Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive451

User:2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1084183699 by Hey man im josh (talk) engage on the talk page or go away"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1084182538 by Hey man im josh (talk) use the talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1084180631 by Hey man im josh (talk) wtf not censoring anything, this is not on topic."
 * 4)  "/* Other companies */ has nothing to do with Disney, lots of companies have views on the bill."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Censorship of material on Disney and Florida House Bill 1557."
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Disney and Florida House Bill 1557."
 * 3)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Disney and Florida House Bill 1557."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User did reach out to me on my talk page, but not exactly in a civil manner. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There was discussion and I frankly think the IP has a point and they gave their reasons in their first edit. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Hemantha reported by User:Cedar777 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Page is under 1RR. User reverts bold edit, but then continues to delete preexisting article content within 24 hours despite 1RR.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Page subject to 1RR. Notice at the top of edit window and talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 4 Extensive RS provided, no engagement from user since March 21, 2022 despite additional sources and proposed changes clearly stated on article talk page since April 6, 2022. (also no engagement here diff 5)

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

Comments:

User has pattern of deleting reliable sources when reverting content they dislike: User needs to respect the 1RR and refrain from deleting content more than once in a 24 hour period. Cedar777 (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  deleted The Lancet
 * 2)  deleted Swissinfo and The Economic Times
 * 3)  deleted sources to top 2 news agencies Press Trust of India, Asian News International, along with content from ThePrint
 * 4)  deleted book edited by Dominik Wujastyk, a professor and leading scholar of Ayurveda
 * . Hemantha has made a series of 4 consecutive edits on April 23 that counts as one revert. The last time they edited the article before that was on April 15. Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:62.10.216.239 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1084159759 by HistoryofIran (talk) Stop your cultural genocide Sardinia has never been a calyphate."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1084159067 by M.Bitton (talk) Historic revisionism about the history of Sardinia VANDALISM"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1084158604 by M.Bitton (talk) Sardinia HAS NEVER BEEN AN ARAB CALYPHATE Sardinia between 800 and 900 AD was ruled by the byzantines and the medieval judges of Torres, Caralis, Arborea and  Gallura"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1084157721 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1084155010 by R Prazeres (talk)"

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

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

Comments:
 * . Partial block from Aghlabids. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: a similar-looking IP seems to be pursuing the edit-war . R Prazeres (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've p-blocked the /20 for a week.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm slightly confused though as I could have sworn that the /20 was already blocked site wide. M.Bitton (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe a different range? My current block is the only one in the log.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It could well be. M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Mohammad reza kaviani reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked 24h )
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:
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Comments:

This user has only seven edits, six of which are removing the current file from the infobox, with one edit summary used: "Changing the poster of the fourth season." Their seventh edit tried adding a redlink file,. Three different editors have reverted the deletion, with two stating in edit summaries that if there is a file for a new season it needs to be uploaded to then replace this one and those two editors also warning the editor of edit warring on their talk page, yet this user keeps reverting. Aspects (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:SamanidBasedEmpire reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

And that's not even counting the edit warring he made through his IPs. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: the IPs, that's likely another person. But since this person is here only to edit war, I've blocked them per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Systematic reversal of a plurality of users (4 reverts in less then 24 hours, 5 reverts in 24 hours and 21 minutes), in favour of an extra-long image caption in the infobox of the article Gautama Buddha, and suppression of a link to the article about the object in the picture (Buddha Preaching his First Sermon (Sarnath)), with quite insulting and farfetched Edit Summaries:
 * 08:59, 23 April 2022 Edit Summary: "Please don't play this silly game with me, nor link a beautiful image to an ugly article."
 * 11:58, 23 April 2022 Edit Summary: "You and Red* had many years and all you could come up with was an OR-infested insult to Buddhism You are hardly in the position to link it"
 * 12:26, 23 April 2022 Edit Summary: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): Again, you cannot link the infobox of such a major article to such an OR infested, pro-Hindu, anti-Buddhism, half-article. Please dont push this. I will take it to the highest levels of WP"
 * 08:47, 24 April 2022 Edit Summary: "Restored revision 1083955004 by Florian Blaschke (talk): Redtigerxyz. What is sauce for the Buddhist goose is sauce for the Hindu gander. You chose to have the bit about the avatar of Vishnu. When I removed it, your tag teamer supplied the source. I merely corrected what was attributed to the source. It is a question of intellectual honesty" (Revert includes the above disputed text, together with more reverted content)
 * 09:20, 24 April 2022 Edit Summary: "Citing B(b) 181 to a secondary source (other than Sahni)." (Reverting the same content, with the addition of a reference. Deceptive Edit Summary)

More reverts of other users have been ongoing in the same time period, on slightly different, but related, content on the same page:
 * 08:39, 24 April 2022

Fowler&fowler displays a clear intention to game the system and do more reverts later: "have it your way for now", before making further reverts @08:47, 24 April 2022 and @09:20, 24 April 2022:
 * 12:45, 23 April 2022 Edit Summary: "have it your way for now"

In the meantime, the target article Buddha Preaching his First Sermon (Sarnath) was disruptively defaced by Fowler&fowler with "a million cn tags" per his own edit summary, with more abuse on the Talk Page:
 * 12:38, 23 April 2022 Edit summary: "a million cn tags so rampant is the OR infestation"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Edit summary requests to stop Edit Warring and discuss on the Talk Page instead)

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

Comments:

Refusal by Fowler&fowler to discuss the matter on the Talk Page despite being asked to do so, and despite being reverted by a plurality of users. Insulting, incendiary, extravagant and farfetched Edit Summaries. Disregard for 3RR rule, system gaming, apparent feeling of impunity. Please sanction such disruptive and toxic behaviour at last, by at the very least enforcing the 3RR rule: this behaviour is quite damaging and demotivating to the Community of editors. Fowler&fowler was already Warned last year for similar behaviour, obviousy without much effect. For information, users directly related to this matter: User:Johnbod User:Redtigerxyz User:Iskandar323 पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am always wary of sanctioning editors where edit-warring is not confined to one person - I note that the filer of this complaint and User:Redtigerxyz have both reverted three times in the last 24 hours as well. Also, Fowler is correct about Buddha Preaching his First Sermon (Sarnath) - it's woeful - but peppering it with cn tags was perhaps somewhat WP:POINTy and I have removed the tags and replaced them with an unsourced section tag. Since this particular issue does not appear to have been addressed by anyone on the talkpage, I have protected the article for a week so that such discussion can take place, and wil take a dim view of any firther edit-warring after the protection expires. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am taking a significant risk of later harassment by reporting the abusive behaviour of Fowler&fowler. This contributor was already Warned last year for similar behaviour, obviousy without much effect. I believe stronger sanctions are in order: the 3RR rule is supposed to be a bright line, it should be enforced strictly. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is my fault of course for keeping coming back to this article when Darjeeling with real needs beckons at FAR. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite I apologize for the violation of policy. Point taken. However, I will request the editor involved to stop baseless allegations like "You chose to have the bit about the avatar of Vishnu" (someone added in Jan 2022, not me), when I removed the Hindu part from the lead and moved it to the appropriate section . Also, please use more civil edit summaries.
 * Also request you to remove the double link to Archaeological Museum Sarnath in the article infobox. Redtigerxyz  Talk 12:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What happened from my perspective was laid out on the talk page in this post. Black Kite's suggestion is a good one. But for now, the best option for me is to walk away, to Darjeeling.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No such thing as "propaganda" defined in the Wikipedia guidelines. Please, let us know what you mean by that on the talk page."
 * 2)  "Re-added, since it doesn't break the WP:PRIMARY policy. See the talk page."
 * 3)  ""Propaganda" is a value judgement. Discuss it on the talk page."
 * 4)  "Strongly disagree, since this is on of the defining parts for understanding of the subject. Discuss it on the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Changing the definition. */"
 * 2)   "/* Changing the definition. */"

Comments:


 * To clarify this, I consider an act of vandalism removal of a properly sourced material without a justification based on the Wikipedia guidelines or a rationale presented on the article's talk page. In this case, I've seen neither of those things: the only reference to the Wikipedia guidelines there's been regarding the material in question is WP:PRIMARY, and, in my opinion, there was no policy breach, since the material meets the criteria for use, and what happened on the talk page (and edit summaries, as well) was simply nonsensical - references to "guilt", "propaganda" and so on. So, that's why I kept reverting these edits. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Not that it matters, but the content was not removed, it was moved from the lead to the article's body. 2) This report is about you edit warring against three editors (despite being asked to refrain from doing so) and violating the 3R rule in the process. M.Bitton (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Nicholas Velasquez, the people who reverted your changes were not committing WP:VANDALISM. If you don't back away from this fight you are risking a standard WP:3RR block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It actually does matter, because, judging by those diffs, I was under the impression it was getting entirely removed from the article - perhaps, a few months off Wikipedia are to blame here. It's clear now it's not about vandalism, but strictly about disagreement over the lead. However, in my opinion, moving this material from the lead is still unjustified, considering its immense value in giving a full and balanced definition to the subject (exactly as it should be in the lead), as well as its full compliance with the WP:PRIMARY policy. In other words, as far as I see it, there's no formal reason to move it from the lead to the body, and the edit summaries you, as well as other editors, provided there were not adequate for that for the same reasons as explained by me earlier ("propaganda", "those guilty trying to prove themselves not guilty", etc.). -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't matter one bit for even if it was removed it still wouldn't be described as vandalism. M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My original move with edit summary Undue for the lead, move to relevant section in article body, reverted by you. WP:BRD, for a contentious matter, should have been considered here and then subsequently, the ongoing reverts seek to impose a self serving POV, WP:SPS, on the article. There isn't really an excuse to be had here. Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to understand what "self-publishing" has to do with any of this, considering the materials in question are published by a third-party reputable newspaper (KP (newspaper)) with all the necessary references provided in the citation template. The "self-serving POV" part is also questionable: first and foremost, reverts of a "bald edit" must be grounded in something solid - a certain Wikipedia policy, or a consensus on the talk page prohibiting a particular kind of edit. What you did instead there was outright labeling the edit "undue for the lead" based on nothing but your editorial taste, which is something I can't imagine doing even if the added text was a bunch of random characters. Further in the process, someone mentioned the WP:PRIMARY there, but, again, this just doesn't work as I've explained there. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "undue for the lead" refers to WP:UNDUE and MOS:LEADREL. In fact, subsequent editing seems to indicate that other editors don't think it is due at all, anywhere.Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if it does, you shouldn't have any problems with explicitly pointing out, how exactly the material in question goes against these guidelines. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's not make this about content. This report is strictly about edit warring and to a lesser extent, the misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I am afraid, the degree of severity of a potential violation here is directly influenced by the validity of the rationale behind reversion of my edits, which, in turn, can only be established in case the party responsible for these reversions provides one. So far, there's only been linking to particular guidelines, which, for the most part, looks almost arbitrary. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The rationale is not relevant here, other than that they were good-faith edits, so the 3RR exemption for reverting vandalism does not apply. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The real question is, how one can be sure an edit was "good faith", if it is impossible to establish a rationale behind it. Not going to lie, so far, it appears to me that, in this particular case, a group of editors, driven by the common goal of preventing any information contradicting the "Azov are Nazis" narrative from making it into into the article, is simply shutting down any opposing editors by attempting to exploit the Wikipedia guidelines. Assuming good faith is, of course, the basic principle of Wikipedia, but sometimes the evidence is just too strong: continuous contentless quarrel in the "Talk" section of the article, coupled with reverts covered by imaginary guidelines. Maybe I am wrong, but I'd say it's very unlikely to be an unfortunate turn of events. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ASPERSIONS with zero evidence.Selfstudier (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're definitely wrong about a number of things: thinking that you can get away with violating the 3R rule, deliberately accusing others of vandalism (a term that you are yet to show any willingness to understand) and casting aspersions to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to make a big deal out of their vandalism claim and simply assumed that they didn't know what it means, but their reply and the fact that they have repeated here and keep ignoring all attempts to make them understand is quite concerning, especially that they now started to cast aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is why I am not directly accusing you - as I've said, "it appears to me" and "maybe I am wrong". Hopefully, I am wrong, because otherwise it draws a pretty depressing picture. As to the "vandalism" part, as I've said, I've made a two months break from Wikipedia (been daily editing a COVID-related article for 2 years), and, while reviewing the diff, didn't notice the text was moved from the lead to the body of the article, and this is why it appeared to me as an unjustified removal of a sourced text, which is vandalism by definition. At the same time, I still think my reversions were justified, because even in the non-vandalism framework you failed to provide a rationale for your actions: there was neither consensus on the talk page prohibiting putting that material in the lead, nor an explicit guidelines-based edit summary. Instead, what I received was, in essence, "I think it's undue", "it's propaganda", "it's an attempt of the guilty to prove themselves not guilty" and so on. This approach to editing is beyond my understanding. - Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You just confirmed what I said: you're making no effort to understand what vandalism is. M.Bitton (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think your understanding of it is superior, feel free to educate me on the matter. - Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user's claim to be reverting vandalism is not correct. "Unjustified removal of a sourced text" is not a phrase found in WP:VANDALISM. Whether to keep or exclude a particular statement defending the Azov Battalion is an issue for consensus to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User:TheHelixYT reported by User:Saxones288 (Result: Not blocked; user would like to vanish )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (explicitly violated WP:AGF, and falsely stated that his edits do not require citation)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (accused other users of vandalism, for reverting unsourced claims)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  (User:TheHelixYT has also accused other users of "bad faith" and vandalism in their edit summaries)
 * 2)

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

Comments:

This user, has also added many unsourced sections to this page, without any citations.

Additionally, this user has added on their talk page that they are purposely inserting their own POV into articles to forward their political views. Saxones288 (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I no longer wish to do this. It is too taxing on me as a person and I feel unwell. To the administrators, I would appreciate my account being deleted, including my Talk page, as I do not wish to engage on this platform anymore. This persistence has been enough for me to choose to exit this platform. I have already chosen to delete my user page, will be blanking my Talk page, and would be grateful of having my entire account deleted permanently as well. TheHelixYT (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * per the user's request above., for legal and technical reasons we cannot delete an account in the sense that other sites do, but we can certainly make it harder to find and perhaps trace to you, a process we call courtesy vanishing. The first steps have already been done with the deletion of your user and talk pages, but to complete the procedure will require someone with greater user rights than me, and thus I refer you to WP:VANISH where you can choose from one of several ways of getting that done. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User:94.175.28.16 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1084484461 by Martinevans123 (talk)"
 * 2)  "User 'ILIL' is known in the community with toxic nationalist views. All band members were NOT English. Such as, Bob Siebenberg - American, Dougie Thomson - Scottish, Mark Hart - American, Carl Verheyen - American etc. It is also important to note that English members had Scottish and Irish parents. Supertramp is a British band."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1084439705 by ILIL (talk)"
 * 4)  "British, all band members were NOT English. Such as, Bob Siebenberg - American, Dougie Thomson - Scottish, Mark Hart - American, Carl Verheyen - American etc. It is also important to note that English members had Scottish and Irish parents. Supertramp is a British band not English."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1084416061 by Martinevans123 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1084411618 by Martinevans123 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is already under discussion. The user participated, yet decided to revert. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 03:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * And now we have, a very likely sockpuppet. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Carragay reported by User:Willondon (Result: Article semi-protected 3 days; Carragay blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (similar edits by a couple different IPs are not included here)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:Carragay

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

signed, Willondon (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Carragay for one week and, because of the IPs, semi-protected the article for 3 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Rodersb reported by User:MrOllie (Result: User page blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1084684699 by Drmies (talk) What you are doing is vandalism."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1084675031 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1084667953 by Drmies (talk)You guys are wrong and are removing valuable content that is been there since the creation of the entry. Bet you haven't taken a beep test in your lives."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1084588336 by MrOllie (talk) You are trying to remove info that's been there since 2006"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1084690591 by Cullen328 (talk) I already did, the beep test itself Dumbo!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Noting that the user has already been blocked from the page. - MrOllie (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Rth27 reported by User:LucasKannou (Result: Blocked indef )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1084701777 by LucasKannou (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1084700773 by LucasKannou (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1084700335 by LucasKannou (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1084662012 by Adakiko (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Rth27's talk page is often quickly blanked, hence the multiple warnings. Adakiko (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Adakiko (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Adakiko (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting "I noticed that you altering the reality of our community with inappropriate languages"
 * Blanked
 * Blanked

by Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Maha kalu sinhalaya reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * link
 * "Edit to reflect the correct name of the person. See https://www.facebook.com/262652798686/posts/10158503375003687/?d=n"
 * Note: PP in effect for a week from 23:45, 18 April 2022 and 23:45, 25 April 2022
 * "Undid revision 1083433187 by Adakiko (talk)"
 * "Undid revision 1083363096 by Cossde (talk)"
 * "Undid revision 1083357194 by Cossde (talk)"
 * As 219.88.174.245
 * "This edit reflects his name inscribed on the 5th casket of the Temple of Tooth relic."
 * "This edit reflects his name inscribed on the 5th casket of the Temple of Tooth relic. Please message the Dalada Maligawa page to confirm if you are unsure"
 * "Fixed a critical error" This edit reflects his name inscribed on the 5th casket of the Temple of Tooth relic.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
 * (AN3 notice only edit)
 * (AN3 notice only edit)
 * (AN3 notice only edit)

Comments:

Adakiko (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maha kalu sinhalaya appear to be a wp:SPA, having edited no other articles.
 * Article was PP between 23:45, 18 April 2022 and 23:45, 25 April 2022. Maha kalu sinhalaya reverted again 20 minutes later at 00:05, 26 April 2022‎.
 * Both 219.88.174.245 and Maha kalu sinhalaya reference the 5th casket, suggesting they are one and the same.
 * Maha kalu sinhalaya engaged in a number of ad hominem attacks, from
 * Maha kalu sinhalaya declined to supply any other source stating: "The reason there isn't any other sources is due to Dalada Maligawa restricting access to the golden caskets."
 * Maha kalu sinhalaya's only source is a Facebook page by a group that restricts access to the "golden caskets"
 * I gave up discussion after the PA & declining to cite other sources.
 * A brand new SPA chimed in on the talk page discussion . Marston007 has made no other edits.
 * Cossde is the article's creator.


 * The revert 20 mins after the page protection expired makes it pretty damn clear that they have no interest in genuine discussion. Their idea of discussion is basically just WP:IDHT and ad hominem attacks. They are flat out ignoring WP:RS and really can't say that they weren't warned. From what I have seen so far, I think that this will ultimately end with Maha Kalu sinhalaya indefinitely blocked, but maybe a temporary block would be a good starting point? Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 06:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Whatever else comes of the report, this administrator now has the article on their watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Mrbeastmodeallday reported by User:Moxy (Result: Withdrawn)
Moxy - 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Olympics is a world stage with all the countries in the world, and people from all over the world are in countries participating in the Olympics. Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, and Tiger Woods are different contexts, they also weren’t really representing the USA like Michael Phelps. there are several other names in music, art, photography, etc. This is no different Undid revision 1084753543 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Sources now. You didn’t even mention that before, just grasping at straws Undid revision 1084752296 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 3)  "Most of the other subsections under “culture” have prominent names in their respective fields mentioned. Not sure why you’re picking on sports. Based on your theory, the only names we should have are presidents. Undid revision 1084751644 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 4)  "Note the significance of the Olympics in the global sports community, and also note how far ahead Phelps is in gold medals compared to any other Olympic athletes, and then try and say there’s no need to name him. There’s a whole bunch of people with 7, 8, 9 golds maximum, and then Phelps has 23. Undid revision 1084750656 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 5) *still implmenting preferd version after this report

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

Comments:

No luck getting them to talk Moxy - 11:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m talking in the talk page, above statement is not true Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User's first post to the talk page was after the report was filed. —C.Fred (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Having a minor problem ...fast changes ...some being contested and reimplmented without a talk. Wonderfull they want to help but when reverted a talk needs to take place. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 11:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * per above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User:RS6784 reported by User:Baidy540 (Result: No violation by reported user; general sanctions notice placed)
Page:

User being reported:

From the user edit history it is clear that user interest is in glorifying a particular communityRajput and Rana Beni Madho. The user is also using the refrences which are not related to the topic and removing already provided references which he did in Ahir clans and many other pages. Morever the user is also doing disruptive edits on pages related to other communities.Gowala (caste) Yadav (disambiguation) Ahir clans Jat people Devayat Bodar

This is in clear voilation of wp:NPOV And at the last the user is continuously removing warnings from his talk page. I request administrators to please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baidy540 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 27 Apr 2022 (UTC)


 * Responding to it here, the concerned editor account is just 1 hour old and he/she directly jumps on this page Ahir clans to remove well sourced reference here- []. Regarding other pages rest I am well within my rights to improve any pages to bring it under WP:V, WP:NPOV that is not an issue, I haven't added any WP:QS sources there. I would also request admin to please look at the new possible socks active on the Ahir clans page with single purpose of removing well referenced content. There are lots of accounts getting created and then ditched on this page. I would request an Admin to take this matter up. RS6784 (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * the concerned user just after creating his account had removed this content with wrong edit summary on Ahir clans page here- [] and it was restored by an autopatroller, you may see this article's edit history. This user, then goes to my talk page to wrongly accuse me of edit warring and everything. His problem is why did I added referenced content there on the page and that referenced material was not contested by any old editors as it was under WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS. I would request you as Admin to please look into it as a lot of new accounts are being created and they directly jump to pages like Ahir clans to add unsourced material there. The accusations against me are false and on the other hand there is a case of WP:CIR against the one who has wrongly reported me here for edit warring.Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another case of disruptive editing by the same user- [], please admin you may see into it.RS6784 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Report mentions Supertramp, but the reported user has no edits there. Something is odd, at best, about this report. —C.Fred (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Report was subsequently edited. See this version of the page at the time of the report. —C.Fred (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * by RS6784. However, the report does reveal the prevalence of young/SPA accounts editing the article, which is within the scope of WP:ARBIND WP:GS/CASTE . I suggest further monitoring of the pages to determine if discretionary sanctions, such as an editing restriction to either autoconfirmed accounts or 30/500, is necessary to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC) amended 11:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, is not one of the aforementioned young or single-purpose accounts, but  is. This report may be arcing back somewhat. —C.Fred (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Deniz Çiçin reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked indef)
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:

NOt a breach of 3RR as such, but clear edit warring to make unnecessary changes that screw up the info box (marked as minor edits). They seem to be trying the same crap on other pages as well, all about the same issue (Turkish involvement in the Korean war). Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:WikiCop_1 (Results: OP blocked for block evasion)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning posted on their userpage:

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

Comments:

User removes and reverts content from Wikipedia without giving valid reasons for the remove / revert in the edit summary. Seen at Luckin Coffee. User has several complaints against him on his Talk Page.

Thanks, ― WikiCop_1Talk


 * Seems likely this is a sock account evading the block on User:ICookie to whitewash the financial troubles of Luckin Coffee. - MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If so, try WP:SPI. A checkuser should make short work of this. -- Jayron 32 18:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ICookie is stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I opened a SPI anyway. There was an IP that picked up a checkuser block as part of this in February. MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll also be protecting the page. There's enough long-term issues that a semi-protection should take down the worst of it.  If we need to, we can try ECP if they start evading the semiprotection.  -- Jayron 32 18:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not a violation. There is only 2 reverts.  Use the article talk page.  -- Jayron 32 18:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He's done 2 more reverts to my content:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1084981136
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luckin_Coffee&oldid=1084979361


 * OP Blocked by . -- Jayron 32 18:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2A01:CB00:553:7C00:4CC8:1F08:898D:D3A3 reported by User:CollectiveSolidarity (Result: /64 range blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "do not write false information and slanders."
 * 2)  "malicious editing"
 * 3)  "/* Marriage, alcohol problems and debts */"
 * 4)  "persistent malicious editing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Carl von Bismarck."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by 2A01:CB00:553:7C00:4CC8:1F08:898D:D3A3 (talk): Please do not edit others' comments"
 * 2)   "Reverted 1 edit by 2A01:CB00:553:7C00:4CC8:1F08:898D:D3A3 (talk) to last revision by CollectiveSolidarity"

Comments:

Keeps removing content from another user’s comments on Talk:Carl von Bismark even when clearly told not to. This violates talk page guidelines against changing the meaning of another editor’s comments. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Special:contributions/2A01:CB00:553:7C00:0:0:0:0/64 for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Melton Juan reported by User:PureRED (Result: Partially blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "again restoring information that does not violate BLP"
 * 2)  "again removing propagandistic photo"
 * 3)  "Once again restoring factual and reasonable information that doesn't violate wikipedia policy."
 * 4)  (comment hidden)
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1085020698 by CovetJogs (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1085019094 by Mooshberry (talk)"
 * 7)  "restoring changes after conversation with ~ToBeFree established that my additions do not violate policy."
 * 8)  "corrected my misspelling"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1085003266 by ToBeFree (talk)"
 * 10)  "Reinstated and added information on arrest and conviction."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1085020698 by CovetJogs (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1085019094 by Mooshberry (talk)"
 * 3)  "restoring changes after conversation with ~ToBeFree established that my additions do not violate policy."
 * 4)  "corrected my misspelling"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1085003266 by ToBeFree (talk)"
 * 6)  "Reinstated and added information on arrest and conviction."
 * 1)  "Reinstated and added information on arrest and conviction."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on David Leeson."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit to arrest and conviction */ Indenting. No other changes."
 * 2)   "One more comment!"
 * 3)   "/* Edit to arrest and conviction */ Reply"

Comments:

Hey there y'all. This is an article surrounding a recently deceased individual which still falls under WP:BLP.

The subject has legal issues and did enter a plea agreement--however, the only source for this is a court record, which doesn't meet the muster for citations.

This has been discussed pretty well in the article's talk page, and the user was recently blocked (then unblocked) for issues relating to this topic. Pure RED &#124;  talk to me   &#124; 02:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I partially blocked the editor from the article in question for two weeks, prior to seeing this. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * PureRED should mention that I'd already had this conversation with ToBeFree who found my arguments compelling and unblocked me because of that. Once I restored my edits ti the page, PureRED decided to start up the same issue again. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the BLP. My contention is that the subject of the page is dead, was a significant public figure, and not covered by BLP. Therefore court records are sufficient sources. At the very least, the subject's arrest is supported by both court documents and newspaper reports.
 * I think the many attempts to ban my content is a concerted effort by the diseased's friends to whitewash his image. My reasons for this belief are the flimsy explanations behind their edits and vaguely threatening messages left on my talk page, such as "We know who you are." Melton Juan (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion with ToBeFree: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Melton_Juan#April_2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melton Juan (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial blocked by . I have extended this block to indefinite as the user has made it clear here that they have no interest in following BLP policy. Black Kite (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Oppa gangnam psy (Result: not a violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Bear with me since I'm not familiar with reporting. But Magnolia677 has reverted my edits twice yesterday. We had a whole day to consult the final version in my thread --> see here Then his alter ego SPECIFICO did the 3rd edit. Surprise - SPECIFICO knows all four of Magnolia677's double-reverts like magic as if avoiding the three-revert rule! And Magnolia677 + SPECIFICO did exactly the same thing in four different pages - 3RR reports to follow.

Magnolia677 has an archive of TWENTY SIX EDIT WARS and even has a convenient SPECIFICO as sparetire.

In light of his edit warmongering track record, Magnolia677 & SPECIFICO deserves a permanent ban on Wikipedia. Hoping for favorable outcome from this. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO or Magnolia677 has not violated WP:3RR. Techinally SPECIFICO only edited Central bank Article once, there has to be 4 edits in a 24 hour period, SPECIFICO did not violate WP:3RR. i think that this report is malformed. Chip3004 (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi user:Chip3004 it appears Magnolia677 has disregarded every proposal to improve all the edits I've made. See the thread where I solicited for improvements. I believe in my edits and plan to restore it - shall we go to 4 edits for another discussion here? Apologies if it's malformed since I've never done this before. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've notified the two users for you, as it appears you posted the notice here by mistake. Are you suggesting that SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 are WP:SOCKPUPPETS? If you are WP:SPI is the correct location for that, although based on their timesheets I think it is unlikely. BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not going to go into technicalities, I would like to point out that you were also edit warring, Oppa and have received two block warnings on your talk page from it. MrMeAndMrMe  Let's talk 03:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already explained my side to 2nd warner FlightTime and understands my situation. It's Magnolia677 who's completely blacked out of efforts to discuss the changes. Worse it seems a sockpuppet of sorts jumped out of the blue on the third revert. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm resolving this report as vexatious; see warning in the report below. The OP is warned against doing this again, and cautioned to use proper dispute resolution methods by inviting in others to give their uninvolved opinions; and to abide by consensus even if it doesn't go their way.  -- Jayron 32 11:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:47:4600:5990:0:0:0:56A7 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result:Blocked 72 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

IP is edit warring against multiple editors to remove "Doc" from the lead. Also resorted to a dash of vandalism. – 2 . O . Boxing  10:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Jayron 32 12:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677 reported by User:Oppa gangnam psy (Result: not a violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Bear with me since I'm not familiar with reporting. But Magnolia677 and SPECIFICO has triple-reverted my edits on and they've double-reverted in this one. We had a whole day to consult the final version in my thread --> see here Then his alter ego SPECIFICO did the 2nd edit. Surprise - SPECIFICO knows all four of Magnolia677's reverts like magic as if avoiding the three-revert rule! And Magnolia677 + SPECIFICO did exactly the same thing in four different pages - 3RR reports to follow.

Magnolia677 has an archive of TWENTY SIX EDIT WARS and even has a convenient SPECIFICO as sparetire.

In light of his edit warmongering track record, Magnolia677 & SPECIFICO deserves a permanent ban on Wikipedia. Hoping for favorable outcome from this. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Techinally Magnolia677 only History of money Article twice, there has to be 4 edits in a 24 hour period for it to be a violation, Magnolia677 did not violate WP:3RR. Chip3004 (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * user:Chip3004 Magnolia677 reverted twice. And SPECIFICO came out of the blue for third edit. Strange how SPECIFICO know where to revert like magic. Any tips on the best way to push through my contributions? Thanks. Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is hightly unlikely that SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 are WP:SOCKPUPPETS because Magnolia677 registered on December 17, 2013. SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 are definitely not sockpuppets and are not related in either.
 * Did User:Magnolia677 violate WP:3RR? I don't think he did or not a sockpuppet of SPECIFICO, not possible at all. Chip3004 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This is clearly not a violation by Magnolia677, and the notion that SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 are the same person is beyond risible. I'm officially dismissing this report with no action against Magnolia677, and letting this serve as a warning to the reporter,, against casting aspersions against other users to try to gain the upper hand in a dispute.  Besides this vexatious EW report, you also called their edits vandalism, when it CLEARLY is not, and you have ignored all explanations about the use of properly reliable sources before trying to add new information to articles.  Take it to the talk pages of the articles in question, stop assuming bad faith on the part of others, and if needed, try dispute resolution methods to bring in uninvolved voices into the conversation.  Thank you and good day.  -- Jayron 32</b> 11:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayron. I've apologized to both in my talkpage. And I found a third editor who actually understands my material and willing to work towards eventual publication. Specifico and Magnolia also welcome to join unless they're not interested. Good day as well! Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User:H-influenzae reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Partial block for a month)
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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

H-influenzae is continuing a previous edit war, for which they had received a block ed. There is an existing consensus, seen here, to include their proposed material, which they're not observing. Slightly unrelated: Single-purpose account might be relevant here as well. KyleJoan talk 00:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Administrator, last time we discussed this issue KyleJoan referred to me in huge outraged tones as an “LGBTQ activist” in scare quotes that were so ridiculous the administrators dismissed his claims instantly. KyleJoan is obsessed with Harry Styles seeming heterosexual on his wikipedia page because he falsely believes despite Harry’s statements otherwise that he is faking his unlabeled sexual orientation for clout. This is why there is an issue with consensus on the page - people who are knowledgeable about this come in and edit, and then editors like Kyle who have biased opinions on this topic shut it down, which in my opinion counts as vandalism. H-influenzae (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The core issue of this edit war is the fact that when you google to find out Harry’s sexual orientation, his 2013 statement comes up in bold, which is highly misleading, especially because he gave that statement while cornered by a journalist. Many people have tried to appeal Google that that is not the correct answer to give, but the only thing that works is changing the source of his Wikipedia page. Weaponizing Wikipedia’s technicalities is a sneaky way to make a statement on Harry’s sexual orientation, which KyleJoan definitely has a really gross opinion about.
 * A few people on the page also said to me last time we litigated Harry’s song “Medicine” that reputable sources could change the ruling. I pulled sources from Rolling Stone, NME, and The Guardian, all of which were rejected despite these being reputable publications and it being framed as “these journalists believe.” Tyler the Creator’s wikipedia page shows very similar phrasing, and I made sure of this when I made the edit. Like, this is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of respected music journalists abotu a pretty clear lyric of a song he has sung 60+ times. H-influenzae (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And furthermore I would much prefer to spend my time on Wikipedia editing articles about thermophilic bacteria or bisexual activism in New York but pedantic editors like Kyle who pretend to not have strong opinions while citing the rules three thousand times make it so miserable that who has the energy? H-influenzae (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just dropping by to say that if random editors keep reverting you, and no one is supporting your position, then consensus is against you, and edit warring is not the answer.
 * At some point you'll need to accept that consensus is against your position and just drop it. It's a big encyclopedia, remove the article from your watchlist and edit something else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my report documents H-influenzae's continued edit war to include their analysis of some of the subject's lyrics. They are involved in a semi-separate edit war involving their opposition to citing one of the subject's interviews. They cited two users that did not remove the material in subsequent edits as having approved of its removal and that the two most recent users to remove it (myself being one) have no right to overturn three people. KyleJoan talk 01:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * After wading through all the talk page discussions, I have decided that the best solution here is to partial block for a month from both the article and its talk page. I actually think that might be better for his mental health for him to do so. H, your edit warring here is but a symptom of larger problems—you just can't seem to accept that your fellow editors are acting in good faith (a value which has been described as the grease that lubricates the gears of Wikipedia), you are increasingly tendentious despite your politeness (a major reason I'm not blocking you sitewide), you seem to regularly completely ignore what other people have said and lastly, you need to learn to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass (especially now that I'm taking you by the hand and walking you away from it). Thus you persist in misunderstanding editorial policy, or disregarding it entirely. Your insistence on the "Medicine" lyrics is to me such an egregious example that it must be dealt with here. We do not use song lyrics as statements of fact by the artist about his/her/their life for the very simple reason that it is common knowledge that songwriters/singers assume personae that may or may not fully reflect themselves for a song. If we went with your take on those lyrics, we'd have to write that Johnny Cash killed a man in Reno, just to watch him die; if we went with allowing editorial interpretation of those lyrics as you also would like, we'd have a whole section on how Phil Collins once witnessed a drowning that someone else who could have saved the victim just let happen. There have been attempts over the years as well to insert the popular alternate interpretation of "25 or 6 to 4" (that it's about taking, and tripping out on, LSD, as much as the guy who wrote it insists it's about songwriting); the editors there continue to keep it out of the article until it's discussed by a source more reliable than "The Straight Dope". I understand that Styles possible bi identity means a lot to you. And I agree that that one quote from his 2013 interview is not only no longer a good source given the situation but probably never was, and that it continually popping up on Google is not doing Styles any favors. But all the same, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. If others right them, then we can write about them in our articles. H, if you really can offer Wikipedia a lot of the quality editing on many other subjects that you have claimed to, this next month is the chance to prove it. The rest of Wikipedia is open to you. Per ScottishFinnishRaddish above, I'd take that opportunity. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply - Wikipedia policy is quite detailed and the song lyrics thing in particular was explained to me using examples that seemed not reflective of things anyone would believe to be true. Perhaps it would indeed be better to use my time to build out some microbiology articles! It would certainly be healthier for me for sure. I am sorry for being disruptive and I appreciate your thoughtful reply. H-influenzae (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

User:AnonymousSTAR99 reported by User:Satrar (Result: No violation; subsequently blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:


 * Further, you have not shown where the user has been warned about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Just added the link. Satrar (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've blocked AnonymousSTAR99 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Innican Soufou reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1085512516 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1085241639 by Adakiko (talk) no consensus"
 * 3)  "Rv vandalism. Please get consensus before whitewashing article."
 * 4)  "Rp vandalism"
 * 5)  "Rm irrelevant info from lede" Not EW
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1084313491 by NHCLS (talk) please gain consensus before whitewashing article."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1084246420 by NHCLS (talk) no consensus to whitewash article. Sources state rioters we're violent islamist extremists"
 * 8)  "Repaired damage from reformation)Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit"
 * 9)  "Reformat. Restore. RSDV 2)Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit"
 * 10)  "Rvms 1"
 * 11)  "Rv vandalism"
 * 12)  "Rv vandalism"
 * 13)  "Reverted good faith edits. Please read WP:NPOV"
 * 14)  "Npov"
 * 15)  - No ES - Initial addition of "Islamic extremists"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * Adakiko - "EW notice"

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

Reading Innican Soufou's talk page history clearly demonstrates their unwillingness to discuss issues.

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

Comments:

Innican Soufou EW is restoring "Islamic" or "Islamic extremists" to 2022 Sweden riots. I have reviewed several of the citations, many of which are in foreign languages, and do not see any obvious mention of that the riots were "staged" by Islamic demonstrators. Adakiko (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Heavy vandalism on that page with refusal to get consensus. As soon as multiple editors showed their opposition to including the info about who was rioting, I stopped reverting. Reverting vandalism isn't edit warring. Innican Soufou (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You were reverted by and you reverted ~6x,  1x,  3x, and  2x. Curious: when did it become "multiple editors"? Adakiko (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:S201050066 reported by User:Zaathras (Result: Blocked indef with no talk page access )
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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - It does not appear that there has been, I found this person via an ANI filing by someone else. Zaathras (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User_talk:S201050066, User_talk:S201050066, User_talk:S201050066

Comments:


 * Reported user has been indefinitely blocked and has had their talk page access revoked. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Tintor2 reported by User:Plumber (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: as well as User_talk:Tintor2

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This user also reverted four other related articles five separate times:
 * 1)
 * 2) First time, second time
 * 3)
 * 4) --Plumber (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Update: After being officially warned, the editor proposed the article for deletion instead of initiating discussion on the talk page: Articles_for_deletion/Red-Haired_Shanks. --Plumber (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What? I didn't propose the deletion. Did you read it well?Tintor2 (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Ah yes I did make an error. My apologies. --Plumber (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit warring has given way to discussion both on the talk page and at the AfD in the last couple of days. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:94.21.197.37 reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP user has constantly been disruptive editing without a single care. <b style="color:#00BFFF; font-family:magion">Btspurplegalaxy</b> <b style="color:#50C878">🗩</b> <b style="color:#9D9E9E">🖉</b> 19:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You have also not provided any evidence that the user was specifically warned about 3RR, or that you initiated a discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:108.48.147.41 reported by User:Fehufanga (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reinstated Haunted Mansion as it’s back to the incomplete version. Working on trying to separate some more paragraphs for better clarity of it. Will save updated version as soon as it’s ready."
 * 2)  "Fixed 9 days to nine days, and 3 days to three days, based on another readers request. Added back in remainder of Haunted Mansion walkthrough as current version was incomplete. Current version had the first section of the ride, but omits everything else. Can’t have partial walkthrough and omit the rest of the ride."
 * 3)  "Restored this version temporarily while The Haunted Mansion section is in dispute. Will make corrections accordingly when the dispute is resolved. Currently looking into operating times situation. Will adjust that accordingly as well after investigation is finished."
 * 4)  "Restored version because current version removed the majority of the ride through of The Haunted Mansion. It had the first room, but omits everything else. Please keep full ride through in article. This is the ride Funland is famous for. That’s why I included it."
 * 5)  "Fixed some language that was requested to be corrected, fixed some typos, adjusted some information to make it more understandable, added some additional information and removed a source that was requested to be removed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) */ edit"
 * 4)   "/* Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware) */ Reply"

Comments:

introduced unencyclopedic content and possible original research (in the Haunted Mansion section). Was reverted about. Since then, they have insisted on adding the content back multiple times. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that the IP just tried to delete this report. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 08:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Just putting this in for whoever reads this. Not sure if it makes a difference or not, but the reason that I keep reverting The Haunted Mansion is what Funland is most popular for, and it's ranked as part of the top 10 in the world. I've told them that if Funland says they'd prefer for the ride through description not to be there, I'd remove it.I I know the park very well, and even know the owner. None of these other editors know anything about the park, nor have they ever been there before. I'm not affiliated with the park, but I do know what I'm talking bout with why it's famous and what info should be included. After all, isn't Wikipedia meant to inform people bout things, places, and also promote them? I told them I've told the other editors I'd reach out and let Funland have the final say as it's their ride, but they didn't want me to do that, therefore I'm going with my gut instinct and am keeping it in the article until further instructed by Funland. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd reach out and let Funland have the final say as it's their ride, but they didn't want me to do that - Because that would be a conflict of interest. I'm going with my gut instinct and am keeping it in the article until further instructed by Funland - Once again, that would be a conflict of interest. Whether or not I have visited the park doesn't exclude me from judging the changes made in the article. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not saying you can’t judge, all I’m saying is people that don’t know a place personally, don’t necessarily know what’s special bout the subject and why certain things in general. I’m not strictly referring to Funland, but this does happen to I think fall in this category. Nothing wrong with not being knowledgeable bout stuff. There’s plenty of things I’m not knowledgeable bout. I’m just saying for some things we should have people that are knowledgeable bout the subject take the lead
 * , as in most cases, in those situations they know more that subject than people that don’t. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that the IP says here I I know the park very well, and even know the owner, whereas previously they denied having any personal connection or COI with the article subject: Special:Diff/1085710966. CodeTalker (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, I know who the owner is and I’ve met them before. No conflict of internet though as I’ve never worked at or for the park. 108.48.147.41 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: this IP has restored their preferred version of the article SIX more times since this report was created. <b style="color:#034503">MB</b> 20:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * – 3 days for edit warring. The IP editor also removed the AN3 complaint about them as noted above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:HarveyBlues reported by User:Bakkster Man (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

HarveyBlues' content was disputed by. While Soibangla went to Talk page after a 3RR, HarveyBlues did not. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. The edit filter was flagging some of HarveyBlues' changes for 'Adding deprecated sources to articles.' I happened to notice their usage of dailycaller.com, considered to be a deprecated source per WP:RSP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Liberaltarian12345 reported by User:Namiba (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * – 31 hours. The user has reverted eight times since 21 April to insist that this group has dissolved. He claims that his side of the argument is the one that doesn't need sources. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Joseph Isama reported by User:Watercheetah99 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

has been involved in a recent edit war on the Peter Obi page. While it seems like the user is well intentioned, it is clear that their support for Obi clouds any ability for neutrality in regards to the page as they have continuously deleted parts of the page's sourced Pandora Papers section and added in false statements about Obi being "cleared of wrongdoing." Despite attempts at dialogue on their talk page, the edits have continued.
 * – 24 hours for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

User:James1221911 reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1085957176 by Vacant0 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1085766128 by Vacant0 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1085106326 by Vacant0 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1085106326 by Vacant0 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Pauline Hanson's One Nation."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is edit-warring and reinstating already-present content and sources into the article after being warned Vacant0 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the user is not impressing anyone looking for his collegiality. He does seem to have an agenda. But he did not cross the 3RR line on this article today, and he hasn't been reverting enough elsewhere recently to justify a block. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

User:173.75.221.239 reported by User:Th78blue (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restoring the picture that matches the rest of the article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please take note that you are now in violation of the 3RR and have been reported per the warning in my last edit summary. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 11:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Note, I used Twinkle to make this report, and is my first one. I did not see where it would let me select their 4 offending edits that thus constitute a 3RR edit war, but it is an IP account and their entire edit history is just the edit war so it should be easy to find. I'll notify them now that they have been reported here. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 11:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Twinkle only loads edits from the past 24 hours, as 3RR only applies over a 24-hour period. This isn't an 3RR violation, but it's still edit warring. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 11:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It also still leaves the dispute as my edit reasons were completely ignored. As I expected. It's really as if no one is reading them, nor the article.--173.75.221.239 (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reason is simply factually incorrect, and does not match with the article. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 13:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Heba Aisha reported by User:RS6784 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1086124430 by Heba Aisha (talk): LukeEmily discussion is still on. We need to create a discussion regarding this on noticeboard for India related topic. As fragmented discussion is making it difficult to reach at a conclusion. Please make a case about all Raj era images with spelling issues in the caption"
 * 2)  "Restored revision 1086121039 by Heba Aisha (talk): Plz, don't revert unless discussion are completed. Be aware of three revert rule"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1085964284 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk): Admin has said that they have expressed their opinion and it's not a final decision. More explaination on talk page"
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1085964284 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk): Admin has said that they have expressed their opinion and it's not a final decision. More explaination on talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* May 2022 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1)   "/* Wrt using Raj-Era photos */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Wrt using Raj-Era photos */ Reply"

Comments:

The editor has crossed three reverts and has reverted edits of two editor. As per 3RR rule he/she deserves action. The editor committed 4 edits in between that period related to similar issues. This matter was with admin, I removed it to have a discussion on it regarding verifiability part. The concerned editor with disregard to all rules reverted thrice wrt to same thing without reading the quotes of the discussion with an Senior Editor I shared on the article's talk page. It requires stern action to stop this from happening again. RS6784 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That was the case of content dispute as admin has said and there was edit warring from all sides. The article is protected for now. And, the content dispute was not to the amount of vandalism as it was just about an image for which the user who reported me here was not giving proper evidence for removal. I don't think I have violated policies and i am already being reported by these editors at a  number of places. Like WP:AN/I. This is a case of caste glorification. These new editors are all editing rajput related pages in order to make WP:NPOV violating changes. Many administrators like  and  are aware of my work in this area. They are hoping to get me blocked anyhow by reporting me on various platforms. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding accusations of violation of three revert rule.
 * Discussion was still going on and majority of the users involved in discussion about the image which was removed by were in favour of keeping it. These were me,,  ,
 * Suddenly, started accusing me and  of collaborating with each other and acting as a "tag team"
 * When they realised that they are not able to proove their point regarding why the image should be removed, they rushed to the admins talk page, making this comment, '''where they accused me and another user of working as a team, as they realised that despite WP:STONEWALLING, they were not able to proove the point on talk page.
 * Admin acted in a neutral way and they took 12 hours to check that whether the accusations againste are true or not and these accusations were proved as frivolous. Admin himself realised that it is not so..
 * Admin also said that The main point of current relevance is that all involved editors are, as of now, discussing the issues on the talkpages. Please continue to do so till consensus is reached, using the relevant dispute resolution processes if needed., but misinterpreting the comments from admin, the user removed the image amidst the ongoing discussion.
 * Meanwhile the user which reported me at WP:AN/I, and the user RS6784 started screwing up various articles on frivolous accusations. Let me clarify i have provided details of WP:CIR issue with the other editor at WP:AN/I. Here, they are commenting about me, i am scared there may be more tag teams attack on me by them as both these users have some WP:COI with Rajput caste
 * Admin who review this case may visit and see the discussion under the heading Wrt using Raj-Era photos to find out the direction in which discussion was weighted. I would say going against the consensus  chosed to show WP:GAMING behaviour in discussion and then went for removal of image


 * If there is something called WP:CTDAPE and WP:Harrassment, this could be explained with what is happening with me right now. As these editors who have some WP:COI with Rajput caste have put numerous notices on my talk page since few weeks, when i reverted some of their edits..
 * I have also been reported thrice including this in a very short span of time, twice by and this time by  . This is what i have to say. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Another wrong accusations here by the previous editor against me. Please stay to the topic you are engaged with me on a particular article. I don't care about your problem with other editors, it is your problem if other editors have also reported you. Regarding the present problem, I had discussed with one Admin with respect to this topic here is the Admin response [], he didn't took open sides but said that the content can be removed till the time it is verified. But still you removed it thrice and excluding another similar removal. You also reverted edits of another editor in that time period. Regarding, the previous warning that I gave was with respect to continuously reverting without discussing on fake user image that you inserted to depict a social group just see that too with misleading edit summaries here [], here again [], you did the same thing on Bihari Rajput page here [] this is also a case WP:DGF, when I pointed it out you couldn't verify it. Actually it is me who is faced WP: STONEWALL WP: HARASSMENT through unexplained reverts as well as continuously deviating the talk page discussion. I will give the diffs for the same here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * before I saw this ANEW report. you were edit-warring in this instance and even though, by my count, 3RR was not violated, you are liable to be blocked for such behavior, if repeated. None of the reasons you listed above are sufficient justifications for repeated reverts and I advice you to read WP:BRD and WP:EW for future reference. Abecedare (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i realised that and i would go through the WP:BRD and WP:EW and will refrain from repeating it.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Oracle987654321 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Reception */Fixed typo"
 * 2)  "/* Reception */"
 * 3)  "/* Reception */Corrected"
 * 4)  "/* Reception */"
 * 1)  "/* Reception */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

see also Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard ViperSnake151   Talk  18:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User:WikiFlame50 reported by User:DarkGlow (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This may be a “fan” thing but it’s from a reliable site and the information is very precise."
 * 2)  "To make it neater, I’ll just change the title."
 * 3)  "I literally did this with Mike Baldwin. Stop trying to anger me IP. You where warned not to."
 * 4)  "People spotted the name and a whole article was written about it. She was referred to that name in black and white. The site is reliable and that’s the important thing. You where already blocked from my talkpage for harassing me, so don’t try anything funny or im pretty sure it won’t just be a talkpage block for you."
 * 5)  "Undid revision. Removal of reliable sources. I did the same with Mike Baldwin and it remained. Just because she wasn’t “credited” doesn’t mean it’s not real."
 * 1)  "People spotted the name and a whole article was written about it. She was referred to that name in black and white. The site is reliable and that’s the important thing. You where already blocked from my talkpage for harassing me, so don’t try anything funny or im pretty sure it won’t just be a talkpage block for you."
 * 2)  "Undid revision. Removal of reliable sources. I did the same with Mike Baldwin and it remained. Just because she wasn’t “credited” doesn’t mean it’s not real."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Can you stop edit warring please. You’ve been warned before, myself and User:JuneGloom07 have agreed this is WP:FANCRUFT please take to talk page before reverting again. Thank you"

Comments:

User has been edit warring on the article a few days after their recent block expired. They have violated WP:3RR and were asked by the involved IP to stop edit warring and instead discuss the changes, but they continued to edit war. I have just seen the edit war and requested protection hence me not warning them, but the user has received over 5 recent warnings for disruptive behaviour which led to their block last week. – DarkGlow • 11:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment

This wasn’t me doing any rule breaking intentionally! The IPs where trying to anger me once again, and User:JBW believed me and blocked them for 1 month! He obviously thought my edits where not trouble if he checked their summaries nor was the content even reverted when it was protected! I would have removed it if it was really causing trouble! I wasn’t trying to edit war because my content wasn’t damaging or unreliable! I learned my lesson the first time and I wouldn’t even try to jeopardise anything! It was the IPs causing damage to me, not ME causing damage to anything! If you observe and check some of their summaries, especially on my talk page, you could tell they where trying to set all kinds of traps to get me into these positions! And now Since the IPs have been blocked, none of this will ever happen anymore! Wikiflame50 • 12:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ I got the page protected, you haven't formed your own result yet. – DarkGlow • 18:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

User:116.206.8.39 reported by User:Tenryuu (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "this is already correct please stop changing to a new edit because it's wrong"
 * 2)  "I revert to WikiLinuz editing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is also an additional reversion from a similar IP who reverted the exact same content. Has been told to discuss this on the article's talk page on the IP's talk page. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The page is being reverted by multiple IPs from the range Special:Contributions/116.206.0.0/18. For future reference one of these IPs, has been blocked as a p2p proxy by User:ST47ProxyBot. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:363b:600:e0f9:c95f:6835:d2d9 reported by User:Mhorg (Result: /64 blocked for 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Including the /64 range, as one of his later edits used it and no one else seems to be on it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Xatic47152 and User:Kebapkebvab reported by User:Czello (Result: Both indeffed for personal attacks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1086460160 by Mhorg (talk) provide source"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1086459019 by Czello (talk) Read his source, and stop vandalizing. you have been warned."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1086459248 by Kebapkebvab (talk) fixed English. :)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1086457649 by Mhorg (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1086457649 by Mhorg (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User is certainly a sock puppet of, as they are edit warring the same disputed content. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Kebapkebvab. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 09:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Insufferable tool You cannot win in a Talk discussion you created. And i'm confidently sure your a sock puppet of Mhorg. another tool without any reliable source and counter-measures, only master of whinging to Admins when you cannot provide reliable census on the discussion.
 * btw you got destroyed in the Prizrak battalion Talk . Next. Xatic47152 (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   12:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Kebapkebvab reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1086459019 by Czello (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1086451447 by Czello (talk)already provided a source, scrol down and stop being lazyuu, now its time for you to produce a counter-source like whats been asked of you for the past 24 hours. hurry please or you will be reported for vandalizm and 3 revert rule"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1086294300 by Applodion (talk) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRnWLOdEtm0&ab_channel=WaldemarCimala extrajudicial executions of POW and civilians of Donbas.  war crime."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* War crimes */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* War crimes */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* War crimes */ Reply"
 * 4)   "/* War crimes */ Reply"
 * 5)   "/* War crimes */ Reply"

Comments:

Merging this into a subsection of the above given that this is an obvious sock edit warring the same content. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 11:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Can't resolve this by counter -points so solving by 3RR? you should be suspended from this site
 * he must be 3RR warned also suspended account from Wikipedia. permanently. for false information, and vandalism
 * curprev 08:41, 6 May 2022‎ Czello talk contribs‎ 14,546 bytes −27‎  Undid revision 1086458679 by Xatic47152 (talk) There is a thread on the talk page, please engage there undothank Tags: Undo Reverted
 * curprev 07:21, 6 May 2022‎ Czello talk contribs‎ 14,546 bytes −27‎  Undid revision 1086424509 by 2001:8003:363B:600:357B:EEBF:6DE4:4B6B (talk) Discuss on talk page or provide a source for this undothank Tags: Undo Reverted
 * curprev 18:29, 5 May 2022‎ Czello talk contribs‎ 14,546 bytes −27‎  Undid revision 1086320051 by 2001:8003:363B:600:E0F9:C95F:6835:D2D9 (talk) Discuss on talk please undothank Tags: Undo Reverted
 * problem was resolved in Talk page. continues to flame edits. Kebapkebvab (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a 3RR violation (please read WP:3RR). Furthermore the problem was not resolved on the talk page given that you've been reverted by at least 3 different editors. Meanwhile you've gone above 3 reverts on both accounts now. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 11:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? you started vandalising the Edits on all three of your Wiki accounts.and flaming any revision in edits with the same message without providing any counter-argument is pretty much the same as any 3RR. avoiding this by exchanging a single word from the last revision to another, is a bad attempt at circumventing the rule. the problem was solved actually. I asked 5 times in Talk and the same in Edit for a counter argument that refutes my source but you did not provide it. you only ran away to report me and other's because you can't provide any substantial source only a Novelty book and by your own words, which, is not a reliable source. Not to mention how you denied(without any factual proof or contributing information.) said persons involvement when it was written in text and via video recording. you are a sock puppet, war edditor, and vandalist that causes malicious damage to the integrity of that Wiki page. Kebapkebvab (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? you started vandalising the Edits on all three of your Wiki accounts.and flaming any revision in edits with the same message without providing any counter-argument is pretty much the same as any 3RR. avoiding this by exchanging a single word from the last revision to another, is a bad attempt at circumventing the rule. the problem was solved actually. I asked 5 times in Talk and the same in Edit for a counter argument that refutes my source but you did not provide it. you only ran away to report me and other's because you can't provide any substantial source only a Novelty book and by your own words, which, is not a reliable source. Not to mention how you denied(without any factual proof or contributing information.) said persons involvement when it was written in text and via video recording. you are a sock puppet, war edditor, and vandalist that causes malicious damage to the integrity of that Wiki page. Kebapkebvab (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   12:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:West-in-hause reported by User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr (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:

User is also revert warring at Westinghouse Licensing Corporation. There is a (meat-puppet?) User:Offthewallsarah, with the same goals? Gives the impression these are members of a corporate office unskilled at making changes in Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring, and removal of others' posts from article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:72.136.95.67 reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1086407715 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) I wasn't referencing The Sun, I was referring to the fact that Depp was suing The Sun... can you please read what I wrote properly and actually look at my sources???"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1086403749 by Agtx (talk) see talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1086402871 by Agtx (talk) THIS IS WELL-SOURCED"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1086401975 by Agtx (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Can't mark them since I didn't make the warnings myself in this case but user was warned three times on User Talk page and several other times on Article Talk page. There's currently also a discussion over at the Article Talk page but it seems the user still continues edit warring. ★Ama  TALK   CONTRIBS  01:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ★Ama  TALK   CONTRIBS  01:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

. Extra time for the BLP implications. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Dyldyl9 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed clear bias. Simply reposting videos is not “a derogatory manner”"
 * 2)  "This is important, because it plays a major part into why conservatives were upset"
 * 3)  "Adding a fact that this article seems to want to ignore"
 * 1)  "Adding a fact that this article seems to want to ignore"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

user is persistently POV pushing and once they've reached the black and white limit of 3rr (mind you, they've been edit warring for a while) is disruptively editing the article to suite their narrative after there was already discussion (endless discussion) on the talk page to support the removal about the address and current inclusion of the statement that the videos were included in a derogatory manner. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Another diff to add Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And now we're entering the territory of . Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And now we've reached the in a 24 hour period. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m suiting a narrative by removing something that’s clearly pushing a narrative? Sounds like you’re just upset that someone doesn’t want you pushing your narrative Dyldyl9 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're confusing neutrality for blind support. We are reporting what reliable sources say, even if it's negative or has a negative slant. Not doing so would violate WP:NPOV - we don't sugar coat things so as not to hurt peoples feelings. PRAXIDICAE💕  21:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * And they've continued to edit war to POV push despite multiple editors reverting them and a more than adequate discussion for inclusion on the talk page. See here. PRAXIDICAE💕  21:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Jhabeer reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed typo"
 * 2)  "/* Given name */Added content"
 * 3)  "/* Given name */Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Please do no add links before notability is established */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps adding his own name despite friendly explanations about notability and warning about edit warring on his talk page. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 08:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeffed for self-promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Nebakeaddis reported by User:DanCherek (Result: Blocked, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1086836057 by Dr.Pinsky (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1086831884 by Wowzers122 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1086836057 by Dr.Pinsky (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1086831884 by Wowzers122 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1086831884 by Wowzers122 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "/* Wikipedia and copyright */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated addition of copyright violations to this article and its talk page, no response to messages on their talk page from four different editors about copyright and edit warring. DanCherek (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Soumyadip3 reported by User:Czello (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "LPR is a partially recognised state recognised by Russia and is a seperate breakaway state who hates Ukrainian Neo-Nazi regime. Stop DISRUPTIVE editing and use your Western ideas somewhere else"
 * 2)  "The thing which is very much unclear is your DISRUPTIVE EDITING and having a Pro-Ukraine mindset because LPR is internationally recognised as a country by RUSSIA. So it's a PARTIALLY RECOGNIZED State. Is that THAT much difficult for you to understand"
 * 3)  "Added about Russia's recognition of LPR"
 * 4)  "Added details about Luhansk People's Republic being recognised only by Russia"
 * 5)  "LPR is a country recognised by Russia only"
 * 6)  "Luhansk People's Republic, a breakaway state"
 * 1)  "Luhansk People's Republic, a breakaway state"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Luhansk People's Republic."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In addition, user is promoting Kremlin propaganda. Clear WP:NOTHERE — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 10:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:X11311y reported by User:Russ Woodroofe (Result: Both socks blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "AMS Reviews and  Zentralblatt  give no  objection to this paper really."
 * 2)  "It is not for promotion.but for check by all mathematicians."
 * 3)  "honest"
 * 4)  "added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "welcome; please do not edit war"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring */"

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

Comments:

After explaining WP:3RR policy to, the similarly named account appeared to advanced similar edits. It looks like both accounts are WP:NOTHERE, violating WP:SOCK, etc; but there is at the very least a clear WP:3RR violation. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Both socks blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Rao Lakshya Pratap Singh reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  at Latest revision as of 15:50, 8 May 2022 "The real history was Rao Gujarmal defeated Badgurjar Bahadur Singh and area was annexed into Ahirwal . This is true story"
 * 2)  "Article should be now put protection as It is violating the history No Dor Rajput were mentioned anywhere . The Antiqe of Ghasera fort clearly mentioned Rao Gujarmal and Surajmal as pagdi brothers. The name itself putting mal means they both are expert"
 * 3)  "It was only Rao Gujarmal who killed Bahadur Dacoit and took revenge of his father"
 * 4)  at Revision as of 07:01, 7 May 2022 "It was Rao Gujjarmal who killed Bahadur Singh niot by any Rajput ruler as Rajputs were already defeated by Rao Gujjarmal"
 * 5)  at Revision as of 01:28, 6 May 2022 "Initially it was ruled by Yadav Rulers. This has to be added and Bad Gurjar Bahadur Singh killed by Rao Gujjarmal of Rewari"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ambati Rayudu."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Aligarh."
 * 3)   "/* May 2022 */"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Aligarh."
 * 5)   "/* May 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* May 2022 */ new section"

Comments:

User keeps on removing sourced content, replaces with their own unsourced content, POV pushing caste Yadav/Ahir replacing sourced mention of "Rajput". Fails to seek WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page despite multiple requests. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Similar unsourced Yadav/Ahir-caste POV push in other articles    . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * With this edit, Rao Lakshya Pratap Singh broke WP:3RR (also linked under Diffs of the user's reverts above). Still no discussion at talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:ArsenalAtletico2017 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The dispute is still ongoing which term should be used, so let's delete both before dispute is over"
 * 2)  "/* Influences */ Dispute is not solved so it should not be added" Re-removes "neo-Nazi"
 * 3)  "/* Influences */ Approximately 100 words added as suggested in the Talk page"
 * 4)  "Most of the sources say "fascist", so it should be "fascist""
 * 5)  "Most of the sources describe him as "fascist" rather than "neo-nazi""
 * 6)  "/* Influences */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk page section with clear objections to AA2017's summaries
 * 2) Talk page section with editors objecting to the removal of "neo-Nazi" as a description of the author

Comments:

This is not a 3RR report, though AA2017 did revert four times in a 25 hour period. Despite the lack of a bright-line violation, this user is definitively edit warring, with universal talk page objection to their summaries of the work and their repeated removal of "neo-Nazi" as a descriptor of its author. Over the past few days, this pattern is evidenced across other related pages (Francis Parker Yockey, the author, and Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, his previous book). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not even an edit-warring. The summary of the work has been reduced in size by every edit and reached app. 100 words as suggested on Talk page, also the debate about which term should be used ("fascist" or "neo-nazi") is still ongoining so I removed both of them currently exactly to avoid edit-warring. There is no patter of me sabotaging the page in any way by engaging in edit war.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited the report since the above reply, so I want to make sure,, that you see the changes. You're undoing the work of other editors, and you know that there are objections to the edits I linked. It's edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * this edit was not about Yockey unlike three other edits which removed "neo-Nazi" from the text. Other three edits are not done within 24 hours.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's worth clarifying, so I've struck the original description and substituted in that it was removal of a different neo-Nazi. It was still an undoing of the other editor's addition, and edit warring includes any reversion "involving the same or different material". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to clutter the report too much, but if admins would like diffs of edit warring on the closely related pages, they are available upon request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Bulleye Jackie reported by wolf (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)  @ 2022-05-09T07:49:45
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  @ 2022-05-09T02:08:21

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: (by different user)

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

Comments: (I'm an observer, not involved in this dispute). This editor has reverted the same content 6 times in less than 6 hours, (a significant amount ≈25 kb) against two different editors; and. Does't appear a 3RR notice was given, possibly as it all happened rather quickly, or because it seems each user felt they were reverting vandalism and 3RR didn't apply...(?) Perhaps the users involved can clarify. - w o lf  08:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism, it's WP:Harassment. The account exists solely to harass Horse Eye's Jack on this page, and somehow isn't blocked. CMD (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Up to 9RR now. CMD (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Further look at the history shows this content was first reverted by an IP user back on 30 December 2020. Following a revert by Horse Eye's Jack, the Bulleye Jackie account was created the very next day, as an SPA, editing this article only. They reverted that content 9 more times over the next year or so, before this set of reverts (making 15 in total). Another IP user then reverted the same content, and user has reverted the same content, in whole or in part, several times, but not in the past few months. There are other issues to consider here including possible socking and the need to address and very long running content dispute. - w o lf  09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:SPA who has done nothing but disrupt/edit-war List of modern armament manufacturers. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great catch, just a historical note that the content dispute actually began in November 2017‎ not December 2020. The content was originally removed by in this series of edits. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * wolf, thanks for writing this up--I know it's a drag to file edit warring reports. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:MovieBuffIndia reported by User:SP013 (Result: Blocked 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "On what basis KGF Chapter 2 stands with 3 days old ₹1007 crore. Just because a non RS Jatinder Singh published it? Very basic thing of this movie surpassing RRR itself is void if you persist with this number. Have a discussion on talk page before reverting to 3 days old box office number. Those who have been following the BO section of this article knew that till 3 weeks only MB figure quoted by ht was used. Pinkvilla Jatinder is not a sole source."
 * 2)  "Refer ICTF discussion, Manobala Vijayabalan is very much reliable. Dozen sources with their editorial board approves it, unlike Jatinder Singh. Pinkvilla is never used for Bollywood or Telugu BO. Do no revise sourced figure current figure with outdated non RS figure. Undid revision 1086914626 by TuluveRai123 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Do not use non RS Jatinder Singh from Pinkvilla for BO. Refer ICTF."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on K.G.F: Chapter 2."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User violates the Edit warring on this single page and has been trying to push a POV about box office figures and attacks other editors who disagree with him. (He has already been banned multiple times for doing this but he still continues to do this) SP013 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial blocks don't work here, it seems.


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:647:cc00:4a0::c2c8 reported by User:Aluxosm (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1086892373 by Vsmith (talk) please see talk"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1086952254 by Aluxosm (talk) The age has been reported as fact and is not in dispute. Kjær quote has no citation & may not be actual quote."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1086970013 by Aluxosm (talk) the unsupported Kjær quote appears to be fabricated to be fabricated to support a false narrative. See the Voosen ref."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1087013175 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) Kjær quote does not reflect content of quote in cited source"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1087072532 by Aluxosm (talk) fabricated information should never be used no matter how many friends agree"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "→‎Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis: new section"
 * 2)  "→‎Edit warring over well sourced statements: new section"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts made at (beginning at: "The following statement has no source to back it up...")

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring notice"

Comments:

IP user is repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing, predominantly by removing sourced material regarding Kurt Kjær, despite discussions and explanations. Aluxosm (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: I accidentally reverted their last edit ( before ). While I think that it should be done, I'm not sure that I should be the one to do it. The contentious version is the current one. Aluxosm (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Nishank21 reported by User:Le Deluge (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kakarhati&oldid=1002692153 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:

It's not egregious, it's a new editor who has only tried to edit one article on a town in India apparently in good faith over the last week or so. But they just don't understand the concept of referencing or what's notable or how to format things - I've tried to explain but they just keep reverting their old material without any attempt at dialogue. Le Deluge (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for nothing but disruption + a probable healthy dose of incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Wareno reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: I was also reported by him here:


 * The User:Qiushufang is currently reported for disrupting Wikipedia with arbitrary and very obviously partisan pro-Chinese edits. This is just him trying to get out of it. Wareno (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You were warned about edit warring at 22:43 and asked to engage in talk discussion  at 22:55 prior to your report at  at 23:54, before which you neither engaged in dispute resolution at the article's talk page or at my user talk. And after you reported me you continued to edit war . Qiushufang (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Wareno and User:Qiushufang are both warned for edit warring. Either may be blocked if they revert again at Battle of Sincouwaan without a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Whether any particular source deserves to be included in an article needs the agreement of editors. Consider using WP:RSN if necessary. There is also a thread about this at WP:ANI but it has not yet attracted anyone except the original disputants. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Jjiza reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please refrain from citing opinion pieces or material from questionable sources. Direct interview and/or Investigative journalism is required when presenting one's birthplace as a factual. In fact many public figures do not include birthplace as it is incredibly difficult to verify. Until there is a consensus presented from more than 1 source (not just the same blog piece), it would be unwise to present a foreign country as this man's birthplace."
 * 2)  ""El pais" is not a reliable source. Author is not a journalist, and presents many assumptions (such as his weight or his date of marriage). Has no way of verifying his birth country. Sounds as if they went off what they googled and ran with it. I'd refer to the Associated Press article that says he's from Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. No mention of Ukraine."
 * 3)  "removed "Ukrainian-born", as his nationality is not mentioned in the linked source. We've repeated had edits citing Ukraine, New York, and Pennsylvania. Until there is a journalistic consensus regarding birthplace, it would be wise to leave out until that point in time."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1087172214 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) Insider does not mention his birthplace or birth city. Faulty linkage."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1087171848 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)Direct quotes are not a violation. i.e. <Trisha Paytas>"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1087109495 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)redundant"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1087071048 by Endwise (talk) One would think that such alleged orchestration deems relevance in this particular sector. Considering context and overall impact (I believe their "drama" received upwards of 35+ million hits), one would not find direct leading quotes "excessive", providing this is a page about himself. Surely this would be inappropriate on the <Mukbang> page, but on his own? Hard to justify the contrary."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1085902317 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) Direct quotes are superior, journalistic interview, per wiki rules."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "pinging Jjiza to the section discussing the Soo controversy and starting a new section for the birthplace dispute"

Comments: Jjiza said they'd read the edit warring policy in this 21:09 (UTC) edit just before reverting again (revert diff #1 above at 21:15). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial blocked from Nikocado Avocado as this article is clearly the focus of their editing here and they're reverting multiple editors to blank sourced content.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User:CreecregofLife reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result:CreecregofLife and U-Mos both warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Television */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1086905807 by U-Mos (talk) Unexplained removal. “Per talk page” is what’s said when you have consensus. Not the minute you make a proposal"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1086903252 by U-Mos (talk) She is regenerating in the centenary. No regeneration in the modern era has waited to the next episode to reveal face. You don't have a source that their first appearance is in 2023. Why would they drag his in-show out for all we know THIRTEEN MONTHS from the hypothetical cliffhanger?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1086902888 by U-Mos (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Initial year for Doctor Who appearance */"
 * 2)   "/* Initial year for Doctor Who appearance */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Initial year for Doctor Who appearance */ Reply"
 * 4)   "/* Initial year for Doctor Who appearance */ Reply"

Comments:

Contributor violates WP:3RR and goes against consensus, showing no sign of stopping or intending to. Has been warned multiple times in edit summaries, albeit not directly to the three-revert rule, from what I know. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 19:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * as required by guidelines. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 19:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have consensus. There is an ongoing talkpage discussion. There was no 3RR warning. We are in the middle of talking it out. All of the reverts were done more than 24+ hours ago. To claim there were "no signs of stopping" is ludicrous. There is no reason for this report to be here. You can't abuse the ANEW board to swing a discussion in your direction CreecregofLife (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I fully reject the notion that I am doing this to swing any discussion. Also, not all reverts were done more than 24 hours ago, that's disproven by the list of diffs above. I maintain the report.
 * Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 19:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You rejecting the notion doesn't make it any less of a fact. You declared consensus by inserting yourself. You also included a reversion that was done to maintain status quo because a reversion was made "per talk page" in the middle of the discussion the minute a change was proposed. The change was not supposed to be implemented at that point and somehow it's my fault because you labeled it edit warring? The fourth edit was made about 36 hours after the initial 3 and five hours before you made your report. You have made it clear that you do not follow proper procedure and are doing whatever you can to punish the opposition. I must ask that the report be retracted. CreecregofLife (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will not retract my report and shall await response from other involved editors and admins. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 20:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not? I didn't violate 3RR, I enforced WP:STATUSQUO, I was never warned that I was violating 3RR, I was using the talkpage, your entire argument is faulty, you prematurely called consensus and used the board as a debate tactic. You didn't even try to resolve, you just wanted a win. "Per third opinion" is not consensus, it is not resolution. You are only proving nobody will play fair CreecregofLife (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm not retracting my report is because you did violate the three-revert rule. I agree you weren't warned about the 3RR, while you should have been, and I included this in the initial report. You also have nearly 10,000 edits so I consider it unlikely you're not aware of the three-revert rule, although this is an assumption of course. I don't want a win and I'm also not the editor whose edits you reverted/engaged in the edit war (or dispute if you will) with. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 20:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're still required to place a warning CreecregofLife (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for filing this, Amadeus (and for responding to the third opinion); I was contemplating possible next steps. I filed the 3O as it was very clear that the discussion was going nowhere, even after I made the effort to discuss, did some source finding and WP:BOLDly implemented what I consider to be a very fair compromise (as can be seen in the talk page section). I was wary of any official warnings for fear of inciting further aggravation, and did think this could be resolved with a clear third opinion on the matter, but apparently not. U-Mos (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion could've gone somewhere if you bothered to discuss it instead of circumventing consensus. Why is when you edit war "Bold" but I maintaining WP:STATUSQUO edit warring? You are making it clear that neither of you wanted a fair discussion, and are punishing me for trying to keep things in line. Just because you don't like what you're hearing doesn't mean the conversation wasn't going anywhere. It is clear that both of yours handling was improper and you have no case CreecregofLife (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me just say for full neutrality: If also engaged in edit warring/repetitive editing in violation of the 3RR, I would also fully be for punishing them according to the policies and guidelines. We will see what the admins think.  Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 20:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Entirely fair. U-Mos (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How is that “fair”? He explicitly said he presumed innocence for you and guilt for me. That’s the exact opposite of fair CreecregofLife (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't, explicitly nor implicitly, presume innocence for . Obviously I 'presumed' guilt for you, since I reported you. I don't think that's based on presumption though, the facts are there and an admin has now responded. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 21:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s not an “if”. They did. CreecregofLife (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By my review, both editors did not violate WP:3RR, and both did violate WP:EW. Because a compromise has now been reached, which supports neither version the editors were edit warring about, blocks would no longer be preventative. But to be clear, if either User:CreecregofLife or User:U-Mos edit war again, here or some other page, it will likely be resolved with blocks. Hopefully this warning is "preventative" enough. A warning before a block during each episode of edit warring is most certainly not required, and should not be counted on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept this finding, thanks for your time. U-Mos (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your resolution. I agree blocks would no longer be preventative, nor necessary. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 21:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (next edit: ),
 * 2) ,
 * 3), this is revert of this edit
 * 4), this is revert of this edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user openly refuses to respect WP:3RR rule, even though they were blocked for 3RR violation before.My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. What "My very best wishes" is doing is deliberately confusing "bold edits" (such as number 4) and "reverts", while edit warring themselves against multiple editors (including ). Also, before filing this report, they left this notice (unlike them, I wasn't aware of it), and finally this sarcastic edit summary for the 3R notice.
 * The discussion on the talk page was started an hour after we stopped editing and so far nobody agrees with their so-called "improvements". M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment I answer here as I got a ping. I can only say that user "My very best wishes" almost seems to be using this technique of bombing stable articles, removing whole chunks full of important text and sources. In just 24 hours he has removed all this stuff: and therefore pushes many users to commit to reverting all his actions. In my opinion, while not violating any precise rules, it comes close to a type of malicious behavior. So I would suggest to those who have to deal with this practice to consider this aspect.--Mhorg (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally, I issue warnings to those who remove sourced content without a valid reason, and report them if necessary, but seeing as I was dealing with a veteran editor, I thought it would be insulting to do so. This is how I get thanked for it and for my AGF. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment I haven't edited the article that much myself, it is somewhat understandably generating more heat than light, step back/cool down probably ought to be the order of the day. See Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive343 ("That talk page is radioactive. Nobody wants to touch it." El_C 23:55, 27 April 2022). The more substantive the edit, revert or not, the more fuss it is likely to cause. And everybody is "aware" now, right? Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Reply. Based on the response above (e.g. reply by M.Bitton about diff #4), he either does not understand what revert is or simply refuses to follow the 3RR rule (even though they were blocked for that before). Regardless, that means they should not edit such highly contentious subjects. Actually, I wanted to continue explaining the rule to user M.Bitton, but he did this with edit summary "AGF has limits". After that, the only way for clarifying that matter was making a report on this noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "AGF has limits" was after the DS message that they left. The thing that I still can't get my head around is: how come "My very best wishes", while being fully aware of the DS (unlike myself) showed so little regard for it? In case you are wondering, yes, they reverted the reverts on more than on occasion. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not know about DS? The notice of DS is located on the top of talk page of Azov battalion where you edited . You have previously received DS notifications by other users, in other subject areas . My very best wishes (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't and don't you dare accuse me of lying (I won't stand for it). I don't see what the Horn of Africa has to do with Eastern Europe. More important, why template me if you were sure that I knew about it? M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The sourced content removal continues. M.Bitton (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Get ready, because that's his way of interacting. I still don't understand how it can be allowed, but maybe it's just me who has a different way of conceiving the encyclopedia.--Mhorg (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: User:My very best wishes is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Azov Battalion without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. The editing climate on this article is not good ('radioactive' per User:El C), but that makes it all the more urgent for participants to edit carefully. I do not perceive an actual 3RR violation by either party but My very best wishes has been cutting a lot of corners on consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Does user M.Bitton understand that they made a 3RR violation? If not (as follows from their response above), then I am afraid they will continue doing the same. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Atlacatl Cortés reported by User:SrCerberus (Result: Blocked)
Pages: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Atlacatl Battalion) and  (National Guard (El Salvador))

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Atlacatl Battalion:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * National Guard (El Salvador):
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PizzaKing13&oldid=1086567249#Logo_de_la_Guardia_Nacional. Here] and also in the edit summary of the revertions, it can be seen in the revision history of both articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PizzaKing13&oldid=1086567249#Logo_de_la_Guardia_Nacional. Here]

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

Comments:

The user has also been making problematic edits to several wikipedia articles in Spanish and uploading multimedia files to wikimedia commons without the corresponding license. On the other hand, user PizzaKing13 has helped to keep the pages stable and reverse edits. He is already informed. 🫡 𝘇𝘂 𝗜𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗻 𝗗𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻 Talk to me! 18:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. This user is edit warring to put back their incorrect image licensing claims. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

User:1.121.215.198 reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: Blocked 7 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Reverted by four editors, and still not talking. Also warring on other pages. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 7 days. Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Berposen reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: User has agreed to stop editing the article )
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:

The user was blocked a while ago for this on the same page. Now they are claiming an RFC consensus based upon an RFC, and their opinion of what option had "won" (which seems to be wrong). Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Berposen may be running out of chances. They are back again at this board after a 3RR block for the same thing issued on April 8 by User:Bbb23. Since Berposen became active on enwiki once again in April of this year their edits are almost entirely about the Azov battalion. Berposen seems to be misunderstanding the result of the RfC that the other editors are trying to follow. As before, the dispute is about whether to have 'neo-Nazi' in Wikipedia's voice in the article lead, a thing that was confirmed by the 2021 RfC. Per his comments in the last 3RR complaint, the one on April 8, it is uncertain whether Berposen actually understands our policy and can express himself well in English. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Arrivals at this point, you are right, I must be misinterpreting something because of the google translator. You already as an administrator find shortcomings about my editorial in the enWiki, and you join a group of editors that already exceed 6 people, something must be wrong, I will refrain from re-editing the article. I apologize for wasting make them time. --Berposen (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * per above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Sgphawker reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Pblocked - 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:VANDAL, WP:VERIFY"
 * 2)  "WP:VERIFY"
 * 3)  "Indonesian (id) isn't Malay (ms), the standard variety of Malay called Standard Malay, Indonesian has its own standard variety called Standard Indonesian."

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

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

Comments: The reported editor has made numerous changes to this highly visible article. Some of them are debatable per WP:ONUS, but many of them violate WP:V, i.e. change of sourced content while leaving the reference unchanged, addition of unsourced content, including factual errors. –Austronesier (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh so adding content with reliable sources that can be verified is considered as "edit warring" now? isn't Wikipedia should be rely on reliable sources per WP:RELY?. Please see the history article page and see who's the one who vandalize the article. And what do you mean by "factual errors" when all my contribution can be verified through the citations that included in my contribution. The administrators should see the Talk:Indonesian language as well to understand these case better. (Sgphawker (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC))


 * Blocked from that article only for 1 month. Edit warring and ignoring WP:BRD is one thing, but edit-warring your changes back in over more than one other editor's objection with an edit summary of "vandalism" is simply not happening. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * May I ask for a courtesy revert to the last stable version? This would override some good edits by to parts not affected by the edit warring, but there is greater urgency to remove the partially very poor and erroneous content in the lede and infobox. –Austronesier (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Already done by another editor. I would have done this myself, but I was unsure which the "good" version was. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Kingcutie reported by User:Tol (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Sexual assault allegations */ Misconduct, not assault.  And Sean did not admit to conduct that was "conduct that was harmful, abusive, and selfish" in relation to the accusations.  That's very important. Also, that Harold's post has been deleted, so why are we trying to highlight that bit of rhetoric?"
 * 2)  "/* Sexual misconduct allegations */ These are all anonymous allegations.  Not one of these anonymous sources has stood behind their assertions publicly, filed a police report, or initiated court action.  Someone lied and others opportunistically piled on."
 * 3)  "/* Honors and awards */  Misconduct, not assault. Why feature the picture and the award if it apparently no longer exists?"
 * 4)  "/* Anonymous sexual misconduct allegations */  "The collective of 7" is an overstatement, and apparently includes all the anonymous people who have already been described in this statement."
 * 5)  "/* Sexual assault allegations */  Misconduct, not assault"
 * 6)  "/* Honors and awards */ misconduct allegations without any police reports, courtroom activity or convictions"
 * 7)  "/* Honors and awards */  Removed the assertions of a gossipy alt-weekly source that is not only speculative but bases its information off of Twitter speculation."
 * 8)  "/* Sexual misconduct allegations */ Why report about a Fargo bar severing ties when they erased their facebook message about Sean? This was already addressed in the previous sources."
 * 9)  (comment hidden)
 * 10)  "/* Sexual misconduct allegations */ Make no mistake. The allegations that were reported on were all anonymous. No police reports have been filed.  No court, no convictions. No people have publicly stood behind their accusations. A cocaine dealer lied and a variety of people piled-on"
 * 11)  "/* Personal life */  The Harold's "Facebook message" no longer exists, so to report on that facet as if it was a part of enduring history seems overwrought."
 * 12)  "/* Honors and awards */ The award no longer exists, so why feature a description and a photo of it?"
 * 13)  "/* Honors and awards */"
 * 14)  "/* Sexual assault allegations */"
 * 1)  "/* Honors and awards */"
 * 2)  "/* Sexual assault allegations */"
 * 1)  "/* Sexual assault allegations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Editor is abundantly aware of the edit-warring policy, though I haven't given any warnings for this batch of edit warring specifically:
 * Edit warring warning at 22:07, 18 April 2022
 * 3RR warning at 22:10, 18 April 2022
 * 1-week block for edit warring

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The dispute was already resolved after the last round of edit-warring in April. Consensus was formed at Talk:Har Mar Superstar on what to include.

Comments:

After previous edit-warring around 18 April (see ANEW discussion here), Kingcutie has returned to edit-war to minimise the sexual assault allegations on Har Mar Superstar (against consensus formed on the talk page), and to call the allegations "hysteria" and emphasise the accusers' anonymity. The edit summary to this diff has apparently been oversighted, too. Tol (talk &#124; contribs) @ 22:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Kingcutie comments: Why is everyone so afraid of qualifying (and truthful) language? These matters are nuanced, so when there hasn't been a single report or conviction but plenty of anonymous sources and gossip, assassinating someone's character is not helpful or ethical. Kingcutie (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

User:78.109.68.79 reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Semi)
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:

This ip continues to edit war on 2022 Armenian protests. Chip3004 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit war was started by this revert. I've added reliable sources on my edit, and these edits reverted by a obsolete version, containing a one day only, when my edit covers May 2-10 period. Article's talk page makes no sense since Archives908 talked about protesters, not detained people. It's very nonobjective to say that edit war was started by my IP, additionally when it's not first time when Archives908 provoking edit war. --78.109.69.86 (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "improved terminology and fixed some grammar mistakes"
 * 2)  "Republicans accuse democrats of being communists, while a widespread misconception it is popular in media. There is a similar correlation here, therefore I am fact checking the article."
 * 3)  "i understand this assessment. i have not removed references to allegations and ties to certain white supremacist groups."
 * 4)  "note that the AFA does not preach that their race is superior but that their faith is ancestral."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warning given  Doug Weller  talk 20:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Editor is now using the talk page, so I don't think this needs to proceed. Doug Weller  talk 12:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:90.186.249.22 reported by User:Uli Elch (Result: IP blocked for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: User stubbornly attempts to blow up fleet size in contrast to company's own website, which is stating 44 aircraft as of today. He instead quotes "my visits in Air HH Aircraft" as "source" for "56 aircraft".


 * – 72 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:Humanist poet (Result: Reporter indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._James_Gregor&oldid=1087020701
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._James_Gregor&oldid=1084845327
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._James_Gregor&oldid=1084845600
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A._James_Gregor

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

Comments:

Grayfell ignored the ongoing discussion on A. James Gregor's Talk page and intervened without entering the debate, simply imposing his one-sided changes and justifying them as "objective". This behavior is incorrect and denotes an imposing and dictatorial logic. In addition, he has repeatedly modified the section called "Academic evaluations", where the evaluations of academics are displayed, arguing that some evaluations are not independent. This is very strange, as all evaluations are subjective and personal and in a section called "Academic evaluations" nothing different is expected. The intervention of an administrator is required to resolve this dispute.


 * Humanist poet indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Archives908 reported by User:78.109.69.9 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Archives908 continuously reverts all added info with reliable sources to obsolete (info) version, taking the opportunity that the page is semi protected. --78.109.69.9 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Article semi-protected for one month by .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)