edits on talk page. Editor was sanctioned a year ago for similar behavior. Karagory (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Hungryhippo112 is warned that the New York Post is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting. It may not be suitable for biographical articles. Hungryhippo12 inserted such material in this edit. The rest of this complaint doesn't add up to a 3RR violation. To settle the remaining issues, consider WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Intelligent boy 13 reported by User:Mathsci (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: (advice from User:Constant314)  (two separate pieces of advice from User:DVdm)

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

Comments:

The user has been advised by multiple editors about the problems with their edits, including poor grammar, poor mathematics (unwikified), copying content from other wikipedia pages, not noticing that the article was a good article, etc. The user did not make any sensible edits to the article and, given the circumstances, other editors saw no reason to discuss matters on the article talk page, preferring to explain the problems on the user's talk page. There were similar problems with Albert Einstein and content related to black hole[s]. This has been going on for over a week and the user, who self-identifies as a boy from BD (Bangladesh) according to their user page, does not seem to have any awareness about the purpose of wikipedia. I would not normally report an editor in these circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Spinningspark: three different editors had to restore the content to its stable version. Continually inserting ungrammatical and unmathematical random content to the good article Isaac Newton is not at all helpful to lay readers of wikipedia. Examples of poor grammar can also be found in the edit summaries of Albert Einstein, e.g. here. The subsection with header "Black hole" was one example. Mathsci (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The sub-stub Newton's metal was advertised by as being named after Sir Isaac Newton. With only one 2007 source,  noted that there was something fishy going on, so removed one section. Using a university proxy, I checked the whole PDF source—there was no connection with Isaac Newton. The newly introduced text turned out to be a wp:copyvio, so I restored the sub-stub to its 2020 version.  Mathsci (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing much or any edit warring or clearly bad faith edits. I am seeing a lot of unsourced and poorly sourced additions including addition of material that is entirely missing in the cited source.  He has made at least one good edit that I am aware of.  He may be coming around.Constant314 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * User:EdJohnston's appraisal on 's user talk page is accurate and fair. At the moment almost every contribution still has had to be checked. For example the very recent edit to Marie Curie, a high profile article, was reverted just hours ago by User:Hqb with the edit summary already covered, two paragraphs further down, in the proper context. So far advice has been given, but that's all — nothing in the other direction. Hopefully EdJohnston or others can give further pointers so that  can edit on his own without help — mentoring possibly? Mathsci (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of User:Intelligent boy 13's edits are being reverted by others. He has been making questionable edits to important articles. Since he seems to be completely unaware of any problems, I think a WP:CIR block may be needed. Still hoping he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I saw my edit from newton's metal has been reverted, I would ask you then why Newton is known for Newton's metal. Check Isaac Newton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligent boy 13 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would thank constant314. He is more helpful and comparative than Mathsci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligent boy 13 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Intelligent boy 13 has been blocked indef per WP:CIR. He has made the unsourced claim that Newton's metal is named after Isaac Newton. He has been making implausible or unimportant changes to major articles such as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and regularly clears out feedback from his own talk page. The future is not promising. The best anyone has come up with so far is that his changes are not actual vandalism. If he were to continue editing, every one of his edits would need to be checked by others. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Jimhagerty reported by User:C.Fred (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Exceptional case: user's edits in an area related to discretionary sanctions for gender, and user is aware

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

Comments:

User has inserted some particularly polarizing language in an article about a transwoman. User initially agreed to compromise language, as evident at User talk:Jimhagerty, but backed away from that. I had debated reporting this to BLPN or ANI because of the DS issues; however, this is also now a simple 3RR violation, so I'll start with the...lowest-penalty path for the user. Since I've gotten involved in content discussion, I feel too involved to take admin action here. —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I find it funny that you call my language "polarizing." It's not polarizing, it's the truth. So, do what whatever you people want to do. You obviously have no concept of reality. Jimhagerty (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Adrianmn1110 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1077195360 by MrOllie (talk) Not WP:UNDUE if it's a review from a subject-matter expert under Reception. Just because I don't have consensus, doesn't mean *you're* not edit-warring."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1076998203 by MrOllie (talk) If my actions count as edit warring, so do yours. LOL"
 * 3)  "Undid good faith revision 1076993063 by EvergreenFir (talk) There's no clear meaning of consensus on Wikipedia. However, the policy makes clear that it's *not* determined by vote or unanimity."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1076988120 by EvergreenFir (talk) Learn what "reception" means. This section is for listing how experts react to RW. Navigator Ltd is a public relations firm. Meaning, they're experts at analyzing how communication affects public perception."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1076972145 by MrOllie (talk) Not WP:UNDUE at all."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* PR Firm's opinion */ new section"

Comments:

I'm counter-reporting MrOllie for edit-warring. Evidence: [1] [2] [3]. Please see WP:BOOMERANG for more details. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * MrOllie has not Violated WP:3RR on the otherhand You did violate WP:3RR and that is considered Edit Warring. Chip3004 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * False. My first reversion was at 00:12, March 14, 2022. My fourth one was at 00:40, March 15, 2022. Not a violation of WP:3RR. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I reverted Adrianmn1110, not knowing that this discussion was taking place. I won't revert further until consensus is clear. --Hipal (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You have site blocked Adrianmn1110 for three days. What other articles, aside from this one, has he been disruptive on? Per WP:ADMINACCT, if there is no response within 24 hours, I will reduce the block to just the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you still going on about this ? There is no requirement that admins use partial blocks instead of site-wide blocks. When you tried to change the wording of the policy previously I took your changes to WP:AN for discussion and there was no consensus for your personal requirement that admins must only make a partial block in such instances. It's very obvious to me, at least, that you disagree with on many issues and jump at the chance to criticize them. This seems to be more of the same.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Applausemonster reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1076978684 by Johnny Au (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Concerts */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1076785572 by Magnolia677 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1076785572 by Magnolia677 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Rogers Centre."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Result: User:Applausemonster is warned for long term edit warring about the Lady Gaga concert. 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) 21:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Sliders64 reported by User:H4MCHTR (Result: )
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Euroformula_Open_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=1076883770

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Euroformula_Open_Championship&diff=next&oldid=1076883770
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Euroformula_Open_Championship&diff=next&oldid=1077282170
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Euroformula_Open_Championship&diff=next&oldid=1077286373
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Euroformula_Open_Championship&diff=next&oldid=1077306886

(it's pretty much the same in the other article, 2022 Super Formula Lights

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: both me and User:MSport1005 tried it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sliders64&diff=prev&oldid=1076755019 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sliders64&diff=next&oldid=1076690313

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sliders64&diff=prev&oldid=1077338553

Comments: User repeatedly tries to add a category to these two articles that is no longer correct. When confronted with clear sources of that on their talk page, they don't engage in any meaningful discussion.
 * You know you're also well over the three revert rule yourself here, right? I've protected both the pages in the meantime to try to encourage discussion, but don't be surprised if another admin actions this by issuing blocks to both of you for violating 3RR. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - the reported user has been able to add the category for the umpteenth time shortly before the page protection. I would have appreciated if you had taken the time to revert that before protecting... I would also have appreciated if you had taken a stance instead of encouraging a discussion that has already taken place. Thank you. MSport1005 (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:7610:41E0:64B5:BA38:24B4:1343 reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added back deleted information"
 * 2)  "see talk page"
 * 3)  "See talk page and use the talk page stop the vandalism to the article"
 * 1)  "See talk page and use the talk page stop the vandalism to the article"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Why has the reporter removed information and consistently keeps removing it when it has been in the article for ten years or more. He refuses to engage on the talk page of the article or his own talk page. They only post to my talk page telling me I am being disruptive to the article where he has removed many facets/sections and references to the information redacted. They will not discuss the reasons for the deletion of material to the article. This began this morning when they used British English spellings and terms on an article that is in the USA and I reverted them. They have also added a new topic of media for a radio station that may be licensed to serve Bay Shore, NY on FCC documents when in reality it is 15 or miles outside the CDP and whose inclusion in the article is neither important or encyclopedic in nature. The editor may be a paid consultant for the entity in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7610:41E0:64B5:BA38:24B4:1343 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Continue discussion on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Blueboyliny has refused to discuss anything whatsoever. He is permitted to vandalize an article and is blocked. 48 hours and he will be back to vandalizing an article and refusing to engage. Have a nice day. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:19E9:5526:2DF5:3693 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Anasai92 reported by User:SierraTangoCharlie1 (Result: Partially blocked for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There are no links between SRMG and Saudi King family. The content that has been added on 14th March 2022 is false with no proof at all. It has been added after SRMG's bid to take over Chelsea FC. It is a cheap tactic to tarnish SRMG's bid for Chelsea FC."
 * 2)  "There are no links between SRMG and Saudi King family. The content that has been added on 14th March 2022 is false with no proof at all. It has been added after SRMG's bid to take over Chelsea FC. It is a cheap tactic to tarnish SRMG's bid for Chelsea FC."
 * 3)  "There are no links between SRMG and Saudi King family. The content that has been added on 14th March 2022 is false with no proof at all. It has been added after SRMG's bid to take over Chelsea FC. It is a cheap tactic to tarnish SRMG's bid for Chelsea FC."
 * 4)  "There are no links between SRMG and Saudi King family. The content that has been added on 14th March 2022 is false with no proof at all. It has been added after SRMG's bid to take over Chelsea FC. It is a cheap tactic to tarnish SRMG's bid for Chelsea FC."
 * 5)  "There are no links between SRMG and Saudi King family. The content that has been added on 14th March 2022 is false with no proof at all. It has been added after SRMG's bid to take over Chelsea FC. It is a cheap tactic to tarnish SRMG's bid for Chelsea FC."
 * 6)  "There are no links between SRMG and Saudi King family. The content that has been added on 14th March 2022 is false with no proof at all. It has been added after SRMG's bid to take over Chelsea FC. It is a cheap tactic to tarnish SRMG's bid for Chelsea FC."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Saudi Research and Media Group."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Saudi Research and Media Group."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by Anasai92 (talk): Edit warring, deleting cited reference basis personal opinion. no counter citation provided."

Comments:
 * It seems pretty obvious that the editor Anasai92 has a WP:COI with the company. A check should be done to see if the account is related to other accounts that do PR for companies or whether it's a solo account that edits on behalf of just this company. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet accounts have appeared on the page after Anasai92 was blocked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Partial blocked by me. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 15:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:JSPolitic reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You removed a well sourced ideology, how pathetic."
 * 2)  "Quick pathetically reverting my logical edits and admit you’re wrong in the talk section."
 * 3)  "AGAIN, I implemented “Putinism”, the ideology of state capitalism and Russian nationalism has taken most of the party and can no longer be described as a big tent, this is why I labeled it “far-right”, due to the nationalist and totalitarian natures of the party’s philosophies. The parties ideology was previously changed to putinism on another page as well, under the list of political parties in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Russia. THIS IS LITERALLY STATED"
 * 4)  "AGAIN, I implemented “Putinism”, the ideology of state capitalism and Russian nationalism has taken most of the party and can no longer be described as a big tent, this is why I labeled it “far-right”, due to the nationalist and totalitarian natures of the party’s philosophies. The parties ideology was previously changed to putinism on another page as well, under the list of political parties in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Russia. THIS IS LITERALLY STATED"
 * 5)  "AGAIN, I implemented “Putinism”, the ideology of state capitalism and Russian nationalism has taken most of the party and can no longer be described as a big tent, this is why I labeled it “far-right”, due to the nationalist and totalitarian natures of the party’s philosophies. The parties ideology was previously changed to putinism on another page as well, under the list of political parties in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Russia. THIS IS LITERALLY STATED"
 * 6)  "I implemented “Putinism”, the ideology of state capitalism and Russian nationalism has taken most of the party and can no longer be described as a big tent, this is why I labeled it “far-right”, due to the nationalist and totalitarian natures of the party’s philosophies. The parties ideology was previously changed to putinism on another page as well, under the list of political parties in Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Russia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* March 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps reinstating their additions without discussing them on the talk page and after being warned multiple times. 6 reverts so far. Vacant0 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Seven! --Vacant0 (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Kuralesache reported by User:FormalDude (Result: 1 week - arbitration enforcement)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "you guys win just get it over with"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1077552932 by FormalDude (talk) the article context does not justify the use of the word widely any more than the lead contextrd"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1077502396 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) that seems like a very generous interpretation of the guideline. the article won't be ruined by having better information, and directly to the point, the body mentions monotheistic religions and amazonian tribes. it's not serious to think that's an adequate summary of the scope of misogyny in history"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1077496169 by Boynamedsue (talk) Weasel words are not about opinions vs fact, but about specificity vs vagueness. "People and societies" would similarly be paired with a  tag."
 * 5)  "/* top */adding a note to expand the vague word "widely""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Misogyny."
 * 2)   "/* March 2022 */ Reply"

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

Comments:
 * User has asked to be banned here. –– F ormal D ude  talk  23:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * as an arbitration enforcement action. If Kuralesache wants to quit Wikipedia, they can simply stop editing. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:DelawareDude reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

No comments are necessary; this is blatant edit-warring. ElKevbo (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * by Drmies Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Paradise Chronicle reported by User:Dipnot1 (Result: Nominator blocked indefinitely)
Paradise Chronicle I added with reliable sources that child soldiers were trained in PKK camps in northern Iraq. The PKK took control of the region with these and similar camps and was controlling the drug traffic and making a profit.source and Child soldiers were trained in these camps. source 2  If you wish, I can add the reports of the United States, the European Union and the United Nations. but these changes I made were constantly reverted. Since I am new to wikipedia in the first undoes, I thought I did something wrong and edited my post and added it again. I always got the same reaction. If you follow the article, you can see that there are football and dances in the camp. not allowed to share any information about child soldiers in the camp. It was not allowed to add that the militants trained in this camp in northern Iraq make money from drug trafficking in northern Iraq.As far as I can see, the user who made the change has been penalized many times. however, it still does not allow the addition of information from other sources than its own views.

Sources on child soldiers being trained in northern Iraq.: https://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c428.html "A French magazine reported recently on the activities of the PKK in Kurdish communities living in France (about 100,000 people). The French police estimate the number of active PKK members at 300. In addition to taxes imposed on their incomes, some Kurdish families have to support the struggle by giving up their own children." "In Germany, the Police of Bielefeld have inquired into the activities of the PKK in Ostwestfalen-Lippe. In addition to other activities such as racketeering and drug smuggling, the PKK has also forced children, teenagers and youths to join 'political courses' for a few days. Sometimes these course have taken place abroad, notably in Belgium and in the Netherlands. It seems that this usually happened with the consent of parents. One girl who had been kidnapped was returned by the police after enquiries among members of the PKK. Two other children are still missing and one other child is believed to be missing. All these children are below the age of 14 years. Reports have been received from other cities in Germany." https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/67012B7F8EB991888525744F0069863A-Child%20Soldiers%20Global%20Report%202008.pdf

It was not known how many PKK fighters were under 18. Recruitment of under-18s of both sexes had been reported in 2003.20 The PKK was believed to have used children in its forces since 1994, and was believed in 1998 to have had 3,000 child soldiers, more than 10 per cent of them girls, in its forces based in Iraq and operating in south-east Turkey.21 Some estimates put the number of PKK fighters in northern Iraq as high as 10,000, a third of them women.22 However, the Turkish military estimated that 3,800 were based in Iraq and that up to 2,300 were operating insideDipnot1 (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Edit summaries such as "There must be information about what was done in that camp" give this administrator reason to suspect that the reported editor is not the one with the NPOV issue here. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But I know you will deny it because you say you are a Kurdish racist. Because your only focus on wikipedia is to make pkk propaganda. This editor is definitely WP:NOTHERE to collaborate on building an encyclopedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Paradise Chronicle : "Also Turks are mainly in Van in the Military bases, or in the by Police Guarded Municipality buildings. It s a factual occupation." this is pkk's opinion. They accuse Turkey of invading Kurdistan. you have taken back the resources even though you added them.
 * "not supported by cited sources."
 * You just took back my posts for this reason. "not supported by cited sources."
 * 1. Child soldiers were trained in these camps.
 * source : https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/67012B7F8EB991888525744F0069863A-Child%20Soldiers%20Global%20Report%202008.pdf
 * "The government continued to organize, arm and pay the Village Guards, a civil defence force numbering 60,000 and mainly concentrated in the south-east as part of its security operations there.19 It was not known whether there were under-18s in these paramilitary forces. It was not known how many PKK fighters were under 18. Recruitment of under-18s of both sexes had been reported in 2003.20 The PKK was believed to have used children in its forces since 1994, and was believed in 1998 to have had 3,000 child soldiers, more than 10 per cent of them girls, in its forces based in Iraq and operating in south-east Turkey.21 Some estimates put the number of PKK fighters in northern Iraq as high as 10,000, a third of them women.22 However, the Turkish military estimated that 3,800 were based in Iraq and that up to 2,300 were operating inside Turkey"
 * Mahsum Korkmaz Academy - Training It is estimated that about 10'000 militants underwent training in the years between 1986 and 1998 when the academy had to leave Syria and settled in Iraq.
 * 2. The PKK took control of the region with these and similar camps and was controlling the drug traffic and making a profit.
 * source : https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/5.Heroin.pdf
 * "On some part of the Balkan route, organized crime and insurgency overlap, such as elements of the Kurdistan Workers` Party (PKK) who are reported to tax drug shipments crossing into Turkey from the Islamic Republic of Iran and, it is speculated, from Iraq. The PKK also reportedly collect taxes (or receive donations) from Kurdish heroin traffickers based in Europe.21 According to NATO intelligence analysts, the PKK pockets upwards of US$50 million to US$100 million annually from heroin trafficking alone. PKK involvement in the trade is further demonstrated by the 2008 arrest of several of its members in Europe on heroin trafficking charges."
 * source : https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg318.aspx
 * Active in southeastern Turkey and northwestern Iraq, and supported by some of Europe's Kurdish community, the Kongra-Gel was designated as a significant foreign narcotics trafficker for its more than two decades-long participation in drug trafficking. The drug trade is one of the Kongra-Gel's most lucrative criminal activities. Nearly 300 individuals connected to the Kongra-Gel were arrested on drug trafficking charges from the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, more than half of them in Germany. Such activity continues to this day; in 2007 and 2008, Turkish law enforcement seized a number of drug shipments and drug labs that belonged to the Kongra-Gel. The Kongra-Gel has also relied extensively on taxing drug shipments that move through its territory. Kongra-Gel has units on the borders of areas it controls to collect money from drug traffickers and a number of Turkish drug smugglers are reported to have given money to the organization. Dipnot1 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for content discussions. I will note that none of those sources mention Mahsum Korkmaz Academy, which is the article your edit was to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Child soldiers were trained in these camps" Finally, but it was deleted in this change. I added the sources that the PKK is raising child soldiers in its camps in northern Iraq and I wrote it down one by one. I can add more resources if you want. and it is clear that the camp mentioned with the specified number of militants is this camp.


 * source : https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/67012B7F8EB991888525744F0069863A-Child%20Soldiers%20Global%20Report%202008.pdf
 * 3,000 child soldiers, more than 10 per cent of them girls, in its forces based in Iraq and operating in south-east Turkey.21 Some estimates put the number of PKK fighters in northern Iraq as high as 10,000, a third of them women

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsum_Korkmaz_Academy#Training
 * Training It is estimated that about 10'000 militants underwent training in the years between 1986 and 1998 when the academy had to leave Syria and settled in Iraq. Dipnot1 (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Dipnot1 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read the sources Dipnot has provided (which I have done), you'll see that nowhere there is a mention of the Mahsum Korkmaz Academy and the paper of Oliver Grosjean is one of the most detailed sources I found on the camp and its events there. I knew I was incurring in a 3RR violation with this edit and hoped it was allowed over WP:VANDALISM second paragraph (mentioned in the edit summary) in order to leave the 3RR noticeboard in peace.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a violation of 3RR: I only count three reverts by you. —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * source : https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/67012B7F8EB991888525744F0069863A-Child%20Soldiers%20Global%20Report%202008.pdf
 * 3,000 child soldiers, more than 10 per cent of them girls, in its forces based in Iraq and operating in south-east Turkey.21 Some estimates put the number of PKK fighters in northern Iraq as high as 10,000, a third of them women
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahsum_Korkmaz_Academy#Training
 * Training It is estimated that about 10'000 militants underwent training in the years between 1986 and 1998 when the academy had to leave Syria and settled in Iraq.
 * There are also reports that child soldiers are being trained in PKK's training camps in northern Iraq. Although no names are given in such reports, the region where the camp is located and the number of militants it has trained are stated. According to your logic, because the name of the camp is not mentioned, are not child soldiers raised in this camp? Dipnot1 (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * has blocked them for "Disruptive editing; edit-warring; personal attacks; nationalist agenda". —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Nativebun reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

While the reverts differ in detail, they all remove the language of "sex assignment" from the lead sentence of this article; this is the language used in the overwhelming majority of recent, reliable sources on the topic, and repeated disxuasion on Talk has reaffirmed its used. The editor in question appears to be inclined to impose a specific POV within the area of the "gender and sexuality" discretionary sanctions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest this be retracted for now given that the user is engaging on the talk page and has stopped the edit warring.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Since the reported user is engaging on the talk page, I also agree that this looks like no administrative action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we leave it open for 24 hours in case there is a relapse? I wouldn't want to assume too much based on a short period of better behaviour. Newimpartial (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Buddythen reported by User:Fyrael (Result: No action)
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:

My initial comment seems to have not been published. The diffs are a bit muddled because in addition to restoring their content each time, they also sometimes duplicate surrounding content. I feel bad reporting this brand new editor who seems to be editing in good faith, but they are just not reading any of the message on any talk pages or summaries about why their addition is not appropriate.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh also I didn't mean this as strictly 3RR, but general edit warring. And if someone can figure out a way to get through to this user without a block, that would be super.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They've now responded on the talk page and haven't re-added the content again, so maybe we're all good now.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:7610:41E0:19E9:5526:2DF5:3693 reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Filer partially blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Geography */"
 * 2)  "/* Education */"
 * 3)  "/* Notable people */"
 * 4)  "/* Education */ restoring deleted portion"
 * 5)  "/* Health care */unnecessary title"
 * 6)  "adding back in deleted portion"
 * 7)  "adding back in deleted portions"
 * 8)  "/* Restoration and the hamlet today */  material falls under common knowledge and residents will know this to be true"
 * 1)  "adding back in deleted portions"
 * 2)  "/* Restoration and the hamlet today */  material falls under common knowledge and residents will know this to be true"
 * 1)  "/* Restoration and the hamlet today */  material falls under common knowledge and residents will know this to be true"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "You have been partially blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia to prevent further disruption due to edit warring."

Comments:

this ip appears to be the same user as 2600:1700:7610:41E0:64B5:BA38:24B4:1343 blocked from editing for 48hrs BlueboyLINY (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * BLUEBOY seems to have an issue with edits on this article and once again seems to have skipped any and all interaction to calmly resolve the issue and goes to the admin noticeboard. Well maybe someone will notice his refusal to discuss a conflict with other editors by using the talk page as instructed on the last couple blockings of his editing. GFod bless you all 2600:1700:7610:41E0:F92C:D127:F66D:47CD (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I chose to restore portions of the article that had been a part of it for ten plus years. Since when is it allowed to be disruptive and vandalize an article with no discussion or even a mere mention on a talk page or reasoning on edit summary? 2600:1700:7610:41E0:F92C:D127:F66D:47CD (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:BlueboyLINY, has been partially blocked for 48 hours by User:Ritchie333. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7E:1881:E300:E8FE:ADD5:31A:447D reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (old, but consensus in the archives was for "Scottish")

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

Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected indefinitely. A year of semiprotection just expired on 3 March, and there was a blast of IP vandalism right after that. Unfortunately, re-protecting seems like the best choice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Dev0745 reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "both Pinkvilla and Deccan Herald praised background research as per sources"
 * 2)  "also praised for other things than performance as per references"
 * 3)  "praised also for dialogue and background research by many critics as per references"
 * 4)  "also got praise for other things other than performance by many critics as per references"
 * 1) "Warning: Edit warring on The Kashmir Files."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Line in lead */ Reply"

Comments: Strange edits continue. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There's another one on 14:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC). They have yet to participate on the talk page. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I was editing in mobile Wikipedia. U can discuss in Kashmir File talk page. Dev0745 (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Dev0745 is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Aryabhatt7 reported by User:ScottishFinnishRadish (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1077847210 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Political messaging and historical accuracy */"
 * 3)  "/* Historical context */"
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Final Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view (RW 16.1)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Kashmir Files."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring with no edit summaries or communication, NPOV style, ignoring discussions on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * And here we go 14:45, 18 March 2022, a clear case of WP:NOTHERE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fastest fingers first :P — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, they're blocked, now we just need to get back to the status quo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring by User:RegentsPark. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Nehme1499 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) March 19, 14:27 UTC –  Reverted an unreferenced addition.
 * 2) March 19, 16:51 UTC –  Reverted an unreferenced addition.
 * 3) March 19, 19:52 UTC –  Reverted an unreferenced addition.
 * 4) March 19, 20:12 UTC –  Restored disputed names Phonk Beta and DJ Squeeky, and YouTube videos as references.
 * 5) March 19, 20:14 UTC –  Restored disputed names Phonk Beta and DJ Squeeky, and YouTube videos as references.
 * 6) March 19, 20:25 UTC –  Restored disputed names Phonk Beta and DJ Squeeky, and YouTube videos as references.
 * 7) March 19, 21:34 UTC –  Restored disputed names Phonk Beta and DJ Squeeky.

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:

Nehme1499 initiated and has been developing the Phonk article, adding some references which are YouTube videos self-published by someone named yokai. I removed the videos per WP:SELFPUB, because yokai is not a known expert. Nehme1499 restored the videos three times, following earlier reverts to make 6RR in one day. Offered a chance to self-revert, Nehme1499 opted against it. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The first three reverts are completely unrelated to the latter three, so to lump them together is misleading. The "earlier" reverts were removals of unsourced information added by IPs, so there is no "controversy" there.


 * Regarding your edits: it would have been wise from your part to follow WP:BRD. After my revert (which just brought the article back to the last stable version), you should have initiated a discussion, either on my talk page or the article's talk page. Instead, you opted to template a regular, which arguably isn't the best option in this case. It's also strange that you did so, given that my first three "reverts" were just valid removals of unsourced content, and you templated me after I had reverted you twice (not thrice). After giving an answer on my talk page, you just decided to threaten me by "giving me a few more minutes" a second time... so generous.


 * Regarding my position on the actual content dispute, I've already answered at Talk:Phonk. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 21:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Six reverts in one day is not allowed except in situations that are not relevant to this case. See Edit warring which specifically says that the number of reverts is not related to what material is being reverted. The exceptions would be if you were removing vandalism (not the case here), reverting someone evading their block (see WP:BANREVERT), or removing violations of WP:BLP. You performed six reverts in one day.
 * I templated you because that exact template is required by this noticeboard before filing a case. It's a necessary shot across the bow, a warning that serious repercussions may result. The template was delivered after your fifth revert of the day, which was indeed your second revert of my changes.
 * Regarding WP:BRD and disagreements about content, the WP:ONUS is on the person who wishes to include disputed content. There is no particular respect given to the "stable" version of the article, however one might measure that characteristic, if the content is involved in a good-faith dispute. As the person who wishes to include disputed content, your job is to obtain consensus for inclusion of that content by discussion. It stays out until then. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding the seventh revert in one day. Nehme1499 is doubling down on their edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be grasping at straws here... I just added another source, I didn't revert anything. I'd advise you to calm down. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 21:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What about this edit, is this my 8th daily revert? What about me breathing now, can that be considered my 9th? <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 21:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, you wove into your edit the names Phonk Beta and DJ Squeeky which had been removed multiple times by myself and Praxidicae. That means your new source and text count as a revert. You restored the names Phonk Beta and DJ Squeeky four times today—absolutely a violation of 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nehme, you unambiguously broke WP:3RR, were notified of that violation, and refused to self-revert.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Fettlemap reported by User:HedgeHogPower (Result: Page ECP protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * This is a slow-brewing edit war and 3RR has not been violated. That said...
 * I've increased page protection to compel talk page discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Pokojni MareBG reported by User:Pavlov2 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1078249775 by Qwerfjkl (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1078249458 by Qwerfjkl (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1078249010 by Pavlov2 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1078248467 by Qwerfjkl (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) ‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Why were you keep reverting? */ new section"

Comments:

3rr on Village pump, using not English and not communicatable. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * by . —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

User:IraqiEagle1001 reported by User:Whpq (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1078133024 by Pppery (talk)"
 * 2)  "Edit was detructive"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1078108906 by Shortsword (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: tagging for deletion of File:Saddam Hussein Portrait.jpeg."
 * 2)   "/* Non-free content */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Non-free content */ new section"

Comments:

Also edit warring at Zagros Mountains Whpq (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fourth revert: Special:Diff/1078286454 * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours for edit warring at Saddam Hussein and Zagros Mountains. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Soibangla reported by User:PackMecEng (Result: editor warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 18:05, March 19, 2022‎-
 * 19:01, March 18, 2022‎-


 * 16:51, March 17, 2022‎-
 * 15:50, March 17, 2022-
 * 11:19, March 17, 2022-
 * 10:23, March 17, 2022‎-

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The article is under 1RR and they were warned after making 4 reverts just two days ago by here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I plead guilty and pledge to be more careful going forward. soibangla (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This was after an admin JUST warned you and when asked on your talk page you basically told me to shove it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The admin warned me yesterday two days ago and yet I still forgot today, which is why I plead guilty. I did not tell you to shove it, rather I suggested you could escalate this on the basis of two reverts within 23h 4m. In any event, I am prepared to be sanctioned for my lack of attentiveness and pledge to do better. soibangla (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a travesty. There is at least one other editor who's repeatedly inserted disputed BLP content in the lead at that article, ignoring ongoing talk page discussion, violating the Discretionary Sanctions page restrictions of Consensus Required and 1rr, and leaving uncivil edit summaries to boot. Admin attention is needed to that behavior, not a longtime collaorator who's trying to keep things on an even keel and the article text BLP neutral while the dispute can be resolved on talk.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The text was not a BLP violation. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't like "hunter puts beans up his nose" but it was contested content about a controversial matter wrt a BLP that has negative implications for the subject. As such it should not have been reinserted in the article. If anyone cares to collect the diffs an AE complaint should be filed against the editor who violated 1RR and Consensus Required. Then we can deal with the 2 complaints in parallel.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is pretty clear cut, but I don’t expect anything will be done about it. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Any admin response? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

, if I had seen this earlier I'd likely have blocked you for it. Indeed, warned you for it. But by now the expiration date has pretty much come and gone, and you have apologized for your behavior--blocking now doesn't serve much of a purpose. Please don't let this happen again. And User:SPECIFICO, I just commented about WHATABOUTISM to another editor, hoping they'd get the hint--don't you fall for that trap also. Admins don't like it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:VisitingSamG and User:Dippiljemmy reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: both partially blocked )
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (see below)

Attempts to resolve dispute on talk pages: There seems to have been too much discussion for me to reasonably provide every diff, so current permalinks to all relevant discussion sections are:
 * Article talk
 * VisitingSamG's talk page (with 3RR warning)
 * Dippiljemmy's talk page
 * My talk page (with short 3RR warning to Dippiljemmy)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * To VisitingSamG
 * To Dippiljemmy

Comments:

There's a lot happening here, and I'm also coming across it all as an uninvolved third party. It appears that VisitingSamG believes Dippiljemmy's edits are non-neutral, while Dippiljemmy believes VisitingSamG's reverts are vandalism. I haven't looked too far into the specific sources and content myself, but it appears this is an issue across much of the content in the entire article, and each editor appears to believe the other is violating a policy, leading to a lot of edit warring that solves nothing. Bsoyka ( talk ) 00:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is about a highly controversial police shooting in 2019 that to this day is a source of anger in sections of the community here. I’d be inclined to simply leave it, but the article includes a significant section on a living person and references certain other living people. User: Dippiljemmy continues to add irrelevant/gratuitous negative material on these people, and hide snarky notes in the reference tag names.


 * I have tried repeatedly to discuss the specific points of contention on the talk page, but as Bsoyka notes, Dippiljemmy regards all changes as vandalism. The latter user also believes any material should be allowed to stand on the sole ground that it’s referenced. VisitingSamG (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a lot going on here, and will take a little more time to untangle and review properly. I am rather busy with other stuff (and not in great health just at the moment, so brain not at its sharpest), but I've started having a look at it and would like to spend some more time on it and bring in other editors. I would just suggest that the two editors involved hold off editing until at least one other editor (besides self), get involved in the talk page discussions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Good luck to anyone who tries to figure this out. I think both parties have some thinking to do about collaborative editing, and I've blocked them both from editing the article for two weeks, to see if cooler heads can prevail--and in the meantime, I see some other editors are working on the article. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. This is definitely complicated, and I second the good luck here; anyone looking to fully untangle this will surely need it. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 16:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 23:54, 6 March 2022 change from white Afrikaner-only to a white nationalist
 * Deletion of lots of paragraphs 17:33, 21 March 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 23:29, 21 March 2022 change from white Afrikaner-only to a white nationalist
 * 2) 22:32, 21 March 2022 revert Emkut7
 * 3) 22:31, 21 March 2022 change from white Afrikaner-only to a white nationalist
 * 4) 21:50, 21 March 2022 change from white Afrikaner-only to a white nationalist
 * 5) 19:41, 21 March 2022 Deletion of lots of paragraphs

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:01, 21 March 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: These issues have been discussed at Talk:Orania, Northern Cape over a period of months

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

Comments:

Toddy1 keeps falsely accusing me of edit warring without actually engaging in discussion. They post warnings on my talk page when they disagree with cited claims. As you can see, I am providing detailed edit summaries and explaining why I am doing what I am doing while being open to discussion at any time. Everything I have said is cited and I am frustrated with Toddy1 constantly trying to intimidate me into stopping because evidence doesn't support their claims. I stand by what I have said and the citations back me up. I personally feel like Toddy1 is upset they can't just make me do what they want to. Desertambition (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, as you can see Toddy1 intentionally left out my edit summaries because he knew it would look bad for them. They included it in their last false report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive448#User:Desertambition_reported_by_User:Toddy1_(Result:_). Strange that they chose not to include them this time. Desertambition (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The report isn't false because you did make 4 unambiguous reverts in a 24 hour period. Why did you, despite being notified and engaging in talk page discussion?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 3 days for edit warring. This user only recently came back from an indefinite block, and I am not optimistic about their future on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Abrvagl reported by User:Kevo327 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edir warring warning :

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, user started to want to discuss after breaking 3rr, which is almost gaming the rules

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

Comments:

Some links to threads that might be useful as an uninvolved party that was contacted by Abrvagl about the dispute: Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan and User_talk:A._C._Santacruz. I will say that in my view both editors were edit-warring as neither made meaningful attempts to start the discussion themselves outside of edsums. There is currently a related ANI thread at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I did started the discussion on the talk page of the article and invited Kevo327 to join the discussion. Last revert I did after start discussion, as edit about BLP. Is it not meaningful attempt? Abrvagl (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You've reverted the page four times, . What you should've done is started the discussion and left it at that. It's not about who's version is the live version of the page (WP:NODEADLINE). As you have reverted four times it is pretty clear you have engaged in edit-warring. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 19:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Should not poorly sourced contentious material about living persons removed without waiting for discussion? That is why I removed it, not really about who’s version is on the page.
 * Kevo made and edit about BLP and supported it with low quality partisan source. I reverted it and asked Kevo to discuss it on the talk page, but he denied my invite. Then I took the lead and started discussion. I reverted again only as per BLP.
 * Kevo is clearly violating Wikipedia rules here because As per WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I pointed him that, but he ignores.
 * But I do not want to argue, just explained my self. If you say that while trying to make Kevo to follow wikipedia rules, I edit-warred, then let it be like that. I am ready to take punishment for that. Abrvagl (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This does not fall under the edit wars, three revert rule was not breached. there are no 3 edits within 24h. In fact, I did the best in order this not turn into edit wars. I started discussion at the talk page of the article. The last revert I did after I started discussion and I did it as edit was about BLP and was supported with low quality source. Do not see what else can be said here --Abrvagl (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for admitting that you knowingly gamed the rules. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:Abrvagl and User:Kevo327 are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:The Banner reported by User:OldBooksHoldSecrets (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_round_tower&diff=1074366285&oldid=1065064063
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_round_tower&diff=1053947467&oldid=1051003384

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_round_tower&action=history

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

Comments:

User TheBanner is sitting on pages and undoes any contributions that do not conform to personal views, even when citing historical documentation. This is the definition of edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:OldBooksHoldSecrets (talk • contribs)
 * No, it's not. This is not edit warring at all. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the content and changes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke WP:3RR, though there is a disagreement about whether a particular source is reliable. To make any further progress you should use the article talk page as recommended by User:EvergreenFir. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Quetstar reported by User:185.217.158.63 (Result: no violation/blocking not a solution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [1077539563, 1076773844, or 1076418636 (all are identical)]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (the version the page should be restored back to)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see entire section)

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

Comments:

I reported the user to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but he/she "has declined to participate in voluntary moderated discussion", to quote Robert McClenon: <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Linux_kernel_discussion>. Please read that discussion. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is frivoulous, I declined to participate because you were unwilling to compromise on anything. Quetstar (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That is ridiculous; Quetstar refuses to participate because he/she knows he/she is in the wrong. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What I see is the IP user making tons of edits, many of them unexplained and/or not sourced obviously to secondary sources, and two users disagreeing with the IP. There's talk page discussion, but no consensus. I don't think blocking anyone here is a proper solution. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I added three citations in my edits, and then had to make more edits in order to bring the article in line with those citations, whereas Quetstar immediately reverts my contributions with no good reason, only saying that he/she "disagrees with" them. I have to make many edits to revert to the last good version of the page because I can't revert the page in one single rollback edit like Quetstar. 185.217.158.63 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't help you on the last part; you are welcome to create an account, which will make that easier. As for sources--if I see it correctly, you added something, I can't tell what it is from an organizational website, an archived copy of a forum, which is always a no-no, and a PowerPoint presentation, I think--so please don't come here and argue that that sourcing is so strong that your edits must automatically stand. Finally, this board is for 3RR, officially, and obviously these reverts took place over a period of five or so days; inveterate edit warriors can be brought up here too, but that is not the case here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm being harassed now. Quetstar is following me around Wikipedia and just reverting all my contributions without giving a reason, and disagreeing with me on the talk page without giving a reason: see Minix 3 and Talk:Minix 3. I genuinely believe Quetstar is a troll targeting me.
 * As for the sources, they might not be up to official standards, but that doesn't stop them being true. See Talk:Linux in which I link to various blobs in Linux. Perhaps these could be referenced.
 * Nevertheless, Quetstar keeps reverting any and all contributions I make, on many pages, without giving any reason. Moreover, when he/she makes a claim which is not backed up, he/she reverts contributions irrelevant to his/her claim! See the Minix page, on which he/she not only reverted my correcting that Minix 3 is a kernel, but also my rewording of other paragraphs into a more encyclopedic tone.
 * 185.217.158.63 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As @Drmies said, the sources are not compliant with WP policy, so they cannot stand. Quetstar (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not just about sources; please can someone tell Quetstar to stop following me around and reverting my contributions without giving a reason? The sources on one page not being up to standard do not justify bullying and constant reverting of all my contributions on any page!
 * 185.217.158.63 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason is that your edits are not up to standard (for example, including non compliant sourcing and needless bulking of paragraphs) and that they are disputed by various other editors on the talk pages of the articles in question. Quetstar (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Waysidesc reported by User:Palosirkka (Result: Protected one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

This user has decided one sidedly many times that the discussion is over. Well it's not. He also seems to enjoy berating me instead of cool-headed discussion of the subject. I've seeked a 3rd party to the discussion too. I don't think 3RR has been breached but this is useless and annoying edit warring nevertheless. This person also said on the talk page (besides his insults) that he doesn't even want to hear what I have to say. I'd rather get consensus. --Palosirkka (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both users are edit-warring and both users are behaving poorly in edit summaries and discussion. Although both deserve blocks, I've protected the article for one week. If at the end of that time, a consensus has not been reached about the characterization of the software and its license, neither editor should edit the article unless they wish to be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, how I am glad this has started.
 * A few days ago, I started a discussion thread regarding a very strange change that Palosirkka had made into the article. Even though Wikipedia suggests using a revert before discussion, I thought discussing first is more friend. The discussion was heat, but at least it was a discussion. Palosirkka repeatedly called me a liar while I gently demonstrated that he himself is using deceit. From revision 1078566221 onward, I felt that the discussion has ran its course and Palosirkka is simply trying to harass me with wordplay. He mocked me and said "What is USC?" (United State's Copyright law our principal source of discussion.) And said something absolutely hilarious: "OSD requirements have nothing to do with binaries." The situation escalated to such extreme degree that, simply to have harassed me with a reply, he contradicted his own pivotal reason for starting the entire hoopla. (Just for the record, I write the contradiction: "We're not talking TrueCrypt but VeraCrypt." Previously, he had written, "Veracrypt IS Truecrypt." Even for those unfamiliar with the subject, it is obvious that these two sentences are contradictory.)


 * I don't think it is a case of dispute anymore. It is harassment, pure and simply. The discussion has ran its course. Waysidesc (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Foorgood reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  reinsertion of the bare url and the 'Church of England', partially reverting
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4), partially reverting
 * 5), partially reverting  by removing maintenance templates without addressing the issue and restoring American spelling of defence.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on a talk page:

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

Comments:


 * You are the one that reverted my edits and i did address the issue by stating that the proper name is used in the source calling it "Church of England" because it was called such even before it was separated from Papal authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foorgood (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point I concede to Celia and Agricolae and will not make more changes to their edits on that sentence.Foorgood (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your behavior is clearly sub-optimal. Especially when you continue to edit the article while this discussion is open and after your concession. DrKay (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:DrKay. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User:CMChuck reported by User:Czello (Result: Fully Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Unsourced claim being made by persistent vandal; reverting for previously stated reasons in prior edits"
 * 2)  "No source/link is provided for the claim. Furthermore, no wrestling news source has provided documentary evidence or proof of Cody signing with WWE. Neither Cody nor WWE have confirmed it. Therefore, it is unencyclopedic to add "signed to WWE" to his opening sentence. This isn't debatable."
 * 3)  "Reverting vandalism; no wrestling news source has provided documentary evidence or proof of Cody signing with WWE. Neither Cody nor WWE have confirmed it. Therefore, it is unencyclopedic to add "signed to WWE" to his opening sentence. This isn't debatable."
 * 4)  "Reverting persistent vandal"
 * 5)  "Stop vandalizing the Wiki. Until Rhodes or WWE confirms it, it is still an unconfirmed report at this time. This isn't debatable."
 * 6)  "Once again, even if the unsourced reports from the dirtsheets are likely true, they are still unsourced reports, and are not encyclopedia worthy."
 * 7)  "There has been no official confirmation thus far that Mr. Rhodes has signed with WWE. I realize what journalists are reporting, but this is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill."

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

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

Comments:
 * Fully protected before I saw this report. Explanation on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:HHH_Pedigree reported by User:CMChuck (Result: Fully protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cody_Rhodes&oldid=1079174099
 * 5)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: This individual continues to claim that Cody Rhodes is currently signed to WWE without providing any confirmation or documentation for the claim. This is problematic because:


 * 1.) He does not provide a source link for the "currently signed to WWE" claim.
 * 2.) PWInsider has claimed Cody has signed with WWE, but they have not provided documentary evidence or proof for the claim. Neither Cody nor WWE have confirmed he has signed with WWE. While he most likely has signed with WWE, it has not been documented or confirmed by any official source, and thus it is unencyclopedic to make this claim in a Wikipedia biography.
 * 3.) Multiple editors have reverted his unsourced and unconfirmed claims.
 * 4.) It defies previously established precedent, when John Morrison's page was protected after PWInsider reported that he signed with WWE on 9/26/19. No mention of WWE was allowed to be made (without being reverted) until it was officially confirmed on WWE Backstage on December 3.

Result

 * Fully protected before I saw this report. Explanation on talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:185.43.229.171 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* See also */ rev vandalism"
 * 2)  "We must keep the same image as on erdogans article"
 * 3)  "Original image"
 * 1)  "Original image"
 * 1)  "Original image"
 * 1)  "Original image"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

repeatedly removing an image with no discussion in favor of a much older photo, likely a sock puppet of a previous blocked ip editor (88.105.95.54) but edit warring nonetheless. CUPIDICAE💕 15:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month due to the IP edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Aquatic Ambiance reported by User:Koopinator (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Looks like both of you have stopped reverting and have moved to the talk page to resolve things. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:LRP19PT reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User repeatedly changed the infobox photo after a consensus had favored using a specific one. KyleJoan talk 02:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Lutesque reported by User:Unnamed anon (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

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

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

Comments: diffs 1, 2, and 7 (edit 7 was done shortly after making this report, and that diff also has an aspersion and assumption of bad faith in the edit summary) break 3RR, and the other edits show a history of warring with IPs. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Let it be noted that I have actually given reasoning for my edits on the Sal Maroni page, which you Unnamed anon have not bothered to do at all. For the depiction of comic book characters in other media it is almost universally preferred in Wikipedia to only include actual physical appearances by said page's character and leave out mere mentions or allusions. Otherwise you end up cluttering sections with fluff and needless detail. Lutesque (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Give a link to that policy please, and even then just because a character isn't physically depicted, if they're notable to the plot, like in this case, it deserves at least a passing mention instead of nothing, nada, zilch. Even then, that doesn't excuse your behavior in that last edit summary or even right now, or the lack of willingness to use the talk page. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Going by your logic, then we should just go ahead and include every single instance of a character's mention in a piece of work (comic book related or no) whether they actually physically appear or not. Should I then head over to the Thanos page and include every single MCU film and show where he's mentioned without actually appearing? Should I do the same for Ultron as well, and so on and so forth? Because if we want to apply that ruling, it should be all of them or none of them, not yes for some and no for others. This is a very easy to follow reasoning that didn't merit making such a fuzz, but alas, you chose to be difficult instead. Fact of the matter is Maroni is NOT in the movie. If he does show up in the flesh in a future sequel to The Batman, then it is fair to include the info of his previous mention in the first film prior to his debut, but otherwise you are creating unnecessary over-detail for the article. Lutesque (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My big issue is with your behavior, not the content of your edits. However, while I don't think every single mention of an established character is notable, if that established character has a bearing on the plot (like Harvey Dent in the Dark Knight Rises), it's warranted to mention. For your Thanos example, I'd argue that Nebula mentioning him in Guardians 2 is notable because it sets up how she was captured by him in Infinity War. Likewise, while not every single mention if Maroni is notable, he has an actual role in The Batman despite his lack of a physical appearance, thus a brief (keyword, brief) mention is warranted. However, again, the primary issue is your behavior. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But Harvey Dent does appear in The Dark Knight Rises through pictures and archive footage, it's not the same thing. The thing is it ultimately does not matter if Maroni is mentioned in the film as Falcone's rival that he took down in the past. It's just a recognizable name drop that they use as a tool to set up the plot of Falcone and the corruption within Gotham City's leadership. The film doesn't reveal or tell us anything about Sal Maroni himself, he has no lasting presence in the film's narrative the way say, Ultron has in Civil War. They could have name-dropped any stock crime boss character from the Batman mythos instead of him and nothing would have changed. It could've been Rupert Thorne, it could've been Roman Sionis, it doesn't matter, it's just there to prop the Falcone plot line that isn't even the film's main one (the Riddler one is). Do you see where I'm trying to go with this. Lutesque (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Lutenque, I do not see where you explained these edits except for in one edit summary--in general you don't like to use edit summaries at all, I think. This discussion above, about what is or isn't good content, is totally beside the point. Now, if you (Lutenque) had claimed, clearly in your edit summaries, that you were removing unverified content and had warned the other editor about inserting unverified content (there are warning templates for that), you might have a stronger case. Whether you violated 3R or not I can't really count, or whether you made too many reversions--what I do know is that if I happen to see you write edit summaries like this one I will block you on the spot. For now, I'm going to give you an "only warning" for harassment, and will leave the edit warring (of which I think you're certainly guilty--but so might your counterpart) to another admin. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

User:79.116.74.6 reported by User:InterstateFive (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revisions by automated bots"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1079441676 by C.Fred (talk)"
 * 3)  "Removed some fake news about a fictional hostage crisis (no credible sources)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Colleyville, Texas."


 * for straight-up vandalism.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

User:E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr reported by User:Dizzyflamingo (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1079615185 by Dizzyflamingo (talk) Correct location for Germany is on the "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement" wiki page. They will not get special treatment, as Finland, Switzerland both went through strict vetting process, and Germany doesn't have any contract signed to purchase the F-35. You provided no reason for your edit - and it's being considered as vandalism."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1079614935 by Favonian (talk) GERMANY DOESN'T HAVE A CONTRACT FOR THE F-35 AND THEY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON THIS PAGE UNTIL THEY SIGN A CONTRACT."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1079614098 by BilCat (talk) They don't even have aircraft and can't be considered operators and you're going into the guidelines and moving the goal posts. Consencus is to remove Germany from operators section, you take it to talk page, it stays off until YOU can justify it."
 * 4)  "/* Operational history */ has absolutely no right to be in this section, completely off-topic"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of Germany from Potential Operators */"

Comments:

Edit warring and not willing to engage on talk page  dizzy flamingo  (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm a new user an was unaware of this rule. However after reading the rules - I found that if a user undoes a revision without providing an explanation or a reference - that can be considered vandalism.
 * Dizzyflamingo, Favonian, BilCat are abusing Wikipedia guidelines on the F-35 page - as they are breaking rules by placing Germany in the F-35 operational history section, despite the fact that it doesn't physically have any F-35 jets, nor does it even have a contract signed for purchase. Multiple countries have undergone strict vetting and are not allowed on the F-35 page - including Finland and Switzerland. The correct location for Germany's F-35 procurement - is on the dedicated F-35 procurement page, however they appear to be (Personal attack removed), as they want to place Germany on the operators list, without due cause. All three users will therefore be reported for vandalism, and Favonian to also lose his status as an administrator - due to his corrupt behavior and abuse of power. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have already been warned by @bilcat about personal attacks. I suggest you read WP:NOT3RR which names reversing of vandalism as an exception to the 3 Revert Rule  dizzy flamingo  (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I am declining this report because did not revert any further after being clearly informed about 3RR. I saw the situation unfold on the Recent changes page and was prepared to block them if they reverted again.That said, E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr needs to calm down their rhetoric against other users. Favonian's edit was an absolutely appropriate response to a new user repeatedly removing sourced material—and that was a common edit, not an administrative action, so there is no abuse of power. Their edits were in good faith and were not vandalism. Furthermore, the message I am responding to contained a blatant personal attack against the three users—not so beyond the pale that it requires an immediate administrative action, but enough that a standard WP:NPA warning will be given to the user. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * left the NPA warning while I was declining this report. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

User:The.Barbaryan reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1079615515 by Muboshgu (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1078525682 by Muboshgu (talk) -  Your undoing has no basis in fact. You like it or not, take it up with Wall Street Journal and NY Times. Spamming the talk page with BS doesn't get us anywhere when the facts are in front of us."

Diffs of discretionary sanctions notice:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Discussion: What content should be removed from or stay in this article? */"

Comments:

This page is under WP:1RR restriction and the user has bene notified about discretionary sanctions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since my report, there's been this second revert. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There's also this talk page comment, which shows that Barbaryan is aware of the recommendation to self-revert but doesn't intend to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With some nice personal attacks mixed in, yes. Also they edit warred on Hunter Biden's BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Given the conduct, this is a siteblock for edit-warring and personal attacks, not a partial block.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:3A38:1600:D53C:327F:B90F:8978 reported by User:Tropic Wolf (Result: No violation)
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 started when I removed the header picture of Humphrey Bogart as Marlowe in agreement with a Talk comment from 2014. Bogart does not physically depict the character written by Chandler in his books. Link to my original edit above with reference to discussion on Talk page. Then this user, under different IP addresses, keeps adding the picture back to the header, without edit comment or contribution to Talk. In addition to the user IP I listed above, which was a sock created only to make this edit and one unrelated edit under his history, he has also made the same edit under a different IP address each time, listed in the diffs above. The prefix “2001:8003:3a38:1600:” is the same every time, indicating they are using different computers in a lab or library. Simply blocking one IP will not solve this problem. I’m suggesting page protection, but I don’t know if I need to make a separate request, after undoing these repeat edits. I even compromised and added the Bogart pic to “Film adaptations” here: but they STILL added the picture back today. So now the Bogart picture is shown twice with the same caption and they didn’t even notice or care. If the page is locked for editing, this header picture and caption, already added in "Film adaptations", will need to be removed first. I could let the recurring edit go and wash my hands of the page, but I don’t think the current state is in line with Wikipedia guidelines or the author’s intent, and I see no reason to just let the vandal win. He means to push for Humphrey Bogart as the face of Philip Marlowe no matter what, even if there is no legitimate argument to be made for this, even if there are discussions against it. This is THE page for THE quintessential private eye and I want to get it right (see Talk). The neutral default format should be no picture or a book illustration in the header. Tropic Wolf (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Using multiple one-time IP addresses to bypass Talk discussion and edit comments to make the same change again and again is clearly a violation. This is what admin is supposed to be for, or why even have rules? Tropic Wolf (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, I want another admin to actually look into this. I put too much evidence up to get a generic two-word dismissal, of these clear ongoing violations. If you're not going to investigate this then let another admin do the job. We all adhere to Wikipedia Guidelines no matter our status. You're going to have to do better than that, or I'll be right back here posting another report in a week or two after more edit warring from this user and his multiple IPs. I've removed the picture yet again and requested page protection, for all I can do. Tropic Wolf (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask what remedy you wanted. If you're accusing the IP of edit warring, it looks like you're just as guilty. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be clear which of us is working for Wikipedia standards. I was hoping for a little support. A warning from admin to desist, page protection or a block to show some authority. Considering I'm the one making justifications by the books with a registered account for keeping the page neutral, commenting along the way and in Talk, even giving him the picture he wants in a lower section for Film which is more than fair, and this guy is jumping from computer to computer without discussion or debate, pushing repeatedly for something that isn't justified, I don't see how I can be "just as guilty". I'm baffled why it's so hard to get backup here for following Wikipedia rules. The reply from a page protection request: "Declined Looks like this is being addressed at WP:3RRN. Also we don't protect pages except in cases of very widespread disruptive editing where lesser measures either have failed or obviously won't work. That is not the case here." The editing has been disruptive for weeks, and I don't know exactly what measure is supposed to work when he is jumping from computer to computer and refuses to justify his edits or engage in discussion. I'm trapped in a Kafka story. Well, I tried. Tropic Wolf (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Mouyong65 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, including edit-warring across multiple articles, incompetence, and never talking.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User:DireStr8 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Born in Scotland, raised in Scotland until age of 3. And immediate family in Scotland."
 * 2)  "origin"
 * 3)  "origin"
 * 4)  "origin"
 * 5)  "origin"
 * 6)  "origin"
 * 1)  "origin"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Immediate return to edit warring over multiple articles after expiry of 24 hour block. Also edit warred on same articles previously from IP account. Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:BEA5:9500:3C6D:F01C:EDC2:63F7 reported by User:WikiLinuz (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Comments: Empty edit summaries, so just disruption. WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  00:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also asked this editor to explain their proposed edit on the talk page in the edit summary for this edit & in this warning at User talk:2607:FEA8:BEA5:9500:3C6D:F01C:EDC2:63F7, Peaceray (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am retracting this report since the edit war has been stopped by the IP. WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  13:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Mitchelsewbaran reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: No action)
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:

Mitchelsewbaran continues to add Seth Rollins vs TBA to Wrestlemania 38 again, even it was confirmed Chip3004 (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It appears that the dispute is not continuing, since Seth Rollins is now included in the day 1 table. Mitchelsewbaran has not reverted since you left them a notice of this complaint. Next time please supply *diffs* rather than versions in your submission. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Jonardondishant
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1079950705 by Ananya Taye (talk) are you having some problem or what??? where there is written that 100% of chutia are hindu...there is just written that (Today, majority of Chutias are followers of  Ekasarana Dharma"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1079947613 by Ananya Taye (talk) Maam, when did I say that 100 percent of chutia follow ekarsana dharma"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1079942178 by Ananya Taye (talk) Hardly anyone will even call himself a animist. Do you think that they are following the same thing for 800 years, even if they would be animist under the chutia rule but in Ahom rule in 17th-18th century no way that even the half of the chutia population will be animist."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1079935856 by Ananya Taye (talk) do I have to mind you that you are vandalising! I already call you out on the talk section..well you are still not there, to discuss the problem...Stop propagating you agenda...Chutia's have been hinduized 100s of years ago...Infact they played a major role in moamoriya rebellion as they were following the mayamara sattra... and when did I remove it was still there,get your facts right"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1079932517 by Ananya Taye (talk) what proof or sources that you have that half of chutia are still there stuck in 1400s...."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1079928177 by Ananya Taye (talk) Those things are not followed in majority..."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1079810961 by Ananya Taye (talk) do not get between facts!!!"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1079574213 by Homogenie (talk)There is no confusion. Please stop pushing you ideology....The citation doesn't prove anything... There is no need to put it in an alphabetical way, no sense in doing thatoing it in that way"

User: Ananya Taye
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "What does keeping Eksharan Dharma solely mean than? Do 100% Chutias follow Eksharan Dharma? If not, what religion do the other people follow?  If they follow other religious sects, include the other religious sects too. Be Neutral and don't try to push your POV"
 * 2)  "Who are you to question citations? First find alternative citation which proves that 100% of Chutias follow Eksharan Dharma. If not stop vandalising"
 * 3)  "Removing a source is called Vandalism and that is what you have been doing in this article prior to this. When the article itself mentions the existence of Pokaponthi(non-Vaishnavite) sects within the community who follow age old animistic/folk religious customs like Dangoria, Borsarakia, Khuti, Jal Devota, Apeswari, etc, who are you to remove these sects? As for being Hinduised, every religion is influenced by other religions. Chinese folk religions are influencesd by Buddhism for instance."
 * 4)  "Unsourced claim removed. Nobody has done any survey. There is a sizeable population who follow Folk religion and and group which follows Brahmanical religion as well."
 * 5)  "Grammar fix"
 * 6)  "Grammar fix"
 * 7)  "Mind your language and stop reverting sourced edits. Otherwise, I will have to report you for foul behaviour. Whether they include half or less doesn't matter here. Even if a minority follows Animism, it still has to be included here. The article already lists several animistic religious rituals followed by these people, so stop removing sourced content"
 * 8)  "Majority or minority doesn't count here. If a section of the population follows Animism, it has to be included  Besides, as per internal surveys, almost half of the population iis composed of Pokaponthi Animists following folk religious rituals. So, your POV doesn't count"
 * 9)  "Added multiple citation. Besides, there is no evidence to show that Chutias were speaking Assamese in 1524. If there is any evidence, that can be added here too."
 * 10)  "The rituals mentioned in the article like Dangoria, Apeswari, Suvasani are all animist rituals followed by the Pokapontha sect (non-Vaishanavite)Deoris as well. Kindly educate yourself about the different types of Chutia sects"
 * 11)  "POV push and removal of citation"
 * 12)  "Chutia falls in the Bodo-kachari family which has a Tibeto-Burmese root. Almost all scholars state the same thing. Don't try to claim ambiguity in cases where there is scholarly agreement."
 * 13)  "The original language was part of the Tibeto-Burmese family"
 * 14)  "Undid rival of citations"
 * 15)  "A single source isn't enough to give a judgement about the entire "modern scholarship". Besides, what does the source refer to by"Chutia language being completely different from Deori language " when there is no separate Chutia language today. This source is not well researched from linguistic pov, with banket statements and biased self made claims lacking evidence. One look at both the communities shared cultural traits or rituals can easily refute the claims."
 * 16)  "There is no evidence provided by the source. There are several words of Deori language present in the Assamese language and the traditional style of living in large families is similar between Chutias and Deoris as mentioned in the Housing section of this article itself. The rituals like Dangoria, Apeswari, Suvasani, etc mentioned in this article are performed in the Deori soceity too. These points are enough to refute the blanket claims made by the author."
 * 1)  "Undid rival of citations"
 * 2)  "A single source isn't enough to give a judgement about the entire "modern scholarship". Besides, what does the source refer to by"Chutia language being completely different from Deori language " when there is no separate Chutia language today. This source is not well researched from linguistic pov, with banket statements and biased self made claims lacking evidence. One look at both the communities shared cultural traits or rituals can easily refute the claims."
 * 3)  "There is no evidence provided by the source. There are several words of Deori language present in the Assamese language and the traditional style of living in large families is similar between Chutias and Deoris as mentioned in the Housing section of this article itself. The rituals like Dangoria, Apeswari, Suvasani, etc mentioned in this article are performed in the Deori soceity too. These points are enough to refute the blanket claims made by the author."
 * 1)  "There is no evidence provided by the source. There are several words of Deori language present in the Assamese language and the traditional style of living in large families is similar between Chutias and Deoris as mentioned in the Housing section of this article itself. The rituals like Dangoria, Apeswari, Suvasani, etc mentioned in this article are performed in the Deori soceity too. These points are enough to refute the blanket claims made by the author."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: There were discussions in the talk page here, but apparently attempts were not made to resolve the issue. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither editor was warned about WP:EW so I believe a block would not be appropriate here. Though each should know better.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The editors had been warned in the past about edit warring:
 * Ananya Taye:
 * Jonardondishant:
 * Chaipau (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:92.218.124.118 reported by wolf (Result: Blocked 48 hrs)
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] (see comments)

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

Comments: Straight 4RR vio (in 78 min.) Anything added to this users talk page is immediately reverted and the page blanked (makes discussion difficult, if not impossible). This user was previously warned about edit-warring less than 2 weeks ago and is also under a partial block on another page by. (Pinging, the other editor trying to correct the poor grammar on this article.) -  wolf  19:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:90tillinfinitydue reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked for 72h)
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: n/a

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

Comments:

Editor's objection on talk contains unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry, as well as directly contradicting their edit to a different article, where they are quite happy to add negative information about a different ethnic group. FDW777 (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing how you picked up on the British Jamaican article while completely ignoring the agenda driven propaganda Koppite1 has been pushing on Pakistanis the account accusations was based on the fact that Koppite1 and Roc accounts both edit Lewis Hamilton and both brought up grooming to smear a community while they actively try to cover up social issues of another community learn to be objective then point fingers 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear admins please note the above user who filed this complaint failed to send thus warning message to Koppite1 Here is then removing the edit 3 Times I made a discussion on thus on the talk page which they refused to engage in and now they are blindly edit warring shouldn't they also be reported why single me out ? 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72h New editor, edit-warring (4 reverts), accusing others of sockpuppetry. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

User:The.Barbaryan reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid vandalism"
 * 2)  "Claiming the laptop "purportedly belongs" is just taking us for fools, AFTER: 1. the laptop exists = FACT / 2. Personal documents/indecent pics and Emails were extracted from it = FACT / 3. Hunter signed receipt for leaving the laptop for repairs exits = FACT ."
 * 3)  "undoing DNC trolls vandalism . I'm shaking in my boots at the thought I'll get banned from this shit page. The horror.. Can you imagine living without fact checking the fact checkers?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* March 2022 (2) */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) See User talk:The.Barbaryan

Comments:

This user was blocked for two days two days ago by for BLP-related edit warring on Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and Hunter Biden, both of which are WP:1RR. They're back at it immediately after the release of the block. Clear WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND vibes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears that a topic ban is warranted for the edit warring on that topic right after their block, and a BATTLE/NOTHERE block is also warranted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Diff #1 also shows them calling my good-faith edit 'vandalism'. Diff #3, which I just added, is another reversion that includes a personal attack. Another unsubstantiated personal attack at their user talk. Could an admin please save us and the good people at WP:AE some time and indef/TBAN this user? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The user practically asked to be blocked, and I obliged. Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, including edit-warring and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:June Parker (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:

Prior to this I was discussing the content of the page with another user and we both agreed to keep the edits that I initially inserted as an IP (Weeks ago), with drastic changes, as well as requesting me to alter the intro sentence since they said it was not accurate to the sources used. This new user is repeatedly reverting the page to a version that was agreed upon to be inaccurate to the sources. June Parker (talk)-

Notifying


 * Binksternet is not an New User he been here since July 2007 Chip3004 (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I reverted June Parker twice at the article, and added my thoughts to the talk page twice. I don't think June Parker is on firm ground with this filing. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree Not an Violation. Chip3004 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that the IP range Special:Contributions/2603:8080:F600:27A2:0:0:0:0/64 was making the same changes to the False accusation of rape article before June Parker registered the username two days ago. The IP range and the user should be considered as one person. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet added their thoughts after reverting something that was already added into in the article multiple times, I never denied being an IP user previously, and I think you should understand the context in which I said "New user", as an "The content being removed was cemented weeks ago, a discussion was had about a day ago, and Binksternet had only taken issue with it about 2 hours ago. June Parker (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

User:HHH_Pedrigree reported by User:Woohoo5241 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cody_Rhodes [diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HHH_Pedrigree&diff=1080250990&oldid=1079304283 [diff]

Comments:

This user continues to edit the opening line of wrestler Cody Rhodes' bio to state that he is currently signed with WWE. There is currently no public confirmation or verifiable proof/evidence for this; at this time, there are only wrestling websites making reports based upon anonymous sources. It is unencyclopedic to state this claim as an outright fact in a biography of a living person when it cannot be documented (the reports themselves *are* discussed in their own section, so it is not being ignored; but this user insists on presenting it as verified fact). At least six different accounts have called him out on this on the talk page, and numerous accounts have attempted to revert his erroneous edits. He was previously warned about edit warring by User_talk:Black_Kite on the Cody Rhodes talk page, but he continues to make edits without establishing any consensus, despite being heavily outvoted. He also appears to be using the IP 180.150.112.199 to make further edits (five edits were made from that IP, all reverting to his version, with explanatory notes using his exact same writing style). Woohoo5241 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * HHH was reverting a block evading sockpuppet, so that falls under WP:3RRNO. If you suspect editing while logged out, use WP:SPI and provide diffs.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can IP addresses face consequences for violating the three-edit rule? The above IP address (likely linked to HHH_Pedrigree) reverted the page five times within 28 minutes. Woohoo5241 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP wasn't me. At the end, I just quit and went to sleep. Also, It's suspicious that several new users and IPs made the same edition (CMChuck, Theotherchairduck, Theotherchairduck, 2601:80:8681:19f0:64a6:1a53:93f4:827e , 180.150.112.199 ), several of them IPs and accounst inacitve in years which only edits are in this article --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny, Ponyo bloqued CMChuck and Cinnamon because they were socks. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Usoejw9 reported by User:Sajaypal007 (Result: User blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user is persistently engaged in WP:EDITWAR and doing disruptive editing on multiple pages and has been warned by multiple editors, he has already been given final warning and 3RR warning. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * --RegentsPark (comment) 12:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:180.150.112.199 reported by User:Woohoo5241 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cody_Rhodes [diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:180.150.112.199&oldid=1080256655 [diff]

Comments:

IP address made five edits inside of 28 minutes. The IP is likely being employed by the user HHH_Pedrigee, who is singularly focused on adding the line "currently signed to WWE" to Cody's opening bio without that claim being supported by official confirmation or publicly verifiable proof/evidence. The IP's explanations make the same typos and share the same editorial voice as HHH_Pedrigree. Woohoo5241 (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please be mindful of WP:ASPERSIONS. is a trustworthy editor and I would find it unlikely he's engaging in sockpuppetry. This is twice on this page you've made this accusation. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 12:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact,, Woohoo was blocked by Sockpuppetry. To be honest, this whole thing is weird, since I went to sleep and an IP make this editions. Unless I'm somnambulist, I can't make the editions. Also, CMChuck and CinnamonCider were blocked by sockpuppetry. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The article has been semi-protected by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User: Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 reported by User: Kridha (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments Firstly, without providing any valid reason, User:Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 has changed genre of RadhaKrishn show from mythology to Romance Entertainment. (Link :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RadhaKrishn&oldid=1078621657). At that time also, his edit was reverted by other editor User:Ravensfire. (Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RadhaKrishn&oldid=1078636574). After that, he again changed the genre of the show according to his whims and used multiple genre like Mythic fiction, Entertainment etc to replace the original genre Mythology. Even when I reverted his edit, there has been no efforts taken by User:Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 to initiate any talk with me or any other fellow editor regarding the difference of opinion on genre of the show, clearly WP:CON has not been followed. So, I initated discussion on his talk page and later shifted it to talk page of RadhaKrishn. Secondly and most importantly User:Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 has been continuously removing standard news paper articles which are used as references and clearly states that RadhaKrishn falls under mythology. I have also asked him on the talk page of the article to add references supporting his claim of setting genre of show as Fiction but so far, no reference has been added from his side which states that RadhaKrishn genre should be set as Fiction. I tried my best to convince him by providing him multiple standard news articles for references, but he seems adamant on not considering it. According to my understanding, what User: Abhishek Kausadhan 123 fails to understand is that Mythology is not History. Mythology itself gives room for creative freedom. Mythology does not mean absolute truth. So mythology itself encompasses legends, folklores from literature as well as fictional/semifictional aspect of the show. I have also added Drama (film and television) alongside Mythology genre just to accommodate his point of view of dual nature of the show but that genre was also reverted by him. (Link :https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RadhaKrishn&oldid=1080267125) I would really be grateful if any third person can resolve this conflict of view regarding genre of the show for us. Thanks. Link of discussion regarding genre of the show : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RadhaKrishn#Genre_of_the_show

Standard Newspaper articles stating genre of the show as Mythology - Kridha (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * https://m.timesofindia.com/tv/tv-awards/indian-telly-awards/2019/115
 * https://m.timesofindia.com/tv/news/hindi/why-mythological-shows-have-been-ruling-indian-television-during-the-lockdown/articleshow/75832699.cms
 * https://m.timesofindia.com/tv/news/hindi/radhakrishn-makes-an-entry-in-top-5-yeh-rishta-kya-kehlata-hai-loses-its-spot/articleshow/66862794.cms
 * https://www.hindustantimes.com/tv/radhakrishn-actors-sumedh-mudgalkar-mallika-singh-and-crew-of-180-people-stranded-at-shoot-location-amid-lockdown/story-DEMDAzZ4Iub0a7ykj4cQ0M.html 5
 * https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/tv/mythological-drama-takes-over-small-screen-702821
 * https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/heres-where-your-favourite-television-shows-will-be-shot-during-the-maharashtra-curfew-7276462/
 * Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:CutePeach reported by User:Xoltered (Result: Stale; subsequently both editors blocked for 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user is repeatedly attempting to re-insert disputed content into the article during an ongoing discussion, and repeatedly ignoring edit warring warnings by falsely claiming their preferred content is status quo, despite the evidence i directly provided to them and provided here as required.

They instead claim I am edit warring and repeatedly falsely claiming I have not participated in discussion or the RFC when i obviously have. Despite the repeated warnings, this editor, after the sockpuppet investigation on them ended inconclusively, have returned to continue edit warring and so I am making this report.

Notably, this user also has a topic ban on the highly related topic of COVID Origins (broadly construed). Xoltered (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Xoltered is either a WP:SCRUTINY avoiding account, or severely lacking in the competence required to edit Wikipedia, seemingly being unaware that there is a RFC about the exact content they would very much like to remove. They are strongly focused on deleting these - fully attributed and well sourced – allegations of deliberate undercounting from ​​Chinese government response to COVID-19 and COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China,   , together with a questionable IP who tried to do the same    , and certain other editors who would best be named at WP:SPI. I don't know if the user really isn't aware that there is an RFC on these allegations, even after they've been told multiple times on the talk page , or if they are just playing dumb to evade WP:SPI. I think a WP:BOOMERANG is due here. CutePeach (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You fail to actually defend yourself, even if everything you said was true you would still be edit warring. The multiple RFC's seems to have confused me as after your linking to the earlier RFC (something you never did before) i have realised i participated in the wrong one however I did participate in the draft RFC and in general have participated in discussion regarding this.  Again, the issue here is there is an ongoing discussion and you are repeatedly edit warring to restore non status quo text.  You have also cast aspersions that I am a sockpuppet, if you truly believe this how about you make an SPI, or perhaps do you not actually believe this? This report has resulted in stale so I will now restore the original version, if you continue to edit war the non status quo version back I will make a new report. Do not continue to edit war. Xoltered (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * please note that Xoltered is still removing the content without consensus. WP:NOCONSENSUS says a lack of consensus normally results in the content being kept. CutePeach (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As repeatedly stated, the content is not status quo and there is an ongoing discussion while you attempt to edit war the non status quo version in. Xoltered (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So this account was just "confused" about the RFC, and is now trying to WP:WL that this isn't the status quo, even though it was imported from the same page where they argued from removing it too. CutePeach ([[User talk:CutePeach|talk]
 * Following policy is not wikilawyering and given that i have been participating in the discussion elsewhere on the talk page and have no incentive not to discuss in the RFC (which I am now doing) Im not sure why you think I would do so deliberately. Also this discussion has been closed due to your edits being stale, however if you continue to edit war (which it seems you are doing) i will make a new report. Xoltered (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)]) 18:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Both editors continued to edit-war after I marked this as stale, so I've blocked them both for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:SpectresWrath reported by User:Centcom08 (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Start

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) User readded the infobox again so this is the time I started a discussion on the article's talk page
 * 2) User readded the infobox again with an edit summary saying, "I have my right to add this"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the article talk page: Here is the discussion where instead of providing an elaborate reason for his changes, accuses me of "challenging" him

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

Comments: I need help with an edit war involving List of Girls und Panzer episodes. It is about adding an Infobox television season in a series that doesn't have more than one season and the article is just a List of the actual main article (Girls und Panzer). One of his edit summaries says that "I have my right to add this" and accuses me on the article's talk page of "challenging" him instead of working together to help me understand his reason for adding the said infobox. Centcom08 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You can't use colors in Template:Infobox television, that why I use the season version. Everybody knows it's only a one season show. SpectresWrath (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If that is the only reason you have then a LineColor parameter in the Episode table template is already enough. If we know that the series has one season then the infobox television season is not necessary. Further suggestions can be seen on the discussion in the questioned article's talk page. Centcom08 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems SpectresWrath and I agreed on what to do with the article in question so I would like to withdraw this edit-war notice. Thank you. Centcom08 (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:176.54.10.241 reported by User:Egeymi (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I cannot tell them that this person is not the one given in the news. Egeymi (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected by another admin due to WP:BLP violations. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Kridha reported by User: Abhishek Kasaudhan 123 (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:

User:Kridha has been consistently involved in making disruptive edits regarding the genre of a show on its Wikipedia page. The page of that show requires various improvements coming from plots to cast and characters section. I've tried my best to improve the plot, upto the best of my level and have also added a template on cast and character section, so that others could help me improve the article as well. One more issue has been consistent in this article is, whether the show is mythological genre or is it Mythology (fiction), reading the plots, and after gathering many information, I drew a conclusion that the show is a dual natured show partially based on few Hindu literatures and the majority of the stories involved in this show is fictional, so "Mythology (fiction)" should be a pretty decent genre for it (reference ), however User:Kridha seems to have some issue with it, who consider this show as Mythological and have been consistently reverting my editorials and giving unreliable sources of Indian standard newspapers. The reason these sources are unreliable because they don't clearly mention the show's nature to be Mythological, directly. Moreover, for a moment User:Kridha, too agreed that the show has dual nature and they gave Drama genre to the show alongside Mythology to satisfy both fictional and mythological nature of the show, however, this can be collectively drawn into a single genre, which is Mythology (fiction), however, the opposite user seems to have some problem with it and has been reverting my edits and they also removed the Disputed template without any reason, which violates WP:MTR. This edit war has been happening since a week. Here goes the links of the discussions made in the talk pages. . Please help both of us out and give a conclusion that satisfies both of our opinions, Thanks Abhishek this side( Say hi!) 14:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. The correct assignment of a genre for this TV drama needs an agreement among editors on the talk page. The steps of WP:DR are open to you. I note that Kridha has been previously blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Nyxaros reported by User:Grapesoda22 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1079498563 by Grapesoda22 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This user has repeatedly engaged in warring on the page The Cuphead Show!. I uploaded a logo to represent the series as a replacement image to a poster, which is a less appropriate image for the infobox. Nyxaros responded by reverting it several times. When asked I asked the user to start a formal debate on the talk page the user responded by lashing out at me on my own talk page. Later another user (Iamnoahflores) reinstated the same image to the page. Nyxaros responded by continuing to edit war against it and even lashed out with profanities in the edit summaries. I sent a formal warning to the user, who just reverted it, with an edit summary just reading "disruptive editor". Even another editor (Maxbmogs) has since tried reverting the image only to be reverted by Nyxaros, without even a decent edit summary. Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I left a note for User:Nyxaros and asked them to reply to the complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It really is not hard to check MOS:TVIMAGE. I am not the one who doesn't want to read and keeps reverting without a valid reason. If you have a problem with MOS or specifically that article, just go to the talk page. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 22:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working to change the MOS to match the more common practices here on the Wiki. Iamnoahflores (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. If the two users named here continue to revert before getting a consensus on talk, they are risking blocks. If as suggested by User:Iamnoahflores there is uncertainty about MOS:TVIMAGE that issue needs a proper discussion somewhere else. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * User:EdJohnston So an editor can war and swear at numerous users who disagree with him and you won't take any action whatsoever? Nice. Grapesoda22 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Jeonju_2022 reported by User:Holstener Liesel (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  This is actually a deletion by the user being reported here, but their revision was deleted in the revision history and therefore cannot be linked

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:

Other revisions by the same user have been deleted from the revision history and cannot be linked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income&action=history Holstener Liesel (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like Jeonju_2022 was ever directly warned about 3RR. I just left the standard template. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Unbh reported by User:Iggy the Swan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22 March 2021 version

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

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

Comments:

Between Unbh and GustavoCza, there have been countless reverts going on in more than just the Jonny Buckland article, the diffs above refer to the four edits reverted by Unbh earlier on today where GustavoCza also reverted. I'd preferred not to be involved in any editing of these articles myself and say which one is the better version. Unbh has been blocked earlier this year for violating 3RR once. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * And we've reached consensus and it's over. Obviously we were both edit warring and if there are consequences for that then I'll accept without argument, but the content discussion is resolved. I'm not sure why you've chosen to report just me. Unbh (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Snachtbogen reported by User:Local hero (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) first revert: March 18 (IP address)
 * 2) March 23
 * 3) March 27
 * 4) March 28
 * 5) April 1

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:

Since being warned of the 3-revert rule on 23 March, this user has been careful not to make a fourth revert within 24 hours. Nonetheless, the user eventually resurfaces and makes a revert to include the user's preferred edits which are without consensus. The user initially began editing as an IP address and eventually used both the registered account and two IP addresses to make back-to-back reverts. The page was protected due to this persistent IP reverting. The three long-time editors against this user's edits have accepted a revision which incorporates the reported user's changes into the body, however, there is consensus against adding this content to the lead. This user appears to be relentless and will resurface time and time again to continue this disruptive editing. -- Local hero talk 22:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The user also left an image of a goat on my talkpage in an attempt to offend me. -- Local hero talk 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I blocked the named user and Special:contributions/2A02:85F:E044:7800:0:0:0:0/64 for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

User:198.54.211.2 reported by User:Wizzito (Result: Blocked two weeks )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1080357761 by Wizzito (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1080337262 by Wizzito (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is adding unsourced info on List of programs broadcast by Treehouse TV that claims that a show has not ended. They continue to revert w/o offering an edit summary. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This IP appears never to talk, and does not even use edit summaries. For some reason, nearly all their edits in the last 30 days have been undone by others. They have 60 entries in their edit filter log. Some kind of a lengthy block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:43.241.64.141 reported by User:Storchy (Result: Blocked 3.5 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 10:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Agof K.P.2 reported by User:Chip3004 (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]

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

Comments:

It appears that this editor has Violated WP:3RR. Chip3004 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * five reverts by User:Armegon
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * four reverts by User:FilmandTVFan28 and user outright refused to even talk. user don't even care to communicate and only wanted to do edit war with nothing constructive Agof K.P.2 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * and the user even removes my any comments trying to make me disapper without even arguing my case. pure harassment campaing. Agof K.P.2 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * and judging by what is in the User talk:FilmandTVFan28 page, unlike the first user who just doubling down on wrong one edit and refuses to give any source and ignores primary sources, this user made an account just for edit wars Agof K.P.2 (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I also reported the user to AIV. Here's what I said: Considering that it is April 1 (April Fools Day), I feel like this may be a trolling account. User has been repeatedly removing sourced content from Frankenstein Conquers the World. User keeps removing the Hepburn/romanization for 地底怪獣 (Chitei Kaijū), despite the fact that it’s on the official poster and part of the film’s Japanese title. I have also presented evidence that secondary sources support the Hepburn/romanization (1). The user has been warned about unconstructive edits but keeps restoring disruptive edits and is being aggressive with their responses. They even started harassing me on my talk page with a false warning (2). The user then resulted to name calling (3). I tried to be reasonable but the user is WP:NOTHERE. Armegon (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The user is also trolling me. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Agof K.P.2 has gone to AIV to make a false report by copying/pasting my original report with alterations . Armegon (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * your behaviour is unconstructive. i reported you for edit war, for ignoring japanese language reading order, for ignoring TOHO official website etc etc. not only you edit war your own version that is not supported by your own evidence (poster and title card) you are also refuse to give primary sources Agof K.P.2 (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Armegon makes a good point. You can't expect us to play by the rules while you do the opposite. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * – Indef by User:Daniel Case for WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:10B8:A20:8D9B:EE89:26C2:1147 reported by User:Dizzyflamingo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Eastern Front (World War I)."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Eastern Front (World War I)."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Eastern Front (World War I)."

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

Comments:

User:SReader65 reported by User:Unknown152438 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [11:04, 3 April 2022]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [11:04, 3 April 2022]
 * 2) [14:54, 21 March 2022]
 * 3) [14:49, 21 March 2022]
 * 4) [14:43, 21 March 2022]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16:03, 22 March 2022]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12:49, 23 March 2022]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15:32, 3 April 2022]

Comments:  Persistent deletion of content at the Star Awards 2022 page, further actions should be taken seriously. (Unknown152438 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC))
 * Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Lavalizard101 and his IP User:2.100.170.192 reported by User:Sheanus (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: User being reported: (his own IP address - to fool the WP:3RR procedure)

Previous version reverted to:

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

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 don't want to sound rude or immediately sound like I'm assuming bad faith, but this report to me seems to me be in bad faith itself. First off, the links the user has provided of "attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page" are the exact same diffs as the edit warring/3rr warning, the user has not attempted to discuss the change. Secondly, they warned me of 3rr on my first revert within a 24 hour period:, previous revert was 48 hours previously. After I pointed out that per brd it was on them to discuss and gain consensus a brand new account comes in accusing me of violating 3rr on the second revert within the 24 hour period. I have opened a Sockpuppet investigation into this here: []. the user has accused me of deliberately using my "IP address to fool the 3rr procedure" in reality, I was on my phone and it had logged my out and I was about to go to bed so in tiredness forgot to re-log in again, even if I had deliberately logged out that would have been the third revert within a 24 hour period and not a violation of 3rr. Further they themselves appear to not have been logged in for reverts on the 30th March: and 31st March:

When taking all of this into account it is hard for me to see this report as a good faith report, rather to me it seems like an attempt to get out of discussing by trying to get the opponent blocked. I do admit that I could have handled it better at the start by trying to get the user to discuss it after the second revert on the 25th March. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that this whole thing is about one sentence about an Israeli (which, of course, isn't located within Europe) born and raised soccer player, that this user seem very keen to revert each and evrytime, and even use a different IP user to try to "fool" the WP:3RR system and the admins. All of that even after I was trying to warn him twice via his own talk page, as well as via the Edit Summaries. He is aware that the source (ynet, a major israeli news outlet) is reliable, he just like his triggerhappily reverts not-to-be-messed-around by other editors, no matter how much time and effort to  put in their contributions.
 * And the sentence that he removed, including the more inclusive version of it to try to make him see that it DOES matter to the subject:

He also holds a Portuguese passport, which eased his move to European football leagues.
 * diff  (wikilinks and text designs are just for this showcase, as you can see)
 * Also, keep in mind that this non-European soccer player is currently playing for a Spanish football club, and prior to that he played for an Austrian team, so that's why it's so damn important and 100% mention-worthy.
 * Maybe he is not aware that Austria, Spain, and even Portugal are European countries, whereas Israel is not and thus its expatriates often need to acquire a European passport, via their grandparents' ancestry, in order to play (and work) there as non-foreign players.
 * Thank you for your consideration and time, any admin who reads this. Sheanus (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was trying to warn him twice via his own talk page is this you admitting to abusing multiple accounts? Because you only warned me once, the other warning came from another account. And again with the accusation of deliberate misuse of an IP to fool the WP:3rr system which I addressed above. Also I said it was on you to gain a consensus for your change and rather than take it to the article talk page you came straight to the edit warring noticeboard. It seems very hypocritical of you to claim that I am  seem very keen to revert each and evrytime triggerhappily reverts not-to-be-messed-around by other editors when you yourself after being told its on you to gain consensus resorted to reporting to this noticeboard rather than even attempt to discuss. Your behaviour above (to me) reads even more like an attempt to get out of discussing by trying to get the opponent (me) blocked. I also note you didn't mention that another editor has removed the information (after they added it back in) making it not just me who has removed the information.

Pinging who edited the article afterwards for their opinion on this matter. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And thought as much, Sheanus is now blocked for socking. Lavalizard101 (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:IagoHughes reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: Blocked for 7 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Persistent refusal of apparently new editor to respond to advice on editing practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors have made multiple attempts to engage with this, newish, user across numerous articles, and on their Talk page. But they are just not listening. Unfortunately, the problem is wider than the Owain Glyndŵr page, as can be seen from their edit history. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The user is also since yesterday edit-warring this edit at the article on Wales, including after posting of this report. See, , , , , , , . DeCausa (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 7 days - that's a lot of edit-warring and WP:IDHT. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Iamnayil reported by User:Premeditated Chaos (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1080958746 - user made 3 edits adding an unnecessary summary, this is the final version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1080987742 - first revert despite my comment in the edit summary
 * 2) Special:Diff/1081029505 - second revert despite a message on their talk page
 * 3) Special:Diff/1081031889 - third revert despite a second message on their talk page, which they blanked entirely before making this revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1081029901 - diff including both my messages; Special:Diff/1081029901, their response was to blank without acknowledgement

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, user blanking their own talk page unlikely to communicate on article talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1081033377

Comments:

I can't understand what this person is up to and they've made no other edits anywhere. Normally I would just block for disruptive editing but I feel I'm involved by way of having written the article entirely and getting it to GA, so for transparency, I thought it best to get someone else's eyes on it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As a side note, they tried to blank this page and then blanked their own talk page when I asked them not to do that and asked them again to communicate. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Valorantexile reported by User:MoJieCPD (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "MISLEADING"
 * 2)  "CHINESE TROLLS always wants everything associated with china, Well not everyone believe their BS.
 * 1)  "MISLEADING"
 * 2)  "CHINESE TROLLS always wants everything associated with china, Well not everyone believe their BS.

PHEW I will not be surprised if they also mention china in the origin of the moon.:D"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing."
 * 2)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

@Invasive Spices has left a massage to resolve this, but @Valorantexile didn't respond. MoJieCPD (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Valorantexile is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Cherry blossom without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk)

User:2001:4455:30b:6c00:494b:9834:a835:157c reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported: While these are different IP addresses, they are in the same /64 range, so they can be assumed to be the same person:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 07:10, April 2
 * 2) 00:19, April 3
 * 3) 10:01, April 3
 * 4) 13:27, April 3
 * 5) 02:45, April 4
 * 6) 02:45, April 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, from what I can find

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but some very short comments in the article history

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 157c 4bc4 3691 f4

Comments:

I'm coming into this as a neutral reporter with no edits on the article; this was mentioned off-wiki by someone patrolling and I looked into it. Regardless of actual notability of this subject, continuously reverting between a redirect and an actual article solves nothing and needs to stop. Bsoyka ( talk ) 03:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am the same IP, but the only thing I reverted is because these users who reverted didn't provided any edit summary, like whats the point + it fails WP:GNG. If only people uses edit summaries, we wouldn't be here already. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:2570:6221:519:B465 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The notability of the article and the lack of edit summaries aren't the point here. (And if they were, it could be noted that half of the reverts linked above give no explanation of why they were done.) Regardless of whether the subject is notable enough for a standalone article, you were edit warring, which is never the right way to resolve a dispute. I recommend reading over WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 04:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Though I'll note that IP editor appears to be "right" in making the page a redirect, please do not edit war.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)