Page: Panjshir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheGr8Scorpio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First edit which was a revert: [2] 11:52, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,310 bytes −1,079‎ Citations from Indian Media on Pakistan, should be dismissed especially concerning Politics/geopolitics
2. [3] 11:58, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,326‎ Not taking it - Discuss it on Talk page | revision 1042719462 by Georgethedragonslayer (talk)
3. [4] 12:06, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,326‎ Only Indian Media is reporting on this - that in itself should be suspicious - replied on Talk page | Undid revision 1042720068 by TolWol56 (talk)
4. [5] 12:09, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,326‎ You call that trolling? Bring an Admin - or talk on talk page | revision 1042720839 by TolWol56 (talk)
5. [6] 12:16, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,326‎ Talk page, still fake news, until u bring a reliable source | Undid revision 1042721112 by Applodion (talk)
6. [7] 12:31, 6 September 2021‎ TheGr8Scorpio talk contribs‎ 82,063 bytes −1,260‎ "Intended Disruption" - what is this, ganging up? Undid revision 1042723329 by AnM2002 (talk)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

Comments:

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. AnM2002 (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@AnM2002: And being ganged up by various other users who's purpose it is to further propaganda, that's all fine, I assume yes? I said, bring a reliable source, that isn't Indian Media which is consistently spreading fake news, and seems to be having a field day in regards to Panjshir and Pakistan. Yet no other reliable source was cited and it seems that Indian hyper nationalists just want to ensure that (fake) news by Indian newspapers are endorsed. Notice how quickly the edit regarding India's involvement was reverted, and no one questioned it. Yet when it came to Pakistan ... :••TheGr8Scorpio ^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 12:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CIR. Just because India Today happened to cover the event, and you don't like it, it does not mean that fake news is being peddled. Playing a victim won't justify your disruption but only prove that you are WP:NOTHERE.

@El C: Can you take a look into this since you moderated this page recently?AnM2002 (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@AnM2002: It's not solely due to India Today, it's the fact that Indian Media is solely covering it. Republic India, had been showing footage from a video game, claiming "Airstrikes in Panjshir", and the fact that images of old fighter jets are being spread as "Pakistan Air Jets knocked out of the sky". You know well it's not verifiable and only want to endorse Indian Media, but not verify the actual news. Don't try and turn this on me, when I'm trying to verify the news. :••TheGr8Scorpio ^{(Let's Talk? 🙂)} 13:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about IFCN certified "India Today", not your imaginary and non-existing "Republic India". Have a better understanding of WP:RS when you are back from the block. AnM2002 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr. Oreki Sama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments:

Originally posted at WP:ANI.

Since he joined at the beginning of September, user Mr. Oreki Sama has attempted to remove a list of Miraculous movies from the show's list of episodes, against consensus for their inclusion on lists of episodes (e.g. List of Sid the Science Kid episodes#Movie and List of Steven Universe episodes#Film (2019)). His reasoning: It's a place to add episodes not movies and Movies are part of Miraculous not part of Episodes, so logically no need to add them here (I believe he means that because they're "movies" and not "episodes", they shouldn't belong on a "List of episodes") But as I pointed out, other TV show episode lists add specials and movies (using the aforementioned Sid the Science Kid as an example) but he only reverted me again (his fifth revert in four days) with the summary Don't compare to others (sic) pages, films aren't episodes Don't add them here. I and another editor have restored the movies several times, but he keeps removing them. I don't know what to do anymore. Please help. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Miracusaurs and User:Mr. Oreki Sama are warned. Either may be blocked if they add or remove any films from List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes without getting a prior consensus on the talk page for their change. The question of whether to include films in the episode list can be taken to WP:Dispute resolution. For example, WP:DRN or WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  EdJohnston, Mr. Oreki Sama is continuing to edit war. Woodroar (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Mr. Oreki Sama has now been blocked by another admin after removing a report at ANI about the same dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Siege of Plevna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042805843 by Njd-de (talk) second parapgraph of this article, "king Carol of Romania" etc. it's a Russo-Romanian victory, it had this result for almost 10 years."
2. 21:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "citation to a reliable source"
3. 20:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "It's written even in this article, King Carol of Romania took the command of the Russo-Romanian troops, ergo a Russo-Romanian victory hence the king of Romania was the general."
4. 18:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Sources cite King Carol was put as the chief commander of the Russo-Romanian troops, ergo it's a Russo-Romanian victory."
5. 17:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Source says it was a Russo-Romanian victory, half of the generals were Romanians."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
2. 21:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Siege of Plevna."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No attempt at non-edit-warring by reported user despite some comments (beyond the warnings) left on their talk page (such as mine). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note the similarly disruptive edits on Toto Wolff, and the I-don't-hear-it-is on my talk page... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Head tie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Doug Weller has started an edit war"
2. 19:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Someone keeps removing the content relevant to African American women. Please investigate."
3. 17:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
4. 17:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
5. 17:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "Add content"
6. 17:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "added content"
7. Consecutive edits made from 20:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC) to 20:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
   3. 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Added and corrected content"
   4. 20:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo fix"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Head tie"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC) "‎Discussion: new section"

Comments:

They have been edit warring against multiple editors from the moment they joined the project, ignoring all warnings on their talk page and the latest invite to join a discussion about their edit. The link between their username and the content that they keep adding to the lead section (about ADOS) is also worth noting. M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, ADOS stands for American Descendants of Slavery and a number of edits by this person add this term, which of course excludes black Americans not descendants of slaves. They don't understand our sourcing policy, isinglass unreliable sources at times, sources that don't mention ADOS, or no sources. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. This user doesn't seem to understand our sourcing policy. They have now been reverted by four different editors at Head tie. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:29, 3 September 2021: [18]
2. 14:45, 3 September 2021: [19]
3. 15:52, 3 September 2021: [20]
4. 21:35, 3 September 2021: [21]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments:
Zefr reverted 3 different editors (Cerebral726 once, myself twice, and Pyrrho the Skeptic once) within the span of 7 hours, despite no one else supporting his arguments in the talk page discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Two editors ignoring WP:MEDRS do not make a consensus over a dispute of just a few hours, with plentiful unanswered discussion on the article talk page. Editor Cerebral726 withdrew, indicating no consensus. More time is needed for editor review, and other medical editors have been requested to assess the article content, proposed source, and talk page discussion. I will make no further changes for now. The editor filing this notice was also warned of 24 hour WP:3RR on their talk page earlier today. Zefr (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Zefr is the only person who has been ignoring WP:MEDRS, in favor of their own invented interpretation of it. You can read the talk page discussion to verify this for yourself. Regardless, they violated 3RR which they are well aware of (as they have been blocked for edit warring 3 times previously). Nosferattus (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

And now Zefr is canvassing specific editors to join the dispute[25][26][27][28] (rather than inviting participation from WT:MED or WT:PLANT which would be acceptable). This sort of battleground behavior needs to end. Nosferattus (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I just want to add that Zefr appears to be canvassing from a handful of editors who often take the same extreme POV in these types of disputes. This closely resembles WP:VOTESTACKING "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. " Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Defending the page from demonstrably new editors who dont appear to understand how medical sourcing gets done here on wikipedia should not be sanctionable, and I do not expect admins to take any action here. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I object to that statement. There is nothing in WP:MEDRS to back up Zefr's argument, much less justify unilaterally reverting 3 different editors (who are all extended confirmed, not newbies) and violate 3RR. Your argument is basically "Zefr's been here longer so the rules don't apply to them." Nosferattus (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. I suggest that questions about the biological effects or medical uses of Gingko might be presented in one or more formal WP:RFCs. Whether canvassing took place is now being discussed at AN. The value of WP:MEDRS to the encyclopedia is well-known, but disputes about its proper scope should be handled by conventional WP:Dispute resolution. If it's worth expending so many words on Talk and going to the noticeboards, you could at least create and advertise a real RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Claudy bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdaly81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Restoring names/ages of people killed from this version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:
Article is under a 1RR restrction per WP:TROUBLES. FDW777 (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Trying to engage with user FDW777 about the glaring inconsistencies in this page and other pages in regards WP:TROUBLES who will not even attempt to an open discussion. Jdaly81 (talk)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Graham Linehan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Once again including edits for accuracy/precision primarily to avoid an ideological bent, along with appropriate referencing so sources are open and clear. I've also added a reference to The Verge to provide further viewpoint on Linehan, in response to previous editor's apparent concern regarding "consensus." Any attempt to revert to an unsourced version, without the addition of proper references would be counter-productive & ultimately damaging to the usefulness of the article as a fact source."
2. 15:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Once again including edits for accuracy/precision primarily to avoid an ideological bent, along with appropriate referencing so sources are open and clear. I've also added a reference to The Verge to provide further viewpoint on Linehan, in response to previous editor's apparent concern regarding "consensus." Any attempt to revert to an unsourced version, without the addition of proper references would be counter-productive & ultimately damaging to the usefulness of the article as a fact source."
3. 14:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "For some reason an editor removed all sourcing and reverted to an unsourced, tendentious version. It is preferable for this article to be fact-based and non-ideological to the greatest extent possible. Any efforts to remove sourcing and revert to an unsourced, uncorroborated, and unverified version would be detrimental."
4. 14:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Added references; edits for precision/accuracy; and removed apparently baseless, or at least highly suspect claims, including that Linehan is "antitransgender." While he certainly has been involved in a fair bit of controversy, any fair-minded person delving into his views will find they're essentially gender-critical or anti-gender ideology which is not at all the same as being against transgender people."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Graham Linehan */ 3rr warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Discussion already underway (although one editor there was blocked on the 5th September)

Comments:

Editor was advised to discuss on Talk, where an active discussion on transgender issues in the article is already underway. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

MY Response: all edits are fact-based and clearly meant to provide support and references to avoid ideological bent of the article and to allow readers to openly see the underlying basis for language included in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasannajmi (talk • contribs)

I checked this reference you added in your edit. It doesn't even mention Graham Linehan. See WP:NOR. FDW777 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Continuing to edit war despite this report. FDW777 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And more of the same. FDW777 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Clear IDHT in Sasannajmi's response, block needed here urgently. The "response" does not in fact address any of what edit warring is: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Nor is there an understanding of the bright-line rule 3RR that it is never acceptable to violate. — Bilorv (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Hurricane Laura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 74.134.231.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042971354 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
2. 17:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042971188 by MoonlightVector (talk)"
3. 17:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042971079 by MoonlightVector (talk)"
4. 17:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042970918 by MoonlightVector (talk)"
5. 17:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1042965021 by CycloneFootball71 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Hurricane Laura."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A mega edit war on the page, one of the vandalism wars MoonlightVector 17:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for one month by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Chrissy Teigen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 84.9.64.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC) to 15:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 15:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 15:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Chrissy Teigen."
3. 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on John Legend."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warring on Chrissy Teigen and John Legend on the number of their children. I'm not reverting again, but this IP is not paying attention to the RfC result but simply overwrites what they want. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Notice this edit where the IP changes the hidden comment to mis-state the RfC result. This suggests that the IP editor is consciously planning to ignore the consensus reached in the RfC at Talk:Chrissy Teigen#RFC. The closer said there was definite consensus against option '3', and weak consensus forming for option '2'. So listing 3 children in the infobox (as preferred by the IP) was rejected by those who participated. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Emily19911991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043104040 by Bluesatellite (talk) I have provided sources stating that! You are violating the rule by refusing to engage on the talk page. I have also started a RfC because you’re just playing games."
2. 10:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043102986 by Bluesatellite (talk) No, you do and someone else thinks it’s clunky. Reliable sources overrule your opinion anyway."
3. 09:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043092522 by Binksternet (talk) A consensus must be reached first. Your opinions expressed in the talk page carry no weight - stick to the reliable sources"
4. 08:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043091748 by Binksternet (talk) Check the talk page, I have provided sources. Don’t revert until discussed properly on the talk page."
5. 07:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043081394 by Ianmacm (talk) Wrong. The discussion was created two days and that isn’t a sufficient enough time to reach a consensus. I have given my input on the talk page."
6. 07:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043076308 by Ianmacm (talk) Reach a consensus first"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC) to 07:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Elvis Presley

Comments:

6 reverts in less than 6 hours, with the last revert coming after the user was warned about 3RR. Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41]

Comments:

• Blocked one week. I also blocked the user's IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Janice McGeachin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KidAd (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. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [diff]

Warned user not to 3RR in edit summary. [45]

Recent block for edit warring: [46]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

Comments First this user complained that the edit I made was "covered, almost verbatim" in a different section. Then the user re-edited it with a clear pov. When I responded that the sources I used were literally from today and the background was needed per BALANCE, the user then tried to claim I needed to follow ONUS. I responded that ONUS was unnecessary - (because by the user's own claim, the info was ALREADY in the article.) I warned the user not to 3RR and said the user could always RfC the multiple-sourced edit. Instead, the user continued to war and reverted it again. So here we are. X4n6 (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from involved user: Please note that I made two reverts (one and two). This is an independent edit. The more pressing issue here is clearly that X4n6 has outright refused to follow WP:ONUS, which states the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Instead of gaining consensus at my urging, they instead claimed here that the background is needed per WP:BALANCE. That one is going to need some explanation. KidAd • SPEAK 02:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Response

My comments and actions are already explained above. The content and edit log speak for themselves. X4n6 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We both made two reverts, but only one of us violated WP:ONUS. And it certainly wasn't me. KidAd • SPEAK 02:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 3 edits changing the content. And the BALANCE was needed because the re-edit you left was sheer pov pandering. What would make you think leaving a candidate's controversial tweet to stand by itself, during a campaign, would be just fine, and need no context for balance? Anyone who can misapply ONUS as easily as you did, has surely been around long enough to understand NEUTRAL. X4n6 (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Did I make three reverts or 3 edits changing the content? And this edit is problematic for several reasons. You use this AOL piece, which doesn't mention Janice McGeachin's name, to combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. That's obvious WP:SYNTH. Of course, this discussion should be occurring on the article's talk page, not here. KidAd • SPEAK 03:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

First, your complaint was that the material was "covered, almost verbatim" elsewhere in the article. Then it was that it wasn't included at all and needed consensus. Then it was that the ONUS was on me, despite the fact that it was all uncontroversial material from multiple RS. Now your latest is that somehow makes it SYNTH. So which is it? Nevermind, I'm done. If SYNTH was really your issue, why are you just bringing it up now? Why not while you were warring?? Furthermore, had you been seriously trying to edit collaboratively, all you would have needed to do is say that was your concern. Then I could have given you this ABC article that mentions the COVID spike in Idaho, their hospitals rationing care AND her name and that tweet all in the same article. Instead, all you're proving now is that you know your way around the rules, and you're desperate to find anything to throw against the wall to try to make something stick in your defense. But when you violated BALANCE and NEUTRAL, you knew exactly what you were doing and did so intentionally. You even tried to sucker me into a 3RR with you. Sorry, been around too long. We're done. I'll let admins deal with you and all your wikilawyering. They can already guess I'd recommend a significant block - not just for the warring, but for the attitude and total lack of remorse. IMO, if you get away with this now, you'll likely repeat and become an even more quarrelsome and tendentious nightmare for other users later. You obviously learned nothing from that 48hr block for warring in February. X4n6 (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware that non-admins could recommend punishments for other non-admins, but I will be the bigger person. Though X4n6's behavior has been poor, especially for an editor with their experience, I do not believe that they should be blocked for it. I do however, think that this user should be warned about following policy from an user with more authority than me, as they have made it perfectly clear that they are unwilling to acknowledge anything I have to say. KidAd • SPEAK 20:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor

There's a beautiful place for you two to to work this out. It's Talk:Janice McGeachin. Unfortunately, KidAd has telegraphed that s/he is not interested in any discussion by this edit summary: [48]. It seems s/he does not like to discuss things in general- see edit summaries:

• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]

as I've observed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not certain who you are exactly, but I'm sorry you feel that way. Based on those diffs, it seems like you were trying to make changes in an article based on WP:OR. Unfortunately, my memory on that specific issue is a bit foggy. As for "There's a beautiful place for you two to to work this out. It's Talk:Janice McGeachin," I am 100% in agreement with you. However, and I cannot say this enough, WP:ONUS still applies. If X4n6 is willing to follow that policy, I am more-than-willing to participate in a friendly discussion with them. However, ONUS is very clear. The responsibility to start that discussion is on X4n6, not me. I must admit that I did not closely read X4n6's WP:CHUNK, but I still fear that they misunderstand the concept of ONUS. Nowhere in that policy does it state that ONUS does not apply when a user is attempting to insert duplicate material in the article. It mystifies me that X4n6 has adopted this argument to support their blatant disregard for ONUS. KidAd • SPEAK 20:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You are not at all correcct - you kicked me off your talk page when I warned you after you added bunch of unsourced WP:BLP info including publishing a person's WP:DOB without a source [53] and you had just been warned about doing that. Let's see, how many elements of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing are we observing in your behavior? Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't appreciate allegations of tendentious editing or your maximization of my edit that added an unsourced birthdate. I am not perfect, and I am always open to accepting my mistakes. Howrver, per WP:DRC, If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it. I am well within my rights to remove any comments or notices from my talk page as I see fit. KidAd • SPEAK 20:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone really need more proof that you, KidAd, do not "play well with others?" It's always them, never you. For someone who claims to accept your mistakes, there's no evidence of it. And for the last time re: my complaint, you should probably retire your ONUS claims - before someone actually reads ONUS. Because they'll read the last sentence: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." "Disputed content" - and not, per your latest claim - "duplicate material." Problem is, there was no content (facts) in dispute. The info was all reliably sourced. And again, you claimed the info was already in the article. Therefore it obviously wasn't disputed content. So no ONUS. And no SYNTH either. And likely, no OR or anything else you want to try to accuse the other editor of as deflection from your own behavior. But we do now have a SECOND editor (and retired admin), calling you out for your tendentiousness. And the fact is, your attitude, bad wikilawyering and repeated misuse/abuse of policies & guidelines, coupled with your recent block history for the very same thing, do very little to defend you. And IMO, do even less to recommend leniency. X4n6 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:KidAd is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Janice McGeachin without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. In 2019, KidAd was banned from the topic of American politics under WP:ARBAP2. Later that year, they were blocked for as long as 3 months under terms of the same decision. Though no ban is currently in effect, an inability to edit neutrally in this area might call for a renewed ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HiChrisBoyleHere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:29, 8 September 2021: [55]
2. 11:29, 8 September 2021: [56]
3. 11:30, 8 September 2021: [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:
I discussed with HiChrisBoyleHere that there is a consensus from Wikipedia on how COVID-19 statistical charts should be presented to allow friendly visualisation of the charts for mobile users and also to avoid unnecessary scrolling on the statistical charts. Most Wikipedia pages maintaining statistical charts of the COVID-19 pandemic in their respective countries (please see Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina and Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil for reference) maintain statistical charts in linear format that allow visualisation of them in any device without too much detail on them. @HiChrisBoyleHere: has not provided alternatives to these issues discussed on their talk page, argumenting that the page has been maintained in their decided format for more than 2 years and ignoring previous consensus on how to maintain charts for the COVID-19 pandemic in Wikipedia pages of individual countries. He has reverted every of my edits including my update on statistical data today. Joplin201017 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Which part of my sentences you don't understand? I'm okay with less-than-950-width charts IF you could fix the dates issue (I've tried myself and didn't work). The problem is you couldn't do that, could you? Have you seen how horrible are the charts without spaces between the dates? And also which consensus saying that? Why didn't you send me the link? Why out of million of people who have seen the article, only you who make big fuss about it? I only agree if the suggestion improves the articles (such as splitting the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia into two parts (2020 and 2021)), but this one makes it worse (AGAIN, it could be better if you COULD fix the dates, which something you couldn't do). The articles you send look great because they have spaces between the dates. HiChrisBoyleHere (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@HiChrisBoyleHere: I have fixed the dates of the Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia page as you requested so now all the charts are in linear format for better visualisation on mobile with the dates being displayed in months. If you revert these contributions from other users as stated in this Wikipedia policy, including any updates of statistical data from reliable sources, you might be blocked due to edit warring. Thanks. Joplin201017 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Bauhaus (band) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Woovee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. – 7 Sep, 21:48 UTC – [61] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page
2. – 7 Sep, 23:00 UTC – [62] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page
3. – 7 Sep, 23:20 UTC – [63] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page
4. – 8 Sep, 00:29 UTC – [64] – Woovee removes talk page example text under discussion on the talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [66]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [67]

Comments:
Woovee has been removing the helpful display of talk page example text under discussion on the talk page, with the result that newcomers must take an extra step and examine a diff to understand or comment on the issue. My take on the situation is that Woovee is editing tendentiously, trying to make the process more difficult in order to influence the result by attracting fewer comments. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet didn't file the rfc, Lynchenberg did it. Consequently, Binksternet doesn't have any right to rewrite it and add a dubious long text to support Lynchenberg's view. Binksternet takes this issue personally as they had advised Lynchenberg earlier [68], & judging their reply, they want Lynchenberg's view to win. The current rfc version [69] includes the question "Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included?" which was written by Lynchenberg, and as ​Lynchenberg forgot to include the diff, it looks like a good compromise to add "refering this edit" with a wikilink including the diff, under the question of this rfc. May I add that Lynchenberg doesn't revert the actual presentation of the rfc, as one can see it in the history of the talk. So the edit warring is largely due to Binksternet who doesn't want to compromise. Woovee (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Woovee. Regardless of the correctness of your intentions, you seem to have broken WP:3RR on this article's talk page. There may still be time for you to promise to stop reverting the talk page. Otherwise, a block seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:EdJohnston, Binksternet has done three reverts in 24 hours on that talk page: it is edit warring as well. They didn't have any right to add a dubious long text in the presentation to support their friend's claim - this rfc was not theirs. This rfc is presented in a manner that doesn't present well the issue to my view, I will ask Lynchenberg to rephrase it tomorrow. Woovee (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Woovee argues that I should not have touched Lynchenberg's clumsy RfC post, as only Lynchenberg had the right to do so. Two contrary actions by Woovee speak against this argument: The first is that Woovee accepted my taking the RfC out from the end of one post where it was buried, and giving it its own section with a Level 2 header. The second is that Woovee made their own modification of the RfC text, changing "this material" to "this edit".[70] So it's clear that Woovee accepts that good-faith editors are allowed to modify an RfC to make it more presentable.

The non-neutral thing that Woovee is doing is making it more difficult for newcomers to understand and comment on the issue. Woovee is trying to prevent a new consensus from forming, and is impeding the process. Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring must be avoided, but I strongly disagreed with the appendix you put below the presentation. I did 4RR in a row, you did 3RR in a row.Woovee (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

to both of you; too trivial to issue blocks. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Konda Polam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Saiteja1705 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 15:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 13:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 13:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 13:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 11:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Konda Polam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is removing the poster of the film, either by just removing it from the infobox entirely or trying to replace it with non-free images uploaded to Commons improperly. BOVINEBOY2008 00:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Italian invasion of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ahmed88z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 05:36, 21 July 2021 GreenC bot

Diffs of the user's reverts (from most recent):

1. Latest revision as of 06:04, 9 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) rollback: 1 edit (Undid revision 1043215856 by Cinderella157 (talk) SEE TALK)
2. Revision as of 22:11, 8 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1043196426 by Loafiewa (talk))
3. Revision as of 21:05, 8 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) (just it)
4. Revision as of 19:39, 8 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1043161906 by Keith-264 (talk) see talk)
5. Revision as of 15:40, 8 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1043019485 by Cinderella157 (talk) see talk)
6. Revision as of 20:40, 7 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1042995574 by Loafiewa (talk))
7. Revision as of 20:35, 7 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1042970084 by Keith-264 (talk) Italy did not win a decisive victory)
8. Revision as of 17:47, 7 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1042969637 by Keith-264 (talk) see talk)
9. Revision as of 15:55, 7 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) Tags: Visual edit: Switched Reverted
10. Revision as of 22:13, 6 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) (Add more details)
11. Revision as of 16:35, 6 September 2021 Ahmed88z (talk | contribs) (The allies won and occupied Libya at the end of the year)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

See also: The editor was blocked for edit warring: Revision as of 17:11, 5 August 2021 Ponyo (talk | contribs) (→‎Block notice: new section)

The editor was further blocked for block evasion: Revision as of 17:19, 11 August 2021 Favonian (talk | contribs) (You have been blocked from editing for abusing multiple accounts.)}}

Regarding the victory of Italy, Italy did not win this war decisively, as it advanced and took control of the city of Sidi Barani only and for a short time, after which the British forces attacked the Italian forces and captured a large number of them, and even occupied Cyrenaica in Libya and then Italian Libya fell--Ahmed88z (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Italian invasion of Egypt
2. Talk:Italian invasion of Egypt#The Italian victory
3. User talk:Keith-264/Archives/ 4#About the Italian invasion page
4. User talk:Cinderella157#Italian invasion of Egypt

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [72]

Comments:
The scope of the article is an invasion that occurred between 9-16 September 1940 with the capture of Sidi Barrani. While the Italians were subsequently expelled from Egypt in December of that year, that operation is outside the scope of the article. There is no dispute in the sources that the invasion was an Italian victory (even if short-lived). The guidance at MOS:MIL and at the template documentation is quite explicit on the subject of the result parameter. It has been put into place to avoid such quibbling. The editor has been referred to the guidance on multiple occasions - both in talk posts and in edit summaries. However, it would appear to me to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It may be asserted that, because of their prior block, the editor was reasonably aware of 3RR (and the consequences) prior to the most recent notification. The actions of the editor, beyond 3RR, appear to me to be tendentious and disruptive. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: United States Marshals Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 150.101.89.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]
4. [77]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [79]

Comments:
Straight 4RR vio. There was an attempt at discussion with this user, but engagement from them is limited to curt, single-sentenced comments that are basically of the; "this is how it is cuz I say so" type. The user was also provided information and links to relevant guidelines, which given the timeframe and their blunt, uncooperative replies, it would seem they didn't read the guidelines or just chose to ignore them.

They were also apprised of wp:Consensus and wp:Dispute Resolution, but instead chose to continue edit warring. They given no indication of a willingness to discuss, and also given every indication of an intent to continue edit warring. - wolf 05:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I did do a brief reading of the article. You on the other hand failed to do this. I also took this to the talk page. Thanks.150.101.89.147 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• No violation. The IP reverted 3x in a 24-hour period. The fourth revert listed above occurred two days earlier. Thewolfchild also reverted 3x, although only twice in a 24-hour period. I strongly urge the parties to resolve the content dispute on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Head tie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "."
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC) to 21:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
   2. 21:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo fix"
   3. 21:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
   4. 21:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
   5. 21:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
   6. 21:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Typo"
3. 21:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
4. 21:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Fixed content"
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) to 21:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Added content"
   2. 21:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "Corrected content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Please stop */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) "/* African American history erasure */"

Comments:

Less than 24 hours after their recent block expired, they are back edit warring again. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef, for continuing the same violation and ignoring all advice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Croatian Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PTS 188 (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][80]
2. [diff][81]
3. [diff][82]
4. [diff][83]

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

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

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

Comments:
This IP User is Seriously Don't understand That Croatian Goverment Did not signed the contract yet. You can Ask Fox 52 that he also tried to revent many times from this User. I would Remind that user 93.136.76.166 Threaten me also.PTS 188 (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked as a sock by Bbb23, with a link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [90]

Comments:
Known sockpuppet. Carl Francis (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

FALSE ACCUSATIONS. The reason why I returned/restored/reverted my revision, because the revisions you returned were incorrect, I just fixed it, and what's wrong there, I'm also an editor, I have the right to edit the wikipedia article, not just you. And one more thing, I don't use multiple accounts, I only have one account. MACCWIKI (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nic.cartagena12. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:MaccWiki and User:Carl Francis are both warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. MaccWiki has been cleared of being a sock, per the SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043532016 by Demetrios1993 (talk) It does matter , it was a historical event for which are provided you are blatantly refusing it , the sources provided at the original page were weak sources hence the page was deleted , leave a message on my talk page"
2. 15:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043527546 by Demetrios1993 (talk) The article for deletion was made 11 years ago and it included different sources than the ones provided, it is a important event which should not be omitted"
3. 14:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043509535 by Deji Olajide1999 (talk) Does not make it any less a source , both are derived from the words of General Dever as it is stated ,Is not some media "bs" that is produced everyday for money"
4. 08:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043281992 by Alexikoua (talk) Alexikoua did not explain how the sources fail wp:HISTRS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "/* September 2021 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear cut 3RR vio, no effort whatsoever to resolve. User was recently blocked for edit-warring, and shows no sign of improvement. Article is covered by WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions. Khirurg (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Siege of Szigetvár (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.136.115.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [98]

Comments:
Claims not to be the same editor reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive439#User:93.138.63.81 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Warned), despite the similar IP, same gelocation, same talk page arguments and exact same disruptive edits made to the article. They didn't appear to be officially notified of that warning, I notified them here before their 4th revert and they acknowledged the existence of it in their edit summary, while disputing they are the same editor. FDW777 (talk) 10:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

He is right I have returned this article 4 times, but he is wrong to falsely accuse me of being someone else and he should be punished for falsely accusing it against Wikipedia [[99]] . In the absence of arguments to change something that has been written for 10-15 years here, he is now falsely accusing me, just to prove that he is "right" and to be according to him. Very dirty of him. See the talk page [[100]].He opened an account 2 years ago and thinks that the boss is here on Wikipedia and that everything according to him must be without arguments93.136.115.120 (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of one week. Both IPs are in Zagreb on the same ISP, so this is either plain WP:SOCK'ing, or WP:MEAT socking (or approaching lottery odds). Either way, it isn't looking good, IP/s. And the indignation while not disclosing that being so is, well, rather suspect. But I also feel that FDW777 may have been (may) a bit heavy-handed, so maybe it would be good to have a frank conversation, then get to this particular MOS enforcement (liberation vs tyranny? etc.) dispute itself: pyrrhic victory in the infobox, yay or nay. El_C 11:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Reported user now blocked. Longhair's original 6-month semi reinstated. El_C 13:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Just Roll with It (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Marklu2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 00:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 22:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC) "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
2. 00:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Someone keeps editing that the series has ended despite the article having a note saying: "absent an official announcement by Disney Channel in a reliable source that they have cancelled the series, and per template instructions, this stays "present" until one year following the original airing of the final episode" (and no, it has not been one year yet)

They aren't discussing, I reverted their edit and they re-added it, I reverted it again and they re-added it, and I did notify on talk page both times but have not gotten a response yet. wizzito | say hello! 00:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Aaliyah (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dboy4100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [102]
2. [103]
3. [104]
4. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [108]

Comments:
This user seems to have a history of disruptive editing and edit-warring at this article and other Aaliyah-related articles. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Hurricane Michael (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043964596 by Leonidlednev (talk)"
2. 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043964525 by Leonidlednev (talk)"
3. 22:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043964462 by Leonidlednev (talk)"
4. 22:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043964336 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
5. 22:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043964213 by Leonidlednev (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Indefinitely blocked as VOA by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Hurricane Michael (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.67.31.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1043965481 by Leonidlednev (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Same as registered users edit warring StarryNightSky11 ^☎ 22:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72h for vandalism by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Zeca (footballer, born 1988) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dealer07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [110]
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [116]

Comments:

This user has now been reported to ANEW four times by three different people (first, second, third). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: KRIV (TV) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 35.139.95.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 19:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 19:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 19:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 19:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC) "change"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC) "Note: Removal of content blanking (RW 16.1)"
2. 19:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Vandalism (RW 16.1)"
3. 19:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"
4. 19:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC) "Final Warning: Vandalism (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – 3 months by User:Ohnoitsjamie for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Indigenous peoples of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Janiclett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [117]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [118]
2. [119]
3. [120]
4. [121]
5. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned to abide BRD and to talk to talk, warned 3RR and to take to talk, Warned about edit warring on user talk, Final warning on user talk

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas#DNA

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [123]

Comments:
Heiro 23:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the edit warring, there has also been general disrupting through blanking of content, WP:OWNy behaviour, and incivility. Warnings for this issued on user's talk, which user then blanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [130]

Comments:
The user does not answer to talk page messages. Keeps adding information without properly adding reliables sources and deletes sourced content. YaSiRu11 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [136]

Comments:
This user had been doing unexplained edits, or adding words on existing sources with an ip adress. By adding the ¨Various religions¨ on the infobox, I suspected that it was Doshoo because he did the same on Turkic peoples. This user did breached the 3rr rule. His edits are almost anti-Turkish, deleting anything about Islam about Turkic peoples. Like this. Beshogur (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Doshoo resumed edit warring at Oghuz Turks on 14 September while this report was still open. Doshoo has 107 edits but has never posted either on article talk or user talk. IPs have been warring on the same issue and due to similarity of the material being reverted it seems possible that some of them are operated by Doshoo. The dispute is about whether the Oghuz Turks are related to the Gagauz people. Meanwhile User:Bbb23 has semiprotected the page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044475742 by Tercer (talk) No, you are in clear violation of the three revert rule. I cannot violated said rule because I am reverting my own changes. This matter is currently in dispute, because quite clearly Physics Essays is a reliable source, which you and MrOllie are disputing. Stop reverting my changes, or I'll report you as well."
2. 12:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044473865 by Tercer (talk) You are the one engaging in an editing war - not me. I cannot be violating the three revert rule, when I am reverting my own edit. Physics Essays is clearly a reliable source cited by Wiki and listed by Wiki as being cited by Wiki. I am warning you to stop your edit war, or I will report you."
3. 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044471064 by MrOllie (talk) Stop reverting."
4. 11:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044467334 by MrOllie (talk)"Physics Essays" is a peer-reviewed reliable source as stated by Wiki and cited by Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physics_journals; Who are you to say this is a fringe position? It's from a reliable physics journal. You're clearly abusing your editing privileges and if you revert it again, I'll report your abuse."
5. 09:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044448937 by Tercer (talk) "Physics Essays" is a peer-reviewed reliable source as stated by Wiki and cited by Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physics_journals"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Profringe edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie has made the false claim that the peer reviewed physics journal known as "Physics Essays" is not reliable and therefore, he has repeatedly reverted my change to the page "Superdeterminism". The change I made was to add an explanatory paragraph and reference to an article written by physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson, which gives a proof under Einstein's Relativity as to why nature is superdeterministic and not random. Clearly, Wiki recognizes "Physics Essays" as a reliable peer reviewed physics journal, and Mr. Ollie is way off base in reverting my changes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_Essays I have requested that Wiki give this page with my changes protection from Mr. Ollie's editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b10c:8f65:cd04:a180:3e9b:76ad (talk • contribs)

Physics Essays is listed here as questionable. User seems to believe the three-revert rule does not apply to them, and has reverted yet again after this report was posted. They are also threatening to report me and MrOllie for edit warring. Tercer (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Indigo (Chris Brown album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044483934 by Kar chofo (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC) to 13:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 13:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044482702 by Kar chofo (talk)"
   2. 13:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044482736 by Kar chofo (talk)"
   3. 13:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044483327 by Kar chofo (talk)"
   4. 13:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044483934 by Kar chofo (talk)"
3. 13:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044481466 by Kar chofo (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* September 2021 */ Reply"
2. 13:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso."
3. 13:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on User:DarkMatterMan4500."
4. 13:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Kar chofo "/* Please stop: */ new section"

Comments:

This user started to get into an all-out edit war, and is just causing disruption on my user and user talk page by moving it to Dickrider. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked as NOTHERE by another administrator. Also likely LTA.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  Bbb23 Alright, thank you and GeneralNotability. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Thalaivii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Swiftie1313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [137]
2. [138]
3. [139]
4. [140]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [143]

Comments:
Swiftie1313 is using another account also User:DaydreamButera--- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swiftie1313. Swiftie1313 is Edit warring to change reviews from "mixed" or "negative" to "generally positive" with other persons. Before this DaydreamButera was also doing same thing with me.[144][145] 157.46.70.1 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please don't accuse users of being socks, as, it has not yet been confirmed. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok sorry I won't do it anymore157.46.70.1 (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please note, you have to give them a notice that you have opened a thread about them on their talk page, I have done this for you, but please keep this in mind for the future. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I already did it157.46.70.1 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you added it one second before me, thanks. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.149.193.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 16:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* 2000–present */"
3. 16:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* 2000–present */"
4. 16:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* 2000–present */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC) on Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy "/* Discovery of differences in incidence of IQ gene variants */ re"

Comments:

Profringe edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, MrOllie. You beat me to it! This IP is trying to add some really problematic WP:SYNTH on a controversial topic through fast and furious edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

And now a fifth revert from the IP in just over an hour: [147]. Generalrelative (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Conor McGregor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.200.82.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [149]
2. [150]
3. [151]
4. [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [154]

Comments:
IP has been edit warring their preferred version, against multiple editors, for the last five days. IP breached 3RR yesterday, but I held off on this report and asked them on their talkpage, in no uncertain terms, to stop. No attempt at communication. – ².O.^Boxing 17:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

IP continues to revert even after being informed (and probably reading) this report. – ².O.^Boxing 18:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Emma Raducanu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Posters5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155] (It's several different reverts on the same page, so there isn't one good link to an earlier version.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff1 diff2 (by other editors)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff1 diff2 (by other editors)

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

Comments:
Posters5 continues to revert content by several other editors (at least 5 times in the past 24 hours), despite warnings from several different editors. One main example of reverted content relates to including the subject's father's full name without proper sourcing (which is against WP:BLPPRIVACY), or his first name which varies in different sources. The second main example involves whether to include other spellings and pronunciations of the subject's name in different languages. Besides the diffs on the article's talk page and the user's talk page by other editors, I've also warned this user myself in an edit summary. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: User talk:188.162.254.147 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 188.162.254.147 (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 19:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) to 19:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJlMDAkwLM'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "Restored revision 1042775223 by PrimeBOT (talk): Restored due to 2 fighting over page?"
2. 18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Would you guys stop? */ new section"

Comments:

Self edit-war on own talk page, im trying to stop them but i cant anymore. This ip is blocked too MoonlightVector 19:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Levantine Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WatanWatan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [156]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (I included reverts from August, before I initiated a discussion on the talk page, see below for more context)

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159]
4. [160]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned about edit warring on user talk by Donald Albury, asked to abide BRD and to talk on the article talk page Also previously in different contexts: Oct 2020 & Jan 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Levantine_Arabic#Current_version_and_proposed_modifications

• Aug 22nd
• Aug 23rd
• Aug 30th
• Sept 6th
• Sept 9th
• Sept 14th
• Sept 14th
• Sept 14th

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [161]

Comments:
@Oshwah: opened an ANI regarding WatanWatan2020's behavior in January 2021. Oshwah wrote at that time: "I feel like a discussion should be started regarding the issues relating to WatanWatan2020's edits to these articles, as well as this user's overall conduct. Are this user's edits to these articles substandard as pointed out many times on his/her user talk page? Is this user becoming disruptive to the point where actions or sanctions are necessary?"

I opened another in August 2021. @Donald Albury: considered that I engaged, together with WatanWatan2020, in edit warring, which was unfortunately true and I apologize for doing so. Then, I started a conversion on the talk page of the article to get WatanWatan2020's feedback and ask them to provide reliable sources. They failed to do so. Instead, they opened a sockpuppet investigation against me. In a previous SPI report, WatanWatan2020 also made bad-faith and baseless accusations of sock puppetry and meat puppetry against @Ahunt: and The Bushranger (as well as some IP addresses).

Both ANIs were archived without being closed or resolved.

In August, I also asked this user, on my talk page, to provide Wikipedia:Reliable sources. To which they answered:

• "This is common logic that does not require a source, as the information itself is a source."
• "everything that is added accurate and undeniable information, whether sourced or unsourced. this is because the information is universally known as well. For you to say "add a source for every sentence you want to add" that would mean Wikipedia articles would have a source listed at the end of each sentence throughout articles. this has never happened and frankly seems it will never happen. It is not viable."

WatanWatan2020 adds unsourced content and removes sourced content and they aren't discussing. It is hard to deal with WatanWatan2020's disruptive behavior.

A455bcd9 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is @A455bcd9 second attempt at reporting me to the admin on the issue. In the first attempt, the admin saw the most clearly false information and was warned that he will be blocked should he revert my edits again. He initiated an edit war before complaining also. Because he didnt get his way with admins, this “discussion” he is talking about was his next attempt to reach his goal of re implementing false information on pages and continue pushing his POV narrative. For example, on the Mashriq page, he listed Israel as an Arab country and continued doing so in an edit war. This is flat out false information he was publishing. and to add, he has deleted the edits of other users time and time again in the past on the Levantine page; hes been maintaining a grip over the page and makes sure no one disrupts his pov pushing.

Now, i made a clear compromise with him. the information we were disputing, he re implemented it while i was gone. I said for the sake of ending this dispute, i am making ok with it. i added information myself that has nothing to do with his information, adding that Arabs speak Levantine Arabic in the Levant natively, and he comes deleting that.

Please check the history of this page and Mashriq, the false information he was implementing. and then also see that i made the compromise with him in Levantine Arabic Article. Check the discussion as well.

That is very uncalled for that you bring up past issues from long ago, that have been resolved so that @A455bcd9 can gain sympathy for his goal of getting me blocked so he can go back and maintain a grip over those pages and implement as he wants.

I made the compromise. where is yours? You are the one that has been disruptive. Anyone can view how many edits you have been making on these pages, one will immediately lose count just in the past week alone. and you are only apologizing for the edit war because it didnt work in your favor, as the admin warned to block you shall you revert my edits again.

Please deal with @A455bcd9 accordingly. he has been disrupting for too long on this page, and who knows what other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs)

@WatanWatan2020: You do realize that type of attitude will only get you blocked by an administrator, right? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@WatanWatan2020: Do not falsely accuse another user of committing vandalism, as you did here of A455bcd9. I was (and still am) very tempted to block you for that. My advice is for both of you, WatanWatan2020 and A455bcd9, to step back from the Levantine Arabic article for a week. Do not even look at the article. After the week is up, propose any changes you want to make on the talk page. If the two of you cannot agree on the proposed changes, then seek other opinions, using Wikipedia:Third opinion, for example, before edit warring again. - Donald Albury 19:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Donald Albury,

Thanks for your help. I think this is a reasonable advice. I will not look at this article until Wednesday 22nd. On that day, I will ping WatanWatan2020 to know their opinion on the suggested changes (Mine: here and here. Another user's:here. No answer from WatanWatan2020 so far...). I hope we will then be able to have a constructive discussion :) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:WatanWatan2020 and User:A455bcd9 are warned. Either person may be blocked the next time they revert on this article unless they have first obtained consensus in their favor on the talk page. Please see the advice of admin User:Donald Albury above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hi @EdJohnston:,

  Thanks for your message. I take note of the warning, even though I regret it.

  As I want to avoid being blocked in the future, I would like precision on the meaning of "unless they have first obtained consensus in their favor on the talk page".

  Indeed, I thought consensus had already been reached on the talk page before the incident I mentioned in this notice:

  • I suggested edits on Aug 22nd,
  • AdrianAbdulBaha agreed with them (not active on Wikipedia but really active on Wiktionary where he contributes on South Levantine Arabic entries),
  • Nehme1499 answered (one of the main contributors of the article in the past) and said they didn't "have strong opinions" as long as "everything is well-sourced by reliable sources" (WatanWatan2020's edit was not sourced),
  • WatanWatan2020, despite multiple pings over ~3 weeks, did not answer any of the points I raised.

  That's why, considering there was a consensus, I said on the talk page that I would implement the suggested modifications. Three days later, I did so. In each edit message I made a precise reference to the point(s) raised in the talk page:

  • edit
  • edit
  • edit
  • edit
  • edit

  Ignoring the discussion that happened on the talk page, WatanWatan2020 reverted most of these edits.

  As I believed that my edit was the result of a consensus, I reverted their edit and asked them to discuss. They did not and instead reverted my revert and accused me of vandalism. That's why I opened this request.

  Did I make any mistake here? And what in my behavior constituted edit warring? (I'm not mentioning my behavior on August 16th when I unfortunately engaged in edit warring)

  By the way, a few hours ago, another user gave their opinion and agreed with the modifications I suggested. As I said above, I won't modify this page before next Wednesday. But I'd like to know: at which point do we consider that consensus has been reached and that WatanWatan2020's lack of constructive answer is just disruptive behavior?

  Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Saragarhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Canon8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [162]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [163]
2. [164]
3. [165]
4. [166]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [169]

Comments:
~ Here the editor attempts to advance the argument that the Battle of Saragarhi article is actually about a wider conflict that the British won, despite the recent Rfc at Talk:Battle of Saragarhi#Scope and primary topic of the article? which was closed rejecting that viewpoint, and the editor was informed of this Rfc before their fourth revert. In the same diff they also claim that the sentence The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead doesn't actually reference "Afghan victory", which says they are prepared to argue black is white and white is black if they don't agree. FDW777 (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not advancing any argument nor did I make over 3 reverts. I am just stating that there is no information in the references provided that the Battle was "Afghan Victory". There is no such statement that support it. Also it was part of the battle of the whole Tirah Campaign which eventually was won by British. And this editor instead of giving a reasonable explanation just starts posting warnings on talk page. I am not even claiming it to be British Victory either on the article. The references as you can see doesn't support any such statement about victory and above all the editor doesn't try to understand that the references provided are highly unreliable. The editor also discusses about Indiandefencereview.com as a third source but it has already been considered highly unreliable on WP:RSP. This is what the difference of FDW777's reverts:

 Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [170]
2. [171]
3. [172]
4. [173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [174] Canon8 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• User FDW777 has been previously warned by Administrator (JBW) on Edit Warring : [[175]]

Canon8 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

First reference says Saragarhi turned out to be a pyrrhic victory for the Afghans

Second reference says The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead

There isn't even any credible dispute about the result of the battle, since all the Indian defenders were killed and the Afghans captured the outpost. And there are two references confirming the Afghan victory. And we just had an Rfc that explicitly limited the scope of the article to the events of 12 September 1897, not the wider conflict. FDW777 (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The comment above has now been amended to claim the references are unreliable. Indian Defence Review is cited many times on Google Scholar, and while care must be taken regarding any pro-Indian claims it makes, on this occasion they are referencing an Indian loss. The other reference is the BBC, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Any claim of unreliability (on this occasion highly unreliable) there says a lot about the person making the claim. FDW777 (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I see we're now also claiming Indian Defence Review has been deemed unreliable as RSP. Per this post on the article's talk page weeks ago, that claim is 100% false. Also please stop editing comments that have been replied to. FDW777 (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Problem is that we are editing at the same time it seems. First reference [[176]] states that "Unlike Thermopylae, the Battle of Saragarhi was an instance of the self-sacrifice not going in vain. The Sikhs had fought long enough to allow the British to rush reinforcements, who drove away the droves of Afghans essaying to capture Fort Gulistan." The second reference [177]] doesn't make any such statement about victory either. So since there is no reliable information on the result, the whole result section needs to be removed. Canon8 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The second reference [178]] doesn't make any such statement about victory either. Except it does. I've explained to you several times it says The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead. At some point very recently the Indian Defence Review article was changed to remove a sentence, I've already updated the link in the article to an archived version. FDW777 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. FDW777 (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If an article can be changed to remove a sentence then how can it be considered reliable and how does archiving it help? That's just ridiculous.(talk) 12:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Canon8 is being tendentious in the extreme over a matter they cannot possibly win. They really needs to drop the stick now. SpinningSpark 14:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Its not about win or lose but about what is right and wrong. I am just having a discussion which is what the Talk page forums are about. So why is term like tendentious even being applied here? If you do not like to have a discussion to resolve issue then you can just state so whether its on your talk page or the article's talk page. Canon8 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Canon8 has been blocked as a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. FDW777 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Chernobyl disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044736498 by Cukrakalnis (talk) There is no need for a talk. Passages like that have no place on wikipedia."
2. 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "There is no edit war. Just remove this false passage. The author of this claim should add it to talk."
3. 18:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "There is no reason to take this kind of politicized statement to the talk page. This does not belong on Wikipedia. It is misinformation."
4. 17:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Biased nationalistic sources that are not neutral. Highly questionable information and overall break of the neutrality of Wikipedia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC) "the contending user is no longer involved in the content dispute. this topic and edit are described and reasoned on the talk page."
2. 19:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "This is about funding the government ministry, which is funded the government by nature. A funding to a ministry that supports a country's entertainment is absolutely different from a direct funding into a privatized entertainment industry. There is absolutely no excerpt in the article stating Korea's pop culture receives help from the government to FINANCE itself. Without proper evidence, stop reverting edits made in good faith and reasoning."
3. 16:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "This is about funding the government ministry, which is funded the government by nature. A funding to a ministry that supports a country's entertainment is absolutely different from a direct funding into a privatized entertainment industry."
4. 15:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "This is about funding the government ministry, which is funded the government by nature. A funding to a ministry that supports a country's entertainment is absolutely different from a direct funding into a privatized entertainment industry."
5. 15:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "The article cited is about how the Korean government views its entertainment industry as one of the main economic sectors and does not mention any direct financial funding."
6. 15:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "The article cited is about how the Korean government views its entertainment industry as one of the main economic sectors and does not mention any direct financial funding."
7. 15:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1044693636 by Notfrompedro (talk)"
8. 15:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "The article cited does not provide any credible evidence of the government heavily funding Korea's entertainment industry."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Qwertyasdf0192363, Notfrompedro

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC) to 16:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Notfrompedro

Comments:

I am uninvolved in this dispute. This report should also consider Notfrompedro (talk · contribs). The initial bold edit, the bottom one above, was from Qwertyasdf0192363. This was reverted by Notfrompedro, leading to a rapid back and forth exceeding 3RR. Both were warned after this by third party Ohnoitsjamie. The most recent revert, by Qwertyasdf0192363, (the top one listed above,) was done after these warnings. CMD (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Third Battle of Panipat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noorullah21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [179]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [180]
2. [181]
3. [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [184] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [186]

Comments:
Noorullah21 has been edit warring their preferred changes, against multiple editors, since 05:56, 5 September 2021‎. He has been asked on the article's talkpage to provide sources for his changes but no attempt made. Here are some more same changes by Noorullah21 that he has been trying to add on 5th September 2021 and apparently no one reported him of such edit warring. }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191] }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

He has been warned on his talk page by other editor [193] And the discussion ended with Noorullah21 apologizing for his reverts. My apologizes for the reverts as well. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC) But as you can see, he started it back again.

He has also been warned about making edits while logged out by Administrator. [194]

199.82.243.96 (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Noorullah21 has also been removing tags from page. Following tags were removed by him which were added by other editors. Multiple issues|POV|date=August 2021 and Unreliable sources|date=August 2021. 199.82.243.96 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• No violation. The three "reverts" listed are consecutive edits and count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: Even after considering the reverts made multiple times on Sep 5th

[195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200]

along with the warnings for both Edit warring [201] and editing without logging in [202] ? 199.82.243.95 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Fatima al-Fihri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eccekevin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [204]
2. [205]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. I'm posting this here because after I'd pointed out WP:BRD as the appropriate guidance in an edit summary and posted a warning to his talk page after he'd added an unsourced half-sentence that contradicted the entirety of the existing article, he ignored it and refused to start a discussion.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [207]

Comments:
The well-sourced article is about a woman acknowledged as the founder of an ancient university. This user inserted the phrase "modern historians doubt she ever existed" at the end of an existing sentence, negating the premise of the entire article and supplying no source to back it up. On later additions, Eccekevin did prefix this with "some", but still provided no sources, other than, in the final edit summary, the name of sample historians, but still no sources for verification. So, essentially, this user is repeatedly adding unsourced content after being reverted and asked to discuss before restoring it.

If it matters, this user, by my count, has five previous warnings about edit warring on his talk page, and has been the subject of at least one previous discussion on this board. Largoplazo (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• No violation. Eccekevin has made one revert in the last 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• This page is for reports on edit warring, not just 3RR violations. If that's incorrect, then the language at the top of this page is incorrect. [User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• 1)There are three sources: ^{[1]: 48–49 [2][3]: 42} I don't understand why you keep saying there's no sources. There's an entire paragraph about historians who questioned the historicity of his person, it deserves to be mentioned in the lede.

2) You are the one edit warring. You made an edit, I reverted it, and then you re-reverted it instead of going to the talk page. Eccekevin (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eccekevin: That isn't how it works. You Boldly (B) made an edit. I Reverted (R) it (and explained exactly what was wrong with it). That put the ball in your court to Discuss (D) per WP:BRD. That aside, if you were going to dispute me anyway, is there some reason you didn't simply point out in your subsequent edit summary what you waited until the situation was escalated to a noticeboard to bring to my attention? I hope you've enjoyed the unnecessary ensuing drama. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [208]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]
4. [212]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [214]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [215]

Comments:
Straight 4RR-vio. This does not involve me, but the this editor vs two other editors. Editor hasn't appeared to engage at all on any talk page. Pinging @Isabelle Belato and Tommi1986: - wolf 04:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The content I am 'warring' to remove violates WP:NPOV which as you may know, takes precedence over any editor consensus. Additionally, I find it rather odd that the other editor hasn't been reported for this, given that they were doing the exact same thing. DeaconShotFire (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, wolf. I refrained from opening a thread here since the user hadn't been properly warned, and I thought a discussion could help with the issue (which is now underway). DeaconShotFire appears to be a good editor, but also has some behavior issues, as they've recently also edit warred at Elizabeth II, and takes warnings as threats (here and here). Hopefully a stern message will suffice. Isabelle ^🔔 12:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I take them as threats as I abide fully by Wikipedia's policies--neither of those warnings I received were justified. Additionally, thank you for conducting a little investigation into me and consequently speaking to me as though I were a child. I suspect that was one of the few times in your life that you got any dopamine. Even looking through previous versions of my talk page--I recommend going for a walk. DeaconShotFire (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: As I've said, behavior issues. Isabelle ^🔔 19:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the image on the centre of your user page, I certainly hope that your constant removing of my edits didn't have a personal motivation. DeaconShotFire (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@DeaconShotFire: As I've explained in my edit summary, pages like WP:UB require community consensus for most changes, and I did not believe WP:NPOV applied there. Isabelle ^🔔 20:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects." DeaconShotFire (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• There is no 3RR violation here; the earliest revert listed is from July. However, DeaconShotFire's attitude is pugnacious and non-collaborative. The comment in the guideline at issue has been there almost forever, having been added in 2013. Generally, it is better not to make any substantive changes to policies or guidelines without first raising the issue on the Talk page. However, if an editor chooses to boldly change the rule, they should absolutely not insist on it if that change is challenged, let alone edit-war over it. Therefore, @DeaconShotFire, consider yourself warned that if you repeat this kind of conduct in the future, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  It wasn't a 'substantive' change to the policy, nor did it change the meaning of the policy in any way; I simply removed biased content. I don't need consensus for this on the talk page as WP:NPOV takes precedence over any editor consensus. If you don't understand this, then you're incompetent. DeaconShotFire (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: What If... Killmonger Rescued Tony Stark? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sphynxdragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [216]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]
5. [221]
6. [222]
7. [223]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• The article is a redirect while it's being developed at Draft:What If... Killmonger Rescued Tony Stark?, the editor in question has been pointed multiple times to the draft to contribute there. There's no place for content discussion, their edits are not incorrect per se, they're poorly done duplicates of what's already at the draft

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [225]

Comments:

The editor seems not to understand the notion of drafts, has been warned twice and hasn't relented or responded to the warnings. —El Millo (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The above is a gross misrepresentation of the truth, and I take particular expectation to this personal attack: "they're poorly done duplicates of what's already at the draft." -Sphynxdragon (talk)

I don't mean that they're intentional duplicates, just that there's nothing of value that isn't already at the draft. It's just an infobox, a very short lead section, a shorter plot summary, one external link to IMDb and the {{What If...? (TV series)}} template. All this is already presented in a better way at the draft. —El Millo (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That "just an infobox" took a good part of an hour of work to make and has more accurate information than the draft that you are only now telling me about. "Telling me" by the way in a spurious complaint to the admins. Had you spent half as much effort communicating directly to me as you did typing nonsense this could have been resolved an hour ago. - Sphynxdragon (talk)

It took much more time to handle you constantly reverting without discussing anything and without hearing what other editors are explaining to you. The existence of the draft was explicitly stated in the edit summaries here by YgorD3 and here by me. You responded to edit summaries at other articles when your edits were reverted so you already knew about the existence of edit summaries. —El Millo (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that I saw or read all edit summaries seems a bit ridiculous. The majority of the reverts had NO summaries, so why would I be checking for them every time? You and someone else posted something on my talk page (which is much more easily read) and didn't mention the draft at all. Just admit you handled this poorly and in a rather very insular fashion. You all arrogantly felt like you didn't have to explain yourselves more clearly because you think you OWN, if not all MCU articles, then at least these "What If...?" articles. - Sphynxdragon (talk)

The first revert (which was by YgorD3) and the first time I reverted you clearly had the draft there. You should read the edit summaries for reversions. The lack of posterior edit summaries was likely because there was nothing else to say, you were just reinstating your edit without addressing or explaining anything. What I posted on your talk page is an automated warning ({{uw-ew}}) for your constant edit warring, which is why the draft isn't mentioned. It was taken you already knew about the draft, having been told so and directed there two times, and were acting disruptively anyway, either deliberately ignoring the draft's existence or not understanding what its existence meant. In any case, if you make an edit and are reverted with an edit summary (as YgorD3 originally did here) you either WP:BRB and try to fix whatever seems to be the reverter's problem with your original edit, or you WP:BRD and discuss it in the talk page. You do not reinstate your edit without saying or explaining anything. —El Millo (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Despite Sphynxdragon's claims to the contrary, El Millo gives a great representation of what happened. Sphynxdragon also seems to have little understanding of policies and no desire to learn. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note Sphynxdragon has now resorted to personal attacks. [226] They call El Millo "condescending twit" and both of us "arrogant children". JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I also find it highly suspect that this user had not edited since April 2021 (and November 2010 before that) before they started this edit war, but that could probably be neither here nor there for this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Sigh...yes, it is "neither here nor there" and quite frankly silly for any discussion. I run a non-profit and two businesses, one of which is related to media like the "What If...?" show. I'm married and have a child. So, no, I don't make daily Wikipedia edits. Some of you people have become really insular and lost all perspective outside of your internet group. You should go outside and touch some grass. - Sphynxdragon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note Sphynxdragon is continuing to edit war on the other What If episode articles. He first kept adding Jeffery Wright to the guest cast list, despite being told that Wright is a main character and doesn't go there. He's now trying to change it from the established "Cast" heading we use on all Marvel shows to "guest cast" without any discussion. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

JDDJS, I will reiterate this again because you seem not to have understood me yesterday when I alluded to this: These articles don't belong to you. This is a public site, and the pages are meant to be consumed by the public, not just for the clique you've created. That section of the Infobox template is for the GUEST cast.

Suppose you aren't going to indicate that Jeffery Wright is in the show's cast on the episode page. In that case, you need to make clear on those pages (for the general public trying to get information about the episode, not just your MCU Wiki clique) that the list of cast members are guests. I've mentioned this in my last revision, and a revision from yesterday.

This is a fairly reasonable clarification to add; you are just upset I didn't get your permission because, as I said, you are suffering under the deluded misapprehension that you own these pages. You do not, nor does your clique. - Sphynxdragon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note the repeated personal attacks and overall assumption of bad faith, accusing JDDJS of WP:OWN behavior when there are multiple editors reverting the changes. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, you must discuss WP:BOLD changes you make once they are reverted, especially if they involve many articles at once. —El Millo (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I will assume less bad faith when you stop acting in bad faith. Most of the reverts had no notes, and one simply said, "It was fine before," even though I provided notes for the change that were not addressed. Also, stop genuflecting and showing off for the admins and speak plainly in English. Congratulations, you know more about Wikipedia jargon. That fact doesn't mean you didn't act and continue to act poorly here. - Sphynxdragon (talk)

I have barely edited the What If pages outside of undoing your undiscussed changes. Acting like I'm claiming ownership of them is nonsensical. You really have no idea how Wikipedia works. If multiple different editors revert you, you don't get to continue to try to make the page your way. You're the one who's acting like you own the page when you constantly switch it to your preferred version of the page and ignore the multiple more experienced editors that are telling you no. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Much of what has been said here is irrelevant, and should be discussed elsewhere, if at all. However, the following facts are clear. Sphynxdragon has been edit-warring, has made personal attacks, and does not accept any responsibility for their unacceptable actions. JDDJS has also been edit-warring, but has not compounded that problem by adding other problems such as personal attacks. I have blocked Sphynxdragon for 60 hours, and I shall consider blocking JDDJS for some shorter time. JBW (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @JBW: Why is it common practice to block both editors when only one of them is clearly acting disruptively, while the other one was just reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO in agreement with many other editors? I understand blocking both parties when the dispute is valid, but when the disruption is one-sided, it seems blocking the disruptor should be enough. —El Millo (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"When the dispute is valid" is totally missing the point. Blocking for edit-warring is blocking for edit-warring, not for edit-warring while your edits are not "valid" in some sense. In fact it would have been a gross misuse of administrative powers to have not blocked one of the participants in the edit-war because I decided that their edits were "valid" in some sense. It is a fundamental aspect of the edit-warring policy that edit-warring is unacceptable irrespective of the merit or lack of merit of the edits. JBW (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A0D:5600:2F:0:0:0:0:94BC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seems to be the latest in the same IPV6 address block editing the Noor_Bukhari article and one or two other Pakistani actresses/models with unsourced and/or ridiculous birth years, warned here: User_talk:2A07:23C0:0:F000:0:0:0:3583 JeffUK (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Danielle Savre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Saturnc0rp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC) to 19:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 19:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC) to 19:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC) to 19:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Danielle Savre."
2. [227]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to include WP:COPYVIO image. Edit warring warning also given before my warning. Amaury • 19:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also doing the same at Stefania Spampinato – both of these articles are bad-editing/vandalism-magnets for various reasons. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
•  Note: Also, Pierrr22 may be a sock of the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

And still at it, hours after this report filing – really need a block here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

And both articles still under attack from both of these editors – at this point we either need blocks, or article protection. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note Probable sock puppet blocked indefinitely. Probable master account warned with explanations of our copyright, verifiability and sock puppetry policies. Any further disruption is likely to lead to a lengthy, if not indefinite, block. DrKay (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Werewolves Within (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC) "no it is not, I specifically said it's not."
2. 14:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC) "under 700"
3. 14:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC) "it is in the 690s"
4. 14:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC) "it is 694 exactly. you want to be "right" but you're not."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments: User:Jss11 was expanding the plot summary of Werewolves Within, which caused it to go over the 700 word limit (707 words). He repeatedly denied that his summary went over the limit while ignoring a talk page request and a warning for edit warring. I am hoping that a talk page discussion resolves this issue, but he has demonstrated a rather flippant attitude towards building a consensus. Bluerules (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Warned There was a clear breach of 3RR, but no talk page warning. Any further edit-warring is likely to lead to a block. DrKay (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I will send a warning first in the future. Bluerules (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: British protectorate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noorullah21 (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. [228]
2. [229]
3. [230]
4. [231]
5. [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [233][234]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [235]

Comments:
Consistent edit warring by Noorullah21 on page [British protectorate]. He has been reverting changes of other editors and ignoring the information mentioned in the references. He has also decided to consider the references incorrect as a reason for his reverts. Block on this account will be justified as he has constantly done the same on other articles even after being warned multiple times on his talk page. 192.189.187.107 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Exemptions: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users.

You are an obvious sockpuppet of HaughtonBrit and are currently under investigation. Noorullah21 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I also tried to talk to you on the talk page for the "Third Anglo Afghan War" which you blatantly ignored.

1. [236] (link to talk page which he ignored) Noorullah21 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• No violation Edits reverting blocked or banned users are exempt from the edit-warring policy. DrKay (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

For the background of this closure see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: USS Yorktown (CV-10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GansMans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [237]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [238] (as 2601:541:4302:8bd0:d569:79ca:f3ac:5f9 (talk · contribs)) - 16:05, 18 September
2. [239] (as GansMans) - 03:23, 18 September
3. [240] (as GansMans) - 03:11, 18 September
4. [241] (as 2601:541:4302:8bd0:5c8:b2a3:4745:1b75 (talk · contribs)) - 02:47, 18 September
5. [242] (as 2601:541:4302:8bd0:a1a3:4580:7d0:1c75 (talk · contribs)) - 21:23, 16 September

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (link)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [244] (@ GansMans)

Comments:
Started on 16 September using an IP acct, then four reverts on 18 September using a newly created acct and another IP acct. There has been some efforts at discussion, but user still continues reverting despite that. - wolf 21:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: also edit-warring over same issue at USS Lexington (CV-16), but has not technically violated 4RR yet. - wolf 21:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: now starting on USS Wasp (CV-18) with another IP acct. - wolf 22:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked GansMans for 24 hours and Special:contributions/2601:541:4302:8BD0:0:0:0:0/64 for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Dominion of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter Ormond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [245]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [246] undoing [247]
2. [248] undoing [249]
3. [250] undoing [251]
4. [252] undoing [253]
5. [254] undoing [255]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [256]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [257]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [258]

Comments:
No.4 and No.5 are obviously not "reverts", and hence the 3RR was never violated. Peter Ormond 💬 18:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

They are obviously reverts. Disruptive users who refuse to acknowledge wrong-doing and insist on continuing disruptive edits will not be viewed well by the community. DrKay (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No.4 and No.5 didn't "result in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously". Period. Peter Ormond 💬 19:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

As shown by the diffs, User:Fowler&fowler added some files,[259] you removed them.[260] He re-added the files,[261] you removed them.[262] They are both reverts. You are reverting to a previous version that did not contain those files. Partial reverts still count as reverts. DrKay (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't remove all the files. And there's also a discussion going on at the talk page. Peter Ormond 💬 20:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

They are still reverts. Undoing any part of a previous editor's edit is a revert. DrKay (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggest protection for the article in its status quo state (whatever that was before the edit-dispute occurred), until a consensus can be achieved at the talkpage of said-article. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this report. I was thinking about reporting him at WT:INDIA. He is a tendentious editor, who edits very quickly, in a slippery manner, and constantly engages in reverts that at first sight don't appear to be reverts, but their end result is that nothing changes He has been engaging in a naive form of original research on Dominion of India, where I suspect his edits have remained because the knowledgeable editors (and there are many) don't have the patience to keep engaging him. He doesn't seem to know the difference between a primary source, a secondary, and a tertiary. All are grist to his mill, it seems, as long as they can keep his status quo. If you change something, he quickly adds a couple of sources, not waiting to put them in a standard (cite book, citation, or cite web) format, such is his hurry to reintroduce his old POV. He thinks any correction made by someone else is a loss, a diminution of his POV, and he doesn't like to lose. We have been engaged in a kind of discussion on the talk page, but he became responsive only after he was reported here, and then only reluctantly. He had a Hindi anachronism below the name in the infobox. I explained to him two or three times that a name made up in the 21st-century for a political system that had ended in 1950 cannot be called the "official name" of that system in Hindi. He offered two "Hindi" sources. When I said, "Hindi did not become the official language of India before 26 January 1950, he quickly offered me as a retort the page Hindi Divas, which was incorrectly conflating the discussions of the draft constitution of India in 1949 and the promulgation in 1950 When I corrected that page, he quickly changed it back to his POV but in ever so slightly different language. What can I say? I've written large parts of the FA India (all of its history section). If I am having a hard time dealing with him then I don't know how an average WPian will fare. There is no question of status quo @GoodDay: when the status quo is promoting an obsolete, toxic, POV. Very sorry, but this is a behavioral issue, not a content dispute. He needs to be taken to the woodshed (metaphorically speaking) where he can mull over his unencyclopedic excesses. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I responded at the talk page before anything about me was published here. Secondly, your revision of Hindi Diwas didn't cite a source in the lead. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, content must be supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You may add whatever you feel is correct, if supported by RS. Peter Ormond 💬 21:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

PS I've just looked at his user page. He seems to be in his junior year of high school. Perhaps the presiding admin will keep that in mind. Nothing too heavy handed. Also, if this page is only for admins, you may remove my blabbering here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Bold of you to assume that I will reveal my real personal info here. Peter Ormond 💬 21:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of problem that plagues your edits. I said something out of empathy for someone who might be as young as they say they are on their user page, the empathy rising from memories hearkening to my youth. And you seem to be arguing about that as well, about the fact that my literal reading of your user page is somehow my fault, and needs to be countered. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It's very easy to accuse editors of violations and all, but I suggest that you also look at your own behaviour and POV. You removed the clearly sourced emblem of the Dominion of India [263] without any reason, the source is from 1947. I restored it, but you again removed it without any reason.[264] May I ask what kind of behaviour is this?

Again, you showed your POV, when you replaced the phrase "King of India" with "the British monarch" [265], though it was sourced within the article body. I then provided RS in the lead (with your desired standard 'cite book, citation, or cite web' format) and restored it, but you again removed it [266], and showed your POV. Your edit was also a violation of WP:REVONLY.

I suggest you look into your own behavior and edit-warring. Peter Ormond 💬 21:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.

User being reported: 52pd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Person was warned about edit warring on Godzilla vs. Kong and now has proceeded to harass me on my talk page. Please see my talk page’s revision history. Armegon (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 4 days (by way of WP:RFPP). Armegon, you've left all the parameters of this report blank. Please note for future reference that these are not optional. Failure to do so may be grounds to seeing your report dismissed offhand. El_C 22:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: User talk:Headbomb (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Headbomb (talk): That was a comment in good faith. Using my 3rd revert because I can, to waste your time. Later buddy"
2. 22:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "There ya go"
3. 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Headbomb (talk): This is a legitimate discussion, answer the question since you've involved yourself in this edit"
4. 22:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "/* What does this say "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in magazines and newsletters. For articles in academic journals, use {{cite journal}}."? */ new section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Intentional edit warring and time wasting per last edit summary Using my 3rd revert because I can, to waste your time. Major WP:IDHT/WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality issues. Would not have reported otherwise, but intentional time wasting / edit warring is where I draw the line, especially when they were aware I had replied to them elsewhere [267]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

First was a new comment that was reverted by the user rather than engage in discussion for an unwarranted edit they made for something they weren't involved in. The second was a revert. The third was a brand new comment per his request. The fourth was a revert. So there are only two actual reverts there and two comments. Headbomb probably got a little confused as he wasn't reading the discussion and just blind reverting. I apologize that he's wasting your time. It's resolved now as the user isn't worth the time. Later Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you're both behaving like children.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Well I did just have my 6th birthday. Time to play some GTA V.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! You must've had too much cake and ice cream because the sugar is affecting your brain.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Despite my age, high blood pressure, no sugar. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: that comment is unfounded. Headbomb and I have both tried to reason with Darkwarriorblake at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 28#Untitled_new_bug, and have been met with aggression and contempt and edit-warring and personal attacks such as this[268]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I explained when you asked, and you started edit warring over in a double team with Headbomb, I don't think I started unreasonable, it was the two editors who refused to listed to anyone else. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So Darkwarriorblake is right, and everyone else is wrong. Even tho Darkwarriorblake has made multiple reverts, and even tho Darkwarriorblake's malformed "bug report" mistook[269] Rolling Stone magazine for the band the Rolling Stones. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I never said I was right, you act like I proclaimed myself some all knowing God, instead of just a regular god. I've provided research for why I disagree with your stance, and you've been unwilling to listen and Headbomb refused to discuss at all despite having inserted himself into the issue to double team an editor. I apologize for this malformed bug report you keep mentioning, it just said if you've had an issue click here and I added some notes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Headbomb refused to discuss at all", I've replied to you multiple times at User talk:Citation bot, well before you decided to explicitly waste my time with your 3rd revert like a petulant child. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Petulant god. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, above, at 23:43: "I never said I was right"

Also

• Darkwarriorblake 22:30 Stop brute forcing the issue and accept you're wrong
• Darkwarriorblake 22:52 You and Headbomb are awfully confident for two people who haven't read the template guidelines and who are completely wrong
• Darkwarriorblake 23:09 I know it's hard to admit you're wrong and fix your bot, but fix your bot and stop blaming other editors for your failings and/or inability to read
• Darkwarriorblake 22:48 you have no idea what you're talking about!

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Darkwarriorblake is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at User talk:Headbomb to restore any message that Headbomb has removed. They may also be blocked if they revert again at Groundhog Day (film) before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. Per the argument at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 27#magazine vs website, Darkwarriorblake appears to be in disagreement with others as to when the citation bot should enter the phrase 'cite magazine' in a template. You need to take this to WP:Dispute resolution or admins may lose patience. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.235.103.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Latest version as of report

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. /* Matches */
2. /* Matches */
3. Undid revision 1045450104 by JalenFolf (talk) Do not link to redirect pages!
4. /* Matches */

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning: Edit warring on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group B.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts to resolve were made on an IP Talk page.

Comments:
IP range continuously edit warring redirect bypasses despite warnings, discussions, and continued opposition by other editors. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The page 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group B has been semiprotected due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [270]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [271]
2. [272]
3. [273]
4. [274]
5. [275]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [276] (Complaint for failure to follow WP:BRD)
• [277] (Asking editor to self-revert)
• [278] (Edit warring warning)
• [279] (Note that the change should be made after the RfC is closed

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:}

• Talk:Juan Guaidó#Juan Guaido is not the President; Maduro is. (Discussion on the change)
• Talk:Juan Guaidó#RfC: Is Juan Guaido still interim president of Venezuela? (Open Request for Comment)

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

• [280]

Comments:
Since 29 August 2021, Onetwothreeip has insisted in removing the position of Juan Guaidó as "(disputed) President of Venezuela", as the diffs above show. While this has been a contentious about which there are ongoing discussions and a change might take place, this has been the status quo of the article for two and a half years now and there are still editors that could participate in the discussion, meaning these reverts have been done before the consensus has been decided. It should be noted how Onetwothreeip claimed in their reverts that they were preventing a change to which there was no consensus to include. explained how this was "placing the cart before the horse", since they are the editor that wish to implement the change to a stable version, as it can be appreciated in the 19 August and older versions (which include the position in the infobox).

The editor has been asked to participate in the discussion, to self revert, warned against edit warred and asked for the RfC to be closed before making the change, to no avail. In some instances, they outright refused the requests. With all this considered, admin intervention seems to be required. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:NoonIcarus, is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Juan Guaidó unless they first get a consensus on the talk page in their favor. The current RfC on the talk page is *against* including the claim that Guaidó is the interim president of Venezuela. You have the option of requesting a formal closure at WP:AN/RFC. But for a simple claim with a one-sided vote and not many participants that seems unnecessary. If you think time will change the outcome, wait for it to do so before you revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: CGTN (TV channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sunderland Renaissance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [281]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [282]
2. [283]
3. [284]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [285][286]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[287][288]

Comments:
I know ANEW is here now.......--Rastinition (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

PS:It’s weird that Sunderland Renaissance use no consensus to overturn WP:CGTN.WP:CGTN is a consensus,right?--Rastinition (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dealer07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1045037194

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1045261581
2. Special:Diff/1045272938
3. Special:Diff/1045295630
4. Special:Diff/1045302187
5. Special:Diff/1045315240
6. Special:Diff/1045317286
7. Special:Diff/1045405191

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1045296206

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Permalink/1045310302#Kazakhstan mention

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1045318656

Comments:

I tried to defuse it on the talk page, and although Dealer07 did initially respond, they continued edit warring later. This is this user's fifth report to ANEW (1, 2, 3, 4), it previously led to a warning and a block. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This user and another one tried to change an already existed version without an unanimous agreement (ps this version existed for at least 5 months). If there is a disagreement on a new version by at least one user, it cannot get approved unless consensus is found as far as I am concerned (ps2 the country they both want to add has not even debuted in the adult version of that competition so it will be just a needless and misleading add). Dealer07 (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dealer07: I am not sure I understand. You made a bold edit here? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

This is still an issue. I also noticed there's a similar edit war on Serbia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked Dealer07 for two weeks and Special:contributions/176.92.17.36, an IP he is using to avoid scrutiny, for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: the user is apparently still using IPs, see Special:Contributions/109.178.147.133. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 08:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98 / @Bbb23 It looks pretty obvious to me too. I've gone ahead and blocked the newest IP, and left a warning with @Dealer07. If this continues, semi-protecting the two articles might not be a bad idea. SQL^{Query Me!} 11:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Rastinition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- Has violated 3RR and engaged in three reverts. This is a suspicious one day old account engaging in aggressive removal of references and highly disruptive editing across multiple controversial topics and reverting without proper consensus or discussion --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQL^{Query Me!} 12:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dinu1133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is edit-warring on this page and has also shown a long-term lack of WP:CIR and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The user does not communicate whatsoever, doesn't cooperate, and has never used his talk page or article talks. They erroneously change information and styles in many articles without any forethought or consensus, and often just adds the changes back after being reverted. They have also been warned multiple times at User talk:Dinu1133.

Comments:

I do not think this person should be on Wikipedia judging from their contributions. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQL^{Query Me!} 12:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Template:AFC Champions League seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: سارینا آریاوند (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
This user has just 4 edits in English Wikipedia and All of his edits are edit-wars. 90 TV (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you try to resolve the dispute instead of participating in the edit war? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

166.205.141.57 has engaged in edit warring with several different editors in an article about Bob Enyart. The editor was warned by another editor and myself on 166.205.141.57's Talk page and on the article's Talk page but the warring continues. I can see few, if any, of 166.205.141.57's edits in that article that have not been reverted by different editors. It is important to note, also, that 166.205.141.57 has made 26 edits on Wikipedia and 20 of them have been in the Bob Enyart article. 166.205.141.57 has returned - at least nine times within the last 24 hours - the same edit that has been removed by several different editors. It is difficult to ascertain if 166.205.141.57 is promoting a personal agenda or is simply having fun at the expense of other editors and Wikipedia, as a whole. My solution is to block 166.205.141.57 from editing privileges, at least on the Enyart article, although I would support blocking 166.205.141.57's access to editing the Enyart article and a temporary ban from Wikipedia editing until the editor has expressed, to a convincing degree, that they understand the errors they are making, proper Wikipedia policy, and that they will no longer engage in practices that violate the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Notice of this action has been place on 166.205.141.57's Talk page as required. UPDATE: Forgive me for updating within such a short time, but the edits made by this user have become so disruptive that it has become impossible to properly edit this article. I will make no further edits correcting this user's disruptive edits until an administrator has taken action. I do not want to get caught up in something that could damage my reputation here that I have spent more than 11 years gaining. However, we need some help in that article as soon as possible. This user has run all the other editors off. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Never had to make such a complaint in all my years here. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 2600:8801:970D:9200:4507:4E7:C19E:6B72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Definition error."
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 02:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Definitions in Portugal and Spain */Error"
   2. 02:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Definition error."
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Error, although the Philippines was apart of the Spanish empire at one point, the Philippines is not considered to be apart of the Hispanic world. This is because they have some Spanish influence but do not speak the language nor does their population have substantial mixture or cultural mixture to be considered Hispanic or Latin. They are considered Asian."
   2. 02:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */The article used as evidence that Hispanic applies to Philippines and pacific islands is not proof that they are referenced as Hispanic, this is because the article and other sections are opinion based."
   3. 02:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Definitions in Portugal and Spain */The republic of the Philippines is considered and registered as an Asian nation."
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 02:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Hispanic was coined in the US stemming from Rome, however the term is not used to apply to all the territories that were apart of the Spanish empire. It’s was used as a classification in the US census in order to place European(Spanish)/Native American people of Latin American origin."
   2. 02:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Terminology */Fixed typo and finished sentence."
5. 02:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Definitions in Portugal and Spain */Hispanic was originally created in the US and applied to those of European/Native American ethnicity of Latin American origin, and is still applied in that sense."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hispanic."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC) on Hispanic "Reverted good faith edits by 2600:8801:970D:9200:4507:4E7:C19E:6B72 (talk): I think we should discuss this on the talk page before finalizing on a decision"

Comments:

• Range blocked 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: 2021 California gubernatorial recall election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported: Scribetastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC) to 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
   1. 03:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 22:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "Smh. What a page. Suppositories are less anal."
3. 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "If you're going to be anal, then at least do it right. You defend shotty sources that can't keep up with the SoS or even the AP. Be less reactive."
4. 18:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "Why make it harder to know the exact time of the update?"
5. 18:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "Do you even check sources before editing, lol? You're all over the place"
6. 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "You can't even be bothered to match the two times. The SoS has uncounted ballot reports."
7. 17:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "NYTimes isn't even a listed citation on the page. Stop vandalizing"
8. 16:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "SoS updated."
9. 05:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "Trying to keep info identical to SoS site"
10. 22:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "Try to only use numbers from SoS site"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2021 California gubernatorial recall election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Scribetastic#2021_California_gubernatorial_recall_election

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Both users p-blocked. Here by way of WP:RFPP. FormalDude, this is a poor report. You only reported one of the users. You've also left multiple parameters blank — these are not optional. You also failed to provide a summary or sign + timestamp this report. For future reference. Thanks. El_C 05:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thanks for telling me. ––FormalDude talk 06:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Delhi–Mumbai Expressway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aakash Singh India (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[289]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [290]
2. [291]
3. [292]
4. [293]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[294]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[295]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[296]

Comments:

I see both users engaging in an edit war. One of them could have stopped it much earlier and start discussing, rather than continuing. Speaking of Aakash, two articles Purvanchal Expressway and Agra–Lucknow Expressway had to be fully protected due to an edit warring complaint. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer i was having no idea about, this user's past track record. but if that is the case, why this user is getting so much chances, why he is not blocked yet??? and one more thing, i had seen that Callanecc has protected the disputed page, but hasn't reverted aakash singh's edit, i thing this is unfair, you people should revert that page back to original, because in this way last edit on which page is still running is of aakash's, please intervene in this matter also.thank you. --MeraHBharat (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@MeraHBharat: Admins always protect articles at The Wrong Version. You are welcome to open a discussion on the talk page on the wording to be used in the article. After a consensus has been established, someone with sufficient privileges can edit the article to reflect the consensus. - Donald Albury 17:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reunions and upcoming eighth album (2018–present) */Added missing updated band activity; someone who knows how will provide link."
2. 00:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reunions and upcoming eighth album (2018–present) */Added missing updated band activity; someone who knows how will provide link."
3. 23:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reunions and upcoming eighth album (2018–present) */Added missing updated band activity; someone who knows how will provide link."

I don't not want to out the editor, but the edits by 24.121.182.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 66.185.226.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) use the same terminology. This is the same editor who will not take WP:NOTNEWS for a reason. Further requests on User talk:24.121.182.191. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC) "+"
2. 00:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit summary triggering the edit filter on Anberlin."
3. 00:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "unsigned and response"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Walter Görlitz, if CaptainJaccuracy has reverted twice, and you have reverted six times in the last 24 hours, which one of you is edit warring? – bradv^🍁 01:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • CaptainJaccuracy and the anons are the same editor. They all refuse to supply a single source despite being asked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

    And that's an excuse for edit warring? – bradv^🍁 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

    @Walter Görlitz, in the past 24 hours you have also violated WP:3RR at Derek Sharp and The Guess Who. You have a total of 17 blocks for edit warring in your block log, yet you still seem to think the 3RR rule doesn't apply to you. I also vaguely recall having this conversation with you before, so I must ask, what is going on? – bradv^🍁 02:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 3 months for long-term edit warring. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Walter has a recidivism pattern/history of edit-warring, especially with IPs who are here for good intentions. Most editors/IPs haven't encountered any toxic "behavior" issues until Walter gets involved. There are many other occurrences he escaped blocking, including with me. I hope time away provides him the opportunity to make a fresh start when he returns. Thank you, kindly. I appreciate it! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Walter reverted this comment on his talk page but i wanted those involved to see it and review past issues i provided: [297] (not sure who or what "back Lac du Fond" is?) 137.27.65.235 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If I may, I was only attempting to update the Anberlin page with recent activity. My problem is, I have not learned how to supply sources attached to the edit. The following is a valid source backing my edit, and I have another if necessary. User: Walter Gorlitz has reverted all of my and other editors edits of the same Anberlin History information, which he deems unworthy. The first single leading an upcoming album by a band is hardly irrelevant to the band's activity! I am not trying to "war". Will user Walter Gorlitz continue to be allowed to delete everyone's Anberlin updates? https://www.digitaljournal.com/entertainment/review-anberlin-puts-on-a-high-adrenaline-rock-show-at-the-paramount-in-new-york/article

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1045662479

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1045684980 at 21:42, 21 September 2021‎ (UTC)
2. Special:Diff/1045746185 at 06:50, 22 September 2021‎ (UTC)
3. Special:Diff/1045748683 at 07:09, 22 September 2021‎ (UTC)
4. Special:Diff/1045751488 at 07:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1045749221

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1045747437

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1045751836

Comments:
Copyright issues as well: the website that is being copied from (e.g. [298]) has a copyright notice and the material is not in the public domain. Similar issues are taking place at Nahid Mirza, where the editor is repeatedly restoring copyright violations (there appears to be logged-out editing from 80.5.133.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). DanCherek (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: History of street lighting in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haskinben7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [299]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [300]
2. [301]
3. [302]
4. [303]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [304]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [305]

Comments:
I'm an uninvolved editor who saw this happening. The edit warring caused the article to be protected but Haskinben7 is autoconfirmed so they just continued reverting to their preferred version. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Likely sock of User:Tpirman1982, based on edits. BusterD (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Orania, Northern Cape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mzanzi sa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [306]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [307]
2. [308]
3. [309]
4. [310]
5. [311]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [312]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [313]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: List of programs broadcast by G4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LocalTVFanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [314]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [315]
2. [316]
3. [317]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [318] Was warned previously in a separate incident.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [319]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [320] User also attacked User:JellyMan9001 on his talk page, and left harassment on the talk page of Cluebot Commons. User did not resolve to BRD despite a talk page thread started by JellyMan9001. Destroyer (Alternate account) 00:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I dropped it because upon further research of the shows and their stations, I think he's right about the programs not having aired on G4. His attitude worries me though as it could potentially scare off newcomers. This whole situation reminds me of 15-year-old me who was given rollback privileges wayyyy to early and let it get to his head. JellyMan9001 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutral comment Here because I was informed by 2600:1004:B01C:12A3:CD2A:23A5:2EE1:E31F (talk · contribs) about the issue. I've reverted the false series list from the article; LTVF could have been a lot calmer in this dispute, but they've been CheckUser'ed, so that's neither here nor there now. The false shows list was contributed here and several times before by 64.231.141.64 (talk · contribs), who was contributing other junk we had to clean up and is now under a 1m block. Hopefully this is the end of it; next time, please use the edit summaries to describe the reason for reversion rather than just getting into a rollback war. Nate • (chatter) 15:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering with this report but. Even though I wasn't invited, they also have been removing the dubbed names in the Pokémon Master Journeys: The Series. I asked him on his talk page if he could send me a link if a WikiProject or Wikipedia rule said that dubbed names are only allowed, but he continued to revert it. I added the dubbed names because Yowashi added the dubbed names before the English episodes aired see here and here. They said in the notes that you shouldn't add the dubbed episodes but I looked at the notes and they don't mention anything about "don't add dubbed names until the episode aired". All I see in the notes are the episode number, other English-speaking countries following the Japanese order, and how English episodes are released quarterly while others outside are released weekly. Anyways, if the programs didn't air on G4, and we can't find a source online to prove that, I think I should revert my edit. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Even if they're right, that does not excuse edit warring, and there definitely seem to be civility issues. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm worried about potential newcomers being scared off by somebody angrily demanding them to stop editing in their talkpage. JellyMan9001 (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – by Callanecc (talk · contribs) as a checkuser block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Separatist movements of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Echo1Charlie (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. [321]
2. [322]
3. [323]
4. [324]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [325]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [326]

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

Comments:
This user has a long history of edit warring and has been also previously reported. Moreover, they are again and again removing the maintenance templates without resolving the issue. Satrar (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Here the editor @Satrar: was misquoting the source and changing the content and i was reverting it as good-faith-revert. So I request the admin to verify whether my edit/ revert are reasonable, also please cross check the inline citations. Thank you—Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also I want to let you know that the editor who filed this, was duly informed of his action as [327] here but the editor was interested in [328] removing the warning rather than checking fault is on who's side. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Also it can be seen in the edit summary (of diffs provided) that I'm requesting the said editor to cross check the facts which the inline citations provided and advised him to create a talk section and convey his objections there; please see the edit summary of each diffs —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The reported user talks about good faith but fails to assume so when labelling a benign edit summary as dubious. Something appears to be mystifying about this user's editing behaviour.  samee  converse  06:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • This [329] was the dubious edit summary I mentioned and he (@Samee) talking about here; the said edit summary by @Samee: was "Copyedit (minor)" but he swiftly removed POV template, when advised to discuss the matter and this was the response I got " A 4-month old bold, well-versed need not teach others how to edit Wikipedia." —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Respected admin, if they (both I assumed to be pakistani, their area of interest, edit say so) if they can block a proactive Indian editor they can further their agenda as seen here [330] , here [331] and here [332] —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

      Now you are racially profiling me and lamenting on ethnic terms. Seriously?? Satrar (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

how calling one pakistani become racial profiling??? I think it's proud for a pakistani to be called so. Also I clearly stated "it's my assumption" and not called so don't play the non-existent victim card—Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Why I arguing my edits are good faith

1. [333] this edit made by @Satrar: is factually incorrect (which I've stated in the edit summary and advised to check the source; but he ignored), to verify the claim please refer page 19 of this https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Asia/0510pp_kashmir.pdf inline citation which says (1). Only 2% of thee responders from Jammu and Kashmir(Indian controlled area) wanted to join pakistan; while the editor @Satrar: edited it as "95% of respondents voted for all of Kashmir to accede to Pakistan" [334] which is factually incorrect and misquoted
2. In the same edit diff it can be seen that "while in Jammu and Kashmir (state) administered by India 28% voted to join India and only 2% voted to join Pakistan" claim is removed while it is clearly stated in the same cited source and same page number.
3. Similarly in this [335] edit the same admin removed the cited content although the cited source (https://theprint.in/defence/8-pieces-of-clinching-evidence-that-show-how-iafs-abhinandan-shot-down-a-pakistani-f-16/278752/) clearly states that as About 45–50 seconds after his R-73 launch and about 7 km inside PoK, the MiG-21 was hit by an AMRAAM fired by a PAF F-16. ; without verifying the claim the editor @Satrar: quickly removed the content with edit summary "Reverting vandalism and removal of poorly sourced material" [336] and edit summary [337] "Don't do edit war and state your concerns on talk page" and still he hasn't responded to the very same talk section he mentioned in his edit summary or the section I've created and invited him to discuss here; from these edits he made on two articles his intention are clear which is (1) spread false information on Wikipedia (2) mislead the reader (3) further the pakistani agenda —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This is why I said my edits are qualified as good faith, I hope the admins will take wise decision here. Thank you —Echo1Charlie (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (non-involved user) the 3rd diff listed is actually an edit made by the reporter. Also, while Echo1Charlie has made 4 edits to that page in 24 hours, they are 2 pairs of consecutive edits, not 4 separate reverts. The last edit is restoring a tag that the other editor wanted retained. At this point it appears to be a "no violation" (imho). Also, the editor being reported wasn't notified on their talk page, but a note has since been added there. Perhaps this dispute should be carried over to the article talk page, and if a consensus cannot be found, then perhaps these editors should go to Dispute Resolution (again jmho) - wolf 07:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

wolf absolutely incorrect. They were notified with edit warring template well before time. I'm just wondering why suddenly your interest aroused and you have jumped in out of no where keeping in view similar history of yours of edit warring and personal attacks for which you have been blocked for 8 times. (: Aren't we going towards WP:MEAT? Satrar (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Satrar: 1) Yes, before filing an ANEW report, you need to warn the other user about any potential edit warring, which it appears you did do. But after you file a report, you must notify them of said report. This is clearly stated at the top of this page. It appears you did not do this. I was just letting you know for future reference. 2) Uninvolved editors can and do comment on various noticeboard reports. This is not unusual, and there is nothing nefarious about that. I merely pointed out an error in your report and noted that (imo) there isn't a violation here so far. 3) I have no idea why you have taken such a hostile attitude here, and really... what does my block log have to do anything? Your comments border on the obnoxious. And accusing someone of violating a policy without proof can itself be a violation of WP:NPA (yes, falsely accusing me of "meat puppetry" is a personal attack). I suggest you either retract the accusation and apologize, or take your chances and file a report a SPI. But either way, you should really dial down this bellicose attitude of yours. It's completely unnecessary. - wolf 08:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Respected admins, interestingly this arrogance was guiding @Satrar: the whole time, note that. Thanks —Echo1Charlie (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• His displeased reply to the editor @Thewolfchild, misquoting the sources, not responding to the talk section, unreasonable revert and removal made to the cited content, his biased and misleading reporting here etc., proves my previous assumption "he need to block a proactive Indian editor so that he can spread false information and further their agenda with impunity" —Echo1Charlie (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• I've a request admins, please exercise your rollback right to revert both of these articles if you're satisfied with the inline citations (which clearly backup the claims I made), as this editor won't cooperate or discuss this matter on the respective talk pages (still he hasn't responded after hours!), strangely he would revert the content if I make a change although it's clearly stated in the inline citation. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• No violation. Both users are warned to stop attacking each other. Both have labeled the other's edits vandalism in edit summaries, which constitutes a personal attack and is far less likely to result in a resolution of the content dispute. Both editors should stop editing the article until the content dispute has been resolved. Echo1 has begun a conversation on the article Talk page. Satrar should respond on the Talk page, and both editors should focus on the dispute, not on each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Kabyle people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC) "Bringing sources, one is an interview of Si El-Hachemi Assad (member of HCA) there is no more reliable."
2. 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "It's a fact and tamazight isn't taugh in primary school."
3. 21:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Newspaper article talking about statement which is still promugalted, one month later"
4. 11:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Attempts at discussion with them on their talk page do not appear to have been heeded, as they keep adding unreliable sources, and have not attempted to discuss much. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• They are also a block evading sock of Noname_JR (please see the SPI confirmation on fr.wp). M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Pages: Inkakai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
And: Fireal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheInkakaiRises (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user participated in an uncontroversial technical request to have the page Fireal moved to Inkakai. After a contest was raised, a requested move was started and is in progress. This user who has an apparent conflict of interest decided instead to perform a cut and paste move which has disjointed the article history and confused the requested move. Several attempts to revert this action by different editors were all reverted by this user. Their cut and paste move needs to be undone and they need to be stopped from forcing their wrong ways.--John Cline (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Laurel Hubbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ivar the Boneful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [338]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [339]
2. [340]
3. [341]
4. [342]
5. [343]
6. [344]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [345]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [346]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [347]

Comments:
User:Rab V what exactly are you trying to accomplish with this? You made three reverts yourself [348], [349], [350]. I'm the one that initiated the talk page discussion. You then immediately re-reverted, telling me to discuss on the talkpage! Congrats, you won the race to the drama boards! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you took it to the talk page but continuing to violate 3RR rule after discussing on talk page impedes any helpful discussion. Rab V (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I only made 2 reverts also. The first edit was novel and not removing anything added prior. Rab V (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Page: Animal Farm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 78.66.46.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1045960451 by FormalDude (talk)"
2. 08:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "/* Reception */ I can literally go on Baidu right now and search about the book and even download a translated version of it. This also states that the book isn't banned because "chinese people don't read books anyway". Is Wikipedia supposed to be openly racist now?"
3. 08:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1045862141 by Mandarax (talk)"
4. 20:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC) "The source saying the book is banned from online discussion also claims the letter N is banned in China. It's absolute nonsense. The next two sources then state that the book is not banned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Animal Farm."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC) on User talk:78.66.46.101 "RCP send warning to 78.66.46.101 about Animal Farm"

Comments:

User is continuing to edit war over the removal of well sourced content simply because they disagree with what it says. ––FormalDude talk 08:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

How is it well sourced content if I can disprove it in four seconds? Being able to read about the book on Baidu means online discussion of it is not banned. Also, why should there be a bit by some racists in the Atlantic saying Chinese people don't read books and therefor the book isn't banned. Should we go to the page for every single book on Wikipedia now and list every country where it isn't banned? This reeks of sinophobia. –– 78.66.46.101 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Content disputes should be discussed at the article talk page. This report is about your violation of the three-revert rule. ––FormalDude talk 10:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The IP editor is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a consensus for their change on the article talk page. The material you are taking out appears to have sources. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)