Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive434

User:A Contemporary Nomad reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: No action)

Page: Arab states of the Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A Contemporary Nomad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] (same as diff 1 below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] (Cleaned up the article. Removed WP:Synth content and outlined the different subjects under the article title. (Work in progress))
2. [3] (Undid revision 1023381558 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) It's not subject change but a cleanup. The blanked content is WP:SYNTH of countries summaries.)
3. [4] (Sections inclusion under discussion in the talk page.)
4. [5] (Maintaining the previous additions.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] (Request in the talkpage discussion, user previously indicated awareness and themselves linked to Wikipedia:WAR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [8]

Comments:
After a disagreement on the article topic, and a third opinion which did not go their way, Contemporary Nomad nominated the article for deletion (note: this was something I had also suggested and not itself an issue) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab states of the Persian Gulf. The discussion (I did not participate) was closed as keep. Shortly after this keep result, Contemporary Nomad blanked the existing article (diff 1 above), essentially turning it into a disambiguation page for a different page topic ("a term" rather than "the seven Arab states which border the Persian Gulf"). Despite being requested (by the third opinion responder) to self-revert, and then asked not to edit-war by myself with reference to the AfD consensus (warning link above) they have persisted repeatedly in their desire to change the article topic (other diffs above), and in the last two cases doing so behind misleading edit summaries that suggest additions rather than a wholesale change to the article topic. CMD (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is an impartial recall of the events that have occurred and (in my opinion) does not reflect my intentions while contributing to the article and paint a rather brash image to my edits, my intentions contributing to it, and where I stand today and previously. Although I don't have hard feelings for @CMD at all for viewing it in a different light, I think it's seriously an entangled case of misunderstandings, and if the admins have the time to hear my case and detangle the issue (and history) together, at least so that I can be assured that I have presented my case fairly.

I have focused on the article last month as my first project on wikipedia to clean it up, rewrite it, and contribute to it. I did have the intention to take it as a project and demonstrate my ability as an editor. But, honestly, found myself hitting a wall trying to come up with relevant content to rewrite the article. The article had (and still have) many issues I can list them in here but I think it's clear if one simply checks the article in question and see what I mean. I have raised these issues in the talk page in 17 April last month, and stated from the get-go that I want the community opinion on how to proceed (also because, well, I am a new Wiki editor and while I do like to call myself a fast learner I do understand the need to have a guided help at this stage) which I think @CMD would vouch for sincerely, that I haven't ever stopped resolving to discussions and trying to fix the issues with other editors and acknowledging my own mistakes. In my opinion, part of the issue that I have struggled with while cleaning the article was the confusion that I have had while editing the article, much of the body sources was discussing the GCC states while the article title is around the Arab states of the Persian gulf that also include Iraq, I have asked the community opinion on the inclusion of Iraq and have been pointed out by @CMD that we can't remove Iraq from the subject since it would lead to WP:FORK in the Gulf Cooperation Council and Eastern Arabia and I agreed with him, which brings me to one of my issues with his mischaracterization here in the ANB when @CMD wrote: After a disagreement on the article topic, and a third opinion which did not go their way I'm not sure how "it didn't go my way" this is awful mischaracterization of my position and what I have even wrote in the discussion leading up to and after that. I was clear from the beginning that I'm here to seek consensus, I went to all relevant projects and asked their members if they were interested in participating in the discussion and then resolved to 3O after a few days without anyone answering from the relevant projects. I did agree with both @CMD and @Firefangledfeathers in their opinion. @CMD suggested me to raise the issue at Afd and again I did. In the Afd discussion @Goldsztajn raised a good point on the term being used in multiple different contexts throughout history (and again) I agreed with him and I still believe in @Goldsztajn statement and I truly thank him because (I think) it has also highlighted another issue in the article subject that I still believe is relevant to point out in the article introduction and would help to build the article around in the future. That's the history of the term and that it has been used in the 20th century to refer to the British Empire protectorates and the trucial states as well (which became the UAE) I did find sources that do refer to them as the Arab states of the Persian gulf, and I think it would be relevant to include even if as a second paragraph in the intro, or a history section (which I was intending to do after thinking about it yesterday).

I'm 100% content with the Afd decision and believe in it, mind you that I didn't raise the issue there until after I have exhausted the discussion in the talk page and spoke with multiple editors and even though some might have not agreed with me, at least hopefully I have demonstrated that the article needs to be re-written and cleaned (which many have said that they agree with me on). After the Afd closure I thought that I would continue working on the article, I have removed the countries summaries sections in politics, economy, peace...etc since, I admit, I misunderstood WP:Synth and thought that in the Afd discussion we were in an agreement that a collection of countries summaries do not belong. I have also mentioned the history of the term in the introduction, @CMD reverted my edits (and I thought I was in the right in removing the sections in question) and then I reverted it back, @Firefangledfeathers asked me to self-revert and discuss it the issue in the talk page, and I agreed with him, I have started a discussion on a section by section basis. @CMD pointed out that Synth do not merit section removal, I have edited the article introduction to include my edit on the history of the term while preserving the old sections, that I thought we were in the process of discussing.

It saddens me seeing how it have come to this and reading @CMD opening in the ANB which I think paints me in a different light that couldn't be far from the truth, although I don't have a grudge on @CMD for opening it in here and think it might be for the best actually. So what now? I'm still interested in contribution and making WP a better encyclopedia especially seeing how the subjects I'm interested in (the Middle East/history) have overall poorly written articles which I intend to enrich and rewrite to meet wiki standards and I was thinking of overhauling Eastern Arabia after the current article. But if it wasn't for the fact that currently the spotlight is on me as if I'm a criminal which honestly make me contemplate withdrawing all together. I have a suggestion if the Admins are willing to give me the chance: If I continue to work on the 'Arab states of the Persian gulf' article I want @Firefangledfeathers with me to be my co-editor, I will highlight proposed changes in the talk page elegantly (like I always do :p) and then proceed with them one-by-one. Hopefully this resolves the issue, I do trust @Firefangledfeathers but I also don't want to overwhelm him/her so if they're not open to it then that's fine as well.......

I apologize for everyone involved here (and for the guys who I have binged to this text-of-wall sorry @Goldsztajn....) and @CMD I honestly don't have any hard feelings for bringing this up, in fact I think you did the right thing. Cheers y'all — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 06:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As requested, I will vouch that there has been much talkpage discussion, and additionally will agree there seems to be mutual misunderstandings. I disagree I made an "awful characterization" considering there is an entire talkpage section titled On the inclusion of Iraq in this article (Part 1 of a multi-part series to clean up the article) which included a lot of text on Iraq. Undoubtedly an article which could use much improvement, this report is regarding the edit warring to change the article scope (which remains changed currently) following my talkpage request and in lieu of furthering the war again myself. CMD (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Apology for the late reply, had a terrible headache that disoriented me throughout the day. I agree there was a mutual misunderstandings, by awful mischaracterization I meant conclusions on your part that were built on these misunderstandings and confused me while reading the ANB notice, for example when you wrote: awareness] and themselves linked to Wikipedia:WAR I think you misunderstood my talk page section intro there, I wasn't referring to the recent edits but the article history, and by that time (at that discussion) I haven't edited the article much and only engaged in discussion in the talk page, I have stopped editing it after you have reverted the naming dispute sentence. Another misunderstanding on my part (that only know I'm aware of to be honest) was when you said that I have changed the article scope which puzzled me how so but now I think I understand the issue here. I will edit the article intro to include my edit (which to my understanding you're ok with per our discussion in your talk page?) and remove the intro reference to the subject being solely as a term. Also, can we move the editing-discussion to the article talk page? because I feel otherwise we might clutter the ANB. Thanks — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 19:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@CMD: I have re-edited the article to include my addition while also preserving the article scope (to my understanding) Here. Is it sufficient? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 20:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding ACN's co-editor proposal, I don't think we need a unique solution where a common one will do. All I'd ask for is for everyone to follow WP:BRD and maybe for ACN to slow down their editing speed at the article so their incremental changes can be evaluated. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. Per the discussion above, it is possible that the dispute has been settled. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User: Pipsally reported by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (Result: Semiprotection)

Page: Kristi Noem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Brian Mast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pipsally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/a

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1023448741
2. Special:Diff/1023599907
3. Special:Diff/1023600227
4. Special:Diff/1023600801

1. Special:Diff/1023449483
2. Special:Diff/1023598245
3. Special:Diff/1023600527
4. Special:Diff/1023600885

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Permalink/1023599952, Special:Diff/1023600711

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[9]], [[10]]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [11]

Comments:
Pipsally has been using various IPs to WP:HOUND me and revert my edits ever since we got into a mild content dispute on Charlie Kirk. During that content dispute, the editor had went out and reverted me an article they have never touched before. I gave them a strong warning to never stalk me again. Recently, the editor has been using IPs to stalk and revert my edits on various BLPs like Brian Mast & Kristi Noem, and also Ted Yoho, Grace Meng. I had no idea these IPs were connected to Pipsally until they signed their name in this edit (I had asked one of the IPs who they were but never got a response). This is a pure WP:GAME violation. The editor refuses to abide by WP:ONUS, and is simply trying to infuriate me over a bogus content dispute that ended weeks ago. This has to stop. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• List of known IPs: Special:Contributions/94.57.70.170, Special:Contributions/86.99.87.85, Special:Contributions/31.218.156.19.

Talking of Gaming I think Nopinging me in an ANI this tells it's own story. I'm currently using devices I do not wish to sign on, and consquenetly have signed my comments in the talk so you know it is me. There are two IPs. I have reverted your edits because you consistently make problematic edits, whitewash these articles and remove reliably sourced content with spurious edit summaries, including removing content alongside removal of a source without noting it, and continue to remove when extra high quality RS are added without any discussion. It's no good throwing around WP:ONUS when you then consistently ignore it when adequate sources are being provided. that is WP:GAMING None of these edits are remotely close to WP:BLP violations anyway. Pipsally NLI86.99.87.85 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, it appears there are three IPs, I apologise, there must have been a mobile jump.86.99.87.85 (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course you never got a response - if the IP on the mobile device jumped I didn't see the note on that IPs talk page did I? I've made it clear elsewhere who I am, which is we're able to have this discussion here Pipsally NLI.86.99.87.85 (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You never made anything "clear." This was the first time where you included your real account name. I had no idea who you were until that edit. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

If I was trying to GAME the IPs I would not have signed at all would I. I've deliberately made it obvious who I am in the talk pages for these articles. This is a straight up content dispute that you're trying to escalate into something bigger. Maybe you could try engaging on the talk pages properly instead of warring and running to ANI. Pipsally NLI 86.99.87.85 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Kristi Noem and Brian Mast have been semiprotected. Deliberately editing logged out (while you have an account) and reverting others while doing so, is not a good way of working. See also WP:SCRUTINY. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:2A00:1851:8002:3AA0:7487:D905:3A4A:337C vandalism (Result: Page semiprotected)

• Page:Arabian Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: 2A00:1851:8002:3AA0:7487:D905:3A4A:337C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

This user User:2A00:1851:8002:3AA0:7487:D905:3A4A:337C is doing destructive work [12] please look at. 00:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC) 09:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Arabian Sea. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Calton reported by User:PackMecEng (Result: Self-revert)

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [17]

Comments:
Article is under 1RR. PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware that the article is under 1RR. I *am* aware that editors like PackMecEng are trying to add some original research WITHOUT consensus on the Talk page. Perhaps PackMecEng should try for that, if he gets the chance. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Calton, maybe just don't edit war with the only justification being idontlikeit. Consensus is clear on the talk page that it is acceptable. So again please stop the battleground attitude. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action on the 1RR violation, since User:Calton reverted their own edit. The filer, User:PackMecEng should be aware that the talk page seems to be against including the Payne quote. See WP:DR if you are not satisfied. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  EdJohnston, I'm just glad this report got them to correct their behavior and possibly consider more carefully in the future their petulant path of edit warring and battleground behavior. We will just have to agree to disagree on consensus. Remember consensus is not a headcount my friend! PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:67.87.118.126 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.87.118.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
2. 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 17:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
4. 16:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Over a simple hyphen in an episode title. Rather unimportant, but they insist on adding one, against sources and a couple of editors. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 3 months by User:Bbb23, whose return to admin work is worthy of note. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:JKC68413 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )

Page: Lady Gaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JKC68413 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 20:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 19:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 15:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 03:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on Lady Gaga."
2. 21:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lady Gaga."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is factually incorrect as well. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:168.245.155.5 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Semi)

Page: List of Hail Mary passes in American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

• 168.245.155.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.245.155.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.245.155.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.245.155.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.245.155.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.245.155.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 168.245.155.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:9000:7E04:9493:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1006:B066:29C5:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023750018 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
2. 03:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023748492 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
3. 03:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023744644 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC) on Talk:List of Hail Mary passes in American football "/* ongoing vandalism problem */"

Comments: Just to be up-front about it, I myself broke 3rr earlier today and subsequently self-reverted. This series of IPs has been edit warring at List of Hail Mary passes in American football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to insert the never-once sourced claim that a particular referee call was erroneous. Other users at the article and talk page, especially PJEckenheim have been contending with this behavior since 2016. An attempt at compromise was made at the talk page in this section. For context, a year long semi-protection ended on April 12. The edit war resumed on April 13 and there were 9 attempts by the above IPs to insert their 75-80 byte content before the page was semi-protected again on May 11. After the 48-hour protection expired, the edit-warrior reverted 10 times before semi-protection was reinstated. It will expire on June 1, and there's every reason to expect the disruption will start up again without some other remedy. Please let me know if it's appropriate or not to ping the admins that have taken action so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected five years. It appears that the same guy has been trying to insert his material since 2016 without success, so the remedy is proportioned to the problem. I considered a block of 168.245.155.0/24 but it couldn't be made long enough to address the problem on this one article. Discussed this with the previous protecting admin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Alejandroprpr and User:Dash9Z reported by User:Donald Albury (Result: Two editors warned)

Page: List of governors of Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Alejandroprpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dash9Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19] Alejandroprpr
2. [20] Dash9Z
3. [21] Alejandroprpr
4. [22] Dash9Z
5. [23] Alejandroprpr
6. [24] User:Donald Albury
7. [25] Alejandroprpr
8. [26] User:Gladamas
9. [27] Alejandroprpr
10. [28] Dash9Z
11. [29] Alejandroprpr
12. [30] Dash9Z
13. [31] Alejandroprpr
14. [32] Dash9Z
15. [33] Alejandroprpr
16. [34] Dash9Z
17. [35] Alejandroprpr

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36] Warned Alejandroprpr, [37] Blocked Alejandroprpr, [38] Warned Alejandroprpr, [39] Warned Dash9Z, [40] Blocked Alejandroprpr

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [42] Alejandroprpr, [43] Dash9Z

Comments:

I initially saw Alejandroprpr as the edit warrior, and did block him twice. However, Dash9Z, although he did respond to my attempt on the talk page to start a discussion, has also been edit warring. I am involved, and do not feel I can take any more admin actions in this dispute. - Donald Albury 12:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've left detailed warnings for both parties. It appears that one or more blocks may be needed if they won't agree to wait for consensus. The party who has already been blocked twice may not have a future, but the other is a longtime editor who has never previously been blocked EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Alejandroprpr and User:Dash9Z have been warned against reverting again without getting a talk page consensus first. In the case of Alejandroprpr, an indefinite block seems likely if this doesn't stop. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Trader john1 reported by User:Possibly (Result: Blocked Indefinite)

Page: Kenneth C. Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Trader john1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023969870 by Possibly (talk) This user seems to be connected to Mr. Griffin"
2. 10:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "pre-submission a proposed"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC) to 09:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023955607 by Possibly (talk)"
   2. 09:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "This is my proposed article for Mr. Griffin. Please check. I have removed un-encyclopedic and excessive content and regroup the topics. Please, check our talk page as well."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ r"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Promotional whitewashing */ new section"
2. 10:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Trader john1 "/* May 2021 */ r"

Comments:

Suspected COI editor pushing whitewashed versions of the page. Has also admitted at this diff that the one account represents the edits of a husband and wife team. --- Possibly (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of Indefinite Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --- Possibly (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Cdman882 reported by User:UW Dawgs (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: University of Louisiana at Lafayette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cdman882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:05, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana and UL[45]
2. 16:43, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana and UL[46]
3. 16:56, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana and UL[47]
4. 19:28, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana[48]
5. 19:58, 19 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana[49]
6. 00:09, 20 May 2021 - removal of University of Louisiana[50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:16, 19 May 2021 [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 22:15, 19 May 2021 [52]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [53]

Comments:

Topic of the edit warring may be correct, but editor has been reverted by four different editors in 10 hours. Editor took one of the reverting editors to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive user: Frank042316 for a nonsense DE.[54] where WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NPA [55], [56], ​[57], [58], [59] issues also surfaced. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:2603:8001:8B03:187:A54A:2B78:B1B1:33E0 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

Page: A History of Violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:8001:8B03:187:A54A:2B78:B1B1:33E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 03:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
3. 02:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
4. 23:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Plot */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on A History of Violence."
2. 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP is just one of a series asserting the same edit, removing content from this article without explanation or discussion. Range block may be appropriate. General Ization ^Talk 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours - /64 blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan reported by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (Result: )

Page: Chris Cuomo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk): Why would you revert grammatical corrections and the formatting of dates? The weight is there, but the relation to the notability isn't. How is one writer in the original report saying it was "not okay" as notable as the network saying it was "inappropriate"? Also, Jones's statement still lacks context. WP:ONUS is still there."
2. 02:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk): The issue isn't Lemann's opinion being reliable, it's whether it's relevant to Cuomo's notability. It's "not okay", it's "inappropriate", how many descriptions are going to include? And why restore Jones's writing without explanation? You're in the business of reverting edits that have nothing to do with this topic too? Please observe WP:ONUS."
3. 02:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Incerto501 (talk): This is besides the point, but Poynter is reliable in "determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations". Whether we should assign weight to their own content isn't covered by the consensus listed. They said it was inappropriate. How is it different than what the network said? Why belabor the point? And why revert fixes that have nothing to do with this topic?"
4. 01:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "copyedits; this heading fails WP:DUE; including Jones's statement in that manner was inappropriate because she only said that Cuomo "should have been well aware last spring of the conflict of interest issues"; without the proper context, it insinuates that she was singling him out for line-blurring; Lemann is one journalist; why single his opinion out? "joined Lemann" fails WP:SYNTH; the Mediaite report itself fails DUE, see WP:RSP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Advising Brother */ new section"

Comments:

Clear 3RR violation. The editor is removing high-quality sources and has already been reverted by myself and another editor. The editor has not engaged on the talk page and refuses to self-revert. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My first revert removed the description "controversies" from the article, which I viewed as a BLP violation. In addition, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d failed to mention that they themselves violated 3RR.[60][61][62][63] KyleJoan^talk 02:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

1) There are no BLP violations present. Everything is sourced to high-quality sources and neutrally written. 2) I did not break 3RR Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There was no source for the description "controversies". Prove me wrong. Apologies for presenting the wrong diff. I corrected it. KyleJoan^talk 02:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord clearly did not violate 3RR, as some of the diffs provided are consecutive. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I got confused. I truly thought that adding something that was not in an original mass inclusion and then re-including it later along with said inclusion means that two consecutive edits would not count as one revert. KyleJoan^talk 03:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Question. Is the oldest diff of KJ truly a revert, or is it a copyedit? —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  C.Fred, It's truly a revert. Large swaths of sourced text were removed. The copyedits were only a minor part of that edit. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Maxandleoinc reported by User:78Game (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65]
2. [66]
3. [67]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

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

Comments:
A user named Maxandleoinc keeps adding the website of the copyright holder of the name and not the historic company. They constantly are re-adding it despite the fact I have warned him that it is not the same company. Their username also hints at shared usage. 78Game (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Bobby690 reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Bobby690 and KullyKeemaKa warned; both editors subsequently blocked for 48h for failure to heed warning)

Page: Cr1TiKaL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bobby690 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "yeah you can wait as well."
2. 17:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Dude just admit you were wrong and move on. The section is literally for his other names that he is known as."
3. 15:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "He has never said that penguinz0 is not his alias. The only thing he has said is that he started going by Cr1TiKaL when he changed his xbox gamer tag. So if anything penguinz0 is his former alias."
4. 04:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "I didn't say it was his online alias i said that he's also known as penguinz0 which is what the section of the infobox is for. Also if you do a simple google trends comparison you will know that more people search for penguinz0 rather than Cr1TiKaL."
5. Consecutive edits made from 04:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) to 12:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 04:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "what do you mean? The note says that penguinz0 is not his online alias but his channel name"
   2. 12:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 03:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Even though it's not his alias like the note says he is widely also known as penguinz0, which is what the section is for 'Also known as'"
7. 18:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cr1TiKaL."
2. 03:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ Stop"
3. 04:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */ Cite a source then"
4. 05:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */"
5. 17:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cr1TiKaL."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• @Laplorfill: why did you report only one of the two edit warriors?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: at the time of the report, User:KullyKeemaKa had not crossed WP:3RR and had begun a discussion on the talk page. Laplorfill (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Laplorfill: Thank you. When I attempted to reason with Bobby, I mentioned the WP:BOLD guideline, and I am assuming that he did not bother to read it. Trust me when I say that this is not the first time that I have had to link a Wikipedia guideline in a message to someone when it comes to edit wars. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: Out of me and Bobby, at least I tried to reason with him; meanwhile, he acted sort of hostile toward me and continued to revert revisions that I have made with reasons and linked guidelines. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• KullyKeemaKa and Bobby690 are both Warned that any more reverts to the article will result in blocks. Hopefully, you will be able to work this out on the article Talk page, or, if not, gain a consensus with the help of other editors--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hello in my most recent revert i have provided every single resson as to why KullyKeemaKa is wrong and he is just making up facts to fit his narrative. The only reason i became a little hostile was because he was being unreasonable and kept making things up that were clearly not true even though i kept proving it wrong. And as for the guidelines i have now read all of them and will make sure i don't make any mistakes in the future.Bobby690 (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• In my few years of editing on Wikipedia, I have never seen a false comment like this one. I have tried to be as reasonable as possible. I have even cited a source that proves my point. There are several articles that do not refer to White as penguinz0. I can deal with the variations of Cr1TiKaL being removed from the introduction, but penguinz0 is only his channel name, not one of his aliases. You are lucky that I am this nice, but do this to someone else and the whole situation could go haywire (just saying). Anyway, I will only revert your edit once, then I will talk to an admin if mine is reverted again. KullyKeemaKa (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:UBQITOSW reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: )

Page: List of modern armament manufacturers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UBQITOSW (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: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of modern armament manufacturers#Keeping the red ink

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [76]

Comments:

User has repeatedly been informed that NOT, RS, ONUS and BURDEN all apply to this situation by myself and other editors [77][78] yet they persist in both restoring massive amounts of unsourced links to the page and in proclaiming to be reverting vandalism (well that is when theres an edit summary at all) when they know fully that is not the case. I have tried to resolve this issue with them by other means since March, this is simply not excusable. They claim to be operating under a consensus reached with my former account [79] (which incidentally they accuse me of falsely claiming is mine) but I can’t find any indication that they ever interacted with my former account unless they were also using another account and there is no consensus of that sort on the talk page between any editors at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:117.204.161.128 reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Bianna Golodryga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 117.204.161.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "This edit is massively Anti-Semitic, which is unacceptable. Disguising Anti-Semitism is unacceptable under any circumstance. As to the edit being sourced, pointing to the Anti-Semitic comments on a social media post is no justification for Anti-Semitism. Further attempts to add Anti-Semitic information under any guise may be construed to be blatant as well as intentional Anti-Semitism. Undid revision 1024368505 by Bilal 213 (talk)"
2. 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "This edit is massively Anti-Semitic, as explained in the previous revert. Undid revision 1024366324 by Bilal 213 (talk)"
3. 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "The information added is massively Anti-Semitic. Being asked to explain reversion of Anti-Semitic edits is neither inclusive nor encouraging users to participate, and may lead to mental and other sufferings. Undid revision 1024362376 by Interesting Geek (talk)"
4. 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1024361248 by Bilal 213 (talk)"
5. 16:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1024342633 by Bilal 213 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bianna Golodryga."
2. 17:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bianna Golodryga."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Note I have also warned User:Bilal 213 who has engaged in edit warring, but has not crossed WP:3RR. They have engaged on their talk page and agreed not to revert further. Laplorfill (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• As a person who got included in the matter, I would like to state that I reverted the edits of User:117.204.161.128(1 and 2) for blanking and of user:146.0.216.124 for vandalism(3). I also made an edit after the reversions briefing and citing the paragraph related to the conflict(4).Interesting Geek (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:FDMD04 reported by User:108.56.139.120 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Raghav Juyal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FDMD04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]
5. [85] <-- This revert was done after this discussion was opened.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86] and [87]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [89]

Comments:
FDMD04 posted this on 108.56.139.120's talk page: [90] – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at the edits by 108, they are all valid MOS corrections. Every one has been explained with detailed edit summaries citing policy. FDMD04 has continually reverted without explanation, has not responded on the article TP, and not engaged in anyway except leaving a condescending message on 108s TP. FDMD04 is exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP here. I am familiar with 108s work and know them to be a very conscientiousness editor. MB 16:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

MB, thank you for adding commentary that neglected to include. I agree with your summary of the situation. FDMD04 has reverted again after this discussion was opened. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Eddaido reported by User:HTGS (Result: Two editors blocked)

Page: Roi-des-Belges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Qirkle is so boring. he believes his sole reason to exist is to created disputes with me. Look back over his last three years. Talk page talk turns into nonsense so why bother?"
2. 02:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "removed tag"
3. 22:26, 2021 May 18 "Undid revision 1023888040 by Qwirkle(talk) vanalism"
4. 22:12, 2021 May 18 "Undid revision 1023750242 by Qwirkle(talk) Vandalism"
5. 03:39, 2021 May 18 "Undid revision 1023748764 by Qwirkle(talk) Yes it is getting attention for him. He will continue forever because he believes he is very special and very superior. And he is"
6. 03:24, 2021 May 18 "Undid revision 1023718415 by Qwirkle(talk) Hope this little idiocy of qontinuous querkle is getting the attention it deserves. Its just vandalism"
7. 23:31, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023717990 by Qwirkle(talk) Dequerkled his vandalism"
8. 23:29, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023649586 by Qwirkle(talk) Reverted persistent vandalism of many years standing but this same editor, Quirkle"
9. 15:17, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023648834 by Qwirkle(talk) vandalism"
10. 15:11, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023647638 by Qwirkle(talk) Vandalism"
11. 14:41, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023643317 by Qwirkle(talk) Vandalism"
12. 14:28, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023569093 by Qwirkle(talk) reverted mindless vandalism"
13. 02:35, 2021 May 17 "Undid revision 1023452510 by Qwirkle(talk) Silly mindless vandalism as is Qwirkle's usual resort when baffled"
14. 13:27, 2021 May 16 "Undid revision 1023450025 by Qwirkle(talk) Vandalism"
15. 07:46, 2021 May 16 "Restored revision 1023407174 by AnomieBOT (talk): Revert to better."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Roi-des-Belges."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

(I am an uninvolved party, but did I come across the problem after checking Eddaido's history following conversation on my talk page.) I noticed extensive and pervasive edit warring by both Eddaido and Qwirkle (well beyond the diffs captured here). Eddaido claimed vandalism for many of these reverts—I believe wrongly. I warned them both at their user talk pages, and advised them to resolve this on the article talk page before making further edits to the page. Both of them responded blaming the other party, before continuing to edit the page (and revert each other) the next day. The problem here seems to be a stubbornness on both their parts, and an unwillingness to attempt resolution for fear of… letting the other win?

Eddaido has also commented on the problem at my talk page, alleging that the problem between the two is longstanding (three years), and, I presume, not limited to this page. I have not verified this. — HTGS (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(From a friend of Eddaido, also posted below): This has been going on forever. @Eddaido: wil start editing some very remote article and then @Qwirkle: shows up and they have an edit war. Over and over. It is easy to see Eddaido's frustration from his edit summaries.

This is not a comment on any edits, only that Qwirkle seems to regularly show up after Eddaido. Good luck keeping them apart. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Eddaido is blocked one week for personal attacks and User:Qwirkle is blocked 48 hours for edit warring. As another editor remarked last year at ANI, “it's clear that these editors would rather revert and complain about each other than collaborate positively”. The harsh tone of this dispute may be gleaned from the edit summaries shown in this report and the one below. I'm still wondering why Eddaido insists on *two* pictures of human buttocks being included in the article on a car, on the basis that the reader might need an explanation for the shape of the car seats. Though the buttocks reference may appear ill-advised, it is up to consensus to deal with it, and neither side seems to have the patience to find consensus. In my opinion Eddaido's personal attacks ('Hope this little idiocy of qontinuous querkle is getting the attention it deserves') were nastier than Qwirkle's (WP:NOTTHERAPY) but this dispute doesn't reflect well on either person and blocks for both of them are justified. Both editors went way past 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Qwirkle reported by User:HTGS (Result: Two editors blocked)

Page: Roi-des-Belges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Eddaido (talk): Obvious competence issues are obvious,"
2. 03:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC) "No. The article still describes three different (related) designs, describing each of them as the sole subject."
3. 22:30, 2021 May 18 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR"
4. 22:18, 2021 May 18 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR"
5. 03:40, 2021 May 18 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR edit reverted."
6. 03:25, 2021 May 18 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): Reverted WP:CIR edit."
7. 23:34, 2021 May 17 "Restored revision 1023717990 by Qwirkle (talk): WP:CIR"
8. 23:30, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR"
9. 15:22, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): Continues to be WP:NOTTHERAPY …"
10. 15:17, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): Still WP:NOTTHERAPY"
11. 15:09, 2021 May 17 "WP:NOTTHERAPY"
12. 14:40, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): Whether this is vandalism, competance questions, or attempt at self-help therapy, it doesnt belong in mainspace."
13. 02:51, 2021 May 17 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk) to last revision by Qwirkle"
14. 13:45, 2021 May 16 "Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): WP:CIR"
15. 13:26, 2021 May 16 "Restored revision 1023407174 by AnomieBOT (talk): Revert to better."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Roi-des-Belges."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

(I am an uninvolved party.) I noticed extensive and pervasive edit warring by both Qwirkle and Eddaido (well beyond the diffs captured here). I warned them both at their user talk pages, and advised them to resolve this on the article talk page before making further edits to the page. Both of them responded blaming the other party, before continuing to edit the page (and revert each other) the next day. The problem here seems to be a stubbornness on both their parts, and an unwillingness to attempt resolution for fear of… letting the other win?

Qwirkle has posted to the talk page, though I find it hard to read those posts as seeking reconciliation. I also tend to find Qwirkle's edits more constructive, but that's not what this report is about. — HTGS (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully some extra eyes will result in a rev delete. That doesn’t belong in mainspace. Qwirkle (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth would it result in a revdel? We don't delete revisions over trivialities. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

On a more related note, this is obviously a slow-burn edit war and both parties should be warned/blocked. This is not how you handle content disputes. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a content dispute; it is competence and ownership problems going back for years..which obviously belongs rather at ANI THAN HERE. Qwirkle (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Given only my brief interaction with Eddaido, I am inclined to believe and agree with you about competence, ownership and WP:NOTTHERAPY. But I don't have the time to play detective on your histories and build a case here. Your problem, Qwirkle, seems to be that instead of raising the issue in the right place, you have been playing maverick, hounding Eddaido and getting into edit wars. (As attested by Sammy_D_III.) You may not be "the problem" but it's not clear that you're working towards a solution. — HTGS (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(From a friend of Eddaido, also posted above): This has been going on forever. @Eddaido: wil start editing some very remote article and then @Qwirkle: shows up and they have an edit war. Over and over. It is easy to see Eddaido's frustration from his edit summaries.

This is not a comment on any edits, only that Qwirkle seems to regularly show up after Eddaido. Good luck keeping them apart. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: Eddaido and Qwirkle are both blocked per a report of the same dispute above. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Junefith reported by User:Koncorde (Result: Blocked)

Page: Premier League Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) to 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 13:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 10:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 20:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "I am trying to make this page as informed as possible and I'm using the same references which are used on the Premier League Website using the titles and significant individual achievements that are encompassed on that page. You have removed other valid information for no reason at all and have limited this pages informity. In regards to edit warring I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored. If I can avoid edit warring and come to compromise I would much prefer that"
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC) to 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "No completely false. I am not going to edit war with you. I have sent you an explained rationale on your page and have brought up some valid points in how your adjustment to this page is less informed. You have also failed to make any statement on the reasons for your changes. If you would like to discuss a compromise on a talk page i'm happy too. I have tried to engage in this with you however you have ignored me. I'm reverting you're changes as they don't benefit the informity of this page."
   2. 20:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 18:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "I have justified my reasoning on your page. Removing valid information and also removing the colour coding doesn't make this page anymore informing aswell as other areas of significant information you have removed. I have explained my reasoning on you're page"
7. 18:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "More informing with the key as is. Community Shield is a major honour and is run through the FA as a result is valid"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Premier League Hall of Fame."
2. 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* May 2021 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Why are we listing achievements that have nothing to do with their entry into the HOF? */ new section"
2. 23:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "/* What accolades should be listed for inductees? */"
3. 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Junefith "/* May 2021 */"

Comments:

User has established WP:OWN with regards to the Hall of Fame article, to the extent of using IP to either intentionally or unintentionally circumvent edit warring warnings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.195.5.1 ).

Some additional edits ( see here Robby reverting https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Junefith&diff=1024063390&oldid=1024060586) and comments to users have made various allegations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Premier_League_Hall_of_Fame&diff=1024059059&oldid=1024055575 Personally, I felt proceeding to threaten me and being rude was uncalled for and was unprofessional especially from a moderator with your influence. ) unsupported by anything I or anyone else has said from what I can see. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User has engaged on talk page, but is generally oblivious to policy despite being directed to it repeatedly. Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – One week for apparent logged out edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Kevo327 reported by User:Mastersun25 (Result: Revert & protect)

Page: Ganja, Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kevo327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91] - latest stable version of the article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92] - first revert back to non-consensual version
2. [93] - again
3. [94] - and again
4. [95] - and again
5. [96] - reverting my edit asking him to open a discussion on the talk page first

and so on.

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

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

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

Comments: This user keeps making disruptive edits to the articles related to Azerbaijan. The most recent case is an attempt to add an Armenian name to Azerbaijan second largest city without even opening a discussion. I beg respectful administrator to look at this user's activity log. These unsourced edits [99], [100] clearly fall under WP:Disruptive editing. Sincerely, --Mastersun25 (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• statement by reported editor : the reversions I am doing are edits that unreasonably remove the Armenian name of the city (which was added by consensus) and removal of other sourced content from the article, i.e. blatant vandalism, thus 3RR doesn't apply. The article is at RfPP. I also want to note the clear brigading by SPAs that might be sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts of reporting user. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

and the "last stable version" linked above is inaccurate. 10:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

and there is a discussion in my talk page that YOU opened and didn't bother replying untill you reported me. Is there anything factual in your report?. 10:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Article reverted to stable version and ECP protected. The amount of sockpuppetry here is nonsensical and the fact that the article has been protected 13 times before suggests that a stop needs to be put to it. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear administrator, have you even read the report? The Armenian name was added to the article without a consensus and discussion. Is everyone fine with this fact? You can as well check me on sockpuppetry, I don't mind. Regards, Mastersun25 (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC) This decision will not only solve the issue, but make it even worse. English Wikipedia becomes one big disappointment....--Mastersun25 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:喂番茄 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Warned)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023919865 by SounderBruce (talk)"
2. 02:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023913668 by SounderBruce (talk)"
3. 01:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1023906730 by SounderBruce (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ningbo."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is deleting an edit notice that I placed after noticing some overly-promotional language in two sections of the article. After addressing their question on my user talk page and adding a warning on their talk page, they proceeded to make a third revert. SounderBruce 02:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think the edit warning put by user User:SounderBruce was not well-grounded. The information in the economic and tourism section along with many other sections of "Ningbo" was previously outdated and many data have not been updated since 2013, so I have been trying to update the article with the latest data. Firstly, I have not got the time to update the economic section yet, so as you can see, the data in that section are still for the year 2013. I did update a paragraph on the economic status of Ningbo in the introduction section (beginning section) of the article, not in the economic section, but the data I used are publicly available on the government website, and the citations are all provided. Secondly, I did update the information in the tourism section by giving a short introduction to each tourism attraction and site. What I did was: 1. grouping the previous tourist sites by subdivisions (locations) of the city, 2. linking those keywords with those already existing articles, 3. giving information about when the tourist sites were built, 4. giving information about what the sites are used for historically and currently. Meanwhile, I did not use any overly-promoting language such as "must-go" to encourage people, just some necessary background information since this is an encyclopedia website. The parts I have updated are all factual information that is verifiable through publically available sources, rather than any commentary or personal opinions. Therefore, please RESPECT other's work, even if some users do not like the information. Wiki is a publically available platform for everyone to get verifiable factual information. When someone is not into the information about a particular city, it does not mean other people are not into it. I think it is very reasonable to ask the user User:SounderBruce: Can you please provide several shreds of evidence by directly quoting the sentences in those parts that you regard as "overly promoting" or fake information? If not, I am afraid the edit warning is not well-grounded.--Commented by 喂番茄 (talk)

The lack of citations in the Tourism section, which uses language such as "rare local histories", "cultural relic protection", "showroom", and "renowned for its long history" in the first subsection alone. The Economy section reads like a pamphlet hawking the port and various enterprises for the sake of attracting business, rather than listing major industries and hard data. It's clear that the article is full of promotional material and the edit notice is merely there to inform readers of a potential issue. SounderBruce 05:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:喂番茄 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they revert the article again before getting a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. The user has been restoring promotional language and removing the {{advert}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:喂番茄, if you want to continue the discussion you should do so either on the article talk page or in one of the forums proposed in WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi，EdJohnston, I want to point the comments and advertisement tag put by user User:SounderBruce are totally unreasonable, because he does not give me strong evidence for it. I will address the comments one by one. Firstly. I will address some comments he gives in the tourism section: A "cultural relic protection unit” is used to indicate the historical and cultural site that is protected by Chinese government. The user does not even check the hyperlink to the wiki article Tianyi Ge, which clearly state more details about it as an authorized Chinese national heritage protection site. B “renowned for its long history” is used to describe Tianyi Ge, built in 1561, the oldest existing private library in Asia, which is known almost for every educated Chinese and welcomes over 1 million visitors every year. There is even a building in the forbidden city in Beijing that is built to resemble it. (You can even see the sentence “The existing hall which is patterned on the Tianyi Ge in Ningbo was rebuilt behind the Wenhua Palace, in the reign of the Qianlong Emperor.” In the wiki article of Belvedere of Literary Profundity cited from historical records. I did not see any over-description of by using “renown for its long history “. For example, in the tourism section of article Seattle, terms of “prominent” “significant events” “Seattle has experienced significant growth in the cruise industry” frequently appear. Secondly, I cannot understand why the user is so sensitive about the economic data of ningbo listed in the introduction section. A. All the data are cited with sources and published by government annual reports. B. There are just plain factual information. For example, “In 2020, the GDP of Ningbo is CNY 1240.87 billion”, “it was ranked 12th among 300 cities in China”. It is not the best, not the worst, just plain factual information for readers with no emotion. C. I have no idea about the contradiction in comments “like a pamphlet hawking the port and various enterprises for the sake of attracting business, rather than listing major industries and hard data”. Isn’t port industry a major industry for Ningbo? Since “The port of Ningbo-Zhoushan has been world's No. 1 busiest port by cargo”. Why that user ignored the hyperlinks and citations that direct him/her to the pages of specific full ranking and statistics? It is not an advertisement. It is plain factual information. Whether the user like it or hate it. It is there! And what about the beginning paragraph in the economic section? “Ningbo is a major exporter of electrical products, textiles, food, and industrial tools. The city's private sector is especially well-developed, contributing 80 percent of total GDP in 2013” cited from government reports Why the user is again ignoring it as well? D. Let me provide some examples I found in the article of US cities: The first paragraph of the article Seattle: “The Seattle metropolitan area's population is 3.98 million, making it the 15th-largest in the United States. In 2013-2016, Seattle rated the fastest-growing major city and remained in the top five in May 2015 with an annual growth rate of 2.1%. In July 2016, Seattle ranked as the fastest-growing major U.S. city, with a 3.1% annual growth rate, and continuously among the fastest growing cities in the United States.” A paragraph in the introduction section of Pittsburgh: “In 2015, Pittsburgh was listed among the "eleven most livable cities in the world". The Economist's Global Liveability Ranking placed Pittsburgh as the most or second-most livable city in the United States in 2005, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2018. The region is a hub for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and energy extraction.” In the introduction section of Chicago “O'Hare International Airport is routinely ranked among the world's top six busiest airports according to tracked data by the Airports Council International. The region also has the largest number of federal highways and is the nation's railroad hub. The Chicago area has one of the highest gross domestic products (GDP) in the world, generating $689 billion in 2018. The economy of Chicago is diverse, with no single industry employing more than 14% of the workforce. It is home to several Fortune 500 companies, including Allstate, Boeing, Caterpillar, Exelon, Kraft Heinz, McDonald's, Mondelez International, Sears, United Airlines Holdings, US Foods, and Walgreens.” If that user feels comfortable reading previous examples from the articles of US cities, but cannot stand with those factual information listed about a major Chinese city. It will be a very very sad sign and severe potential problem of discrimination and double-standards. As a non-American, I knew little about those major cities in US when I was young. I even thought “Chicago is a country”and “NYC is the capital of US”. However, I was glad to learn more about them from Wikipedia as I grew older, even long before I really visited those places. And from those wikiarticles, I knew that thy are very nice and great cities. I agree that the article of Ningbo is not perfect currently, and many details need to be further added. For example, if you check the economic section of the article, the data have not been updated since 2013, when the GDP of Ningbo city was CNY 712.8 billion at that time. However, last year 2020, the GDP of Ningbo was CNY 1240 billion. A 74% increase in the economy scale in the last 7 years! Accordingly, many of the data and some of its major industries have changed and need to be updated in the article. Moreover, more details can be added for the performance of different industries in Ningbo. Therefore, I am gradually updating those information recently step by step when I have some leisure time. But every time I update a new economic data, I tried my best to ensure that data comes from public ally checkable sources such as government annual reports or major media reports. I am very glad if someone could help me with this work, especially since English is not my native language. No matter it is by directly joining me as an editor to update information, or by indirectly helping me such as giving useful suggestions. It is even ok if the suggestions come from those users who have no previous knowledge about the city. But, the suggestions should be at least fair, rather than biased or double-standarded. At least, someone who respects other’s culture and background. Someone is not affected by and stuck with stereotypes. And someone who can treat the factual information fairly, even if he/she does not like them. This is because wiki is a platform for everyone to get useful information, not designed fit the stereotype of a subset of users. The comments of the user are in general very arrogant and ignorant to the city Ningbo and to its relevant topics. It shows that he/she may not even carefully read the article. Considering the current situation, I am afraid he/she cannot be the one that gives fair suggestions. Therefore, it does not make sense to get that user’s consensus in order to remove that unfair advisement tag. It will be very unfair for people like me who are updating the situations of major cities in China so that every can get newest information. It will be very dangerous for a neutral platform like wiki. --Commented by 喂番茄 (talk)

User:John Maynard Friedman reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Closed)

Page: Euston railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John Maynard Friedman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. A lot of unsourced assertions for a GA???
2. Another unsourced assertion that should have been easy to cite.
3. per WP:Quotations, quotations need attribution and citation, this one does not, tagged. Tagged Rail Magazine as 'failed verification' since it just repeats the line in relation to another topic without any attribution.
4. RV blatant WP:own. The citation given is fake. If you revert again, a WP:ANI report will follow. Use the talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [103]

Comments:
I will not dignify this complaint with a response here. Ritchie333 is forum shopping, having opened another discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Euston railway station and I have responded there, though I question their interest in an amicable resolution when it is accompanied by a missile strike here. The closing administrator may wish to consider a wp:boomerang, given that the complainant has been reverting good faith 'citation needed' and 'failed verification' tags that are fundamental to the way the project works. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Q: How is adding maintenance tags a revert? ——Serial 15:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reverts by the reported editor, but Ritchie333 has reverted the article to remove the maintenance tags. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• No violation (Self closure). Chill out and take a deep breath, Ritchie. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Mamhead House

User:Memstead - first, apologies, but I’m not certain how to properly complete a report. I hope this will suffice. The article Mamhead House has become the subject of edit-warring over the 2020 sale. A couple of IPs have added information regarding the sale price and the purchasers. I removed the nationality reference as it didn’t seem particularly notable, and a previous IP had removed the purchasers’ names. But the price is sourced to Companies House and this I left. It has now been removed by User:Memstead and replaced with a different, unsourced, figure. I have tried to explain, on Memstead’s Talkpage, and on the article Talkpage, how Wikipedia works but they don’t appear to get it. It should be noted that they are an SPA and have identified themselves on my Talkpage as the house’s owner. I actually don’t think the 2020 price is a particularly notable aspect of the house’s history, but I do think an administrator needs to explain to Memstead how Wikipedia works, hopefully with more success than I have had. KJP1 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. --Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Memstead reported by User:KJP1 (Result: )

Page: Mamhead House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Memstead (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. [104]
2. [105]
3. [106]
4. [107]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [109]

Comments:
See above. Great that you’re not too hung up on bureaucracy. KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Memstead was not warned about 3RR; I have left the standard warning template. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

User:2605:8D80:32F:8A23:B9BE:FB6A:E8EF:E865 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Page protected)

Page: Chris Sky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2605:8D80:32F:8A23:B9BE:FB6A:E8EF:E865 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "Removed demfation and lies"
2. 00:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Criminal history */Chris saccoccia aka Chris sky has no criminal history"
3. 00:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "Removed inaccurate and slanderous content."
4. 00:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Criminal history */Removed false criminal history"
5. 00:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "Removed defamatory lies a out drug charges"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Chris Sky."
2. 00:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Chris Sky."
3. 00:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "Added {{Shared IP}} template."
4. 00:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP, perhaps even the subject of the BLP themselves, has been removing referenced information (such as criminal history and documented antiemetic proclamations). Borders on vandalism, certainly 3RR. I thought I'd step back and allow an admin to weigh in. Ifnord (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Chris Sky article is a complete mess. On the one hand, it's been whitewashed by an IP. On the other hand, any sourced material has also been wiped out. The article may just need blown up with WP:TNT. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Page protected. There's whitewashing from one side and BLP violations from the other. Best step to take right now is to lock the article down to autoconfirmed editors and above. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Deathlibrarian reported by User:Hipal (Result: Page protected)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:10, 21 May 2021
2. 00:38, 22 May 2021
3. 01:07, 22 May 2021
4. 01:30, 22 May 2021
5. 03:47, 22 May 2021
6. 05:31, 22 May 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:34, 22 May 2021

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Dowsing#Reported_use_in_Australia

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [110]

Comments:
After a lengthy discussion (User_talk:Deathlibrarian#May_2021), Deathlibrarian aknowledged that they had already made 4 reverts and then partially self-reverted. Deathlibrarian has since made two additional reverts after more of the content was removed. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected since it's not ongoing right now, I don't feel like blocking is ideal, but I've protected it for two days which should prevent it from starting up again. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • A few points, in my defence. In regards to the "additional reverts", this was about a different section(body) to the original one(lede)I had made the 4 reverts on the talk page, that had been part of the stable version of the page. As per WP:CON, in order to deal with the edit warring, I established a discussion on the talk page (and a later RFC), to ascertain consensus as to whether the section should be removed or not, which User:Hipal was part of. While the discussion was ongoing with some editors, other editors who were not part of the Talk page discussion were removing the section, sometimes with little explanation. I manually reinstated the section, reverting to the stable version with that section in it, and explained in the edit summary that there was an ongoing discussion currently underway on the talk page to establish consensus about the section, and invited them to partake. As a result of the talk page discussion, consensus was established and the section was removed and has stayed removed.

1. 06:05, 22 May 2021Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also the above 6 diffs User:Hipal has posted are actually of two different sections (one in the lede, one in the body), so that's not 6 edits in total for the same content change - Thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

User:50.82.11.99 reported by User:Lord Bolingbroke (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Eric Jacobson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 50.82.11.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 06:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 05:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 05:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week 331dot (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

User:JTD4457 reported by User:RedPanda25 (Result: Blocked sock)

Page: American alligator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JTD4457 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Distribution */"
2. 18:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Distribution */content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on American alligator."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There seems to be a major war as to whether or not alligators live in North Carolina and Virginia. This user has refused to provide a source saying they no longer live in NC. RedPanda25 19:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam reported by User:Luwanglinux (Result: Filer warned)

page:Puya Meithaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

previous version reverted too:

Diffs of the user's revert:

1. 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)""
2. 15:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)""
3. 18:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)"" self-reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
4. 19:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)""
5. 19:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)""
6. 11:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)""
7. 06:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC) "In this revert he removed journal reference from reputable publisher notable under WP:HISTRS stating irrelevant addition "
8. 11:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)"Although this version was tagged for POV by Kautilya it was the original first content of the article"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have already opened a RFC template for edit dispute in this article to discuss the historicity of the event bonfire or destruction of Puya(traditional texts of Meiteis) during Pamheiba (the hindu convert king) reign which was disputed by some scholars, User is stating that the article puya meithaba is not related with Manipur religion history, monarch Pamheiba reign, Social history of Manipur while the event and its history either folk or written history exist because of religion conversion by the king Pamheiba 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dismiss as frivolous retaliation against my filing (a few days back) which got him blocked. Not a single shred of evidence has been presented about edit-warring.

• The first diff is by User:Kautilya3. I am certainly not him/her.
• The second diff is a revert. I alongside K3 rejected his proposed changes.
• The third diff linked here was self-reverted by me within two minutes.
• The fifth diff was undoing his restoration of some earlier version of the page without discussion. The current version of the article has been since agreed upon by me as well as the editor, whose version he restored.
• The sixth diff removed an unused source, which was misrepresented by LuwangLinux. Check the edit-summary in my previous edit.
• The circumstances surrounding seventh diff is being discussed at talk-page. Also, that deletion can be easily justified as removal of copyright violation (a ground for which LL has been blocked earlier) and not considered as edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

User TrangaBellam send me another warning of being blocked [111] that I have violated copyright while I insert history section to the article using my own words for the latest revision he reverted. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

he even reverted notice about this discussion on his talk page,[112] I doubt why he want to show only his achievement at his talk page.this one was reported by user chaipau for his disrupting edit behaviour[113] he removed it too saying he was cleaning his talk page 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This appears to be retaliatory report for the earlier report filed by TrangaBellam against Luwanglinux, and for which the latter received a one-week block (administered by EdJohnston).

The beginning was this edit of Luwanglinux, whereby he copied into a new page, content that was contested and rejected at History of Manipur. It was a textbook example of WP:POVFORK. After I added a POV tag to it, TrangaBellam copied here his own rewrite of the material from History of Manipur, which is a perfectly normal thing to do. This, Luwanglinux counts as a "revert" (diff 8).

Since Luwanglinux is unable to edit-war any more, he has taken to filibustering on the talk page, making the same points again and again and not getting it. The remaining 5 reverts he points out (one being invalid) are entirely normal under the circumstances.

Luwanglinux, having just come off a long block, should'nt be doing this. He is slowly but surely exhausting his WP:ROPE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• The last two reports at AN3 about Luwanglinux are these:

• User:Luwanglinux reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked )

On that occasion, User:Primefac blocked them for 60 hours for edit warring at Meitei people. (29 September 2020). Primefac suggested that a sanction under WP:GS/CASTE might be considered next time.

• User:Luwanglinux reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Blocked)

This time, I blocked Luwanglinux for one week due to long term edit warring at Anglo-Manipur War and other articles (5 May 2021)

Between these two dates, Luwanglinux has also been blocked for sockpuppetry and copyright violations by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure where the threading lies, but it sounds like a topic ban may indeed be in order. The last time I was here about this it was for a different page, so how broad a tban should be set? Primefac (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Primefac, if there is to be a tban, it might cover all Manipur-related topics, which is the domain in which the user's contestation lies. It could be a term-limited tban in the first instance, say for 2-3 months. If the user learns nothing from it, the next one can be indefinite. The user is aware of discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hrm, might work. They also received their WP:GS/CASTE warning. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If I was the closer, I would consider an indefinite block, but a topic ban might be sufficient, if the user could understand it and follow it. It's not as though this is a new person who is just now coming up the learning curve. (Their account was created in September 2020 and they have 1700 edits). I had a frustrating experience while trying to be understood at User talk:Luwanglinux#You are risking a block for long-term edit warring. At the time I was attempting to negotiate an end to a previous war. Due to not getting a workable agreement, I decided on a one-week block as the result of this AN3 complaint. As I mentioned when closing that AN3, 'Luwanglinux has extreme confidence that he is right while constantly clashing with long time contributors..'. Taking an aggressive approach to editing while not fully understanding what's going on creates difficulties when working in a disputed area. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing about retaliation, I learned from my mistakes and ready to cooperate always but seems like owing to my bad past this is turning like a boomerang, also I pointed out revert tendency of user TrangaBellam.If this report is bias kindly tell me I will never report again.I never use any sockpuppet since user:Primefac blocked me for that.I am not as well experianced like user Kautilya but I wish to become a good editor not the current scenario I am experiancing..🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

After reading the entire talk page at Talk:Puya Meithaba I believe there is a problem of competence regarding evaluation of sources by User:Luwanglinux. My inclination is to close this complaint with an indefinite block. The time that regular editors expend in discussions with Luwanglinux appears to be wasted, since he can't understand our sourcing standards. His conciliatory response above doesn't reflect any actual improvement in his ability to edit here. He has been blocked four times in seven months. The lack of comprehension is made worse by his resentment of any corrections from more experienced people. He filed this report against TrangaBellam, and above, while promising to learn from his mistakes, he wishes 'to point out the revert tendency of TrangaBellam'. There is no actual repentance here by Luwanglinux. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

EdJohnston I did not use any web source or book material from local publisher after this Puya Meithaba conflict in my next edits , please know this the article Puya Meithaba now discuss the historicity section using reliable source, since the event happened in Manipur we know a thing or too at first Kautilya and TrangaBellam strongly believe its a folk history also rather a myth but now its not the obvious. I apologise for saying about TranagBellam revert tendency, even words about Cheitharol Kumbaba is not mentioned along with doubt about the precise history its a better one I think. What option do I have to assure admin as well as other editors that I will not do such thing regarding any Manipur related or south asian article like you previously told in Anglo Manipur War incident User talk:Luwanglinux#You are risking a block for long-term edit warring. I know my bad past (number of blocks) made a bad impression but I wish to become better 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Luwanglinux is warned to be more cautious when filing at noticeboards. They should be able to see from the above that they could have been given a topic ban. There is no admin action this time around, but admins may be paying attention to any future disputes you are part of. If you truly 'wish to become a good editor' you should be willing to listen to experienced people instead of reverting them and reporting them at noticeboaords. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Okrados reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Warned)

Page: Theodosius of Skopje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Okrados (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. [118]
5. [119]
6. [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]

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

Comments:
The user was reported by me to EdJohnston and was informed by Ymblanter on discretionary sanctions alert on the Balkans-related topics. Jingiby (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is Okrados. I have only now learned about the 3 revert policy (quite literally about 2.5 hours ago) and how Wikipedia is based on consensus through talk pages etc. In my most recent edit, you can see that I ask to see a quote from the sources to back his edits up, not to edit war. I apologize for my uneducated actions, however, browsing through Jingiby's history, it's very obvious that he also partakes in edit wars, most of the time without well explained reasoning or neutrality. Take that as you may. Okrados (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: User:Okrados is warned that admins do not like to see a pattern of edits that systematically changes the nationality of people or places. For example, changing something from 'Bulgarian' to 'Macedonian' repeatedly. For admins, that is practically the definition of nationalist editing. Now that you are aware of the WP:3RR rule and the WP:ARBEE decision, I hope that you will wait for consensus before making any more changes of nationality. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:2403:6200:88A7:94C5:FD50:7DAB:7CF7:33A reported by User:MelecieDiancie (Result: Page protected)

Page: Sompot Chong Somloy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2403:6200:88A7:94C5:FD50:7DAB:7CF7:33A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 08:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "This information is inaccurate. The sbai wearing in this picture is Siamese not Cambodian. Cambodian do not have dress like this."
3. 08:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "This image is inacurate. Cambodian do not have sabai like this. This is Siamese culture."
4. 08:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "This information is inaccurate. The sbai wearing in this picture is Siamese not Cambodian. Cambodian do not have dress like this."
5. 08:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 07:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC) ""
7. 07:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "This image is inacurate. Cambodian do not have sabai like this. This is Siamese culture."
8. 07:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC) ""
9. 06:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC) ""
10. Consecutive edits made from 05:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC) to 06:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
    1. 05:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "Note: Removal of content blanking (RW 16.1)"
2. 08:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Sompot Chong Somloy."
3. 08:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Comments:

could be the continuation of someone else's attempt to remove the image. User:George Vickery passed 3rr reverting these edits, but seemed like they wanted to discuss in the talk page Reference is required for discuss in Talk page before edit. (diff). I may've also passed 3rr, but reverted said 4th rev. "unconstructive warning" should've been the edit warring notice, but RW broke so I had to make-do with twinkle's warnings. • | melecie | t 08:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

small edit to fix username • | melecie | t 08:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected Bbb23 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Guswen reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: )

Page: Ugly duckling theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1024911732 by JayBeeEll (talk) Would you please stop this edit war."
2. 18:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1024910165 by Jochen Burghardt (talk) We've been waiting at least since 27 April 2021 for some external feedback on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Ugly_duckling_theorem. p.375 defines object-predicate table. On p.336 SW states that the number of objects may be countably infinite. On p.5 SW states that the results obtained remain valid for countably infinite sets."
3. 15:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "The ugly duckling theorem was derived by Satosi Watanabe for countable sets of objects and predicates. Time to show some respect for its author."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [124]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Countable set of objects to which the Ugly duckling theorem applies */"

Comments:

Edit warring to include incoherent text, counter to talk-page consensus. JBL (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• My edits reflect solely the original Satosi Watanabe derivation of the ugly duckling theorem. Guswen (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Guswen: If your edits were truly incoherent, then you'd be blocked for vandalism. Your edits appear to be good faith, though, which is why you would be blocked if you were to revert the page again. You're at three reverts within 24 hours that I see, not four. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  @C.Fred: yes, obviously good-faith edits, that make the article worse. (This is a different kind of incoherence from inserting random strings of characters, or whatever.) If you want, I could revert Guswen again (making 3 2 for me) so that when they revert me immediately they will be at 4 -- but that seems like it would be a really dumb way to handle the situation. --JBL (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  It looks, based on discussion at the talk page, that a consensus emerged to leave the information out. I'm inclined to say this can be closed with no administrative action needed and the article restored to a status quo ante version, with Guswen's additions left out of it until a clear consensus emerges on the talk page. @Guswen: Is that acceptable to you? —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  @C.Fred: No. I am sorry but I don't find it acceptable. The discussion on the talk page concerning countable set of objects to which the Ugly duckling theorem applies started on April 15 between me and Jochen Burghardt alone. As we reached no consensus I asked Jochen Burghardt for putting our dispute under some arbitration and on April 27 he posted our discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Ugly_duckling_theorem. Then JayBeeEll joined the discussion.

  The ugly duckling theorem was derived by late Satosi Watanabe in 1969 for countable sets of objects (and predicates). Numerous references from his 1969 book support this claim and neither Jochen Burghardt nor JayBeeEll have presented convincing arguments to invalidate the work of the author of this theorem himself. JayBeeEll arguments such as "nothing you have written is comprehensible, let alone persuasive. Also you are wrong that the white ones are swans (maybe you should read the story)" are devoid of any merit (and the white birds of the Ugly Duckling Hans Christian Andersen story are in fact swans).

  We have been waiting since April 27 for the community help us to resolve this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Ugly_duckling_theorem. As I noted on User_talk:Jochen_Burghardt#Ugly_duckling_theorem on May 12, "At the moment I have two arguments: (1) ordinal numbers should not be used in the UDT, as they do not commute under addition, and (2) Woodward.2009. You have only one: "subtraction is undefined for limit ordinals, let alone binomial coefficients".

  Since then I also delved into the Watanabe's 1969 book to find the references that I quoted in this article.

  This theorem simply does not apply to ordinal numbers. And if it does and I am wrong then, in my humble opinion, the burden of proof is on Jochen Burghardt and JayBeeEll side.

  Finally the notion of a countable set includes (a finite number of) "n things in the universe", as in the previous edit, wherein the term "n things in the universe", as such, is simply imprecise. We can count these things. Guswen (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Guswen: But you admit that there is not a consensus for the change at the talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  @C.Fred: Yes, I do. I assumed that the discussion moved from the talk page to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Ugly_duckling_theorem (I've been editing Wikipedia since May 2006, but I'm not fluent in the proceedings. I didn't know about three reverts within 24 hours rule for example). Guswen (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Possibly reported by User:Mynameisparitoshmandal (Result: No violation)

Page: Annwesha Hazra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Possibly (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 08:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC) to 08:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 08:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11)."
   2. 08:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "ok then"
   3. 08:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annwesha Hazra."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 06:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC) to 06:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC) on Annwesha Hazra

Comments:

This user is a trouble creator. First he said that i have a coi of Annwesha Hazra, and so I have created a page. I disclosed that I have been paid by her to make a page for her. When he saw that everything was becoming normal again, he suddenly sent Annwesha Hazra for deletation, stating it is an advertisement. To the wiki admins I would like to say that there is not a single word in that page that says that it is an advertisement. But he is constantly saying that it is an avertisemnt (vandalised past 3rd warning). Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Just waiting for a checkuser over at the SPI, then this will be taken care of. This user is starting to be a bit of a harasser.--- Possibly (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

At least 4 other editors have had an issue with this UPE's edits on this page, 3 of them very experienced, including 1 admin. Should be closed very quickly imho. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• No violation. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Behaviour_of_user:Possibly Daniel (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Georgeccampbell reported by User:36.68.189.211 (Result: Declined)

Page: Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Georgeccampbell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]
4. [129]

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

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

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

Comments: GeorgeCampbell has been conducting an edit warring about controversial content in Wuhan Institute of Virology. Please block this user just for this page only. 36.68.189.211 (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Declined. Georgeccampbell reverted three times. After the third time, he was warned and did not revert again. The IP filer, whose only edit was to file this report, did not notify the user of the filing as required.Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:2804:14C:1B3:8900:4C4D:7071:8864:154E reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Encyclopaedia Metallum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2804:14C:1B3:8900:4C4D:7071:8864:154E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "The sources display the modus operandi of the moderators, and the problematic and partial issues they have. Hence, they are proof that the website is biased and this is not open to discussion. I suggest the person who is trying to hide this information about this website reads the referenced links, as they undeniably prove the points made, and grows up."
2. 05:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "The sources display the modus operandi of the moderators, and the problematic and partial issues they have. Hence, they are proof that the website is biased and this is not open to discussion."
3. 04:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1025175204 by MetalDiablo666 (talk)"
4. 04:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Added crucial info about the website profile"
5. 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Added info about the website profile"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Encyclopaedia Metallum."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:2804:14C:1B3:8900:4C4D:7071:8864:154E "/* May 2021 */ encouraging talk page convo"

Comments:

User is trying to insert a section critical of the site sourced mainly to forum posts. They are not listening to calls for reliable sourcing and are instead accusing other editors of trying to "hide this information" Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

IP has made the edit five times now, and has been undone by four different named editors. Not under discussion on the talk page but seems a clear case of improperly sourced material. Meters (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bbb23 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Psimmsins reported by User:ScottishFinnishRadish (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Kevin Coval (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "This is defamation filled with inaccuracies"
2. 14:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "This is defamation filled with inaccuracies"
3. 14:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Removed defamation"
4. 13:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Removed defamation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kevin Coval."
2. 13:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Kevil Coval */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Mishandling sexual assault allegations */ new section"

Comments:

Also reverted as this ip here, and removed the section I opened for discussion on their talk page here. Opened a BLPN thread as well here:14:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet another reversion here. — Czello 15:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:49.199.117.58 reported by User:Shushugah (Result: One IP blocked)

Page: Andrea Dworkin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.199.117.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1025294632 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) Shill."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user was warned twice, and even went to my own talk page with defamatory comments all within an hour. Obvious case of WP:NOTHERE Shushugah (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: There are two IPs (same range and person) edit-warring on the page. I blocked one for the personal attacks against you. I suggest that if the disruptive IP editing continues you go to WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:RovingPersonalityConstruct reported by IP (Result: )

Page: Type 054B frigate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Type 054B frigate

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [131]
2. [132]
3. [133]
4. [134]
5. [135]
6. [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not sure how to give out warnings, but considering that the user has been around since 2011, they should know better.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've checked the talk page, user hasn't seemed to bother in resolving the dispute.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [137]

Comments:

The issue concerns the addition of speculated specifications for an object that, as far as is known, does not exist. I opened a discussion at WikiProject Ships on 7 March (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_65#Type_054B_frigate), and invited the editor that I was in disagreement with to participate [138]. If the discussion had been in favour of adding speculated specifications for these sort of cases, it would have merited the expansion of the article beyond just adding the speculated displacement in the infobox.

As it turns out, that discussion went nowhere. Apparently there was no interest. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 22:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Selva15469 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: No action)

Page: ICC Men's Test Team Rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Selva15469 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "Disambiguation not required. Requesting to stop the edit war."
2. 05:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "Disambiguation only needed if the title is same as another page."
3. 05:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "Disambiguation not needed for former titles."
4. 05:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "no need of disambiguation as the title is changed."
5. 04:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "/* You are edit warring again */ new section"
2. 05:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "/* You are edit warring again */"
3. 05:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "/* You are edit warring again */"
4. 06:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "/* You are edit warring again */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Hat note */"

Comments:

User has removed redirect hatnote 5 times in short period of time following page move. I asked them to self-revert the last one and some discussion has taken place, but the page has not been restored. I made 4 reverts rather than 3 in this process as I miscounted, sorry. Spike 'em (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary edit war by Spike 'em. The page is moved to a new title as per consensus so the disambiguation hatnote is no longer required. Selva15469 (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

without wanting to discuss this in multiple different places, the page mover changed an {{about}} hatnote to a {{redirect}} one, which seems entirely correct to me. Selva seems to disagree [so is removing the hatnote completely], but is currently sitting on 5 reverts within an hour. Spike 'em (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Spike 'em (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I request you not to mislead the administrators by false claim. The revert count is 4, not 5. Selva15469 (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear : you have removed the same content 5 times within an hour, each of which counts as a revert as per WP:3RR : An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Spike 'em (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: My first edit is not counted as 'revert' as it is not an 'undo'. Selva15469 (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is, as it was An edit ... that undoes other editors' actions..., in this case the addition of {{redirect}} by the page mover. Spike 'em (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Page mover is a different person. My edit[139] didn't include the 'Tag: Reverted', so it's not counted as a 'revert'. Selva15469 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Your first edit removed content that was added by another editor (whether that was by me or someone else is irrelevant), and hence counts as a revert under the terms of WP:3RR. That does not state anywhere that the "revert" tag needs to flagged for it to count, just that you undo someone else's actions : A "revert" means any edit ... that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. I offered you the opportunity to undo your last edit (and I should have stopped one step earlier in the cycle, but we seemingly would have ended up here anyway) rather than raise here, but you chose not to take it. Spike 'em (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. As my mother tongue is not English, sometimes I can't understand the exact meaning of a sentence. Now I ask sorry to you for my misunderstanding about this. I accept my revert count is 5 and your revert count is 4. I request you to understand that it's not required to add disambiguation to the former names. Example: 'Hangouts' redirects to the Google Hangouts. The name is also part of the former name of Google Meet (formerly known as Hangouts Meet). But the page Google Hangouts do not use disambiguation hatnote to distinguish from the Hangouts Meet (a former name). I request you to follow the same procedure in this issue. Selva15469 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since User:Selva15469 appears to have retired. Both editors went over 3RR, which could have led to both users being blocked. Since Selva15469 is the person who wanted to remove the hatnote and they have left the field I assume the dispute is over. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Spike 'em reported by User:Selva15469 (Result: No action)

Page: ICC Men's Test Team Rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spike 'em (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. 05:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC) This hatnote is still needed
2. 05:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Yes there is, this is a redirect hatnote, not a disambiguation one
3. 05:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Yes there is that is why the redirect template exists
4. 05:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Reverted 1 edit by Selva15469 (talk) to last revision by Spike 'em

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Disambiguation not required. Requesting to stop the edit war.

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

Comments:
User had involved in an edit war with me and reverted the page 4 times. The former title of this page moved recently as per consensus so the disambiguation hatnote is no longer required. The user disagree on this with me. Selva15469 (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

as above, I reverted 4 times having lost count of how many times I had done so. I am also the one who stopped reverting and the one who tried to resolve it. Spike 'em (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

also, you have put in a diff which you claim to have discussed on a talk page, which is not true: that is an edit summary as you seem insistent on using those to discuss instead of a talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since the filer appears to have retired, per another report of the same dispute above. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:Ivar the Boneful (Result: No violation)

Page: Patrick Keane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1025321545 by Ivar the Boneful (talk) Stop reverting. I don't get why you are reverting a disambig. page"
2. 23:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "sorry when there is more than one topic with the same name the main page becomes a dis. page"
3. 23:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Patrick Keane (justice)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Patrick Keane */ new section"
2. 23:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Patrick Keane."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Sportsfan 1234 "/* Patrick Keane */ new section"

Comments:

User is move warring and edit warring, refuses to discuss or acknowledge Wikipedia policy. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing on your talk page, I have reverted you twice and don't plan on until our discussion is over. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• No violation Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

User:138.122.83.99 et. al reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Page protected)

Page: Pedro Pablo Ramírez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 138.122.83.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 138.122.83.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 138.122.83.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 138.122.83.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 138.122.83.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [140]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [141]
2. [142]
3. [143]
4. [144]
5. [145]
6. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [147]
• [148]
• [149]
• [150]
• [151]

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

• [152]
• [153]
• [154]
• [155]
• [156]

Comments:

Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the IP hopping, I think that either page semi-protection or pending changes is the first step to address this. It's very slow-motion, with only about one revert a week, but it's been the only edits over the past two weeks or so. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that I requested semi-protection at RFPP after filing this. If a partial block of a range is a doable thing (I'm not sure if it is or not), that would also solve the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected. Given the slow-motion nature of the edit war, protection is for one month. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Agrso reported by User:Zillennial (Result: )

Page: Generation Z

User being reported: User:Agrso

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Z&oldid=1025302813 []

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159]
4. [160]
5. [161]
6. [162]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Generation_Z&oldid=1025134174#Date_range_revertion [diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Agrso&oldid=1025500922#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion [diff]

Comments:
For the past few months, this user has been reverting every single change from other users to fit their own opinion/views on the content. I've tried to notify them or use the talk page to discuss what should be changed before editing it, yet they have not complied. Other users have had problems with this user as well, as they will revert every single source update/change to the article back to their own edit. Not only this, but the formatting that is provided in the article is clunky/unnecessary. This edit war started because I reformatted some text. There was no deletion of content that this user provided. There are even more instances of this person constantly gatekeeping the article too, but I've provided the newest ones.

Zillennial (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1005:B002:3512:7438:12EE:816B:8C3F reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Blocked)

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

User being reported: 2600:1005:B002:3512:7438:12EE:816B:8C3F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Disposal */Added back factual content removed because of personal gain or interest by the removing parties."
2. 17:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Stop deleting my factually correct contribution due to bias. I have made a many a mile of carpet and rugs over the last 20 years and I challenge anyone here to compare how many miles of carpet they have made?"
3. 16:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Again my post was removed with out even checking out the information contained within. This is unfair what you are trying to do to me. I didn’t make the facts the EPA and Industry made them. Please do not so rudely erase my content again."
4. 16:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Republishing my content because it was removed by someone who has a financial or academic motivation. I suspect this individual is as bias as they come."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Carpet."
2. 21:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Sign, move and reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note also the IP's repeated breaches of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL Laplorfill (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for personal attacks, assumption of bad faith and edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Acroterion:: 209.64.129.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is surely the same editor. Not evading the block, but definitely matches the EW (see Nylon article) and NPA behaviors that led to the block. DMacks (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• ...but now is evading via 2601:cf:300:7c30:dc3e:d1bc:9128:5b34. I blocked that /64 for 31h. DMacks (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Based in the edits over the last five years from that IPv4 address, either it's the same person, or that IP assignment is malignant. Acroterion (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Hkissa reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Blocked sock)

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

Previous version reverted to: [163]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]
5. [168]
6. [169]
7. [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nezar_AlSayyad

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [172]

Comments:
VViking_TalkEdits 13:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Jwb23 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Dean Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jwb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1025504735 by Bbb23 (talk) Important factual and bio info re-added"
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC) to 23:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 23:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1025504219 by Bbb23 (talk)"
   2. 23:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1025503908 by Bbb23 (talk)"
   3. 23:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   4. 23:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC) to 23:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* See also */"
   2. 22:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 22:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Tenure */"
   4. 22:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   5. 22:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Tenure */"
   6. 22:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* U.S. House of Representatives */"
   7. 22:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Net worth info"
   8. 22:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   9. 22:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "spelling"
   10. 22:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* See also */"
   11. 22:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* See also */"
   12. 22:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* See also */"
   13. 23:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "More net worth info"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC) to 20:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 20:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Important, missing information on political affiliation and alma mater added with sources"
   2. 20:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   4. 20:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* See also */"
   5. 20:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* See also */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC) to 18:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   3. 17:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Tenure */"
   4. 18:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
   5. 18:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""
6. 15:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dean Phillips."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This new user has been disruptive on most of the articles they've edited. They claim they're retired, but that didn't stop them from their last revert. Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:BillCaxton reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: 2021 Batley and Spen by-election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BillCaxton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Pre-edit warred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]
4. [176]
5. [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [178]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [179]

Comments: Editor has a poor understanding of Wiki guidelines. We've discussed the issue on my talk page here, and I've encouraged him to take it to the article talk page, though he has yet to do so (he appears to have now started a thread). Both myself and Doktorbuk have tried to explain to him the issues with his edits (NPOV and improperly sourced material). I also suspect the user has serious WP:COI issues, as in this heavily-PoV edit he ties the political party he's adding to a twitter account with the same name as his Wiki account. I suspect the candidate he's trying to add is in fact himself. — Czello 08:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to be firm and fair with BillCaxton, and both approaches appear not to work. In a template just this past hour deleted under CSD, the user admitted to being the candidate he wants to promote on the article. I'm close to breaching 3RR myself in trying to repair damage and unsuitable content so I will have to step back. Check his edit summaries - at least he uses those! - for a taste of what we're dealing with. doktorb _words^deeds 08:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Yucksy reported by User:Daxhton (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [180]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [181]
2. [182]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [185]

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Jstar356 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: Page protected)

Page: M16 rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jstar356 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [186]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]
4. [190]
5. [191]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [194]

Comments:
Revert#4 is only a partial revert, but a revert all the same. FDW777 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected for three days. Too many edit warriors. Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Vahram Mekhitarian reported by User:Georgi1 (Result: Both blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [195]
2. [196]
3. [197]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [198]

Comments: This user deletes sources and refuses to dialogue to resolve the dispute. I have shown him arguments and sources but as he cannot counter them, he just deletes my changes and repeats the same thing. He has been blocked on the French wikipedia for the editing war on Borjgali and he has furthermore insulted users on the discussion page of the French article (me and two other users including an administrator) -> he has been permanently blocked on the French Wikipedia for "Attempted intimidation or harassment and Violation of 3RR" against me.. He has been blocked many times for 3RR violation: both on the English, Russian and even Armenian Wikipedia, which proves his non-collaborative attitude. He has not replied to a single post of mine on the talk page since 9 April 2021 (except once to insult me on the French page). I am aware of WP:BOOMERANG so if you want, you can block us both until we find a solution BUT I have always been open to discussion and provided many sources and explanations. I really tried to collaborate with him both on the article's talk page and on his talk page but he refuses to dialogue except to insult me. --Van Gogia (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
He continues--Van Gogia (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Van Gogia has the only purpose in Wikipedia - to erase any mention and facts of the influence of Armenian culture on Georgian. Look at his purposeful anti-Armenian activities, whose only goal is to erase any mention of the Armenian heritage in Georgian culture. He is just another Georgian nationalist with a big inferiority complex to any Armenian. All edits from Van Gogia are established records over 8 years that have not changed. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

What are the arguments to support what you say? This is again a personal attack (The English Wikipedia is becoming a no-go area?). My last three modified articles are: Gabriel Urgebadze, Borjgali and Lekit church. These are articles that have nothing to do with Armenia. You have deleted several times sourced information on an article about a Georgian symbol (Borjgali) -> So you keep vandalizing an article related to Georgia and you dare to talk about "inferiority complex"? After your insult, you don't even deserve a response to another attack from you. You have been blocked for 3RR on all language Wikipedias (including the Armenian one!). You provide no sources and no arguments, you only make personal attacks. You don't discuss the article, the sources and the arguments. Your image is becoming more and more visible.

--Van Gogia (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that User:Georgi1 and User:Vahram Mekhitarian have reverted each other on the Borjgali article over 30 times since March. This qualifies as long-term edit warring and is blockable. It does appear that Vahram is indefinitely blocked from the French Wikipedia for a similar reason. That still doesn't excuse the reverts by User:Georgi1 (aka Van Gogia). EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston. Thank you for your reaction. Indeed, nothing excuses my reverts. But please note that I have not reverted the article since 27 May 2021 and I have been open to discussion since the beginning. Since his blocking, User:Vahram Mekhitarian refuses to discuss the article and every time he talks to me since then, it's to insult me ("his purposeful anti-Armenian activities"..."only goal is to erase any mention of the Armenian heritage"..."He is just another Georgian nationalist with a big inferiority complex"..."идиот"("idiot")).--Van Gogia (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Jewish cemetery in Yeghegis, 13th century

Oshk vank

Akhaltsikhe museum

Borjgali is not a Georgian ancient historical symbol as such and is not reflected in any way in the historical cultural heritage. It became famous (national) for reasons of having the official state symbol of modern Georgia. For the same reasons, for example, in the 19th century, a six-pointed star was proposed and later became the official symbol of the State of Israel. The flag of Israel, depicting a blue Star of David on a white background, between two horizontal blue stripes was adopted on October 28, 1948, five months after the country's establishment. The origins of the flag's design date from the First Zionist Congress in 1897; the flag has subsequently been known as the "flag of Zion". Likewise, Azerbaijan has adopted the eight-pointed star as the state one. There is no need to talk about some ancient national symbols in these examples, since the listed symbols for these peoples did not have such a meaning. For example, a 13th century Jewish grave in Armenia, which depicts the symbols of the Armenian eternity sign.

As for the behavior of Georgi1, which removes any reminder of the contribution of Armenians to Georgian culture. Georgia is not a mono-ethnic state in which the Georgians themselves are an ethnic minority. One of the large ethnic groups is the Armenians who made a great contribution to the history of Georgia and, yes, the Armenians created the Georgian alphabet, how the first Christian state spread Christianity and built churches. The Chalcedonian Armenians (Georgian-speaking Western Armenians) built the famous Oshk Vank (the true name on Armenian and Turkish), and the name comes from the name of the Armenian village Ashunk (and not from the far-fetched roots of Georgian words), was built by the Armenian craftsmen Grigor, Mikael and Hovnan. See note Oshk Vank' Monastery, 1982 and Oshki: Revision history (removed all Armenian references). Very "interesting" discussions Category_talk:Oshki.

Similarly, in the autonomy of Akhaltsikhe, where there is a large Armenian community, where there are Armenian schools, and the territory itself is controversial for Georgia and Armenia, the sign of Armenian eternity is also common. The Historical Museum, naturally, reflects the Armenian contribution, and the doors are executed in the style of Armenian patterns with Armenian signs of eternity. Yes, the Armenian sign is indeed an ancient national symbol and has been used in all forms. To understand the cultural and historical value of these symbols, it is enough to compare the volume of materials in Wikimedia Commons Category:Armenian Eternity Sign and Category:Borjgali. You should also compare the articles Borjgali and Armenian eternity sign, especially the Armenian article Հավերժության հայկական նշան].

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant and misleading.--Van Gogia (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – 48 hours to User:Georgi1 and two weeks to User:Vahram Mekhitarian due to his block history. A long term solution might be to admit that both Georgians and Armenians use this particular star as a symbol of their nation. Both editors should be aware that indefinite blocks are sometimes used for intractable warring that continues over a period. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Irtapil reported by User:Graham Beards (Result: Page move-protected)

Page: Last known death from smallpox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Irtapil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [199]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [200]
2. [201]
3. [202]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [204]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [205]

Comments:

The User is moving the page against Talk Page consensus. Graham Beards (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected from further moves for one month. @Irtapil: Please use WP:RM to request a move and build consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Chris O' Hare reported by User:Henanton (Result: Page protected)

Page: F. Murray Abraham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chris O' Hare (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212] [213]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [214]

Comments:
This user is making arguments that make no sense in order to change F Murray Abraham's ethnicity. All reliable sources say he is Assyrian and he brings up church affiliation, location of birth, and is adding things to the article which are not stated in the source such as a the famine of Mount Lebanon. I explained to him that these things have nothing to do with a persons ethnicity but he keeps reverting. Henanton (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources such as Commonwealth magazine, Arabamerican and IMDB are not legitimate and reliable sources. In the sources already provided in his article, Murray Abraham himself has said his father emigrated from Syria and that is family belonged to the Antiochian Greek Orthodox Church (Assyrians do not belong to this religious affiliation as discussed already in the Talk Page). All the official documentation of Murray Abraham's family say his family emigrated from Myklos/Muqlus, Syria where his father was born.

Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources as per first sentence of second paragraph in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons With the highest quality in for Historical matters being official documents, autobiographies and oral and videos as per first and second sentence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#Using_primary_sources and Books/Peer-reviewed journals as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#Using_primary_sources and Magazines and Newspapers from respectable publishing house as the last source if the first ones are not available as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Age_matters, in the field of history and biographies, the older and closer the source is the person involved with the event, the more weight it has over secondary sources.

User Henanton wants to give a non reliable secondary source undue weight as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. He also claims all reliable sources say he is Assyrian which is completely false, claims that Murray Abraham's family converted into the Antiochian Greek Orthodox church without providing any source for that which is WP:OR and keeps ignoring that Murray Abraham himself says in https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/personality/personality/actor-f-murray-abraham-syrian-refugees-and-de-blasios-new-york.html that his family escaped famine in Syria saying that there was famine in the Assyrian Genocide as well which is disruption and ORChris O' Hare (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Commonwealth is reliable and there are tons of sources that state he is Assyrian. Don't you think if he wasn't Assyrian he would have come out and said so himself? The new sources you added require payment just to see them and are not reliable. Assyrians are part of all churches. We even have Assyrian Jews and Assyrian Muslims. Tons of Assyrians converted from the Church of the East to other churches. That argument holds no weight whatsoever. I also never stated his family converted churches. I stated that Assyrians belong to any church. Since when does belonging to a specific church determine your ethnicity? Anyone can join a church or convert to another religion so why do you keep bringing up his church? There was famine during the Assyrian genocide. It is clearly stated on the Assyrian genocide page. You have one source that states his family fled due to famine but it says nothing about the famine of Mount Lebanon. Wikipedia uses facts not theories. You keep adding unreliable sources like where his family was born. Plenty of Assyrians in Syria live in Arab majority cities such as Damascus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus#Demographics Henanton (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Please copy paste your last message in Murray Abraham's Talk Page as this is not the place to discuss and try to reach consensus.Chris O' Hare (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 days by User:GorillaWarfare. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Pipsally reported by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: n/a

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1025890752 (this was a revert, not their original edit [215])
2. Special:Diff/1026047292
3. Special:Diff/1026047991
4. Special:Diff/1026049385

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Permalink/1026050126

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [216]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; Special:Diff/1026052804

Comments:
This is now the second time this month I have been forced to report Pipsally for logging and using various different IPs to WP:HOUND me and for edit-warring: [217]. They were previously warned that their actions violate WP:SCRUTINY. Pipsally has never once edited Jewish Voice (or any of the other pages where they have stalked me) and is simply trying to aggravate me over a content dispute that ended months ago. Enough is enough.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Declined This is not the proper venue for dealing with sock accusations. Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Bbb23, This is not a sock accusation. The user admits that they are using multiple IPs (see the previous report). The editor clearly broke 3RR with their IPs. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:KeccakMaster reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Charles Hoskinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026212384 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
2. 00:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026210814 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
3. 00:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026210521 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
4. 00:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC) "Reporting for edit warring and arbitration. Undid revision 1026193934 by Grayfell (talk)"
5. 19:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "Already responded on talk. Undid revision 1026049329 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Template warning
2. Second, non-template warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Disputed content */ some conduct concerns and source concerns"

Comments: This user has been trying for a couple of weeks to insert the same content into a BLP article. They have engaged, a little, on the talk page. But, they have a pattern of responding with short talk page messages and then immediately reverting back to their preferred version—no time given to other editors to review the sources or build a consensus. Today's reverts break the pattern, in that they have stopped using edit summaries or responding on the talk page or their user-talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:146.200.201.173 reported by User:FDW777 (Result: )

Page: Irish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.200.201.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [218]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [219]
2. [220]
3. [221]
4. [222]
5. [223]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [225]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [226]

Comments:
Article is under a 1RR restriction per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Based on the edit made and the identical formatting of their talk page post, this is probably Rebelrajan (talk · contribs) editing while logged out. My reverts of an IP are exempt from 1RR. FDW777 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Two additional reverts added. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:5.178.202.10 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: List of largest biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 5.178.202.10 (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 13:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC) to 13:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 13:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Rankings */"
   2. 13:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Rankings */Kashmir yes the M and A don't determine but I have given a reasonable analogy to AstraZeneca about why its called British Swedish when its only headquartered in London.In 1998 astra merged with zeneca ab and then it became a British Swedish company even though its headquartered in London united Kingdom. Similarly SmithKline Beecham merged with Glaxo Wellcome in 2000 .Hence Gsk should be also called as British American ,company similarly to astrazeneca called as British Swedish"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC) to 09:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
   1. 19:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Rankings */Just like how zeneca AB bought astra in 1998 Making it a British -Swedish company. The Takeda merged with shire in 2018 making it a Japanese American company."
   2. 09:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Rankings */In 1998 astra merged with zeneca ab and them it became a British Swedish company even though its headquartered in London united Kingdom. Similarly SmithKline Beecham merged with Glaxo Wellcome in 2000 and formed GlaxoSmithKline. The John k Smith, Marlon Kline, Henry wellcome and Burroughs were Americans which represents the name of gsk .The Smith Kline merged with glaxo Wellcome in 2000 ,the gsk set up a global Hq in London but also an operational headquarters in Phila..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
2. 09:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 09:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "/* Please stop */"
4. 09:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuous edit warring in 3 articles against consensus, introducing deliberate errors - POV attempts to present non-US businesses as US-headquartered companies. Feels like cheap "patriotism". — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you :) — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:BlewsClews reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: No violation)

Brad Trost Brad Trost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
BlewsClews BlewsClews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [227]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [228]
2. [229]
3. [230]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [232]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [233]

Comments:

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:2601:140:1:C8E3:F463:196:D537:1C9A reported by User:Greyjoy (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sergey Lavrov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:140:1:C8E3:F463:196:D537:1C9A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026071693 by Greyjoy (talk) Greg, can you read Russian?"
2. 06:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026071394 by Greyjoy (talk) He cannot even read russian, are you facking kidding me? Get me real editors, then we'll talk. Until then, page stays. I don't get paid to deal with schoolboys."
3. 06:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026070914 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) YOU CAN'T EVEN READ RUSSIAN?????????? xaxaxaxa (that's Russian for laughing). OK, goodbye, schoolboy. Go get Russian degree than come back)))"
4. 06:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026068645 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) OK...I found your second goddaam source... but it's ALSO Lavrov talking about himself. What do you want ??? An eyewitness account?"
5. 05:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026066392 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) I'm confused... what source is more reliable than the man itself? Are you afraid this is a fake Lavrov? Or that he's drugged? Or maybe under duress, with Urgant holding a gun to his head, saying "READ THE SCRIPT"? Have you watched the video? I can provide you with the timecodes..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sergey Lavrov."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC) to 06:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Sergey Lavrov

Comments:

Note that I'm not the reporting user: I gave a non-template 3RR warning in this edit from 06:32 UTC, meaning the IP reverted twice after being warned. In addition to the edit-warring and personal attacks, there's a dishonesty issue, with the IP user adding a Russian source and lying about it supporting the disputed content (I found out using Google Translate, but @Alex Bakharev was able to confirm the Russian version). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Pisarz12345 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Pope Paschal I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pisarz12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC) "https://www.heiligenlexikon.de/Stadler/Stadler_Heiligen-Lexikon.html"
2. 16:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC) "Vollständiges Heiligen-Lexikon and Ökumenisches Heiligenlexikon are reliable sources."
3. 15:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 15:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 20:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:67.209.88.156 reported by User:Laplorfill (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Lost Cause of the Confederacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.209.88.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "Speaking of personal attacks...and this is indicative of why the culture is lost or won (perspective depending). Co-exist is the furthest thing you desire. You're goal is to smash the truth bearers at whatever cost...and you will be successful. Have a good night."
2. 06:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "You can't have a discussion on a talk page with a brick wall who has no interest in the truth. Good luck."
3. 06:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "You don't get to arbitrarily define the word constructive. Stop being flat out racist."
4. 06:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "I literally explained the removal and you site "unexplained removal""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking."
2. 06:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lost Cause of the Confederacy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has a history of removing anything not conforming with their very specific point of view and personal attacks. Refuses to engage on the talk page, despite requests from multiple editors. Laplorfill (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Also worth nothing they were blocked for 1 week last year for edit warring to remove similar content from Detroit and that spree also included similar personal attacks and an insistence that they are the sole purveyor of "truth". As noted on their talk page, this appears to be a long-term stable IP address. Laplorfill (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I just want to encourage reviewing admin to check out their full contribution history. With barely any constructive edits, and multiple personal attacks and BLP violations, I think this user is just plain WP:NOTHERE. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ashleyyoursmile! 06:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Sanjida Tanaka reported by User:A.A Prinon (Result: )

Page: 2021 Dhaka Premier Division Twenty20 Cricket League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [235]

2. [236]

3. [237]

4. [238]

5. [239]

6. [240]

7. [241]

8. [242] (Manual revert by re-adding the image)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [243]: Note that prior to my edit warring warning, another editor left a non-template general note explaining why her edits were reverted and telling to stop. But she kept sticking to her opining by reverting back. Even after my WP:3RR warning, ignoring the warning, she again manually reverted by re-adding the logo.

2. Note that I also warned the user leaving an edit summary while reverting. This can be found at the revision history of the article.

• Please at least give her a temporary block so that she stops this edit war.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, Sanjida Tanaka appears to have attempted to delete this report. — Czello 08:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they attempted. Also recently, they added wrong information on single-innings cricket match template of the article. See [244], although I don't know if it was really a vandalism or a good faith mistake by the user. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 08:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment When I first reviewed this report yesterday, the immediate problem I saw with it was that besides the reported user, A Simple Human was also clearly edit-warring and yet, apparently because because of a better relationship between A.A Prinon and A Simple Human, they were not reported. I toyed with the idea of protecting the article, but decided to do nothing and let another administrator deal with it. I have now looked at the article again, and although the reported user has mostly bowed out of the war, A Simple Human keeps battling with other users. I have warned them about edit-warring given that they were not warned before. Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23, No it is not because I have good relation with A Simple Human. Actually, I agreed with the opinion of A Simple Human because the edits of Sanjida Tanaka were inappropriate. Sanjida was adding the logo of the cancelled tournament (2019 edition) in the 2021 edition's article. And also the image was not licensed when first time Sanjida added the image in the article. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 13:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

User:2001:1970:4B5A:2300::/64 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Range blocked 48h)

Page: F. Murray Abraham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2001:1970:4B5A:2300::/64 (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 04:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC) to 04:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
   1. 04:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Early life */F MURRAY ABRAHAM IS AN ETHNIC ASSYRIAN. Assyrians are a stateless, Aramaic speaking, ethnic and Christian minority from the middle east. PLEASE STOP ERASING OUR IDENTITY. Syriac, Chaldean et cetera are all names of religious denomination - not ethnicity.

After hundreds of years of forced Arabization and ethnic cleansing, the last thing this persecuted Christian minority needs is for you to digitally erase us, too."

1. 1. 04:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Early life */F MURRAY ABRAHAM IS AN ETHNIC ASSYRIAN. Assyrians are a stateless, Aramaic speaking, ethnic and Christian minority from the middle east. PLEASE STOP ERASING OUR IDENTITY. Syriac, Chaldean et cetera are all names of religious denomination - not ethnicity.

After hundreds of years of forced Arabization and ethnic cleansing, the last thing this persecuted Christian minority needs is for you to digitally erase us, too."

1. 04:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Early life */F MURRAY ABRAHAM IS AN ETHNIC ASSYRIAN. Assyrians are a stateless, Aramaic speaking, ethnic and Christian minority from the middle east. PLEASE STOP ERASING OUR IDENTITY. Syriac, Chaldean et cetera are all names of religious denomination - not ethnicity.

After hundreds of years of forced Arabization and ethnic cleansing, the last thing this persecuted Christian minority needs is for you to digitally erase our identity, too."

1. 04:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "F MURRAY ABRAHAM IS AN ETHNIC ASSYRIAN. Assyrians are a stateless, Aramaic speaking, ethnic and Christian minority from the middle east. PLEASE STOP ERASING OUR IDENTITY. Syriac, Chaldean et cetera are all names of religious denomination - not ethnicity.

After hundreds of years of forced Arabization and ethnic cleansing, the last thing this persecuted Christian minority needs is for you to digitally erase our identity, too."

1. 04:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "F MURRAY ABRAHAM IS AN ETHNIC ASSYRIAN. Assyrians are a statess ethnic and Christiam minority from the middle east. PLEASE STOP ERASING OUR IDENTITY.

Syriacs, Chaldean et cetera are all names of religious denomination - not ethnicity."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [245]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC) on Talk:F. Murray Abraham "rfc"

Comments:

• I've blocked the range for 48h for edit-warring at the reported article and at Brandon Saad.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Sgnpkd reported by User:RandomCanadian (Result: )

Page: Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 19:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026516696 by Hemiauchenia (talk) The information is current and relevant, therefore not disputed content per WP:ONUS, again please do not censor out , instead please write on the discussion page to reach consensus"
3. 18:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026514228 by Hemiauchenia (talk) please do not remove passage about new updates about the lab reported by major news outlet , if you think this should not be included, please write on the discussion page to reach concensus"
4. 18:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "despite no concensus, this is simply putting current information from several well known news sources, so not sure if POV, " the intelligence report is not considered particularly trustworthy by others " -> whom?"
5. 18:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No attempt at discussing on article talk page (prior to this report being filed), no attempt at participating at the existing discussion on RSN, despite being pointed to WP:ONUS and WP:BRD multiple times RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Do note that no.1 is not a revert, I simply put relevant information that kept being blanked out by User:Hemiauchenia several times despite my requests for debate on the discussion page. Sgnpkd (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Despite several requests to follow WP:BRD and WP:ONUS [you've been here for 10 years, you should definitively know about that], and several reasons left in edit summaries, which you failed to heed until I filed this report. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

When you write that re: edit no. 1, you "simply put relevant information that kept being blanked out by User:Hemiauchenia several times despite my requests", you are acknowledging that the edit is a revert. -Darouet (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Si noah reported by User:Ermenrich (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gospel of Thomas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Si noah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [246]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [247]
2. [248]
3. [249]
4. [250]
5. [251]
6. [252]
7. [253]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [254]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [255]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [256]

Comments:
--Ermenrich (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• User has not yet violated 3RR today. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

He's been edit warring both as an IP and as a username for the past several days though. Immediately after I started a conversation on the talk page, he simply reverted the article to his preferred version again.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring, including apparent logged-out warring using 5.198.25.14 (talk · contribs). Efforts to negotiate with this user on the talk page have gone nowhere. The user along with his IP insists that the Gospel of Thomas should not be described as non-canonical, because that somehow marks it as inferior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Chris O' Hare reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: )

Page: Terrence Malick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Chris O' Hare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "You cannot revert until consensus is reached in the Talk Page. Do a RFC as you did on the Murray Abraham discussion to bring the opinion of others since I wont go over your same disruptive and incompetent ways all over again"
2. 19:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "Do not revert addition without discussing in the newly created section in Talk Page Talk:Terrence_Malick#Terrence_Malick_paternal_ancestry. Since you have demostrated disruptive and incompetent behaviors before its before if you open a RFC section as you did with the Murray Abraham discussion. Also the newly added source was already included in that sentence no need to repeat it."
3. 13:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "As per his three biographies cited in sources 7,8 and 9"
4. 16:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "Here in Wikipedia we only care about what reliable sources say not your interpretations, assumptions or any OR. Here we state exactly what reliable sources say and his three biographies say he is of Lebanese descent, one of them says he is both of Lebanese and Assyrian descent which is what is stated already in the article"
5. 15:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "Your next target now? His three biographies in sources 7,8 and 9 say he is of Lebanese descent but you delete it to keep on pushing your Assyrian propaganda which now is not disruption but vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [257]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC) on Talk:Terrence Malick "/* Terrence Malick paternal ancestry */ new section"

Comments:

First of all, the 13:54 edit was not a reversal, but an addition. An addition done due to the constant disruption of an user that has already shown inability to reach consensus. Despite knowing that the user has already shown continuous disruption and incompetence in the attempt to reach consensus at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:F._Murray_Abraham#RfC_on_ethnicity, I still followed guidelines and opened a new Talk Page section to discuss his edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terrence_Malick#Terrence_Malick_paternal_ancestry as I told Henanton in the 19:58 edit .

Even after I told him I opened a new section on Malick's Talk Page, editor Henanton went on to revert again without attempting consensus. Despite his revert violation and his numerous previous disruptions in the Murray Abraham's page and Talk Page in which User:Elizium23 was a witness and part of the discussion, I see he has not reported him on any of his behaviors and instead report me and accuse me of edit warring even without evidence that I have violated the 3revert rule and being the one opening a section in Malick's talk page.

User:Elizium23 Everything I add is backed by quality sources and a lot of research so I have no problem. But im starting to feel wikihounded by you and if from now on you are going to start following me around to disrupt my work I will report you for it as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding.Chris O' Hare (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Matthew McMullin reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: Blocked)

Page: 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026734151 by HopsonRoad (talk)"
2. 23:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026706284 by Bsoyka (talk)"
3. 13:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026544150 by HopsonRoad (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont."
2. 00:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Editing against consensus? */ re x2"
2. 00:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Editing against consensus? */ re"
3. 00:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC) on User talk:Matthew McMullin "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont."

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Acroterion (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Natemup reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Protected; editors warned on article Talk page)

Page: St. Joseph's Indian School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1026842022 by Binksternet (talk) I have no issue with retaining both sources used in the article, and I honestly don't care about the verb choice. But the deliberate removal of claims from the lips of leaders of the religious order in question is not an appeal to context. It's an attempt to censor undesirable claims from the article."
2. 13:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC) "Restored claim from the source that was once again removed, and restored verb form referring to journalism. CNA is a reliable source used across this website."
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC) to 04:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
   1. 04:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC) "Removed clear POV language"
   2. 04:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [258]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC) on Talk:St. Joseph's Indian School ""

Comments:

I think it is important to point out that CorbieVreccan has equally contributed to this edit-war, and as an administrator here, should definitely know better, and should have extracted themself much earlier. Elizium23 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

As seen above, I did not violate any rules and my edits were not even all reverts (or directly related to the dispute). natemup (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days and all involved editors warned on article Talk page about resumption of edit war after expiration of the protection. Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I counted six reverts by Natemup in one day:

1. June 4, 02:42 UTC – [259] – removed "numerous sex-abuse cases"
2. June 4, 02:55 UTC – [260] – removed "numerous sex-abuse cases"
3. June 4, 04:22 UTC – [261] – restored "attempted to fulfill"
4. June 4, 04:34 UTC – [262] – restored "attempted to fulfill"
5. June 4, 13:58 UTC – [263] – restored "attempted to fulfill"
6. June 4, 15:43 UTC – [264] – restored "attempted to fulfill"

So, yeah, it certainly looks like the behavior of Natemup was central to this dispute. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Absolutely, but what about CorbieVreccan? Would you like them blocked as well for violating 3RR? I protected the article in the hope that protection and a warning would eliminate the disruption and, at the same time, avoid multiple blocks. Nor do I think it useful to weigh who is more to blame for the battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi everybody, Thanks for taking care of this while I was offline. Natemups' initial edits to the article were blankings of content with no edit summary, so I treated them like vandalism - using Twinkle to revert and warn on his talk page. He never responded, just continued to blank content without engaging on talk (where I kept pinging him). Then he would hit "undo" on the reversions. By the time he started using edit summaries and doing more involved, but still disruptive, edits (that would not be seen as simple vandalism), I realized I had reverted him a number of times. I should have brought it here at this point, but I was very tired. I shouldn't edit that late at night. 3RR was and is the right way to handle it. Thanks again for taking care of it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Angryskies reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: No violation)

Page: Virgin Media O2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC) "legal name is used in the infobox name field, as per the documentation: Template:Infobox company"
2. 17:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "Ltd. is perfectible acceptable and used across many articles without any issue"
3. 10:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 12:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "Final warning notice."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Name problems */ new section"
2. 11:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC) "/* Name problems */ Replying to Vistadan (using reply-link)"

Comments:

Keeps sticking incorrect info in the article, refuses to engage in discussion on Talk. Wastes time of other editors. Long history of warnings (promptly hides from own Talk page). — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The information is correct, as per Template:Infobox company template guidelines regarding the use of the legal name for the name field. To suggest that VMED UK O2 Ltd. is not the legal name when the source is the UK government's own Companies House is a bit perplexing. Also the removal of around 18,000 employees with two sources: The official website: [265] and the already cited Independent article [266] quoting this figure and stating this to be incorrect doesn't make much sense either. As a side note, the 3RR message doesn't appear to be in the spirit of WP:CIVILITY.

UPDATE: This user is now reverting my edits with citations with no explanation: [267] Angryskies (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It was explained on Talk:Virgin_Media_O2 that Virgin Mobile O2 is a brand, not a company, and therefore cannot own anything. Yet you persist in sticking incorrect information in articles. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I am not sure where you get the idea that VMED O2 UK Limited is not a company. It is clearly listed as one at Companies House. Limited should be used instead of Ltd. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty: Did I mention VMED O2 UK Limited at all? — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: According to Angryskies you are reverting them claiming that VMED O2 UK Limited is not a company. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't you read the diffs yourself instead of merely amplifying the nonsense posted by Angryskies? — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Once again - per source linked above by Angryskies himself - Virgin Media O2 is the corporate brand of VMED O2 UK Limited. A brand cannot own anything for Christ's sake! — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I have read the diffs. I see what is confusing the issue. Virgin Media O2 is not a "brand". It is the trading name of VMED 02 UK, a company which was formed by the merger of Virgin Media and O2 UK. The owner of the new joint venture is VMED O2 UK Limited. The article should make it clearer that Virgin Media O2 is a DBA name, and that the legal entity that owns it is VMED 02 UK Limited. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You will need sources for your claim of a Virgin Media O2 being a trade name. FYI, tradenames are regulated in the UK and we have no liberty to call a brand, a "tradename". For now, the available sources clearly describe Virgin Media O2 as a corporate brand. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Also your statement that The owner of the new joint venture is VMED O2 UK Limited is factually incorrect. VMED O2 UK Limited is the joint venture. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a trade name (although VMED O2 UK Limited has undoubtedly trademarked it). I said it was a case of DBA (a trading name). You don't seem to understand the difference between a brand and DBA. "Dairy Milk" is a brand of Cadbury's. A DBA is a company that is registered under one name (in this case VMED O2 UK Limited) that choose to do business as (DBA) another name, in this case Virgin Media O2. That is very clear if you look at companies house. The only company registered there is VMED O2 UK Limited. If you look on the website you will see clearly that this is a new company set up as a 50-50% venture by Virgin and O2. They have simplified the new name for their public face, and are doing business under that simplified name. But the formal name of the company is VMED O2 UK Limited. And by owner of the new joint venture I mean the partnership between Virgin and O2. That is a new venture that is owned by VMED O2 UK Limited. I said in fact that the new venture is VMED O2 UK Limited (as registered at Companies House). The fact that this new company is doing business under a slightly different name is what seems to be creating the issue between you and Angryskies. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully your recent edits will be acceptable to Angryskies. They seem to solve the issues. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lard: You are wrong, sorry. VMED O2 UK are not "doing business as" Virgin Media O2. Virgin Media O2 is a corporate brand. Period. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• No violation. Not 4 reverts in a 24-hour period. Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

User:106.195.2.3 reported by User:TheAafi (Result: No action)

Page: Mufti Abdul Razzaq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 106.195.2.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Special:Diff/102674350 "(Going with what sources are saying, since the sources are in hindi so not mentioned The Grand Mufti, using Grand Mufti here manipulates the search results, please do not do so in future" I'm just amazed at this fallacy. How can Hindi and Urdu sources use English terms in their news reports. They'd be posting in their respective languages

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Special:Diff/1026745640 "as per my knowledge of Hindi Mufti e Azam Bhopal is nor an office, please provide a reliable source where he is mentioned as "The Grand Mufti")
• Special:Diff/1026746518 "No, I am reverting your edits because you have used the only available hindi source there to justify your claim of Grand Mufti , no other English sources claiming him The Grand Mufti, yes you are welcome to open a discussion, but please do not try manipulate search results" (this was their revert when I advised to start a talk page discussion)
• Special:Diff/1026747493 "just gobe through your urdu source it is still uses the term Mufti e Azam not Grand Mufti, using The Grand Mufti here leading to the manipulation of Google search results, kindly have a look on google search results, also please do not edit war let the involved person take the decision" when they were told that Mufti-e-Azam is Grand Mufti in English.
• Special:Diff/1026748581 last revert and I had to start the discussion to prevent this non-stoppable disruption.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Special:Diff/1026746111
• Special:Diff/1026747080

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Special:Diff/1026745907 when I undid their edit second time and told them to discuss on talk page.
• Special:Diff/1026749640, I started the talk later # Mufti-e-Azam which redirects to Grand Mufti what to use?

Comments:

Despite being told not to edit-war. The IP continues doing so. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 01:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments: First of All, I will thank the editor who bring this case here, so editor is continuously trying to add "The Grand Mufti " in the title, which is no where mentioned in the reliable sources, I have try to insert the honorifics Mufti e Azam Bhopal as per the sources based on the basic guidelines of How Wikipedia works, also many times I told about the issue of manipulation of " Search Results" to them, by saying them that using The unsourced title "The Grand Mufti as an honorifics will manipulate the search results of "Grand Mufti of Madhya Pradesh" which is totally a cheating for the users worldwide, so instead of going with what sources are saying they had edit war with me and they abuse me for the disruption, which can be easily visible in edit summaries despite my healthy explanation to them. We need a third person intervention in this regard. Thanks. 106.195.2.3 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I was being too quick in reporting you to the ANI but Urdu sources won't use English terms. Mufti-e-Azam is an honorific prefix and on English Wikipedia it redirects to Grand Mufti. Consistency demands that we use English on English Wikipedia. That said, I even guided you to open a talk-discussion and you threw the advice upon me reverting my edit. Again saying, I've opened a talk-discussion and pinged some experienced users on the topic to add their opinions. Had you been truthful, you would've added the Madhya Pradesh mention next to the title, and not changed English term to Urdu one. I hope you understand. "Mufti-e-Azam" = Grand Mufti in English, and "Mufti-e-Azam Madhya Pradesh" = Grand Mufti of Madhya Pradesh in English. As simple as that. You can't demand from reliable foreign sources to use English alternatives for their terms. It is fallacy. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 02:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment To any admin, I reverted my report (thinking that I was being too quick in reporting) and the IP reopened my report against them. This is yet again bad behavior. Please see the page history here. This report should be closed and the matter is on the talk-page now. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 02:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. The dispute is whether to use 'Grand Mufti' as a translation of 'Mufti e Azam' in the infobox. It appears that three editors have now added opinions to the article talk page in support of 'Grand Mufti', the version recommended by User:TheAafi. In fact, there is an existing redirect at Mufti-e-Azam which leads to Grand Mufti. A grand mufti is a type of Islamic legal official. We already have several articles like Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia for the muftis of individual countries. Let's hope that nobody reverts again until the consensus is clear. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  EdJohnston, Thanks for that. I would however seek that the article be semi-protected until the discussion is over. There has been yet another IP trying to prematurely close the discussion and change things in article. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 01:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Nemo_bis reported by User:ParoleSonore (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [268]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [269] - 23 May 2021 original edit
2. [270] - 31 May 2021
3. [271] - 1 June 2021
4. [272] - 4 June 2021
5. [273] - 4 June 2021
6. [274] - 4 June 2021
7. [275] - 4 June 2021
8. [276] - 4 June 2021 continue to edit making even worse WP:SYNTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParoleSonore (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277] (1 June 2021) and [278] (4 June 2021)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [279] - 31 May - 4 June 2021

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page; [280] - 4 June 2021

Comments:

The user in question is well aware that their original edit was edited and reverted by numerous users in the meantime between 23 and 31 May as well until 4 June 2021; of the existence of the discussion at the talk page, that in the discussion for now commented four editors which opinion doesn't show consensus for their edit, that was made a request for comment of members from WikiProject Rock music under which category band's article belong and asked to not make any further edits dealing with the same information until we have a new consensus. The user was also duly warned about their edit warring. Regardless the user ignored all that and continued to make WP:POINT reverts without any valid justification. --ParoleSonore (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)