Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive427

User:Wollers14 reported by User:Bacondrum (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Mary Miller (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wollers14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:
I do realize I made a mistake here. I misunderstood the rule and did not read much into it when I should have. I will cease the edits and attempt to talk with Bacon like I should have in the first place. If there is any punishment that will result of this I will accept it. I do want to add to this by saying that I did not feel that BaconDrum was listening to me by telling me to create a discussion whether he was or not I am not sure as he would know that. That is all I have to say at this moment. Wollers14 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If they've agreed to stop edit warring then I think this can serve as a warning not to edit war and no further action is required at this time. Bacondrum 20:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I can agree. Bacon let's just resolve this issue and move past it because I misunderstood many things regarding this incident. Wollers14 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:KiridaSenpai reported by User:JamesLucas (Result: Blocked)

Page: Byte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KiridaSenpai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On 28 January, over the course of five edits (which displayed some care and other signs of good faith), KiridaSenpai added to Byte a substantial table of prefixes that are possibly a form of original work and certainly referenced. Since then, there has been a slow revert-war between KiridaSenpai on one side and three editors (Dondervogel 2, Woodstone, and myself) on the other. (I’ll forgo individual diffs since they account for all recent edits of Byte.)

Plenty of efforts have been made to explain our collective concerns, and Dondervogel 2 has made multiple attempts to open a dialogue both at Byte’s talk page and on KiridaSenpai’s talk page. So far the only communication I have seen from KiridaSenpai, aside from one edit summary that I infer was intended as obfuscation, is a message expressing frustration mistakenly left on the talk page of an IP editor who years ago left a message for Dondervogel 2. With the most recent revert, we are now at seven. I issued a stern warning yesterday, and I request that a block now be implemented. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 13:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As of 4 February the disruption continues. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:‎73.61.18.181 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Warned)

Page: The Fat Controller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.61.18.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7] – stable revision with narrators included as voice actors.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8] – IP removed voice credits
2. [9] – again, today
3. [10] – same, today
4. [11] – same again, all within two hours on different IPs

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12] – 3RR warning, after all talk page messages ignored. [13], [14], [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: article talk page discussion, dating back to August with no resolution or input by wider community. I'm on my own here. Also got no help at Template talk:Infobox character. If this is brushed off as merely a content dispute like last time, then it's a pretty one-sided dispute when I've made plenty of effort to engage in discussion.

Comments:
An IP-hopper is removing content (voice acting credits) from the The Fat Controller. They are being unresponsive via talk pages, only responding via edit summaries with a hostile and uncivil tone. They also did not take kindly to my 3RR warning, interpreting it as a threat when it is nothing of the sort—I'm going by the book in posting it at their talk page.

The IP's rationales (see abovementioned diffs) make no sense, nor have they provided any WikiProject guideline on this when asked repeatedly. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Another IP joining the party: [16]. Of course they agree(!) That's just disruptive editing at this point—not a content dispute. If there's no desire to engage in discussion outside of edit summaries, then what is WP:BRD even for? Observe the avoidance of article talk page discussion. I've done my part. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Warned, status quo ante restored _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What if they decide to show up at talk, but revert again in doing so—new report here? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:PlainAndSimpleTailor reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Page protected)

Page: United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17] (same reduction of opposition to just "Michael Dougan")

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Lengthy report. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments: Editor was previously edit warring as 80.42.39.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), despite starting a RFC on the talk page which they have little intention of allowing to proceed. FDW777 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Editor also sought to completely remove the same material, by replacing it with a totally different text here. Cambial foliage❧ 13:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Please pay close attention to the actions of the two editors above with regards to the article in question and the relevant talk page. 92.40.174.234 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Hello, I don't think I am edit warring, I've been substantially contributing to the article. The two users who reported just revert anyone's edits. They act like they own the article and have been nothing but hostile since I joined wikipedia PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Analysis Allow me to provide an analysis. The dispute centres around the use of specific words. These are favoured by the defendant: Michael Dougan believed the bill as originally introduced could potentially restrict, .... Whereas these are the choice of the plaintiff: and to restrict, in practice .... This is how the edits and reverts have played out: Introduction of disputed words, by Cambial Yellowing [24] Revert 1 by PlainAndSimpleTailor - WP:BRD applies [25] Revert 1 by Cambial Yellowing, ignoring WP:BRD and starting an edit war [26] Revert 2 by PlainAndSimpleTailor [27] Revert 1 by FDW777 [28] Revert 3 by PlainAndSimpleTailor [29] Revert 2 by FDW777 [30] Finally, a major edit by PlainAndSimpleTailor removes contested words, but this is justified, given the magnitude of the edit. [31] No breach of 3RR; it's a complex content dispute. The edit war was started by Cambial Yellowing when he ignored WP:BRD. The debate on the article Talk page is debased by the aggressive nature of Cambial Yellowing and FDW777. PlainAndSimpleTailor is a new editor and has been faced with anger and aggression from the word go (as IP 80 and now as a signed-in user). I recommend this report is closed with 'No Action' other than the usual suggestion to all parties that the matter be resolved on the Talk page, and then escalated via the appropriate channels, if necessary. Disclosure: PlainAndSimpleTailor came to me for advice after I'd placed a welcome note on her (IP) Talk page. I provided what I consider to be appropriate advice concerning how to deal with certain issues and editors (see also my Talk page). I have no opinion on the article in question or the disputed content. Arcturus (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Comment: The above grossly misrepresents the edit history. The introduction of that phrase was not, as Arcturus claims, on the 2nd of February. It was on the 21st of October here, where it remained and was refined by several editors until recently, when PlainAndSimpleTailor started editing the article. Given that Arcturus engaged with the editor and commented about the article on the 31st January, one would think they might have noticed that the text was already present, rather than thinking it was added earlier today. I'll assume this was an oversight on their part. PlainAndSimpleTailor's reversions, including those made while editing as ip (see here) are as follows: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]; 5 within the last 24 hours: [42][43][44][45][46]. Of those reversions, 14 of the 15 seek to either remove the same material from the lead entirely or rewrite it as "Michael Dougan says" or similar, despite 8 references, of which on only 3 is Dougan (one of) the authors. In addition, I ask that patrolling admin warn Arcturus regarding his behavioural problems toward a new editor. Welcoming new editors is an important task. Including comments such as this: the most important policy is WP:IAR with no mention or link to the other four pillars is unwise. Whereas comments such as this: Another point to be au-fait with is WP:BRD...Use it if an editor makes changes you disagree with, regardless of their claims about sourcing or whatever. and this: If you can find such material, then perhaps include some of it. If, on the other hand, there is no such material in reputable sources, don't let that prevent the inclusion of the text... The main point is that is is factual (sic), suggest a seriously problematic attitude to WP:V and NPOV which ought not to be passed on to new editors. Cambial foliage❧ 22:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC) As above, this is completely inaccurate. You can see 80.42.39.51's (who now edits as PlainAndSimpleTailor) first edit to the article at 11:48, 30 January 2021. This removes the text and to restrict the way that certain legislative powers of the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can operate in practice which is the central text to the dispute. They have consistently attempted to remove that text, or replace it with text that fundamentally misrepresents the number of people that say it (for example, the current wholly incorrect wording of Michael Dougan believed). FDW777 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Cambial Yellowing, The introduction of that phrase was not, as Arcturus claims, on the 2nd of February. It was on the 21st of October. That's irrelevant. The issue here commences at the time of the first diff noted by FDW777. That's when the edit war, being the subject of this report, commenced. Okay, so you re-introduced the words I mentioned, after several intervening edits. The fact remains; the dispute being debated here commenced at the point I noted (which anyway would not be counted as a revert). The first line of additional diffs you provide predate this dispute, and reflect badly on more than one editor. And another thing; don't quote me out of context (links to the full quotes acknowledged). Arcturus (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Arcturus, The (relatively long-standing) status quo before the dispute is of course relevant. Thank you for acknowledging that you misrepresented it. Earlier edit warring by the same user over the same content is obviously relevant, if you can't see that then you've misunderstood what 3rr/EW is about. The edit I made actually rewrote the material significantly to emphasise a point, added multiple references and quotes to existing citations, as well as restoring and expanding the relevant section in the body. The edit warring being debated here commenced a few days earlier, pretending it didn't will not help your case, weak as it is. Cambial foliage❧ 23:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Cambial Yellowing, my case? I don't have a case. I'll just point out one more thing - edit warring always involves more than one editor. Arcturus (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC) ArcturusYes – in this example it was PlainAndSimpleTailor and 5 other editors. PlainAndSimpleTailor reverted each of them in turn. That's the point. Cambial foliage❧ 00:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Cambial is consistently the “R” in BRD, because they've always supported the status quo text. So the BRD argument is inaccurate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC) It's also worth noting that Arcturus' "analysis" creates a certain impression by the simple expedient of ignoring this reversion, which occurs after the one he labels "finally" and "justified". Cambial foliage❧ 02:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has been fully protected three days. Please use this time to discuss on the Talk page. See WP:DR for your options if agreement can't be reached there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1012:B11C:CA99:7837:CA4A:FD9D:F00 reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Semi)

Page: Nate Parker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:1012:B11C:CA99:7837:CA4A:FD9D:F00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "Editing"
2. 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Directing */Editing"
3. 18:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "Editing"
4. 18:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "Editing"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC) to 18:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "Edited"
   2. 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Acting */Edited"
   3. 18:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Directing */Edited"
   4. 18:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Directing */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "Note: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
2. 18:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"
3. 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nate Parker."
4. 18:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "Final Warning: Removal of content, blanking (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP has been removing sourced content from the page Nate Parker without any explanation, having been reverted by User NoahDavid771 and myself. They have been warned about 3RR, but they have continued with this. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. An IP editor has removed well-sourced negative material eight times. It is still possible that the prose could be worked on to create more balance, but that would require some willingness to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Dreamkid05 reported by User:Tamzin (Result: Partial blocks)

Page: List of tributary states of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dreamkid05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC) "/* List of tributaries */ The evidence you've submitted has not been certified in historiography. You don't have the authority to judge like that. This document requires the consent of Korean and Chinese historians and historians from third countries. You keep posting false information and suppressing people's freedom of information."
2. 13:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC) "/* List of tributaries */You can't say that if you know Korea well. I've never seen such an argument in my life. It's a ridiculous false claim. The evidence you've submitted has not been certified in historiography. You don't have the authority to judge like that. This document requires the consent of Korean and Chinese historians and historians from third countries. You keep posting false information and suppressing people's freedom of information.I explained it well as an history.Go and sea..."
3. 09:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "/* List of tributaries */Don't make new history"
4. 13:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "/* List of tributaries */ Goguryeo,Baekje,Silla and Goryeo were independent countries. Lets talk"
5. 10:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "/* List of tributaries */ look at the talk 「Goguryeo,Baekje,Silla and Goryeo were not tributary states of China」"
6. 08:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "Three kingdom and sila were not tributary state of China."
7. 01:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "Fixed typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC) "/* List of tributary states of China and removing sourced statements */ warning re edit warring"
2. 21:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of tributary states of China."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC) on Talk:List of tributary states of China "/* Goguryeo,Baekje,Silla and Goryeo were not tributary state of China */: new section

   (Posted by Dreamkid05 after my note here)

Comments:

Dreamkid05 has removed the same content six times: Once on January 25th, and then five times since February 1st. They've continued despite warnings, and despite getting no support for their views on Talk. This all apparently is in an effort to promote a POV regarding Korea-China relations. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 17:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've added their most recent revert. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 10:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Two more now, plus a bonus mini-edit-war over (ironically) WP:RFPP. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 11:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This user is inherently disruptive nature not limited to List of tributary states of China but also Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. This user was block indef on Japanese Wikipedia for disruptive editing. This user is WP:NOTHERE and should be blocked indef.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This user was blocked for 48 hours. However the block should be increased to indef.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing admins should take note of the blocking admin's comment that If another admin wants to bump this up for whatever reason, they may, but I thought it more prudent to take care of the article disruption. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 12:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

An immediate block is needed. They are also edit-warring at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Izno has issued partial blocks from two pages for 48 hours. Let me know if any other pages are being affected. As noted, this user is indef blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Having spent several days now trying to get this user to abide by various policies (edit warring, blanking, NPOV, RS, and edit summaries, with others warning them about vandalism and disruptive editing), I am extremely pessimistic that they won't return to the exact same behavior the moment that the block expires. They have so far shown zero ability to edit constructively and collaboratively, nor have they shown any sign that they understand any of the principles in question except maybe H:ES. (Beyond that, the closest they've come is starting a thread on talk at my suggestion, but then continuing to edit-war.) Given the amount of time that I and others have spent reverting them, warning them, and debating with them, I really have to agree with Phoenix7777 regarding an indef: Dreamkid shouldn't be allowed to edit anywhere until they can affirmatively indicate that they understand these policies and plan to abide by them. If they can do that, then sure, give them some rope, but I don't see any room left for good faith given their behavior in their first 100 edits.

I get that we can also wait and see, but I'm just making the case for saving ourselves some time. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops. Removed misstatement that Robby.is.on suggested an indef. My apologies for the erroneous ping, Robby. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 22:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to let me know if misbehavior resumes and I'll bump it up myself. --Izno (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I noticed Dreamkid05's block evasion by using IP. Dreamkid05 was blocked at 12:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC), but IP reverted at 12:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC) with his usual edit summary "typoo" [sic]. User:Izno warned about an edit while logged out.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User:MrCattttt reported by User:Gunkarta (Result: Advice)

Page: Kebaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MrCattttt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1004944872 by Xcelltrasi (talk)Again unexplained edits"
2. 05:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1004943055 by Gunkarta (talk) Wikipedia is not for original research."
3. 04:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC) "/* History */Again, wikipedia is not for original research. The author did not make such conclusion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kebaya."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC) "Kebaya origin"

Comments:

This user is involved in edit war and violate WP:3RR  Gunkarta  talk  05:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Response from MrCatttt: Gunkarta deleted a fully cited 4 well-published resources because he/she/they think it is “debunked” by ONE reference that he/she/they has in another section in the article. After careful reading, I noticed that the edit was a violation of Wikipedia no original research policy. The book did not mention that this theory is “debunked”. It was purely Gunkarta's assumption. So I believe the editor has been biased toward the references and assumes the other theory is “debunked” from a conclusion he/she/they get from a line in a book and NOT from the author of the book. Gunkarta also offered no justification other than a vague comment during reverting and in the talk page. Nevertheless, Gunkarta also violated the WP:3RR since he/she/they was the first to start the edit war. I believe both of us should have engage in discussion, and i believe we can do so MrCattttt (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Administrative Comment MrCattttt, stop reverting immediately and join the discussions that Gunkarta has opened on talk page. Gunkarta, to be clear, you too have broken 3RR. Please be very careful in your reverts from hereon. Continue the discussions. Stop reverting please. Report here those editors who revert without gaining consensus. Hope this is clear. Thanks. Lourdes 12:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User:WikiCleanerMan reported by User:Selfstudier (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiCleanerMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: More complex case, giving diffs with short explanations.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 26 January, WikiCleanerMan removed a more citations needed tag, added Morocco and Sudan to the "members" list
2. 27 January, I restored the tag and added and added an inline citation needed tag for the list of members
3. 30 January, editor ImTheIP removed the list of members for having no source
4. 30 January, WikiCleanerMan reverted previous edit but at the same time removed the inline citation needed tag I previously added
5. 30 January, I restored the inline citation needed tag
6. 30 January, I added an original research (synth) tag to go with the inline citations needed tag
7. 31 January, WIkiCleanerMan removed both of the tags
8. 31 January, I restored the tags
9. 31 January, I restored the article wide citations needed tag
10. 31 January, editor Shadow4dark combined the tags as multiple issues
11. 3 February, WikiCleanerMan removed all the tags
12. 3 February, I restored the 2 inline tags
13. 3 February, WikiCleaner removed them
14. 3 February, editor Shadow4dark restored them
15. 4 February WikiCleanerMan removed them

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here

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

Comments:
Sorry about the apparently complicated diffs, it is actually only about the continuous removal of tags. I warned the editor on 31 January here and both myself and editor Shadow4dark warned again on 3 and 4 February here. Included in my warning of 4 February, I asked that the tags be restored immediately or a report would be filed. The response is here, the editor refers to me as a "Filastiniun", he appears to believe that I am a Palestinian, in the final diff above, his edit summary says "..this Palestinian will call it fake." although it will be noted that it is in fact unusual for WikiCleanerMan to provide any edit summaries. I have also attempted to resolve this problem on the article talk page without success. (The root cause of this problem is that WikiCleanerMan insists that the article subject, an alliance, exists but is unable to provide a foundational source article that confirms the existence of the alliance and its membership.)(Question? Do I need to notify the other editors mentioned?)Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should when you were supporting the article to be deleted you never provided the non-existence of the alliance. Never had you provided a source contradicting all the sources I added. You call this edit warring because you don't like what the article, which is, of a real topic, and this whining to administrators is really pathetic. You have a history of disruptive editing which can be found on your talk page here and you were harassing and attacking other editors under the talk page section titled Formal notice of ban. And you have a history of editing articles relating to Israel with the purpose of anti-Israeli bias which violates the neutrality standards that editors on Wikipedia should maintain. This is evidence that you're a Filastiniun or Arab who hates Israel. And to the administrators, please take a look at his complete refusal to provide evidence on the article's deletion disccussion. Happy editing Selfstudier (talk) --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Lourdes 13:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User:JWatTheDotECO reported by User:Techie3 (Result: 72 hours)

Page: .eco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JWatTheDotECO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC) "Reverted back to the truth."
2. 11:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC) "Reverted back to the truth."
3. 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC) "After 4 years of non-interrupted, unverified, misleading information regarding .ECO on this Wikipedia page to the public, you now submit what you find to be a “neutral” page that citates more misleading information. It has been more than 2 weeks of back and forth yet you are unable to verify claims that Big Room is the domain registry of .eco? We have a national emergency to deal with, regarding Climate Change. The last thing the public needs is a fake environmental narrative."
4. 15:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision by Dyork talk contribs and removed last 2 sentences that promote unverified claims and do not verify its intended purpose."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:39, 4 February 2021 warning by Dyork

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC) on Talk:.eco "Breaking out commentary at the end to a new section with a path forward for this"

Comments:

See user talk page. Techie3 (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Administrative Comment Techie3, you do know that you have also crossed 3RR. If I block the reported editor for edit warring, I'll have to take you down too; unless you both agree to stop warring and reverting. JWatTheDotECO, you need to stop reverting and continue discussions on the talk page of the article. Else this is going down very fast for you. Please respond here that you will stop reverting, irrespective of the article not being your preferred version. If you don't respond here, I'll be forced to block you to stop disruption. Please respond. Lourdes 12:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• I understand that I have crossed WP:3RR. I will stop reverting, regardless of the version this page ends up in. Techie3 (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• A block to disengage would be good for me. Techie3 (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Techie3, considering that you've responded and not reverted, I am not keen on pushing this with you. I have blocked the other editor. Please don't revert the page and please wait for discussions from other editors. If you believe there is consensus after 24-48 hours and post some discussions, then revert to the consensus version. But wait for at least 24-48 hours. Thanks. Lourdes 13:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Nicksmyth3 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Page protected and users warned )

Page: Michael Barr (Treasury official) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nicksmyth3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] Comments:
OPTIONAL: User Warned of Edit Warring here

Response from nicksmyth3: Viewmont Viking deleted a carefully written and fully cited 3-paragraph section of a biographically Wiki page. He offered no justification other than a vague and false attack on it as "puffery". Now he is reporting an "edit war" because I think his edit is unfair. He is the one who started this "edit war." If he makes fair edits to the page, I will not undo them. I also note that I am using my real name, and Viewmont Viking is hiding behind an anonymous name. He obviously has a bone to pick with Michael Barr and is unhappy with my truthful and accurate edits of the page. If he has something to say, he should do his own research and writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicksmyth3 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Another brand-new user has recently appeared to make identical edits. Along with initial additions from this IP, I expect that one individual is using multiple IPs and unregistered accounts to edit war this information. KidAd talk 17:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've full-protected the page for right now. I am reviewing edits. Nicksmyth3 You may not cast aspersions or allege malicious intent. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Page protected Okay, I'm going to just issue warnings and alerts on WP:ARBAP2. There's is clear sock/meatpuppetry here, but page-protection seems like the most striaghtforward solution without going to WP:SPI EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I've blocked Karinthrasher for two weeks for creating Coffee&FinanceQUEEN1986 to continue edit warring (checkuser  Confirmed). Nicksmyth3 is more likely to be WP:MEAT as opposed to the same editor.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thank you! Appreciate the CU. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What a joke. This is why wikipedia is not a reliable source - because people hiding behind anonymous handles delete responsible, good-faith edits. I don't know who Karinthrasher is and I didn't coordinate with her. I did not use multiple accounts. Maybe she or he is just another smart person who cares about having truthful, unbiased pages. The version you restored contains factual inaccuracies written by people who are attempted to harm and misrepresent Michael Barr's career. But obviously you all don't care about truth and objective content or you would not have deleted all of the edits made since February 2. Nicksmyth3 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)nicksmyth3

• Note, Nicksmyth3 just vandalised this entire page by deleting various pieces of text from top to bottom. Recommend an indef of Nicksmyth3 as he's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 14:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Response from Nicksmyth3: I don't know why Czello‬ deleted my comment here. I did not mean to change the template. I am not an coder, so I just write in plain text. I don't know who Karinthrasher is and I have not coordinated my edits with anyone else. This whole process feels deeply unfair. VViking is clearly a high-volume wikipedia writer and therefore he took advantage of the process to prevent me from making good-faith edits to Barr's page. And now you various anonymous people have locked the page, saving edits that were inaccurate about Mr. Barr's positions on unions, derivatives reform, etc, and deleting the edits I and others made to provide a lot of useful and informative content about his academic career and potential OCC appointment. I feel that I've wasted a lot of time trying to make Wikipedia better, and I won't make that mistake again. Nicksmyth3 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)nicksmyth3

User:Linn C Doyle reported by User:Sudonymous (Result: Self-revert)

Page: Sword of the Spirit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Linn C Doyle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. First previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004872245&oldid=1004743994
2. Second previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004928473&oldid=1004927361
3. Third previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004966726&oldid=1004929187
4. Fourth previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005024004&oldid=1005023494

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004893419&oldid=1004872245
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004929187&oldid=1004928473
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1004996499&oldid=1004966726
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005025201&oldid=1005024004

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Linn_C_Doyle&diff=1005026945&oldid=1002880156

Deletion of 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Linn_C_Doyle&diff=1005027399&oldid=1005026945

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sword_of_the_Spirit#Location_of_Atwood_Quote
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sword_of_the_Spirit#People_of_Praise_Bangalore

Comments:

I thought the location of the Atwood quote was suboptimal, so I moved it to a different location. Linn C Doyle reverted it so I tried to discuss it on the talk page, but the conversation quickly devolved into a rehash of previous arguments on the talk page, which are not relevant to the location of the Atwood quote. I tried a different location that seemed like a compromise between our two points of view, but they reverted that also without an explanation, simply asking me to "discuss further". I tried to discuss further, but their only response to my discussion was a second "discuss further", this time in bold. You can see this all in the first linked discussion. Since they refused to respond, I decided to revert to my second location (the compromise location), which they reverted again. This is three of the reverts.

I also realized there was an issue with the People of Praise information, because it was conflating two People of Praise organizations, so I edited to fix the confusion. They reverted this edit too, and started a discussion (second linked discussion). Based on this discussion I made an edit which tries to compromise between our positions (though I still hope to discuss further, since I do not think the compromise was necessary, and they gave little justification for reverting my edit). This makes 4 reversions (this revert actually happened before the last revert mentioned in my previous paragraph).

After they had made 4 reverts I left a warning on their user page asking them to undo the fourth revert, but instead they only deleted my warning without responding. If you check the Second linked discussion, they mention that they had made 3 reverts already, so I think its clear they knew about the rule before making the fourth revert.

Over the course of this discussion I have made 1 revert, putting the Atwood quote at what I hoped would be a compromise location, as they refused to discuss why they reverted that original edit.Sudonymous (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: I left the edit war noticeboard warning on their talk page, and we had a small discussion of the issue there, but they are not deleting my responses on their talk page. I've tried reverting some but I don't want to get into an edit war just over preserving my part of the conversation. Sudonymous (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No block, since User:Linn C Doyle undid their last revert at my request. I remain uncertain whether Linn has a grasp of the WP:Consensus model. They should avoid making large changes without support from others. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:

My understanding of WP:Consensus is in part...

• In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept.
• In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

Am I misunderstanding something when I am reverting to restore the article in these eventualities? Could you please correct what I have misunderstood to avoid future misunderstanding?

My understanding of the previous consensus is the version of the article which has been restored by admins, anti vandalism, and other editors with no suspected COI. Is this correct, or is there a misunderstanding here that you could explain to me to avoid future incident?

I am not experienced with WP:Dispute resolution could you please provide some guidance on the correct avenue to address some of my concerns?

* Undeclared COIs who claim not to be COIs. I have evidence of COI.

* Declared COIs trying to work out the real life identity of editors.

* An attack notice was put on this page by an undeclared COI. This notice was removed by admin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=994796012&oldid=994795359 however a declared COI appears to be attempting to threaten legal action.

* I can work out sockpuppets, vandalism and disruptive editing.

Thank You.Linn C Doyle (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Linn C Doyle, when you have made a plain violation of WP:3RR you can't talk yourself out of the consequences by citing the deletion policy or the COI guideline. Just stop edit warring and try to get on with things. Also, you are risking a block if you accuse the other party of vandalism when the two of you are just having a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I not interested altering any opinions on edit warring disputes, or directing any accusation at the user you are referring to here, I am instead trying to find out a solution to persistent WP:PA and the above listed issues on the page in question which have been ongoing over the several past months. Are you able to provide any assistance or direction in addressing these concerns. Linn C Doyle (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Jib Yamazaki reported by User:55go (Result: Indefinite)

Page: Mackenyu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jib Yamazaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:01, 12 January 2021 UTC
2. 17:12, 18 January 2021 UTC
3. 08:22, 19 January 2021 UTC

Comments:
Persistent addition of unsourced content. He has already been warned for that (23:09, 1 January 2021‎), but he ignored it. Now, this problem is spreading to other pages. [54][55][56][57]. --55go (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely till they respond and confirm they will not continue this track of editing. Lourdes 08:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Magysze reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Page protected)

Page: Szekely language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Magysze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]
5. [63]
6. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [65] (a neutral advice, but it clearly shows that Magysze's attempt to create an article is problematic)
2. [66] (a clear notice)
3. [67] (a clear warn)
4. [68] (3RR notice)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [69]

Comments:

His remarks clearly shows that he does not understand or is unwilling to understand what is the problem with his edits. Borsoka (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected I've put 2 weeks of page protection. Try to convince him till then. If he re-starts this, request you to please come back here with a link to this discussion. He will be blocked. Thanks. Lourdes 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocking because I support creation of a new article? If he doesn't agree with the article he can edit it but not redirect it. Magysze (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's alywas better first to be informed. I advice readers to read Origin of the Székelys and their language. The article can stay. Magysze (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

User:ABC paulista reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Template:Extreme metal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ABC paulista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "Per WP:BRD, let's keep this way until the dispute is over"
2. 02:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005116749 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Per talk page. WP:BRD states that the page must be kept on the latest configuration before the controversial edit (the inclusion of Unblack metal) was made, and be unchanged until the dispute is over. Please follow the gidelines."
3. 01:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005116155 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Per WP:BRD. Just check the ongoing discussion on this talk page"
4. 21:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005048553 by 3family6 (talk) Not valid either"
5. 16:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1004897418 by 3family6 (talk) Not cited in main article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "/* You seem to be in an edit war */ new section"
2. 03:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "r"
3. 03:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "/* You seem to be in an edit war */ what was with my "e" key? + links to the 4 reverts in less than 24 hours."
4. 04:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "/* You seem to be in an edit war */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Unblack metal and NSBM */ r"
2. 03:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Unblack metal and NSBM */ t"
3. 03:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Unblack metal and NSBM */ +"

Comments:

• Administrative Comment ABC paulista, you have crossed 3RR. Please immediately self-revert and confirm that you will not continue reverting until consensus is reached on the article's talk page for any changes. If you do not respond here, and if you continue edit warring, you will be blocked. You have a clean block record; please don't spoil this. Please respond soon. Lourdes 07:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I won't try to excuse myself here, I did cross WP:3RR and it wasn't right. But I don't think that the self-revert is necessary here since I was just trying to follow WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS to keep the page on the conditions it was before the controversial bold edit was made, and the editor who reported me repeteadly ignored both guidelines. Currently, a discussion on the talk page about it is ongoing, and no further edits on the page were made, so I'm in favor of keeping things the way they are now and continuing try to reach consensus there. ABC paulista (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• ABC paulista, this is the last warning to you to self-revert. You are going to be blocked if you don't do this. Lourdes 12:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Lourdes 13:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lourdes: While I can't say that I am the biggest fan of @ABC paulista:, to block someone 10 minutes after issuing them with a final warning, seems a bit harsh when there is no indication that they have seen your last message.Jason Rees (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi Rees. ABC could have been blocked without warning for going beyond 3RR. I gave ABC the last warning at 7.27 UTC. ABC came back online, maintained at 12.57 UTC that he will not self-revert, and was liable to be blocked instantly after that. I chose to give ABC one last benefit of doubt immediately thereafter for a few minutes more while he was evidently online. Please note that I am not here to chaperon a disruptive editor (who has been given a final warning hours before) to the ends of care. That said, these words are not against you. Warmly, Lourdes 16:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Update: I have unblocked him, after his assurance to stop edit warring. Thanks, Lourdes 03:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

USER:Alex B4 reported by User:GiantCheeseBall (Result: OP blocked, reported editor warned)

Page: Nick Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alex B4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantCheeseBall (talk • contribs) 12:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I had only edited back to the previous consensus. Myself and another editor have now reached a new consensus so we are working towards that together, so this is likely a moot point. Regardless, this other editor is at liberty to contact me on my talk page (and should have done before going to the noticeboard) and I will be happy to respond to any concerns they have. Alex (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Alex B4, while I have blocked the OP, you have to immediately stop your reverts. You have crossed 3RR. It doesn't matter whether your version represents consensus; let some other editor revert the page to the consensus version from here on. You and Doubledoppler will both be blocked if you continue this edit war. Take the higher ground if you have confidence in consensus building on the article talk page and stop reverting. This is the only warning before the block. I hope this is clear. Lourdes 12:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Now that it's been 24 hours, am I safe to edit the infobox again? Alex (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that you open a discussion on the article talk page and develop consensus; and then undertake changes. Of course, you are free to edit the article's infobox; but if someone reverts, wait till the talk page discussions provide some form of consensus. See DR for more guidance. Happy editing. Lourdes 14:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Doubledoppler Blocked – for a period of 1 week, GiantCheeseBall Blocked indefinitely as a duck/sock Lourdes 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Hipal reported by User:Ifdc (Result: Declined)

Page: Dan Peña (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hipal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Peña&oldid=1005247774 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Peña&diff=1005268578&oldid=1005247774

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Peña&diff=1005268578&oldid=1005247774
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Peña&diff=1005269197&oldid=1005268578
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Peña&diff=1005291643&oldid=1005276698
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Peña&diff=1005340884&oldid=1005335775

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User was warned on their Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipal&diff=1005346046&oldid=1005340784

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Peña&diff=1005345893&oldid=1005342241

Comments:

Ifdc (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Declined I don't think I can take acton against Hipal as they are using the talk page, and might be able to claim WP:3RRBLP as an exemption. As you are both reverting each other, any sanctions would need to apply to both of you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Evenminded reported by User:Aseleste (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Radiant exitance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Evenminded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005345447 by 71.135.36.192 (talk)"
2. 05:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005345005 by 71.135.36.192 (talk)"
3. 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005344854 by 71.135.36.192 (talk)"
4. 05:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005344185 by 71.135.36.192 (talk)"
5. 05:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005343970 by 71.135.36.192 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Evenminded... */ talk: add: stop edit warring"
2. 05:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Evenminded... */ edit: reply: state the consequences, reminder"

Comments:

The edit war has gone on for too long now. ~ Ase1este^t@lk_c0ntribs 05:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

From reading of the talk page comments and the external links, it appears that User:Evermind and User:71.135.36.192 have been having a years-long argument in the comments section of a blog, and have brought their dispute here to Wikipedia. --Srleffler (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Kongchoong reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Partially blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kongchoong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:26, 7 February 2021‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 1005475974 by Britmax (talk) Reverting without a reason? It has made a significant impact on the objective perspective of the article."
2. 21:15, 7 February 2021‎ (UTC) "Please give me the reasonable reason why this doesn't expressed in the two names in the disputed water."
3. 04:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005292161 by TU-nor (talk) It is not logical and objective to stay in the one sided name in the disputing water."
4. 23:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005276498 by B.C.Mayfield (talk) It is a disputed area. It should be written in both names."
5. 22:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC) "The disputed water should be written in both ways. The article has one sided perspective."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Liancourt Rocks."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is 1RR restriction. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Kongchoong resumed edit wars again. An immediate admin action needed.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Partially Blocked – for a period of 24 hours _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Blscholljim reported by User:Innocent Paki (Result: Blocked)

Page: Economy of Karachi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Economy of Lahore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Lahore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blscholljim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]
5. [74]
6. [75]
7. [76]
8. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79] [80] [81]

Comments:

This user is involved in an edit war even after being warned on his talk page. I also invited him to discuss the issue on talk page first. He's just trying to decrease the real figure by adding different self-created figures of his own choice. Moreover, he also has removed sources in some of his edits. Innocent Paki (talk) 16:16, 07 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. If this user continues to add unsourced information and fails to communicate, an indefinite block would be warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Weatherextremes reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Partial blocked for 1 month )

Page: University of the People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Weatherextremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts in the last 20 minutes:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87] & [88]

Comments:
I'm not going to continue to pointless try to edit the article while he's on his revert-spree, but the article's history is nothing but edits and his reversion of those edits, to the point that the page was fully protected multiple times. The editor disregards any other edits and then adds his own content, declaring that content to be a "longstanding version" despite the fact that what he's adding back is literally a few minutes old, hardly the "longstanding version" but content or tags that they do not agree with becomes instantly reverted, with "get an RfC" as the answer. The editor has serious WP:OWN issues regarding the article and it has been and continues to be a problem. - Aoidh (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have tried repeatedly to ask that we find solution to multiple issues around the content disputes that are taking place the past 3 months on the article.All of my recent edits with independent high quality sources are always removed, always found insufficient, always problematic. I believe that the problems are actually relating to coordinated efforts to discredit any achievement from UoPeople. I am merely sourcing them in the article with good sources. I have mostly tried to find excellent sources the past 10 years that I have been editing and I believe I am doing a relatively OK job. As the admin suggest in the talk page of the article we need to have and RfA in order to sort the longstanding content disputes once and for all Weatherextremes (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you started this "RfA" (RfC?) that you're referring to? "Start an RfC or we do it my way" is not how articles are written, especially when (1) these diffs are brand new, not some long-hashed out thing that calls for an RfC and (2) your sources are press releases and the like, which yes, do need better sources. The article deserves better than that. But more importantly, instead of actually addressing the content on the talk page, you're accusing me of being part of a coordinated effort to attack the article? Do you have diffs or evidence to support that? It's at the point where I'm not going to bother putting better sources in because they're just going to get reverted; there's no editing the article while Weatherextremes feels he can revert anything he doesn't like. - Aoidh (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe editors who started obsessively editing out my comments 3 months now should be the ones to prove that the sources are problematic. Regarding the presswire source I already answered in the article (it was a joint press released) and have provided an extra source. Apart from that we have the youtube video featuring HBS Online Dean. I do not understand the scrutiny my edits receive. In all honesty it is strange how all my sources are always worthless Weatherextremes (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

University_of_the_People has been protected three times in the past month; Weatherextremes has been one of the primary participants in the edit wars each time. Since December, nearly all of his or her edits to the article have been reverts of other editors' contributions:

reversion of Modulato's edits

reversion of Modulato's edits

reversion of edits by Modulato, Bennet43, and Monkbot's edits

reversion of edits by Horse Eye's Back, Modulato, and Orenburg1

reversion of Modulato's edits

reversion of edits by Modulato and 37.163.133.86

reversion of Modulato's edit

reversion of edits by Horse Eye's Back, ArmorredKnight, Modulato, MusikBot II, and 37.162.171.144

reversion of edit by 37.161.151.195

reversion of edits by Modulato, ArmorredKnight, and 37.161.151.195

reversion of edit by 2402:8100:2085:dbc4:8110:7fa3:ac7c:46ac

reversion of edit by ElKevbo

reversion of edits by Horse Eye's Back and AnomieBOT

reversion of edit by Aoidh

reversion of edit by Aoidh

He or she has been warned multiple times but the edit warring and article ownership persists; a block is clearly in order. ElKevbo (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elkevbo remember you started reverting me many times. I merely pointing out that my edits are the only ones that are found problematic consistently by a number of editors. I have clearly sided with UoPeople achievements using good sources. It is strange that these sources are targeted and almost always found problematic. Weatherextremes (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You've reverted (nearly?) every edit that anyone else has made to the article over the past two months, including uncontroversial edits made by bots. You clearly disagree with our policies on collaboration, particularly WP:EW and WP:OWN, or have no intention of collaborating with others. You need to stop reverting other editors or be blocked from editing the article. As you clearly have no intention of stopping your three-month long edit war you need to be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I admit that some edit were done hastingly (thus reverted bots). You know I am not very savvy when it comes to editing in a hurry but I am trying to improve. So sorry for that! I made the same mistake today. However the main focus here is this obsession by a number of editors to attack my work which is very very meticulous when it comes to finding high quality sources. Basically what I am saying here that I am not easy to crack when I wholeheartedly believe I am contributing to the wiki project. I would also advise you not to pass judgement on whether or not I respect wiki policies. I have noticed in your talk page you have a tendency to threaten editors. Rest assured I will not be bullied just to satisfy yours and other editors anti-UoPeople issues. My presence the past 10 years in the project speaks much more than your accusations of me not respecting wiki policy. Weatherextremes (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from the page for 1 month. This is an excessive case of WP:EW and WP:OWN. Admittedly, some of the dozens of reverts were against IP or unregistered users that may or may not have been productive, but I count at least five experienced editors that have also suffered their posts being summarily reverted to Weatherextremes' preferred version. Also the comment "I will not be bullied just to satisfy yours and other editors anti-UoPeople issue" sounds very much like someone whose raison d'etre on this article may be to whitewash it, and I see nothing in looking through many of the edits to dissuade me from this. Black Kite (talk)

Reverting productive edits

Can you look at this please: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helena_Cortesina&action=history It improves the page, there is no harm in it, there is no reason to revert it, it's a productive edit yet it's getting reverted in a destructive manner. Why are there Wikidata templates if it's not allowed to use them then? The page linked says this "The choice to use this information is left entirely to the Wikipedia community itself"Tehonk (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, Tehonk. That is not the kind of disagreement this noticeboard is for. Please take it to Talk:Helena Cortesina, which is the right place to discuss it. Bishonen | tålk 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC).
• It looks like they left me alone finally. Thanks for the answer, you can remove this. Cheers.Tehonk (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:93.138.30.160 reported by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus (Result: )

Page: Milan Nedić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.138.30.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Legacy */ Then don't delete for the 1993 book, you deliberately deleted both it so that nothing is written about Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts."
2. 13:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "I'm not Mikola, stop doing vandalism, to write nothing about of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and when the book was published in 1995 a volume entitled "100 Outstanding Serbs" ."
3. 13:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Not a double entry ,then the article does not write about the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and when the book was published in 1995 a volume entitled "100 Outstanding Serbs" ."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Milan Nedić."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I must say in my defense that this is not the same change on 14:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC) , also i read now :The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part , there is no fourth return so be the appeal User:Amanuensis Balkanicus should be rejected. 93.138.30.160 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

One does not have to break 3RR to be edit warring, nor is it a license for three reverts. 3RR is a bright line to cross, but one can be determined to be edit warring with fewer reverts. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

When you have your rules, then block me from permanently I won't edit anymore, Goodbye 93.138.30.160 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Albaniakosova14 reported by User:Amanuensis Balkanicus (Result:Page protected )

Page: International recognition of Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Albaniakosova14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005588842 by Sadko (talk) Check chat. The document is provided is enough, the Foreign Minister of Comoros sent a letter to Kosovo saying they would like to establish diplomatic ties and states Kosovo as an independent state. What more do you want? It is the same as taking off all the countries withdrawn and saying they didn't withdraw. Please check chat and confirm everything before taking off sourced content"
2. 12:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005585784 by Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) Can you read french? The source that the foreign minister of Comoros sent to Kosovo states that they reaffirm recognition and mentions Kosovo as an independent state. Check the chat before changing sourced content"
3. 12:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005584434 by Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) Check the chat to discuss it further before deleting sourced content. The document i provided states that Comoros reaffirms between the two COUNTRIES. Now unless Comoros' leader comes out and says that is false then please don't undo sourced content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule International recognition of Kosovo."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC) on Talk: International recognition of Kosovo "There is no mention of recognition or de-recognition in the letter. Moreoever, the letter by itself is WP:OR."

Comments:

• No violation User has not made any reverts (last was 13:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)) since 3RR warning (14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)). But, should Albaniakosova14 revert again, that would be a WP:3RR violation and warrant a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Update to page protected given the overall edit warring there. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Aizadgreat reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )

Page: Beverly Vergel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Aizadgreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) "simplified short description, added photo, added references to the awards won, added awards, made the filmography tabular, added corporate experience"
2. 23:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "updated short description to include latest awards, early life to include education and career to include corporate appointments"
3. 22:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005678280 by Praxidicae (talk)"
4. 22:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "added photo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Managing a conflict of interest */"
2. 23:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Beverly Vergel."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA continually edit warring to ad spam and copyvio images CUPIDICAE💕 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:71.135.36.192 reported by User:Aseleste (Result: Blocked)

Page: Radiant exitance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.135.36.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Radiant exitance */ Real surfaces do not emit as though in a 0K ambient. Violates Stefan's Law, 1LoT and 2LoT."
2. 05:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Radiant exitance */ Real surfaces do not emit as though in a 0 K ambient. That violates 1LoT, 2LoT and Stefan's Law."
3. 05:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Radiant exitance */ Real surfaces do not emit as though they're in a 0K ambient."
4. 05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Radiant exitance */ This kook is confused between hypothetical blackbodies and real-world surfaces. His blather's already been proven wrong by a physicist."
5. 05:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Radiant exitance */ Real surfaces do not emit into a 0 K ambient. This reality-denying kook's blather has already been proven wrong."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Evenminded... */ talk: add: stop edit warring"
2. 05:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Evenminded... */ edit: reply: state the consequences, reminder"

Comments:

The edit war has gone on for too long now. ~ Ase1este^t@lk_c0ntribs 05:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

From reading of the talk page comments and the external links, it appears that User:Evermind and User:71.135.36.192 have been having a years-long argument in the comments section of a blog, and have brought their dispute here to Wikipedia. --Srleffler (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours, per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

---

My IP address has changed... to hinder hackers, it only has a 24 hour lease.

What I state on the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_exitance page and the associated Talk page can be verified in the links [1] - [4] below.

In [3a], physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, PhD presents the consensus solution to the parallel plane black body radiator problem and demonstrates that it is wrong (this is where he demonstrates that the consensus solution violates Stefan's Law). His solution is not a 'non-consensus' view, the mathematics and concepts are taken from the book Thermal Physics [1] by Philip M. Morse, Professor of Physics at MIT, co-founding editor of Annals of Physics, co-founder of MIT Acoustics Laboratory, first Director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, founder of MIT Computation Center.

User 'Evenminded' has for years attempted to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate any information he can find in order that he can slap it patchwork onto his odd hobby theory, in which he claims continual 2LoT violations can cause catastrophic global warming.

The obvious first problem with that is that 2LoT is a fundamental physical law... it's not violated willy-nilly... if it were, it wouldn't be a law.

• Law: A mathematically rigorous description of how some aspect of the natural world behaves.

• Theory: An explanation of an empirical observation which is rigorously substantiated by tested hypotheses, facts and laws.

• Laws describe how things behave in the natural world, whereas theories explain why they behave the way they do.

• For instance, we have the law of gravity which describes how an object will behave in a gravitational field, but we're still looking for a gravitational theory which fits into quantum mechanics and the Standard Model and explains why objects behave the way they do in a gravitational field.

In fact, a macroscopic 2LoT violation has never been empirically observed, and at the quantum scale, there are several subsets of 2LoT which must be met for any quantum transition to take place, so it's even more rigorously observed at the quantum scale. [2]

Let's examine what Evenminded claims. He claims that all objects emit radiation as though they're in a 0 K ambient, and that objects absorb radiation from cooler ambient or objects (thus implying that all objects absorb as though in an ∞ K ambient). He does this because he denies the existence of radiation pressure, a manifestation of energy density (see Stefan-Boltzmann equations below).

What Evenminded claims to reflect reality cannot... physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, PhD showed that it violates Stefan's Law [3a], and it obviously violates 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense... he's explicitly stated that he believes that energy can flow without work being done, which is akin to stating that objects must absorb all radiation incident upon them. He also states that real-world objects (not idealized blackbody objects) emit as though they're in a 0 K ambient because he denies the existence of radiation pressure.

Evenminded has stated: "Radiation pressure has no bearing on the radiant emittance of a surface." Blatantly false. "The Stefan-Boltzmann relationship is also related to the energy density in the radiation in a given volume of space."[4]

Thus, he's deluded himself into treating real-world objects as though they're idealized blackbodies emitting into a 0 K ambient. His solution for the problem of radiant emittance from a 303.15 K surface into a 287.64 K ambient was 479 W/m^2 because of this, when in reality, a real-world surface would emit 84.96925 W/m^2 (for an emissivity of 0.93643, calculated from NASA's ISCCP program, data collected 1983-2004). So in this instance, he treated the surface as a literal ideal blackbody... emission as though the ambient is 0 K and emissivity of 1.

https://i.imgur.com/8XzwMRQ.png

He claims that objects emit as though they're in a 0 K ambient, and absorb radiation from cooler objects which slows their cooling rate... that's a blatant violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense:

2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense... "No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body") states that energy cannot flow from a lower to a higher-energy region without external work being done upon the system... not via conduction, not via radiative means, not macroscopically, not at the quantum scale [2], not ever . Do keep in mind the definition of heat: "an energy flux". Thus: "No process is possible whose sole result is an energy flux from a cooler to a hotter body" without external energy doing work upon the system.

Now think about that... free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If free energy is zero (or negative), no work can be done upon the object in question, so no energy can flow to the object in question. So what he claims would result in a perpetuum mobile of the first kind.

Thinking more... he claims that photons from a cooler object incident upon a warmer object must be absorbed... but it requires energy to perform work to push those lower energy density photons up the energy gradient of the higher energy density object. Again, a perpetuum mobile of the first kind results from his claims. He must either claim energy manifests from nowhere to do the work of pushing those photons against the energy gradient (a violation of 1LoT) or he must claim that 2LoT (in the Clausius Statement sense) can be violated.

Now, onto the topic of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation: The σ T^4 equation is for idealized blackbodies. Stefan and Boltzmann derived ε σ (T_h^4 - T_c^4) A_h to account for real-world objects.

If we assume emissivity = 1 and emission to a 0 K ambient, then we get the equation for an idealized blackbody:

• 1 σ (T_h^4 - 0 K) 1 m^2 = σ T^4

You'll note that Evenminded denies that idealized blackbodies assume emission to a 0 K ambient, despite the mathematical proof being put before him. Real world objects, however, do not assume emission to a 0 K ambient (again, that would violate the fundamental physical laws).

Let's look at the Stefan-Boltzmann equation:

• q = ε σ (T_h^4 - T_c^4) A_h
• q = ε σ ((∂U/∂S)_h^4 - (∂U/∂S)_c^4) A_h
• q = ((U * c/4εσ)_h - (U * c/4εσ)_c) A_h

That seems to be a straightforward connection between temperature and energy density, and the energy density of the emitting particle and the energy density of the surrounding ambient, wouldn't you say? Is that equation not the equation to calculate radiant exitance? Sure it is... and as can be seen, it is the energy density of the source and target which determines the rate of radiant exitance. To say that photons are emitted willy-nilly as though in a 0 K ambient, and warmer (higher energy density) objects absorb radiation from cooler (lower energy density) objects violates 2LoT (or 1LoT if one claims that the energy necessary to do the work of ascending the energy gradient magically pops into existence).

Now again, how is energy going to flow from lower to higher energy density without external energy doing work upon the system? How is a photon to ascend an energy gradient without external energy doing work upon the system to make it so? The answer is: It cannot. That's why, in a cavity at thermodynamic equilibrium, the quantized standing wavemode nodes are always at the cavity walls (which is a prerequisite of the solution), and the photon chemical potential is zero, thus the walls cannot absorb the photons (the photons can do no work upon the walls), nor can the walls emit (the walls can do no work upon each other, nor upon the standing waves).

And this is why Evenminded believes that energy can flow without work being done... because Wikipedia (his main source) has misled him into believing that, by not explicating that σ T^4 is for idealized blackbodies, and ε σ (T_h^4 - T_c^4) A_h is for real-world objects.

I attempted to rectify that in hopes of finally ending his suffering from his misconceptions, but alas, Wikipedia sided with a hobby theory which demonstraby violates the fundamental physical laws. Perhaps Wikipedia should find people more versed in physics and science to review their physics and science pages.

As to the charge of 'repeatedly undoing or reverting the contributions of another editor'... it was I who was the contributor... all Evenminded did was sit there punching the 'Undo' link repeatedly. He 'contributed' nothing.

If you wish to get into the quantum physics of energetic exchange, do let me know. But it doesn't agree with Evenminded's (and by extension, your) stance.

• [1] https://archive.org/details/thermalphysics00mors
• [1a] https://archive.org/details/thermalphysics00mors_0

• [2] https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3275

• [3] https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-nested-black-body-shells-model-and.html
• [3a] https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/11/solving-parallel-plane-black-body.html
• [3b] https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-and.html

• [4] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c1

---

71.135.38.119 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Jose Lancelot reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Seventh-day Adventist Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jose Lancelot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC) "broken link change"
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC) to 06:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 06:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC) "broken link"
3. 03:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC) "broken links"
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC) to 02:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 01:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 02:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "change the 404 webiste of the Adventist.org"
   4. 02:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "redirected broken link"
   5. 02:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "redirected links"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Seventh-day Adventist Church."
2. 06:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pacific Adventist University."
3. 06:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Adventist University of the Antilles."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Always maims references. Also active as 210.185.171.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Kelisi reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Colchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kelisi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005676418 by Kevin McE (talk) Well, Kev, we've both got a finger-wag from our friendly neighbourhood administrator. Why don't you go and have a word with him, as I have done?"
2. 21:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005668666 by Kevin McE (talk) Reverting vandalism"
3. 19:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005637266 by Kevin McE (talk)"
4. 17:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005562376 by Kevin McE (talk) Then you haven't listened to the audio file, have you? That is how people in Essex say it, and I have been to Colchester."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 16)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Colchester "/* Pronunciation */ new section"

Comments:

• Page protected Fuzheado | Talk 14:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:DabYeetDab reported by User:Adolphus79 (Result: )

Page: Gina Carano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DabYeetDab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]
5. [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: first handwritten notice, actual uw-ew warning template

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ongoing RfC

Comments:

User has repeatedly blanked or substantially removed large parts of the 'Criticism' section of the article, despite multiple attempts by multiple users to discuss the changes with them. There is an ongoing RfC regarding the section on the article's talk page, of which the user in question has refused to take part, instead deciding to continually either blank the entire section or remove the parts they do not like and using their edit summaries to attempt to push their POV. Based on other edits made to the article, it also appears that this user has edited while logged out, possibly to avoid WP:3RR. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Daveout reported by User:HarrySime (Result: No violation)

Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Daveout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Polanski&oldid=997550013: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95] This is my version I think
2. [96] This is his version he keeps reverting to
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daveout [97] user has been warned

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk page entry has been made]

Comments:

HarrySime (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Further, any reverts by the reported editor occurred a month ago. I see no need to take administrative action on this matter. @HarrySime: You should engage in discussion at Talk:Roman Polanski about where to place that information in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Matt Franis reported by User:Ashleyyoursmile (Result: Partial block)

Page: Tuka (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Matt Franis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Deleted irrelevant details that have been cherry picked for no reason at all. I am the artist in question, I don’t want my personal details in this page."
2. 08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "I am the artist in question, I am TUKA. This information is false and misleading. This is extremely personal information and it is misrepresenting me. I shouldn’t have justify this. If it gets posted again I will make an official complaint."
3. 08:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Deleted irrelevant details that have been cherry picked for no reason at all. I am the artist in question, I don’t want my personal details in this page."
4. Consecutive edits made from 04:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC) to 04:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 04:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
   3. 04:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 02:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC) to 02:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 02:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Tuka (rapper)."
2. 08:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tuka (rapper)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

This user claims to be the artist Tuka (rapper) and has reverted the edits of three editors Dam222, Eternal Shadow and myself, and violated the 3RR. A COI notice has been issued to their talk page, just bringing this to the notice of admins since they have stated that will make "an official complaint" if they are reverted again. Ashleyyoursmile! 08:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Partial block from the one page only. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:50.91.104.233 reported by User:Knuthove (Result: Blocked)

Page: Rushmore University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.91.104.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:17, 11 February 2021
2. 22:56, 11 February 2021
3. 22:46, 11 February 2021
4. 22:44, 11 February 2021
5. 22:00, 11 February 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments:
IP editor says here ([101]) "I will keep changing this back to the most factual and positive rendering of the status of Rushmore University." Perhaps also editing under 75.113.162.64 (talk · contribs), see [102]. Knuthove (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:70.179.20.232 reported by User:SK2242 (Result: Semi)

Page: Kristen Hancher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 70.179.20.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC) "added notes about krisiten phone"
2. 09:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "added notes 3"
3. 07:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "kristen hancher edits, no longer on tiktok,"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kristen Hancher."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC) "Reply"
2. 02:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "Reply, indent"
3. 08:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "Replying to 70.179.20.232 (using reply-link)"
4. 09:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC) "comment"

Comments:

IP continues adding this sentence to a BLP with no consensus after being previously blocked temporarily on 25 January for edit warring it in SK2242 (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC) (edited SK2242 (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC))

• Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Captain El Classico reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Blocked)

Page: Martin Bormann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Captain El Classico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous revision of Martin Bormann

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:31, February 11, 2021 (UTC)
2. 13:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
3. 04:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005934648 by Ealdgyth (talk)"
4. 03:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005853972 by Kierzek (talk)"
5. 18:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1005840894 by Kierzek (talk)"
6. 17:49, February 9, 2021‎ (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Martin Bormann."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Recent additions */ new section"

Comments: Can we please get someone to have a look at this report? The problem is still ongoing. Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 5 days. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677 reported by User:DavidDelaune (Result: No violation)

Page: Loranger, Louisiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006222811 by DavidDelaune (talk)Rusty Chambers is mentioned in the notable people section; Kayla Ard is not notable. Please stop your disruptive editing."
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC) to 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Notable persons */ per WP:USCITIES#Notable people"
   2. 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "low-quality image of cars with a building in the background"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Loranger, Louisiana."
2. 18:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "respond"
3. 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "respond"
4. 18:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "respond"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC) on Loranger, Louisiana "Undid revision 1006222811 by DavidDelaune (talk)Rusty Chambers is mentioned in the notable people section; Kayla Ard is not notable. Please stop your disruptive editing."

Comments:

This editor has engaged in a multiple edit wars over the past few months. I am asking for administrative review of the editor. DavidDelaune (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: The reporting user refused to discuss the changes on the article's talk page per consensus, and initiated this "edit war" themselves. Instead of following Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and consensus, the reporting user immediately posted a uw-disruptive3 template on Magnolia677's talk page and filed this report. Upon an attempt on my behalf to discuss the changes and resolve the situation, the reporting user and has now decided to be WP:UNCIVIL towards Magnolia677 and myself on the article's talk page, even after I agreed with them on Magnolia677's talk page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

ResponceI cannot believe what I am reading. This is my first experience in nearly 14 years of being on Wikipedia of the internal politics involved with wikipedia. I cannot believe what I am witnessing. This is a little small town in Louisiana with an article with less than 500 views per month. A NCAA female basketball team head coach that grew up in this town is being labeled as 'non-notable' and TWO WP:TAGTEAM wikipedia editors come out declaring that a female NCAA basketball coaches are not worthy of being mentioned in wikipedia articles. DavidDelaune (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a blatantly false claim, nowhere did anyone declare that she was not notable because she was female, nor was there any WP:TAGTEAM involved. As a matter of fact, I have twice now conceded that she does pass WP:NCOLLATH, and you should create an article for her. Please put that WP:STICK down, my only problem is with your incivility and refusal to assume good faith. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have had ZERO disputes in my 14 years of being a member here on wikipedia. This is my first. I make zero claims as to how this dispute occurred. I am so confused. I've never been in a dispute. Let's allow the administrators to decide how this happened. All I can say is that I tried to introduce a factual encyclopedic entry and encountered a dispute. It appears that you are attempting to make it hard for the administrators to determine the sequence of events. You just said that you "conceded that she does pass WP:NCOLLATH" but how is this possible? You are trying to redefine your edit history. Wow, you are trying to manipulate the sequence of events. Wow, you guys are really good at this. I have already submitted this to /r/NCAAW/ over at reddit and I am in the process of making this a larger media issue. Rather than dispute this in the shadows, let us all find out what the general population thinks about this. You and your cohort have stated multiple times that you do not believe that Kayla Ard is worthy of mention. Let it further be known that gender bias is a huge problem here on wikipedia. I am a just a small voice within a chorus of people that would like to see female athletes recognized. I am a simple editor trying to tell the truth about world events. Kayla Ard grew up in Loranger, Louisiana and she went on to become to become the head coach of the NCAA Utah State Aggies women's basketball team. Whatever happens here today my words are truth and worthy of encyclopedic entry. DavidDelaune (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you insist on WP:CANVASSING outside help from unexperienced reddit users, then there is nothing more I can do here. Clearly, it's time for me to just WP:LETITGO, and let the admins deal with this. Good luck, and happy editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No violation – Each party has reverted at Loranger, Louisiana at most twice. It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the WP:3RR rule. Canvassing for support at Reddit is a truly bad idea and I hope it doesn't continue. Some of David's statements above like 'you are trying to manipulate the sequence of events' are verging on personal attacks, so I hope they do not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:Nine minutes after your determination Magnolia677 went back to the article and reverted once again. DavidDelaune (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Engine850 reported by User:Mark83 (Result: Two editors warned)

Page: Air transport of the British royal family and government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Engine850 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:18, 9 February 2021
2. 20:45, 9 February 2021
3. 09:57, 10 February 2021
4. 14:27, 10 February 2021
5. 15:33, 10 February 2021
6. 16:03, 10 February 2021‎ NB: @Skenu: has now also violated 3RR. User given 3RR warning and the admin reviewing this case can decide the appropriate action.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

Comments:Controversial no doubt, but a consensus is being ignored. The talk page is now an incredibly long thread. Mark83 (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy that you have reported it, I am not the expert on Wikipedia usage, however, could you please explain why, when I have provided a long list of verifiable evidence from the Royal Air Force, the Ministry of Defence, the House of Lords and the British Government, what appear to be politically motivated users can constantly delete my sources and replace them with a far left newspaper article, and nothing more, written by someone with zero knowledge of the subject matter ? I would argue, it is they that are being disruptive, they completely ignore the evidence, and simply delete everything, usually within 2 mins of me replacing the sources. You have, in fact, deleted my verifiable sources 7 times today already. Engine850 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have not edited the page since 21 January. Mark83 (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your 'companions' have deleted my sources 9 times in <48 hours. Have you complained about them ? ? Engine850 (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

At the time of this report you were the only one to violate the 3RR in 24 hours, which is the relevant timeline. Added detail on another violation which can be reviewed as part of the same case. I don't see the sense in duplicating. Please feel free to create a separate report if you wish.

I'm unclear what "'companions'" means. Can you please desist from making inferences and personal attacks on me. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Mark83 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"At the time of this report you were the only one to violate the 3RR in 24 hours" . .Really ? ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government&oldid=1005844339 18:20, 9 February 2021‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government&oldid=1005869992 20:57, 9 February 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government&oldid=1005963706 08:58, 10 February 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government&oldid=1005994885 13:36, 10 February 2021‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government&oldid=1006003298 14:43, 10 February 2021‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_transport_of_the_British_royal_family_and_government&oldid=1006016344 16:14, 10 February 2021

Now I'm not the Wiki expert you are, but you and I can both clearly see, there have been a multitude of 'revert rule' violations. You constantly tell me to discuss it, and stop 'reverting' yet the 4 of you are constantly doing just that. There is no discussion, you have zero evidence, I have 4 reliable sources, all clearly stating the same thing, yes, the respray cost £900k, but that no additional funding was required. Try following your own suggestions . . Engine850 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You are failing to read and/or understand the policy. Edits by different people don't constitute violations of the 3RR. There is one 3RR violation in the links you've provided, and I have already noted it above. I'd advise you to limit yourself to the bare facts of the reverts in this venue and keep wider discussions to the article talk page. Mark83 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Two editors warned. Both User:Skenu and User:Engine850 are warned they are risking a block if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. Each of them has reverted five or more times since 28 January. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Sdcheung reported by User:Underbar dk (Result: Blocked)

Page: Takeda clan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sdcheung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]
4. [110]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:

The content that the user is trying to reinstate is copied verbatim from https://www.japanese-wiki-corpus.org/family/The%20Takeda%20clan.html, which is released under CC BY-SA 3.0. Although this clears it from a copyright violation charge, it is still problematic to dump text into an existing article without cleanup. User has refused to communicate either through edit summaries or their user page (reverted-without-talk). _dk (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. Long term edit warring at Takeda clan to add material which doesn't pass Wikipedia's sourcing standards. (The web site used by Sdcheung consists of material translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, which (like any other wiki) is not accepted as a reliable source here). EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Blscholljim reported by User:Innocent Paki (Result: Blocked)

Page: Economy of Karachi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Economy of Lahore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Lahore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blscholljim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]
4. [115]
5. [116]
6. [117]
7. [118]
8. [119]

After these reverts he was blocked from editing for 31 hours. After the block has expired, he has started same type of edit war again by adding same unsourced content and removing sources:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]
5. [124]
6. [125]
7. [126]

He has also used his IP address as a sockpuppetry for same type of edits:

1. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131] [132] [133]

Comments:

User talk:Blscholljim was blocked from editing 3 days ago. He was involved in a prolong edit war by keep on adding unsourced content and removing sources from the articles (Economy of Karachi, Economy of Lahore & Lahore). He was also warned on his user talk page and was also invited by me to discuss the issue on talk pages of the respective articles. Anyhow, he was blocked for 31 hours. After the block expired, he started using his IP address as a sockpuppetry to do same type of editing. I therefore, requested user EvergreenFir to block the IP and semi-protect the articles. After the semi-protection of articles and block of his IP, now he has started edit warring again from his own user ID. Every diff is mentioned above. In addition to this, with due respect, I also request to semi-protect these three articles for atleast 6 months as 7 days semi-protection is not enough for it. Regards, Innocent Paki (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef. Continuation of a prior edit war. These unsourced changes are bordering on vandalism. The user goes from one city to the next, changing GDP numbers by as much as a factor of two. There is never an explanation or any comment on the talk page. They also seem to be carrying on the same war using the IP 103.111.122.250 (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

User:PlatinumClipper96 reported by User:Justgravy (Result: Page protected)

Page: Bexleyheath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PlatinumClipper96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bexleyheath&oldid=997843376 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bexleyheath&diff=1005009850&oldid=997843376
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bexleyheath&diff=1006185903&oldid=1006182329
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bexleyheath#Historic_County_in_Lead [diff]

Comments:

I am starting to get exasperated at my treatment on Wikipedia. When I make a BOLD edit that gets reverted and then I revert it back I get accused of edit warring. If someone else makes a BOLD edit and I revert it, they then revert it again and accuse me of edit warring, where is the logic in that? I want to discuss this in the talk page but the original version should be restored whilst this discussion is taking place! That is what I have been made to do before, so why is it one rule for me and one rule for everyone else?Justgravy (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. See WP:Dispute resolution for your further options. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Roger 8 Roger reported by User:Justgravy (Result: Page protected)

Page: Bexleyheath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roger 8 Roger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bexleyheath&oldid=997843376 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bexleyheath&diff=1006088639&oldid=1006082435
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bexleyheath&diff=1006165315&oldid=1006162603
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bexleyheath#Historic_County_in_Lead [diff]

Comments:

I am starting to get exasperated at my treatment on Wikipedia. When I make a BOLD edit that gets reverted and then I revert it back I get accused of edit warring. If someone else makes a BOLD edit and I revert it, they then revert it again and accuse me of edit warring, where is the logic in that? I want to discuss this in the talk page but the original version should be restored whilst this discussion is taking place! That is what I have been made to do before, so why is it one rule for me and one rule for everyone else?Justgravy (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:91.187.75.250 reported by User:Dorian Gray Wild (Result: No violation)

Page: Erez Da Drezner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.187.75.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "WTF?!"
2. 12:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC) A single edit in the English Wikipedia. No edit summary.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "91.187.75.250, kindly discuss your changes here instead of edit warring".
2. 19:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC) No replay in the 91.187.75.250 talk page.

Comments:
A ticket #2021021210001638 was opened at the WP response team.
31 sources were supplied in the article, most were secondary, including Ynet, Calcalist and Israel Hayom. It was clearly WP:HOUND. Dgw (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I do not see any evidence of edit warring here. The IP editor in question has only made 2 edits, total, with no other editor placing any test/notability/other templates on their talk page, or trying to discuss the changes with them. The first edit to the IP's talk page being a uw-1rr template without any other discussion, as well as opening a report here, seems a little bitey. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The avoidance of other edits as well as the edit summary: "WTF?!" points out the intention of the anonymous to bite the article as well as its creator.

{{Uw-1rr}} was put only after the "WTF?!" edit summary.

I did not find any reason to escalate it to {{Uw-3rr}}.

The anonymous did not respond the article's talk page nor its talk page. It is not a new user. A new user from Andorra does not put in its first edit, a notability template of a model person from a totally different place. Dgw (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I've seen stranger first edits... and with no edits since, there's no evidence that a uw-test1 or uw-disruptive1 template would not have had the same effect without being as bitey... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Due to what was formerly written, It is definitely not a test nor a disruption. The anonymous is focused only upon this article and its creator. I shall not revert any edit war, but leave it to administrators. If you try to revert the anonymous edit, you will find out that it would be undone promptly. Dgw (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• No violation – So far there are only two reverts. If this continues, report again. Anyone who believes that Erez Da Drezner is not notable can file at WP:AFD. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Achemish reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: Page protected)

Page: Hadrut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Achemish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Population */ There's a very specific baseless claim being made here that Armenians "captured" the town in October 1992. That can be added in if there's a source."
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC) to 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006358796 by CuriousGolden (talk) Again, capture is the WP:NPOV appropriate term here, and it is how international media has referred to it. Please take it to the talk page if you disagree and present a coherent argument to the contrary."
   2. 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Hadrut was never "captured" during the first NK war"
3. 17:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006132856 by CuriousGolden (talk) The 193 civilians killed is a made up figure by the Azerbaijani government, there's no real source collaborating it. The town was mostly abandoned by the time the battle happened, just like Hadrut. Expulsion is correct for describing the *forced* displacement of civilians through armed force, even if they left themselves. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply here, it's a fair comparison"
4. 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006064567 by CuriousGolden (talk) The Azerbaijani population is described as “expelled” from Shushi in the demographic section for the Shushi article, but the population has already left before Armenian forces captured it. Also, Hadrut had not been captured by Azerbaijani forces, recapture is not appropriate here."
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC) to 21:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 21:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Population */ Rewrote population description"
   2. 21:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC) "/* History */ Hadrut was never "captured" during the first NK war, fixed the history text to reflect that."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hadrut."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Lengthy report. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The topic is covered by the Arbitration Committee — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Response: From Wikipedia definition of 3RR, "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". Note that with that definition, I have made 4 series of reverts on this page in total: at 21:37 on 2/10 17:58 on 2/11, 19:22 on 2/12 (counted as 1 revert with the 19:41 on 2/12 revert), and 19:55 2/12. There have been at most two reverts within a 24 hour period, so I have not violated the 3RR rule. My reverts have also been in good faith and well-substantiated. Note especially the last revert undoing where User:CuriousGolden added a completely unsourced and unsubstantiated claim of the town being captured by Armenian forces in 1992, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadrut&oldid=1006358985, while continuing to push the replacement of "captured" with "recaptured". Achemish (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Note: I also wanted to add a very important note, I noticed that User:Solavirum wrote "Back up there; we don't need denialism of atrocities" on one of my reverts in response to me writing "The 193 civilians killed is a made up figure by the Azerbaijani government, there's no real source collaborating it. The town was mostly abandoned by the time the battle happened, just like Hadrut. Expulsion is correct for describing the *forced* displacement of civilians through armed force, even if they left themselves. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply here, it's a fair comparison". I want to be clear that I in no way intended to engage in denial of atrocities, and fully recognize the suffering of Azerbaijani civilians through instances such as the Khojaly massacre for which the Armenian side is responsible. I am pointing out the specific claim of 193 civilians being killed in the 1992 Capture of Shushi/Shusha is extremely dubious; I have read a lot of related material and this is the first time I have come across this claim. Investigating, I can only find the Azerbaijani government source for this claim with no collaborating evidence, is why I believe it to be a made up figure. Achemish (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Additional Response: User: CuriousGolden is the one edit warring: Ok, after going back and reading through the revision history, I want to point out that I think User:CuriousGolden actually might fall under the definition of edit warring here, not the other way around. 1. Introduction of the conflicting term "capture" vs "recapture" Before I had begun editing the article, the wording "capture" had been present in the article as reference to the 2020 capture of the city by Azerbaijani forces since the capturing happened. There was no use of the term "recapture". I added a demographic table and included text referring to this "capture" in the table. CuriousGolden then made the first edit changing the wording to "recapture" here, when also changing the wording of expulsion vs displacement of civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadrut&type=revision&diff=1006064567&oldid=1006064319. The reason given is "WP:NPOV wording; population left town before the battle", nothing to do with the "capture" vs "recapture" terminology. 2. First revert by me and first revert by CuriousGolden I reverted this first edit, providing the reason for both of the changes: "The Azerbaijani population is described as “expelled” from Shushi in the demographic section for the Shushi article, but the population has already left before Armenian forces captured it. Also, Hadrut had not been captured by Azerbaijani forces, recapture is not appropriate here.". CuriousGolden then made the first revert here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadrut&type=revision&diff=1006132856&oldid=1006068401, where they said "Rv Azerbaijanis hadn't left Shusha before the battle (hence 193 of them died during it), also WP:OTHERSTUFF", which only addressed the change in wording for the expulsion of civilians, but NOT for the "recaptured" terminology they were trying to introduce. 3. Second revert by me for same reason and second edit by CuriousGolden, introducing terminology to rest of article I revert this edit here, with this reason: "The 193 civilians killed is a made up figure by the Azerbaijani government, there's no real source collaborating it. The town was mostly abandoned by the time the battle happened, just like Hadrut. Expulsion is correct for describing the *forced* displacement of civilians through armed force, even if they left themselves. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply here, it's a fair comparison". CuriousGolden then made this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadrut&type=revision&diff=1006358796&oldid=1006352610 replacing "capture" with "recapture" throughout the article, with the explanation " capture -> recapture". Thus, after I had already previously reverted the change in terminology and presented a counter-argument, CuriousGolden twice continued to push this edit without providing a reason/response to my argument. 4. Third revert by me and revert by Solavirum I revert this new addition once more here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadrut&type=revision&diff=1006412284&oldid=1006358985, with the comment "Again, capture is the WP:NPOV appropriate term here, and it is how international media has referred to it. Please take it to the talk page if you disagree and present a coherent argument to the contrary." Note that I have now invited CuriousGolden to discuss this change in the talk page, and have reverted this attempt at introducing the new terminology twice, with an argument each time, while CuriousGolden fails to provide any reason for the attempted change. At this point, user:Solavirum reverts my revert here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadrut&type=revision&diff=1006416765&oldid=1006415560., with the comment, "Restored revision 1006358985 by CuriousGolden (talk): Be bold, but not reckless. Armenians being the majority in the town doesn't mean that the town was under Armenian military control. Also, don't edit war". Yet, "Be bold, but not reckless" refers to the person pushing the change ; that is not me, that is CuriousGolden is the one violating the Be bold, but not reckless here, by continuing to push this new terminology without providing a single argument to it. Summary: I am sorry if I am being overly repetitive here, but to summarize, CuriousGolden attempted to introduce this new terminology without a reason and I reverted it multiple times with proper arguments for the term "capture" and invited them to discuss in the talk page. Furthermore, CuriousGolden has attempted to introduce the same new terminology in Shusha as discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shusha#Capture/Recapture_in_Demographic_Table_and_Elsewhere_in_Article, which has resulted in that page being admin protected due to edit warring. Thus, I find it ridiculous that I am the one being accused of edit warring here. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia yet, but it seems that CuriousGolden is clearly violating the WP:BRD cycle. CuriousGolden was "bold" by introducing the "recaptured" edit. I reverted it with a proper counter-argument. The next step was discuss, which CuriousGolden did NOT do, opting to continue pushing the new change multiple times, without EVER providing a reason. I reverted multiple times, each time providing a reason and inviting the discussion step, but CuriousGolden continued to push the new change. Not only that, but they broke the WP:BRD cycle on Shusha as well for the exact same purpose. Thus, this seems like a pretty clear cut instance of edit warring. I am not familiar with how this arbitration process works, but I would like to report CuriousGolden for edit warring as I have described. Achemish (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Additional comment by other editors: Achemish continues his/her editorial behavior as seen here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Solavirum, this edit was made prior to the creation of this report, AND was included in this report. Furthermore, this edit was completely legitimate and was NOT in violation of 3RR. Thus, I am unclear as to why you are bringing it up here, especially with the insinuation that I am edit-warring after being warned here. There have not been any edits/reverts made on the Hadrut page since this report was created. Achemish (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Achemish, you clearly, as you said, don't know how the process works. If you were right or wrong in a dispute is irrelevant to the number of reverts. The only exception for breaking 3RR is reverting very obvious vandalism. "Reporting" me in response when I have made a total of 2 reverts on the article isn't so wise either (you have to make over 3 edits to break 3RR). Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC) CuriousGolden, you clearly either did not read or ignored what I wrote. I did NOT break the 3RR rule here (only 2 reverts were made in a 24 hour period), which is why this report is ridiculous. Furthermore, nowhere did I accuse you of breaking the 3RR rule. I am instead accusing you of pushing an edit repeatedly without reaching a consensus on the matter and ignoring requests to discuss it and resolve it in the talk page, thus creating this edit-war. Specifically, from WP:BRD: "Do not edit war. Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block. The objective is to seek consensus, not force one's own will upon other editors. If you encounter several reverts, it is best not to escalate the situation by reverting again. Instead, try to build consensus through seeking additional input. Several methods for this are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution." This is exactly what you did. You failed to follow the BRD cycle, and ignored the need to build consensus. Sure, you did not violated 3RR, but that is not the only definition of edit-warring. Achemish (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Achemish, yeah I'd definitely recommend giving WP:EDITWAR another read. Actually, looking at the page again I've done 1 revert, which was this. You, on the other hand, reverted my 1 revert instead of making a discussion about it, thus breaking WP:BRD (which you cite a lot, but haven't seemed to read). Noticeboards aren't for bickering. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC) CuriousGolden, your 1 revert was a revert of my revert of your edit, thus following the logic you just laid out, you broke WP:BRD by reverting my revert instead of making a discussion about it. I fail to see how I am misunderstanding BRD, it keeps coming back to this: "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.". In your 1 revert, you restored your change instead of discussing it. (And then went on to make more of the same change). Achemish (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Achemish, right and you followed WP:BRD by reverting my revert again? Isn't it a little ironic? And none of my later edits even touched the thing you reverted, so, avoid baseless accusations. Cheers, bye. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected – 1 week. Your further options are explained at WP:Dispute resolution. It is disappointing that there has been so little usage of the talk page in the last month. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:103.111.122.249 reported by User:Aseleste (Result:blocked 31h)

Page: Economy of Kolkata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 103.111.122.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC) to 05:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 05:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "India.According to recent estimates of Kolkata's economy is more than $50 billion nominal GDP making it third most-productive metropolitan area in India, after Mumbai and Delhi.Kolkata's GDP on 2020 $50 Billion"
   2. 05:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "India.According to recent estimates of Kolkata's economy is more than $50 billion nominal GDP making it third most-productive metropolitan area in India, after Mumbai and Delhi.Kolkata's GDP on 2020 $50 Billion"
   3. 05:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Kolkata's economy is more than $50 billion nominal GDP making it third most-productive metropolitan area in India, after Mumbai and Delhi."
2. 05:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "India.According to recent estimates of Kolkata's economy is more than $50 billion nominal GDP making it third most-productive metropolitan area in India, after Mumbai and Delhi.Kolkata's GDP on 2020 $50 Billion"
3. Consecutive edits made from 05:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC) to 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 05:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "According to Brookings Institution, Kolkata's GDP on 2020 $50.447 Billion"
   2. 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "India.According to recent estimates of Kolkata's economy is more than $50 billion nominal GDP making it third most-productive metropolitan area in India, after Mumbai and Delhi.Kolkata's GDP on 2020 $50 Billion"
4. 04:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "According to Brookings Institution, Kolkata's GDP on 2020 $50.447 Billion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Economy of Kolkata."
2. 04:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Please stop reverting */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I tried to talk to them on their user talk pages. Only Polling 2 (talk · contribs) responded but continued to revert. Also, 103.111.122.249 (talk · contribs) could be a sockpuppet of Rsajim (talk · contribs). ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 05:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ymblanter (talk)

User:Riteinit reported by User:Lord Belbury (Result: Indefinite)

Page: Romford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Riteinit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Deleted unsubstantiated inaccurate information."
2. 16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC) "Deleted unsubstantiated nonsense about historic counties."
3. 00:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Removed conjecture about historic counties. Wikipedia itself calls them former counties which means they no longer exist. To say a place is in a non existent county is inaccurate and misleading."
4. 12:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "Wikipedia itself calls historic counties 'former counties' which means they no longer exist. To say a place is in a county that no longer exists is inaccurate and misleading."
5. 11:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "Cleaning up the sentence"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Romford."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Four reverts of the same edit in three days, of a change being discussed at Talk:Romford. Identical edit warring on the leads of many other London articles. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mgkfact this may be a sockpuppet giddy with the freedom of being a throwaway account. Lord Belbury (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for PA at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mgkfact and at Talk:Romford. Lourdes 09:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Drollwor reported by User:Spiderone (Result: Blocked)

Page: Don Omar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Drollwor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006708230 by Bonadea (talk) 'add information of Allmusic abot hist versatile of genres with reference'."
2. 06:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006686551 by Robvanvee (talk) 'the information about his genres is correct'."
3. 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006684351 by Robvanvee (talk) add information of the page of AllMusic with reference and information of the genres of the artist'."
4. 04:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006675265 by Robvanvee (talk) 'is one information correct and with reference'."
5. 03:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006671185 by Binksternet (talk) ' add information confirme and reference."
6. 03:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006670496 by Binksternet (talk 'information and reference confirme'."
7. 18:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006537327 by Robvanvee (talk) 'information correct'"
8. 09:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006498959 by Robvanvee (talk) 'information Confirme'."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135]

Comments:

Repeatedly adding poorly referenced material in violation of BLP policy. Has reverted 6 times despite warnings each time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely with a handful of sockses. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:85.255.236.86 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

Page: Impeachment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.255.236.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Censorship reverted. Trump was exonerated, and that is what this page will say."
2. 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Censorship reverted. Trump was exonerated, and that is what this page will say."
3. 18:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Censorship reverted. Trump was exonerated, and that is what this page will say."
4. 18:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Censorship reverted. Trump was exonerated, and that is what this page will say."
5. 17:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Censorship reverted. Trump was exonerated, and that is what this page will say."
6. 17:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Censorship reverted. Trumo was exonerated, and that is what this page will say."
7. 17:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Please stop trying to censor the truth. Trump was exonerated. That follows from the fact of the acquittal."
8. 17:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "He was exonerated. The Senate dismissed the charges each time."
9. and more reverts in quick succession ... MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [136]
2. [137]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am fighting obvious and blatant censorship. Trump was exonerated, but certain people, for whatever reason, don't seem to want that fact to be acknowledged. Wikipedia should not be censored, and I am duly fighting that censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.236.86 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked Favonian (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:77.28.13.206 reported by User:Bes-ART (Result: Blocked)

Page: Skore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); {pagelinks|Dropull}}; Pogon, Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Korçë (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all southern Albania article
User being reported: 77.28.13.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 77.28.13.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 77.28.13.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other IP's from the same geolocation

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

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

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

Comments: These IPs, which according to GeoLocator are in fact the same person, are persistently performing disruptive edits for weeks. It has been tried several times through Undo to make him stop with its edits but always continues with the same stubbornness to do the same thing Bes-ARTTalk 20:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for ethno-national disruption by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Yarscat reported by User:Zefr (Result: Both warned)

Page: Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Yarscat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006437800 by Zefr (talk) Unjustified and unargumented revert by Zefr with no explanation/response provided on talk page discussion."
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC) to 21:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 21:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Clinical research */ revised text on Sputnik-AZ trials, see Talk."
   2. 21:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Sputnik-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trials */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC) to 21:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 21:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Clinical research */ earlier reverted information on Sputnik-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trials is now mentioned as a seperate trials with some changes (deleted information that trials have already started, changed date of announcment with a link to AstraZeneca press-release). Plus provided update on the current status of trials with a link to MoH of Azerbaijan approval. If community is not happy with this compromise- just move this part down the page as a separate par."
   2. 21:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Sputnik-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trials */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "/* AstraZeneca Ph I collaboration */ new section"
2. 15:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "/* AstraZeneca Ph I collaboration */ correction - it's a limited Ph II study"
3. 16:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC) "/* AstraZeneca preliminary Ph II collaboration */ c"
4. 16:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC) "/* AstraZeneca preliminary Ph II collaboration */ c"

Comments:

User is warring over news without gaining talk page consent on whether to include a future event. Has passed WP:3RR. WP:NOTNEWS ("news...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion"), WP:CRYSTAL apply for article, WP:CON applies for talk page. User was warned on their own talk page before 3RR violation. Zefr (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Yarscat and User:Zefr are both warned. Each one may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. This is a dispute on whether a planned trial in Azerbaijan is important enough to deserve a paragraph in the article. Both sides have policy arguments they can use, so this is a pure matter of editor consensus. The two of you need to wait for the consensus to be found before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:DabYeetDab reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Indef pblock from article)

Page: Gina Carano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DabYeetDab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:02, 14 February 2021‎ (UTC) ""
2. 17:17, 14 February 2021‎ (UTC) "it wasn't only "conservatives" who used the hashtag. This seems like unnecessary politicization to me"
3. 18:09, 14 February 2021‎ (UTC) ""
4. 18:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 18:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [138]
2. [139]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [140]

Comments:

Edit history speaks for itself. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that diffs #3 and #4 above were consecutive edits. That still leaves 4 reverts in 24 hours. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User was previously asked politely not to edit-war on this page by a different user. Their obsession with scrubbing the article of any mention of Carano's "conservative" supporters suggests they are not here to build an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

From User:SreySros on the talk page: "DYD was previously reported here, [by User:Adolphus79] but that got archived without any result, I'm not sure why." Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from Gina Carano. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ragnimo reported by User:Ayaltimo (Result: )

Page: Mogadishu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ragnimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [142]
2. [143]
3. [144]
4. [145]
5. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147] [148] [149] [150]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [151] [152]

Comments:
I have repeatedly been followed and harassed by this user. He has edit warred with me on Hiraab Imamate page. [153] He followed me on Somalis and literally took out my source without any reason and calls it "unnecessary info". [154] but then he left alone realizing he went too far. I don't know how he's allowed to do this? He once accused me of being a sock puppet but the moderators proved to him I belong to nobody. [155] This is why he has personal issues with me is because he thinks I'm a sock puppet of the user he despises. I've used good faith and tried to talk him out but he keeps following me and harassing me. He's been giving me a hard time on Wikipedia. I'm not the only one who has engaged in an edit war with him. He has engaged with several other users who have warned him to stop edit warring for reverting three times. [156], [157] and me. [158] He has also been warned by the Arbitration for his edit war in Ethiopian–Adal War [159] but sadly he has blanked his page [160]. Just today I contributed to Mogadishu article and added extra additions and because of his personal issues with me, he decided to follow me and remove my addition without any reason. He is even vandalizing the page. In the sub-section, you'll notice the same sentences on the third paragraph in his revision. [161] This user is incredibly disruptive and causing nothing but trouble.

He has been caught lying and claims I copied and pasted a tiny sentence from him just for explaining the definition of nominal which I didn't when because when you look closely I said it differently. [162] & [163] but he uses this as a justification to remove all my other big contributions. He's not even against my sources it's just he's looking for another way to attack me. If you look at the history. I've only reverted twice the other times I was trying to work with him. [164] and [165] but he has broken the rules by reverting against me more than three times. [166] [167] [168] He deserves a block and a warning at best because he's done this more than once when you see the evidence in the first paragraph for reverting against other users three times under 24 hours.

I wish you moderators can see this for yourselves because this behaviour is totally unacceptable. This is clearly Wikipedia:harassment because if you scroll through his history he has been constantly following me. It's very clear he has a personal agenda against me, and he's broken the rules several times. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:MetalDiablo666 reported by User:UW Dawgs (Result: Both warned)

Page: The Cult (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MetalDiablo666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [169]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:50, 12 February 2021 [170]
2. 03:08, 12 February 2021 [171]
3. 04:36, 12 February 2021 [172]
4. 15:40, 12 February 2021 [173]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175], [176]

Comments:
Editor has 10k edits, but <10 article Talk discussions in the last 4 years.[177] I did not 3:RR warn on editor's Talk, but did so in passing on article Talk and paired with a ping to which they responded.[178] I am fully aware of WP:BOOMERANG and accept any outcome.

The editor's revert edit summaries are opaque and do not offer a clear content, policy, or citation rationale for removal of the existing "Tours" section which dates to April 2020.[179] My instigation of the article Talk discussion of the "Tours" section included direct references to identical content in similar artist articles and noted the addition of new citations.[180] Editor is very prolific with articles in the music category, in which "Tours" sections are routine content (AC/DC#Tours, Arcade Fire#Tours, etc.) as noted in my article Talk message.

The subsequent article Talk reply remained vague on the rationale, but implies the section would be acceptable only if I created an article for at least one of the tours.[181] However, the vandalism3 warning placed on my Talk instructed me, "It's your choice: you either create an article for at least one of the tours The Cult participated on, or stop adding."[182] which appears to be WP:OWNERSHIP. Note, the relevant WP:NCONCERT guideline states Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article.

That said, the desired outcome is the Tour content which conforms with both the guideline and cat norms is restored, with the editor engaging in a meaningful, policy-based discussion on the article's Talk for any improvements.UW Dawgs (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:MetalDiablo666 and User:UW Dawgs are both warned. Each of you may be blocked if you revert the article again before getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ayaltimo reported by User:Ragnimo (Result: )

Page: Mogadishu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ayaltimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [183]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]
4. [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [189]

Comments:
I opened up this notice board because i don't think there any resolution that come from it, i did try it with him on a different noticeboard i opened [190] to resolve a matter to avoid an edit war, where he added what i thought was original research but instead of explaining and defending it, he went on a personal rant. Standard thing is to create a personal conflict and throw arround accusations, vitcimizing himself like "stop following me".. "Stop touching my work" Despite the fact that these are pages i have been editing on regularly and are on my watch list and anyone can edit someone elses edit if it's done in good faith.

But only thanks to an uninvolved editor Boynamedsue for stepping into act as a rational civil mediator to all of this, we ended up resolving the matter and him removing the original research he added unto the page.

Afterwards he makes some questionable changes in the mogadishu page. Especially copying my own exact words from a previous talk page discussion onto the article itself like "Only exising in name". [191] [192]. Gave him my explanations for my changes and he ignores it and goes on these personal rants.

I have a feeling this editor is a troll and is being deliberately disruptive, and trying really hard to get into edit wars and to bait other editors like myself into it. He is basically doing WP:BAIT. His language and way of speak is trying to make everything into a personal conflict/beef, then comes at me like a victim 24/7 , mixes inaccurate information and OG on pages to compell me to respond and also then in the next breath is acting as if he is a fan and supporter of mine.

He has previously been reported for edit warring by another user [193] and recieved a warning [194] while dragging other editors into it.

Ragnimo (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Ragnimo reported by User:Ayaltimo (Result: )

Page: Mogadishu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ragnimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [195]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [196]
2. [197]
3. [198]
4. [199]
5. [200]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [201]
2. [202]
3. [203]
4. [204]

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

1. [205]
2. [206]

Comments:

Backstory/History

I have repeatedly been followed and harassed by this user. He has edit warred with me on Hiraab Imamate page. [207] He followed me on Somalis and literally took out my source without any reason and calls it "unnecessary info". [208] but then he left alone realizing he went too far. I don't know how he's allowed to do this? He once accused me of being a sock puppet but the moderators proved to him I belong to nobody. [209] This is why he has personal issues with me is because he thinks I'm a sock puppet of the user he despises. I've used good faith and tried to talk him out but he keeps following me and harassing me. He's been giving me a hard time on Wikipedia. I'm not the only one who has engaged in an edit war with him. He has engaged with several other users who have warned him to stop edit warring for reverting three times. [210], [211] and me. [212] He has also been warned by the Arbitration for his edit war in Ethiopian–Adal War [213] but sadly he has blanked his page [214].

Current issues

Just today I contributed to Mogadishu article and added extra additions and because of his personal issues with me, he decided to follow me and remove my addition without any reason. He is even vandalizing the page. In the sub-section, you'll notice the same sentences on the third paragraph in his revision. [215] This user is incredibly disruptive and causing nothing but trouble.

He has been caught lying and claims I copied and pasted a tiny sentence from him just for explaining the definition of nominal which I didn't when because when you look closely I said it differently. [216] & [217] but he uses this as a justification to remove all my other big contributions. He's not even against my sources it's just he's looking for another way to attack me. If you look at the history. I've only reverted twice the other times I was trying to work with him. [218] and [219] but he has broken the rules by reverting against me more than three times. [220] [221] [222] He deserves a block and a warning at best because he's done this more than once when you see the evidence in the first paragraph for reverting against other users three times under 24 hours.

I wish you moderators can see this for yourselves because this behaviour is totally unacceptable. This is clearly Wikipedia:harassment because if you scroll through his history he has been constantly following me. It's very clear he has a personal agenda against me, and he's broken the rules several times. Ayaltimo (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:PlainAndSimpleTailor reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Blocked)

Page: United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [223]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [224]
2. [225] (per this, this is also them editing while logged out)
3. [226]
4. [227]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [229]

Comments:
It is clear the editor has no intention of addressing the problem during discussion. FDW777 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Editory FDW777 is in fact the one edit warring. He has reverted multiple users work, ignores the talk page were people have tried repeatedly to discuss his poor behaviour with him despite his incivility. We all try so hard with him but really patience is now wearing thin. He is essentially trying to delete sourced material because he doesn't like it for whatever reason possibly because it counters his view of the legislation. He frequently acts like he owns the article PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You said stop lying just because you don't like something. Can't you do something constructive with your life FDW88 rather than just bulldozing other people's work? Try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, I sure you're probably not a bad person at heart, far to arrogant and prideful but have you considered counselling? is this behaviour a result of a lockdown?, and you claim I'm incivil? Wow..... FDW777 (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because your constant negative Trump like behaviour is driving everyone to their wits ends, when you claim a fact isn't a fact, because it doesn't agree with your alternate facts. PlainAndSimpleTailor (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef by User:El C for personal attacks after a complaint at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Realpatricio reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Blocked)

Page: Josh Warrington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Realpatricio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [230]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [231]
2. [232]
3. [233]
4. [234]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235]

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

Comments:
The fourth revert came after I reverted this nonsensical removal of sourced content. The user seems to be unhappy that two editors have removed a single sentence of puffery, has taken ownership of the content they added and decided to remove the whole lot. Just, no. I left a message on their talkpage explaining why the sentence was removed, but no joy. – ².O.^Boxing 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Solavirum reported by User:Steverci (Result: Topic banned per AE)

Page: List of people declared personae non gratae in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:24, 9 February 2021
2. 06:18, 10 February 2021
3. 16:54, 11 February 2021
4. 08:42, 13 February 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [238]

Comments:
These reverts were made on different days, however each edit removes the exact same cited information, so it could be considered gaming the system. I was restoring the article back to the status quo, while asking Solavirum to discuss any issues he has with the sources on the talk page. Solavirum continues to remove the sources and claim they are unreliable just because they are "Armenian sources", although none of them are listed as perennial sources. In the talk page consensus, two other users opposed Solavirum's edits, however he continues to remove the cited information. --Steverci (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is Steverci's 3rd report of the same user under 2 months. The edits provided by Steverci above are made on different days, thus not breaking WP:3RR and Solavirum has discussed the edits it on the talk page (Solavirum was the one who opened the discussion to prevent the edit wars), unlike Steverci who hasn't replied at all to Solavirum's latest comments in the talk page, where Solavirum specifically asked Steverci and another user if their edit was okay. What's more shocking is that Steverci themselves have made more reverts than the user they've reported at a grand total of five (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Seems like WP:BOOMERANG here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, as CuriousGolden said. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Solavirum has been indefinitely banned from the WP:ARBAA2 topic area per User:El C's closure of a related AE complaint. (In that report, diffs #9 and #10 are for edits of the article being discussed here). EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

User:73.159.229.5 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Wikipedia talk:No Nazis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 73.159.229.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006861850 by 174.254.192.112 (talk) These actions are abusive, and will be followed up on. I'm using the talk page for it's intended purpose."
2. 05:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006860942 by Acroterion (talk) Read your ref: "should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages""
3. 05:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006860942 by Acroterion (talk) I am demeaning the content of the article, not the authors. You are also on notice that you are an admin involved in a dispute."
4. 05:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006847400 by Acroterion (talk) I expressed my sincere opinion on a Talk page. Deleting comments you don't agree with is abusive."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 73.159.229.5 (talk): Trolling"
2. 05:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 73.159.229.5 (talk): Feel free to re-phrase your comments to not demean the authors"

Comments:

Determined edit-warring to post unconstructive forum chat-style griping at Wikipedia talk:No Nazis. They've gone to DRN claiming it's a dispute - it's not, it's an editor behavior issue. However, since I've reverted, I won't take administrative action. Acroterion (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I avoided this noitceboard because there is no ACTIVE edit war. I was trying to post a comment on a Talk page, which was on topic and not "forum-chat griping". While multiple editors, who clearly have a biased POV on the subject, have chosen to revert my comment (more than once), I was the only one trying to restore it, and I stopped. I chose instead to follow normal dispute procedures and gain a wider audience to resolve the dispute: "Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection."

It seems the routine resolution here is to block users, and not to discuss things. That's the opposite of what I want and what is the basis of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital."

More details about this dispute, especially from my point of view, can be found at the Dispute resolution board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:No_Nazis 73.159.229.5 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: DRN closed as trolling [239]. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't collaborate with racists, fascists, extreme right, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for proving me right: "To even argue against its positions is to label you a "racist" that should be banned from the site." 73.159.229.5 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

My response to that: A volunteer moderator describing a user's contribution to a Talk page as "trolling", when it clearly engages the topic, is not showing good faith. Dismissing the user's contributing as being too combative, when other editors made direct attacks on other users, without any sanction or comment from those involved, shows that this is a biased and partisan one-way standard to censor critiques. As for not using the Talk page, it's kinda hard to use when your comments keep being reverted in one-sided fashion. Please don't volunteer for dispute resolutions unless you are willing to show consideration to all sides.73.159.229.5 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours 331dot (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Pmbma (Result: Declined)

Page: Zvartnots International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Shirak Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Multiple Users (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zvartnots_International_Airport&oldid=996459720 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shirak_Airport&oldid=997284031

Diffs of the user's reverts: Zvartnots International Airport :

1. [240]
2. [241]
3. [242]
4. [243]

Shirak Airport :

1. [244]
2. [245]
3. [246]
4. [247]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] There have been various comments left by different editors after making edits and then reverting edits

Comments:
You may wish to take into account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content#Airlines_and_destinations The edit war is substantially about whether routes that Ryanair previously stated would be flown from these 2 airports should continue to be listed. The argument for continuing to list is from an Armenian News Agency in which the Armenian Civil Aviation Agency says Ryanair had shown intent to resume flights to Armenia (currently suspended). The other argument is that Ryanair on their website (www.ryanair.com) shows no sign of intent to fly to Armenia. On other airport articles, the general arbiter is whether one can state a precise date when flights will start or resume - if one can, then it shows active intent; if no precise date is available, then it's treated as only an aspiration (see guidance note 11 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content#Airlines_and_destinations). The question is therefore whether the news article provides sufficient evidence, or whether something stronger is needed as a source

• Hello, there may be an error somewhere because I am not involved in that edit war? Bouzinac (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Bouzinac is correct - I have listed Bouzinac's account erroneously. Bouzinac was making edits unrelated to the edit war. Please remove Bouzinac from the list of people potentially edit-warring Pmbma (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Declined as a malformed report. You must give the name of the editor you are complaining about in the report header. Your diffs are also unclear; they are edits by different people. You should notify whichever person you decide to report. Consider refiling the report if you can straighten this out. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

User:12.109.95.138 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Partial blocked 24 hours)

Page: Idiocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 12.109.95.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "MrConorAE are you reading what I am taken out? Why is this important to this movie? How is this neutral? Left wingers say Trump is like Idiocacy and that needs to be in this page? WHY"
2. 20:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1007169570 by MrConorAE (talk)"
3. 20:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "This has nothing to do with the movie. It's just liberal bias. Anyone could say the same stuff about Joe Biden. We all know wikipedia is far left but this is just dumb."
4. 20:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "Fixed liberal bias that has no fucking place in this page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [248]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [249] - leaving a message trying to respond to the edit summary (#1 above)
2. [250] - 3RR warning

Comments:

• This user seems to be a very persistent person intent on removing so-called "liberal bias" from the article. As I see it, the content is related to the film and cited, so it should be kept. The user has been warned multiple times, and I have attempted to talk to them, but nothing doing. — MrConorAE ^{(👤U | 💬T | 📝C)} 20:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours from this article only. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  C.Fred, thank you for your swift action, and thanks to Ifnord for reporting this user. Have an excellent day! — MrConorAE ^{(👤U | 💬T | 📝C)} 20:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

User:CaseyHudson reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: Block, Warning)

Page: Lauren London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: CaseyHudson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1006790141 by Aloha27 (talk)"
2. 17:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC) ""transitioning" is not a word. They only changed the Merriam Webster online dictionary, just recently, because of all of the idiots who started using this made-up term a few years ago."
3. 04:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC) ""transitioning" is not a word."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "/* February 2021 */ cmt re:transitioning"
2. 14:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "fix typo"
3. 20:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lauren London."
4. 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC) "/* February 2021 */ add another source for "transitioning". (Cambridge Dictionary)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC) on User talk:CaseyHudson "Warning: Edit warring on Lauren London."

Comments:

User claims "transitioning" is not a word. I have provided two dictionary sources on their talk page that he/she is incorrect. User reverted again after being warned for edit warring and to take it to the article talk page. User has not responded on their talk page.   Aloha27  talk  01:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I explained in my edit, more than once, why "transitioning" is not a word. Just because a term is added to an online dictionary, LAST WEEK, does not make it a word that SHOULD be used. There are MUCH better words that ALREADY EXIST IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, to describe what the writer is trying to express, INCLUDING THE WORD A USED TO REPLACE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FvckYouAloha (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Creating a new account (with an attack name) to continue the edits is not a good idea. Meters (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I explained in my edit, more than once, why "transitioning" is not a word. Just because a term is added to an online dictionary, LAST WEEK, does not make it a word that SHOULD be used. There are MUCH better words that ALREADY EXIST IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, to describe what the writer is trying to express, INCLUDING THE WORD A USED TO REPLACE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaseyHudson (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

4th revert here   Aloha27  talk  02:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked (edit warring and CU). Sock CU blocked. Meters (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note Casey Hudson and his attack account both now CU blocked (wanted to be sure this wasn't a Joe Job) and also for edit warring, and a username violation on the second account. However, this in no way excuses the behavior of Aloha 27. It is literally impossible for one person to edit war and the article history is perfectly clear that Aloha also edit warred. To be clear, there is no right or wrong in an edit war. Everyone who engages in edit warring is wrong, regardless fo the correctness of their editorial position. I'll leave it to another admin to decide if a block is needed for Aloha as well to drive that point home. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:CaseyHudson is already CU-blocked; User:Aloha27 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) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that. TBH, I didn't go back in the article far enough to see exactly who made the original edit with "transitioning" in the first place.   Aloha27  talk  21:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

User:PristinePlum reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Shooting of Cannon Hinnant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: PristinePlum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "please stop reverting. i added a reliable source showing pettit helped sessoms flee and you still reverted"
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC) to 22:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "consensus not needed for this, read talk page and previous edit summary. also please do not revert other uncontroversial edits including fact that pettit helped sessoms to flee"
   2. 22:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "added source"
3. 22:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "please don't revert other two uncontroversial edits. also just read talk page and nothing precludes including racial identities in the article. most articles like this throughout wikipedia include race of victim/perp in the lead section"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC) to 22:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "per reliable sources"
   2. 22:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 22:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "clarification"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 22:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Your edits to Mike Adriano */"
3. 22:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "spelling"
4. 22:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shooting of Cannon Hinnant."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Lead and race identification */"
2. 22:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Lead and race identification */"

Comments:

Despite multiple explanations, an active talk page discussion and lingering consensus, this person refuses to engage and instead insists on edit warring to restore their preferred narrative despite it violating WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and the consensus on the talk page. CUPIDICAE💕 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

User:𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 reported by User:Jr8825 (Result: )

Page: Occupation of Constantinople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1006866156

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1006937278
2. Special:Diff/1006966989
3. Special:Diff/1006986916
4. Special:Diff/1006988820

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1006973404

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Birleşik Krallık Osmanlı koloni bayrağı.png

Comments:
Violated 3RR in order to restore a factually inaccurate image pushing a nationalistic narrative. The image is a likely hoax, possibly originating in a Turkish language TV news website. I have nominated the file for deletion at Wikimedia Commons and provided details there. I removed the image from the article, and when the user reverted me I made it clear in my edit summary that I believe it should not be re-added while this process is ongoing as it will mislead readers. At best, this is a case of WP:ADVOCACY. Alternatively, it is a straight up attempt to maintain a WP:HOAX. I issued a warning after their second revert. Jr8825 • Talk 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• The things you describe are clearly written in the description of the file. First of all, wait for the deletion req's result, after the process is completed, the necessary procedures are already done. Finally "your believes" doesn't matter, history has already been written. Such an icon has been prepared in the past. --𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That is untrue. The title of the image (in Turkish) reads "United Kingdom Ottoman colonial flag" and the caption (in Turkish) states "The flag prepared by the United Kingdom for the Istanbul-based Ottoman colony that it planned to establish at the end of World War I". This is almost certainly misinformation, an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Edit warring means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. The template I left on your talk page explained this, and yet you continued to revert my edit and violated 3RR. Jr8825 • Talk 22:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I said "This is handkerchiefs (and this flag drawing) distributed by the British military administration (mean official) to the soldiers participating in the Gallipoli Landing." again. But discussion about the file continued on Commons, I'll say something else. Let's talk about the WP:3RR (like me, both of us) and WP:CYCLE (only you) rules you violated? You said "when you have seen that other editors disagree". I don't see editors, I see one (1) editor and this editor trying to remove this file in a hurry before the delete request is completed. The reason is not important but do not pretend that you are doing everything right and the other person is completely wrong. --𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR. I removed content that failed WP:V, and then reverted your attempt to re-add the image three times (which I wouldn't do lightly) in order to protect Wikipedia's integrity. I then stopped. Because you violated 3RR and reverted a fourth time, the infringing image is still live on the page. Jr8825 • Talk 13:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Edit: reworded for clarity. Jr8825 • Talk 01:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Volcycle reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Caution)

Page: 1828 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volcycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. undoing revert
2. no summary
3. This edit is correct

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: an3-notice template

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. notes about removing verifiable references, use if unverifiable footnote
2. explanation of scope added to talk page
3. unreferenced changes, referencing problems" added to talk page with ping

Comments:
At issue here is the removal of references in the "Results by state" section of the article, but election result numbers throughout the article are changed without clear reference (or explanation, or consensus) as well. Mikeblas (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties are approaching the 3RR limit, and I suggest they wait for agreement in their current talk page discussion before reverting again. The two editors appear to be well-intentioned but rather stubborn -- I don't understand why this has turned into a revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Obi2canibe reported by User:V3arrior (Result: No violation)

Page: Anuradhapura Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Obi2canibe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [251]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [252]
2. [253]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [254]

Comments:

• No violation – Nobody broke 3RR, but it is possible that reverting may continue. That would be a risky choice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Dhawk790 reported by User:Mikehawk10 (Result: )

Page: Uyghur genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dhawk790 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [255]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [256]
2. [257]
3. [258]
4. [259]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [260]

Comments:
This user reverted edits four times in fewer than 3 hours. The majority of reverts undertaken by this user appear to have been done in order to preserve the use of a deprecated, heavily biased source in the Uyghur genocide article. The other revert re-inserted that Radio Free Asia was U.S. government funded in a spammy way across the article. (On a related note, after engaging in this sort of edit warring, the user chose to open RfC on WP:RSN regarding the reliability of RFA. This is something the user is entitled to do, though the phrasing the user chose in the RfC indicates that they may have also engaged in a POVPUSH in their choice of how to characterize RFA.)

It should also be noted that the reverts came as the page was being substantially modified, so there is uncontested content on the page that does change as the diffs move forward in time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This "edit-warring" all took place well over 24 hours before this ANEW report was filed. It seems that MH10 initially was hoping to railroad the discussion at RSN to establish a "consensus" that Radio Free Asia simply "is reliable" in most contexts and does not require in-line attribution, and then once it seemed that the RFC was not going his way ("his way" meaning a WP:SNOW consensus in favour of declaring RFA to be "reliable"; I do not know what the ultimate outcome will be) he decided to tendentiously request that DH790 be blocked for a string of separate edits that arguably only constitute two separate reverts. I would suggest this be closed with a stern warning for the filer and perhaps a slightly less stern warning for the reported user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To respond to Hijiri88, I don't think what is being asserted regarding the discussion at RSN is a reasonable reading of what I am trying to do. I responded after the RfC was created, and it does not really appear like there was ever a chance for a WP:SNOW close, and I have not ever asserted that I was attempting to see a WP:SNOW close, so why assert that I had a secret motive to "railroad" an RfC? I have been engaging with you and others on that page in good faith, and I believe that I have offered substantive, well-sourced responses to engage with you and with other editors.

That being said, the edit warring noticeboard isn't for content disputes: it's for reporting edit warring, which I did rather soon after the 4 reverts occurred. And, per WP:3RR, we must recall that "[a]n editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" (emphases added). I believe that there are four separate edits involving reverts here, which I have listed above. You've stated that "string of separate edits only constitute two separate reverts". Would you please elaborate on what you mean by this, and what those two separate reverts are? I would like to better understand where you are coming from. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What you're doing is called wikilawyering. The conventional meaning of edit-warring is repeatedly reverting back in or out the same content, not making multiple edits that individually count as partial reverts within a specific time-frame, and if any of the above diffs constitute edit-warring ([261][262]), then Horse Eye's Back was edit-warring as well, but you chose to report only the editor you personally disagree with. Moreover, you made the conscious decision not to report Dhawk790 at the time that, you now claim, you believed them to be actively edit-warring, apparently because, at that time (now more than 72 hours ago), you believed that you could sufficiently undermine them through normal content dispute resolution procedures rather than trying to get them blocked for a wikilawyer-y reason. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. In this I did not intend to get in an edit war. I made revision that had an edit that had an error in it and twice I tried to correct it (I referred to the AP as the BBC), but that means I did two revisions in a row. An earlier one was because I disagreed with another edit. I discussed the issue with the other editor (see my talk page and the talk page of the Uyghur Genocide page). I promise I won't do anything like that again. Dhawk790 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Marguerite2003 reported by User:MrMimikyu1998 (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marguerite2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In less than ten minutes, Marguerite2003 reverted my edits after getting rid of the vandalism that they added on the 2021 article and I gave them a vandalism and edit war warning. Please help Kyu (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef as a sock by User:Yamla. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Julian Brandon reported by User:Rotideypoc41352 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Filipe Nyusi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Julian Brandon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version right before first revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC) removal of POV tag
2. 02:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC) removal of POV tag

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: denied unblock request, final warning and block notice, first edit warring warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: all from Gryllida on 17 February 2021: "I would suggest [keeping] the 'neutrality disputed' tag", "It would be appreciated if the tag stayed until someone goes through more than the first four paragraphs like I did.", "After someone adds a tag, could you please allow someone (not you) to check that issues have been fixed before removing it"?, "Personally I would interpret it as ability to remove the tag after this discussion is dormant"

Comments:
Behavior hasn't changed after a block or even more article talk page discussion, hence the report on 2RR. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

User denies Gryllida's agreement with previous assertions that others have already thoroughly explained why the tag should stay up. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Opened discussion about template wording here to make it more clear for other people in similar situation. Gryllida (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. Please use the talk page to try to get agreement. The steps of WP:DR are open. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Testuserx4 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked)

Page: Women in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Testuserx4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [263]
2. [264]
3. [265]
4. [266]
5. [267]
6. [268]

Comments:

The reported user has only made edits at Women in Iran, all of which have been disruptive and violates WP:POV, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:WAR and whatnot. He keeps removing sourced information which he deems "biased" and has been reverted by four different users, and been told by three users to take his concerns to the talk page, yet he continues this disruptive pattern, even now slowly treading the waters of WP:NPA, accusing others of "lying". --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Sangramz reported by User:Ayushsinha2222 (Result: EC protection)

Page: Karan (caste) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sangramz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• I fixed the article title to Karan (caste). This is an Indian caste dispute, and as such it falls under both WP:GS/CASTE and WP:ARBIPA. The filer of this report did not include any actual diffs, but history shows that Sangramz has made as many as 13 reverts of the article since 1 February. I am notifying User:Sangramz of this report and hope they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Karan (caste) is being placed under extended confirmed protection per WP:ARBIPA. When admins see an edit war on one of these caste articles, we often wonder if it is a case of caste glorification. It appears that Sangramz favors a source from 1884 by Sourindro Mohan Tagore, link here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Osh33m reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Weeknd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Osh33m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1007576921 by Neel.arunabh (talk) awaiting your response then. no need to revert to the new layout until we reach consensus."
2. 21:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1007576112 by Neel.arunabh (talk) but neither of you followed up with why you think this way. explain your reasoning on the talk page"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC) to 21:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 21:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1007571328 by Neel.arunabh (talk) please see the talk page"
   2. 21:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "/* 2016–2018: Starboy and My Dear Melancholy, */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC) to 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 18:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1007540700 by Walter Görlitz (talk) sir, you are the one who started this edit war for your preferred version. I was restoring the page to how it originally was for years. I looked at MOS: LAYOUT and the original layout wasn't problematic at all."
   2. 18:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "/* 2016–2018: Starboy and My Dear Melancholy, */ fixing italics"
5. 17:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1007539702 by Walter Görlitz (talk) no there aren't. this edit changes it from 5 to 4. 5 is fine and more sensible for his career"
6. 17:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Career */ as I said, these sections needn't be changed. the formatting was also off after having it be rearranged. Beauty Madness was the Weeknd's commercial breakthrough, so it should be lumped together with his following works"
7. Consecutive edits made from 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC) to 23:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1007350377 by Neel.arunabh (talk) these sections needn't be consolidated, a lot of things happened throughout his career from album to album"
   2. 23:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC) "/* 2015–present: Beauty Behind the Madness, Starboy, My Dear Melancholy, After Hours and Super Bowl LV half-time performance */"
   3. 23:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Weeknd."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Super Bowl Performance */ r"
2. 17:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Layout */ new section"
3. 18:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC) "/* Layout */ r"

Comments:

Well past 3RR and still insisting on his version on the talk page despite two editors explaining why it's probably not the best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sir, you are the one who started the edit war with your reverts. You and the other editor up until now haven't explained why "it's probably not the best" and I also gave my input as well and even said I am not opposed to the change. Now what do you want to do? Are you trying to get me banned? --Osh33m (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As was shown on the article's talk page, Neel.arunabh edited, you reverted and I commented in an unrelated edit. Neel.arunabh edited again, you reverted again. I agreed with Neel.arunabh's edit and I noticed that your edit was flawed and reverted you. You reverted me. You and Neel.arunabh have been exchanging barbs via edit summaries and on the talk page. You do not seem to understand what an edit war actually is if you I think that apply a revert is the start of an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please answer my question first before going on with the discussion: what do you want here? Do you want me to stop editing and be banned from wikipedia? --Osh33m (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to report you and let an admin determine if seven reverts in a 24-hour period against two different editors merits a block for edit warring or not. You will not be blocked for your first offence.

I also hope you stop showing WP:OWNership of the article in question and let others contribute in a constructive way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)