Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive413

User:Sharief123 reported by User:Faizhaider (Result: Page protected)

Page

Syed Jawad Naqvi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sharief123 (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 04:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) to 04:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 04:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967353690 by 14.142.206.26 (talk)"
   2. 04:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "All ref(s) are official and are based on information and biography and from official website...."
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC) to 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   5. 15:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   6. 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""
   7. 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC) ""

There are many more, whole thing has been going on since at least late April.

This one is the latest of his reverts/undo,

1. 16:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967480597 by Tubi719 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sharief123#May_2020
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sharief123#July_2020

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#Content_change/addition_dispute_resolution_2020
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syed_Jawad_Naqvi#RFC

Comments:

Constantly involved in content dispute multiple editors, no result of warning or effort on article's talk-page or even an rfc. Constantly censoring the content and involved in disruptive edits on the article. When warned, keeps posting coy-paste messages on article talk-page and user-talk. Definitely trying to promote the subject of the article in violation of multiple policies. Fz^tc_s 10:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What I get by the edits of Sharief123 is that he trying to censor all the criticism on this article even if they are properly sourced. He adds favourable things even if they are not verifiable, he has been involved in edit-warring since very long on this article. He seems to be very biased and guided by his POV and not by Wikipedia policies, on top of that he uses bogey of the policies to intimate and harass other editors. He is simply trying to own the article under guise of good faith and what-all. I'm specially bedazzled by recent edits by Sharief123, they added flowery language using peacock terms and added links which hadn't any content to support what they were put to cite. Also, most of existing matter which is cited using third-party reliable sources was removed including any and all the criticism. The edits were clearly pov push and so I have undid them restoring the article to previous state. But he reverted them back and an ip removed all the maintenance templates on the article and he unnecessarily threatened me with the block warning without any previous message or engaging me on article's talk-page despite my attempt to do so.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Page protected 48 hours.

This was a more complicated case than it seemed on the surface, given that Sharief123 (t c) has engaged on the talk page in the past and seemed willing to discuss the article. However, in reading over that communication, it doesn't look like they were effective in communicating why they were making the changes to the article. (I suspect a language barrier.) Now, they're not talking on the talk page at all and just wholesale reverting or repeatedly adding/removing similar content.

I suggest that the involved editors, including 14.142.206.26, Faizhaider, Sharief123, Smsaifhaiderhussaini, and Tubi719, take these next 48 hours to discuss this on the article's talk page and come to a resolution.

@Sharief123: Consider this a strong warning. Your pattern of editing is considered edit warring, and if you continue to do so, you will end up blocked from editing (either this article or the whole site). –Darkwind (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Darkwind Thanks for your balanced approach to settle the situation. I (& various other editors), with best of my effort have tried to engage and explain the reasons to Sharief123 on article's talk-page on his talk-page & on my talk-page but you may have seen the responses at best they can be categorized as being innocent of the situation but actually they full of subversion, contempt, irony, wordplay, and at times even threat (of blocking/reporting/etc.), at least in one case he put up a fake block notice on a IP's talk-page. He not only keeps reverting the edits but also the maintenance tags.

Anyways, I'll try to engage again on articles talk-page.--Fz^tc_s 05:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the resolution as of now, will try to reason on talk page of article. Hoping for the best.--14.142.206.26 (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a thread on article's talk-page.--Fz^tc_s 09:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Darkwind, FYI, while the discussion was still in initial state on the talk-page and no consensus or resolution had been reached, Sharief123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again reverted. He has even reverted the maintenance changes done by another non-involved editor. He has barely engaged in the discussion and taken my-way-or-highway approach. IMHO, this is violation of your warning; and breach of agreement and consensus which other editors had reached so far on the talk-page.--Fz^tc_s 16:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted a gutting of the article by Sharief123. I've left a message at the talk page reminding them that, per WP:BRD, the onus is on them to get support for their changes. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Nkon21 reported by User:Freiewsert (Result: Filer indefblocked)

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: nkon21 (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

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

Comments:

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of indefinitely Nkon21 was reverting vandalism and/or a sockpuppet. Number 57 18:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Zararyounis7576 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Warned)

Page

Azad Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Zararyounis7576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968318827 by Kautilya3 (talk) Please maintain STATUS QUO until consensus is obtained and then make reverts"
2. 14:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968134175 by Kautilya3 (talk) check the talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Azad Kashmir. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Violated WP:1RR restriction on the article. Appears defiant in response to the warnings given. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And, top it, the editor has also opened a spurious edit-warring report against me below.Later removed. This is clearly getting to be WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this was a WP:1RR page and I apologise for the reverts. I would also encourage User:Kautilya3 to come to the talk page and discuss changes rather than making plain reverts. Zararyounis7576 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the edit-warring report that was made due to confusion and timezones. Zararyounis7576 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Apology" is not enough, I am afraid. If you self-revert your second revert, and promise not to edit-war again, I will be happy to withdraw this report. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 you have threatened me 3 times now you have tried to change the talk page in your favour by misquoting my changes, you have reverted changes that I made without discussing them, accused me of WP:BATTLEGROUND and called my argument as irrelevant. I am new to this platform I agree but and I am not aware of the cracks in the system that you are using to abuse the system. If you want the changes reverted make a solid argument on the talk page with strong evidence I will revert my changes myself and apologise to you. Zararyounis7576 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are deleting long-standing reliably sourced content based on your WP:OR. We do not have to debate your WP:OR in order to protect well-sourced content that exists on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to debate the reliability of the source not my WP:OR. Zararyounis7576 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see where this article is listed as being under 1RR. If it is so, I have to ask why Kautilya3 also violated it. Meanwhile, the claims of Zararyounis7576 to be reverting to the status quo are palpably false. For now I have restored the actual status quo and if Zararyounis7576 redoes their edits without having gained consensus, they will be blocked. Number 57 19:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Warned Number 57 19:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have always been ready to build a consensus. I apologise for not clearly understanding the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zararyounis7576 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Civilguy1997 reported by User:GreaterPonce665 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Civilguy1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC) "REFRAIN FROM EDITING THE PRINCIPALS SECTION OR I WILL COMPLAIN TO THE AUTHORITY . CHANGED DISRUPTIVE EDITING.Undid revision 968399370 by GreaterPonce665 (talk)"
2. 04:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC) "Brought back principals list as it's a integral part of our college history.Undid revision 968397724 by GreaterPonce665 (talk)"
3. 04:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 967579390 by GreaterPonce665"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC) "Notice: Not using edit summary on Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. (TW)"
2. 04:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. (TW)"
3. 04:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clear case of edit warring. As a bonus, the user seems to target me with a threat of "I'll complain to the authorities". Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 04:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (article space only so he can discuss the dispute) Glen 15:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Additionally I have warned the user about no legal threats. Glen 15:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Agricolae reported by User:Miki Filigranski (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6] - DNA addition based on self-published source
2. [7] - Self-published scientific results are not WP:RS, no matter how frequently people pretend otherwise on Wikipedia
3. [8] - It IS self-published. There is no peer review or editorial content review involved Please respect WP:BRD (and WP:3RR)

Gleb Svyatoslavich

1. [9] - Inappropriate use of not-yet-published science
2. [10] - Not until it passes peer review

Ingvar of Kiev

1. [11] - Inappropriate use of not-yet-published science
2. [12] - Not until it passes peer review

Rus' people

1. [13] - Inappropriate use of not-yet-published science
2. [14] - Not until it passes peer review

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:
At the 3rd revert Agricolae called for respect of BRD, however per WP:BRD-NOT, BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes; is never a reason for reverting unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle; is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. The editor claimed the reliable scientific source is not a reliable source only because it is still self-published and not peer-review published in a journal ([17]). The paper is in preprint at BioRxiv which is not the authors own website nor their organization's server, it has basic screening and is checked against plagiarism, it is a repository for biological sciences in which are quickly shared preprint results (like in the case of COVID-19) before peer-reviewed publishing, bioRxiv has for a reason own Wikipedian [style template] and is widely cited on Wikipedia. The extensive study Population genomics of the Viking World (supplementary material) is credited by 85 experts in their scientific field whose work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, the first five authors have h-index of 17, 22 32, 25, and 44, the study already was in a review process 8 months ago (see comments), as well as the study was reported by third-party British Archaeology and NewScientist gaining news notability.

The editor is claiming to be "intentionally maintaining reasonable standards of verifiability" by intentionally contesting and reverting the self-published scientific information against the policy and guideline WP:RSSELF & WP:SPS & WP:USINGSPS that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"; downplaying the scientific discipline of population genetics and ignoring the expertise of the scientists themselves by saying its incorporation of "supposed science" and comparing them to a somebody, himself, and anyone, showing difficulty of identifying the reliability of the source and authors. Although explained otherwise, the editor makes an exceptional claim that the source is among others not of high-quality, accuracy, the bioRxiv checking for plagiarism does nothing to imbue a heightened level of reliability, and that were inappropriate changes based on a self-published preliminary conclusion. The editor continues to claim it is "inappropriate for inclusion at this time" without further argument especially not based on policy besides own disliking as if the personal stance is enough ([18]), and the disagreement with the editing policy is playing as a personal disagreement with me ([19]). After the article in question, as seen above, continued to do the same reverts against RSSELF in three other articles. The editor also called me for avoiding consensus building due to reverts prior the article discussion yet it was an impossible consensus-building with the editor when refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

These pages were stable until User:Miki Filigranski decided to add non-peer-reviewed self-published inherently controversial scientific material, and just kept adding it even though the propriety of the addition was challenged. On the page for the Rurik dynasty, they did so four times within 4 hours:

• 1) [20] (9:43 with a tweak 10:04);
• 2) [21] (11:50 with a tweak 11:51);
• 3) [22] (12:29);
• 4) [23] (13:32) - the current version, because unlike them, I respected 3RR.

It is simply laughable for them to claim that they have failed to reach consensus due to my intransigence after less than 10 hours total elapsed time from their first edit. Did they actually engage in meaningful discussion? No. Did they await comment from other editors? No. Did they take it to WP:RSN? No. They simply insisted that I was wrong and kept restoring the challenged new material. And now they report me for edit warring. Agricolae (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor still did not give any valid argument about the removal of the scientific material, now even claims without any reasoning to be "inherently controversial", neglect I engaged in a meaningful discussion and still doesn't acknowledge the reliability of the source and authors as well editing policy guideline which strangely doesn't speak well about their will for having a constructive and "meaningful" discussion. I was not the one who went on multiple articles reverting reliably sourced information instead of discussing it first either.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not the place to bang on about the content dispute - if I violated 3RR, that should be easy enough to demonstrate here (or if you did, for that matter). If you just raised this here for another venue in which to argue your interpretation of policy on reliable sources, you are misusing the noticeboard. Agricolae (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Surely it is not since I brought it up in RSN noticeboard, but it gives the context to your behavior.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The context for my behavior is that you added something new to stable articles based on an unreliable source, I objected, and you just kept re-adding it. I have said all I am going to say here. Agricolae (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing policy clearly states it is not an unreliable source, you objected with invalid arguments which are against the policy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I know I said I was done, but this really merits a response. The idea that the rules and standards for conflict resolution can righteously be ignored simply because you think the other editor is wrong is completely nonsensical. When do you think the conflict resolution rules apply - when both sides agree and there is no conflict to resolve? It is for precisely when both editors think the other is wrong that these rules were created. Agricolae (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

RSN discussion could solve the dispute and consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I notice that User:Miki Filigranski is continuing to adding controversial material to other articles, such as Gleb Svyatoslavich (a Prince of Novgorod from the 11th century) based on preprints in Biorxiv that have not been peer-reviewed or formally published in a journal. I think he should cease this behavior if he wants to avoid a block for edit warring. Though a thread at WP:RSN is discussing this matter, the verdict is far from decided, and seems likely to go against him. The Rurik dynasty article can do without this exciting new (unconfirmed) information for another couple of weeks. Rurik has been dead for a thousand years and he won't mind. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of continuing to add the material, confusing me with another editor, when I am not adding the material since hours prior and after the start of this report? Information per RSSELF contradicts the condition that this scientific material needs to be published in a peer-review article, editing policy is contradictory on the matter and I am fine if the information is removed for the time being until is reached a consensus and discussion closed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I linked to the wrong diff above. It is now fixed. You *did* revert at Gleb Svyatoslavich. on 18 July to re-add a Biorxiv preprint. You are right that this edit did not occur while this report was open. It sounds like you may be agreeing to wait for consensus before adding Biorxiv preprints again. If so then this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would like that this discussion of using scientific preprint studies at bioRxiv gets a better consensus for the future. Perhaps there already was a discussion or seemingly there is WP:SILENCE consensus because bioRxiv already has its own citation style and its studies are cited in over 600 Wikipedian articles.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since the filer User:Miki Filigranski has agreed to wait for consensus before adding BioRxiv preprints again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: )

Page: 1802 United States gubernatorial elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

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

Comments:

Sundayclose (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware of this here[30]? Another editor has raised the same issue. Two editors have told him he is wrongly categorizing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't determined by whether you're right or wrong. Read WP:EW You should have discussed on the article's talk page instead of continuing to revert. You've been around long enough and gotten enough blocks for edit warring to know that. Sundayclose (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I've replied to this editor multiple times, I have left links in edit summaries. He is clearly committing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose:, why aren't you reporting or templating Marples? He is reverting again. If it is 3RR for me it is them too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, both of you should have discussed on the article's talk page instead of repeatedly reverting. Sundayclose (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I wrote above- I've replied to this editor multiple times, I have left links in edit summaries. He is clearly committing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.' We also probably add WP:OWN since they are doing this on pages they started. Marples has not once replied back on either my links to categorization or see also. Just that they are right and I and GoldRingChip are wrong. Marples also wrote on his talk page- 'It is also quite suspicious you send me this when a rather arrogant poster is trying to get rid of these same categories from annual gubernatorial election pages I have just posted.' We're plotting against them. Weigh all of this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This is for an admin to decide so I'm not cluttering up this report by making any additional comments. I'm not removing the report because you violated 3RR, you were warned, and you knew better. Sundayclose (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Cornerstonepicker reported by User:Annvarie (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Nicki Minaj discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cornerstonepicker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

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

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

Comments:

This user has a habit of edit warring with users on Nicki Minaj-related articles. This recent instance is not the first time it has happened on that specific article either (as seen below):

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

In this recent dispute, they refuse to address the reasoning given in the edit summary and instead keeps repeating their summary as if it is standard. Note that the dispute is over a RIAA certification that has been sourced and a part of the page for years and its inclusion on the page is not in violation of any rules. This user continues to remove this type of content without even discussing it and then proceeds to edit war with other editors on the page. In the past, in an effort to avoid the dispute, I've decided to ignore their removal of sourced certifications but they continue to remove the content. And in this case, there is good reasoning for why ~one specific~ cert should be included but they refuse to discuss my points and instead opt to constantly revert edits. I realize that I'm not without blame in this whole dispute but this user's constant edit warring with other users has to be addressed. Annvarie (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm uninvolved, but any admin reviewing the reporting user's claims should take into account their own gate-keeping of the article in question for the past several years, as well as their unwillingness to diffuse and resolve situations through constructive means like discussions on talk pages, as they even note them-self "I've decided to ignore" as opposed to discuss. A cursory glance at the talk page for the article in question shows two instances in which users attempted to start discussions with the reporting user, and failed as they never responded. The As for the cause of the edit war here, it seems as though a song certification is being debated for inclusion when the source clearly does not back this information up, the reporting user is insisting that Nicki Minaj not being credited in the source is a simple mistake, but it should be noted that two versions of the song exist, a solo version and a remix, only the latter features Nicki Minaj, so the idea that she is not in-fact credited with the certification is completely legitimate. 92.15.66.17 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd advise an admin to ~check~ this IP responder. In response to claims of gate-keeping and unwillingness to resolve disputes, that's not true as I've never warred with users over constructive revisions (meaning no vandalisms and fan fluff). I have participated in discussions when there is a dispute and most times, a third party gets involved in those disputes on the NM discography article and a consensus is reached. I've never been in a situation like this where I've refused to acknowledge the points of another editor and re-add my revision. Regarding the song cert, I already explained in my edit summary on the article that this is not a similar case to other remixes. I never said that it was a mistake or made any speculations. Instead, I pointed out that the song was remixed for the official single version in October 2011 (the same date listed as the song's release on the source provided). This report isn't so much focused on that anyway because that user has removed certs for other songs in this same dispute that I did not interfere with. This is about that user pushing to have their way and ignoring my point even after I suggested starting a discussion. Annvarie (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment Similar trend is seen in Say So (Doja Cat song) (3RR is not violated but it looks like a persistent disruptive editing):

1. The first revert on May 28
2. July 2
3. July 3
4. The most recent revert on July 17

The editor stated in the edit summary that "this was already discussed" but it wasn't. Not to mention the fact that the editor is using WP:TW to make the reverts on this article and the article being reported here which is concerning. Redthreadhx (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: The filer User:Annvarie is warned. The argument has been made by User:Cornerstonepicker that Annvarie's edits are going against what the sources say. This ought to be worked out on a talk page, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Surely the question of what certifications have been awarded can be settled by reference to sources and should not need any original research. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Right decision. 92.15.66.17 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Leahmerone reported by User:Isaidnoway (Result: )

Page: Escape the Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leahmerone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2
3. Diff 3
4. Diff 4

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page consensus that Variety is a RS

Comments:

Editor is editing their preferred version at article, consensus on talk page is that Variety (magazine) is a reliable source for the information. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User is still edit-warring against consensus, Diff 5, user has been reverted by 3 different editor's - Isaidnoway (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd also be inclined to believe that the user has a conflict of interest with the subject seeing how all of their Wikipedia edits are on this page and their user page says they are a YouTuber who makes videos mostly on the series. - Brojam (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Friend-of-the-planet-99 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: )

Page

First-past-the-post voting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Friend-of-the-planet-99 (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 16:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC) to 16:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 16:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "reverted unjustified deletion by Czello"
   2. 16:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Purported benefits */ reverted unjustified deletion of text by Czello"
   3. 16:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Campaigns to replace FPTP */ reversion of unjustified bulk deletion of text by Czello"
2. 14:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968626418 by Impru20 (talk)reverted unjustified deletion"
3. 14:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968623075 by Rklahn (talk)reverted unjustified deletion of text"
4. 13:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968618767 by Rklahn (talk)reverted unjustified bulk deletion"
5. Consecutive edits made from 11:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC) to 11:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 11:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Safe seats */ Reverted unjustified block deletion of text"
   2. 11:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Suppression of political diversity */ Reverted unjustified bulk deletion of text"
6. Consecutive edits made from 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC) to 10:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* May abet extreme politics */ reverted unjustified deletion by Czello"
   2. 10:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Suppression of political diversity */ reverted unjustified deletion by Czello"
   3. 10:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Suppression of political diversity */ reverted unjustified deletion by Czello"
7. Consecutive edits made from 08:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC) to 09:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 08:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Suppression of political diversity */ reverted unjustified bulk deletion of text by Czello on 18 July 2020"
   2. 08:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Suppression of political diversity */ reverted edit by Czello which made the text grammatically incorrect"
   3. 08:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Purported benefits */ Revered unjustified deletion by Czello"
   4. 09:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "reverted edit by Czello which broke link"
   5. 09:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* May abet extreme politics */ reverted blanket deletion of entire section (bordering on vandalism) by Czello)"
   6. 09:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Purported benefits */ reverted unjustified deletion of text by Czello"
   7. 09:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Safe seats */ reverted unjustified bulk deletion of an entire section by Czello"
   8. 09:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Suppression of political diversity */ reverted unjustified deletion by Czello"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring on multiple articles Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Add this one as well. Impru20^talk 16:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Reported user has been blocked by Timrollpickering for 3 days at 16:56, 20 July 2020. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:92.11.178.246 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked)

Page

Kingsman (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

92.11.178.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Untitled third Kingsman film (TBA) */"
2. 09:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Untitled third Kingsman film (TBA) */"
3. 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Untitled third Kingsman film (TBA) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kingsman (franchise). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Fan fiction */ new section"

Comments:

IP SPA repeatedly inserting information about a fan script with no reference but the script itself. Nat Gertler (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Another edit has been reverted here, added after warnings. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Another here, added 1331h, 20 July 2020. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: IP has been blocked for 72 hours by Ohnoitsjamie at 15:42, 20 July 2020. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Solavirum reported by User:GevHev4 (Result: both editors blocked, one week, partial)

Page: 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
Adds a section which somehow supported by biased Azerbaijani side. All other sides call this "info" a gossip. GevHev4 (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note Solavirum has not reverted the article since receiving the 3RR warning. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: Also, GevHev4 has been edit warring since 14 July, seen here, and here. Apart from that, he was been constanly assuming bad faith, calling my additions "a good example of state propaganda", and accused me of having "double standards". He also misquoted a source in here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

GevHev4 edit warring as of 20:43, 20 July 2020, seen here, despite having no consensus in the talk page. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. Enough is enough. Please take the time to resolve your dispute/s on the article talk page. El_C 20:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Brentdavisubc reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Warned)

Page: Learning theory (education) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brentdavisubc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: # [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:' [52]

Comments:
This editor appears to have begun making these edits as unregistered editor and continued making the edit war after registering an account. The editor also appears to have a conflict of interest; WP:OUTING prevents me from directly stating why I believe this but I am confident than other editors can come to the same conclusion quite easily. He had continued making these edits after being reverted by multiple editors and warned about both WP:COI and WP:EW; he has not responded to warnings in any way. ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You must be thinking they are the same person as 66.222.220.108 (talk · contribs) who made three prior edits on the same article. Two of the three IP edits were adding a link to http://learningdiscourses.com. If this is all spam, then an indefinite block could be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: That is correct: I believe it's plausible to assume that User:66.222.220.108 and User:Brentdavisubc are the same editor. I'm not accusing him of sockpuppetry; it's perfectly fine to begin editing without an account, create an account, and continue editing. My concerns are the edit-warring and conflict-of-interest. He has self-reverted his edit to the article and made no further edits to the immediate issues appear to have been addressed but I'll leave it to others to determine if a block of any sort is still warranted. ElKevbo (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Bretndavisubc is warned for edit warring and violation of WP:EL. No block this time because they reverted their last change. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Doubledareyou reported by User:Berrely (Result: Doubledareyou warned)

Page

Federal Constitutional Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Doubledareyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 969107776 by Berrely (talk) Disruptive deleting the valuable information Broken Subsid. and spitiing on german hyperlinks of www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de"
2. 12:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 969105085 by Berrely (talk) I hope an english racist bans me because I used PAJZ poor English and didn’t use citation source OPENJUR (e.g. 1 BvR 435/68 [18]) for 2 BvR 1775/16 and 1 BvR 1304/13 or a hyperlink to www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de"
3. 11:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 969096543 by David notMD (talk) Illegal revision and nonsense."
4. 18:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 968954749 by Pajz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Disruptive editing (RedWarn 15)"
2. 12:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (RedWarn 15)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:40, 22 July 2020‎ (UTC)
2. 10:55, 23 July 2020‎

Comments:

Despite users discussing on their talk page and the user being warned, they still broke 3RR. They also launched personal attacks in edit summaries by calling "The editor who bans me" an "English racist". — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Similar edit warring and accusations ("Racism") in Edit summaries at Sabine Hossenfelder David notMD (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not acceptable, but Doubledareyou is a new user. I have therefore left a detailed final warning on User talk:Doubledareyou. Ay further edit-warring on the part of Doubledareyou should lead to an immediate block without further warnings. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Aroma Stylish reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Warned)

Page: Anti-Iranian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aroma Stylish (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. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]
6. [58]
7. [59]

User is constantly tapping the revert button, edit warring against two veteran users. Showing a clearcase of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by refusing to replying to the points made, completely ignoring them. Has threatened to continue edit warring no matter what [60]. No consensus has been reached on his edit, and attempting to have a discussion with him seems pretty futile. Yes, I've know I've broken the rule as well (didn't pay attention, great excuse I know), I have no problem in accepting the consequences of my actions. But this disruption has to stop. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
He has no point at all! That's the problem. It's a clear case of WP:I don't like it. This is a respectable source by Pew Research which clearly shows that attitudes toward Iran are mostly negative worldwide, which is exactly what the article on anti-Iranian sentiment is about. The source doesn't clarify if this is a specific hostility towards the ayatollahs, Persian culture, common Iranian people or the aggresive policy of a government (if it said such a thing, I would add it to the table). It says simply "attitudes toward Iran". I'm sorry for the Iranian exiles whose country's image has been damaged by the actions of their regime, but censoring polls because you don't like the result is not a valid course of action in Wikipedia. Saving the distances, I've seen in Wikipedia, for example, surveys on antisemitism by ADL and other organizations where sometimes the result regarding negative attitudes toward Jews is extremely high (mainly in Arab and Muslim countries, followed by Eastern Europe and even Armenia!) and I'd never think about erasing those polls from the encyclopedia because I don't like the results. The truth is above everything.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Aroma Stylish was previously blocked 48 hours at WP:AE on 25 May due to violation of the WP:ARBPIA 500/30 rule. Aroma Stylish's earlier statement 'I'm going to revert you as long as necessary' does not inspire confidence. Maybe they would consider withdrawing that post, in the interest of not providing immediate grounds for an edit warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What has the poll (which is about its global image) to do with Anti-Iranian sentiment, i.e "feelings and expression of hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice towards Iran"? The poll is clearly about the regime as well, and even mentions how Rouhani is viewed by other countries. Also, please don't accuse me of stuff like "censoring" without any proof. You've no idea if I have an actual agenda or not, unless you can read my mind that is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the table whatever clarification you feel is necessary, including attitudes toward the Iranian regime specifically. But the poll is about public attitudes toward Iran, which is obviously relevant for an article regarding anti-Iranian sentiment. There's no way around it.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Which is....--Aroma Stylish (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What has the poll (which is about its global image) to do with Anti-Iranian sentiment, i.e "feelings and expression of hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice towards Iran"? The poll is clearly about the regime as well, and even mentions how Rouhani is viewed by other countries. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I repeat. The poll is about public attitudes toward Iran, which is obviously relevant for an article regarding anti-Iranian sentiment. I don't get why it's so difficult for you to understand this. It's not complicated at all.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"It is like that because it obviously is" is what I get from your comment. Could you please answer my comment properly? In what world is a source regarding the public image of a country/government (and its president) related to "feelings and expression of hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice"? If it's not too much to ask, try to answer without focusing on me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-Iranian sentiment, also known as Anti-Persian sentiment, Persophobia, or Iranophobia refers to feelings and expression of hostility, hatred, discrimination, or prejudice towards Iran..." Do you get it, now?--Aroma Stylish (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And this is what I meant by attempting to have a discussion with this user seems pretty futile. I'll let others weigh their opinion in. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Aroma Stylish is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Anti-Iranian sentiment unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Leahmerone reported by User:M622 (Result: page protected)

Page: Escape the Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leahmerone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61] [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]
5. [66]
6. [67]
7. [68]

{{subst:void| Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69] Warning:User_talk:Leahmerone#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion_2 Comments:

Proposal: * Blocked – for a period of weeks M622 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC) (this is my first time filing a report for a user, so IDK if i have to do this: let me know something's wrong, ok?)

• Page protected for a period of 24 hours Continue the discussion on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is verges on being a COI. The YouTube channel mentioned on there YouTube page makes videos about ETN (Escape the Night). If this is not them then the username might be considered deceptive to some considering the area they are editing. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

User Verum-Nunc is vandalizing several pages on the Turkish Wikipedia page. He has a strongly POV and is editing with probably a nationalistic POV

{{subst:Verum-Nunc}}

Nahroyo (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:103.248.87.164 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Sony Pictures Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

103.248.87.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "*LEAVE THIS F**KING PAGE ALONE, YOU JERK!*"
2. 02:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 969214700 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk)"
3. 02:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "*LEAVE THIS F**KING PAGE ALONE, YOU JERK!*"
4. 02:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "*LEAVE THIS F**KING PAGE ALONE, YOU JERK!*"
5. 02:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "*THIS PAGE IS STAYING THIS WAY AND THAT'S FINAL, YOU JERKS!*"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Sony Pictures Television. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Nate Speed is at it again. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Nate Speed IPsock blocked. Sro23 (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Doubledareyou reported by User:Pajz (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Federal Constitutional Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doubledareyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
The user was the subject of another thread only yesterday (#User:Doubledareyou reported by User:Berrely (Result: Doubledareyou warned)), which culminated in a warning by user:DESiegel: "Ay [sic] further edit-warring on the part of Doubledareyou should lead to an immediate block without further warnings." Needless to say, they reinstated their version once again this morning (special:diff/969227193), without showing any interest in a discussion. The day before, in their final warning, DESiegel specifically instructed them: "When you have a disagreement over what should or should not go into an article, please discuss it .. Please discuss with other users rather than repeatedly reverting." (special:diff/969133626) The only difference between the latest edit and the ones that got them warned is the absence of a few links, but, as clearly pointed out by DESiegel and several others, the old revision was (also) not acceptable due to a lack of sourcing. Prior discussion would have been needed; instead, Doubledareyou decided to continue the "edit-warring" that by then he knew did not comply with Wikipedia rules.

Additionally, in keeping with the spirit of their previous Wikipedia contributions, the latest edit summary was again abused to insult another editor. Yesterday and the day before, the user already stated that "Nazizeit [= Nazi period, -Pajz] .. has begun" following the revert by another Wikipedia cotributor (special:diff/969101775); finished off their criticism of my revert with the hashtag "#Nazizeit" (special:diff/968994806); repeatedly claimed other editors "spit on the philosophy of Wikipedia" (special:diff/969100274, special:diff/969109667); expressed their desire for a ban by "an english racist" (special:diff/969107547); and referred to the revert by another editor as "Racism" (special:diff/969102528). This is a remarkable track record for a user with less than 20 Wikipedia contributions in total.

There is, quite obviously, no intent on the user's part to abide by Wikipedia's policies or basic etiquette, and I would respectfully suggest you take appropriate action. It is abundantly clear from the contributions that the issue here is not rooted in inexperience.

— Pajz (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

As per my previous warning, I have blocked Federal Constitutional Court. for a period of 31 hours, the standard first block for edit-warring. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:‎Mustvalge reported by User:Qumranhöhle (Result: No action)

Page: Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Mustvalge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Don't know what to do. This User:Qumranhöhle reports me here, keeps reverting my edits in different articles, writes on my Talk page accusing in vandalism. --Mustvalge (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what happened to the description of the case which I entered here. The article Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (which certainly has its problem) had a consensual introduction by July 9th. The version was changed with claims that violate AGF and others Wikipedia principles. It also introduces typos and - to say the least - disputable phrasings. I reverted to the consensual version whereas user Mustvalge keeps reverting to his/her version without having established a consensus on the discussion page.

Unfortunately the user keeps changing other articles with his POV. Introducing wrong information into articles (like in Aramaic) is exactly that: vandalism. --Qumranhöhle (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: No action. There is not enough information in this report to justify a block of any party. I suggest that editors discuss that matter in the two existing threads:

• Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet#Redirection/merge to Phoenician alphabet
• Talk:Phoenician alphabet#This page might need to be split

If reverting continues, file a new report. There may be a case for protection. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:219.74.51.200 reported by User:Sgnpkd (Result: 6 months, sitewide)

Page: Red Turban Rebellions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 219.74.51.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits with no explanation provided, please open a discussion on the talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
I've tried to discuss the changes with user Baturu1 but then facing multiple reverts from him and another non-autoconfirmed user without any explaination or discussions provided. Sgnpkd (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. Not a 3RR violation, but this is still disruptive editing requiring sanctions. El_C 15:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Vice regent reported by User:GPinkerton (Result: clearly retaliatory report, no action)

Page

Hagia Sophia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vice regent (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 03:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC) to 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 03:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Museum (1935–2020) */"
   2. 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Museum (1935–2020) */"
2. 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Mosque (1453–1935) */"
3. 03:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Church of Justinian I (current structure) */ plenty of reliable sources state this as fact and attribution is therefore not necessary"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC) to 22:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Church of Justinian I (current structure) */ events of 1204"
   2. 22:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "site"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hagia Sophia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
2. 17:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
3. 18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
4. 21:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
5. 00:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
6. 02:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* why the sentence "It is also an important example of the Islamic practice of converting non-Islamic places of worship into mosques.[6][7][8]" was deleted? */ reply"
7. 02:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Conversion sentence deleted? */ reply"
8. 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Attribution not necessary */ reply"
9. 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Attribution not necessary */ reply"
10. 03:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Conversion sentence deleted? */ reply"
11. 03:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Attribution not necessary */ reply"
12. 03:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Attribution not necessary */ typo"
13. 03:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Alleged Rape at the Altar */ reply"
14. 04:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Alleged Rape at the Altar */ reply"

Comments:

Numerous instances of reversions of reliably sourced material and replacement with poorly sourced material with a POV direction. GPinkerton (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

None of the edits you mentioned above are reverts, except this one, which is a partial revert. I voluntarily abide by the 1RR rule.VR _talk 04:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: That's nice of you to claim, but just manually undoing edits instead of using the undo button is still edit warring. GPinkerton (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkteron: its not a manual undo either. For example, is the first case you cite: Consecutive edits made from 03:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC) to 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC). All I do there is create a link to President of Turkey and Greek Americans. How on earth is that a revert?VR _talk 04:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: How on earth is it beneficial to ignore all attempts at consensus on the talk page and try desperately to remove scholarly material from the article, as you have done? GPinkerton (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm closing this obviously retaliatory report (see report directly above) with no action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:FleurDeOdile reported by User:Destroyeraa (Result: No action)

Page

2020 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FleurDeOdile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

This editor manually reverted the edits.

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
2. 21:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC) "/* July 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

FleurDeOlile's attitude to other users has not improved at all, even though FleurDeOlide has been given warnings by other editors, including me. One July 21, FleurDeOlile reverted a handfull of edits, claiming that those were "of poor quality," even though they were clearly of good faith. Later, the editor wrote on 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, clearly violating WP:OWN. FleurDeOlide reverted editors four times, clearly violating the 3RR. However, the editor did not use the undo function and manually undid the edits, evading getting in trouble with 3RR. For the list of reverts, see below:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]

I have warned this editor about their behavior. They have ignored me. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 14:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:FleurDeOdile was previously blocked in May for 72 hours by User:Juliancolton. The block summary at that time was Disruptive editing: persistent ownership violations, edit warring, refusal to engage in discussions, WP:IDHT. See also Julian's post on the user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: But obviously, FleurDeOlide didn't learn anything from that block. Another more lengthy block should do. Also, other users such as Chicdat, AC5230, Cyclonebiskit and TropicalAnalystwx13 have all warned this editor in the past few months. This editor doesn't learn and should face consequences for their behavior. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 15:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I can independently confirm I did warn the defendant in question just prior to his block. ~ AC5230 talk 03:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC) (11:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time 7/24/2020)

If FleurDeOdile won't respond to the complaint I think an indefinite block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. If FleurDeOdile continues, I have warned them that I will report them at ANI. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 09:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have looked into FleurDeOdile's contributions, and it seems that the editor has stopped being disruptive for the time being. However, the editor still has not replied or responded the the warnings on their talk page. When you get a thing on your talk page, you get a notification. It seems that FleurDeOdile is intentionally ignoring me and other editors. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved observer here. I have looked at some of the reverts and ownership claims and wonder if this is a case of the topic of hurricanes and storms attracting a certain kind of editor? I notice on YouTube that the moment a Tropical Storm is named certain enthusiasts rush to get maps, graphs and animations on their channel and fill websites with analysis and info, often cribbed from official sources, and within the rush is a sense of "ownership" over the facts. It might be the same here: one editor who treats the article as their own webspace (hence the "poorly written" revert) out of an over-enthusiastic fandom-type attitude towards hurricane season? I certainly agree though: if there is no chance of compromise or teamwork then a wider block may be required given the behaviour. doktorb _words^deeds 10:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

if it took too long to respond, thats because i have a way too busy life and im not intentionally ignoring you. and i formally apologize for all the mess i started FleurDeOdile 17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@FleurDeOdile: That's okay. Everyone is busy, and its hard to respond when you have loads of other stuff to do. However, please understand why I'm reporting you. It's because of your behavior and attitude to other editors. If you keep taking ownership of pages and edit war with other editors, you will be blocked. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

i do fully understand @Destroyeraa:, will try to keep in mind not to start edit war in the future FleurDeOdile 22:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@FleurDeOdile: Thanks. I do not wish to report anyone on Wikipedia, because no one wants to spend their time on Wikipedia reporting others. However, those who use rude language, vandalize, cyberbully, edit war, and take ownership repeatedly will be blocked. Please review WP:OWN. Everyone: IPs, autoconfirmed users Extended confirmed users, admins and editors who have special rights are equal on Wikipedia, and need to be treated equally no matter what "status" you have on WP. You will probably not be blocked since you understand your faults, but any successive offenses will probably result in a lengthy block. Thanks again. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 23:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The parties who were in the dispute now seem to be discussing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:58.179.159.63 reported by User:AnandaV (Result: Already semied)

Page: How You Like That (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.179.159.63 (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: [link] Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits with no explanation provided, please open a discussion on the talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments:
Please ban the device of the user of the IP address who edit the article. He/she makes some annoying edits like using unofficial and amateur charts to the chart table and change the referenced statement to non-reference statement like change the genre from Hip-hop to K-pop, while news say it's Hip-hop song. At the previous editing (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/967961229) he/she EVEN made a mistake intentionally with capslock-on summary LOL what a retard AND she/he still do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnandaV (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: The page was already semiprotected on 16 July for two weeks per an earlier complaint at this board. The reverts you are reporting here are stale. But if the IP continues to make incorrect charges of vandalism they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

User:GPinkerton reported by User:Vice regent (Result: content dispute, no action )

Page: Hagia Sophia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GPinkerton (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. 01:49, July 24, 2020 partially reverted this edit. For example, in the revert GPinkterton inexplicably removes "its holy books destroyed", which is sourced to a scholarly source and which I had added just a few hours earlier.
2. 03:14, July 24, 2020 reverted this edit.
3. 03:17, July 24, 2020 reverted this edit. Note the edit summary is false, there was no "deletion of reliable sources".
4. 03:38, July 24, 2020 reverted this edit.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:21, July 24, 2020 (before the 4th revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion here and other places.

Comments: Made 4 reverts in just under 2 hours. Had been blocked for edit-warring less than 1 month ago by Number 57 but was unblocked by 331dot on the condition that "as it doesn't sound like you will edit war again". Also made a personal attack, calling me "someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about". GPinkerton also asks someone during discussion "Can you read?".VR _talk 04:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This report is utterly fictitious. The comment immediately above is slander.

• 1.) The "holy books destroyed" claim is in the source which is itself quoting a decades-old POV account but is not in the centuries old account on which the other claims made is based, so is an interpolation. I replaced this source with reference to the actual text of the Annals of Niketas Choniates, on which the claim is actually based.
• 2.) User:Vice regent decides unilaterally to remove all mention of Niketas Choniates, claiming his claims are "fact" because they are repeated in a non-specialist work about the history of Orthodoxy.
• 3.) User:Vice regent decides unilaterally to remove a perfectly good link for no reason despite extensive discussion on the talk page proving there is no consensus to do so.
• 4.) User:FullMetal234 decides unilaterally to remove all mention of the famous incident of rape by the sultan Mehmed of a Byzantine virgin, despite numerous citations to scholarly work.
• 5.) No edit-warring has occurred, since none of the material was unjustly reverted and neither was it the same material the each time, and this is a clear POV attempt to whitewash the Islamic conquest of Constantinople and/or create a false equivalency between Erdogan's actions and those of the Fourth Crusade, apparently to make Erdogan look better. (Though this is a funny way of doing it ...)
• 6.) User:Vice regent only days ago repeatedly attempted to insert the ludicrous claim that Mehmed had "purchased" Hagia Sophia from the Christians, a wholly fictitious claim they fought hard to include and which demonstrates a certain slant to this user's edits. GPinkerton (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It should also be noted User:Vice regent has previously been blocked indefinitely for sock-puppetry. GPinkerton (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Yes, but he/she was not engaged in sock-puppetry; please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Block review/unblock proposal.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

In short, what is wrong here is that I simply undid the vandalism of these edits, rather than reporting them earlier. GPinkerton (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The edits GPinkerton reverted are a content dispute, they are not vandalism. GPinkerton's edit-warring was also called out by Toddy1 and GPinkerton's personal attacks were called out by Elizium23.VR _talk 04:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent's edits are reverts in all but name, stemming from a content dispute generated by User:Vice regent, who has refused to engage in attempts to resolve the dispute on the talk page. GPinkerton (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"4.) User:FullMetal234 decides unilaterally to remove all mention of the famous incident of rape by the sultan Mehmed of a Byzantine virgin, despite numerous citations to scholarly work."

This allegation is false. There was only one reference to a scholarly work and that same work said the story as false, more information can be found on the talk page. Also on the talk page GPinkerton made several comments that revealed debating in bad faith such as accusations against me for only editing the page because it "contradicted my worldview"FullMetal234 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not false. It obviously does contradict your worldview because the source cited does not say what you claim. Anyone that reads it can see that the way the cited source handles the story is no different from the way the Wikipedia article treats it. GPinkerton (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether the allegation should be included in the article is a content issue. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring does not deal with content issues.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: That's right! This is a content issue. GPinkerton (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, User:GPinkerton is here again?! When is somebody going to understand that this editor is not capable of peacefully editing in a community? Just check how many times he has been reported here (and elsewhere) in the last year... Debresser (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: That's rich coming from you, a notorious repeat offender! GPinkerton (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, Debresser is a notorious and committed edit warrior whose vandalism at Vashti resulted in his being blocked, again, as a result of my reporting him here. Obviously he retains bad feelings about having been caught out again. GPinkerton (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Please don't do this. It's not helpful and is just plain disruptive (and it's not helping your case, either). I've removed it. — Czello 09:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I was referring to the allegation GPinkerton made against me not Sultan Mehmed, He twisted the story to make me seem like I just decided to remove a cited point in the article because it "contradicted my worldview" (notice how he continues to double down on this bad faith argument) when in fact my reasons are justifiable and laid out clearly in the talk page for everyone to see what really happened.FullMetal234 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course I am not happy with you. You are a problematic editor, and were blocked together with me. I still hold that the real problem was you, and you provoked me. Editors here should finally see truth about you. Just see:

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#March_2020

In this baseless warning, an editor who opposed the inclusion of details concerning the Holocaust in Bulgaria was upset at the negative portrayal of Nazi-allied Bulgaria in an article that was then entitled "Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews" wand which I mostly wrote, vastly improving coverage of the subject. No edit warring happened and no report filed; I was not in the wrong. No action was taken. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#April_2020

In this baseless warning Debresser himself is upset about scholarly additions to the Esther article which disabused the reader of notions Debresser clearly prefers concerning the historicity of this fictitious Biblical personage. Debresser then edit warred to remove the content, since restored by other editors. No action was taken. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020

In this baseless warning, Elizium23 is upset about the movement of irrelevant material at Basilica to the new page Basilicas in the Catholic Church, Elizium clearly believed was more important than the actual subject matter of the main article. Ultimately, consensus was against Elizium and the changes I made remain to this day, unopposed. No action was taken. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_2

In this warning, Johnbod is upset that I used part of his real name, easily discoverable on his talk page but apparently not for public consumption despite considerable publicity of the editor. No action was taken. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_3

In this baseless warning, Elizium23 is upset again about the adjustments I made to Catholicity which presented a less pro-Roman Catholicism POV than Elizium would apparently prefer. Ultimately the wording remained as I proposed. No action was taken.

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#June_2020

In this baseless warning Debresser himself is upset about scholarly additions to the Esther article which disabused the reader of notions Debresser clearly prefers concerning the historicity of this fictitious Biblical personage. Debresser then edit warred to remove the content, since restored by other editors. Debresser then resorts to his favourite method of defamation and personal attacks, also in evidence on this very page, with his abusive: "You are a very aggressive and unpleasant editor". As will now be apparent, Debresser has decided to embark on a vendetta against me and his comments here are part of that abuse, for which Debresser is also well-known in other contexts. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#July_2020 Debresser (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

In this baseless warning Debresser himself is upset about scholarly additions to the Vashti article, reports me for edit warring; is blocked (again).

@Debresser: I hold the real problem is you, as evidenced by your numerous blocks before you ever took it upon yourself to interact with me. Indeed, long before I joined the site, so your bad-faith attempts to blame me for your repeated violations looks like more evidence for your vendetta against me/reality. As for what you claim is the truth, why don't you look a little closer at the baseless slander you're repeating. I've clarified above. GPinkerton (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see this report as requiring action at this time; continue the productive discussions on the talk page. @Vice regent: saying "I will not engage with you" to an editor who's trying to discuss a content matter with you doesn't help your case; see Wikipedia:Communication is required and seek dispute resolution if necessary. @GPinkerton: you are required to discuss these matters without resorting to personal attacks. If you don't think you can manage that, take a break, otherwise one will be enforced upon you. You may wish to read WP:NOTTHEM. @Debresser: your personal opinions about other users are not required and not wanted here; if you want to make a case for broader sanctions, go to WP:ANI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector FWIW, the "I will not engage with you" was meant in the context of edit-warring, as in, I will not retaliate against the reversions. Also, its unfortunate that this report became about the content dispute. Clearly 3RR was violated by someone whose violated it before and was only unblocked by 331dot on the condition that "as it doesn't sound like you will edit war again". This report was about the user behavior that stems from the content dispute.VR _talk 17:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: understood. If I were to only take GPinkerton's behaviour into account here I would likely block, though it's really borderline in my opinion. But the fact that there is an active discussion which is becoming heated on all sides, as well as Debresser showing up here for no apparent reason other than to cause trouble, means it's not really fair to only sanction one editor. I'm hoping that everyone involved is mature enough to return constructively to the content issue, which I'm watching, and then I won't have to come back and start hammering the block button. It would be better for the encyclopedia that way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector I find a history of an average of more than one report on admin forums every month for the last half year very pertinent to an edit war noticeboard discussion...! If you personally feel that I should have raised my concerns at WP:ANI, then I inform you that I disagree with you. Saying that I "cause trouble", when I make a relevant remark, is ostrich policy at best, and does not reflect good on your involvement in this discussion. I see this is being closed as no action, but I wanted to explain where I came anyways, from for the record. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Uk5056547 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: one week, partial)

Page

Battle of Lundy's Lane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Uk5056547 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC) "I’m changing this for the final time I have know idea why someone keeps changing it as even when you click on see aftermath it still says the battle was a strategic British victory so I believe the result should be a strategic British victory. Also the battle did stop the U.S invasion of Canada and force them to fall back to Fort Erie."
2. 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 17:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC) "Changing it to a strategic British victory as that’s what the result of the battle was, I believe this will improve the page significantly"
4. 12:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC) "I corrected the result"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Battle of Lundy's Lane. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Special:Diff/969501676

Comments:

Please note that their bold edit was reverted on the 22nd of July by HLGallon, who asked them today to stop edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. Partial block. El_C 21:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr Miles reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Trans woman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr Miles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. [94]
5. [95]

And more:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]

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

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

Comments: Please note this helpful statement at Talk: Because everyone know that trans women are obviously not actual women, they are men suffering from gender dysphoria, one treatment for which is for them to live as if they are women. Some extremists have distorted these facts to actually claim that trans women ARE women, for political reasons. [101]

• Already blocked by SarekOfVulcan. I think an WP:ARBGG topic ban is also in order here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User:70.163.155.150 reported by User:Sable232 (Result: Semi)

Page: Dodge Durango (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.163.155.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no diffs, but the users involved had one here that became thoroughly unproductive.

Comments:

I am not personally involved in the edit war. The other editor involved edits from a dynamic IP, and I've requested semi-protection on the page. The person behind the IP also has a user account, Ee2mba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see [107]), but hasn't used the account to edit this article in about a month. --Sable232 (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:MelanieN. It is possible that this IP could be warring at more than one article. Report again if you see a wider problem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Additional note @EdJohnston: They were also edit warring at Jeep Grand Cherokee so I protected it also. They made five reverts in that case.[108] Here is their list of contributions: [109] -- MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Penepi reported by User:Cwmhiraeth (Result: users warned, article locked--see below)

Page: 2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Penepi (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. [110]
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113]
5. and many more

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

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

Comments:

• Edit war with user:Sakiv who I have also reported Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• I do apologize for any mistakes I may have made. I was just trying to "defend" the page before irrational edits and deleting 15k bytes of contents, which was being done by arrogant behaviour of the other user. Hereby I also apologize for any personal attacks, but if someone is deliberately and shamelessly lying, I do not choose a diplomatic dictionary, because such a person is simply a liar.--Penepi (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Generaligni reported by User:Snowded (Result:Blocked 48h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Generaligni multiple warnings over several articles

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: requested in comments

Comments:
This is a nusance account - starting editwarring on British Empire after another editor was indefed. All edits on a small number of articles have been reverted by other editors but we only get edit warring and no engagement on talk page. Stuck at three reverts against two other editors. Rather than provoke a fourth I'm reporting now given the wider pattern -----Snowded ^TALK 10:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Sakiv reported by User:Cwmhiraeth (Result: users warned; article locked)

Page: 2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sakiv (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. [118]
2. [119]
3. [120]
4. [121]
5. [122]
6. and many more.

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

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

Comments:

• Edit war with user:Penepi who I have also reported Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• I deeply apologize for any mistake I made. However you may look at the article talkpage to make sure that I actually did try to end this dispute with him at 14:13 UTC, 25 July 2020‎, while he continued the same behaviour (unexplained reverts and personal attacks like liar and incompetent user and so on). He violated a number of policies such as OVERLINK and Civility. I'm willing to stop editing this article to avoid further hassle. --Sakiv (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is stupid. Sakiv, this apology is a good idea; Penepi, yours was tempered with a comment about "deliberately and shamelessly lying", besides a host of other insults. I have no idea whether FOOTY thinks all this content is desirable or not; you all should hash this out on the talk page, and I'll ping GiantSnowman as well. In the meantime, though, both of you are eligible for an edit warring block, but I have locked the page; both of you are also eligible for a block for treating each other in what can only be described as an a**holish fashion, and I suggest to both of you that you behave better on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: - I don't edit many season articles, but after my quick look of the diffs above I think the Sakiv version is preferable. GiantSnowman 19:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Giant, me either--it's too NEWSY for me, and then there's all those little flags. If you could, one way or another, involve the project in this so that some consensus can be hammered out, or some verdict issued, that would be great, and then we can unlock it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Drmies: - voila. GiantSnowman 21:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I can prove that, and I don't consider substantiated accusation an insult. But all right, we should stop this. Sorry for any issues. However, the page should be updated several times in the coming days (matches, transfers, etc.). Penepi (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:69.247.147.219 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Semi)

Page: Bolsheviks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.247.147.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [124], [125], [126]. [127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [128], [129], [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Edit summary: [131]. User has not responded to request to discuss on talk page.

Comments:

User has rv four times and been reverted by two editors (TimothyBlue, RolandR and warned regarding edit warring on talk page by three editors (TimothyBlue, RolandR, Jasper Deng).   // Timothy :: talk  02:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one year. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:2603:9001:2:2800:F930:3C94:7AE3:ED49 reported by User:Raritydash (Result: Semi)

Page

Folklore (Taylor Swift album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2603:9001:2:2800:F930:3C94:7AE3:ED49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970094448 by Raritydash (talk)"
2. 06:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970087940 by Raritydash (talk)"
3. 05:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970087615 by Raritydash (talk)"
4. 05:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970086456 by Raritydash (talk)"
5. 00:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "songs are not capitalized on the album"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Folklore (Taylor Swift album). (TW)"
2. 05:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Folklore (Taylor Swift album). (TW)"
3. 06:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "/* July 2020 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP has continued to edit war over the song titles that should be in lowercase which is not supposed to be per MOS:CAPS despite multiple warnings that I left on the IP's talk page. Also the fellow user "Doggy54321" had revert the IP and left a message to the IP earlier about the same thing also. I even told the IP to take this discussion to talk page which the IP refuses to after four unexplained reverts. Raritydash (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:Lectonar. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:DiscoveringTrueHistory reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

Page

Sally Hemings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DiscoveringTrueHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 16:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "This is an unsettled issue as any cursory historiographical review will prove. Saying one sentence detracts from the lead or makes it too long does not change that."
3. 16:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 04:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "No need to deliberately obfuscate by silencing those with whom you disagree. Provide context, don't attempt to silence"
5. 02:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "This is an unsettled issue as any cursory historiographical review will prove. These sources validate the fact that there are indeed quite a few who disagree."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Sally Hemings#Lack of historical and Genetic Evidence that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings children

Comments:

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Wea Label reported by User:Melody Concerto (Result: blocked)

Page

List of best-selling Latin music artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wea Label (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC) "/* 45 million to 74 million */Corrected info"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC) to 02:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 02:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC) "/* 26 million to 44 million */Corrected info"
   2. 02:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC) "/* 26 million to 44 million */Corrected info"
   3. 02:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC) "/* 26 million to 44 million */Corrected info"
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC) to 02:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
   1. 02:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC) "/* 75 million to 120 million */Corrected info"
   2. 02:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC) "/* 45 million to 74 million */Corrected info"
4. 02:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Artists by reputed sales */Fixed typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of best-selling Latin music artists. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• User is reverting with no communication aside from edit summaries; did not respond to warning; has been plaguing this article for some time. ♥ Melody ♥ 02:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I partial blocked for 36 for unsourced edits. and edit warring. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

User:MapReader reported by User:Reinthal (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: World on Fire (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MapReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an edit war currently going on the World on Fire (TV series). The two edits are best represented by [132] and [133].

I have notified the other user User:MapReader with a subst:an3-notice. I have also raised the exact dispute I’m having with him, and he with me, on the talk page, i.e. [134].

Hopefully this information is enough to get an adjudication? It’s all laid out on the article’s talk page. The references MapReader is removing are from a highly distinguished UK journalist, Peter Hitchens who is also a published author of a book of popular British history of World War II, a topic which the TV series in the Wikipedia article in question is about.

I have raised this incident here, since this editor’s repeated attempts to force content onto my user talk page following his (or her) breach of 3RR clearly constitutes harassment. Within seven hours s/he has made four reverts to the above linked article (the diffs are in my ANI report) and then subsequently the seven identical edits (edit/now TEN) to my user talk page and is therefore clearly in breach of 3RR, as well as WP policy that gives users the right to decide what does and does not go on their talk page. Although the reporting editor doesn’t provide you with links to my own reverts, the article history clearly shows that I stopped after three and therefore am not in breach of policy. MapReader (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"The references MapReader is removing are from a highly distinguished UK journalist, Peter Hitchens who is also a published author of a book of popular British history of World War II, a topic which the TV series in the Wikipedia article in question is about." I think "distinguished" depends on who you speak to; he's also a banned Wikipedia editor, for what it's worth. (JzG can fill you in on the details.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – Filing User:Reinthal blocked 72 hours by User:Ponyo for 3RR violation, per WP:ANI#User Reinthal: 3RR breach and persistent harassment. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

User: Yerevantsi reported by User:Sextus Caedicius (Result: protected)

Page: War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yerevantsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [135]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [136]
2. [137]
3. [138]
4. [139]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [140]

Comments: I've invited the user in question to seek consensus two times in the edit summary of the article, and also left a warning on the talk page of the person in question. This warning was removed(by the user), after I urged the user to seek consensus, in the edit summary of the warning being removed the user also wrote: "go away", I view this as unnecessarily confrontational when all that was being attempted was the resolution of an argument, I did take offence from this comment. It strikes as if the user doesn't want to reach a consensus but rather have their version stay as the undisputed one, the user is also not continuing consensus discussion. Sextus Caedicius (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fully protected --slakr^\ talk / 05:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

PainProf reported by User:Poorya0014 (Result: declined for now)

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

Previous version reverted to: [141]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [142]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:

There is a discussion going on in the talk page of the article, but users try to revert before reaching consensus. I have informed the user about it in the talk page of the article and didn't revert what he reverted. Thanks.Poorya0014 (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider this to be an edit war. I reverted once to a previous version by WhatAmIDoing, purposefully past my own change as I saw that the complainant didn't agree with my text. PainProf (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Declined @PainProf, Poorya0014, WhatAmIDoing, and Flyer22 Frozen: (and whoever else) I'd strongly recommend stopping and discussing on the talk page. If you cannot arrive at a consensus for the current version, I'd recommend reverting to a more stable version of the page and continuing the discussion from there. If needed, consider an WP:RFC to bring in neutral outside parties. --slakr^\ talk / 06:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't yet caught on my watchlist to see the latest developments there. I'm catching up on it now. I reverted the editor once, took the matter to the talk page, and brought in WP:Med. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post.

User:‎Shadybabs reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked)

Page: UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Shadybabs (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. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150]

Comments:

No effort was made by any party (as far as I can tell) to discuss this till I showed up. The wording is (to my mind) a bit ORy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You're in the wrong here. First of all, the lead summarizes the body and doesn't need direct reference. Second, the content was established in the lead already and removed without consensus. Its reversion was a correct application of WP:BRD. You're wrong in your edit warring accusation and unfair in your one-sided application of WP against people who are trying to hold everybody to the same revision standards as everybody else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadybabs (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It still needs a source somewhere in the article, I asked where it was and got no answer.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Aghpazoki reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: first edit by Aghpazoka, on 12 July 2020 at 16:42

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [151]
2. [152]
3. [153]
4. [154]
5. [155]
6. [156]

(Note, this is not technically a WP:3RR violation, but it is a violation of any attempt to build WP:CONSENSUS.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning: [157]; second warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk page discussion because the user's edits are not only tendentious, but also practically vandalism in their removal of well-sourced information in favor of the user's own preferred version.

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. The user has made 7 reverts since 12 July to call these tribes Turkic rather than Kurdish. The editor has never used a talk page and appears to have no support from others for these changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Kalevipoiss reported by User:Jonesey95 (Result: )

Page

Peacekeeping Operations Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kalevipoiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 6 March 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970509302 by Jonesey95 (talk)reverting vandalism, restoring sources"
2. 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970508436 by Jonesey95 (talk)"
3. 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "expanding previously deleted content regarding sections Background and Task, restoring sources I added that back up new content, minor grammar fixes, users complaining on talk page should check what are they deleting before actually doing it"
4. 09:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 21:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Three-revert rule warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Unexplained reversions */ please work from the current revision"
2. 18:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Unexplained reversions */ 3RR"

Comments:

Sorry to bother everyone here with this minor matter, but this new(?) editor has been unwilling to engage on talk pages and has continually restored a previous version, including outdated tags and pre-copy-editing prose. Possible sock of VJ-Yugo? I don't spend much time at WP:AN*, so I don't know how these things are generally investigated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

User:2607:FCC8:D489:300:44B7:4E9D:E355:C890 reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Page protected)

Page

Mini Ladd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2607:FCC8:D489:300:44B7:4E9D:E355:C890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 09:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 09:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 09:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Vandalism, so was warned on user talk by Nyook (pinged).

Comments:

Vandal edit warring over adding 'Pedo' (short for paedophile) to BLP infobox name (no sources provided). Giraffer (munch) 09:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Page protected Semi-protected by Ad Orientem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Chatterjee95 reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Warned)

Page: Sylvester Stallone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chatterjee95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [159]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

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

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

Comments:

Keeps removing the filmography sections of this article and few other articles without providing explainations. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

But BattleshipMan, subs ahead! I think you need to return to port and restock your magazines  :) they've been neither warned about edit-warring nor been notified of this discussion you see. Until then, this might be more of a mill pond than a Midway ;) ——Serial 15:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

PS, (Non-administrator comment) of course ^^^ ——Serial 15:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Battleshipman "invited" me to this discussion (as he similarly did with the reported user, the same unconventional way like me ([160]), well I have to add I opened the talk ([161]), but after a quick check the happenings the user did not engage to the talk page but continued the unexplained (= the last wto instances in the edit log with Filmography) removal. The user is doing slow edit warring, however did not get a warning from anyone yet on it's userpage. At this point this report may not achieve much, if not an admin does a warning, if already the case is in front of them.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC))

I have left a note for the editor. Unexplained section blanking is sometimes regarded as vandalism. Does he sincerely think that a good way to improve our articles on Sylvester Stallone and Woody Allen is to remove their list of films? This user has never posted to a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: User:Chatterjee95 is warned. They may be blocked the next time they remove a filmography section from an article unless they have received a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Drevolt and User:69.71.194.34 reported by User:FactOrOpinion (Result: Page protected )

Page: University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Drevolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 69.71.194.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: I do not know what the original version was, as more than one editor has been changing the text, and when I just went to look for a version of the page that would capture the text prior to the edit warring, I discovered that both of these editors had made changes prior to my first noticing their edit warring. I've already spent time gathering over a dozen diffs, and I don't have the energy to keep looking further back in time to figure out whether there was a time when the text was stable and what it was. I apologize for that, but hope you will understand. They are warring about whether to describe UCB as among the top "30" universities in the lead.

Diffs of the users' reverts:

1. "30" inserted by Drevolt: [162]
2. deleted by 69.71.194.34: [163]
3. reinserted by Drevolt: [164]
4. changed from 30 to 10 by 69.71.194.34 here (and then to 20): [165]
5. changed back to 30 by Drevolt: [166]
6. removed again by 69.71.194.34: [167]
7. reinserted by Drevolt: [168]
8. removed by 148.74.225.72: [169]
9. reintroduced by Drevolt: [170], which led me to leave a message on Drevolt’s talk page
10. 69.71.194.34 then removed the entire sentence: [171], which led me to leave a message on 69.71.194.34’s talk page
11. ElKevbo reintroduced the sentence here and his edit summary said “join the discussion in Talk”: [172]
12. 69.71.194.34 removed the entire sentence again: [173]
13. Attic Salt reverted the edit that removed the entire sentence: [174] and then removed “30”: [175]
14. Drevolt reintroduced 30: [176]
15. 104.32.50.221 changed it from 30 to 5: [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Drevolt: [178]
• 69.71.194.34: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

Comments:
I’m still a “learner”-stage editor. I noticed edit warring on University of California, Berkeley and created a talk page section about it (diff above, current version: [181]), pinging the 2 editors involved and specifying the first seven diffs above as evidence. I also created a section at the Teahouse, asking for help checking whether there were other editors involved and whether it was sufficient that I’d pinged the 2 editors on the Talk page or if I needed to report it at ANI: [182]. No one responded. Unfortunately, the edit warring didn’t stop, as is clear from the subsequent diffs. When I saw Drevolt and 69.71.194.34 continuing to edit war over this, I left messages on their talk pages: [183] and [184]. I went to bed, and when I woke up, I saw that it had continued, despite both people having been asked not to on the UCB talk page and then getting follow-up messages from me on their user talk pages, so I decided to report it here, and I gathered the remaining diffs.

I don’t know enough about the standards to assess whether the other people who’ve reverted these edits are also considered to be edit warring. FWIW, as I was gathering the diffs, I also noticed that 69.71.194.34 was involved in successive reverts about other text, for example, here: [185], where s/he deleted a reference to the Free Speech Movement after having deleted it earlier and it having been reintroduced by another editor.

I did my best to abide by the rules here by not editing the article’s page, trying to engage people in a talk page discussion, and seeking help at the Teahouse. If I nonetheless made a mistake — for example, if I should have come to the ANI sooner — please let me know, so I know what to do in the future. Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Page protected Fully protected for 36 hours. Please carry on discussion on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Okhistorians reported by User:Leijurv (Result: )

Page

Tulsa race massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Okhistorians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970684116 by Leijurv (talk)"
2. 19:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970683695 by Leijurv (talk)"
3. 19:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC) ""
4. 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970666951 by Doug Weller (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tulsa race massacre. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:Jack Shukla reported by User:SerChevalerie (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sushant Singh Rajput (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jack Shukla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [186]
2. [187]
3. [188]
4. [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

Comments:

Informed user of edit warring, still reverted edits. The actor's death has been listed as a suicide by the final post mortem report, but user refuses to believe it saying that the police could have been bribed. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Textbook POV-pushing. I protected the Sushant Singh Rajput article and talk page because there has been a flood of conspiracy theory edits and talk page comments. It's a high profile subject that has been getting a lot of media attention, and that has unfortunately attracted a lot of editors ignorant of Wikipedia policies and goals, many of them I'm sure are fans. I don't know/care what Shukla's fan status is, but he seems oblivious to the fact that we don't care what he personally thinks about the subject's death cause. Rather than accepting the police ruling that it was a suicide, he is pushing an agenda that the death is a "mystery". From my count, he has inserted this content five times in the biography,[192][193][194][195][196] which is sufficient for sanctions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ThesariusQ reported by User:Hemiauchenia (Result: EC protection)

Page: Socionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ThesariusQ: ThesariusQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [198]
2. [199]
3. [200]
4. [201]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute [203] (No response)

Comments:
User is part of a collection of SPA's reverting edits to the Socionics page on Wikipedia including Sounderk, Igor RD and 2806:10a6:19:5b4a:f1bb:23d7:efe2:aef5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sounderk Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Sorry, but the article has been in consensus for many years. After that, there was a non-consensual edit at the beginning [204] which I canceled [205]. After that, they began to cancel my cancellation.--ThesariusQ (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I clearly asked you to use the articles talk page instead of just reverting the edit, which you didn't do. The involvement of multiple possible socketpuppets is making it even worse. --Johannnes89 (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Result: This is not clearly a 3RR violation since two of the listed edits were consecutive. Page has been EC protected for one week by User:Cwmhiraeth, which ought to help with the socking. In my opinion a longer protection may eventually become necessary. There is an open sockpuppet case about User:ThesariusQ. The tone of the discussion at Talk:Socionics indicates that one or more editors might be violating WP:ASPERSIONS. An admin with more patience might consider if an SPI block is due, or if any personal attack blocks are indicated. The page on Socionics ought to fall under the WP:ARBPS case. See also WP:ANI#Socionics. A related dispute has been taking place on the Russian Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:A Simple Human reported by User:KSAWikipedian (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

2021 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

A Simple Human (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

1. 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* 2021 Pakistan Super League */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Refuses to discuss. Keeps unilaterally blanking a page that multiple editors have contributed it. It is the next itteration of tournament that meets WP:N. It has multiple WP:RS. He refuses to discuss prior to unilaterally reverting my edits. KSAWikipedian (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• No. I havent violated WP:3RR. Among one of the edits, I simply restored a previously edition. And we are still under discussion. You reported me without I get to say anything properly. Human (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• A Simple Human did agree to discuss. We had a very productive and passionate discussion and were able to reach a consensus. Since the reasons for the complaint have been rectified, I now withdraw report. KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by the submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:37.251.220.233 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Flushed Away (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

37.251.220.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC) to 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC) to 15:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
   1. 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Flushed Away. (TW)"
2. 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Salvio 17:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F reported by User:JlACEer (Result: Semi)

Page

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

User being reported

2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F (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

1. 00:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:JlACEer. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point 150 years */"
2. 23:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point 150 years */"
3. 23:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Cedar Point 150 years */"
4. 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""

Comments:

I know blocks are not supposed to be punitive but I think this user needs a short block as a cool-down period and perhaps to learn some manners. I'm tired of being harassed. —JlACEer (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Cedar Point one month. User:JlACEer, if you don't want this dispute conducted on your user talk, why not open a thread on Talk:Cedar Point? I don't see any personal attacks by the IP or any vandalism, though they removed references here, perhaps inadvertently. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I tried to encourage the user to take the discussion to talk:Cedar Point but he kept posting to my personal page. I don't think you read the comments made by the user on my personal talk page, he was most certainly out of line, even making snide comments about my previous posts. This type of stalking is almost frightening. Semi-protecting one page may fix the problem for that particular page, but I would like to have seen a little bit of hand slapping of the abusive IP user. I had hoped that at least one person other than me would let him know that such behavior is not acceptable on Wikipedia.—JlACEer (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think that the IP made personal attacks, please link to one of them. Criticism of your edits is not the same as criticism of you as a person. In your response above you call him an 'abusive IP user'. Unless you can document their abuse, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS on the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Swmpshield2 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Chinese espionage in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Swmpshield2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970990160 by Havsjö (talk) Please learn the distinction between the country of China and the Chinese government/ruling party."
2. 12:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970919573 by Yeungkahchun (talk)"
3. 03:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970914519 by Yeungkahchun (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Reverting (edit warring) across multiple articles on Party vs Govt */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Template warning given here and reverting over same issue occurring elsewhere 2. Pinging @Havsjö and Yeungkahchun: as being involved in this non-dispute. Also five series of reverts in 16 hours at China: 1 2 3 4 5. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I was going to leave a warning on their page for hitting 3 reverts in a few hours at Xinjiang re-education camps and then saw that you and other editors had already warned them for similar behavior elsewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Kalevipoiss reported by User:Jonesey95 (Result: EC protected)

Page

Peacekeeping Operations Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kalevipoiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 6 March 2020

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970509302 by Jonesey95 (talk)reverting vandalism, restoring sources"
2. 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970508436 by Jonesey95 (talk)"
3. 17:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "expanding previously deleted content regarding sections Background and Task, restoring sources I added that back up new content, minor grammar fixes, users complaining on talk page should check what are they deleting before actually doing it"
4. 09:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC) ""
5. 21:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Three-revert rule warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Unexplained reversions */ please work from the current revision"
2. 18:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "/* Unexplained reversions */ 3RR"

Comments:

Sorry to bother everyone here with this minor matter, but this new(?) editor has been unwilling to engage on talk pages and has continually restored a previous version, including outdated tags and pre-copy-editing prose. Possible sock of VJ-Yugo? I don't spend much time at WP:AN*, so I don't know how these things are generally investigated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Reposting this. It was archived without action, apparently by a bot. This disruption continues at the same page. I have issued second- and third-level warnings to the editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: I have EC protected the page for two years under WP:ARBEE due to possibly sock- or meatpuppetry. Reviewing the last 100 edits in the history, six of those people are currently blocked. It is not obvious why this article might have significance to nationalists, but it apparently does. Hard to understand why somebody would be indignantly reverting a copyedit from last March (thus restoring the 'copy edit' tag) with unconvincing explanations. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:71.212.13.9 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Partial block)

Page: Jenny Durkan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.212.13.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [206]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [207]
2. [208]
3. [209]
4. [210]
5. [211]
6. [212]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: The IP has been partial-blocked from the Jenny Durkan article for 36 hours by User:Deepfriedokra. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• User:Sjö, if the tendentiousness and other problems continue, even on the talk, might want to report at WP:COIN, or if possible libelous, WP:ANI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Hello. This is User:71.212.13.9. My internet provider must have changed the IP, I assure you its a coincidence. Question: Is User:Deepfriedokra attempting to weaponize WP:COIN in the real world in an attempt to dox an editor? Can someone explain to me how this is appropriate or acceptable or warranted?--174.21.174.34 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:Flix11 (Result: No action)

Page: S.L. Benfica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Because I've seen pictures of it at a store, unlike you. Also, the away kit isn't black, it's gray. Please don't add it back until you are sure."
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC) to 22:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
   1. 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970813741 by Flix11 (talk) Aways socks are mostly white."
   2. 22:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Restored "Benfica" new home kit."
   3. 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""
   4. 22:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Drought and return to titles */ +"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on S.L. Benfica. (TW)"
2. 03:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "General note: Ownership of articles on S.L. Benfica. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This and this are not reverts. Flix11 shouldn't have added kits with logos because it violates consensus at WT:FOOTY. Flix11 shouldn't have added away socks without being sure of their actual colours. I partially restored one of his edits. We reached a consensus on his talk page, and currently there isn't more edit warring at S.L. Benfica page. SLBedit (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

My reverts were: [214], [215], [216] (with the latter being a partial revert). SLBedit (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears the war is not continuing. I tried to confirm this with User:Flix11, but they didn't respond to my query. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:80.47.137.128 reported by User:Green Dragon Pride (Result: )

Page: Matthew Goodwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 80.47.137.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 971074902 by Green Dragon Pride (talk) Wikipedia works by gaining consensus. If an addition is disputed it doesn't stay up until there is consensus that it should not be there, it is not added until there is consensus it should be there. That is how wikipedia works. If you wish to discuss this please do so in the Talk Page rather than Edit Warring"
2. 01:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 971074140 by Green Dragon Pride (talk) there is no consensus for the addition of this information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps taking down content saying there is no consensus for it to be up when it was there before until the IP just came and took it down Green Dragon Pride (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Sapah3 reported by User:MistyfelSR (Result: )

Page: Template:East Asian topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sapah3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]

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

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

Comments:

Even though they haven't reverted the current version just yet, they mostly likely would based on their revision history. For some reason, this specific user has a thing for removing countries from cultural regions when it doesn't agree with their views. (This user was edit warring with other users on the Asia-Pacific for similar reasons, reverting 8 times) [here] It seems like it's been going on for a while now. User has also made many other reverts, this time in Culture of Thailand and Genetic history of East Asians, with a misleading edit summary on the guise of "fixing errors" or claiming "it's not in the source" when it's really just another POV. – [221] [222] MistyfelSR (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at the talk page at Asia-Pacific. We do not change anything until we reach consensus. Secondly, there are no credible sources to support your claim that Singapore is part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. Just because Singapore has a Chinese majority does not mean it is part of the East Asian Cultural Sphere. Do you have any understanding of Singaporean culture? Do you what Singlish is? Do you understand what Singaporean cuisine is? Do you know what basic Singaporean culture entails? I have explained myself at the template's talk page. This is the second attempt you have made to report me, the first under an IP address which you were subsequently blocked because you attacked me and harassed me. It seems like you have not learned anything since that incident. (Sapah3 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC))

I'm not that IP, dude. By the way, your statement of "We do not change anything until we reach consensus." is ironic considering your behaviour. And are you actually gatekeeping Singaporean culture by telling me if I have "any understanding" of it? What about your edit wars with 4 distinct users (@Kenwick:, @Xindeho:, @120.16.215.123: and @2001:8003:9008:1301:581d:97a:efae:363b:) about Afghanistan being South Asian or not? MistyfelSR (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you honestly expect me to believe that you are not the same person as that IP user? You have made the exact same edits as the IP user, you speak in the same manner as the IP user and you reported me just like the IP user. I was not born yesterday. It is very clear to me that you are the same user as the IP user (who was banned). The fact that you are stalking me on a newly registered account is all the proof I need to prove that you are the same user as the IP user. It is quite ironic of you to claim I'm edit warring when you have been doing the exactly what you claim to disapprove of. Also, FYI two of the diffs (1 and 2) you included above aren't "reverts" so they don't constitute edit warring. (Sapah3 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC))

I'm not gate keeping anything. I'm merely asking you to provide sources to support your claims and engage in discussion. However, you are not intersted in that and you are now hell bent on attacking me with this vendetta you have against me. It is clear to see that you aren't interested in editing Wikipedia like a responsible user, you are here just to attack and argue with people when things don't go your way. (Sapah3 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC))

User:Max3218 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: )

Page: Montlake, Seattle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Max3218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 971056108 by SounderBruce (talk). I am returning page to how the user eightyearsbreak left it as it does not simply use outdated 2013 information/data. The user SounderBruce continues to undo edits by all recent users in what seems to me to qualify as vandalism to this page."
2. 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970942609 by SounderBruce (talk). Dude, seriously cut it out. The page has been just fine for years, go fiddle with a page somewhere else."
3. 06:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Undid revision 970594399 by SounderBruce (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Montlake, Seattle. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "/* Household income */ Replying to EightYearBreak (using reply-link)"

Comments:

This user wishes to keep using a real estate broker's blog rather than city statistics (sourced from the U.S Census's American Community Survey) and is not responsive to messages left in multiple areas. SounderBruce 04:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Joseph Nicolosi and Dean Hamer page

I seek attention about this and this changes by User:Sxologist. 116.58.201.111 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You've mentioned me on two administrator noticeboards for this. One revert is not edit warring. First, you removed the required WP:FRINGE notices from Medical Associations, made drastic edits to a page that are not required, used primary/original sources instead of reputable secondary ones, added a fringe source (Joseph Nicolosi) and now you're disruptively wasting peoples time by tagging me here under an anonymous IP. Learn how to use Wikipedia. For making such baseless accusations and disruptive fringe edits, I hope you get banned. Don't call me "bias" because I actually happen to work in this field and can see how you're trying to spin things. Sxologist (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:45.52.233.3 reported by User:Prauls901 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Patrick Deneen (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 45.52.233.3 (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [970783511]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [971144619]
2. [971148576]
3. [971149326]
4. [971150086]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [223]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [224]

The only contributions that user 45.52.233.3 has ever made to any Wikipedia page began today, and those are reverting my changes to this article

Prauls901 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments: User has already been blocked by Glen. See log. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Glen (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:152.32.106.116 reported by User:Nkon21 (Result: Semi)

Page

Global K-pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

152.32.106.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC) ""
2. 01:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC) ""
3. 19:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Global K-pop. (TW)"
2. 05:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Global K-pop. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I reverted the edits this IP had made to this article regarding the claim that a certain company was the one responsible for the creation of the term, however the only source given was the website of the company itself. I told the IP that the claims must be verified by reliable secondary sources in order to adequately verify the seemingly promotional-like claims. However this IP refuses to engage in any discussion whatsoever and continues to re-add their changes with no adjustments to the point of edit warring. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Page semi-protected by Muboshgu (talk · contribs). Any need for further action? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Mdaniels5757, hopefully not. I'm not clear as to whether or not the IP actually violated 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Ktrimi991 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: No action)

Page: Kosovo Myth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ktrimi991 (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. [225]
2. [226]
3. [227] (rv of this [228])

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

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

Comments:
While the above is technically not a 3RR vio, Ktrimi991 has been maxing out 3RR a lot lately. This is a highly experienced user who knows not to violate 3RR, but is clearly gaming it. In addition to the above diffs, he has recently:
Maxed out 3RR at Kosovo Myth on July 31: [229] [230] [231]

Maxed out 3RR at Great Retreat (Serbian) on July 18: [232] [233] [234]

Maxed out 3RR at Albanian nationalism on July 10: [235] [236] [237]

And again on July 2: [238] [239] [240]

That’s 5 times in the last month, with only ~100 mainspace edit in that period. Out of those mainspace edits, a clear majority (I'd say ~60% are reverts). At Albanian nationalism (Albania), the article was page protected on July 2 due to Ktrimi’s edit-warring, and he immediately racked up 3 reverts on July 10 as soon as the page protection expired. The reasons for edit-warring are two-fold: One is to prevent addition of material he does not like, such as at Albanian nationalism (Albania) (typically using "no consensus" as an excuse), the other is to revert removal of material he has added, for example at Kosovo Serbs. In other words, he can add material as he sees fit, but no one else can. He knowingly games 3RR because he often writes “this is my last revert” in edit summaries [241], indicating that he knows what he’s doing is blockable, and is writing “this is my last revert” so as to avoid a block. This is nothing new, he has done it several times before [242] [243]. The edit-warring diffs are only from the past month, but the pattern of behavior has been going on for a long time. For example, in June he maxed out 3RR in quick succession at Battle of Manzikert, in an article to which he clearly stalked me or Dr.K. [244] [245] [246]. What is especially disruptive is that while this article falls clearly outside the topics he edits (which are almost exclusively Albanian), he knows just enough history to know that Battle of Manzikert is a sensitive topic for Greek editors. He had never shown the slightest interest in that article or any related articles before, and I can only surmise that he followed me or Dr. K. there and reverted out of spite.

In addition to edit-warring, he frequently uses abusive edit-summaries, laced with contempt, aggression, and condescension, as demonstrated in the diffs above. He also uses WP:BULLY tactics, frequently posting threatening messages on other user’s talkpages, threatening to report them or out them: [247] [248] Talkpage posts, which are far fewer than reverts, are similarly laced with insults, threats, or both: [249] [250] He even said he found COVID-19 pandemic in Greece "entertaining" [251]. That alone should be santionable. Recently, he posted threats on his talkpage were so outrageous they had to be redacted [252], and he was warned by Primefac [253]. He has also repeatedly threatened me in the past [254] [255]. In 13 years of editing wikipedia, I have never seen such threats.

In summary, Ktrimi displays strong WP:BATTLE behavior on Balkan topics and is clearly very comfortable gaming 3RR. This behavior has been going on for a long time and I am certain the edit-warring, threats, and incivility will continue, unless restrictions are imposed. If anything, the edit-warring is increasing in frequency in the last month rather than decreasing. All of his edits fall within the WP:ARBMAC topic area, and are as such subject to sanction, something which he is aware of: [256]. Khirurg (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• This editor, who has a very long history of frivolous reports (closed without action or with boomerang) on apparently perceived opponents, in the last month or so, has "maxed out", whatever it means, 3RR on Lukovë, Albanian nationalism (Albania), Origin of the Albanians and Dimale. He is practically reporting me for sth he has done himself. he knows just enough history to know that Battle of Manzikert is a sensitive topic for Greek editors. He had never shown the slightest interest in that or any related articles before, and I can only surmise that followed me or Dr. K. there and reverted out of spite What an aspersion and personal attack, and btw do not edit articles if you are very "sensitive" to them. But not a surprise; you have been warned and sanctioned (including a topic ban, "revert restrictions", interaction bans, blocks) several times for your behaviour and inapropriate comments on other editors. It is common for you to accuse other editors of "following around"; you even took the Manzikert thing to Wiki Commons where you accused of the same thing other editors [257][258][259]. During your latest edit warring session you again used your common personal attacks and aspersions for edit summaries (e.g. [260]). the article was page protected on July 2 due to Ktrimi’s edit-warring The edit warring between several editors there happened because you made several reverts there to add questionable (read: false) information on living people without consensus. The article got protected after I asked an admin about personal attacks that were being made there through edit summaries. On my tp, the edit that was deleted by Primefac discussed how you involved me in your off-Wiki conflicts with User:Sulmues. However, I thanked Primefac for the deletion; as I said at the time, in tense situations one might give more details than intended (your previous username, that was all). On Kosovo Serbs you went as far as to make 3 reverts that counter with what the given sources say on the Arnautasi theory (you denied that the source says what it actually says!): a theory that has been described as fringe, nationalistic and racist -- the theory says that the Kosovo Albanians as a community have Serbian origin. I have always fought against nationalistic editing on Wikipedia, and I have reported many editors for disruptive editing regardless of their apparent ethnicity: Albanian, Serbian, Croatian, Greek or whatever. You, what have you done so far in that regard? But why here? Take your concerns about my behaviour at AE; there everthing can be discussed more carefully and in greater detail, I can prepare more diffs and you can get a boomerang. You have said you will report me there for years; why not? Of course, that you are heavily involved in disruptive editing should not serve as a justification for me, or anyone else for that matter, to make more reverts. Indeed, the Balkan area is difficult, with many tense situations and disruptive editing. Hence sometimes I, as everyone else editing the topic, should be more careful and reflect on some cases, and maybe even leave a dispute for a few days. The most important thing is to not resort to infamous fringe theories, like you are doing. Ktrimi991 (talk)

Check your facts. Virtually everything you wrote above is an outright falsehood. I did not reach 3RR at Dimale or Origin of the Albanians. Not even close. Doubtless this is why you have not included diffs with your accusations. And while edit-wars happen in the Balkans, you are by far the worst offender. And no, I have not been sanctioned, in fact I have a clean block log since 2010 (unlike you). Regarding the history of filing frivolous reports, I believe that honor goes to you [261] (how many contribs is that? 100?). In fact you have more edits to AN3 than any other page on wikipedia, bar your own talkpage [262]. You were even warned by an admin [263] against filing frivolous reports. Regarding the edits oversighted by Primefac, we both know you did much more than reveal my old username. In fact, why don't we ping Primfac to see what they think? Yes, let's do that: @Primefac:. This wasn't the first time you were warned about attempted outing by an admin. Remember this [264]? And you shouldn't misuse words like "fringe theory". Your documented history of gaming WP:3RR is not a fringe theory; it is a documented fact. What is a fringe theory, are your wild allegations about off-wiki nonsense (or more accurately, a conspiracy theory). So in addition to your edit-warring, threats, and incivility, we can add one more reason for why you should be sanctioned: Intellectual dishonesty. Khirurg (talk) 01:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If an admin is willing to see the evidence and evaluate it, I am very willing to pass it to them. You and Sulmues had off-Wiki conflicts, and I was involved without my permission and desire. The rest of your claims can be very easily verified by anyone interested. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment I don't get the nature of this report as far as 3RR is concerned. There is no violation of 3RR and Ktrimi991 didn't even need a 3RR warning to make him think about the revert disputes and he didn't "game" the 24-hour-revert cycle by making a fourth revert just outside the "revert clock". He's also very consistently using the talkpage and dispute resolution is indeed moving forward by those who are involved in the discussion. As a side comment, Khirurg who filed the report and has been involved in the reverting in that article, has not been involved in the consequent dispute resolution, so it's a problem that an editor filed a report against another editor about a dispute in which he has too been involved in the reverting, but has not been involved in any part of the dispute resolution. This admin oversight noticeboard is not the place to report someone about 3 reverts they made on July 2 - more than a month ago - with the accusation that they have been "maxing out 3R lately". The report looks very disjointed and tries to force a narrative that just doesn't work in terms of policy. It's also riddled with personal comments that Ktrimi991 is making edits in "topics that are sensitive to Greek editors" "out of spite" or material that seems to have to do with a dispute Khirurg has with Ktrimi991 - which really doesn't concern wikipedia, its community of editors, the editing process and this board in particular. Recently a similar report was made at AE which also involved two editors from the Balkans and its result was logged (Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Eastern_Europe). The closing admin warned the filing editor to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes.. This sort of use of reporting has become a major problem in disputes in the Balkan area. I think that this report goes even further than that one, which at least was filed at AE - the appropriate oversight board - while this one is being filed at AN3 and includes diffs from more than a month ago. Surely the filing editor knows that AN3 can't be used to file such reports. If this was AE, I would suggest a WP:BOOMERANG warning to be logged, but as it is not, the best thing to do is to focus on how to improve communication between editors.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This board is for reporting edit-warring, which is exactly what Ktrimi has been doing for quite some time now (among other things). Familiarize yourself with whataboutism and red herring (I had nothing to do with the AE report you mentioned). And if you don't see what's wrong with Ktrimi's behavior (let's pretend), read WP:GAME, WP:BULLY, WP:BATTLE, and WP:CIVIL for a start. Oh, and WP:NOTTHEM while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You use accusations as a way to deal with those who disagree with you. You even accuse editors you disagree with as "sock" (some of the many examples [265][266][267]) without providing any evidence but just as a justification to revert them. Look at your talk page history: it is full of edit warring warnings.. You judge editors by their nationality [268] and group them as some kind of "pro-Greek" and "anti-Greek" [269]. Those who warn you "don't have much to be thankful for" [270]. As I said, if behaviour is to be discussed, I want that to take place at AE where more diffs, context and input by more admins can be ensured. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring that involves multiple articles and editors or some of form of 3RR violation or "gaming" in order to make 4+ reverts outside of the 24-hour-cycle is what this board is about. This report is about none of those things. Also, a small example of how collaboration can work when editors actually communicate with each other: One particular sub-dispute between Ktrimi991, and other editors - myself included - was solved eventually because I combined elements of both versions and then we all moved past that [271]. Nobody felt the need to write large reports or try to get other editors blocked and that happened because despite the disputes, the reverts and all the "wiki-drama", it was discussed and a solution was worked into the article. In fact, none of the involved editors who have participated in the talkpage of Kosovo Myth reported anyone in the past days. But Khirurg decided to use a dispute - which has seen no edit-warring for the last 2 days - in order to launch this report. Why?

The larger point here is that going through a cycle of reports based on forced narratives and not engaging in the talkpage only exarcebates problems in collaboration and communication like when Khirurg approaches disputes by calling other positions and editors some of the most odious POV-pushing I have ever seen, stop it with the intellectual dishonesty etc. In the first instance, a solution can emerge. In Khirurg's interaction with other editors in disputes though the steady stream of accusations that often reach the level of WP:ASPERSIONs and now this sort of reporting, create a difficult situation. Khirurg, you should take a step back and reflect on how you can improve communication with other editors instead of writing reports that ultimately create unneeded tension. It doesn't mean that you should bear sole responsibility for bettering communication, but we all bear our personal responsibility and should do our bit.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This habitual tour de brute force of edit-warring by Ktrimi991 has to stop. If this noticeboard has any teeth at all, Ktrimi991 should exit this report either as blocked or under 1RR restrictions in a variety of topics. His obvious longterm gaming of 3RR is obvious to all, except the usual supporting suspects who engage in the usual obvious attempts at filibustering and trying to derail any report blaming the one they continuously and unabashedly support. Dr. K. 03:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What "tour de brute force"? There's not even any ongoing dispute or edit-warring by anyone involved that warrants any sort of blocking to stop disruption in the editing process - which is the reason why blocks are handed out, not to show that "the noticeboard has any teeth at all" and certainly not to satisfy the attempts of editors who ask for editors with whom they've been into disputes in the past to get blocked. Longterm gaming 3RR means that an editor makes 4+ reverts just outside the 3RR cycle for a long-term period. Nowhere in this report has any such instance been shown - let alone long-term abuse. Dr.K. who has been in disputes with Ktrimi991 in the past but hasn't had the slightest interaction with him lately shouldn't join this report just to put forward accusations that can't be backed up. And he certainly shouldn't ask admin oversight to show that it is valid by imposing blocks that can't be argued for in terms of policy and the principles that guide wikipedia. Our project "shows its teeth" by encouraging cooperation in the context of policy and not following the demands of those seem to think that you can casually ask for blocks and sanctions against other editors without the report having to fulfill even rudimentary criteria.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:GAME, WP:FILIBUSTER. Knock it off already. Khirurg (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dr.K., others, not me, have accused you of tag teaming with Khirurg. In any case, it is undeniable that you tend to revert editors who revert Khirurg, and in some cases you have done so with not a single post on the talk page. Just reverts (blind reverts?). Examples include [272] and [273][274]. And you often, as seen in the diffs, make personal attack or aspersions against other editors. So it is best to reflect on your behaviour too. Yes, I have made reverts, but I have not been alone. Otherwise I would not even need to make reverts. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg, you have accused other editors of "bullying" too (eg [275][276]).. You keep making threats while edit warring (eg [277] you can revert, the rest can not?). You have claimed other editors have done things that they have clearly not done (eg [278] one of the strangest claims I have seen throughout these years on Wiki) or have some certain intention without providing evidence (eg [279][280][281][282]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I expected you to come here guns blazing and WP:FILIBUSTER in an attempt to deflect WP:SCRUTINY from your WP:GAMING of 3RR. And you have not disappointed, what with 10 KB of attacks and a load of irrelevant, out-of-context diffs. But no amount of filibuster will deflect from your disruptive behavior, which is documented with evidence. And the evidence shows a user who knowingly games the system, edit-wars, threatens fellow editors in edit summaries and on talkpages, tries to out them, mocks COVID-19 in their country, and much more. In 13 years of editing this topic area, I have never come across more toxic behavior. There is no one in this topic area more deserving of sanction than you. Khirurg (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: A quick look at user Ktrimi's contribs can confirm the filler's claims. On the other hand, by looking at the link which Maleschreiber gave here, I wouldnt find anything related to the filler. I understand that Maleschreiber's bias in favor of Ktrimi here, may be owned to shared views and positions in various disputes in the past, but Ktrimi's disruptive behavior remains a serious issue regardless and is affecting multiple editors who disagree with his methods, including me. I have talked about Ktrimi's behavior in the Talk:Albanian nationalism (Albania), already and was considering even an AE report against him. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No, all we have here is some editors who have supported very specific views and who have been in disputes in the past with Ktrimi991 , but mostly don't even have any contact with him lately and now are asking for that editor to be blocked without actually presenting any policy he violated. If you have other issues with him, go to AE - don't misuse AN3. When getting subjected to criticism about filing a report, responding with "knock it off already" is a major problem in itself. A report is a very serious thing which editors shouldn't file in such a way and for reasons other than improving the project - certainly not in the context of personal disputes. An admin should involve himself/herself with this so it reaches its natural conclusion - the editing one was over three days ago.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding us? He was edit-warring just hours ago, gaming 3RR in the process. The edit-warring is supplemented by threats, incivility, and outing attempts. In addition to WP:FILIBUSTER, you are deep within WP:IDHT territory at this point. Stop it. Khirurg (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Look at your talk page history. It is full of edit warring warnings. And your responses to them include I guess some people don't have much to be thankful forget lost, and don't come backrv WP:BULLYget lost. Making reverts is not prohibited, and the edit warring you are referring to did not include me only, but you and the rest of the editors here too. Personal attacks, edit warring and reports doomed to fail are tools you keep trying to make use of to solve your disputes. Balkan topics are difficult to edit and solve disputes on, and editors often do not act the best way possible, though some become way beyond anything acceptable like you have done already long ago. Ktrimi991 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, look at how many articles we created in the last 3 years. I created 24 articles, you created nothing. You only revert. Anyone can see your editing history. Of course, writing articles does not give me the right to revert, and indeed in some cases I should be more careful. But I can demonstrate that I edit Balkan article for more than just reverting. On the other hand, you have reverts and heated discussions only. Ktrimi991 (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the Kosovo Myth discussion on which you focused in your report, Khirurg. About the Kosovo Serbs discussion (I assume you're referring to that), there's no 3RR gaming by (unless you can show a 4th revert outside the 24-hour cycle, but making 3 reverts is not gaming) or 3R violation and he was reverting back to BRD while adding more sources. Nobody even reverted him there eventually after his 3R is because the position you were pushing forward couldn't be held in terms of bibliography - which he expanded. About the rest (civility, outing etc.) that to me as an external observer of the situation seems like an old personal dispute that has been getting out of proportion in its aftermath and a report at AN3 is not the best way to deal with it- certainly doesn't help the project when noticeboards are used like that. The best thing is to just take a break, a step back or whatever works for you because there is no violation of any policy here in terms of An3 IMO. Anyway, it's getting late where I am - so I'm off. Have a good day/evening. Also, self-limiting to no new comments to make assessment easier. My overall advise - everyone included - is to calm down, focus on the content and not get involved into reports and comments that don't improve cooperation.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, writing and improving articles is a better way to pass the time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note Anyone can verify (and I can give diffs if needed) that I often, when my limited time permits, participate at areas not linked with the Balkans. Such as AfDs, patrolling recent changes, reporting vandalism, RfCs and RSN discussions. Khirurg does not do so. In the last 3 years I created 24 new articles, while Khirurg created zero articles. Khirurg only reverts and participates at, usually heated, Balkan-linked discussions. Anyone can verify this. Hence the questions that should arise in one's mind is how can Khirurg report me while he himself is only involved in Balkan-linked conflicts. Yes, I accept that in some cases I am not exactly who I should be, but the topic of the Balkans is very difficult as there are disputes and controversies on a daily basis, and sometimes even editor burnouts can happen. Khirurg has been for years accusing me of pushing "Albanian POV" (how is he sure that I am Albanian, btw?) or "anti-Greek POV", but diffs such as the following show that I have always warned and reported editors pushing "Albanian POV", just as I have done to editors showing POVs linked with certain ideas of other Balkan nations [283][284][285][286]. Due to my desire for neutrality, in my early days on Wikipedia I received threats and insults on my talk page by an Albanian editor because I supported a Serb editor's edit. I also have welcomed and guided several newbies. What has Khirurg done in that regard? Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, behavioural concerns such as these should be discussed at AE. There a more detailed discussion can be made, more diffs provided, and more admins can give their input. This place is good just for breaches of the 3RR, but not so for the kind of the discussion prepared by Khirurg. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Editor Ktrimi991 is an excellent editor and this is indisputable. All my mistakes(Balkan articles, former Yugoslavia) as a new editor he neutrally corrected ie he told me what should be done and what should not be done(and now I have no more problems). How much I follow him he is always fair and well-intentioned, all with the aim of making Wikipedia as accurate and better as possible. Some editors or editor started mentioning him that they will revealed some private things about him(I think that this editor is Khirurg?) so they are probably going with bad intentions towards him. Nowhere did I see bad intent in his edits. In any case if 3RR is violate or not, for the editor Ktrimi991 we can say that this is not in bad intention. I think he has a similar problem as me ie certain team of editors is not working in good faith, it seems to me that they are on Wikipedia to keep some things ie informations as they are or do not like adding new ones. I personally don't mind, but we are here to make Wikipedia better (that's my view, from my case). Mikola22 (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Hi everybody. I think everyone needs to calm down a bit and count to 10 before write anything. I do not see any violations of the rules by User:Ktrimi991. It is simply necessary User:Ktrimi991 to remember in the future that these topics are sensitive for each of the parties and there should be written with more caution and less emotion. I know it from my own experience. Also remember that no one is absolutely sinless. In fact he is an experienced editor with excellent knowledge and this is very important for our community. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Jingiby. Please don't defend champions of such brute-force editing methods. With five 3RR max-outs this month alone, this is clearly an edit-warring champion par excellence. Unfortunately, he is also a very bad example for his defenders and admirers. If you had the slightest respect for 3RR you would not be putting meaningless good words for such a repeat gamer of one of the most important rules this wiki depends on for its normal functioning. This goes for all the other defenders of said transgressor. Dr. K. 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment To respect this board means to use it for what is intended. The filer has come up with an entire new "offence" of "3RR max-out" in order to ask for Ktrimi's block. All of this looks like a report that was largely filed not because of disruption, but because of personal issues they have with Ktrimi. No reverts have happened by anyone in that article so even to continue this report is pointless because of a WP:SILENT consensus that seems to have emerged. N.Hoxha (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The report has entered a very weird and derailed phase. Khirurg is now accusing Ktrimi991 of "mocking COVID-19" in his country [287]. I couldn't verify anything of the sort from the diff he provided (March) because Ktrimi991's comment is obviously about the talkpage dispute in that article, not the pandemic in Greece - an issue which he immediately clarified. Why has a report in AN3 of all places gone at this very bad level of noticeboard misuse? I'm appalled that such a serious accusation would ever be made against another editor without having 100% clear evidence - let alone using diffs in such a way. Also, why is this discussion being brought up five months later in AN3? Khirurg's attempt to put forward this false narrative is disruptive and needs to be dealt with proper admin oversight in itself.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The only "derailing" has been by you and other members of usual tag team, who have rushed in to filibuster the report in massive attempt at derailing it. I wonder how you would react if I had described COVID-19 pandemic in Albania as "entertaining"? It doesn't get more disruptive than that. Ktrimi should have been topic banned for that alone, but I held off at the time. Now stop trying to derail the report by filibustering. Khirurg (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

But he didn't describe it as such - he even clarified that he didn't do so for a second time in the talkpage after you asked him about it. Do you realize how serious it is to accuse another editor of something like this? Why did you bring this up only after the report had gone past its original purpose as an AN3 report? This to me shows that it has derailed into unsubstantiated personal accusations that don't belong in an environment like wikipedia. Editors who file reports, also come under scrutiny. Instead of accusing as part of the "usual tag team" those editors who don't subscribe to the narrative you're attempting to put forward against Ktrimi you should withdraw unsubstantiated accusations.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

He "clarified it" after I called him on it, by doubling down, saying he finds the article entertaining, which is almost as bad. Even so, it is the most despicable comment I have ever seen in my 13 years of editing wikipedia. That comment alone should disqualify him from the topic area. Never mind the threats, doxing attempts, edit-warring, and the rest of the disruption. It's simply incredible what this guy has been getting away with all this time. Khirurg (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait, you again misrepresented my words and gave "the wrong diff". You certainly saw [288], but that did not suit your discussion here. As I said at the time, I found the article entertaining, not the pandemic or because of the pandemic. Indeed, the talk page and the article itself became the usual Balkan mess you reverting and opposing everyone who was expanding the article with new content that did not suit your POV ("wrong content"). You found the time to resort to POV pushing once again in the middle of a pandemic. I see you keep accusing people who do not agree with you of "tag teaming". You have been doing so for years, poisoning almost every single discussion where you participate. Not surprising this coming from an editor who judges editors from their perceived nationality [289] and sees anti-Greek conspiracies among editors because As for those Balkan countries you named, you may think that's very clever, but everyone knows Bosnia and Croatia have a history of hostility with Serbia (and by extension Greece), while Bulgaria does too though to a lesser extent[290]. You also see anti-Serb conspiracies that, as an admin noted at the time, are not constructive. The conspiracies go not only to nationality level but to editor level too: if an editor changes their mind in a discussion, you say they do so because years ago I gave them them barnstars [291] or they have ego and personal prejudices or Straw men, taunting, and trolling, as per the usual M.O. Your combination of breaches of WP:Civility and edit warring has been noted many times, even at this noticeboard by admins (eg [292]). You have not been writing new articles at all for years: your editing history shows that you are making only reverts and posts on talk pages to oppose other editors. Yes, I have my own mistakes due to the very nature of the process of editing Balkan topics, but unlike you I also write new articles and contribute to areas entirely not linked with the Balkans. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, I do not plan to post here anymore. Admins or experienced editors might want to give their input, and that is not helped by the typical long Balkan debates. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Admins or experienced editors might want to give their input, and that is not helped by the typical long Balkan debates. What input can these people give regarding this new phenomenon of repeatedly and consistently maxing-out 3RR, then withdrawing in feigned grace. If I had any input to give to you it would be for you to try to shake off this addiction. As any risky pursuit, it may provide a temporary rush. But it doesn't last long and may backfire in the long term. Dr. K. 12:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• The filer has come up with an entire new "offence" of "3RR max-out"... Yes, true, NHoxha. It is an entirely new offence, a real offence, not in scare quotes. Hitherto unknown to normal wiki editors this new WP:GAME of the 3RR rule is being advanced by a new edit-warring champion who uses this brute-force tactic to impose his POV on contested articles. You seem to blithely celebrate this new brutal tactic by trying to dismiss its grave consequences on igniting edit-warring conflicts in contested areas. You are eager to support your comrade at edit-warring arms. However, if I were you, I would not bring out the champagne just yet. Dr. K. 12:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly did I "celebrate" anything? Please refrain from making aspersions. The user Ktrimi didn't breach the 3RR, this is not how it works, otherwise the limit would have been at 2RR and a warning would not be required when another editor reaches three reverts, admins would just block them. What you're calling gaming is actually someone respecting the 3RR rule. What I would consider gaming would be someone that makes four reverts outside the 24h cycle for example. There's no contested area either. Khirurg pushed for a FRINGE view, Ktrimi made 3 reverts in the course of which he improved the sources and the overall content and then.... the dispute ended because the sources Ktrimi added, clarified the issue. A normal editing process with some dispute and nothing extraordinary to see here. It's been three days since then, there is no "contested area". The fact that Khirurg and you are so vehemently pushing for Ktrimi to be blocked for not a violating policy and you're coming up with all kinds of misleading accusations, can been seen as a disruption and should be looked into. Even more so, considering you have once described Ktrimi to be "a known adversarial editor to you" [293]. You can't just demand for someone to be blocked because you disagree with them Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's disruptive to abuse the noticeboard like that and a reason for WP:BOOMERANG regarding Khirurg. You also previously wrote to the editor @Jingiby: If you had the slightest respect for 3RR you would not be putting meaningless good words for such a repeat gamer of one of the most important rules this wiki depends on for its normal functioning..., I can't help myself but to point out clear inconsistencies with your own editing behavior, which can be perceived as a sign of disruptive application of double standards. Dr.K, you yourself have not so long ago "maxed out 3RR" [294][295][296] [297] Maybe you should reflect on your own editing behavior instead of ramping up accusations about a non-incident, the kind of which you yourself have engaged in. And for what concerns your last remark: However, if I were you, I would not bring out the champagne just yet, please refrain from making comments that can be perceived as WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Reports are not about "winning" or "losing", but about finding what's the best approach in order to improve interaction between editors and Wikipedia as a whole.N.Hoxha (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Coming on this noticeboard and trying to justify by irrelevant arguments the strategic maxing out of 3RR is disruptive and this type of unabashed support for such persistent, strategic, and intentional near-breach of the 3RR rule is a type of triumphalism for your side of the POV, ergo celebration of such behaviour. All the other aspersions, acronyms and links you have directed at me are irrelevant to this discussion and I will not honour them by replying. Your faithful siding in all fronts with the reported user is well known. Your partisan attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS are expected and irrelevant and don't impress me. Dr. K. 16:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The reported editor is a big time WP:BULLY, see: [298] [299] [300]

I’ve seen this at work several times, in RL he would instantly get fired for Mobbing, but over here there is a number of editors who work as a cover-up and join in order to cool off the heated debates, which is ofter yet another trick (good cop/bad cop) with the same goal of pushing in the wanted content by any means available. See [301] and the wider debate on the same page.

I fully claim that the edits made over the years by the reported editor and several other is very much close to One purpose account and it’s very much battleground mentality. One of the chief ideas is to remove the information about Serbian Orthodox heritage and history on the disputed territory of Kosovo. They even go so far to attempt to discredit every Serbian newspaper and source. [302]

One of the instrument in achieving this goal is edit warring, bullying, even outing (I believe that there have been several reports for outing so far, I will kindly ask the admins to check my words).

We have case of long-term edit warring and gaming the system.

For example, after I made some tweaks and edits on Kosovo Myth I got this message [303] after I asked the same editor to stop with the constant WP:HOUND this is the sort of response/attack/spin I got back [304] That is the usual drill, 1 or 2 reverts done by the same editor, notification on the TP posted, some editors from the same group jumps in to keep reverting and on it goes.

As for the editors who are expressing “support” we have a colorfull crew of editors with 1RR, former topic bans and other stuff, which just paints the picture better as our associates can always tell a lot about us.

I expect that some of the mentioned editors will report me because of my comment and explain how I am “the bad one”, no problem with that.

Some of us senior editors focused on Balkan-related topics must deal with a lot of poison and bullying when editing, not to mention constant tag-teaming. This has gone under the radar for many years because there is a lot of gaming the system taking place and it’s like obscure Albanian or Ottoman or related topics attract too many editors.

This edit was mentioned, but please take another look, it’s extremely disturbing on several levels. [305]

I must say that there were also some edits which were not bad at all, but over the years that kind of edits became less dominant and, as seen from the recent editing history, the editor is focused on reverting, edit-warring and attacking others, which is a sad loss of potential and I think that some time off and reflecting would be in everybody’s best interest. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment Sadko, has been logged at (Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Eastern_Europe) in April. The closing admin warned Sadko to not weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents of content disputes. Who are the "colourful crew of editors" that are under 1RR? If by that you mean @Mikola22: (the only editor here with 1RR or any past such context), then an admin will be contacted because you have been warned not to direct personal accusations against him and also you're falsely claiming that other editors are under sanctions. Sadko joined a report that pretty much was over 3 days ago because there is no dispute or edit-warring, thus it doesn't require any admin oversight (nor was there ever any violation). There has to be severe admin oversight though about the personal attacks against Ktrimi991 which have been generated throughout this report. Comments like in RL he would instantly get fired for Mobbing from an editor who a few months ago had a log at AE because of the way he behaved himself in reports/content disputes requires admin oversight immediately. Admin noticeboards are not a forum for settling personal grievances.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The diffs supplied at the head of this report don't show a 3RR violation. As for the rest, WP:TLDR applies. I hesitate to send this to ANI because I suspect it might not get favorable attention there. The way is open to submit a better-quality report somewhere else. One way to deal with the underlying problem might be topic bans from the Balkans for one or more people, provided notices were given and a plausible report could be made and handled. And assuming that the disruption could be documented, paying attention to the behavior of both sides in every case. If you want to go that route, you should have lots of patience. I will not be stepping forward myself to handle it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick oversight in a "difficult" topic area and for setting the context under which reports like this one should function in the future.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Although @EdJohnston: closed the discussion, I think that the editors involed, including myself of course, should continue to reflect on the process of editing Balkan articles. The main issue is that there are very few editors, so those that are around tend to have disputes continuously. That gradually makes things get tense and the quality of the edits starts te degrade. I myself will shift more focus on writing new articles, and hopefully so will the rest do. It would be good if everyone stayed away from the controvesrial topics at least for a month; enough time to reflect on mistakes made throughout the years. New approach to make newbies stick to editing and continue more should be found. Otherwise it becomes pointless and ridiculous to have a small group of editors having disputes between them on a large and controversial area such as the Balkans. Admins tend to stay away from getting themselves involved in such things; hence the noticeboards sometimes bcome useless. And few participants here are "sinless". Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: As for the editors who are expressing “support” we have a colorfull crew of editors with 1RR, former topic bans and other stuff, which just paints the picture better as our associates can always tell a lot about us. Again editor Sadko invents some "colorfull crew of editors" which applies to me as well. I think this should stop. He first accuses me that I am a Nazi , then he writes false reports against me and weaponize AE in order to eliminate opponents, and now continues with private attacks. Therefore, it can be seen that his presentation is not in good faith, but he is at war with someone. This is not right. Sorry for the ping because case is closed, but I had to say this. Mikola22 (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and continuous activity on the border of 3rr is quite a disruptive pattern and can't be neglected. Ktrimi needs to provide a sincere apology due to recent revert warring activity in a wide variety of articles recently. Some of which are not even Balkans-related (Battle of Manzikert) though in this case he just targeted specific users by even restoring back pics with obvious copy-vio issues [[306]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)